One Reason Why Leagues Keep Too Many Players

On occasion, I start to comment on a post and realize “hey, I could get paid for this.” That’s happening right now. Last Friday, Joe Douglas wrote about ottoneu owners keeping too many players. He breaks down some basic maths to show his work, concluding that, on average, teams keep five extra players. This includes generous allowances for inflation, one-year “rentals,” and prospects. A strong case could be made that we keep more than five extra players.

His point is pretty clear – we should keep fewer players. And he’s probably right. The endowment effect causes us to overvalue things we already own. It’s tough to stay objective when we’ve invested so much time and energy into acquiring some of these players.

There’s just one fly in the ointment – information asymmetry ensures that too many players should be kept. Especially since ottoneu allows for trading right up to the keep/cut deadline.

That last statement was jargony and unclear, right? I’ll explain with an example. I have a sim league – we’re currently slow drafting in preparation for the 2006 season. This league uses actual 2006 performance to model one fantasy season. I know that Nomar Garciaparra has a 1.020 OPS in 100 plate appearances versus left-handed pitching. It’s his last hurrah. I can very predictably recover that production. In this case, I have perfect information.

Now, let’s fast forward to the present. Steamer projects Eric Thames for a .864 OPS. That’s a top 15 OPS projection. His ability to play to that projection is extremely uncertain. I knew Garciaparra’s exact true talent in 2006. I have a fuzzy guess as to what Thames might provide. The information at my disposal is uncertain. Two analysts could come to two very different conclusions.

There is no one source of “correct” projections. There are many ways to project player performance including some non-statistical methodologies (i.e. scouting). Changes in performance are often chunky too. When Jose Bautista went from 26th man to superstar, it’s because his bat spontaneously improved from a 100 wRC+ (with no defense) to a 165 wRC+. Predicting these types of breakouts are part of the fun of keeper leagues. It also means you’ll be keeping some guys the projections say you should cut.

Sometimes the projections smell sour. Jason Kipnis posted a 124 wRC+ in 2015 and a 117 wRC+ last season. Steamer projects him for only a 104 wRC+ in 2017. While it is his age 30 season (shocking, right?), that seems like a sharp decline. Steamer is seeing high-ish BABIPs and an outlier power season.

Kipnis made real strides at the plate last season. He tidied up his swing to provide more consistent loft. With more fly balls, lots of pulled contact in a lefty friendly home park, and a spike in hard hit rate, I’ll happily take the over on 14 projected home runs. In ottoneu, I have the option to keep Kipnis for $21. If you go by the projections, he’s about a $12 player. I have him up in the $25-$30 range.

To drive home an earlier point, offseason trading ensures that players will flow to the owners who believe in them. I traded some good players I would have cut for a $5 Robert Gsellman because I believe in his home run prevention ability. I also trust he’ll get 100 innings out of the rotation even if he starts in the bullpen. Perhaps six or nine or 11 of my rivals wouldn’t even consider keeping Gsellman. I see a high floor depth piece with breakout upside. And that’s why I’ll keep him even though the projections say I shouldn’t.

Gsellman checks another box too. In his column, Joe Douglas allowed that some prospects should be kept. Many of the highest ceiling prospects cost at least $5. While some players enter the majors playing at their absolute peak, many take years of adjustments before they finally reach their potential.

Catching Edwin Encarnacion’s 2012 breakout was possible. Let’s say you picked up a $2 Encarnacion off waivers before the offseason. In ottoneu, he’d cost $4 to keep. Between his obvious untapped power and the Blue Jays willingness to play him, it’s not a stretch to think he was a better “prospect” than someone like Lewis Brinson. A contender might not have the flexibility to keep an Encarnacion, but a rebuilder sure could have cashed in.

Joe also noted that inflation increases the number of players owners should be willing to keep. Let’s say you own a $20 quality player for $22. His inflation adjusted value might be $24, meaning he’s a $2 surplus instead of a $2 deficit. That doesn’t mean you should automatically keep him. Do you really need the player in question? Let’s say the referenced player is Kipnis and I also own a $7 DJ LeMahieu. Sure, it’s nice to have a $21 middle infielder, but the opportunity cost might point me towards cutting Kipnis even though he’s keepably priced.

I also recommend only applying the inflation adjustment to high priced players. Let’s say you own a $7 Melky Cabrera and you’re thinking about keeping him because his inflation adjusted value is $8. Cabrera’s a solid role player, but he isn’t winning anybody a championship. Cut Cabrera and take some $1 properties. Last year, I took Odubel Herrera, Ender Inciarte, Delino DeShields, and Mike Napoli as $1 outfielders. Two of them spiked well beyond Melky’s capacity.

Similar to how I recommend treating inflation, it should be noted that a projection is a numerical representation of a wide range of possible outcomes. Your degree of need should inform your willingness to accept valuations above or below the listed projection.

So, how do you decide when to keep or cut a marginal player? You have to be as objective as possible. Step away from your endowment effect and review your roster dispassionately. Be careful when dismissing pessimistic projections. Remember that injuries and other forms of decline should be baked in too. While it’s true that a projection-driven approach will almost always tell you that you’re keeping too many players, sometimes it’s going to be right. We walk a thin tightrope.