Redrafting Potential Keepers

Earlier in the month, I spent a week focused on your keeper dilemmas. One of the most popular formats is the Keep X league (if you recall your algebra lessons, X equals some number). There’s usually a cost associated with keepers. In a keep five league, either you lose your first five picks in the draft, or your keepers have an unique value assigned to them.

Both scenarios can leave you with head scratching trade offs. It’s common for two or more players to be on the keeper bubble. Based on current information, there could be more than one “correct” pick for your final keeper. This is when owners usually talk about which player they can reacquire in the draft.

There’s nothing automatically wrong about re-drafting a player you cut – even at a premium. Once you’re in the draft, value is value and numbers are numbers. You build the best roster you can with the resources available. Your past decisions are no longer relevant. That said, planning to re-draft a player can be a subtly dangerous strategy.

Let’s create a scenario. You’ve whittled your options down to Gerrit Cole in the ninth round or Carlos Martinez in the 15th. Based on what I’ve seen Cole is a fourth rounder (five round surplus) and CMart is a seventh rounder (eight round surplus). Let’s say it’s a keep four league (i.e. a fourth round quality player will usually go in the first round).

When you do the math on their actual cost, the opportunity cost of keeping one or the other, and their expected production, you’ll find that they come out valued very similarly. It’s tempting to ask yourself – which of these players can I most easily re-draft?

The potential pit fall is your focus on a specific player rather than an asset class or team needs. If you plan to take Martinez in the third round of your keeper draft, you probably will. That could cause you to ignore other values on the board – perhaps Anthony Rendon would be a better fit for your roster and league.

Instead of dealing with tunnel vision, you should view players as an asset class. When you cut Martinez, it’s fine to say you need to roster another player like him. Maybe Marcus Stroman, Lance McCullers, or Jake Odorizzi would also fit your needs.

At some point in the draft, you’re going to be presented with a large bargain opportunity. By expanding your search to an asset class rather than a single player, you gain flexibility. If an unexpected bargain appears around when you wanted Martinez, you can shift gears knowing that Odorizzi will probably still be there for your next selection.

The “asset class” approach is a variation on the classic tier-based analysis. Call it an update. Instead of simply dividing a draft board by a rough measure of quality, evaluating players as assets is a little more stat and risk aware.

It should wash out to be roughly the same approach. If you find it easier to think in tiers, then just stick with using tiers. The point is that it’s rarely healthy to focus on one player. When it’s a player you were previously attached to, it can be doubly dangerous.

A Different Thing Entirely

I had my first mock draft of the season last week. I exclusively used my Top 300 list to select my team which revealed a few notable flaws in my rankings. Those will be adjusted.

What I’ve linked here are the results of the draft. My homework to you is to evaluate which players you believe I selected too early. Skip Francisco Lindor.