The Math of Winning Ottoneu (2016)
With 2016 leagues in the books, I’d like to present some league-wide season-ending stats to see what kind of conclusions we can draw about success in the very data-driven game of Ottoneu. The focus here is one of the more popular scoring formats, FanGraphs Points (FGPTS), and the numbers you see in each of the first two charts represent the average standings data for all teams/all leagues by final 2016 finish.
For example, the average score of all 1st place teams in 2016 was 19,227 points.
Place | FGPTS | IP | AB | GP | Teams | 1,450 IP | IP % | 1,800 GP | GP % | FGPTS | PTS Gain |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1st | 19,227 | 1,490 | 7,285 | 1,923 | 111 | 103 | 93% | 111 | 100% | 19,325 | 98 |
2nd | 18,568 | 1,484 | 7,206 | 1,914 | 111 | 96 | 86% | 109 | 98% | 18,672 | 104 |
3rd | 17,978 | 1,464 | 7,140 | 1,905 | 111 | 80 | 72% | 107 | 96% | 18,151 | 173 |
4th | 17,475 | 1,438 | 7,075 | 1,891 | 111 | 64 | 58% | 107 | 96% | 17,673 | 198 |
5th | 17,044 | 1,422 | 6,949 | 1,867 | 111 | 50 | 45% | 93 | 84% | 17,311 | 267 |
6th | 16,597 | 1,398 | 6,859 | 1,847 | 111 | 41 | 37% | 87 | 78% | 17,049 | 452 |
7th | 16,109 | 1,363 | 6,757 | 1,829 | 111 | 22 | 20% | 75 | 68% | 16,567 | 458 |
8th | 15,671 | 1,346 | 6,646 | 1,802 | 111 | 20 | 18% | 58 | 52% | 16,354 | 683 |
9th | 15,177 | 1,278 | 6,455 | 1,762 | 111 | 8 | 7% | 39 | 35% | 16,151 | 974 |
10th | 14,671 | 1,263 | 6,358 | 1,733 | 111 | 7 | 6% | 30 | 27% | 15,655 | 984 |
11th | 13,820 | 1,180 | 6,131 | 1,687 | 111 | 2 | 2% | 19 | 17% | 15,528 | 1,708 |
12th | 12,290 | 1,060 | 5,538 | 1,551 | 111 | 0 | 0% | 8 | 7% | – | – |
First, some observations about 2016:
- It is obvious, but teams that play the most, score the most.
- In other words, as you learn the game of Ottoneu you quickly see that the most successful teams do everything they can to hit the 1,944 Games Played and 1,500 Innings Pitched caps.
- The average IP of all 1st place teams was nearly 1,500 (1,490), so the 2017 takeaway is to make hitting the GP and IP a part of your strategy, not just an ancillary benefit of a well-built roster. This could mean owning fewer prospects, platooning hitters more frequently and effectively, paying a few dollars more for notable innings-eaters like Max Scherzer, David Price, or Corey Kluber, or reevaluating workhorse veterans like Ian Kennedy, Adam Wainwright, or Hisashi Iwakuma.
- It appears more difficult for teams to reach the innings cap than the games cap, so you may want to carry more starting pitchers than you initially plan to roster.
- Case in point: League 100 has adopted a very creative incentive structure for the 2017 season that will require their owners to be ultra-active (minimum 1,450 IP and 1,800 GP) in managing their innings and games if they are to reap the benefits. As you can see, 84% of 5th place teams hit at least 1,800 GP in 2016, but only 45% of 5th place teams hit the 1,450 IP mark.
- Using the League 100 thresholds as a proxy for rostering to maximize lineup requirements, the far right “PTS Gain” shows you how many additional points a team hitting at least 1,450 IP and 1,800 GP would score beyond the average of all teams, by placement. Again, the extra 256 points a 5th place team could score over the average by just targeting these thresholds could be the different between 5th place and 3rd, or even 2nd place, in a tight race.
Place | FGPTS | IP | AB | GP | Teams | 1,450 IP | IP % | 1,800 GP | GP % | FGPTS | PTS Gain |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1st | 18,784 | 1,498 | 7,173 | 1,912 | 95 | 90 | 95% | 94 | 99% | 18,800 | 16 |
2nd | 18,092 | 1,491 | 7,072 | 1,895 | 95 | 84 | 88% | 92 | 97% | 18,137 | 45 |
3rd | 17,482 | 1,479 | 7,020 | 1,882 | 95 | 81 | 85% | 88 | 93% | 17,559 | 77 |
4th | 17,092 | 1,459 | 6,902 | 1,858 | 95 | 68 | 72% | 78 | 82% | 17,287 | 195 |
5th | 16,564 | 1,443 | 6,843 | 1,845 | 95 | 53 | 56% | 75 | 79% | 16,820 | 256 |
6th | 16,098 | 1,416 | 6,733 | 1,827 | 95 | 42 | 44% | 64 | 67% | 16,459 | 361 |
7th | 15,688 | 6,534 | 1,367 | 1,780 | 95 | 22 | 23% | 48 | 51% | 16,141 | 454 |
8th | 15,258 | 1,358 | 6,534 | 1,776 | 95 | 26 | 27% | 35 | 37% | 15,834 | 576 |
9th | 14,873 | 1,314 | 6,398 | 1,752 | 95 | 12 | 13% | 33 | 35% | 15,699 | 826 |
10th | 14,242 | 1,275 | 6,208 | 1,703 | 95 | 11 | 12% | 18 | 19% | 15,366 | 1,124 |
11th | 13,619 | 1,224 | 6,046 | 1,659 | 95 | 4 | 4% | 10 | 11% | 14,406 | 787 |
12th | 12,220 | 1,078 | 5,583 | 1,546 | 95 | 1 | 1% | 4 | 4% | – | – |
Just for comparison, the IP and GP trends (and deficiencies) are similar for 2015, too.
And just for fun, I’ve converted the average standings data by place into more traditional stats, essentially showing the offense of the average 1st place team to be something like 2016 Neil Walker.
2016 | AVG | OBP | SLG | wOBA | WHIP | K/9 | FIP | SV + HLD | P/G | P/IP | H PTS | P PTS |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1st | 0.277 | 0.352 | 0.477 | 0.358 | 1.21 | 9.33 | 3.45 | 176 | 5.78 | 5.44 | 11,116 | 8,111 |
2nd | 0.274 | 0.348 | 0.468 | 0.352 | 1.23 | 9.23 | 3.55 | 173 | 5.58 | 5.32 | 10,675 | 7,893 |
3rd | 0.272 | 0.346 | 0.465 | 0.350 | 1.25 | 8.98 | 3.64 | 159 | 5.50 | 5.13 | 10,472 | 7,507 |
4th | 0.270 | 0.343 | 0.460 | 0.347 | 1.26 | 8.97 | 3.67 | 154 | 5.38 | 5.08 | 10,173 | 7,302 |
5th | 0.269 | 0.342 | 0.456 | 0.346 | 1.26 | 8.90 | 3.71 | 148 | 5.30 | 5.03 | 9,900 | 7,144 |
6th | 0.269 | 0.341 | 0.455 | 0.344 | 1.27 | 8.78 | 3.77 | 147 | 5.24 | 4.96 | 9,680 | 6,917 |
7th | 0.268 | 0.339 | 0.453 | 0.343 | 1.28 | 8.67 | 3.82 | 140 | 5.19 | 4.86 | 9,490 | 6,620 |
8th | 0.267 | 0.339 | 0.448 | 0.341 | 1.29 | 8.68 | 3.86 | 133 | 5.12 | 4.81 | 9,217 | 6,454 |
9th | 0.268 | 0.340 | 0.452 | 0.343 | 1.29 | 8.75 | 3.87 | 131 | 5.14 | 4.80 | 9,057 | 6,120 |
10th | 0.266 | 0.336 | 0.446 | 0.339 | 1.29 | 8.69 | 3.90 | 121 | 5.02 | 4.74 | 8,699 | 5,972 |
11th | 0.265 | 0.336 | 0.444 | 0.338 | 1.31 | 8.54 | 3.96 | 108 | 4.97 | 4.63 | 8,374 | 5,447 |
12th | 0.264 | 0.334 | 0.444 | 0.337 | 1.31 | 8.57 | 3.94 | 103 | 4.74 | 4.53 | 7,358 | 4,932 |
2015 | AVG | OBP | SLG | wOBA | WHIP | K/9 | FIP | SV + HLD | P/G | P/IP | H PTS | P PTS |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1st | 0.273 | 0.346 | 0.457 | 0.348 | 1.17 | 9.15 | 3.23 | 167 | 5.40 | 5.65 | 10,322 | 8,462 |
2nd | 0.269 | 0.342 | 0.448 | 0.342 | 1.19 | 8.97 | 3.35 | 168 | 5.21 | 5.51 | 9,880 | 8,212 |
3rd | 0.269 | 0.339 | 0.445 | 0.340 | 1.22 | 8.71 | 3.45 | 153 | 5.12 | 5.31 | 9,637 | 7,845 |
4th | 0.269 | 0.340 | 0.442 | 0.339 | 1.23 | 8.70 | 3.48 | 151 | 5.08 | 5.25 | 9,435 | 7,657 |
5th | 0.267 | 0.335 | 0.434 | 0.334 | 1.23 | 8.61 | 3.54 | 148 | 4.92 | 5.20 | 9,071 | 7,493 |
6th | 0.267 | 0.335 | 0.433 | 0.334 | 1.25 | 8.47 | 3.61 | 140 | 4.88 | 5.08 | 8,917 | 7,181 |
7th | 0.266 | 0.335 | 0.434 | 0.334 | 1.24 | 8.46 | 3.57 | 137 | 4.88 | 5.13 | 8,676 | 7,012 |
8th | 0.266 | 0.333 | 0.431 | 0.332 | 1.27 | 8.30 | 3.69 | 134 | 4.80 | 4.97 | 8,525 | 6,733 |
9th | 0.266 | 0.334 | 0.431 | 0.332 | 1.26 | 8.30 | 3.68 | 126 | 4.78 | 4.96 | 8,372 | 6,501 |
10th | 0.263 | 0.331 | 0.427 | 0.329 | 1.27 | 8.24 | 3.71 | 126 | 4.69 | 4.93 | 7,983 | 6,259 |
11th | 0.263 | 0.329 | 0.422 | 0.327 | 1.27 | 8.21 | 3.72 | 115 | 4.61 | 4.90 | 7,644 | 5,975 |
12th | 0.264 | 0.330 | 0.422 | 0.327 | 1.28 | 8.11 | 3.79 | 89 | 4.58 | 4.75 | 7,097 | 5,123 |
Some final notes:
- Offense was definitely spiked in 2016, with the average wOBA up nearly 3% over the previous for almost ever place in the standings.
- The average P/G for all leagues in 2016 was up as well (5.25) compared to 2015 (4.92).
- SLG in 2016 was .456 vs. .436 in 2015.
- Unsurprisingly, pitching came down a bit in 2016 as the offense increased. A nearly inverse trend to the offense is visible year over year as the average P/IP for all leagues was 4.94 in 2016 compared to 5.14 in 2015.
- Always big factor for linear-weights: HRA/9 was up for pitchers just over 10% in 2016 (1.09) vs. 2015 (0.93).
Trey is a 20+ year fantasy veteran and an early adopter of Ottoneu fantasy sports. He currently administers the Ottoneu community, a network of ~1,200 fantasy baseball and football fans talking sports daily. More resources here: http://community.ottoneu.com
Can’t disagree that you need to fill your limits to win. But there are other correlations here. teams that aren’t doing well lose interest and change rosters less frequently, and teams with lost of injuries tend to do less well and of course have more trouble filling their innings and game limits.