Why You Should Aim for Third Place
Finish third in each rotisserie category and you’ll win the league. We’ve all heard or read that at some point. Where does it originate from? Is it founded in fact?
I’ve spent a lot of time acquiring and analyzing standings data of late (AL-only, NL-only, mixed). And looking at that information got me to thinking that I could easily determine if finishing third across-the-board is really what it’s cracked up to be.
Turns out that it is. Finishing third in all ten categories would have won 67 of the 76 AL-only leagues and 47 of the 51 NL-only leagues I looked at.
But in looking at things a little closer, I found an even better reason you should set your sights on finishing third. One that had never crossed my mind.
While trading e-mails with the folks at OnRoto about the AL- and NL-only standings data, they pointed this out to me…
“My experience is that the SGPs are actually bell shaped within each category… which has an impact on how you should set up your team.”
Relax
I just mentioned SGP. Not everyone uses standings gain points. I know this. But hold on! Even if you use z-scores, PVM, or the auction calculator to value your players, the concept of moving up and down the standings is really what we’re about to look at. Moving up the standings applies to everyone! This article is not about valuation or even ranking players.
Regardless of your preferred valuation methodology, when playing fake baseball games our goal is to move up the standings one spot at a time. We can all look at a given set of standings and see that it might take 15 runs or 0.06 ERA points, on average, to move up to that next spot.
The Data Used
I downloaded and cleaned up the 2015 NFBC Main Event standings data (30 leagues, 450 teams). Here are the average standings of those 30 leagues:
| RANK | BA | R | HR | RBI | SB | ERA | WHIP | W | K | SV |
| 1 | 0.275 | 1,075 | 287 | 1,031 | 170 | 3.22 | 1.14 | 109 | 1,484 | 108 |
| 2 | 0.272 | 1,040 | 276 | 1,003 | 156 | 3.38 | 1.18 | 102 | 1,425 | 97 |
| 3 | 0.271 | 1,018 | 268 | 983 | 148 | 3.49 | 1.20 | 99 | 1,391 | 90 |
| 4 | 0.269 | 1,004 | 261 | 973 | 142 | 3.55 | 1.21 | 96 | 1,364 | 86 |
| 5 | 0.268 | 993 | 256 | 960 | 135 | 3.62 | 1.22 | 94 | 1,346 | 81 |
| 6 | 0.267 | 980 | 250 | 947 | 130 | 3.67 | 1.23 | 92 | 1,325 | 78 |
| 7 | 0.265 | 970 | 245 | 933 | 127 | 3.71 | 1.23 | 90 | 1,311 | 74 |
| 8 | 0.265 | 956 | 241 | 923 | 122 | 3.76 | 1.24 | 89 | 1,293 | 70 |
| 9 | 0.263 | 943 | 236 | 912 | 117 | 3.81 | 1.25 | 87 | 1,279 | 68 |
| 10 | 0.262 | 932 | 230 | 899 | 113 | 3.85 | 1.26 | 85 | 1,259 | 63 |
| 11 | 0.261 | 919 | 225 | 885 | 107 | 3.89 | 1.27 | 83 | 1,243 | 57 |
| 12 | 0.259 | 904 | 219 | 870 | 104 | 3.96 | 1.28 | 80 | 1,211 | 50 |
| 13 | 0.258 | 886 | 210 | 850 | 98 | 4.02 | 1.29 | 79 | 1,180 | 42 |
| 14 | 0.255 | 861 | 198 | 826 | 89 | 4.11 | 1.30 | 75 | 1,128 | 33 |
| 15 | 0.252 | 822 | 186 | 784 | 76 | 4.28 | 1.32 | 69 | 1,043 | 17 |
I then used that average standings data to determine the average stats needed to climb up one spot in the standings.
| TO REACH | BA DIFF | R DIFF | HR DIFF | RBI DIFF | SB DIFF | ERA DIFF | WHIP DIFF | W DIFF | K DIFF | SV DIFF |
| 1 | 0.0029 | 34.9 | 11.0 | 28.7 | 13.2 | 0.153 | 0.038 | 6.9 | 58.9 | 10.5 |
| 2 | 0.0017 | 22.9 | 7.8 | 19.8 | 8.7 | 0.117 | 0.014 | 3.0 | 33.6 | 7.3 |
| 3 | 0.0018 | 13.0 | 7.7 | 10.3 | 5.6 | 0.052 | 0.012 | 3.1 | 27.2 | 4.1 |
| 4 | 0.0012 | 11.2 | 4.4 | 12.7 | 6.9 | 0.070 | 0.008 | 2.0 | 18.0 | 4.8 |
| 5 | 0.0010 | 13.0 | 5.8 | 13.2 | 4.8 | 0.054 | 0.010 | 2.4 | 21.0 | 3.0 |
| 6 | 0.0012 | 10.2 | 5.0 | 13.7 | 3.5 | 0.036 | 0.007 | 1.5 | 13.8 | 3.9 |
| 7 | 0.0009 | 14.0 | 4.5 | 9.9 | 5.3 | 0.059 | 0.009 | 1.3 | 18.2 | 4.1 |
| 8 | 0.0012 | 12.8 | 4.8 | 11.5 | 4.9 | 0.044 | 0.011 | 2.1 | 13.9 | 2.5 |
| 9 | 0.0011 | 11.2 | 6.4 | 12.7 | 4.1 | 0.045 | 0.007 | 2.1 | 20.1 | 4.1 |
| 10 | 0.0014 | 13.4 | 4.3 | 13.8 | 5.6 | 0.041 | 0.008 | 2.0 | 16.2 | 6.3 |
| 11 | 0.0015 | 14.8 | 6.3 | 15.3 | 3.2 | 0.064 | 0.010 | 2.4 | 31.7 | 7.3 |
| 12 | 0.0017 | 17.3 | 8.8 | 19.2 | 6.2 | 0.065 | 0.013 | 1.9 | 31.5 | 7.9 |
| 13 | 0.0026 | 25.6 | 12.2 | 24.7 | 9.1 | 0.088 | 0.012 | 3.8 | 51.7 | 9.3 |
| 14 | 0.0029 | 38.4 | 12.2 | 41.9 | 13.0 | 0.170 | 0.021 | 5.7 | 84.8 | 15.5 |
For example, you can see that, on average, first place in the standings table was 287 HR and second place was 276 HR. That’s a difference of 11 HR to climb from second place to first, and you see that in the first row of the “HR DIFF” column above.
Looking at the data, you can see some bell shaped phenomenon playing out. The numbers in the middle of the standings are noticeably smaller than at the edge of the standings. It’s still a little hard to absorb, so I also graphed each category out.
Here’s a look at runs, home runs, and stolen bases:
For fear of causing Carpal Tunnel, I won’t make you scroll through all ten categories of graphs, but you can view them individually by clicking these links (R, HR, RBI, SB, AVG, W, K, SV, ERA, WHIP). Or you can take my word for it that all ten demonstrate the same phenomenon.
What Do You Notice?
Each category is slightly different, but for the most part it’s clear that the standings are bell shaped (I’ll get to Saves in a minute). The red line on each graph represents the standings gain points calculation (this is also represented in the parentheses in the title of each graph).
For example, according to my own calculations on this NFBC data (using Excel’s SLOPE calculation), it takes 15.19 runs to move up one spot in the standings. That 15.19 calculation does not take into account exactly where your team is in the standings. It’s more or less an “average” calculation with the effect of outliers being mitigated.
When you look at the graphs you see that the “on average” nature of the SGP calculation has some weaknesses. When you’re at the edge of the bell curves it takes much more to reach the next team in the standings (to reach 1st, 2nd, 12th, 13th, 14th, and sometimes 3rd). When you’re in the middle of the curve it’s almost always easier to move up the standings than the “on average” SGP calculation indicates.
Moneyballing
Despite a fear of being accused that I don’t really understand what Moneyball was about (that’s never happened in the FG comments), I’ll make the analogy anyways. It seems like we have an inefficiency to take advantage of here.
In an auction or in a draft, we have a limited amount of resources or draft picks to work with. So it becomes imperative to spend those resources wisely and in the most efficient way possible. Given the bell shaped curve we see in these graphs, it’s most efficient to spend or draft players that can position you to come in third place.
As you move up the curve in an effort to reach second or first place, it becomes more costly and a less efficient use of your resources. If you project yourself to be in third in HR and seventh in SB, you should first allocate resources to the SB gap. A given amount of resources will get you further in the SB category than in HR.
Saves Are Different
Check out the saves graph:
The curve is skewed further left than the others. It’s difficult to climb that curve from the bottom of the standings (the steepness here is surely due to punting and teams that didn’t plan on punting but then threw in the towel when their closers flamed out). Once you get past that part of the curve the teams are very tightly packed, with the average distance between teams being less than four saves!
Practically Speaking
This is all well and good. But what does this really mean? I’m a skeptic by nature. So I can imagine some of you are thinking, “What do you think happens, Mr. Bell? Do you think I’ll shoot for third and everyone else will aim for fourth and fifth, and the plan works perfectly? It’s not like the other managers in my league aren’t trying to do the same thing.”
Another skeptical thought I have is that I usually walk out of my drafts with the highest projected totals in nearly all categories. This is not to toot my own horn. I’m sure you have similar experiences. This is due to the biased or self-fulfilling nature of using a set of projections and preferences that nobody else will be using (read Todd Zola here).
With that skepticism in mind, here are a few practical ways you can apply this information:
- You should try to track team projected stats during your draft or have historical targets in mind about what it will take to finish around third. If you customize projections, don’t use those same projections to calculate the projected standings. Use an unbiased resource, like Steamer (without your tweaks and edits). Try to keep your team in the middle of the standings (or bell curves).
- Avoid trying to “run away” with a category during the draft. It’s misguided. Not only are you wasting stats (you only need to beat second place by one), it can be extremely costly to do so.
- Don’t sweat it if one or two other teams themselves try to “run away” with categories. Stick with but try to beat the rest of the pack.
- The ideal strategy is to build a balanced team that is set up to be in the middle to top of the pack in each category. Don’t punt! Especially if punting means you’ll be sacrificing a category you could easily move up in for categories where you’re trying to climb the steep end of the bell curve. Once you feel confident that your team will be in the thick of the race in each category, then you can get aggressive and try to climb the extreme parts of the curve.
- Perhaps the best thing you can do on a practical side is to continue performing the four bullet points above regularly as the season progresses. Use Steamer’s rest-of-season projections and monitor where you’re likely to fall.
Tanner writes for Fangraphs as well as his own site, Smart Fantasy Baseball . He's the co-auther of The Process with Jeff Zimmerman, and has written two e-books, Using SGP to Rank and Value Fantasy Baseball Players and How to Rank and Value Players for Points Leagues, and worked with Mike Podhorzer developing a spreadsheet to accompany Projecting X 2.0. Much of his writings focus on instructional "how to" topics, Excel, and strategy. Follow him on Twitter @smartfantasybb.
This is why America is falling behind. Let’s not just aim for first place, let’s take it by the throat and make it ours. This is how we make America great again. /poutyface
This third place talk is for losers. I will be so good at winning all the categories I get tired of winning. Go big or go home.
Saves are Un-American. Let’s build a wall to keep out the closers. And we’re going to make Tony LaRussa pay for it!
hahaha Lenard!! But everyone gets a participation trophy right???
Fascinating stuff Tanner! I wonder if modifying the SGP denominators to only look at the delta across the middle positions might be a better way, based on this info? So instead of taking the average additional HR to gain a standings point across 1-12 (or 1-15 for this NFBC data), maybe only look at 4-9 (or 4-12)?
An interesting idea. I usually throw out first and last when I calculate SGP but hadn’t thought of focusing on just the middle parts.
Yes, it’s an interesting thought.
In the end I think you’d still see the same phenomenon. Regardless of what you use as the denominator, it’s still harder to get into second or first place than it is to climb through the middle ground of the standings.
The article illustrated that allocating resources to augment stolen bases at the expense of home runs is advisable if your expected standings are 3rd in HRs and 7th in SBs. Sorry, but that seems overly simplistic. A hitter with a strong HR profile might also have strong RBIs. A hitter with a strong SB profile might be weaker in RBIs. So acquiring a player means getting a cluster of stats moving different directions for different categories. Try tracking this all during a draft as you seek to optimize? Certainly when considering trades or waiver pickups there is time for analysis, but not during any drafts I’ve participated in.
That’s not really what the graphs are saying. What they are telling you is that it takes more home runs to go from second place to first place then from fourth place to third. It’s typically similar across all stats.
The most efficient place to aim for is a third place finish across all categories. By the NFBC data it’s a winner about 90% of the time
As I see it, the author is explaining a perspective on the most efficient allocation of draft resources. Once you’ve attained 3rd place in a category, you have vastly diminishing returns for additional resources put there. I am saying that any hitter you might choose impacts multiple categories. He could help you in categories where you project to rank 3rd, 5th, and 9th, for example. So don’t necessarily turn down a HR hitter if you are weak in walks, total bases, runs, whatever – especially if the SB guy only helps in one place and weakens you in other places. Ignore the other categories at your peril.
The article illustrated that allocating resources to augment stolen bases at the expense of home runs is advisable if your expected standings are 3rd in HRs and 7th in SBs.
No. This article illustrates that it is often easier to move from 7th to 3rd in one category than it is to move from 3rd to 2nd in another. HR/SB was merely one specific example provided.
Try tracking this all during a draft as you seek to optimize?
Why yes, that’s what spreadsheets are for.
That particular anecdote is probably too simplistic. But it’s also rather simplistic to say, “it’s too hard to to track, I give up”, when there is data that shows an optimal strategy to pursue. I admit this post doesn’t come with all the answers, but the information can provide value.
And I am a huge spreadsheet nerd. So I do have systems in place that can let me see projected standings as the draft progresses.
Granted, those are little more than a shot in the dark. And one could argue that the draft is WAY too early to even be thinking about projected standings (that have so many variables underlying them). But I keep going back to, “it’s the best we have”, so I’m going to try to use it to my advantage.
This graph doesn’t show it but another reason to target second and third place finishes is losing value on players that you could have allocated to other places. First place in home runs is 12 points if you win by 1 homerun or 15. Any home runs over the top is actually lost value on players that could have been put into average or SB.
Going for 2nd/3rd finishes has no lost value. It could be argued that leaving the draft projected as 2nd by 15 home runs is the same thing but it’s not. It gives you room to fluctuate up and down instead of just down
I agree with the sentiment of not tanking anything either and it’s the same reason. You tend to have to overpay on players, have no growth potential, and have to have really good projections.
That’s another good point. I read somewhere that argued against the concept of “wasted stats” by finishing first. I’ll have to go look for that again, because I can’t see the argument. I agree with your point of view on the issue.
Tanking out of the gate is awful. It’s like a team opening the game with an onside kick or fouling a poor free throw shooter in the first half. I shouldn’t have to resort to gimmicks to win… Now, if we’re a month in and both closers have already lost their job, I think it’s a different argument.
This is awesome.
Thanks, Bander!
One problem with this theory is embodied in the curves. Many of the curves show third place as being in the middle area of the bell rather than an outlier with first and second. If that is the case aiming for third will give you a fairly high risk of finishing fourth, fifth, or maybe worse. Doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me.
you can’t win all the time though. Sure you could aim for first in some categories, 6th in others, and luck your way up to 3rd or 4th in those categories. But I’ll take my odds in aiming for 3rd place and getting it in each category. That’s the whole point of the article. It’s harder to get 1st or 2nd and category without trading off in another category.
I see the risk you’re referring to, Captain. But what are our better alternatives? It’s easy to say, “I’m going to aim for first in every category”.
But if given a choice, this clearly shows that shooting for third in all categories is a superior option to going for first in several and fifth in several.
I agree Tanner. Overall this is very interesting. What about shooting for second instead? That will allow you to possibly have less downside without being completely unrealistic by going for first everywhere. Obviously just brainstorming here. I really like the idea behind strategy articles like this, thanks for the good work!
Interesting stuff. Would you agree that this may validate those who argue that the stolen bases from top SB guys like Billy Hamiltonand Dee Gordon are being overvalued? Perhaps, as someone had emailed me last year, there are diminishing returns, and therefore lesser value earned, the more stats a player accumulates in one category once you pass a certain threshold.
This might be a completely different topic, but your question raises another thought I have not fully attempted to address yet.
I have a little problem with the effort and investment we make to nailing down player values at the macro level that we do.
As soon as a draft starts and rubber hits the road, I can’t help but think that things change. Hamilton and Gordon can highlight this example. Once you have Gordon on your team, Hamilton DOES NOT hold the same value to your team. On the macro level, he still may be worth a higher price. But the “cost per point in the standings” makes him a bad buy for the Gordon owner.
I’m not sure Hamilton or Gordon on their own are overvalued because of diminishing returns, but as soon as the rest of your team adds context, that may be true.
Taking my original thought a little further, owning a Hamilton or Gordon would change the “cost per point in the standings” for multi-category players. Or going back to the post above, if you have Gordon and you’re already at third place in the projected standings, you’re wasting resources by drafting a player that steals bases. Instead of a 10HR-10SB guy, you might be better off with the 15HR-0SB guy.
> Would you agree that this may validate those who argue that the stolen bases from top SB guys like Billy Hamilton and Dee Gordon are being overvalued?
No, I don’t think it validates it at all. Or to say it another way – Guys like Hamilton or Gordon may well be over-valued, but that’s not part of what this (very interesting, and well-written) article says.
If your roster is structured that you’re getting 10 SBs or so from practically your entire roster, and a Dee Gordon means you’d run away with the SB category, yes – that’s over-valuing Gordon. If you get Dee Gordon and just one or two other speed guys because you think that will be sufficient to get to to near third in SBs, then use the other draft spots to get Power / RBI etc? That wouldn’t be over-valuing Gordon at all.
As the article says – it’s not any one player’s contribution per say, it’s in your entire roster construction.
then some would say if Gordon gets injured, you’re screwed.
Not so, if you got Dee Gordon, you probably value steals the most, so they should be relatively cheap to acquire vs. your evaluations. And since you have a bunch of good HR/BA guys, you probably can swing a trade.
I’ve never heard of shooting for 3rd place… after reading this article, i’m and instant believer. Well done.
Thanks, Brian!
I think this makes it easier to make trades that benefit your team. If you leave the draft with a team that’s 6th in every category, almost any collection of stat improvements will make your team better. But if you’re 3rd in everything except three stats where you’re last, any player who helps in those last categories will make little impact, while you need more for the guys contributing in the good ones to make an improvement. The “all round team” is much easier to improve, and also to find trade partners for.
I agree. I liken it to the concept of “outs” in poker. You want to leave yourself as many outs as you can. Whether it’s having a balanced team across the board or having a few multi-position-eligible players, those little strategies can add up and leave you more trade options, more free agent options, etc.
What are your thoughts on punting saves (or SB’s) in H2H? They are very inconsistent stats when viewed week to week. You can have 4 closers and get 4 saves total one week and lose to a team that has 2 closers who got 5 saves. It’s one of the most frustrating parts of H2H for me. Not to mention the volatility of the position. In H2H I think I’d rather spend that money to ensure that I’m elite in 3-4 categories.
I punt SB in H2H. My strategy is to be near the top in all the other hitting cats with the goal of going 4-1 each week. I don’t punt saves because I just go for cheap closers as they churn over the season and stay competitive in saves that way. I’m very curious about the “aim for third” applications in H2H, as well as how SGP can be employed.
H2H is a different beast. I agree with the concept of punting there much more than in Roto. To me it goes back to the fundamental difference in the games. In the traditional category H2H format, you’re really just trying to beat one team at a time. The game theory of punting and trying to win 6-4 or 7-3 makes sense there.
I don’t have data to back these claims up, but when we’re talking about roto and trying to beat 9, 11, or 14 other teams, I don’t think the strategy can work as well.
I usually start out with a balanced team in H2H and then tailor to a more focused/punt-approach as the season goes along. I feel like that helps me to finish higher in the overall standings and then still have a chance to make it through the unpredictable playoffs.
I’ve been doing this for 2 years now and its worked great. My league has much flatter scoring, so I can get away with targeting 4th in every category (5×5) which leaves me in the top tier. Two additional advantages to what Tanner notes are a) The target numbers are much more consistent year to year than the fluctuations at the top – which makes planning straight-forward as I don’t worry in draft what others are doing. And b) it puts me in a great place for mid-season course corrections. Since I’m close in most categories to additional points, when disaster strikes I have more options to repair. For example, this past year I bungled Holds so badly that I had to tank the whole category. But I was able to gain several points here and there and recover.
Chris
P.S. Congrats Tanner on the new gig at RotoGraphs!
Thanks, Chris!
Here’s a thought:
Why not target 5th place in most categories and then aim for first place in two. That would allow you to “clinch” first or second place in categories A and B, and give you a large chance of moving up from 5th to 3rd in the others, with shrewd management. I realize “clinching” is a strong word, but I’m using it in coordination with how we’re able to use projections to make projections that are seven months away from being fulfilled.
What I’m saying is that you might be better off landing in 1st (shrinking your error bar, relatively speaking) in a few categories and hoping you land above the mean in the other categories, rather than banking on 3rd place throughout, which likely gives you more downside (easier to fall to 6th than move to 1st). Instead, you’re about equally likely to move from 5th to 7th or 3rd, depending on luck and management, but you also have “locked in” (relative, again) two or three high category finishes.
Hey Kicker. The more freely you are able to move players during the season in your league, the more viable your plan becomes. I worry about finishing far in first because of the “wasted resources” concept we talked about earlier. And that it’s possible you’ll be unable to trade the players that got you into first place for a fair price (“I’m not paying full price for Billy Hamilton, you better give me a discount”).
Even still, the charts above demonstrate that “aiming for first” in any category is more expensive than aiming for third. This is another simplistic example, but to go from third to first in a category might actually mean you fall to seventh in another.
Look at the R chart above. To go from third to first takes 58 more runs. Using the 15.19 SGP on that same chart, that 58 runs is equivalent to 3.82 Standings Gain Points. So in order to move up two spots in the standings, you sacrifice nearly four spots elsewhere.
Nice article, confirms what I’ve long suspected about point distributions. I’m wondering if sometimes it might still be better to build up a massive projected lead in one category and perhaps try to trade your way back to the deficient categories later in the season. If your league is overvaluing a single category and undervaluing another then increasing your batting average by .0029 might be easier than increasing your stolen bases by 4. If your leaguemates are overpaying for stolen bases and underpaying for empty batting average, then going from 3rd to 1st in batting average becomes relatively easy while improving from 6th to 4th in stolen bases may be a real task.
I noticed this in my keeper league last year, about 3 teams held on to all the best base stealers in the league. I was one of them and was ignoring stolen bases the whole draft, but the rest of the league was basically starting near 0 stolen bases and everyone was overpaying for them, this made guys who hit .280+ with limited power and limited speed really cheap. So the 3 of us who kept base stealers were having a field day on the other categories while everyone else desperately tried to acquire base stealers.
Daffy, you are correct in that my analysis above assumes your league is valuing each category uniformly. That may not be the case. If base stealers or batting average guys are falling at the draft, it may make sense to invest at the cheaper prices and try to adjust later.
I do mention the same caveat I did just above. This makes more sense the more you can freely trade in your league. Some league’s I’m in are very difficult to trade in.
You also have to be weary of putting yourself in a position where you lose bargaining power. If you’re battling for 1st or 2nd, you can get held hostage by a team lower in the standings. It becomes more important for you to unload that surplus base-stealer than it is for them to acquire him.
I think the part of the equation your missing is that many of the categories are correlated in outcomes…..a player that will support you in Runs typically also provides support in AVG, likewise for RBI and HR, and to the greatest extent ERA, WHIP, Wins and Ks. What that means is that each marginal dollar spent in Runs for example doesn’t just increase Runs, but also increases AVG. But as you also noted, Saves and SB tend to not really have correlations…..so marginal dollars spent in SB and Saves, don’t have additional value
There’s probably some exercise to be done to go back through to figure out the correlation and map the dollars spent in the those league champions you cited earlier, but what I’ve found it to mean is that the pitching categories are cheaper to invest in. I aim to take 1st in W, ERA, Ks, and WHIP, 3rd in Saves and SBs, and 5th in RBI, R, AVG, and HR. Per your charts, you can spend relatively little and still managed a 5th place finish those cats.
Hi Rainmaker, thanks for commenting. Your idea about the correlations between categories is a good one. Some of the examples I give above are overly simplistic, they suggest you can pick and choose categories to easily move up and down in.
Adding that correlation layer might help us to understand the extent that is truly possible.
And this is possibly nit-picking your example a bit, but the graphs above show me that to change your target from 3rd in a category to 1st would come at the expense of dropping 4 spots in another category. So to adjust to 1st in W, ERA, K, and WHIP, one would have to accept 7th in RBI, R, AVG, and HR.
There are a million assumptions in that statement. But that’s what climbing that steep curve implies. And you’ll fall quicker through the middle of the standings if you try to do it.
Hey Tanner, really enjoyed the article, it makes a lot of sense. I too like spreadsheets but I am not quite a “nerd”. Care to share any tips? Specifically for tracking drafts
Hi Stephen,
Yes, I’d characterize tracking drafts as a two step process that you can have set up well ahead of the draft. Then during the draft it’s a matter of selecting a drop down next to each player to assign them to the team.
Here’s the first piece (setting up the drop down): http://www.smartfantasybaseball.com/2014/01/how-to-track-drafted-players-in-a-spreadsheet/
And here’s the second (setting up the calculations for the standings): http://www.smartfantasybaseball.com/2014/11/how-to-calculate-projected-standings-for-your-draft-using-pivot-tables/
I suppose I should have referred to those earlier in the comments! Thanks for the reminder.