As has been rumored for months (years?), the Atlanta Thrashers have been sold, and will be moving to Winnipeg, giving them their first NHL team since 1996. I haven't been a true hockey fan long enough to offer much in the way of "How will this team do in Winnipeg?" or "Will the NHL ever return to Atlanta?" What I can talk about, however, is realignment.
As a sports fan, realignment is in my blood. Some of you may remember a time when the Atlanta Braves were in the NL West?* A time before wild cards and Central divisions? With expansion in all four major sports over the past few decades, we've seen countless adjustments and realignments, and with the Thrashers moving way, way north, we've got another one coming.
So how will it shake out? The NHL has basically committed to the new Winnipeg franchise being moved to the Western conference, and they've suggested three teams as possibly moving to the East to replace the old Thrashers: the Columbus Blue Jackets, the Detroit Red Wings, or the Nashville Predators.
First things first, I don't see the Red Wings going East. Ever since the Western Conference came into existence in 1993, Detroit has been one of the staples of the conference, a powerhouse that's won four Stanley Cups, made the finals two other times, and qualified for the playoffs every single year. Additionally, Chicago is the only other member of the Original Six in the Western Conference.
The NHL may like to say that they've got great parity, and they definitely have a strong salary cap system, but moving Detroit to the East would swing the balance of power (and hockey history) pretty heavily. So I think that will prevent them from getting realigned.
That leaves Columbus and Nashville. Both franchises are fairly new (Nashville started play in 1998, Columbus in 2000), and neither has had a great deal of success. Nashville won their first playoff series just this year, while Columbus has never actually won a playoff game. Geographically, both are far enough east that they would logically fit into the Eastern Conference, and neither has any tremendous history that would be lost with a realignment.
If Nashville were the team of choice, the move would be pretty easy, actually. They would slide right into Atlanta's old spot in the Southeast division, and would immediately contend with Washington and Tampa Bay for the top spot in the division. And their defense-first mentality would add another layer to a heavily offensive division.
Columbus coming to the East might complicate things a bit. They could still fit into the Southeast, but that wouldn't jive with geographical logic. Working from a purely geographical standpoint, we'd move Philadelphia into the Southeast, and Columbus would take their place in the Atlantic, joining Pittsburgh, New Jersey, and the two New York teams.
My expectation, and my preference, would be for Nashville to move to the Southeast. Not only does it make the most sense geographically, but I like the idea of Washington having to face a stout defensive team like Nashville six times a year. Obviously teams change over time, but in the short term, I think it'd help these Caps to continue to grow as a team.
*The Braves are the only team in baseball to win a division crown in both the East and West divisions; the Brewers are the only other team to play in both an East and a West, but they never won the West (where they started as the Seattle Pilots).
Showing posts with label Ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ideas. Show all posts
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Thursday, August 12, 2010
How To Say Goodbye
There comes a time in 75% of fantasy baseball owners' seasons at which they have to come to terms with the fact that they can't win the title this season. Maybe you invested heavily in Kevin Youkilis, Chase Utley, and Jacoby Ellsbury. Maybe you had a kooky strategy that backfired (and we should really look at some of those kooky strategies sometime). Or maybe there's just a super team in your league that's opened up such a lead that it's insurmountable.
Whatever the circumstances, at some point you realize this isn't your year. For me, that moment was when Clayton Kershaw gave up six runs to the Nationals last Friday. As Adam Dunn's second home run of the night cleared the fence, I realized, "There's just no way. It's over." And as the tears flowed (along with the rum), I started to look forward and think, "What now?"
As our league is a keeper league, we have a whole separate set of circumstances to consider, and that usually mitigates any rash decisions (like crazy trades or waiving players who piss you off). But you'll still see some curious moves by teams out of the mix; that's a result of frustration, and an attempt to exert control over this team that's the cause of the frustration.
So, when it comes to handling your roster after the moment of truth revealed your inevitable failure, I've encountered several approaches over the years. Here they are, along with my take on them.
1) Laissez-faire
The first instinct, and not a wrong instinct, is to simply ignore your team for the remainder of the season. Set a lineup, throw your best pitchers in, and start reading fantasy football material.
Advantages:
- It's fair. You're not targeting categories that could help or hurt specific owners.
- It's easy. There's literally zero effort after you set your lineup.
- It frees up your time. You can put it into fantasy football, as many owners do, or you can do something really outlandish and JUST WATCH BASEBALL. :)
Disadvantages:
- It's passive. As much as you may hate your fantasy team, it's still your team. This tactic means you're admitting that you wasted all of the time you put into this team.
- It's no fun. Don't forget that we all play fantasy sports to have fun. This strategy puts an end to any fun you could be having.
2) Play to Win (even though you can't)
Listen, just because you can't win doesn't mean you stop trying. Look at major league baseball teams. The Kansas City Royals continue to fight in August and September, the Detroit Lions keep at it every December, and the Memphis Grizzlies...well, I can't attest to the Grizzlies, but most other teams try to win most games, even when a championship is out of the picture. You can do the same with your failed fantasy baseball team. Try to grab any points you can, try to improve your finish in the standings, and run out your best team every day.
Advantages:
- It's fair. Other teams can't be mad at you for trying to get any points you can. If they do, give them the line from Saving Private Ryan: "Earn this."
- It's freeing. You can take some chances if you have a gut feeling. Feel like starting a rookie pitcher going into Yankee Stadium? Go for it.
Disadvantages:
- You're risking further disappointment. Hey, just because you know you're not going to win doesn't mean you won't be disappointed when the final days come around and you're 22 points out of first. You can set mini-goals (win a category, surpass a point total), but it's not easy to play out the string.
- You're not saving any time. You'd like to be able to devote your time to something else after you've realized you can't win, but this strategy means you're still on top of your team every day. It's a tactic for the die-hard.
3) Vengeance
Over the course of a season (or several seasons, if you're in an annual league), you'll inevitably butt heads with another owner/owners. Maybe they talk a lot of trash, or they made a trade that you thought was unfair but couldn't get your league to act on, or they just irritate you in your own trade negotiations. Whatever the reason, there's a guy you just don't want to see win. And it just so happens he's three steals ahead of you. This strategy says bench your boppers and put in speed guys to take that point, and any others you can find.
Advantages:
- It's goal-oriented. You definitely have a specific task you're trying to accomplish: failure by another team. Having that kind of defined direction can be gratifying.
- It's fairly easy. You can tell where you can take points from most teams. And generally you can adjust your lineup to focus on the statistics you need.
Disadvantages:
- It's sinister. Let's be clear: this is not a strategy for someone who wants to be thought of as a good guy. You're going to be one team's nemesis after this, and in all likelihood, you'll be generally disliked throughout the league as a result. So much so that...
- ...it could backfire. Remember, nothing rallies support for a cause more than taking the opposing side. There's always the possibility that a third team throws points towards your target team, in an attempt to "counter" your moves.
For the most part, people seem to find themselves somewhere in between #1 and #2, still going through the motions, but paying less attention to fantasy baseball. I actually have yet to find someone who legitimately embodied #3, but I wouldn't put it past any of you. Snakes in the grass, all of you.
I prefer #2, which probably comes as a surprise to some of you, who considered me the closest thing to a supervillain that you'd find in your lifetime. True, I enjoy being loathed, feared, etc., but, especially in our keeper league, I prefer to be thought of as a competitor. My goal, always, is to gain points. Sometimes that'll affect teams at the top, and that's how it goes. But going for a higher finish in the standings is the only goal I can feel good about, so that's what I'll do.
And I'll see you next year.
Whatever the circumstances, at some point you realize this isn't your year. For me, that moment was when Clayton Kershaw gave up six runs to the Nationals last Friday. As Adam Dunn's second home run of the night cleared the fence, I realized, "There's just no way. It's over." And as the tears flowed (along with the rum), I started to look forward and think, "What now?"
As our league is a keeper league, we have a whole separate set of circumstances to consider, and that usually mitigates any rash decisions (like crazy trades or waiving players who piss you off). But you'll still see some curious moves by teams out of the mix; that's a result of frustration, and an attempt to exert control over this team that's the cause of the frustration.
So, when it comes to handling your roster after the moment of truth revealed your inevitable failure, I've encountered several approaches over the years. Here they are, along with my take on them.
1) Laissez-faire
The first instinct, and not a wrong instinct, is to simply ignore your team for the remainder of the season. Set a lineup, throw your best pitchers in, and start reading fantasy football material.
Advantages:
- It's fair. You're not targeting categories that could help or hurt specific owners.
- It's easy. There's literally zero effort after you set your lineup.
- It frees up your time. You can put it into fantasy football, as many owners do, or you can do something really outlandish and JUST WATCH BASEBALL. :)
Disadvantages:
- It's passive. As much as you may hate your fantasy team, it's still your team. This tactic means you're admitting that you wasted all of the time you put into this team.
- It's no fun. Don't forget that we all play fantasy sports to have fun. This strategy puts an end to any fun you could be having.
2) Play to Win (even though you can't)
Listen, just because you can't win doesn't mean you stop trying. Look at major league baseball teams. The Kansas City Royals continue to fight in August and September, the Detroit Lions keep at it every December, and the Memphis Grizzlies...well, I can't attest to the Grizzlies, but most other teams try to win most games, even when a championship is out of the picture. You can do the same with your failed fantasy baseball team. Try to grab any points you can, try to improve your finish in the standings, and run out your best team every day.
Advantages:
- It's fair. Other teams can't be mad at you for trying to get any points you can. If they do, give them the line from Saving Private Ryan: "Earn this."
- It's freeing. You can take some chances if you have a gut feeling. Feel like starting a rookie pitcher going into Yankee Stadium? Go for it.
Disadvantages:
- You're risking further disappointment. Hey, just because you know you're not going to win doesn't mean you won't be disappointed when the final days come around and you're 22 points out of first. You can set mini-goals (win a category, surpass a point total), but it's not easy to play out the string.
- You're not saving any time. You'd like to be able to devote your time to something else after you've realized you can't win, but this strategy means you're still on top of your team every day. It's a tactic for the die-hard.
3) Vengeance
Over the course of a season (or several seasons, if you're in an annual league), you'll inevitably butt heads with another owner/owners. Maybe they talk a lot of trash, or they made a trade that you thought was unfair but couldn't get your league to act on, or they just irritate you in your own trade negotiations. Whatever the reason, there's a guy you just don't want to see win. And it just so happens he's three steals ahead of you. This strategy says bench your boppers and put in speed guys to take that point, and any others you can find.
Advantages:
- It's goal-oriented. You definitely have a specific task you're trying to accomplish: failure by another team. Having that kind of defined direction can be gratifying.
- It's fairly easy. You can tell where you can take points from most teams. And generally you can adjust your lineup to focus on the statistics you need.
Disadvantages:
- It's sinister. Let's be clear: this is not a strategy for someone who wants to be thought of as a good guy. You're going to be one team's nemesis after this, and in all likelihood, you'll be generally disliked throughout the league as a result. So much so that...
- ...it could backfire. Remember, nothing rallies support for a cause more than taking the opposing side. There's always the possibility that a third team throws points towards your target team, in an attempt to "counter" your moves.
For the most part, people seem to find themselves somewhere in between #1 and #2, still going through the motions, but paying less attention to fantasy baseball. I actually have yet to find someone who legitimately embodied #3, but I wouldn't put it past any of you. Snakes in the grass, all of you.
I prefer #2, which probably comes as a surprise to some of you, who considered me the closest thing to a supervillain that you'd find in your lifetime. True, I enjoy being loathed, feared, etc., but, especially in our keeper league, I prefer to be thought of as a competitor. My goal, always, is to gain points. Sometimes that'll affect teams at the top, and that's how it goes. But going for a higher finish in the standings is the only goal I can feel good about, so that's what I'll do.
And I'll see you next year.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
How To Fix Your Fantasy Football League
And trust me, it's broken.
I've played in several fantasy football leagues each year for the past decade or so, and over time, you learn some things. You learn that Priest Holmes is going to burn someone. You learn to trust the elite quarterbacks to stay elite. But more importantly, you learn what makes a league fun, and what makes it frustrating. Right now, I'd like to share with you a few ways that I think your league can be more of the former, and less of the latter.
I figure the first of July should be plenty early to get your league on board with the changes.
Use Fractional Points
I get not using fractions back when fantasy sports were conducted with pencils and paper, but this is 2010. This is the year that every pre-teen science fiction writer used as his setting when I was growing up in the 1980s. Technology allows us to calculate fractions pretty easily, so there's no reason not to use them.
Certainly the advantages of using partial points are obvious. Say you give 1 point for every 25 passing yards. Does the difference between 173 yards and 178 yards really constitute an entire point? Is it unreasonable to think that 222 yards is actually more valuable than 203? The reality is that we have the mechanisms in place to allow yards to be assigned a specific, decimal value. Using those mechanisms will allow us to be maybe just a little more certain that the most deserving team will win on any given Sunday, and that's always an admirable move.
You also almost certainly eliminate ties, which nobody wants. As the old saying goes, ties are like kissing your sister, which unless your sister is Rachel McAdams is pretty gross. I guess it's gross either way, but man, she's gorgeous.
Shorten Your Benches
Losing a player to injury can be a bummer. Losing a player to injury and finding nobody on the waiver wire who even comes close to being startable is brutal. When this happens, chances are it's because your league has too many bench spots on each team. It seems the convention is fifteen roster spots, split up into nine starters (1 QB, 3 WR, 2 RB, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 DEF) and six bench spots. Most teams won't have a bench tight end, kicker, or defense, so you have six bench spots for six starting spots.
Too many. You want to force people into tough decisions, and you want to prevent players from being held just to be held. I'm in favor of having one bench spot for each non-special team position (QB, WR, RB, TE), plus one additional spot for every four total non-special team roster spot. In the case of a standard league, you have seven of those roster spots, so you get one additional bench spot, for a total of five. That keeps the waiver wire populated with the occasional interesting play: a borderline tight end, a slot receiver on a pass-heavy team, a goal-line running back.
Speaking of improving the depth of your waiver wire options...
Use Return Yardage at the Same Rate as Passing Yardage
Default Yahoo leagues don't implement return yardage at all, which borders on criminal. But even when leagues do use return yardage, it's often at an irrelevant pace, something like 40 or 50 yards per point, when rushing/receiving is 10 yards per point, and passing is 25. That means that, in order to match a 100-yard rushing/receiving day, a return man would have to accumulate 400 or 500 return yards.
As a reference, the all-time record for most kickoff return yards in a game is 304, and for punt return yards it's 207. The most prolific return man in 2008 (among startable players in standard leagues; that is, non-defensive players) was Darren Sproles with 1,625 total return yards. Michael Turner and Adrian Peterson had more rushing yards than that, and thirty quarterbacks had more passing yards than that. Certainly we can all agree that big return numbers have a positive impact on a real-life football team. Since fantasy football is supposed to reward players who do positive things for their real-life football teams, it's only fitting that return yards become part of the equation.
Most importantly, giving real value to return yards turns otherwise unstartable players into reasonable quick fix options. Joshua Cribbs is an elite return guy, but in a normal league, he wallows on the waiver wire. Adjust the return yards impact, though, and he becomes a decent option if you're in a bind. And that's really all we're looking to create here, is a little extra depth on the waiver wire for tough situations.
Consider Eliminating Kickers
Now, about a year ago, I was adamant that kickers should be eliminated from my main football league. I didn't (and still don't) like the complete luck that's involved in kickers acquiring points. They're completely reliant on particular offensive sequences to create the opportunities for them to kick field goals, and those sequences are extremely difficult if not impossible to predict. With most other facets of fantasy football already being somewhat unpredictable, why add in what essentially amounts to a roll of the dice for a few extra points?
I've backed off of that stance somewhat, however, as a result of the simple logic of one of my fellow league members. There are kickers in real football, so there should be kickers in fantasy football. It's a simple enough reasoning, but it does make sense. So, while I still think that kickers are unnecessary for a fantasy football league, and I think that removing them will result in the "better" fantasy players doing better in the win-loss columns, I understand keeping kickers. My recommendation here is just to make sure that you're not just keeping kickers because of convention, and that you actually find value in having kickers on your teams.
And Whatever Else...
Listen, I don't know your league. You know what your owners find interesting, and what they don't care about. I personally like assigning .25 to .50 points per reception, and giving 2 points for 100 yard receiving games versus 1 point for 100 yard rushing games, to increase the value of wide receivers versus running backs. But that's not for everyone. My most sincere recommendation is to listen to your league. You're going to find things that bother everyone in your league, and those are the most important things to change.
And the fractional points thing. That's just a no-brainer.
I've played in several fantasy football leagues each year for the past decade or so, and over time, you learn some things. You learn that Priest Holmes is going to burn someone. You learn to trust the elite quarterbacks to stay elite. But more importantly, you learn what makes a league fun, and what makes it frustrating. Right now, I'd like to share with you a few ways that I think your league can be more of the former, and less of the latter.
I figure the first of July should be plenty early to get your league on board with the changes.
Use Fractional Points
I get not using fractions back when fantasy sports were conducted with pencils and paper, but this is 2010. This is the year that every pre-teen science fiction writer used as his setting when I was growing up in the 1980s. Technology allows us to calculate fractions pretty easily, so there's no reason not to use them.
Certainly the advantages of using partial points are obvious. Say you give 1 point for every 25 passing yards. Does the difference between 173 yards and 178 yards really constitute an entire point? Is it unreasonable to think that 222 yards is actually more valuable than 203? The reality is that we have the mechanisms in place to allow yards to be assigned a specific, decimal value. Using those mechanisms will allow us to be maybe just a little more certain that the most deserving team will win on any given Sunday, and that's always an admirable move.
You also almost certainly eliminate ties, which nobody wants. As the old saying goes, ties are like kissing your sister, which unless your sister is Rachel McAdams is pretty gross. I guess it's gross either way, but man, she's gorgeous.
Shorten Your Benches
Losing a player to injury can be a bummer. Losing a player to injury and finding nobody on the waiver wire who even comes close to being startable is brutal. When this happens, chances are it's because your league has too many bench spots on each team. It seems the convention is fifteen roster spots, split up into nine starters (1 QB, 3 WR, 2 RB, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 DEF) and six bench spots. Most teams won't have a bench tight end, kicker, or defense, so you have six bench spots for six starting spots.
Too many. You want to force people into tough decisions, and you want to prevent players from being held just to be held. I'm in favor of having one bench spot for each non-special team position (QB, WR, RB, TE), plus one additional spot for every four total non-special team roster spot. In the case of a standard league, you have seven of those roster spots, so you get one additional bench spot, for a total of five. That keeps the waiver wire populated with the occasional interesting play: a borderline tight end, a slot receiver on a pass-heavy team, a goal-line running back.
Speaking of improving the depth of your waiver wire options...
Use Return Yardage at the Same Rate as Passing Yardage
Default Yahoo leagues don't implement return yardage at all, which borders on criminal. But even when leagues do use return yardage, it's often at an irrelevant pace, something like 40 or 50 yards per point, when rushing/receiving is 10 yards per point, and passing is 25. That means that, in order to match a 100-yard rushing/receiving day, a return man would have to accumulate 400 or 500 return yards.
As a reference, the all-time record for most kickoff return yards in a game is 304, and for punt return yards it's 207. The most prolific return man in 2008 (among startable players in standard leagues; that is, non-defensive players) was Darren Sproles with 1,625 total return yards. Michael Turner and Adrian Peterson had more rushing yards than that, and thirty quarterbacks had more passing yards than that. Certainly we can all agree that big return numbers have a positive impact on a real-life football team. Since fantasy football is supposed to reward players who do positive things for their real-life football teams, it's only fitting that return yards become part of the equation.
Most importantly, giving real value to return yards turns otherwise unstartable players into reasonable quick fix options. Joshua Cribbs is an elite return guy, but in a normal league, he wallows on the waiver wire. Adjust the return yards impact, though, and he becomes a decent option if you're in a bind. And that's really all we're looking to create here, is a little extra depth on the waiver wire for tough situations.
Consider Eliminating Kickers
Now, about a year ago, I was adamant that kickers should be eliminated from my main football league. I didn't (and still don't) like the complete luck that's involved in kickers acquiring points. They're completely reliant on particular offensive sequences to create the opportunities for them to kick field goals, and those sequences are extremely difficult if not impossible to predict. With most other facets of fantasy football already being somewhat unpredictable, why add in what essentially amounts to a roll of the dice for a few extra points?
I've backed off of that stance somewhat, however, as a result of the simple logic of one of my fellow league members. There are kickers in real football, so there should be kickers in fantasy football. It's a simple enough reasoning, but it does make sense. So, while I still think that kickers are unnecessary for a fantasy football league, and I think that removing them will result in the "better" fantasy players doing better in the win-loss columns, I understand keeping kickers. My recommendation here is just to make sure that you're not just keeping kickers because of convention, and that you actually find value in having kickers on your teams.
And Whatever Else...
Listen, I don't know your league. You know what your owners find interesting, and what they don't care about. I personally like assigning .25 to .50 points per reception, and giving 2 points for 100 yard receiving games versus 1 point for 100 yard rushing games, to increase the value of wide receivers versus running backs. But that's not for everyone. My most sincere recommendation is to listen to your league. You're going to find things that bother everyone in your league, and those are the most important things to change.
And the fractional points thing. That's just a no-brainer.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wins Update - 4/22
As you may remember, I had employed a few strategies this year in trying to improve my position in the Wins category in our main fantasy baseball league. A few weeks in, let's take a look at how things are panning out.
I currently have five wins, tied for second-to-last place. The top two teams have 13 and 12 wins, respectively. The top team, Mercer AutoWreckers, acquired 4-win Roy Halladay from me prior to this year's keeper submissions. In retrospect, perhaps trading him and working to acquire Jon Lester (0-2, 8.44/1.88) was not the best idea.
But there are reasons to be hopeful. Phil Hughes is coming off of a fantastic start last night against the Athletics, and despite still being winless, Zack Greinke looked like his old self yesterday, allowing just three baserunners in a hard luck no-decision. I feel like I've got a pretty good pitching staff, and if Lester can get his act together, maybe the best top-to-bottom in our league. I'll give you another update on chasing wins as the league starts to take shape.
I currently have five wins, tied for second-to-last place. The top two teams have 13 and 12 wins, respectively. The top team, Mercer AutoWreckers, acquired 4-win Roy Halladay from me prior to this year's keeper submissions. In retrospect, perhaps trading him and working to acquire Jon Lester (0-2, 8.44/1.88) was not the best idea.
But there are reasons to be hopeful. Phil Hughes is coming off of a fantastic start last night against the Athletics, and despite still being winless, Zack Greinke looked like his old self yesterday, allowing just three baserunners in a hard luck no-decision. I feel like I've got a pretty good pitching staff, and if Lester can get his act together, maybe the best top-to-bottom in our league. I'll give you another update on chasing wins as the league starts to take shape.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Is OPS a Useful Statistic?
What makes a statistic useful? I'd say two factors go into it.
Which brings us to our question. Is OPS a useful statistic? The answer, for the most part, is no.
I have no qualms with the theoretical side of OPS, and I have no problem with an attempt to generate a new statistic that helps people (both insiders and outside observers) know more about players. My problem is that adding those two statistics together is the most simple and illogical thing you can do.
I offer this illustration of my point. I have two quarters and four pennies in my pocket. How useful is it for me to say I have six "moneys" in my pocket? Or should I maybe try to think of some other way to convey what I've got in my pocket (like 54 cents)? OPS just seems like a lazy stat.
Furthermore, we all learned in elementary school that you can't add fractions that have different denominators. In order to add 1/3 to 1/4, you have to convert them. The maximum possible OBP is 1.000, if you reach base in every plate appearance. The maximum possible SLG is 4.000, if you were to hit a home run in every plate appearance. OPS basically says that .4/1 + .6/4 = 1. The math itself tells you that the statistic is flawed.
Let's go back to the two criteria I cited.
First, does OPS reflect the characteristics it's trying to portray? Well, sort of. The guys with the highest OPSs are generally the best hitters, but I have a hard time saying that the order of players' ranks in OPS is indicative of how effective they were at the plate. I can't really get behind the idea that Joey Votto had a better 2009 than Mark Teixeira. And it seems impossible that J.D. Drew was a better hitter than Evan Longoria, Ryan Zimmerman, and Victor Martinez last year.
But I think it's the second question that puts OPS completely out to pasture. What exactly does OPS mean? Ryan Howard had .931...whatevers? Units of OPS? OPS percentage? I'm willing to yield a little bit on slugging percentage (which as I mentioned is out of 4.000, rather than 1.000), because it's been around forever, and because it's got a specific formula whose result makes sense (total bases/plate appearances). It should probably be called "slugging ratio" or "slugging rate," but the name won't be changed. Regardless, the actual rates are useful; they tell us who makes the most out of their PAs. Prince Fielder slugged .602 last year, which means that over ten plate appearances, he would generate six total bases (e.g. a home run and two singles, or three doubles, or a double, two walks and two singles).
I think there is a stat out there waiting to be created that can combine this information into a useful, effective number. Heck, it probably already exists as VORP or runs created, two stats I don't really appreciate because they're not on Yahoo's player pages. I just know one thing: the stat we're looking for is not OPS.
- How well does the statistic reflect the characteristics it's trying to portray? On-base percentage is a pretty good example; it does a great job of representing how frequently a player reaches base.
- How easy is it to derive that information? Again, let's look at on-base percentage. If a player has a career OBP of exactly .400 (like Brian Giles), then you can say that, ignoring anomalies, he was able to reach first base and avoid generating an out in 40% of his plate appearances. Simple, straight to the point.
Which brings us to our question. Is OPS a useful statistic? The answer, for the most part, is no.
I have no qualms with the theoretical side of OPS, and I have no problem with an attempt to generate a new statistic that helps people (both insiders and outside observers) know more about players. My problem is that adding those two statistics together is the most simple and illogical thing you can do.
I offer this illustration of my point. I have two quarters and four pennies in my pocket. How useful is it for me to say I have six "moneys" in my pocket? Or should I maybe try to think of some other way to convey what I've got in my pocket (like 54 cents)? OPS just seems like a lazy stat.
Furthermore, we all learned in elementary school that you can't add fractions that have different denominators. In order to add 1/3 to 1/4, you have to convert them. The maximum possible OBP is 1.000, if you reach base in every plate appearance. The maximum possible SLG is 4.000, if you were to hit a home run in every plate appearance. OPS basically says that .4/1 + .6/4 = 1. The math itself tells you that the statistic is flawed.
Let's go back to the two criteria I cited.
First, does OPS reflect the characteristics it's trying to portray? Well, sort of. The guys with the highest OPSs are generally the best hitters, but I have a hard time saying that the order of players' ranks in OPS is indicative of how effective they were at the plate. I can't really get behind the idea that Joey Votto had a better 2009 than Mark Teixeira. And it seems impossible that J.D. Drew was a better hitter than Evan Longoria, Ryan Zimmerman, and Victor Martinez last year.
But I think it's the second question that puts OPS completely out to pasture. What exactly does OPS mean? Ryan Howard had .931...whatevers? Units of OPS? OPS percentage? I'm willing to yield a little bit on slugging percentage (which as I mentioned is out of 4.000, rather than 1.000), because it's been around forever, and because it's got a specific formula whose result makes sense (total bases/plate appearances). It should probably be called "slugging ratio" or "slugging rate," but the name won't be changed. Regardless, the actual rates are useful; they tell us who makes the most out of their PAs. Prince Fielder slugged .602 last year, which means that over ten plate appearances, he would generate six total bases (e.g. a home run and two singles, or three doubles, or a double, two walks and two singles).
I think there is a stat out there waiting to be created that can combine this information into a useful, effective number. Heck, it probably already exists as VORP or runs created, two stats I don't really appreciate because they're not on Yahoo's player pages. I just know one thing: the stat we're looking for is not OPS.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
NCAA Tournament Expansion "Probable"
I read on ESPN today that Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany indicated that expansion of the NCAA men's basketball tournament from 65 to 96 was "probable." It sounds like a big mistake, for two major reasons.
First, the basketball side of things. Further diluting the tournament doesn't seem like my idea of making the tournament more fun. And you have to think that a lot of those teams will be the middle-of-the-pack power conference teams. I know that, because 14 of the 32 NIT teams were from BCS conferences. You'd also presumably be giving some teams a first round bye, which means that a lot of those bottom-seeded teams, the 14, 15, and 16 seeds, won't get a chance to play Kentucky or Duke. Instead, they'll have to face off against N.C. State or Dayton just to get a chance to get walloped.
Will it create the opportunity for more upsets? Sure. Siena has a much better chance of beating Northwestern than they do of beating Syracuse. But you watch because every once in a while, you get a game like Ohio vs. Georgetown this year, or Iowa State vs. Hampton from back in 2001. You watch because the upsets seem so improbable, and the big ones are so rare.
Additionally, from a business standpoint, I think expansion is a mistake. You've got a great thing going, where the first round games account for over a billion dollars in lost productivity, a tremendous amount of Internet traffic, a massive afternoon ratings boost for CBS, and probably increased business for sports bars and restaurants. It's essentially a sports fan's holiday. And I haven't heard any logical way for that excitement to be preserved in an expanded bracket.
Speaking of brackets, how on Earth are you going to fit 96 teams on one sheet of paper so you can cross off your picks as they (inevitably) get bounced?
The one thing that's been good about Delany's comment is the discussion it's prompted in the sports world. Doug Gottlieb has his opinion, all of my local sportscasters have theirs, and I had a discussion in the office today with a couple of co-workers about positives and negatives. One suggested that he'd be alright with adding more teams as long as there was some effort to ensure that most of those additional bids went to schools in small or mid-major conferences, and I echo his sentiment on that. Teams should have to earn their way into the tournament; Kent State (24-10, 13-3 in the MAC) accomplished more in 2009-2010 than N.C. State (20-16, 5-11 in the ACC), so they are more deserving of an NCAA tournament bid in my book.
One thing we can all agree on, though. Even 96 teams would be better than the BCS.
First, the basketball side of things. Further diluting the tournament doesn't seem like my idea of making the tournament more fun. And you have to think that a lot of those teams will be the middle-of-the-pack power conference teams. I know that, because 14 of the 32 NIT teams were from BCS conferences. You'd also presumably be giving some teams a first round bye, which means that a lot of those bottom-seeded teams, the 14, 15, and 16 seeds, won't get a chance to play Kentucky or Duke. Instead, they'll have to face off against N.C. State or Dayton just to get a chance to get walloped.
Will it create the opportunity for more upsets? Sure. Siena has a much better chance of beating Northwestern than they do of beating Syracuse. But you watch because every once in a while, you get a game like Ohio vs. Georgetown this year, or Iowa State vs. Hampton from back in 2001. You watch because the upsets seem so improbable, and the big ones are so rare.
Additionally, from a business standpoint, I think expansion is a mistake. You've got a great thing going, where the first round games account for over a billion dollars in lost productivity, a tremendous amount of Internet traffic, a massive afternoon ratings boost for CBS, and probably increased business for sports bars and restaurants. It's essentially a sports fan's holiday. And I haven't heard any logical way for that excitement to be preserved in an expanded bracket.
Speaking of brackets, how on Earth are you going to fit 96 teams on one sheet of paper so you can cross off your picks as they (inevitably) get bounced?
The one thing that's been good about Delany's comment is the discussion it's prompted in the sports world. Doug Gottlieb has his opinion, all of my local sportscasters have theirs, and I had a discussion in the office today with a couple of co-workers about positives and negatives. One suggested that he'd be alright with adding more teams as long as there was some effort to ensure that most of those additional bids went to schools in small or mid-major conferences, and I echo his sentiment on that. Teams should have to earn their way into the tournament; Kent State (24-10, 13-3 in the MAC) accomplished more in 2009-2010 than N.C. State (20-16, 5-11 in the ACC), so they are more deserving of an NCAA tournament bid in my book.
One thing we can all agree on, though. Even 96 teams would be better than the BCS.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
New NFL Overtime Rules
So it looks like the NFL will be adopting a change to the playoff overtime rules. Owners voted this week to adopt the following changes:
Got it? It's actually not all that complicated, despite Sean Payton's whining.
In fact, it sounds like there are a decent number of people who really dislike this rule change. There are also a lot of people who think it's about time. I fall into neither category.
I never really thought that a team that went to overtime and got beat on the first possession had much to gripe about. When you go to overtime, that means that you didn't play well enough during regulation to win the game. You have 60 minutes of regulation to prove you're the superior team. When you go to overtime, you're getting extra time to make a play because fans generally don't like ties. But getting an overtime possession isn't your "right."
By the same token, I don't have a problem with extending football games a little bit, if they reach overtime. It will create more dramatic, do-or-die situations at the end of a couple of games, and I'm alright with that.
I didn't need the overtime rules to be changed, but I'm fine with the fact that they were.
Now, college football overtime rules are just a bastardization of football, and should be abolished.
If the team that wins the coin toss scores a field goal on their opening possession, the opposing team will have one possession to tie or win the game. If the team receiving the ball second also scores a field goal, the game will go into a sudden death format, where the first team to score next will win.
If the team that wins the coin toss scores a touchdown on their opening possession, they will win the game.
If the team that wins the coin toss does not score on their opening possession, the game will go into a sudden death format, where the first team to score next will win.
Got it? It's actually not all that complicated, despite Sean Payton's whining.
In fact, it sounds like there are a decent number of people who really dislike this rule change. There are also a lot of people who think it's about time. I fall into neither category.
I never really thought that a team that went to overtime and got beat on the first possession had much to gripe about. When you go to overtime, that means that you didn't play well enough during regulation to win the game. You have 60 minutes of regulation to prove you're the superior team. When you go to overtime, you're getting extra time to make a play because fans generally don't like ties. But getting an overtime possession isn't your "right."
By the same token, I don't have a problem with extending football games a little bit, if they reach overtime. It will create more dramatic, do-or-die situations at the end of a couple of games, and I'm alright with that.
I didn't need the overtime rules to be changed, but I'm fine with the fact that they were.
Now, college football overtime rules are just a bastardization of football, and should be abolished.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Drafting For Wins
Fantasy baseball is a funny thing. I'm in a competitive, 12-team keeper league that's been running since 2004, and I've got one championship and another season in which I finished in second place. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how to get wins. In six years, only once have I finished any better than 9th in wins, and that year I finished 6th, the year I took home the title. I've never eked into the top five in wins, making it seem less like an anomaly and more like a problem.
So, naturally, I came up with a list of ways to try to fix this problem. Six ways, in fact, which I've sorted from most important to least important, and which I've tried to take into account during my off-season and draft. Now that the draft has concluded, I'll share with you my logic, and give some examples of players that suit the examples (players on my roster will be bolded).
Scherzer is kind of a question mark, though I like the fact that he'll play Cleveland and Kansas City several times this season. I'm expecting a bounce back season from Kazmir, who pitched lights out in his brief stint in Anaheim at the end of 2009. Sanchez basically just seemed like a guy who had far too much strikeout potential to leave on the board any longer. Plus he's got San Francisco as a home ballpark, not too shabby.
Phil Hughes could be the linchpin. If he can make the rotation and pitch effectively, he'll be in one of the better situations out there, with a very solid bullpen and of course an elite offense backing him up.
Two things I didn't take into account but I'm going to watch this year, and consider incorporating next year:
Defense
For the most part, I'll be looking at Seattle, since they're lauded as having made several defense-first moves in the offseason. But I'll also look at the whole league and find the best defenses and see how their starters fared.
Rotation Spot
Obviously the very elite pitchers are aces, and you'll find some very good #2 pitchers out there. But theoretically, a high caliber pitcher who's slotted as the #3 or #4 starter will frequently have favorable pitching matchups, giving his offense more chances to give him run support. Jonathan Sanchez could be a beneficiary of a favorable rotation spot this season. Again, it's something I'll look at as the season goes on.
This was a fun mental exercise, and I feel pretty good about its potential to help my team. I've got a couple of other ideas for next year, too, to chase other statistics. Keep tuning in.
So, naturally, I came up with a list of ways to try to fix this problem. Six ways, in fact, which I've sorted from most important to least important, and which I've tried to take into account during my off-season and draft. Now that the draft has concluded, I'll share with you my logic, and give some examples of players that suit the examples (players on my roster will be bolded).
- Talent
(examples: Tim Lincecum, Zack Greinke, Roy Halladay)
First and foremost, the best pitchers are the most likely to get wins. The reason being, of course, that they tend to give up the fewest runs, and put their offenses in a position to be able to score enough runs to win. Moreover, drafting pitchers who aren't the best available is a surefire way to get yourself into trouble quickly. I generally used talent as the main determining factor, and went to the subsequent factors when talent was very close. - Winning Teams
(examples: Jon Lester, Javier Vazquez, Scott Kazmir)
Teams that are perennially successful will put their pitchers into positions to win more games. The logic is simple, but it's something that I've let slip my mind in the past. This year, I traded for Jon Lester and drafted Scott Kazmir, hoping that their teams' successes would continue to provide winning opportunities for starting pitchers. - Frequent Favorable Opponents (aka the Central divisions)
(examples: Adam Wainwright, Jake Peavy, Max Scherzer)
Sort of a partner to #2, if you draft a starter who pitches against below average teams often, he's more likely to win games. The AL Central boasted two 65-win teams (Cleveland and Kansas City), and four of the six teams in the NL Central finished below .500. The logic here also follows with spot-starters. If Jeff Francis has a start against the Padres coming up, maybe grab him for that game. Of course, I've used that logic in past seasons, and it's blown up in my face as often as not, but something to keep in mind at least. - Innings Eaters
(examples: Cliff Lee, James Shields, Bronson Arroyo)
This concept is based on the idea that the more innings you pitch, the greater your opportunity for wins, as per the rules of baseball. And, generally, if your pitcher pitches a lot of innings, he's pitching well enough to win most of the time. I didn't end up taking a specific "innings eater," but I've got plenty of guys who pitch enough. - Great Bullpens
(examples: Daisuke Matsuzaka, Brett Anderson, A.J. Burnett)
Through similar logic to the innings eaters, drafting players on teams with great bullpens also should increase your chances at your starter getting a win. You'd like for your starter to be able to hand a lead over to the bullpen and have it hold up for the win. Our two local teams, the Nationals and Orioles, had utterly dismal bullpens last year, and that was part of the reason their pitchers were mostly un-ownable (another part was that they mostly weren't any good). - Pitchers' Parks
(examples: Jonathan Sanchez, Kevin Correia, Rick Porcello)
Getting a guy who spends his home games in a pitcher's park is always favorable. The problem, though, is that it favors the pitchers for both teams. This can put your pitcher's supporting offense in just as undesirable a situation as your opponent's. Going with a pitcher's park is much more conducive to finding low ERA and WHIP numbers for your pitching staff, rather than wins.
- Zack Greinke (K) - 15 wins, 223 Ks, 3.00/1.19
- Jon Lester (K) - 18 wins, 209 Ks, 3.23/1.22
- Clayton Kershaw (K) - 8 wins, 211 Ks, 3.31/1.22
- Max Scherzer (12) - 10 wins, 177 Ks, 3.78/1.31
- Scott Kazmir (13) - 12 wins, 142 Ks, 3.95/1.31
- Jonathan Sanchez (15) -12 wins, 210 Ks, 4.18/1.41
- Phil Hughes (18) - 13 wins, 146 Ks, 3.74/1.29
Scherzer is kind of a question mark, though I like the fact that he'll play Cleveland and Kansas City several times this season. I'm expecting a bounce back season from Kazmir, who pitched lights out in his brief stint in Anaheim at the end of 2009. Sanchez basically just seemed like a guy who had far too much strikeout potential to leave on the board any longer. Plus he's got San Francisco as a home ballpark, not too shabby.
Phil Hughes could be the linchpin. If he can make the rotation and pitch effectively, he'll be in one of the better situations out there, with a very solid bullpen and of course an elite offense backing him up.
Two things I didn't take into account but I'm going to watch this year, and consider incorporating next year:
Defense
For the most part, I'll be looking at Seattle, since they're lauded as having made several defense-first moves in the offseason. But I'll also look at the whole league and find the best defenses and see how their starters fared.
Rotation Spot
Obviously the very elite pitchers are aces, and you'll find some very good #2 pitchers out there. But theoretically, a high caliber pitcher who's slotted as the #3 or #4 starter will frequently have favorable pitching matchups, giving his offense more chances to give him run support. Jonathan Sanchez could be a beneficiary of a favorable rotation spot this season. Again, it's something I'll look at as the season goes on.
This was a fun mental exercise, and I feel pretty good about its potential to help my team. I've got a couple of other ideas for next year, too, to chase other statistics. Keep tuning in.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Fantasy Basketball - A New Take
I've played the standard fantasy basketball games, with and without little tweaks, and I've generally found it to be unexciting. I don't know if it's owed to the nature of basketball, where statistics are accumulated in great numbers every game, or if it's because I'm not a huge basketball fan, or some other explanation, but it seems like fantasy basketball is an unnecessary exercise.
So this year, I decided to go beyond the "little tweaks," and create a wholly original basketball league. The frame of the league will be a standard rotisserie head-to-head setup, where each owner plays against just one other owner each week. The teams accumulate statistics, and the team with more of each tracked statistic gains one win; the other team gets one loss. So, if in a league with standard settings team A has more points, rebounds, three-pointers, assists, steals, and blocks, team B has better cumulative field goal and free throw percentages, and they have exactly the same number of turnovers, team A will get 6-2-1 added to their season record, and team B will get 2-6-1 added to theirs. It's a little convoluted, and I'm generally not in favor of this system.
BUT, I've made wholesale changes from the standard scoring system, and I think it might just create a pretty fun fantasy basketball system. We keep the framework, as I said, where it's rotisserie head-to-head. However, we use only one category: points. Percentages don't matter, assists don't matter, turnovers don't matter. The only thing that matters is pure, bulk points. Chris Paul and Marcus Camby get dropped dramatically in this system, and pure scorers like Jamal Crawford and Richard Jefferson get a bump.
Certainly I don't have to explain that this system is simpler; it takes a nine-category system and changes it to a one-category system. It's easier to evaluate talent, because you're not looking at whether or not a player's scoring and rebounds will counteract a poor free throw percentage (Dwight Howard), or sacrificing scoring to pick up a spread of other statistics (Shane Battier). It's straightforward and unsophisticated.
Are there problems with a system like this? Of course. Its simplicity results in far fewer opportunities for strategy. And the default rankings will be somewhat useless when it comes to draft day. But the standard system, which has plenty of strategy integrated, hasn't been entertaining to me. So why the hell not try something else?
There are a couple of positives about this bizarre setup:
League ID: 115478
Password: points
Hoop it up!
So this year, I decided to go beyond the "little tweaks," and create a wholly original basketball league. The frame of the league will be a standard rotisserie head-to-head setup, where each owner plays against just one other owner each week. The teams accumulate statistics, and the team with more of each tracked statistic gains one win; the other team gets one loss. So, if in a league with standard settings team A has more points, rebounds, three-pointers, assists, steals, and blocks, team B has better cumulative field goal and free throw percentages, and they have exactly the same number of turnovers, team A will get 6-2-1 added to their season record, and team B will get 2-6-1 added to theirs. It's a little convoluted, and I'm generally not in favor of this system.
BUT, I've made wholesale changes from the standard scoring system, and I think it might just create a pretty fun fantasy basketball system. We keep the framework, as I said, where it's rotisserie head-to-head. However, we use only one category: points. Percentages don't matter, assists don't matter, turnovers don't matter. The only thing that matters is pure, bulk points. Chris Paul and Marcus Camby get dropped dramatically in this system, and pure scorers like Jamal Crawford and Richard Jefferson get a bump.
Certainly I don't have to explain that this system is simpler; it takes a nine-category system and changes it to a one-category system. It's easier to evaluate talent, because you're not looking at whether or not a player's scoring and rebounds will counteract a poor free throw percentage (Dwight Howard), or sacrificing scoring to pick up a spread of other statistics (Shane Battier). It's straightforward and unsophisticated.
Are there problems with a system like this? Of course. Its simplicity results in far fewer opportunities for strategy. And the default rankings will be somewhat useless when it comes to draft day. But the standard system, which has plenty of strategy integrated, hasn't been entertaining to me. So why the hell not try something else?
There are a couple of positives about this bizarre setup:
- You don't find yourself rooting for strange things, like wanting your opponents' players to score, because you don't want him to get assists.
- It's easy to track when your players are doing well, and easy to root for them when you're watching the games.
- Likewise, it's easy to track/root against your opponents' performances.
- People who show up for the draft have a decided advantage over those who skip out, as you're able to evaluate players solely based on their point production.
League ID: 115478
Password: points
Hoop it up!
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Stephen Strasburg Still Without Contract
Stephen Strasburg, the pitching phenom from San Diego State, remains unsigned with just a few days left until the deadline. This was expected. The Nationals did not want a long negotiation to drive the price up but we are now entering crunch time. It is in Strasburg’s best interest to sign and it is in the National’s best interest to sign Strasburg. The X-Factor is agent Scott Boras.
Why Should Strasburg Sign? Strasburg is a flamethrower. And flamethrowers burn out. It’s in the definition, somewhere towards the back I think. He could go back to school or play independent ball. This is where I tend to get lost in the math. How could it make more financial sense to not sign that first contract and get the clock ticking so that you can hit free agency for the real pay day? Mark Prior was huge coming out of school and still got around a $10 million contract. Is Strasburg viewed as being five times as valuable as Prior was then? Nope. And at the time Prior was praised because his delivery would not lead to arm problems. Wrong, but it led to how he was valued at the time. I have not heard the same sentiment about Strasburg. He will probably be offered around $15-$20 million, doubling up Prior, and he should take it.
Why the Should the Nationals Sign Strasburg? Because he is supposed to be the best? The Nationals knew what Strasburg/Boras would be looking for in terms of a contract when they drafted him. It would have been by no means the first time that the best player in the draft would be passed over for a more affordable option. But they took him so they should probably finish it. Generally speaking, the Nationals don’t give their fans a whole lot to come out to the park to see. The Dmitri Young Renaissance in 2007 was nice, but Strasburg could be an even bigger deal in DC (hard to imagine). Speaking of Young, he was given a 2 year $10M extension for his work in 2007 so the Nats aren’t that tight on money.
What is Boras up to? Boras is trying to get Strasburg the most money he can. This is what Strasburg is paying Boras to do, so that checks out. The problem is that I don’t see how Strasburg is going to make more money in next year’s draft. So he should sign now. Obviously the Nationals want to sign him but know that Strasburg does too. However, if Strasburg were not to sign and re-enter the draft, that scenario would help Boras in his negotiations with future top rated college and high school prospects. The team will know that Boras is willing to let his client go unsigned. He may do that if he feels the memory of Philadelphia’s selection of JD Drew is fading. JD Drew signed a contract with the Dodgers (opting out two years into it) and the Red Sox that were both worth more than $10M per season. He would have been able to get one more of those if he had a year earlier. Once again, we see that skipping a year does not pay.
What should the Nationals do once if they Sign Strasburg? They probably shouldn’t let him pitch this year, at least for the big league team. However, next year if he looks good in spring training, I’d bring him up. I’m just never sure how many bullets a guy that throws that hard has, so they might as well be shot at the big league level. It will also boost attendance significantly when he does pitch. Now all the Nats need to do is get the first pick again and draft/sign Bryce Harper, a likely Scott Boras client…
Why Should Strasburg Sign? Strasburg is a flamethrower. And flamethrowers burn out. It’s in the definition, somewhere towards the back I think. He could go back to school or play independent ball. This is where I tend to get lost in the math. How could it make more financial sense to not sign that first contract and get the clock ticking so that you can hit free agency for the real pay day? Mark Prior was huge coming out of school and still got around a $10 million contract. Is Strasburg viewed as being five times as valuable as Prior was then? Nope. And at the time Prior was praised because his delivery would not lead to arm problems. Wrong, but it led to how he was valued at the time. I have not heard the same sentiment about Strasburg. He will probably be offered around $15-$20 million, doubling up Prior, and he should take it.
Why the Should the Nationals Sign Strasburg? Because he is supposed to be the best? The Nationals knew what Strasburg/Boras would be looking for in terms of a contract when they drafted him. It would have been by no means the first time that the best player in the draft would be passed over for a more affordable option. But they took him so they should probably finish it. Generally speaking, the Nationals don’t give their fans a whole lot to come out to the park to see. The Dmitri Young Renaissance in 2007 was nice, but Strasburg could be an even bigger deal in DC (hard to imagine). Speaking of Young, he was given a 2 year $10M extension for his work in 2007 so the Nats aren’t that tight on money.
What is Boras up to? Boras is trying to get Strasburg the most money he can. This is what Strasburg is paying Boras to do, so that checks out. The problem is that I don’t see how Strasburg is going to make more money in next year’s draft. So he should sign now. Obviously the Nationals want to sign him but know that Strasburg does too. However, if Strasburg were not to sign and re-enter the draft, that scenario would help Boras in his negotiations with future top rated college and high school prospects. The team will know that Boras is willing to let his client go unsigned. He may do that if he feels the memory of Philadelphia’s selection of JD Drew is fading. JD Drew signed a contract with the Dodgers (opting out two years into it) and the Red Sox that were both worth more than $10M per season. He would have been able to get one more of those if he had a year earlier. Once again, we see that skipping a year does not pay.
What should the Nationals do once if they Sign Strasburg? They probably shouldn’t let him pitch this year, at least for the big league team. However, next year if he looks good in spring training, I’d bring him up. I’m just never sure how many bullets a guy that throws that hard has, so they might as well be shot at the big league level. It will also boost attendance significantly when he does pitch. Now all the Nats need to do is get the first pick again and draft/sign Bryce Harper, a likely Scott Boras client…
Monday, April 27, 2009
Re-Seeding: A Really Stupid Idea
I was discussing the NHL playoffs with a friend, and he mentioned that the teams in the Eastern Conference who had won their series already would have to wait until Tuesday night to find out who they'll play in the second round. I was confused, and asked for clarification: "What are you talking about? The Bruins were the #1 seed, the Penguins the #4 seed. They'll play each other."
"No," he says. "If the Rangers beat the Caps, they'll play the Bruins. Otherwise, the Bruins will play the winner of the other game." I was astonished. The NHL re-seeds teams after the first round. The NFL does the same thing and I don't like it. I enjoy being able to fill in a bracket when talking about playoff predictions. I like being able to map out the "road to the Super Bowl" for different teams, and with re-seeding, you can't really do that until after the first round games have been played.
What are the advantages of re-seeding? No, seriously, I'm asking. What does it do? It ensures that the highest-seeded team remaining will play the lowest-seeded team remaining in the second round. So, for example, if Anaheim completes the upset against #1 seeded San Jose, their reward will be to head to Detroit and face off against the third best team in hockey this season. I think that's just dumb. By beating San Jose, the Ducks should earn the opportunity to play against the 4/5 winner, not the opportunity to get thrown up against the boards by the Red Wings.
And that's not even the best argument against re-seeding your playoff teams. Think about the best postseason in sports: the NCAA Men's Basketball Championship Tournament. You may know it as March Madness, and it's one of the most widespread and exciting playoff in the world. Everyone fills out a bracket (or twelve), everyone checks scores all day long at work, everyone goes out to bars and restaurants to watch some of the games, everyone has something to talk about to everyone else between Selection Sunday and the national championship on Monday, three weeks later. It's as important as the Super Bowl when it comes to market penetration into people's everyday lives.
Now, add in a re-seeding mechanism, where #1 seeds would play the lowest seed remaining in their bracket. What happens? You lose the brackets. You lose the opportunity to project matchups through the middle rounds, because you don't know who will be playing who. By making that change, you'd be essentially crippling the marketing machine that is Bracketology. There is, of course, no way it would ever happen, but for some reason, the NHL and NFL have both decided it's a good idea. I just don't see how you gain anything from it, and you take away a little of the sports talk radio discussion you could have on it, by eliminating the possibility of a "full playoff preview show," where the commentators predict the playoffs all the way through.
Hmm...sports talk radio discussion...we'll have to get into that again sometime.
"No," he says. "If the Rangers beat the Caps, they'll play the Bruins. Otherwise, the Bruins will play the winner of the other game." I was astonished. The NHL re-seeds teams after the first round. The NFL does the same thing and I don't like it. I enjoy being able to fill in a bracket when talking about playoff predictions. I like being able to map out the "road to the Super Bowl" for different teams, and with re-seeding, you can't really do that until after the first round games have been played.
What are the advantages of re-seeding? No, seriously, I'm asking. What does it do? It ensures that the highest-seeded team remaining will play the lowest-seeded team remaining in the second round. So, for example, if Anaheim completes the upset against #1 seeded San Jose, their reward will be to head to Detroit and face off against the third best team in hockey this season. I think that's just dumb. By beating San Jose, the Ducks should earn the opportunity to play against the 4/5 winner, not the opportunity to get thrown up against the boards by the Red Wings.
And that's not even the best argument against re-seeding your playoff teams. Think about the best postseason in sports: the NCAA Men's Basketball Championship Tournament. You may know it as March Madness, and it's one of the most widespread and exciting playoff in the world. Everyone fills out a bracket (or twelve), everyone checks scores all day long at work, everyone goes out to bars and restaurants to watch some of the games, everyone has something to talk about to everyone else between Selection Sunday and the national championship on Monday, three weeks later. It's as important as the Super Bowl when it comes to market penetration into people's everyday lives.
Now, add in a re-seeding mechanism, where #1 seeds would play the lowest seed remaining in their bracket. What happens? You lose the brackets. You lose the opportunity to project matchups through the middle rounds, because you don't know who will be playing who. By making that change, you'd be essentially crippling the marketing machine that is Bracketology. There is, of course, no way it would ever happen, but for some reason, the NHL and NFL have both decided it's a good idea. I just don't see how you gain anything from it, and you take away a little of the sports talk radio discussion you could have on it, by eliminating the possibility of a "full playoff preview show," where the commentators predict the playoffs all the way through.
Hmm...sports talk radio discussion...we'll have to get into that again sometime.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
How To Get Kids To Stay In School
In case you forget, here's the draft projections that I suggested might hold the key to keeping kids in school.
Check out those salaries. In case you were unaware, players selected in the NBA draft have pre-determined salaries. They are assigned 2-year contracts with 2 more years as team options. Derrick Rose, last year's #1 overall pick, will average under $5 million a year over the first four years of his career. Corey Maggette, a career 16.3 point-per-game scorer who's thirty years old and hasn't started 70 games in any of the past five seasons, signed a contract last offseason that will pay him an average of $9.5 million a year over next five years. Rose, by the way, is averaging 16.6 points per game in this, his rookie, season.
The discrepancy here is that incoming college players don't get to negotiate their contracts; they're assigned a value. In this small part of the American economy, capitalism is completely ignored. In the sport where one player can make the biggest difference, and where the teams at the bottom of the draft are in more desperate need of superstar talents, those superstar talents are not being allowed to negotiate within the market to try to obtain their true value. I believe that this is contributing to the exodus of great college players from college basketball. How? I'll try to draw you the line.
I am a very good college freshman basketball player. I'm not the best player around, but everyone likes me and I'm sure to go around pick #15. In the current draft system, I'll make about $1.7 million a year for the first couple of years, then be eligible for free agency. As long as I play well and show promise, I'll get at least $5 million a year, and potentially a good deal more if I can really excel in my role. I don't have to be a superstar, because I'm young, and it takes time for people my age to grow into their NBA bodies.
I could stay another year and improve my draft stock to around #8, but the advantage is only $700K per year for those first four years. Sure that's a lot of money, but it keeps me another year away from my big payday. A little chart to compare (option A is to stay in college another year; option B is to leave now):
Do I think this is the only factor? No, of course not. Lots of players don't want to go to school at all, but end up doing so for a year because the NBA created a rule requiring players to be 19 to be eligible for the draft. This rule again is artificially skewing the market. Who exactly is our cautionary tale among high school players? Certainly not Dwight Howard, LeBron James, Kevin Garnett, or Kobe Bryant, for these players are all superstars. Then perhaps it's the ill-fated 2001 crop of high schoolers: Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, and Sagana Diop. Well, each of them is making at least $4 million this year.
No, this isn't for the good of the players. It's an image thing. The average, ignorant American thinks that it's "wrong" for an 18-year-old to be making millions of dollars, so they shout about how these kids should be forced to go to school, "for their benefit." All of the cries were that these kids should be forced to go to school because, hey, maybe they actually want to go to school; we're just giving them an easy way out. Turns out they all stay one year and then head to the pros anyways. So now, the discussion has moved to a 20-year-old minimum age.
If your goal is to have a greater number of people enrolled as freshman in college, then the 19-year-old limitation is a great idea. But if your idea is to re-establish the continuity that made college basketball great for so many years (which is really all I care about), then allowing elite high school players to enter the NBA draft will prevent them from being the one-and-done players who skew college basketball from year to year (see the aforementioned Rose).
Do I wish the best 18- to 22-year-old basketball players were all playing college basketball and helping to make the NCAA tournament as good as its ever been? Of course I do. But I'd rather watch the same sons of bitches at Duke for four years than get annoyed at a new bunch of bastards at UNC every year. So open up the contract negotiations, and let high schoolers go into the NBA draft. We'll get over ourselves eventually.
Check out those salaries. In case you were unaware, players selected in the NBA draft have pre-determined salaries. They are assigned 2-year contracts with 2 more years as team options. Derrick Rose, last year's #1 overall pick, will average under $5 million a year over the first four years of his career. Corey Maggette, a career 16.3 point-per-game scorer who's thirty years old and hasn't started 70 games in any of the past five seasons, signed a contract last offseason that will pay him an average of $9.5 million a year over next five years. Rose, by the way, is averaging 16.6 points per game in this, his rookie, season.
The discrepancy here is that incoming college players don't get to negotiate their contracts; they're assigned a value. In this small part of the American economy, capitalism is completely ignored. In the sport where one player can make the biggest difference, and where the teams at the bottom of the draft are in more desperate need of superstar talents, those superstar talents are not being allowed to negotiate within the market to try to obtain their true value. I believe that this is contributing to the exodus of great college players from college basketball. How? I'll try to draw you the line.
I am a very good college freshman basketball player. I'm not the best player around, but everyone likes me and I'm sure to go around pick #15. In the current draft system, I'll make about $1.7 million a year for the first couple of years, then be eligible for free agency. As long as I play well and show promise, I'll get at least $5 million a year, and potentially a good deal more if I can really excel in my role. I don't have to be a superstar, because I'm young, and it takes time for people my age to grow into their NBA bodies.
I could stay another year and improve my draft stock to around #8, but the advantage is only $700K per year for those first four years. Sure that's a lot of money, but it keeps me another year away from my big payday. A little chart to compare (option A is to stay in college another year; option B is to leave now):
- 2010: A - $0, B - $1.7M
- 2011: A - $2.1M, B - $1.85M
- 2012: A - $2.35M, B - $2.0M
- 2013: A - $2.5M, B - $2.55M
- 2014: A - $3.2M, B - FREE AGENCY
Do I think this is the only factor? No, of course not. Lots of players don't want to go to school at all, but end up doing so for a year because the NBA created a rule requiring players to be 19 to be eligible for the draft. This rule again is artificially skewing the market. Who exactly is our cautionary tale among high school players? Certainly not Dwight Howard, LeBron James, Kevin Garnett, or Kobe Bryant, for these players are all superstars. Then perhaps it's the ill-fated 2001 crop of high schoolers: Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, and Sagana Diop. Well, each of them is making at least $4 million this year.
No, this isn't for the good of the players. It's an image thing. The average, ignorant American thinks that it's "wrong" for an 18-year-old to be making millions of dollars, so they shout about how these kids should be forced to go to school, "for their benefit." All of the cries were that these kids should be forced to go to school because, hey, maybe they actually want to go to school; we're just giving them an easy way out. Turns out they all stay one year and then head to the pros anyways. So now, the discussion has moved to a 20-year-old minimum age.
If your goal is to have a greater number of people enrolled as freshman in college, then the 19-year-old limitation is a great idea. But if your idea is to re-establish the continuity that made college basketball great for so many years (which is really all I care about), then allowing elite high school players to enter the NBA draft will prevent them from being the one-and-done players who skew college basketball from year to year (see the aforementioned Rose).
Do I wish the best 18- to 22-year-old basketball players were all playing college basketball and helping to make the NCAA tournament as good as its ever been? Of course I do. But I'd rather watch the same sons of bitches at Duke for four years than get annoyed at a new bunch of bastards at UNC every year. So open up the contract negotiations, and let high schoolers go into the NBA draft. We'll get over ourselves eventually.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Anyone Else Miss The Old Tournament?
Remember back in the day, when there were superstar juniors and seniors in the NCAA tournament? Just a few years back in 2002 when Maryland won the title, their team featured a starting lineup with three seniors (Juan Dixon, Byron Mouton, Lonny Baxter), one junior (Steve Blake), and one sophomore (Chris Wilcox). Even in 2005, the North Carolina Tar Heels had two seniors and (Jackie Manuel and Jawad Williams) and three juniors (Ray Felton, Rashad McCants, Sean May) as their starters.
But the past few years have been most notable by the fact that the best players in college basketball stay for a single season and then go pro. We all understand the reasoning: money. And I don't think many of us are mad at the kids themselves for wanting to get paid to ply their craft; we're just mad that college basketball doesn't feature the long-term superstars these days. Tyler Hansbrough gets made fun of constantly, because he's stayed at North Carolina for four years. The talk is that he's "not good enough" to go pro, and the NBA draft preview sites concur.
Here's one more draft projection, and this is the one I want you to look at. When I was browsing around to see who my lowly Wizards might take in this year's NBA draft, a piece of data on here stood out to me. I think it might actually be the key to encouraging college players to stay in college. Can you spot it?
Stay tuned, I'll post my idea at the end of the tournament.
But the past few years have been most notable by the fact that the best players in college basketball stay for a single season and then go pro. We all understand the reasoning: money. And I don't think many of us are mad at the kids themselves for wanting to get paid to ply their craft; we're just mad that college basketball doesn't feature the long-term superstars these days. Tyler Hansbrough gets made fun of constantly, because he's stayed at North Carolina for four years. The talk is that he's "not good enough" to go pro, and the NBA draft preview sites concur.
Here's one more draft projection, and this is the one I want you to look at. When I was browsing around to see who my lowly Wizards might take in this year's NBA draft, a piece of data on here stood out to me. I think it might actually be the key to encouraging college players to stay in college. Can you spot it?
Stay tuned, I'll post my idea at the end of the tournament.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
A New Type of Baseball League?
In sitting around the office yesterday, thinking about random baseball things, I came up with what might be a revolutionary idea in fantasy baseball fun leagues. I say "fun leagues" because this idea would never fly in a money league or any league you would want to take even remotely seriously. And I say "might" because it could either be a stupid idea or an idea that loads of other people have already thought of and it still hasn't caught on. But I still think it could be pretty fun.
The idea is essentially drawn from the concept of a "shopping spree." You set up a Yahoo league with an offline draft, and set undrafted players to be free agents right away. Then, you get your whole league together in your chat room of choice (I use AIM, but Yahoo or gmail chat will probably work fine). Once everyone's in the chat room and ready, have your commissioner submit draft results and start the league. What draft results, you ask? None. All teams will have empty rosters when the league starts, and all players will be free agents when the league starts. Then it's a mad dash for all players.
The frantic pace of player acquisition has got to be insane, not unlike that of a shopping spree. You'll grab a guy, go through the process of attempting to add him, and suddenly you'll get an error message indicating that the player is on a team. Bam! Slap in the face, but no time to be pissed or find out who took him, you gotta move and grab someone else before they're gone, too.
So do you go for the top tier guys and trust that you'll get at least a couple of them, even though you'll likely miss out on several? Or do you go down the list a little bit with the belief that you're more likely to be able to grab them and give yourself a team that's deep? Do you forego hitting early on, knowing that most people will be targeting hitters, and try to solidify a great pitching staff? WHAT DO YOU DO?
We're planning on doing this in a fun league sometime in the fairly near future. I'll give you guys a run down on what happened after we do it. If you're interested in joining us, just send an email to Joe & Joe Sports.
The idea is essentially drawn from the concept of a "shopping spree." You set up a Yahoo league with an offline draft, and set undrafted players to be free agents right away. Then, you get your whole league together in your chat room of choice (I use AIM, but Yahoo or gmail chat will probably work fine). Once everyone's in the chat room and ready, have your commissioner submit draft results and start the league. What draft results, you ask? None. All teams will have empty rosters when the league starts, and all players will be free agents when the league starts. Then it's a mad dash for all players.
The frantic pace of player acquisition has got to be insane, not unlike that of a shopping spree. You'll grab a guy, go through the process of attempting to add him, and suddenly you'll get an error message indicating that the player is on a team. Bam! Slap in the face, but no time to be pissed or find out who took him, you gotta move and grab someone else before they're gone, too.
So do you go for the top tier guys and trust that you'll get at least a couple of them, even though you'll likely miss out on several? Or do you go down the list a little bit with the belief that you're more likely to be able to grab them and give yourself a team that's deep? Do you forego hitting early on, knowing that most people will be targeting hitters, and try to solidify a great pitching staff? WHAT DO YOU DO?
We're planning on doing this in a fun league sometime in the fairly near future. I'll give you guys a run down on what happened after we do it. If you're interested in joining us, just send an email to Joe & Joe Sports.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
A Pitching Revolution?
After watching Nate Robertson give up one hit through three innings a few weeks ago, I started to get pretty excited. A good outing from (the uncharacteristically strong so far this season) Robertson could really have bolstered my struggling pitching staff. Unfortunately, Robertson and the usually offensively challenged Seattle Mariners had other plans. By the time the fifth inning had ended, Robertson had been chased from the game, surrendering 6 runs and 9 hits over an inning and two-thirds.
While Robertson is by no means the reincarnation of Cy Young, he does have decent stuff and can get major league hitters out. Unfortunately for Nate, he was bitten by two "gotchas". First, it's tough in any sport to "lock it in" for a long period of time. Despite a rain delay, Robertson started the game focused and breezed through the Mariners lineup, but barring a truely special performance, that focus will wane sometime during the game. It's just too hard to be fully focused for over two hours every time a starter takes the hill. The second "gotcha" is that the more pitches a major league hitter sees against a pitcher, the greater the hitters chance of success. Despite being stymied for three innings, the Mariners used what they had seen from Robertson in their first at bats to go 9 for their next 16 and send Robertson to the showers. While I am certainly not a hitting coach, I bet seeing Robertson's release point and fastball during innings 1-3 lead to the Mariners success in innings 4 and 5.
Statistically there is definitely a drop off the second time a pitcher faces a lineup. Of the top 20 pitchers (by ERA as of 4/14), the average ERA increased from 1.10 the first time through the opponents lineup to 2.07 the second time. In fact, the only pitchers to significantly improve the second time through the line up were Josh Beckett and Brandon Looper, while 11 of the top 20 saw their ERA increase by over 0.9. Another example is John Smoltz. In the three years preceeding his move to the bullpen (and throwing out 2001 when he both started and relieved), Smoltz had an ERA of 3.04. During the three years that he was a closer, and following Tommy John surgery, his ERA dipped to 2.47. Of course upon his return to starting, Smoltz's ERA rose to 3.43.
Since baseball is a game of statistics, why would a manager allow his pitcher to remain in a situation where the advantage begins to slide toward the hitter? The answer, I suspect, is "that's how it has always been done." In the days before Tommy John surgery, pitchers regularly pitched 40+ games a season and often times did so while pitching complete games. Why would a manager send one guy to the hill that often? My guess is that there were fewer athletes with the ability to retire hitters in those days, so as a manager, you sent your stud out there as often as possible. These managers rarely used set-up men, closers or left handed specialists, mostly because the guy that started the game was the best for all situations (or at least perceived to be so). Today that is no longer the case, we know lefty-lefty match-ups tilt the odds toward the pitcher and that a closer has a better chance of getting the last three outs of ballgame than a starter who has already gone 8 innings.
Ok, so where does this revolution come in? If a pitcher is most effective the first time through a line up, why let them face the line up a second time? I propose using a "team of starters", three guys who pitch every three days and never face a line up for a second time. I predict this would be the best of both worlds, the "team of starters" would work on a set schedule, but would only be asked to focus in for three innings at most. Ideally a "team of starters" would be made up of a hard throwing righty, a crafty lefty and a guy who throws strikes (or a knuckleballer, those guys always screw up hitters). The idea would be that a hitter would be facing something completely different in his second at bat than he was in his first, increasing the pitchers chance of success.
Obviously this theory has some flaws. First a team would need nine "starters", teams have a hard time finding five quality starters, so nine might be a stretch. It also means that they would only have four additional bullpen spots. Any breakdown by the "starters" would require an effective mop up reliever. Second, it would cut number of innings that a manager would use his elite pitchers (of course those pitchers would be more effective and would effect more games). I'm guessing that a manager would be willing to pitcher his number one guy a little bit less to see his team give up 0.50 less runs per game.
While Robertson is by no means the reincarnation of Cy Young, he does have decent stuff and can get major league hitters out. Unfortunately for Nate, he was bitten by two "gotchas". First, it's tough in any sport to "lock it in" for a long period of time. Despite a rain delay, Robertson started the game focused and breezed through the Mariners lineup, but barring a truely special performance, that focus will wane sometime during the game. It's just too hard to be fully focused for over two hours every time a starter takes the hill. The second "gotcha" is that the more pitches a major league hitter sees against a pitcher, the greater the hitters chance of success. Despite being stymied for three innings, the Mariners used what they had seen from Robertson in their first at bats to go 9 for their next 16 and send Robertson to the showers. While I am certainly not a hitting coach, I bet seeing Robertson's release point and fastball during innings 1-3 lead to the Mariners success in innings 4 and 5.
Statistically there is definitely a drop off the second time a pitcher faces a lineup. Of the top 20 pitchers (by ERA as of 4/14), the average ERA increased from 1.10 the first time through the opponents lineup to 2.07 the second time. In fact, the only pitchers to significantly improve the second time through the line up were Josh Beckett and Brandon Looper, while 11 of the top 20 saw their ERA increase by over 0.9. Another example is John Smoltz. In the three years preceeding his move to the bullpen (and throwing out 2001 when he both started and relieved), Smoltz had an ERA of 3.04. During the three years that he was a closer, and following Tommy John surgery, his ERA dipped to 2.47. Of course upon his return to starting, Smoltz's ERA rose to 3.43.
Since baseball is a game of statistics, why would a manager allow his pitcher to remain in a situation where the advantage begins to slide toward the hitter? The answer, I suspect, is "that's how it has always been done." In the days before Tommy John surgery, pitchers regularly pitched 40+ games a season and often times did so while pitching complete games. Why would a manager send one guy to the hill that often? My guess is that there were fewer athletes with the ability to retire hitters in those days, so as a manager, you sent your stud out there as often as possible. These managers rarely used set-up men, closers or left handed specialists, mostly because the guy that started the game was the best for all situations (or at least perceived to be so). Today that is no longer the case, we know lefty-lefty match-ups tilt the odds toward the pitcher and that a closer has a better chance of getting the last three outs of ballgame than a starter who has already gone 8 innings.
Ok, so where does this revolution come in? If a pitcher is most effective the first time through a line up, why let them face the line up a second time? I propose using a "team of starters", three guys who pitch every three days and never face a line up for a second time. I predict this would be the best of both worlds, the "team of starters" would work on a set schedule, but would only be asked to focus in for three innings at most. Ideally a "team of starters" would be made up of a hard throwing righty, a crafty lefty and a guy who throws strikes (or a knuckleballer, those guys always screw up hitters). The idea would be that a hitter would be facing something completely different in his second at bat than he was in his first, increasing the pitchers chance of success.
Obviously this theory has some flaws. First a team would need nine "starters", teams have a hard time finding five quality starters, so nine might be a stretch. It also means that they would only have four additional bullpen spots. Any breakdown by the "starters" would require an effective mop up reliever. Second, it would cut number of innings that a manager would use his elite pitchers (of course those pitchers would be more effective and would effect more games). I'm guessing that a manager would be willing to pitcher his number one guy a little bit less to see his team give up 0.50 less runs per game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
When I think about why I'm making this blog post, I'm reminded of a memorable quote from my all-time favorite show, The West Wing : ...
-
We're making progress! I've got kind of a reputation for being way behind on movies and shows, a reputation well-earned. Even with t...
-
Games are a little tougher to judge, because frankly I play a lot of games that I don't finish, but often I don't finish them like, ...
