One Kid's Baseball Fantasy

Being that this is my first blog entry ever (yes, welcome to the new millenium CLauff), I thought I'd start it off with something a bit unexpected. You see, I often travel for work and am driving home late from the airport. With nothing much to do to help me stay awake, I often wander over to ESPN radio to catch Jim Rome or some other talking head. Last night, however, began as a whole different kind of talk show, hosted by ESPN Sportscenter anchor Scott Van Pelt.

As all of us toil away at our computers battling to become the next UPL fantasy baseball champion, Scott Van Pelt shared this story about a high school senior near Pittsburgh, PA who is in the battle of his life with cancer. One of his fantasies? To have one final at-bat in a high school baseball game before he dies. 5'5", 93 pound John Challis from Freedom High School got his opportunity as a pinch-hitter in a game in late April.

"He hasn't played in a few years, but he's called on to pinch-hit. His eyes light up at the first pitch and he puts all of his 5-foot-5, 93-pound frame into one mighty swing, making contact and sending a line drive into right field for a single -- if he can reach first base. The cancer he's been battling for almost two years has spread to his pelvis, making running nearly impossible."

Based on the state of his disease, standing up at the plate and swinging a bat was living a fantasy in and of itself. But the story continues.

"The kid worries about falling as he hustles down the first-base line. When he gets to the base, he lets out with a yell. "I did it! I did it!"

Safe at first with a hit and an RBI, the kid is hugged by a crying first-base coach. The opposing pitcher takes off his glove, starts applauding and his teammates follow suit. The kid's teammates run onto the field to celebrate."

In an age where we're always glued to our TV waiting for the next PacMan Jones story to unfold, John reminds us of the simple joys of life through the lens of sport. He'll never play college basketball, heck, will probably not live long enough to enter a fantasy baseball league and win a championship. But what he's leaving behind is much more valuable than winning a Roland Slam or hitting a Grand Slam or delivering a Body Slam.

"But listen to his mature views on life and his philosophies ... and you might cry.

I used to be afraid, but I'm not afraid of dying now, if that's what you want to know," he said. "Because life ain't about how many breaths you take. It's what you do with those breaths."

John shows us that although we'll (well, most of us) never win a Roland Slam or hit a Grand Slam, there's work to be done with what we've been given. Hopefully, the legacy that John leaves behind is a case of life imitating sport. Definitely a good reminder for all of us.

The Metagame

So, back in the day, I used to play Magic: The Gathering, a card game where you would design your "deck" by customizing a deck of of 60 cards, in a structured game. The thing was, there were many thousdands of different cards available, so there were many different ways to put together successful decks. So, if you were going to play in a tournament, one of the major considerations was the metagame, or consideration of how other people were going to design their decks (based on what was popular at the time). Understanding what people were going to do, helped you immensely, since you could design a deck that may be sub-optimal against one of many standard archetypes, but could be dominating against the most popular archetype.

For example, in Rock, Paper, Scissors (or rochambeau), assuming no knowledge, your best strategy would be to throw randomly, since there would be no chance of your opponent picking up a pattern. However, if you knew that 90% of your opponents would throw Rock, then you would be insane to stick with your random throws. Instead, you would be throwing Paper lik there was no tomorrow. This information, outside the structure of the game, is a part of the metagame.

Now, in fantasy sports, I definitely apply some aspects of metagaming into how I design my teams. It's a little different, since you don't see nearly as much variation of team composition, as you would in Magic, so the value of knowing what people are going to to isn't quite as high. And more importantly, it's important to consider the individuals involved.

The first place that the metagame matters is in the UPL is in the draft room. The first rule should be obvious. Figure out who's auto-drafting based on Yahoo! rankings. This is the single most important aspect of drafting in online drafts where not everyone is there (like in the UPL). So think of it this way. If you were the only live drafter in a draft, with everyone else auto-drafting, then you know exactly what players will be available for you. This is a huge advantage, as you turn a very dynamic problem, with 12 individuals, all acting independently, into a very static problem, with 1 individual operating in a known environment. We've never had a draft with only 1 liver person, but we have had scenarios with multiple auto-drafters. A dream scenario for me would be something like drafting 8th, and having teams 9, 10, 11, and 12 all on auto-draft. In this scenario, I know with some precision exactly which 8 players are coming off the board before I draft again (obviously, this only works in one direction on the S curve, but you get the idea).

Now, the next level is to understand tendencies of the individuals that are drafting. If you've been playing for a while you have some idea of the players that each of your competitors likes. You could just target those players, to annoy your opponent, but that may not be the best way of doing it, since you could be just killing both of your teams. But, understanding these tendencies helps. How do you know these things?

First of all, geography matters. If you're playing with a bunch of Chicago Cubs fans, the you should know some things. You won't see a ton of difference in the established stars. Sure, someone may jump a few picks to make sure that they get, say, Zambrano or D-Lee on their team. But that's a relatively small difference, maybe half a round. Where it matters more is with the later rounds. You may see folks jump on guys like Soto, DeRosa, Theriot, etc. much earlier than you would expect in a completely unbiased draft. So, if you're high on Soto, you may need to pull the trigger on him earlier, if you are in a league with a couple Cubs fans.

The other thing is for owner-player tendencies. This year, I had Greg drafting right after me (I was 5th, he was 6th), I knew that Greg was high on Joe Nathan. So this year, as we were drafting, the 5th round rolls around, and I knew that I had to get Joe Nathan, since there was no chance that he was going to make it back to me in the 6th, primarily because my guess was that Greg was going to take him either right after me in the 5th, or right before me in the 6th, if he was still available. Similarly, since Greg is also a Reds fan, I had to roll w/ Adam Dunn in the 3rd with the 29th pick, rather than risk waiting for him to come back in the 4th, with the 44th pick, since Greg may have taken him at 30, and would have gotten him for sure at 43. So, even though Dunn was going, on average at the 45th pick, I strongly doubt that he would've gotten back to me. And just as interestingly, if you would have known me, then you would have known that I was going to take Dunn over Manny (who went off at 31), because I'm a Reds fan. Season after season, you see some players end up with the same teams. Knowing these tendencies helps you predict who will and won't be available.

You also run into owner-style tendencies. Year after year, you see some owners build the same type of team. Knowing this tendency helps, but it's difficult to realy take advantage of, and isn't quite as useful, overall, I don't think. Especially when you can pretty easily switch gears. Normally, I build my team around high OPS mashers. The ability to run is not required. I'll fill in a few closers, and then hope for the best out of my starting pitching. A couple years ago, I decided that starting pitchers were undervalued, and I came out drafting pitcher, pitcher, pitcher, and pretty much shocked the UPL regulars (well, C-Lauff, at least). Also tied in here is the style with which people draft. You see some guys really ignore pre-ranks, and what everyone else is doing, and draft who they like. You also see people who feel like they must respond to the immediate flow of the draft (like participating in a run on, say, closers). Which is best? I think that you need to do both. You need to target a few guys, but you also have to project out what a run on a certain position or stat category will do to you. I'm more of the former. I tend to ignore runs on positions (this year, I didn't even draft a catcher, after I didn't get the ones that I wanted), figuring that I'd just wait until I got a DL slot, and pick up Ryan Doumit (who has been awesome for an undrafted starting player).

In any case, when you combine metagame considerations with the mathematics of victory, you will have a leg up on the rest of your league.

-Chairman (aka O.N. Thugs)

Math for Winners

One of the most important things that you can do in a Roto league is to figure what you will need to win. Those requirements then help you narrow down what you can reasonably try to do, as you shape your overall strategy.

A quick examination of the 1st and 2nd place scores in previous UPL roto leagues is offered below:

	Year	Teams	Max	1st	2nd	Mid	Last
Baseball	2003	11	132	114.5	107	70	38.5
	2004	14	168	146	128	93	43
	2005	12	144	114.5	108	86.5	38
	2006	11	132	114	107	73	38
	2007	11	132	104.5	104.5	70.5	41.5
Basketball	2004	7	70	58	53	40	19
	2005	8	80	55	55	49.25	18
	2006	10	100	89.5	71	53.75	30
	2007	12	120	87	83	66.5	28.5

Note, I've included scores for the 1st, 2nd, and last place teams, as well as the median score in the league (an average, if there are an even number of teams). Perhaps, a more useful table is this one:

	Year	Teams	Max	VMargin	1-Avg	2-Avg	1-%Max	2-%Max
Baseball	2003	11	132	7.5	9.54	8.92	0.867	0.811
	2004	14	168	18	12.17	10.67	0.869	0.762
	2005	12	144	6.5	9.54	9.00	0.795	0.750
	2006	11	132	7	9.50	8.92	0.864	0.811
	2007	11	132	0	8.71	8.71	0.792	0.792
	Avg	11.8	141.6	7.8	9.89	9.24	0.837	0.785
Basketball	2005	7	70	5	5.80	5.30	0.829	0.757
	2006	8	80	0	5.50	5.50	0.688	0.688
	2007	10	100	18.5	8.95	7.10	0.895	0.710
	2008	12	120	4	8.70	8.30	0.725	0.692
	Avg	9.25	92.5	6.88	7.24	6.55	0.784	0.712

What does this table tell us? A couple things.

First, most seasons, the margin of victory isn't that huge. About 8 points for baseball, and about 7 points for basketball. Of course, this is skewed just a bit by two huge seasons (2004 in baseball and 2006 in basketball) where there was a huge difference between the top team (the O.N. Thugs) and the field (aka, Everyone Else). Take out those ridiculous seasons, and the differences become 5 points in baseball and 3 points in basketball. So, assuming that the top teams are close in talent, it's the small differences that will add up.

Next, look at the "Avg" rows. These are just the averages for the values above them. All the way to the right, you see the percentage of points that the 1st and 2nd place teams. The average %Max of the 1st place teams will almost certainly (probably in a 95% confidence interval, if I had to guess) lock up a victory, while the %Max of the 2nd place team may get you there (basically, 50-50).

Remember, we run 12 categories in baseball and 10 in basketball. So, in baseball, 84% of the possible points will probably lock things up, and 80% may still win it. For a 12 team baseball league like we have this year, you figure that 122.5 points will very likely result in victory, while 115 will probably get you there. In basketball, it seems that 79% will most likely get you the victory, while 72% gives you a good shot, so for a 12 team basketball league, like we just had, you're looking at 95 points to be firmly on top, and 86.5 will give you that 50-50 shot at victory. In terms of average placement in each stat category, if you look at the 1-avg and the 2-avg columns, you see that winning teams placed, on average, just under 3rd place in every category in baseball, and right at 3rd place in basketball. This suggests that basketball is a little tighter than baseball, though there isn't anything conclusive as to whether this is the nature of the scoring, the nature of the sport, or the nature of the individuals playing (all could be reasonable assertions).

When you are playing for a championship, I believe that you should project things out as points that you surrender from the max, rather than points that you acquire from scratch. This makes the problem much more constrained, which helps you formulate possible strategies (other than just auto-drafting and hoping for the best). And it sort of assumes winning, which is a good attitude to have. So, for baseball this year, you figure that you can surrender at most 30 points, if you want to have a legit shot at winning. And in the just completed basketball season, you can surrender up to 33.5 points.

Obviously, knowing what you can surrender, and still win, shapes your decisions. Some things become obvious. Let's look at baseball. You can only surrender 30 points. This kills some potential strategies.

You probably can not do the "All Closers, no Starters" pitching strategy. In this case, if things optimally, you will get max points in SV, WHIP, ERA, and L. However, you likely end up with only 1 point in W and K, respectively, since your IP will be much lower than everyone else. And if you try to get back points in W and K, you will likely lose ground in WHIP and ERA. This strategy, optimally executed, will lose you 22 points. You will have to be close to perfect on offense to stand a chance. Similarly, if you overload on speed, you will likely surrender too many points in HR, SLG, and RBI to give yourself a legit chance.

Now, this restriction even comes into play when you look at more reasonable strategies. If you go the dominant pitching route, you run into a problem. Note that high numbers of W will likely result in high number of L's. That's the nature of the beast. Even in an ideal scenario, if you max out on W, you probably won't be able to do much better than 4th place in L. So, even with elite pitching, you going to surrender at least 3 or 4 points. On the other hand batting is possible to max out. This suggests that elite hitting is a better route than elite pitching, all things equal. Of course, all things aren't equal, and you have to weigh out how the best hitters and pitchers are distributed.

So why bother with this post? I think that it's useful to frame how you plan out a season, so that you know have a better idea as to what moves you forward, and what does not. And it also helps you frame more specific strategies, which we'll talk about down the road.

-Chairman (aka O.N. Thugs)

Old Balls

Okay. So, I get mocked for trotting old players out there year after year in baseball. This year isn't as bad as usual. I've still got Griffey and Pedro on my team, and Troy Glaus turns 32 this year. But in the last couple years, I've had Griffey, Barry Bonds, Randy Johnson, Frank Thomas, Lou Brock, and Satchel Paige all put up good numbers for me.

Some folks like to take chances on rookies early in the draft, and will not draft old players. I've got a counter argument for the really old players (the guys who are 36, 37, 38+).

To start off, ask yourself who is likely to still be playing at that age? Really skilled players. The lesser players would have been run out of the league long ago. I believe in the overall statistics that show the normal career arc takes players skill upward until the age or 27/28, plateaus them until 32/33, starts them downward until 35, and then sends them off the cliff. Sometimes the plateau a bit shorter, and the cliff may come faster, or other small changes will come into play. But most players follow this sort of arc.

Obviously, HGH and the like can change things around (Brady Anderson, Luis Gonzalez, and Bret Boone are some examples of drastic 1-year spikes). But even w/out chemical help, there is a reasonable logic that says that players who are still starting in their late 30's are worth drafting. Superstars are outliers, and it's likely that they have different career arcs.

In general, power, at the plate and on the mound seems to stay with some stars.

Obviously, Bonds has had a very different career arc. And if you look at Griffey, his injuries have been traumatic, not degenerative. So if he recovers, he comes back close to normal. Degenerative conditions (bad knees, bad back, etc.) stay with you in the day-to-day, and don't go away. But freak injuries (broken bones, ligament damage, etc.) can be recovered from with rehab, and players can come back as good as ever. Gary Sheffield still has his power at 39. Manny turns 36 this year, and has looked awesome, and looks like he could do this for the next 10 years.

Also, I'm convinced that there is a class of power pitchers that have a different career arc. Look at Unit, Schilling, and to some extent Smoltz. They learn to harness their stuff, and maybe recover from a Tommy John surgery, until they're about 28, and then they put things together (and keep throwing heat), and can plateau for a long time, and only when they hit their upper 30's, do they start to lose the heat, and go more with the forkball/splitter.

So what does this mean? I think that elite power hitters and power pitchers can be relied on later in their careers. I would be much more careful on players who relied on their agility or pure skill. Some exceptions that come to mind include Tony Gwynn, who could still slap singles all over the place, and Paul Molitor, who was still hitting very well at the end of this career. But guys like Wade Boggs, Robbie Alomar, and Ryne Sandberg definitely had the cliff pop up on them. So did slightly lesser players like Carlos Baerga. These were all guys who relied on skill at the plate. Big boppers who had patience at the plate seem to be able to stretch out the career arc longer.

But, that said, I'd also be careful with guys who have degenerative conditions. Big Papi comes to mind. He could be like Mo Vaughn, whose injuries (plus weight) just caught up to him abruptly. Mark McGwire had a similar issue (even w/out the steroid accusations). Juan Gonzalez had steroid speculation, as well as a bad back. Albert Belle had the back issue, as well. Those issues never really get better, particularly for position players, who need to be out there every day. Pitchers can get around the back issues a little more easily.

-Chairman (aka O.N. Thugs)

Mama and Papa TMR

Yeah. So it turns out that Len Berry is one of the most influential marketing professors in the world, and we just honored him (along with 4 other professors) with the Paul D. Converse Award, which is only given out every 4 years. It's sort of a lifetime achievement thing. Of course, I don't really do much other than what I do in my research, so I had no idea who Len Berry was. But then I heard that Len Berry's son was Matthew Berry, aka The Talented Mr. Roto (TMR), of espn.com fame. Of course, I knew who TMR was. Somehow, I don't think that was surprising.

So, I ended up hanging out with Len and Nancy Berry a bit this weekend, chatting at dinner on both Friday and Saturday (a little research, and just chatting about life, and of course, fantasy sports, and how it's changed in the past 10 years with the movement of the Internet into the mainstream). They were great people, and were so proud of their son, of course.

It turned out that TMR started playing rotisserie baseball 24 years ago, at the age of 14. Back in the day, you added up stats by hand, probably week to week, and then mailed out hard copies to people. And since it was so time consuming, it was restricted to a niche audience. And if I had to guess, you didn't have to be particularly sophisticated to do well.

Now flash forward. Fantasy baseball had embraced some relatively advanced statistical analyses, information moves quickly. You get updates (and can change lineups) on a daily basis, and sometimes in real time (if you're willing to pay for it). Even the stats that are used have changed. While most roto leagues still go with the old school 5x5, many change up which 5 categories are used, and the very progressive UPL has gone to a 6x6 league, using slightly more SABRmetric-compatible stats like OBP and SLG. We still can't customize things enough to get things like adjusted OPS, or RC/27, and the like, and really get fielding stats worked in there. But we've found a happy medium.

Folks like TMR who got in early, and was innovative with the use of the internet early on, now have the luxury of talking about fantasy sports for a living. And you know what? More power to them. They were the trend setters who have helped fantasy get to where it is now. Are they the geniuses that they have to position themselves as? Maybe. Obviously, football is more or less a crapshoot. But I'd bet that finishing in the top 25% of a UPL roto league is just as hard as any other league that you'd come across, especially with people slowly catching up to the O.N. Thugs the last couple years. Maybe I can ask my new friends if they can get me into a league with their son, just to see how the UPL's reigning champ does against other "experts." Just FYI, last football season, I actually played in 2 other non-UPL fantasy football leagues (my only non-UPL leagues, since we've started), and somehow won both of them, and I'm guessing that our UPL members do well in their other leagues. And we've definitely diverged from what I wanted to talk about in this post... so getting things back on track...

What's become interesting is how, while many "male" institutions (e.g., barber shops, "Cheers" type-bars, hanging out in the garage, etc.) where guys would just hang have diminished, we have taken new-age institutions, like fantasy sports on the internet. I've noticed that with my friends, the ones who play fantasy sports are the ones that I keep in touch with most regularly. Those who don't? Sporadic, at best. People are busier with work, and planning out weekends well in advance are the norm. The few minutes a day that you use to check your lineup, send a mocking e-mail or message board post, and have time for dudes being dudes (albeit online) seem to be more valuable than ever.

So, here's to the internet, fantasy sports, and to dudes being dudes.

-Chairman, aka O.N. Thugs