Thread: Stage Four

It doesn’t exist. But we keep hoping.

Welcome! You are invited to wander around and read all of the comments that have been posted here at Patton & Co., but as soon as you register you can see the bid limits that Alex, Peter and Mike propose for each player, and you can post your own comments. Registering is free, so please join us!

Since 2012 in Eugene's league 7 money finishes and 26 non money finishes...a 21.2% success rate compared to a 41.2% success rate pre 2012.

van wilhoite LVW
Dec 3 '17

Those are the pitchers taken in the auction or protected* who started the season on a team that finished in the money/out of the money.

Looks like 35 in the money and 66 out over the 19 years.  That's pretty much the predicted rate, because 1/3 of the teams finish in the money.  May even be more accurate, because for 3 of these seasons we had only 11 teams and 4 money slots.  Since pitching dropped to only 30% of the league expenditures, it's become worse.  Only 1 out of every 4 has finished in the money.

Eugene Freedman EugeneFreed
Dec 3 '17

Are those pitchers taken in the auction? Or on teams at the end of the year?

Peter Kreutzer Rotoman
Dec 3 '17

Here are the last dozen years with pitchers $28 and over and their money place, non-money finishes.  I went back through the Pedro years of 2000 and 1999.  Starting in around 2003 or so, there were some closers in the money and not who were $28 or more as well.

2017- Kluber $32* 2nd, Darvish $34 3rd, Not money: Sale $38, Archer $35

2016- Archer $28 3rd, Not money: Price $35, Carrasco $32, Kluber $32, Keuchel $30, Felix $30, Gray $29

2015- Sale $36 1st Not money: Felix $42, Kluber $35, Price $33, Gray $29 

2014- Not Money: Sale $40, Darvish $39, Verlander $38, Felix $37*, Price $33

2013- Verlander $41 1st, Not Money: Weaver $39, Felix $37, CC $35, Sale $34 

2012- Weaver $34 3rd, Haren $31* 3rd, Not Money: Verlander $34*, CC $34, Felix $34, Price $32, Lester $30

2011- Haren $31 2nd, Weaver $34 3rd, Price $34 4th, Not Money: Lester $37, CC $37, Felix $37, Verlander $34, 

2010- Peavy $28 2nd, Verlander $34*, Garza $30 4th, Not Money: CC $41, Vazquez $30, Beckett $29*, Lester $29*

2009- Lester $29 1st, Halladay $30* 2nd, Not Money: CC $37, James Shields $29, Beckett $29

2008- Verlander $35 1st, Dice-K $32 2nd, Halladay $30 3rd, Not Money: None

2007- Johan $41* 1st, Dice-K $32 4th, Harden $28 4th, Not Money: Lackey $33, Halladay $32

2006- Randy Johnson $31 4th, Not Money: Johan $41, Halladay $34, Harden $32

2005- Not Money: Randy Johnson $42, Schilling $28.

2004- Hudson $33* 1st, Vazquez $32 1st, Schilling $37 3rd, Zito 4th Not Money: Pedro $36,  Halladay $36, Mussina $35, Colon $30, Mulder $29

2003- Hudson $33 1st, Buerhle $29 3rd, Mussina $35 4th Not Money: Mulder $34, Zito $32*, Pedro $31*, Colon $30

2002- Pedro $31 4th, Zito $32 4th Not Money: Mussina $39*, Hudson $35*, Colon $30 

2001- Mussina $39 4th, Not Money: Pedro $54, Hudson $35, Clemens $34, Wells $28

2000- Pedro $45* 1st, Not Money: Mussina $36, Clemens $30, Finley $29

1999- Pedro $40* 1st, Clemens $33* 2nd Not Money: Mussina $46, Cone $40, Fassero $30


Eugene Freedman EugeneFreed
Dec 3 '17

Eugene - how often does one of the half a dozen teams that buys a starter in the 28-40 range win? ... or finish in the money?  Maybe there is a correlation there ... positive (if, as Alex proposes, that "the best pitchers are more predictable ") or negative (if they are not) ...

Howard Lynch LynchMob
Dec 3 '17

The change that has truly come is that in the past 8 years there are significantly more $1-2 pitchers than there were in earlier years.  The working class has taken a huge pay cut.  Also, the closer world has shifted from $17-30 (originally closers were $25-39) to $10-25.  With money moving out of closers and $4-7 pitchers, it hasn't gone to starters - we still have approximately the same number of starters in the $28-40 range each year (about half a dozen).  That $5 and once $10 or even $15 per team has moved into hitting.

Eugene Freedman EugeneFreed
Dec 3 '17


I especially miss the "won-loss" records: how teams that owned various players did in hundreds of leagues.

But I am surprised at what you are showing. Leagues in general, I thought, were inching in the other direction: spending more on pitching. Pitching as a whole may be the same crapshoot that it's always been, but it seems to me the best pitchers are more predictable than they used to me and hence their prices have been creeping up.

Something to explore.

Alex Patton Alex
Dec 3 '17

Our league is definitely spending less and less on pitching over the years, getting closer to that 69/31 split.  We've never dropped below 30%, but we've gotten very close.  Here are the percentages each year along with weighted 3 and 5 year averages.

1994 35.3

1995 37.5

1996 36.8/36.8

1997 36.3/36.7

1998 34.6/34.9/35.4

1999 34.5/34.9/35.4

2000 33.9/34.2/34.7

2001 33.3/33.7/34.1

2002 34.5/34.0/34.1

2003 34.7/34.4/34.2

2004 34.2/34.4/34.3

2005 32.6/33.5/33.8

2006 32.4/32.8/33.3

2007 33.2/32.8/33.1

2008 32.8/32.9/32.9

2009 34.4/33.7/33.4

2010 34.8/34.3/33.9

2011 30.1/32.4/32.7

2012 31.2/31.4/32.3

2013 30.2/30.5/31.3

2014 30.7/30.7/30.9

2015 30.5/30.5/30.6

2016 32.5/31.5/31.2

2017 30.7/31.3/31.1

Who needs Heath data?

Eugene Freedman EugeneFreed
Dec 2 '17

As we play we're continually grinding these numbers in our heads, and continually end up with a leaguewide 69-31 split in budget.

The thing I see happening is that winning teams are figuring out ways to spend even less on pitching, and pouring that money into hitting. This year's crop of Strategies of Champions in the Guide all seem to follow that path. It isn't that it always works, and some years the team that spends 50 percent of its budget on pitching wins, but buying as much hitting as you can while filling out your pitching staff with shots in the proverbial dark (plus one Ace and one Closer) gives you a better chance of standing out. 

The path to winning usually means capturing some stochastic good fortune, and that is usually found on the pitching side of things. 

Peter Kreutzer Rotoman
Dec 1 '17

So, I did something blasphemous and reduced the sample size, but I believe for good reason.  I removed the two franchises that quit over the past 8 years (they had zero money finishes between them over 10 combined seasons) and I also deleted the two new franchises first two seasons each, because they could not have been expected to be competitive and didn't know the league.  Interestingly, it did not affect spending means/medians.

It changed things to the more correlated.



Points Mean=34.3 Median=35.5 Min=9 Max=58

Pricing Mean=$179 Median=$179 Min=$123 Max=$245

Points to Pricing Correlation Pearson's r=0.320

What becomes very clear is that teams that spent below $175 were more likely to perform worse than expected and teams that spent $185-200 generally performed better than the regression line.


Points Mean=33.8 Median=36 Min=14.5 Max=57

Pricing Mean=$80.8 Median=$82 Min=$15 Max=$137

Points to Pricing Correlation Pearson's r=0.211

Points to Starter spending r=0.151

Points to Reliever spending r=0.121

There's no sweet spot that is more likely than any other to exceed or underperform the regression.

Eugene Freedman EugeneFreed
Nov 30 '17