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!

The Scott Williamson types have been going high, you can't sneak 'em past this bunch. It's a mystery to me why more teams don't use relievers that way, and if you answer "because they'll get hurt," they get hurt anyway. Maybe we'll see more this year with a shortened season and the 3-batter rule.

Gene McCaffrey GeneM
May 8

1999 season.....Billy Wagner should be the 1st reliever off the board. 4 Wins, 39 Saves, 74 Innings of a 1.57 ERA and 0.777 WHIP and 124 K. 

It will be interesting to see where Scott Williamson gets picked. 12 Wins 19 Saves 93 Innings of a 2,41 ERA and 1.039 WHIP and 107 K.

van wilhoite LVW
May 8

Alex, a few years ago at Shandlerfest Brian Feldman took starting pitchers with his first FOUR picks - and he nosed John Menna on the last day to win the league. These retro seasons are wildly different from each other. I bet you could win 1999 if you started with Pedro and, say, Kevin Millwood. You might have to dump Saves, but the hitting is abundanza. I mean, 103 hitters hit 20 HRs or more. Almost half the stat sheet hit at least .280, and 50 guys stole at least 20 bases.

Gene McCaffrey GeneM
May 8

The top 12 players in 1990 according to my calculations (and where they were picked in the actual draft):

1. Roger Clemens $50 (1)

2. Dennis Eckersley $46 (19)

3. Rickey Henderson $43 (2)

4. Dave Stewart $41 (7)

5. Bobby Thigpen $41 (29)

6. Ramon Martinez $40  (4)

7. Barry Bonds $40 (5)

8. Frank Viola $39 (20)

9. Doug Drabek $39 (22)

10. Ryne Sandberg $37 (3)

11. Chuck Finley $36 (23)

12. Ron Gant $34 (8)

Alex Patton Alex
May 7

Our next draft is the 1999 season. Of the Top-30 strikeout pitchers that year, only eight had an ERA of 3.50 or lower. RJ had 364. Pedro had 313. The third place finisher was Kevin Brown with 221 K's. #30 on the list is Steve Trachsel with 149 K's and a stellar 5.56 ERA. Do we see SP go 1/2 next week?

Tim McLeod tlmcleod
May 7

I have certainly learned empirically -- twice -- that it is folly to make your first two picks pitchers. It's triple folly (if I have the math right) to make your first four picks pitchers.

It's embarrassing that I had to learn this empirically.

And still... who should the first pick be? A hitter or a pitcher?

We are talking retro, of course. In the mixed-league snake drafts that are shown in fantasy magazines each year, I can't say I've ever seen a pitcher picked first.

But in a given year in a retro draft?

1990, for instance?

Alex Patton Alex
May 7

Seadogs, I don't think that balance is possible. Your needs change too much in a shallow league to have one price fits all. In an only league, where just about everyone is rostered, it is conceivable, especially if there is active trading. Value is value, but the pricing pressure from people choosing not to compete for Saves, Steals and BA makes it very hard. Those strategies change the context of all prices. 

Peter Kreutzer Rotoman
May 7

I should have checked the math when I said you don't need to finish fifth in each category. Yes, you do! What I meant was that in a league like this one you don't have to consider someone getting to 90 points. You can play for 75-80 points it seems, and once more people figure out an approach that number will get lower.

For me to get those 37 runs I needed to take a middle infielder earlier and my final outfielder later. This was a failure of position scarcity, but I would argue not one of pricing. In an auction adjusting the dollar values would be important. In a draft you know the first three rounds are so are discounted, you're getting bargains, and it's best to take the best player. After that you're paying a premium and while you want the best player, that is the best player relative to your team. Those values are different based on your needs. A $14 player who has a power/run/position player that fits your needs is more valuable than a $17 player who doesn't. 

One other point: It's all very close. When I made my last pick I gained a pick in saves, gained one in ERA and lost one Ratio. But when Erickson picked, in order for him to gain a couple points in Wins he had to give me back the Ratio point. In the last rounds pretty much every pick spun things this way and that, in ways that were generally predictable but not easy to suss with time we didn't have. A value system that helps you escape that mess is what I'm aiming for. It's going to rely on dynamic pricing.

BTW, we're playing a purple-themed 1999 season next Wednesday and the one after, with two leagues. There may still be a few seats open. Let me know if you are interested in playing.


Peter Kreutzer Rotoman
May 7

But again, "best player available" means you've found a way to balance out the formulas for closers / starters / speed-guys / power-guys/ other-hitters in such a way that your Best Available Player isn't always the same type of player.

Kent Ostby Seadogs
May 7

I totally agree with "once you have Clemens you can't afford the next best pitcher" ... or I'd say it this way "once you have a #1 starting pitcher, you don't want to draft/buy another #1 starting pitcher at the expense of having a #1 hitter" ... or ... once you have a valuable pitcher, the value of hitters (to your team) goes up relative to the value of remaining pitchers ...

And it's key to consider the impact of "nobody is going to run away" ... you may not need 8 in every category ... but you do need to average 7.5!  So ... punting a category means you need to average 8.3 in the other 9 ... punting 2 categories means you need to average 9.25 in the other 8 ... Peter finished 37 runs short of doing just this ... which might have been just 1 too many closers?

It seems like if the proposal is that punting is more likely to win, then that means that a strategy of "take the best player available" is not the best strategy ... hmmm ... I'm stuck thinking that "take the best player available" has to work ... and the game then becomes each individuals determination of "best player available" ... in other words, I'd like to think that you can not become more likely to win with a "punt" strategy, rather if someone does have right formula for determining "best player available", then they can't be beat, another team can only tie them if they, too, are "perfect" ... but perhaps reality is that all owners are so close to "perfect" that the noise introduced by any, if not all, owners pursuing a "punt" strategy causes more random results?

Howard Lynch LynchMob
May 7