Dear Mr. Fantasy: Stop over-management!
Rules are an important part of the game -- the most important part of the game, in fact. If you didn't have something telling you how much of what you could start where, it wouldn't be much of a game, would it?
But just because rules are a good thing doesn't mean they're always the best thing. Striking the right balance between too many and too few is what ultimately separates the good games from the ones that become too repetitive or predictable to hold people's interest.
I'm always weary of over-legislation because of the restrictions it places on variety. I like to see oddball strategies. I like to feel like, if I get off to a bad start, I can use whatever inefficiency I can find to scratch and claw my way back to the top instead of taking the path of most resistance like everyone else. If there's only one way to win a game, and the person who does that one thing best is the one who, without exception, wins, the game becomes anticlimactic and, quite frankly, boring.
Obviously, I don't consider Fantasy Baseball boring. It's not repetitive or predictable (Lord, don't I know it?) and hasn't lost my interest. Part of the reason is the perfect balance struck by the simplicity of its rules. The standard Rotisserie setup has enough contradictory elements that it's virtually free of exploitation.
So why mess with a good thing?
I'm in a Rotisserie league that doesn't set a minimum or maximum for innings pitched. Needless to say, someone has taken advantage of this rule by drafting nine relief pitchers. This owner has dominated saves and ERA and is close to the lead in WHIP. I see no way anyone can catch him. Is there a way to counter this other than setting a minimum for number of innings pitched? To date, his team has only pitched 75 innings. -- Clyde Reid, St. Louis
SW: Setting an innings limit is one way around that problem, if you do indeed see it as a problem. But I personally don't. I think it's one of those things that will ultimately correct itself.
Rest assured, your friend isn't trying anything that hasn't been tried before. Does it work sometimes? Sure, but the reason you don't see more people doing it is because it comes with zero margin for error.
Let's do a little math here. How many teams are in your league? Twelve? Assuming your friend wins saves, ERA and WHIP (and I wouldn't consider either of the latter two a certainty considering the increase in high-end starting pitchers over the last couple years), he'll get a total of 36 points from those three categories alone. Pretty sweet, right? The downside is he'll be punting wins and strikeouts in the process, giving him just one point in each of those categories. Maybe in a deeper league, if he loaded up on enough of the high-strikeout relievers, he could avoid a last-place finish in that category, but in a standard league, enough good starting pitchers are available that anyone who uses a more typical lineup will leave him in the dust.
You've heard me advise against punting saves, right? It's a bad idea because it leaves you without any room to maneuver if the other categories don't go the way you expect. The same is true here, but twice over. Your friend is almost sure to get 38 points from his pitching categories, but he doesn't have the capacity for any more than that.
Pitching is half the equation in Rotisserie leagues, and if he's getting just 38 points from half the equation, well ... let's just say 76 points isn't going to win your league.
Of course, you could argue that since your friend isn't having to shell out big dollars for starting pitching, he can afford to spend more on hitting and finish with more than 38 points in those categories (which is arguable considering the price tags for some of the top closers, but let's roll with it). Even then, he can't guarantee himself enough points to win the league. If he won all five hitting categories, giving him 60 points from his hitters and 98 total, yeah, that would probably do the trick. But enough other people are going to overcompensate in enough of those categories that he can't reasonably expect to win them all. If he averaged a third-place finish across all five, he'd have 50 points from his hitters, which would probably be enough to give him the best offensive team in the league. It'd also give him just 88 points overall.
Would that be enough? Well, looking at my six 12-team Rotisserie leagues from last year, the winners scored 104.5 points, 101, 92, 92, 88 and 85.5. So yeah, maybe in a year of parity, when no other team distinguishes itself, he could pull it off. But those don't happen consistently, and again, that's assuming everything goes exactly as planned.
And even if everything goes exactly as planned for him and his strategy is such a rousing success that everyone in the league decides it's the only way to go, the demand for closers will become too high for anyone to pull it off again. His one crazy year will go down in history as the one that forever changed the economics of your league, eliminating an inefficiency that was available for exploitation. In other words, he'd be your league's own Billy Beane, and would that really be such a bad thing?
I don't mean to suggest adding an innings minimum is a ridiculous idea and would ruin the game for everyone, but it's an unnecessary rule change that would open the door for future unnecessary rule changes. The game polices itself, as any good game does.
Would you trade Prince Fielder for David Wright if you had Justin Smoak and Eric Hosmer waiting in the wings? Or is it too early to go all in with those two? My current third basemen are Pedro Alvarez, Ryan Roberts and Maicer Izturis. -- Justin Saeger, Minneapolis
SW: On the basis of pure necessity, I can understand why you'd want to make this deal. Your third base situation is miserable, and because I think Alvarez is closer to returning to the minor leagues than breaking out of his early-season slump, you'll be forced to mix and match a couple of part-timers in Roberts and Izturis before too long.
But I'm not sure you'd be getting the best value here. I understand how backward that sounds considering Wright was drafted ahead of Fielder in most leagues, but Wright's start to the season has been discouraging enough to make me think he's not in the same category as Fielder anymore. He's dealing with a sore back, and he continues to strike out at the ridiculous rate he did last year. His power and speed are enough to make him one of the better options at third base, but is he still the elite player Fielder is? I'm not so sure.
I'm not suggesting you try to get by with what you have, and I know third basemen are hard to obtain. But I can't help but think you have a better option at your disposal. How costly is Michael Young? Casey McGehee? Chipper Jones? Honestly, I don't think the downgrade from Wright to any of them is as significant as the downgrade from Fielder to Smoak -- and I really like Smoak.
Get out there, make some other offers, and see what happens. In the meantime, if Smoak and Hosmer continue to perform well and Wright shows some signs of turning it around, then you can pull the trigger on this deal.
I'm in a first-timers' 10-team Head-to-Head league. I think I have a pretty good team -- Brian McCann, Adrian Gonzalez, Robinson Cano, Evan Longoria, Elvis Andrus, Colby Rasmus, Mike Stanton, Ichiro Suzuki, Chris Young, Clayton Kershaw, Roy Oswalt, Brett Anderson, Brandon Morrow, Ricky Romero, Joakim Soria and Jeremy Hellickson, with Jordan Zimmermann, Eric Hosmer, Logan Morrison, Jordan Walden and Francisco Liriano on my bench -- yet I'm stuck at 1-4 and growing concerned. More than a fifth of the way through the schedule, I'm last in my league, and I'm wondering what I can do to upgrade my roster. Where is a legitimate area I can upgrade? Should I stand pat and hope things come together? -- Aimee Moriwaki, Torrance, Calif.
SW: I agree your team is better than its 1-4 record would indicate -- your biggest problems have probably been the injury to Longoria and some unfortunate lineup decisions early in the year involving Francisco Liriano -- but I do see some holes that wouldn't be as apparent to someone used to playing in (or in your case, reading about) deeper leagues.
Your infield is set. You couldn't reasonably expect anyone better than McCann, Gonzalez, Cano or Longoria at their respective positions, and though Andrus isn't in the upper tier his position, the few players who are -- Troy Tulowitzki, Jose Reyes and Hanley Ramirez -- would cost too much to obtain. Andrus is good enough.
I also don't have any problems with your starting rotation, other than the lack of depth. But depth can come off the waiver wire and isn't necessarily the biggest priority in a league as shallow as yours. Your top options should be more than enough to sustain you.
Your outfield is where you fall short. You don't have a single high-end player at the position, and three of the four players you do have all have a high potential for disappointment.
Yes, I understand Suzuki is a big-name player and Rotisserie mainstay, but in Head-to-Head leagues, he's lacking some of the necessary qualities to set himself apart. He doesn't offer any extra-base power at this stage of his career and doesn't draw enough walks to make up for it. His hits are nice and all, but they make him more of a middle-of-the-road Fantasy starter than one who'll set your team apart.
Stanton, Young and Rasmus all have high-end upside, but Stanton and Young have strikeout issues that explain their current struggles, and Rasmus, apart from his own strikeout issues, has yet to sustain his highest level of production for any real length of time, slowing down after a hot start again this year. Frankly, I think Morrison will be a better option than any of them once he returns from his foot injury.
And maybe that's the best answer here: Just wait for your lineup to get healthy and stick with the pitchers that have distinguished themselves as your best. The one move I might try to make is to deal two of those three iffy outfielders, preferably Young and Rasmus, for a more proven type like Andrew McCutchen, Shane Victorino or Shin-Soo Choo. But I'd be trying to do that even if I wasn't in a 1-4 hole.
I recently opened up a roster spot and am looking to add some relief pitching in a 14-team league. Which of these guys would you prefer as a speculative pickup: Joe Nathan, Brandon Lyon, Ryan Franklin or Hong-Chih Kuo? Are any of them even worth rostering in a league of this size? -- Kevin Wakaryk, Edmonton, Canada
SW: My preference of those four is Nathan, and I think you could justify owning him or Kuo in a league of that size. Of course, I say that because I ultimately see them getting the most saves for their respective teams.
Based on their willingness to give him the job at the start of the season, Nathan is the Twins' preferred choice to close -- he's getting paid like a closer and obviously has a storied history with the team -- but it's pretty clear he rushed back from Tommy John surgery, which is why they pulled the plug on him. Once he proves his velocity and command are back, which may take several weeks, I fully expect them to turn back to him, regardless of Matt Capps' performance.
As for Kuo, I don't think the Dodgers necessarily want him closing, but I think sooner or later, they'll realize he's their best option for the role, as they did in the second half last year. His stuff and track record certainly support the idea, and we all know Jonathan Broxton is a glass cannon. Kuo's biggest obstacle is probably Vicente Padilla, and I shouldn't even have to explain my skepticism with him. He's a perfect storm of injury risk, marginal stuff and lack of familiarity with the role.
I'm pretty confident Franklin's days of closing are over. Since removing him from the role in mid-April, the Cardinals have given saves to four different relievers, and he isn't one of them. I'm even more confident Lyon's days of closing are over, given his elbow injury. I sure hope so, anyway. I'm tired of having one less closer to target on Draft Day.
Is Lance Berkman a sell-high candidate or a ride-him-all-the-way candidate? I have Adam Dunn (post Delilah haircut), and guys like Justin Smoak and Matt LaPorta are available. My pitching so far has not held up -- with Clay Buchholz, Jonathan Sanchez and Carlos Zambrano struggling behind a top three of David Price, Tommy Hanson and Josh Beckett -- so I could use some help there. -- Calvin Diepenveen
SW: I'm pretty convinced Berkman is legit and will get back to performing the way he did in Houston now that his knee is healthy and his stroke is working again. Of course, he has performed even better than he did in his Houston days so far, so pure mathematics suggests his best is probably behind him. Plus, he's an injury risk at age 35.
So is he a sell-high candidate? Probably not in the way you're thinking, but he's enough of one in the most literal sense that I'd be willing to trade him for an elite option at a position of need.
The problem here is I don't see your pitching staff as a position of need. Your top three options are about as good as anyone could hope for, and Buchholz and Sanchez were more like third and fourth starters than fourth and fifth starters coming into the season. Perhaps you should temper your expectations a bit. Not all five pitchers can be firing on all cylinders at the same time, and frankly, you wouldn't want them to. You want them to take turns performing their best so your overall production will remain as steady as possible over a full season. Buchholz and Sanchez are too talented not to come around, as both have shown at times this season.
 Follow us on ...
|
|
Get the latest news and analysis from the most informed Fantasy staff in the industry by following us on Twitter and Facebook. @cbsfantasynews facebook.com/cbssportsfantasy |
If you have an offer on the table for a high-end guy like Clayton Kershaw, Dan Haren, or yeah, even Trevor Cahill, I guess I could understand you taking it. But I'd prefer to stick with the elite hitter in this case, and I certainly wouldn't settle for a lesser class of pitcher.
I noticed you lamenting the lack of love for Brandon Beachy and Bud Norris in one of your recent Sliders columns. Same could be said for Kevin Correia. Would you give any of them a roster spot over Wandy Rodriguez, Bronson Arroyo, Hiroki Kuroda or A.J. Burnett? -- Steve Dart, New York
SW: I wouldn't call Beachy and Norris must-own Fantasy options if I didn't think every team had at least two players worse than them, and yours is no exception, Steve.
So who should you cut? Well, not Wandy Rodriguez. After a rocky start to the season, he has gotten back to pitching the way he did in the second half last season, which makes him more or less a must-start option. I would be willing to cut Kuroda for either Beachy or Norris because of his limited potential and injury risk, but his performance has been steady enough dating back to last season that I'd prefer to cut Burnett and Arroyo instead. Both are too up-and-down for my taste and lack the strikeout ability (at least at this stage of their careers) to distinguish themselves from the surplus of mid-level pitchers in mixed leagues.
As for Correia, I disagree that the same could be said for him. Beachy and Norris are both strikeout-per-inning types with the upside to become every-week members of your starting rotation. Correia doesn't have much room to grow at age 30 and doesn't offer much in the way of strikeouts. He's a back-of-the-rotation option who happened to get off to a good start that looks like it's coming to an end given his 4.18 ERA and 1.39 WHIP over his last four starts. Yup, I think the lack of love for him is both understandable and deserved.
I have both Shin-Soo Choo and Dustin Pedroia starting in my 10-team Head-to-Head league. I'm not too worried about either given their track records, but I'm wondering if I should sit them until they get back on track. I have some depth on my bench with Jeff Francoeur and Jason Bay, and I can move Ben Zobrist from utility to second base if needed. Should I keep Choo and Pedroia active since they're bound to break out soon, or should I switch them out for the guys who are already performing? -- Matt Turner, West Hempstead, N.Y.
SW: You know how I list the "must-start options" at every position in the weekly Hitting Planner? You know how Choo and Pedroia haven't disappeared from those lists even once this season?
Well, I do, and they haven't.
I understand your frustration with them and the temptation to sit them when you see your bench options outscoring them, but it's generally a bad policy.
You drafted those players where you did because you expected a certain level of productivity from them that they're most likely still going to provide, regardless of how much they've struggled to begin the season. The longer they disappoint, the closer they are to breaking out and the bigger you can expect that breakout to be. If Choo breaks out with a 40-point week, which he's certainly capable of doing, and you had him benched because you were messing around with a couple waiver claims like Francoeur and Bay, you've lost a big percentage of the productivity you paid for. Chances are Choo won't have another week like that all season, even if he is back on track, so your impatience cost you the full return on your investment.
That's why I don't even mess around with it anymore. A must-start option is a must-start option. The week you sit him is the week he goes off. It happens too often to justify starting anyone else.
Can a must-start option lose must-start status? Sure, but not on performance alone -- at least not six weeks into the season. Justin Morneau lost must-start status because of his struggles combined with the lingering effect of last year's concussion. Jayson Werth lost must-start status because of his struggles combined with the concerns over his change in venue and supporting cast.
Choo and Pedroia have no major peripheral concerns to explain their struggles, so you can assume a significant course correction is coming for both. And that's what you should do if you hope to maximize your team's potential.
I've been offered Alex Gordon and Grady Sizemore for Felix Hernandez. My pitching is pretty solid with Roy Halladay, Tommy Hanson, Francisco Liriano, Carlos Zambrano and Zach Britton. My outfield is also solid with Colby Rasmus, Mike Stanton, Justin Upton, Jason Heyward and Vladimir Guerrero. Still, I'm last in both batting average and stolen bases. I know neither Gordon nor Sizemore will provide many steals, but if they are finally for real this time, their batting averages and run production could help. What are your thoughts? -- Gerry Levy, Bolingbrook, Ill.
SW: No chance I'd make this deal. Not in a million years. My preference for hitting over pitching is well-documented, but I'd never give up a stud without getting one in return, regardless of the position.
OK, I shouldn't say never, but only if I played in a league so deep that the waiver wire wasn't a valid option and I had no choice but to trade quality for quantity -- and even then, only out of desperate need.
I get the impression you don't play in one of those leagues, Gerry, and I certainly don't think your need is great enough to attempt something so desperate.
And make no mistake: This is a desperate move. We're not talking about you getting Ichiro Suzuki or Billy Butler -- you know, an assured source of high batting average. We're talking about you getting two players with a combined batting average of .264 entering the season. Do we have reason to believe they're better now? Maybe in the case of Gordon, but not so much Sizemore, who was more of a power-speed threat than a source of high batting average even when he was a first-rounder.
And even if these two continue to perform at the pace they have so far, they still won't come close to matching the production of Felix Hernandez, who is practically a one-man pitching staff, especially if he continues to win half his starts.
I'm not saying you should trade Hernandez for Suzuki or Butler either. Shoot, I wouldn't trade him for both. But my point is you can find other, safer sources of batting average out there who won't (or at least shouldn't) cost you a player of Hernandez's caliber. Nick Markakis, maybe? Martin Prado? Angel Pagan, even? Test the market and see what you can get.
But for the love of Pete, do it with a mid-level starting pitcher or outfielder and not one of the foundations of your team.
Stay in touch with the most passionate Fantasy staff in the business by following us via Twitter . You can e-mail us your Fantasy Baseball questions to DMFantasyBaseball@cbs.com . Be sure to put Dear Mr. Fantasy in the subject field. Please include your full name, hometown and state.
