June 9, 2011

Dear Mr. Fantasy: Why create complications?

By Scott White | Fantasy Writer
Follow Scott
Follow CBS Fantasy Baseball

Sometimes in reading through the massive amounts of e-mails that go into writing this column, I can't help but shake my head at just how worried Fantasy owners get.

So-and-so hasn't been hitting well the last two weeks. Did I miss my chance to sell high on him? Someone dropped Dan Uggla, and I'm first in waiver priority. I want him pretty badly, but is he really the guy I've waited all year for? Every time I set my lineup, someone on my bench scores more points. What am I doing wrong?

Help! Oh no! I'm scared! Run!

It's not that hard, people. It's rarely that hard. If everyone would just focus on the basics -- roster assembly, talent evaluation and plain and simple math -- instead of nitpicking at all the peripheral minutia ... well, I probably wouldn't have a job anymore.

Neeeeeevermind.

I've just been offered Troy Tulowitzki for Asdrubal Cabrera straight-up. Now, I know it might seem crazy that I'm even hesitant about this deal, but Cabrera has yet to disappoint all season. I know he doesn't have a track record for the power he has put on display this season, but he is only 26 and has had to deal with injuries over his career. Tulowitzki has similar injury risk, though, and is as streaky as streaky gets, so I question which one will really be better at season's end. Maybe I'm crazy. I should probably take this deal and run, but a part of me keeps thinking it might be the wrong move. What do you think? -- Jason Harrison, Atlanta

SW: I don't mean to pick on you, Jason. This is far from the most extreme example, and the comparison between Tulowitzki and Cabrera is one worth making.

But does anyone really doubt which is the more talented player here?

Apparently, you and this other guy do, which tells me the two of you are giving way too much credit to Tulowitzki's recent cold streak.

Tulowitzki is fine. He hit only .209 in May, but he got off to a slow start each of the last two seasons and, in both cases, blew up late to single-handedly lead his Fantasy teams to the playoffs. Would I like you to experience that this year? Of course I would. It's the "right" answer and the "right" move.

That said, do I really think you'll be disappointed if you stick with Cabrera as your shortstop? I don't see how anyone would consider him less than an elite option by now. I think he's the more likely of the two to disappoint going forward, but he isn't going to fall off the face of the earth. I wouldn't call you crazy for wanting to stick with what's comfortable, but I wouldn't call you "right" either. I couldn't.

The fact the other guy offered this trade and the fact you're deliberating over it now has me thinking you two are the nitpickiest of nitpickies. I mean, it's the straight-up exchange of two elite players at the same position. Chances are it won't even make a difference in the standings, provided neither gets injured. But because Tulowitzki is clearly the more "valuable" player of the two -- the one more trustworthy, predictable and tradeable -- he's the only choice you have.

And that's the only way to answer this question. Why do I get the feeling you already knew that?

I play in a Head-to-Head NL-only league with 10 teams and two relief pitcher slots. Read: Not enough closers to go around. I'm currently rotating a few starting pitchers with relief pitcher eligibility -- Ryan Vogelsong, Tim Stauffer and Chris Capuano -- since I didn't want to pay the hefty price for closers on Draft Day. If I wanted to use a bench slot to try and find a closer in waiting, who would be the best pitcher to target: Mike Adams, Jonathan Broxton or Brandon Lyon? -- Joe Tomei

SW: You act like you're having to settle for pitchers like Vogelsong, Stauffer and Capuano in your relief pitcher slots, but in standard-scoring leagues, that's often the way to go. Based on their production as starting pitchers, Vogelsong and Stauffer both rank among the top 20 relievers in NL-only leagues, so starting them doesn't exactly put you behind the eight ball. Frankly, I'm surprised the starting pitchers with relief eligibility didn't attract as much attention on Draft Day as the closers themselves (not that Vogelsong would have, but Stauffer certainly).

In other words, you shouldn't feel obligated to seek out the next closer if you'd rather use that roster spot on someone else. You'll be fine with what you have. Then again, if closers are really in such high demand in your league, a speculative pickup might be worth the trouble just as a potential trade chip.

Of the three possibilities you mentioned, Broxton strikes me as the most likely candidate to get save chances at some point. I can't say for sure whether he'll struggle with those chances, but the Dodgers haven't had anyone else step up and claim the role. Kenley Jansen, Hong-Chih Kuo and Vicente Padilla are on the DL with their own issues.

People talk about Heath Bell getting traded like it's a foregone conclusion, but I wouldn't be so sure. A recent hot streak has the Padres back within striking distance in what could be a wild NL West, and though they could quickly fall out of the race again, no one can guarantee they'll get an offer they like. More often than not, players rumored to be traded stay exactly where they are. That's not to say Adams is a bad speculative pickup, but he's well behind Broxton.

As for Lyon ... I just don't trust Lyon. I know manager Brad Mills says he wants him back as his closer, but as awful as he was there at the beginning of the year and as inadequate as he's been there over his career, I just don't see it lasting long even if it does happen. Mark Melancon has done a good job in the role and is clearly the better long-term solution. Eventually, the Astros will realize that.

I've been wrestling all season with which shortstop to start: Yunel Escobar or Alexei Ramirez. Each is fairly elite -- at least this year -- and I find myself switching them almost every week based on streaks and schedules. Half the time, I pick the lower scorer. How should I decide which one to start? -- Joe DeFerrari, Hanover, Mass.

SW: You're right, Joe. They're even enough that it's a virtual tossup who will score more points in a given week. The problem with alternating the two is that you might end up guessing wrong more than half the time, in which case you'd be better off leaving the same guy in your lineup every week.

And to be perfectly honest, that's probably the direction I'd go. I'd pick a guy and stick with him, pretending the other one wasn't even on my roster. That way, I'd guarantee myself a full season of production at the position and wouldn't get caught chasing the streaks.

Maybe that's a defeatist approach and shows how little confidence I have in my ability to predict a player's performance from one week to the next, but I'm also a realist. It's a difficult thing to do.

My choice now would be Ramirez because he has the more consistent track record. If he has so many bad weeks in a row that he falls well behind Escobar in the rankings, you can obviously reassess then, but chances are neither of these two will fall into such a deep slump.

One approach I might try before resorting to such an extreme, though, is to pay attention to where the Blue Jays are playing. Escobar seems to be a different player at home, hitting five of his seven homers with a .921 OPS there. Ramirez also tends to play better at home, so there you go. Start the one with the most home games.

That's the most likely way to maximize your production at the position, but again, it's not foolproof. It won't work 100 percent of time. If you want to take the ultra-safe route -- the one that will most likely keep you from messing up a good thing -- you'll pick a guy and stick with him.

Of course, the best solution would be to trade one of the two. That way, you'd eliminate the dilemma while improving at another position. If you haven't made any offers yet, give it a try, and feel free to trade whichever gives you the better return. Like I said, they're more or less equal in my eyes.

Should I move James Shields while he's still moveable? Doesn't he have nowhere to go but down now? I initially turned down an offer of Curtis Granderson for Shields, but I can probably still make the deal if you think it's a good one. -- Shawn Smith

SW: Shields and Granderson are both interesting cases because I considered them two of the more overrated players in Fantasy coming into the season.

In other words, I can understand your skepticism ... with both.

Then again, I'm not especially motivated to say either will come back down to earth. Granderson in particular has won me over with his improved hitting against left-handed pitchers under the tutelage of hitting coach Kevin Long. I still say his high strikeout rate will keep him from hitting for a high batting average, but clearly a 40-homer season is within reach. I'm not sure he's all that different from Jay Bruce, really.

As for Shields, I'm inclined to believe his performance is legitimate simply because he's done it before. I used to be one of his biggest supporters, thinking his strikeout-to-walk ratio and ability to eat innings made him a legitimate Fantasy ace. But the last two years, his hit and walk rates increased just enough for all those solo home runs he gave up to become two- and three-run shots, blowing up his ERA.

This year, Shields' hit rate has gone down again, which the Rays have credited to improved command in the strike zone. But with his blowout loss at Seattle on June 2, you have to wonder if some of those old habits might be creeping in again. As we've learned the last two years, Shields' high home run rate can turn his numbers bad in a hurry.

It's not necessarily an indication his season is ruined, so please don't assume I'm writing him off. Still, the safe move would be to trade Shields for Granderson now, and I really don't see much downside to it unless you have an otherwise miserable pitching staff.

I got a big trade offer this morning. I would get Kevin Youkilis and Hanley Ramirez for Adrian Gonzalez and Jimmy Rollins. I'm in first place and usually don't make trades from first place unless I can fleece somebody. I like your get-the-best player rule, but I don't know who the best player is in this trade. Is it Gonzalez, who is hitting 50 points over his career average, or Ramirez, who is a slumping stud, or Youkilis even? -- Doug Doblar, Atlanta

SW: That's a good question, Doug. As much as I value high-end players at weak positions, I'm not so sure Gonzalez isn't the best player in this deal. In standard Head-to-Head leagues, he has outscored Youkilis by more points than Youkilis has outscored Mark Reynolds, and given his new supporting cast and hitting environment, I wouldn't necessarily call his numbers unsustainable.

But maybe the fact we can have this debate is reason enough to make the trade. I mean, of the three players you could make a case for being the best in this deal, you're getting two. Isn't that enough to tip the scales in your favor?

I understand why giving up Gonzalez would make you nervous, especially since he's led you to first place in the standings, but you need to have a little confidence in Ramirez's and Youkilis' track records. They put up the same elite numbers year after year. Just because they're lagging this year doesn't mean they're suddenly different players. If anything, it makes them more dangerous because they have so much ground to make up. Maybe that's the most optimistic point of view, but if nothing else, they won't be worse than they've been so far.

Considering the lack of alternatives at shortstop and third base, you're getting two players with the chance to be the best at their respective positions between now and the rest of the season (or second-best in Youkilis' case; Jose Bautista is untouchable), and that's an offer that wouldn't have even seemed possible just a month ago.

Is it risky? I'd be lying if I said it wasn't, but since you can at least trust Ramirez and Youkilis to improve by some small measure, I think you'll survive without Gonzalez even if they don't deliver a best-case scenario. Unless you have Bautista and Troy Tulowitzki or some other combination that would make the advantage you're getting here moot, you should go for the glory and make the deal.

I'm torn on my pitching staff each week, never knowing whether to start the two-start pitcher with good matchups or stick with the tried-and-true ace. I've won both ways in years past, but I've found I do better overall when I lean on my aces. What do you think? Just to give you some specifics, my top pitchers are Roy Halladay, Matt Cain, Justin Verlander, Tim Hudson and Ricky Romero, with Daniel Hudson and Justin Masterson on my bench. -- Heath Brodnax

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

SW: I think you just answered your own question, Heath. I'm all about maximizing starts when it makes sense, but my experience has shown that some pitchers are too good to bench.

Mathematically, you wouldn't think that's the case. If Justin Verlander averages 20.4 Fantasy points per start and Matt Harrison averages 12.4 Fantasy points per start, then a two-start Harrison should theoretically outscore a one-start Verlander. The problem is a pitcher's scoring isn't consistent from one start to the next. It couldn't be more inconsistent, in fact.

Chances are the standard win for Verlander and Harrison looks about the same. The difference in scoring comes in the extremes. Verlander has more brilliant starts -- the kind that single-handedly win Head-to-Head matchups -- and Harrison has more ugly starts -- the kind that quite often lead to negative points.

If Verlander has one of his brilliant starts the same week Harrison has one or two of those ugly starts, it's the difference between a win and a loss, despite what the mathematics may show.

You don't want to miss out on those brilliant starts. They're the reason you drafted Verlander where you did, in the early rounds as a staple of your team. If you decide to bench him just because he isn't making two starts, you risk missing out on the best he has to offer, thereby squandering your early-round pick and limiting your team's upside. Rest assured, when I call a pitcher a "must-start option," I mean it in the most literal way.

So who are your must-start options? Halladay and Verlander for sure, and I might even include Cain in that group for now. Tim Hudson and Romero don't rank so far ahead of Daniel Hudson and Masterson that you can't play the matchups with them. The ones making two starts should always take priority.

I'm in a 10-team Head-to-Head league with standard scoring. My Red Sox-loving buddy keeps sending me trade offers in an effort to obtain Carl Crawford. Most recently, he has made the following offers: Drew Stubbs and Lance Berkman; Stubbs and Trevor Cahill; Berkman and Cahill; and Stubbs, Berkman and Andrew Bailey. I'm very high on Crawford, who I feel is heating up and has a much higher ceiling than Stubbs and Berkman. Should I make one of these deals and, if so, which one? My other outfielders are Jay Bruce, Hunter Pence, Matt Joyce, Martin Prado and Michael Bourn. My pitching staff is Justin Verlander, Clayton Kershaw, Jaime Garcia, Kyle Lohse, Jered Weaver, Gio Gonzalez, Jair Jurrjens and Michael Pineda. -- Adam Dezii, Baton Rouge, La.

SW: First of all, I should point out Crawford's ceiling isn't much higher than Berkman's. In standard Head-to-Head leagues, Berkman actually outscored Crawford as recently as 2006, 2007 and 2008, so ceiling-wise, they're probably about even. It has to do with walks more than anything else.

Naturally, I'd prefer Crawford to Berkman for the difference in age, if nothing else, but they're closer to the same category than not. In fact, you could argue Stubbs is approaching that category himself -- I've included him among the must-start outfielders in the Hitting Planner the last few weeks -- so I don't think your buddy's persistence is necessarily wasted time. Under different circumstances, I might actually recommend you take one of these deals, for either Berkman and Stubbs or Berkman and Cahill.

But alas, you play in an especially shallow format, where high-end options aren't exactly hard to come by, and from what I can tell, you already have a roster full of them.

Seriously, Bruce and Joyce are must-start options themselves, and Pence and Prado have appeared on that list at times this season as well. What good would that extra bat do you? Assuming you start only three outfielders and one utility player, who would you take out of your lineup?

And along those same lines, what good would an extra arm do you? Verlander, Kershaw and Weaver are all the kind of pitchers you'd never sit, so you already have enough trouble every week deciding which two of Garcia, Gonzalez, Jurrjens and Pineda should fill out the rest of your rotation. Cahill would just add to the clutter.

Both trades are fair; I just don't see the benefit for you other than depth. You wouldn't be improving your bottom line in either deal. Because you couldn't fit Stubbs or Cahill into your lineup, you'd actually be taking a step backward in the downgrade from Crawford to Berkman, slight as it would be.

Getting two players for one only makes sense if you have specific needs to fill, and you certainly don't in your outfield or pitching staff. If your infield is the same way, you should tell your buddy you don't see a good match between the two of you and let him move on with his life.

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.