Playing for Keeps: What Would You Do?

Earlier this week I received an email from a reader named Travis. He's looking for some advice on his fantasy baseball team for this upcoming season. Here's a shortened version of his question:

I am playing in a 10 team, 5x5, 6 player keeper league. I picked up a team half way through the season last year since my buddy is in the league and one of the players wasn't managing his [team]. I finished in second to last place, which was really a miracle considering how far back I was, and traded a number of hot players (Corey Hart, etc.) for draft picks this year. I currently have Miguel Cabrera, Tim Lincecum, Jayson Werth, Andre Ethier, Zobrist and Rickie Weeks as my keepers and have picked up an additional 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 16 draft picks. I traded away my 18-24 draft picks to pick up those as well as the type of players I just mentioned, 

Basically, I have two choices next year, I can keep the guys I have and go into the draft with a clear advantage over everyone else (most of the guys are still picking up the idea of trading picks and don't have many extra ones to use) and try to compete this year based on my draft and good waiver wire play. Or I could trade for some studs and give up many of my early round picks. 

Any thoughts on what I should do are appreciated. 

-Travis

Thanks for your email, Travis. With Miguel Cabrera and Tim Lincecum, you have two top players that any manager would want. If I were you, I'd hang onto them.

As for how to handle your extra draft picks, in general, I would value proven major league talent over unproven prospects. That might seem obvious, but lots of managers constantly trade away proven major league talent for "top prospects." But oftentimes these top prospects, despite hopes of becoming All-Stars, never even become solid major leaguers.

In looking at your team, Rickie Weeks is coming off his best season and his value might never be higher. He's had a long history of injuries and honestly, I wouldn't view him as a building block for a championship team. However, since 2B is a relatively week position, someone in your league might really want Weeks. At the very least it couldn't hurt to ask around. Maybe you can package Weeks with a few draft picks and land an elite top 30 player in return. I'd also look into trading Werth and Zobrist, but I doubt you can get as much in return for them.

So to answer your question, I'd lean toward using some of those extra draft picks as trade throw-ins to try and land proven, elite players in return. It might be a long shot, but that should be Plan A.

UPL Wrap-Up: Where I Went Wrong

The UPL baseball season wrapped up earlier this month. Here are the final standings:

I went back and looked at what the standings were during the All-Star break and there wasn't much movement for the most part. Although, that's not to say that the season didn't have a dramatic finish. On the final day Phatsnapper managed to sneak past Hats for Bats to take the crown. I don't think we've ever had that happen on the last day in UPL Baseball before. (One year we did have a tie, though.)

Congratulations to Rupert (Phatsnapper) on his championship season! And I also should point out that both Pauly (Hats for Bats) and CJ (JimmyDix) both had remarkable turnaround seasons. Pauly's team played well enough to take the crown, but it just wasn't meant to be.

After my 6th place finish, I'm left trying to pick up the pieces. Going into this season, I listed most of my strategy for this keeper league. But there was one 800-pound gorilla in the room that I didn't want to talk about. I might as well talk about that now.

If you look at the history of warfare, armies have a tendency to fight the "previous war." Basically, military planners most carefully study the past war, what went wrong and what went right - and more importantly, what they could have done better. And so what happens is that when a new war breaks out, a seemingly solid strategy is to see how your current environment is similar to a past environment, then apply what was learned from that experience in order to best perform in the current war. It's not a bad strategy. In fact, it's probably a necessary component to any great strategy. But if you rely too much on what would have been a seemingly perfect strategy for the previous war, you can end up in big trouble.

In the UPL, we get to keep 18 players from season to season. For a team at the top of the pack, this sounds like a great deal. But it's really a double-edged sword. Things can change quite a bit from season to season, and in a non-keeper format you can change your roster swiftly with the times. When you have to keep 18 players, it can sort of feel like you're stuck in a quagmire.

Granted, my team had plenty of talent heading into this season. And I made some blunders along the way. But if I look at my top 4 picks from 2009, three of them heading into 2010 wouldn't have rated worthy of top 4 picks in my book (Carlos Beltran, Aramis Ramirez, Manny Ramirez) due to their problems with missing significant playing time the previous season. If we had done a complete re-draft, I think there would have been many opportunities to upgrade my team.

But I can't complain. I knew the rules ahead of time and made my own bed. Here are my top three regrets for this season, and they all boil down to not being aggressive enough:
1) Not getting more value for the #3 pick (in essentially the 19th round). I drafted Octavio Dotel to address my closer situation, but in hindsight, there was more league-wide demand for Aroldis Chapman than I realized. I had assumed that after Jason Heyward and Stephen Strasburg, there weren't any rookies who people were willing to trade away value to get. But I think I was wrong there. Had I drafted Chapman (or just  traded away the pick pre-draft), I could have probably gotten something better than Dotel.
2) Not addressing shortstop. I went into the year hoping that Jason Bartlett would have a .390 OBP with 30 steals. That would have been nice. But it didn't happen, and my backup plans for SS didn't work out either. At one point I thought about trying to trade for Troy Tulowitzki, and maybe I should have. But I kept thinking that a viable option at SS would just fall into my lap. It never happened.
3) Not fixing my starting rotation sooner. Part of this is bad luck. I mean, my starting pitchers were absolutely brutal the first month of the season. It's impossible to predict something like that. However, I could have done a better job of holding pitchers out of the lineup and searching the waiver wire for better short-term, and possibly long-term, solutions.

My goal was to win the league again this year, but at the very least I wanted to finish on the podium. So a 6th place finish is disappointing. The past 5 or so years I've been bouncing between first and middle of the pack. I still have a long way to go if I'm to field a contender year in and year out. The Chairman (O.N. Thugs) has made a habit of this, and really, so has C-Lauff (IamJabrone).

It was a fun season. Looking ahead to next year, I'll have to refine my strategy a bit. But then again, that part never ends.

Book Review: Fantasyland

In honor of Book Blogger Appreciation Week, I figured it was time to write a book review here. Pauly has recommended Fantasyland to me a few times, and I finally read it this past April.

Sam Walker's Fantasyland traces his first season playing fantasy baseball. As a senior sportswriter for the Wall Street Journal, Walker had been reluctant to take any interest in fantasy baseball for the longest time. But when he finally decided to play, he was going all in. He managed to pull some strings and found himself in the unique position of being completely new to fantasy baseball, yet playing in the most competitive league on the planet: Tout Wars.

While Walker was a fantasy baseball newbie, he was by no means new to baseball. In fact, with his media credentials for inside access and sources throughout the MLB, Walker was a bona fide baseball expert. The trick would be to parlay that traditional baseball knowledge into fantasy baseball success. As this book illustrates, that's no easy task. But Walker wasn't going down without a fight. He turned fantasy baseball into his full-time job and hired two employees--an intern who researched players' personal traits and a NASA scientist who wrote a computer program to crunch all the stats. Together, the three of them embarked on a season-long journey that was often humorous, sometimes maddening, even thrilling, but never dull.

Fantasyland is a funny book, with one of my favorite parts being when Walker goes into the locker room mid-season and informs Doug Mientkiewicz that he's planning to trade him off his fantasy team; and Mientkiewicz agrees with that plan. If that's not laugh-out-loud humor, I don't know what is. But this book is more than just a comedy. Walker explores the colliding worlds of old school baseball men and new school baseball geeks. He also takes an in-depth look at each of his competitors in Tout Wars. Some of the stories are reflective, others light-hearted, and one is very poignant. Also, from an interesting historical perspective, Matthew Berry was one of the competitors in this league; and this book was written before he became ESPN's "The Talented Mr. Roto."

I thoroughly enjoyed Fantasyland. It's a must-read for anyone who plays fantasy baseball, and I would also recommend it to anyone who is curious about the culture of fantasy baseball.

The Strasburg Situation

Edit 8/27/2010: This was originally posted four days before it was announced that Stephen Strasburg has a torn ligament in his throwing elbow and will likely need Tommy John surgery. First off, I'm surprised that this type of injury happened so soon. Second, I'm disappointed that I won't get to see Strasburg pitch again for a while. In my view, he was the most exciting young player in the game.

I also want to clarify something. In re-reading this post, it might come across as though I were frustrated with the Nationals. My main beef was/is really with the "conventional wisdom" expressed by many fans and talking heads that prized pitchers need to be babied to the point that if they have a sore elbow in August they should be shut down for the season.

At the end of the day, baseball has lost one if its rising stars for a while. My hope is that the medical team working with Strasburg can get him back on track for the big leagues... and for the long haul.

Back in June I posted about Stephen Strasburg right before he got called up to the bigs. I went on record saying that I thought he was a good bet to develop into a consistent All-Star pitcher at the MLB level. And here's what I wrote at the end:

I've also had a chance to observe him as an in-studio guest on ESPN's Baseball Tonight. Strasburg's stats and demeanor are very impressive. 

I think the signicance of seeing Strasburg talk on TV was that it gave me a window into his mind. He came across as highly intelligent. And let's face it, that's a big advantage for any athlete, especially a pitcher. But there was something else that the ESPN crew asked Strasburg about: His supposedly awkward pitching mechanics. More specifically, the dreaded "inverted W."

Here's a college photo of Strasburg that perfectly illustrates the inverted W. The supposed problem here is that his throwing arm's elbow rises above his shoulder, causing extreme arm stress. I don't know about you, but from where I come from an inverted W is an M. 

When asked by ESPN about the inverted W this past spring, Strasburg got a bit defensive. And while I couldn't blame him for not liking the question, he gave a perfectly reasonable answer, saying that he's always pitched that way and never had a problem.


I've been rooting for Strasburg. He's an amazing talent who's fun to watch, so why not hope for him to reach the stars? Part of the fun of sports is to see if someone can come along and dominate like no one else before. And Strasburg seemed to have that type of potential. 

Ever since Strasburg was signed, the media has praised the Washington Nationals for how they've handled him. Experts said it was good for Strasburg to go down to Double-A first, dominate there, then work up to Triple-A. The Nationals did everything by the textbook with how they babied Strasburg along. When they finally brought him up to the bigs in June, they did a good job of keeping him on pitch counts--only occasionally going slightly over when he had something special going. Again, the Nationals were widely praised for handling the future of their franchise with care.

And yes, I was among the people who thought the Nationals were doing the right things. Sending Strasburg down to Double-A first was a good way to help build his confidence, or at the very least not cause him to lose it right away. And from there they could gradually ramp up his level of competition and let him take a running start in the majors. That made sense to me.


As far as pitch counts go, I'm not necessarily a believer in them. My best guess is that each pitcher's body is different and responds differently to pitch counts. Maybe one guy benefits from working on a 100-pitch limit, whereas another guy could go out and throw 140 pitches every start without a problem. It probably depends on mechanics, conditioning, and genetics. (Note: If you have scientific evidence showing that most pitchers' bodies start to break down faster if they average more than 100 pitches per start, please send it my way. I'll be glad to update my thoughts.)

That being said, I don't see any harm in keeping a guy like Strasburg on a tight pitch count his first year in the bigs. The Nationals were following conventional wisdom, so who can blame them for that?

Unfortunately, last month Strasburg landed on the DL with shoulder inflammation. And now he's back on the DL with what looks like a strained tendon in his forearm. If you listen to the pundits, they all seem to be saying that the prudent thing is to be safe and shut down Strasburg for the year.

Okay, this is starting to get crazy. Let's go back to Strasburg's previous start. He's pitching well against the Phillies, then after one particular pitch he grimaces and shakes his arm in pain. The coaches and training staff run to the mound to see what's the matter. He tells them he's fine and can keep pitching. They say no, we're taking you out because we can't take any chances. But he insists on staying in the game. And then they insist on taking him out. Ultimately, the manager has the final say, so Strasburg comes out of the game.

And so what happens now to Strasburg, the guy who says he can pitch? The Nationals drag him in for an MRI. By the way, Strasburg had to get an MRI when he signed. And he got another MRI when he went on the DL last month. Now that he has a little pain in his arm, he's getting another MRI. And this MRI came back inconclusive today, so they'll be injecting him with special dye and taking at least his fourth MRI for the team, his third in a month. The Nationals might eventually figure out what's wrong with Strasburg's arm, but I'm afraid that in the process they'll give him cancer.


I do think a pitcher can be babied too much, especially if it's done at the expense of preventing him from getting into a routine. When your franchise pitcher grimaces in pain and shakes his arm after a pitch, yeah it's scary. But when you go to the mound and that pitcher insists that he can keep pitching -- and that he once pitched through the same type of pain in college -- I say you take him at his word and let him keep pitching.

I remember back in the mid-90's, Dave Wannstedt drafted Todd Sauerbrun, a punter, in the 2nd round for the Bears. The media panned the pick, but Wannstedt insisted that Sauerbrun was a special punter and worthy of a 2nd round pick. I was willing to take a wait-and-see approach. However, it didn't take me long to see how foolish the Bears had been. As soon as Sauerbrun showed up to training camp, they started working with him to change his mechanics. You draft a punter in the second round, a guy who you say is special, and then you try to change him?

And that's really where we're at with Strasburg. What's the harm in letting him pitch if he says he can? Hypothetically, let's say the MRI shows some type of preliminary damage, and the doctor says, "Oh, good thing we caught this early. Just rest it up and come back next season. Try changing your mechanics to put less stress on your arm." What then? Can Strasburg change his mechanics and still be Strasburg?

I've heard it said that if someone comes up to you and says, "Gee, you look sick. Are you OK?" You'll look at them weird. But if a second person comes up five minutes later and asks the same thing, you'll start to feel weird. And if a third person asks you if you're sick, sure enough, you'll be sick. It's mental.

One of the worst things the Nationals can do is mess with Strasburg's mind and routine. Part of pitching in the big leagues is pitching through pain. If the Nationals have put Strasburg on an appropriate conditioning program and a steady pitch count, from there all they can do is let him go and see if he's got the goods -- or not.

Ryno to Replace Sweet Lou? Not So Fast

With Lou Piniella recently announcing that he'll retire at season's end, speculation on who will be the Cubs' next manager has already begun. Here in Chicago amongst a sea of Cubbie fans, there's a growing chorus for that person to be Hall-of-Famer and current Triple-A manager, Ryne Sandberg.

I'm not one of the people in that chorus.

In a way, I've been wondering about this day for years. Back in 2007 when I first heard that Sandberg would take over as the manager of the Cubs' Single-A affiliate, Peoria Chiefs, I thought, "That's kinda neat. Good for him." But when I later learned that his goal was to eventually work his way up and become a major league manager, warning flags went off in my mind. After all, what is a Hall-of-Fame player who has aspirations to manage in the big leagues doing in Single-A with the Peoria Chiefs? (Full disclosure: I tried for a radio stats internship with the Peoria Chiefs in the spring of 2004. I wasn't hired. But somehow a legend has grown through the years that has me instead attempting to become the mascot of the Peoria Chiefs, complete with having to dress up in costume and run the bases during tryouts...)

Over the past four seasons, I've picked up little nuggets from Sandberg's managing career. Apparently in his first season, his Chiefs made it to the championship game and lost. That's admittedly a good season for a rookie manager. But I also was hearing reports that Sandberg would argue with umps and get ejected a lot. A LOT. Some people will say that shows he's got the fire. I don't know, though. If you're frequently getting ejected from Single-A games, that just seems lame. Keep your head in the game.

I've never seen Sandberg manage a game. And even if I did, I'm no judge of what makes a great in-game manager. But for the time being, let's put aside the fact that Sandberg started managing in Single-A and that he's frequently ejected from games. Here's a bigger question: Why does Ryne Sandberg still have zero coaching experience at the day-to-day major league level?

In order to make an interesting comparison to Sandberg, all we have to do is look across town at the Chicago White Sox skipper, Ozzie Guillen. Guillen's last season playing in the majors was 2000, and about a year later he had a coaching job with the Montreal Expos. Then in 2003 he got a coaching job with the Florida Marlins - and by the way, the Marlins won the World Series that year.

So when the White Sox had their manager position open up in 2004, here is how Guillen's resume read:

• 13-year White Sox veteran
• Last played in the majors in 2000 (just 3 full seasons had passed)
• Played for the Atlanta Braves and learned firsthand from one of the best managers ever: Bobby Cox
• Coached in the majors for two teams, one of which won the World Series just last season
• Numerous professional references who vouched that Ozzie Guillen would be a great manager, ranging from people he played with to the Sox announcer, Hawk Harrelson. (I've heard at least a few people say they "always knew" even back when Guillen was playing that one day he'd be a manager. He was a natural for it.)

Now let's take a look at Sandberg's resume:

• 16-year Cubs veteran
• Last played in the majors in 1997 (13 full seasons will have passed)
• Spent 8 springs helping the Cubs as an instructor during spring training
• Spent 2 seasons managing at Single-A (which is basically remedial level baseball for a Hall-of-Famer like Sandberg)
• Spent a season managing Double-A, then a season at Triple-A

In this NewsOK article from last week, Sandberg says he got the itch to get into managing during 2005 when he got inducted into the Hall of Fame. That's probably true. But I also think that seeing Guillen's success with the White Sox winning the World Series in 2005 also got his competitive juices going.

The feel-good storyline with Sandberg, aside from being a Cub fan favorite, is that he's working his way up the minors as a manager the same way he did as a player. And I can see why that story sounds good on the surface. The only problem is that this isn't how a Hall-of-Fame player, who is already well known throughout the majors, should be discovered as a managerial talent. If Sandberg indeed has a special skill as a baseball communicator and tactician, shouldn't there be at least a half dozen major league teams asking him to coach on their staff? Not necessarily as a manager at first, but at least as a hitting coach, third base coach, or bench coach? By being a coach in the major leagues, Sandberg would be able to see how today's major league organizations operate on a day-to-day basis, learn the nuances of the various new ball parks (he's probably played in less than half of today's parks), and most importantly, it would be the best way for him to scout all the major league managers and players, learning their tendencies and getting his own ideas as to how he'd compete at this level.

In this ESPN article a few days before Piniella announced his retirement, the topic of Sandberg possibly being the next Cubs' manager was explored. Here's an excerpt:

Last offseason, Piniella was quoted as saying Sandberg would be "in the mix" to replace him one day, but pointed out that there is no real substitute for managing in the majors.

"Managing in the minor leagues gives you an insight into the game," Piniella said. "You don't really have six or seven coaches like you have up here. You've got to dwell in a lot of different areas and, at the same time, you get a chance to find out if you really like this or don't like it. But I'll tell you this: Handling young players at the minor league level and handling players at the big league level, they're a little different."

It will be interesting to see what the Cubs do. From a PR standpoint, Sandberg would probably be a good hire. And who knows, maybe it would work out. But if the Cubs are looking to hire the best manager possible, it's hard to believe that Sandberg would top their list.

Strasburg

Note: I'm pulling this one from my drafts folder of last September 26, 2009. Not sure why I didn't publish it, opting instead to include a brief Strasburg comment in this Hit Parade from last fall. Perhaps it's because I wanted to make the post quite a bit longer and just didn't get around to it. In any case, I might as well post it now before the big debut.

My Strasburg thoughts from September, 26, 2009:

So how good will Stephen Strasburg's MLB career be?

I've been wanting to post about this since June, but I kept quiet because I thought I might have a chance to pick him up on waivers. But since I don't think that will happen now, I figure it's safe to just let it fly and say what I think about him.

There seem to be two schools of thought with Strasburg. One school believes the hype, saying this guy is one of the most talented baseball prospects "ever," a near lock to become a staff ace and put up All-Star numbers year in and year out (barring injury). Another school of thought points to history and warns about previous pitchers who were hyped as "can't miss" prospects who never even became reliable MLB starters, let alone All-Stars. The first school essentially says "We've seen enough," and the latter says, "Wait and see." Obviously, depending upon which school you belong to greatly affects how you value him.

To be fair, I think both schools of thought acknowledge that there has to be some level of "wait and see," and both schools of thought acknowledge that this guy is a prospect who you want in your MLB team's farm system. But where it really gets interesting for me is answering the question: How likely is Stephen Strasburg going to develop into a consistent All-Star at the major league level?

The first thing I take into consideration with Strasburg is his age and the type of competition he has faced. Based purely on the percentages, one of the dumbest things an MLB team can do is to draft a high school pitcher in the first round. Most will be busts, although every now and then you get a Cole Hamels. (But reading through Cole Hamels' history shows even he barely made it.)

Strasburg played three years of college, and he totally dominated years 2 and 3. So I look at that as a big plus. He's had three more years to mature, and he has excelled at a level much more respectable than high school hitters.

People like to compare Strasburg to Mark Prior, and I agree that it's a fair comparison. Like Strasburg, Prior played three years of college and dominated. Both were hyped by the media, hailed as can't miss prospects with special talents rarely available in the draft. And before Strasburg signed for a record $15.1 million coming out of this year's amateur draft, Prior held the previous record of $10.5 million in 2001.

Some people point to Mark Prior as evidence that Strasburg is a risky proposition. But that's where I take a different view. I look at Prior as evidence that Strasburg is, as far as pitching prospects go, a good bet. Prior did develop into a pitcher who dominated at the MLB level. It was injuries that derailed his career, and honestly, that's a risk that's hard to predict.

Post script: Since the time of my above thoughts, Strasburg has gone on to dominate Double-A and Triple-A. I've also had a chance to observe him as an in-studio guest on ESPN's Baseball Tonight. Strasburg's stats and demeanor are very impressive. I have upgraded my views of him since last fall.

Trade Wars

Earlier this week in the UPL we had the following trade: 1B Justin Smoak and SS Marco Scutaro of Pauly's Hats for Bats were to be shipped to CJ's JimmyDix Longballs for SP Jered Weaver and OF prospect Mike Stanton. On the surface, there doesn't appear to be anything earth-shaking about this deal. Except that the thugs in the commissioner's office auto-vetoed the deal--and then that set off Pauly. I won't reproduce the transcript of Pauly's message board rants (and yes, there was more than one rant), but I will give you a visual representation. First we had this:

And then some of this:

Finally, Pauly had to be restrained like this:

Honestly, I can't blame Pauly for being upset. Both he and CJ watch a lot of the MLB, have their own strategies for fantasy baseball, and had negotiated a deal that they each thought helped their own ball club. And while CJ later admitted it was OK for the deal to be nixed, Pauly was bouncing off the walls in frustration at the autoveto, reminiscent of Rupert's frustration with last year's Mauer/Lester for Holliday/Berkman deal that was autovetoed.

The resulting discussion on the UPL message board seems to be heading in the direction of ending the "autoveto" era as we know it. While it's hard to say what the new rules for trades will end up being, it looks like there is growing momentum to give managers more control over their own teams.

Last year I blogged about the challenges of deciding what's "fair" in fantasy baseball trades. Here's an excerpt from that post:

And what makes for a "reasonable" or "fair" trade anyway? I suppose in a non-keeper league certain things can be measured, such as how a player had done in the past and, if relevant, how that player has done so far that year. So in that case, you're trying to estimate how the players involved in the trade will do over the next 2 to 6 months.

But what about a keeper league? Doesn't the fact that you can keep players for the next year (and possibly for 5, 10, or 15 years) drastically change the equation? Isn't it possible you could propose a trade that the majority of owners will see as "obviously unfair to you," only to discover 5 years later that it was unfair to the other guy? (Except for the fact the trade was voted down and never happened. Lucky for the other guy...)

In fact, ever since the UPL first considered going to a keeper format, we've had discussions about how valuing trades might be affected. For example, in a non-keeper format, if you try to trade a top 50 player for a top prospect who likely won't see the field until September, the trade likely gets vetoed or voted down as unfair. But in a keeper league, trading away a top 50 player for a minor leaguer might be a key deal to set yourself up for a dynasty that starts in three seasons. Who knows?

On October 17, 2008, the Chairman first proposed taking UPL Baseball into the keeper era. At the time, in the comments section I warned about the difficulty in evaluating trades involving veterans for prospects. However, only now do I realize that I hadn't quite done a good enough job explaining my proposed solution. (I thought it really hard in my head, but I didn't type the words on my keyboard.) Here's what I proposed:

If it's a keeper league, I'd be in favor of putting restrictions on trades and waiver wire moves. For instance, a team could make no more than two trades in a year and the trades would have to be limited to at most two players for two players.

What I meant to add was this: By putting restrictions on the type (up to two players for two players) and number (two per year) of trades, we would give managers the right to make ANY trade they want without any possibility of it being voted down or vetoed. Period.

My thinking was that if we're going to give managers more control over the risks they're willing to take in trades (i.e., give up proven major league talent for top prospects), then there would need to be an associated cost: cap the number of trades in a season. Some people don't like the idea of fewer trades, and I can see their point. But capping the number of trades might increase the quality of trades by making people pick their spots better as to when to make a trade (such as right before the draft or right before the trading deadline).

Regardless, the key here is to somehow find the right balance between letting managers have fun making their own decisions and still keeping the integrity of the game intact for the league. If anyone out there has a solution to share with regard to how their league handles trades, I'd like to hear it.

The League of Extraordinary CryBabies

If I had Photoshop skills, I'd replace "Gentlemen" with "CryBabies" and put baby bonnets and pacifiers on everyone. Oh well.

Earlier I mentioned that I'm playing in the CryBabies League. Here's the rundown. It's head-to-head in the following categories:

• Offense/Defense (10 categories) - runs, hits, home runs, runs batted in, stolen bases, assists, batting average, OPS, outfield assists 
• Pitching (7 categories) - wins, losses, saves, strikeouts, earned run average, WHIP, quality starts

Each week you're competing against one team. What has surprised me is that it's not like fantasy football, which is a "winner take all" matchup every week. But in this H2H league, you divvy up the categories that you win, lose, or tie. For example, during Week 1, the Mush Heads beat me in 12 categories, I won 4 categories, and we tied in 1 category. So after Week 1, my record was 4-12-1.

There are eight teams in the league, and the top six make the playoffs. So it's nice if you can get one of the top two playoff seeds and earn yourself a first round bye. Speaking of playoffs, after 3 weeks completed, if the playoffs started today I would barely make it:

1. Mush Heads                 29-16-6
2. Apple Sucks                 28-17-6
3. Hemroids                     23-22-6
4. Steroid to Heaven         24-24-3
5. NoMeat                       22-25-4 
6. Vindictive Separists      21-26-4
7. tballchamps                  20-25-6
8. ALL STARS!!!!!!!!!!!  18-30-3

And here's my roster:

C - Miguel Olivo

1B - Pablo Sandoval

2B - Ben Zobrist

3B - Alex Rodriguez

SS - Rafael Furcal

OF - Matt Holliday

OF - Carlos Quentin

OF - Adam Dunn

Util - David Wright

Bench - Shane Victorino

Bench - Chris Coghlan

Bench - Carlos Pena

Bench - Kurt Suzuki

DL - Miguel Montero

DL - Carlos Beltran

SP - Dan Haren

SP - Josh Johnson

RP - Jonathan Broxton

RP - Joakim Soria

P - Carlos Marmol

P - John Lackey

P - Matt Capps

Bench - Stephen Strasburg

In terms of pitching, you need to have your pitchers go at least 20 innings for the week in order to have pitching stats count for your team. Also, you're only allowed 5 transactions per week, so that limits streaming to some degree.

I'm still trying to get a better feel for the math side of this league. One thing I've noticed is that outfield assists (OFA) seems to be a category that teams usually get zero for the week. So I suppose that if you can add an outfielder or two who hits well AND tends to get many outfield assists, that might get you an advantage.

However, you might be better off trying to chase assists (infield assists). And actually, my team might be in a good position to do that. Both Zobrist and Dunn play the infield, but they have outfield eligibility. So if I play both those guys in my outfield, I might be able to gain an advantage in assists compared to a team that's playing 3 regular outfielders.

We'll see how things go. Right now I've circled Week 8 on the calendar. That's when I can get my revenge against the Mush Heads.

My strategy: End game (Part 7 of 7)

This is the final post in a seven-part series documenting my fantasy baseball strategy. We've focused on winning now as opposed to the future, formulated a system to accumulate points, filled our roster with quality hitters and pitchers through the draft, and have made good trades and waiver wire pickups to safely navigate the league's rough waters for much of the season. We're in contention for a championship. Now it's time to seal the deal and bring it home.

Growing up, I was a big Ohio State football fan. (Okay, so I was a skinny Ohio State football fan, but you know what I mean.) In 1993, the Buckeyes started 8-0, and for the first time in years their fans were buzzing about a possible Rose Bowl berth. Next on their schedule were the Wisconsin Badgers, and I'll never forget reading this quote from OSU's star running back at the time, Raymont Harris: "I can smell a faint smell of roses. But right now I smell Badgers. And the roses smell a lot better." Unfortunately, the Buckeyes went on to only get a tie against the Badgers. Then after a win against Indiana, OSU finished their season with a 28-0 loss at the hands of their archrival, Michigan. No Rose Bowl for the Buckeyes.

During the 2009 UPL baseball season, my '90 Reds were in first place for much of May, June, July, and August. When the calendar had turned to September, I was feeling good about my chances. But the defending champ, C-Lauff's Team IamJabrone, was still close behind and eager to play the spoiler. I couldn't help but have flashbacks to 1993 and thinking like Raymont Harris: "I can smell the faint smell of a championship. But right now I smell Jabrones. And the championship smells a lot better."

Motivated to avoid the same type of collapse that had cost Harris and the Buckeyes a Rose Bowl trip 16 years earlier, I was now obsessing about the end game.

The start of the end

In any roto baseball league, my end game thinking starts shortly before the trading deadline. In the UPL, this deadline tends to be about the middle of August. So in late July I'm taking a hard look at how the categories are playing out league-wide and what types of trades could help my team. (Obviously, in a keeper league, if you feel that you have no shot at winning the championship, your focus at the trade deadline should be to do whatever best sets up your team for the next season.)

The end game in theory

And down the stretch they come! Just remember, if you're not willing to furiously whip your horse for extra performance at the end, somebody else will.

In March and April of a fantasy baseball season, I'm primarily picking players who I think will perform the best over the long run (6-month season). But by late July, two big changes have occurred.

• We've collected 3+ months of real data on players. Thus it's slightly easier to project how a player will perform over the final 10 weeks of the season when making that projection in July, as opposed to March. 
• We've also collected 3+ months of data on our team as well as our opponents' teams. So now we have a slightly better idea as to which categories will be most critical down the stretch.

In other words, early in the season I'm looking to acquire players who, given time, will perform the best during a 6-month season. But once it's down to the end game, I'm looking to acquire players who have the best chance to put up big numbers in the critical categories that I'll need to win the championship.

Back in part two, I wrote at length about the importance of team balance and trying to win all of the categories. And while it would be nice to win all of the categories, come late July you'll have a more realistic view of the scoreboard and what your team can actually accomplish. I wouldn't punt on any categories in late July or early August, but I would be willing to start emphasizing some categories over others for the purposes of making a trade.

For instance, in 2007 I was willing to trade the reigning AL MVP Justin Morneau (power) for Carl Crawford (steals) at the trade deadline because I saw that SB was the one category that I could gain the most ground on my main opponent (O.N. Thugs). And since I still had plenty of power on my team, the trade worked out as I closed the gap and finished in a tie for first with the Thugs.

As we move deeper into September, the end game comes into sharper focus in terms of which categories will be crucial. And here we can employ some strategies that would be crazy in June, but just might be necessary in September and October.

End gaming the system

Last August (2009) my team was sputtering. We weren't hitting or pitching particularly well, and while I wasn't going to panic, I knew that I needed to make a move. My main opponents were likely to make deadline deals to get better, and I had to do the same. So what move would best improve my team?

As I explored many trade possibilities last August, one thing started to become clear. I had an injured Carlos Beltran who likely would provide no further production in my quest for victory in 2009. And yet he still had some decent trade value for what he could likely do in 2010 and beyond. In looking at which players might be available in a trade, the fact that future Hall of Famer Chipper Jones had batted .400/.500 (OBP/SLG) over the past month with 6 homers really caught my attention. If Chipper could do anything close to that over the final 6 weeks of the season, he could help me in five categories (R, RBI, HR, OBP, and SLG). So Phatsnapper and I made that deadline deal in mid-August.

As the 2009 season winded down, many categories stayed in play. But on the offensive side, one category did start to stand out as especially important: steals. Over the final few weeks, I took every available opportuntiy to borrow a speedy guy from the waiver wire and place him in my lineup for a shot at an extra steal. And in the final week of the season, I was still looking at potentially +/- 2 points (4 point swing) in the steals category alone. With much smaller and much less likely possible point swings in the categories of HR, RBI, OBP, and SLG, I played Michael Bourn over Manny Ramirez at every chance. The reason being that Manny hitting 2 homers and 6 RBI in a single game might not raise my team point total at all. But Bourn getting 3 steals in a game could be the difference between losing two points or gaining two points in the standings. (Note: My other outfielders were Justin Upton and Carlos Gonzalez, so Manny was the only one in that group who wasn't much of a threat to steal.)

On the pitching side of things, I employed many spot starts over the past month or so of the season. I picked up and dropped several different pitchers, such as Pedro Martinez, Doug Fister, Barry Zito, and Andy Pettitte, and put them in games where I thought they had good matchups. Overall, this worked out okay for me. Not great, but okay.

Where things got interesting, though, was the morning of the second-to-last day of the season. My team was nursing a slim lead when I looked at the pitching stats and saw the following:

• Can't go up in W points
• Could take 3 losses and go down 2.5 in L points
• Could gain or lose a half point in saves
• Unlikely to see movement in any other pitching categories

In terms of likely pitching outcomes, by playing my pitchers I was looking at anywhere from gaining a half point to losing 3 points that otherwise wouldn't have happened. After examining all the scenarios, I determined that my best move was to bench all of my pitchers for the remainder of the season (Saturday and Sunday). That was Plan A. I also had a Plan B. Depending on what happened on Saturday, I might change my mind on Sunday out of a need to play my pitchers. One possibility was that somehow Westy's Sluggers would get a surprising number of W's and catch me in that category. Another unlikely event would be for IamJabrone to get way more K's than I expected. So on Saturday morning I not only benched all of my pitchers, I also picked up two likely Sunday starters, Homer Bailey and Chris Narveson, just in case I needed to make a miracle comeback that would include wins and K's on the final day.  

 Sometimes you need a Plan B to win. This holds true for most things in life, but especially for feel-good sports movies.

 
As we now know, the Beltran-for-Chipper deal didn't really work out for me. Chipper had some nagging injuries and slumped a bit. Although, he still gave my team more than Beltran would have in September. Time will tell if that deal hurts me in 2010, but I can't second guess it. At the time, I was looking to be aggressive and win in 2009. Chipper was swinging a hot bat at the time of the trade, and so I went for it.

Fortunately, Chipper aside, my offense did step up down the stretch, and on the pitching side, I didn't have to bring in my pitchers on the final Sunday. In fact, you could say that things came up roses for the '90 Reds.

Thank you for reading this series about my fantasy baseball strategy in the UPL. I've had fun pondering and documenting my various tactics, and of course, I'm still open to new ideas. I enjoy the discussions with other players, and my hope is to keep learning.

My strategy: Roster moves (Part 6 of 7)

This is the sixth in a seven-part series documenting my fantasy baseball strategy. In part five we discussed some ideas for drafting players. Now we'll examine some basic principles I follow when considering trades and waiver wire moves.

On May 10, 2009, I looked at Joe Saunders' season stats and was very pleased with my 18th round pick: He was 5-1 with a 2.66 ERA. Better yet, he was fresh off a complete game shutout victory over Zack Greinke and the Royals. But my celebration didn't last long. It was time for me to quickly get Saunders off my team--even if it meant flat out dropping him.

So how could this be? Joe Saunders had gone 17-7 in 2008, and so far in 2009 he was 5-1 with a 2.66 ERA. Why would anyone be in a rush to trade him, let alone drop him? Well, the answer is quite simple: In my world, he was no longer a "championship piece."

To trade or not to trade, that is the question

In theory, if you can develop a good system and then find the right personnel to implement that system, you can have a good team. The only problem, of course, is that this is easier said than done. You're going to have players who slump and guys who get injured, so there will be many times during a 6-month fantasy baseball season when you need to make roster moves, either finding guys on the waiver wire or making trades.

And really, we can simplify this a bit further. Every roster move you make is actually a trade. Either you're trading players with Mr. Other Manager, or you're trading players with Mr. Waiver Wire. I prefer to trade with Mr. Waiver Wire because I can usually rip him off.

There are several solid strategies for approaching roster moves. And I imagine that, at some level, most managers consider value over replacement player (VORP) whether they realize it or not. The Chairman has also posted about VORP. Essentially, with roster moves, you're expecting to add more stats to your team than you lose, and you want to factor in position scarcity to be more efficient in where you gain those stats. (For example, it's silly to trade your best 2B for another guy's best 3B when you have no other good options at 2B and a nearly-as-good 3B was already sitting on the waiver wire.)

Over the years, I've tried to add another wrinkle to my thinking when it comes to roster moves. I'm not sure if it's revolutionary, unconventional, or just plain reckless, but some seasons it seems to work okay. I call it the "champioinship pieces" philosophy.

Championship pieces

Back in part two, I explained the framework in which I try to accumulate points. Here's an excerpt from that previous post to give you a window into my thinking:

Every player on my team needs to have a clear purpose for being there. Even players on the bench. Players who start for my team are expected to produce now. Players on my bench are expected to produce when a starter can't go. Period.

Every manager wants his starters to produce now. That's nothing new. But I tend to put more emphasis on balance, and this includes having the strongest bench that I possibly can. Aside from the fact that it can lessen the damage done by injuries, a strong bench also gives me more opportunities to play platoons. 

In the excerpt above I also mention that "every player on my team needs to have a clear purpose for being there." When things are going very well, most players on my team are contributing in a big way, and the rest are at least contributing in a small way. It's rare to have this happen, but when it does, that's when my roster is completely filled with championship pieces.

What exactly is a championship piece? Well, it's hard to explain. I'm reminded of Justice Potter Stewart's famous quote from a 1964 Supreme Court ruling, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."

But unlike Justice Stewart, I will try to further define championship pieces. Here goes:

1. I want my team to put up great numbers
2. I want my team to be balanced
3. Any player proving to be a key contributor to either (1) or (2) is, in my mind, a championshp piece

Another important thing to keep in mind regarding the championship pieces philosophy is that it gains steam as the season unfolds. After all, early on it's anyone's guess as to how players and teams will perform. And if June 1 rolls around with my team mired in 9th place, I'm not exactly going to be viewing my players as championship pieces. However, if June 1 rolls around and my team is in the top 3 battling for a title, then I'm definitely viewing each player with one question in mind: Is he a championship piece or not?

If my team is going well in May, let's say in 1st or 2nd place, I might look at my roster and identify 16 or 17 guys as championship pieces. My goal is then to see if I can get up to 18, then 19 and so on. The main idea here is to not go backward. If someone offers to trade me a perceived championship piece, but I would have to give up a championship piece in return, then what has my team gained?

Let's take last season for example. If I had had the first pick of the 2009 UPL Baseball Draft, I would have taken Albert Pujols. (I ended up with the 8th pick and took Ryan Howard.) However, after my team bubbled to the top of the standings and my 17th-round pick Pablo Sandoval showed signs of becoming a good MLB hitter, an interesting development occured. If I had been offered Pujols for Sandoval, I likely wouldn't have done the deal. Why? Two reasons. 1) Sandoval added tremendous balance to my team with position eligibility at C, 1B, and 3B. 2) Pujols would have been a bit redundant, since I already had Howard. So yes, Pujols would have increased my team's talent level, but he wouldn't have improved its balance.

My modus operandi

In the Urbana Premier League (UPL) where I play fantasy baseball, I make relatively few trades with other managers. Here's why:

1. Greater margins to improve my team exist on the waiver wire (I can more easily "rip off" the waiver wire than another manager)
2. I want to be careful that any trade I make will fit into my team's overall system
3. In general, I don't want to directly participate in making my opponents' teams better

Let me elaborate on that last point with an analogy. If you're on fire in the UPL, and I have a glass of water, and you're looking at me for help, then I'm probably just going to drink that glass of water.

Oh, I'm sorry, is that your house on fire? Welcome to the UPL, my friend.

Back in part four I opined that saves are a more reliable bet than win-loss ratio. As such, this can explain why I tend to favor trading starters for closers. It also explains why last season I cheered when the Thugs traded away Brian Fuentes for Clayton Kershaw--and then I cursed when he traded Tommy Hunter and Phil Hughes for Andrew Bailey. (Side note: My feeling is that the Bailey deal helped the Thugs' point total in 2009, but the Kershaw deal not so much. From a keeper standpoint, it will be interesting to see how this pair of trades looks in 2010 and the years ahead.)

Here's another example. In 2007, I had a healthy Brandon Webb pitching at a high level. However, I had a full staff of quality SPs, and as such, I started to question whether Brandon Webb was a championship piece or a redundant part with excellent trade value to help me land a real championship piece. After doing my homework on Jonathan Papelbon (including his full injury history, how he was managing his health, and watching interviews of him in the media), the Jabrones and I agreed to a deal: Webb for Papelbon. The Jabrones got what they wanted: One of the best starting pitchers in baseball. But in my estimation, Papelbon with his saves and rate stats would balance out my team better and I could win a championship without Webb. Fortunately, that year I tied for first, and yes, Papelbon's saves were critical.

What I Reallly Thought About Joe Saunders

Earlier I alluded to my Joe Saunders dilemma. He was 5-1 with a 2.66 ERA on May 10, 2009, but I wanted him off my team--even if it meant dropping him. So how did I reach this point? Easy. Saunders has a paltry K/9 rate, and it's hard to compete in that category with him on your team. Plus his only redeeming quality is his W-L ratio, which I've already stated isn't a very reliable stat. And finally, once I had determined he was no longer a championship piece, I started looking for championship pieces elsewhere. Time was of the essence, and I didn't want to waste it with Saunders being a drag on my roster.

And there was something else at play here. In the days leading up to May 10, my OF Manny Ramirez was suspended 50 games, and my 3B Aramis Ramirez landed on the 60-day DL. I needed to add a bat to my lineup. So I worked out a deal for Mike Cameron, who at the time had put up better numbers than Manny Ramirez over the first 5 weeks of the season. Granted, I didn't expect Cameron to keep it up, but I did hope he would be good enough to be my 4th OF and work him into my lineup a few times a week. In that regard, I did hope he would become a championship piece, and I did believe he was better than anyone on the waiver wire. (Those of you with good memories will recall that shortly after this deal was made during the week of May 10, both Saunders and Cameron went into a tailspin, so nobody "won" this trade. Although, it did win an unofficial UPL award for "most meaningless trade.")

Okay, now we're getting down to the end of this series. Next time in part seven we'll talk about the end game, where sometimes you need to chuck everything you know and just do whatever it takes to win.

Why the Joe Mauer Deal Makes $ense

When I first learned that Joe Mauer was up for free agency in 2010, I assumed that he'd likely go for a mega-contract with the Yankees (or perhaps some other big market team). Either that or he'd give a home town discount to stay with the Twins.

So imagine my surprise when I read that Mauer had signed the fourth richest contract in MLB history, an 8-year deal worth $184 million dollars, with the Twins. I was absolutely stunned, not just that the Twins did it, but that they were even able to do it. I didn't think they had the money. But of course, my next thought was, "Aren't the Twins getting away from what has made them so successful through the years as a small market team?"

Joe Mauer is undoubtedly a great talent, evidenced by his 2 gold gloves and 3 batting crowns in just 5 MLB seasons. But he's a catcher, and they tend to break down sooner than other positions. Plus Mauer has already had injury problems, including just last year. To me, it seemed crazy for the small market Twins to invest so heavily in a catcher with a history for nagging injuries.

But I've had some more time to consider this deal, and I've done a 180. Not from a baseball standpoint, but from a business perspective. In Joe Mauer, the Minnesota Twins have landed marketing gold. He's more than just a local hero who will fill their new stadium--which I'm sure the organization feels much pressure to fill--he's also become a national icon.

I don't know the details of the Twins' finances or how they figure Mauer's value to their organization. But my hunch is that they've done the math and concluded that, from a marketing standpoint, he's a good bet to be worth more than $184 million.

Post-draft thoughts

So the UPL just finished its 2010 fantasy baseball draft. Earlier I posted about some decisions I would need to make in this keeper league. And some of these decisions were made easier after the expansion draft, which saw me lose Billy Butler to the Milwaukee Whiffers. So after that and Joe Nathan's injury, here's who ended up making my 18 keepers:

C - Victor Martinez / Miguel Montero
1B - Ryan Howard / Pablo Sandoval / Victor Martinez
2B - Empty
SS - Jason Bartlett
3B - Aramis Ramirez / Pablo Sandoval / Chipper Jones
OF - Justin Upton
OF - Manny Ramirez
OF - Carlos Gonzalez / Michael Bourn / Chris Coghlan

SP - Dan Haren
SP - Javier Vazquez
SP - Wandy Rodriguez
SP - Edwin Jackson
RP - Brian Wilson
RP - Chad Qualls

Last year I had 4 closers going into the season, and that seems to be a good number in the UPL (which usually has about 12 teams). If I can find 5 reliable closers, then that's an even better number. At the bare minimum I want to have 3 closers, so that's another good reason to always have at least 4--if one goes down with an injury or gets demoted, at least you still have 3.

No doubt, the Joe Nathan injury is a huge loss for my team, especially if he would have gone on to have another 40+ save season with phenomenal peripheral stats. But here's the bright side: At least the injury happened before the draft, giving me an opportunity to plan around it.

As mentioned on the UPL blog, I actually beat the odds and won a lottery pick in this year's draft. While it was exciting at first to learn I had landed my 1.28% chance of moving up into one of the top 3 picks in the draft, after some time had passed I realized the true implications. Basically, there were only 2 "special" prospects available in this draft--Jason Heyward and Stephen Strasburg. If I could have drafted one of those two, then I would have either had a nice prospect with a relatively high chance of becoming an All-Star, or at the very least I had a piece that could likely be traded for a top 100 player immediately. The problem, of course, is that I ended up falling one slot short and ended up with the 3rd pick. And that was a bitter pill to swallow.

When we look back on this draft 5 years later, we might laugh at how highly we regarded Heyward and Strasburg. But what matters now is that these two guys are widely perceived as the next two Hall-of-Famers in the making. And really, JimmyDix has already cashed in on this perceived value by trading the #1 pick (which turned out to be Heyward) and Kendry Morales for an upgrade at 1B, Adrian Gonzalez, and a quality closer, Jose Valverde. It will be fun to look back on this trade a few years from now to see if one side got the better deal or not. 

Another thing that hurt my team was Coghlan losing his 2B eligibility. I guess this proves I don't follow the Marlins closely, because I thought he had played a little 2B last year and would keep his eligibility for this season (I know Dan Uggla is Florida's regular 2B, but I thought Coghlan might have stepped in at times). But I was wrong. And while Coghlan is a very nice player to have at 2B, his value at OF is considerably less. And it meant that going into this draft I didn't have any 2Bs.

So my team's holes were very clear: closer and 2B. And I felt the worst thing I could do in the draft would be to not at least try to shore up my team's ability to acquire saves. While I hated the idea of picking a low-end closer with the #3 pick that I had won in a lottery, it seemed as though I had no other choice. Sure I could have tried to trade the pick, but I think there was a huge drop in value from the #2 pick to the #3 pick. Perhaps others will disagree, but people weren't exactly banging on the door to pick third in this draft.

I studied the relievers available in this draft very closely. By my count, there were only 3 relievers who were very likely to be their team's long-terms closers on Opening Day: Octavio Dotel, Matt Capps, and Matt Lindstrom. Conventional wisdom had it that Jon Rauch would get the nod in Minnesota, but I also was hearing rumors that Francisco Liriano or someone else might get the job. I also liked Chris Perez, because he would likely be Indians closer at least well into May; and Franklin Morales was on my radar because he was slotted to be Huston Street's replacement through April. And I also had a close eye on Ryan Madson since he was going to be the Phillies closer to start the season. Sure, Brad Lidge is scheduled to return soon, but you never know. Plus Madson's peripherals are very nice to have.

At the top of my 2B wish list was Martin Prado. He's likely to bat at or near the top of the Braves' lineup, and by all accounts he's going to be a solid hitter for a 2B. I considered taking him with the third pick, but here's the other problem with drafting toward the top... it's a long wait until you get your second pick. In my case of drafting third out of 13 teams, I would have to wait 20 picks before my next chance would roll around. Also, it's important to not lose sight of the fact that this isn't really a traditional "first round" of the draft--with 18 keepers it's more like the 19th round. So if this were the 19th round, what would I value? And what would my opponents value?

In my world, I figured that those remaining closers would look good to at least a few teams with those 20 picks in between my first two picks. I could easily envision a scenario where I take the 2B I want at #3, Martin Prado, and then have my top 3 closer choices all go off the board before I have a chance at the #24 pick. So with Capps having elbow issues last year and some competition for his job this season in Washington, and with Lindstrom also coming off an injury-plagued year and potentially some competition with Brandon Lyon in Houston, I decided that I would take Octavio Dotel and his high-K rate in Pittsburgh where he has relatively little competition for the closer role. I know, it's not what I had envisioned when I "won" a lottery pick, but I feel it's what I had to do.

Unfortunately, and actually surprisingly, Martin Prado went off the board at #7 to Phatsnapper. I was hoping that Prado would fall to me at #24. While I think it was a good pick for Phatsnapper, I just thought Prado would have slipped a little further in the draft. Plus I would have guessed that Phatsnapper would have gone for a player with a little more upside. But then again, I do think there's plenty of upside with Prado--especially for a 2B.

But the bigger surprise to me is that all 20 of those picks went by without anyone taking a closer. I would have never predicted this outcome. Sure, I could see people being uncomfortable taking a low-end closer with their first pick of the draft, but by the time you're in the 2nd round (which is really the 20th), how can you not at least consider another closer? Even if you already have 3 good closers, I would think that there would be some good value in at least trying to find a fourth.

At #24, I already had decided that I needed to address 2B. And with Prado already off the board and my other top choices already kept by other teams (such as a guy like Rickie Weeks), I was forced to look in places I otherwise would have preferred to avoid. I went with Casey McGehee who is likely just a one-hit wonder from last year, but I had to take the chance. I had read up on him last week and he seemed likely to start the year as Milwaukee's 3B ahead of Mat Gamel, but his struggles recently (which I read after the draft) now have him in a dogfight for a job. McGehee might not be my solution at 2B, but there was one other interesting name on my 2B wish list that I thought maybe, just maybe, might fall to me later in the draft.

At #29, still no other closers had gone off the board, so I had to take a flier on Matt Capps. I think it's unlikely he can regain his form of 2 years ago, but for now he is set to be the closer for the Nationals in a pitcher friendly park. I'm not sure what all was wrong with his elbow last year, but here's hoping he can regain the magic. If so, then hey, I'll be happy with this pick. For now, he's my fourth closer and that was a major goal of mine going into this draft. I'm trying to claw my way back into contention for the saves lead.

Now it's time to wait another 20 picks... During this time a few other relievers finally started to go off the board. Hats for Bats took Brandon Lyon (as a Marlins fan, he probably has no faith left in Matt Lindstrom), IamJabrone took Chris Perez (as a Cubs fan, he probably has no faith left in Kerry Wood), and the Benver Droncos took Jon Rauch. Interestingly, during Hats' 2nd pick out of these 20, he took Matt Thornton--a great setup guy with nice peripherals who many expect to replace Bobby Jenks as the White Sox closer at some point this year.

At #50, I had a few options. But with my #3 rated pre-draft available closer, Matt Lindstrom, still on the board, and with the opportunity to go 3 for 3 in landing these closers, I couldn't pass. At the very least I would likely be denying one of my opponents an opportunity to add to their closer depth. (Due to a comment from Westy later in the draft, I learned that he was the opponent I was denying. Muahahaha!)

At #55, I was happy to see the Tigers' rookie 2B Scott Sizemore still available. I think someday he could be a solid hitter at 2B, although it's unlikely to be this season. Unfortunately, due to my desperation at this position, I had to take a flier on him. It might pay off this season, but only time will tell.

And now it's time to wait another 20 picks... If you look again at my 18 keepers listed above, you'll notice I only have one guy at SS--Jason Bartlett. I like to have at least two at each of the hitter positions, so I felt now was the time to address SS. I hadn't really read up on SS before the draft, but right now I was cruising the web to get the latest info. I quickly honed in on Ian Desmond, who I remembered reading about a while back as a top prospect who could be starting in Washington this season. Plus he had some quality MLB experience from last season--and best of all, he was still available in the draft. I also found info on San Diego's SS Everth Cabrera, who many people listed as a good late round sleeper. He was available as well, but Ian Desmond--in my view--had way more power and upside... and after Benver's pick at #75, Desmond would be mine at #76.

Too bad Benver reads up on baseball prospects, too, because with the 75th pick he stabbed me in the back and took Ian Desmond. It was another bitter pill for me to swallow. I ended up taking Cabrera, and for now I hope that my starting SS Bartlett can have another season where he's at the top of the Rays' lineup with a .390+ OBP, 90+ runs, and 28+ steals.
 
At #81, all of my top SP choices were gone. I thought Wade Davis would have been nice to land late, but he ended up going off the board in the second round (which is a good pick if you're looking for SP help). There were a few other SPs that would have been nice, but none of them were left. However, another reliever who was on my radar before the draft was surprisingly still available: Franklin Morales. While he'll likely be replaced by Huston Street a few weeks into the season, there's still a good chance he'll rack up 3 to 5 saves beforehand. Plus there's always the chance that Street has a setback or is ineffective upon his return. In the 7th round (really the 25th round), Morales seemed like the guy who could most help my team now. Yes, this means I'm likely entering the season with 6 closers, and no I don't consider that ideal. But there are worse predicaments for a fantasy baseball team. Plus the closer position is so volatile, it's hard to know where things will stand a month from now.

With my final pick at #102, I finally got my fifth SP with John Maine. He's still fairly young for a SP and (hopefully) developing. Plus if you look at his splits, he's been a decent pitcher at home (including last year in the new Citi Field). So he'll likely only pitch at home for my team.

So how would I rate my draft? Well, every year after the draft I think that I could have done better. Perhaps the grass always seems greener on the other side of the street. But my main goal was to add some closers to my roster to give my team a chance at being competitive in saves to start the season, and I feel that this was accomplished. I was disappointed that Prado didn't fall to me at #24, but if either Casey McGehee or Scott Sizemore steps up, it might be OK. Or maybe I'll need to swing a deal for a 2B.

And how do I feel about my team overall? Come on, are you serious? Everyone thinks their team is awesome in April.

Update I: Pauly of Hats for Bats has posted his take on the draft here.
Update II: The Chairman has analyzed the draft as well.

My strategy: Drafting players (Part 5 of 7)

This is the fifth in a seven-part series documenting my fantasy baseball strategy. Last time in part four we discussed pitcher evaluation. Now we'll examine how I approached the 2009 Urbana Premier League Baseball Draft and assembled the core of my championship team.

I tend to be wary of general draft advice. After all, draft strategies should vary greatly from league to league. An 8-team league is going to have a vastly different draft from a 16-team league. Also, much depends on the type of managers in your league. If most guys in your league live in Chicago, then you have to expect a high number of Cubs/Sox players will go off the board earlier than they really should. Whereas MLB players on other teams around the country might be hidden gems who fall further in the draft than they should. Each league tends to have its own biases and blind spots.

I can only speak to my own experience. I've never participated in an auction draft, so that's not what this post is about. In the UPL where I play, up until this season we've always had a basic snake draft with all MLB players available. Now 2010 will be the first time we have just a small 8-round draft to fill in our keeper teams. However, here I'll focus on the traditional snake draft for a 12-team league, which is what we had in the UPL for 2009.

The basic principles that I apply to drafting players are the same ones already laid out in the first four posts of this series:

• Focus on winning now. Don't get caught up on players who might be good in the 2nd half of this season or next season. Try to get the guys who will produce right away.
• Build a balanced team. If possible, have multiple players available at each position in order to foster competition and maximize roster flexibility.
• Pick high-OBP power hitters early. Predicting which players will perform the best is hard, but hitters with a track record for high OBP and power numbers tend to be the most reliable bets.
• Target pitchers with low WHIPs and high Ks. Drafting pitchers is risky by nature, so here you can afford to take more risks by drafting them in later rounds.

Now let's see if I took my own advice. Here are the picks of my team, the '90 Reds, from the 2009 UPL Draft:

Round 1 - Ryan Howard, 1B (8th pick overall)
Round 2 - Carlos Beltran, OF (17)
Round 3 - Manny Ramirez, OF (32)
Round 4 - Aramis Ramirez, 3B (41)

What do all four of these players have in common? They're all hitters who had put up big-time numbers for at least the past three seasons (2006, 2007, 2008). Beltran, Manny, and A-Ram all typically go .400/.500 (OBP/SLG), and Howard has simply been the most reliable power guy since 2006. Yes, Howard's OBP isn't as high as I like, but he's been so consistent in a championship-caliber Philly lineup that I just couldn't pass on him. I have no regrets taking Howard over Fielder or Braun, mainly because Howard has been doing it for longer.

Sure, Beltran and A-Ram both got hurt, and Manny got suspended for 50 games, but these were still good picks. After all, when those guys were in the lineup, they produced. That's so much better than having a guy in the lineup who doesn't get the job done.

2010 Outlook: I'd keep Howard rated about the same. But yeah, you have to downgrade Beltran, Manny, and A-Ram based on their disappointing results last season.

Round 5 - Dan Haren, SP (56)

Season after season Haren has low WHIPs and high Ks. Plus he's had a relatively clean medical history. Somewhat early in the draft I like to get at least one bona fide ace starting pitcher to anchor my staff. I was a little surprised that Haren was still available at #56, so I was happy to take him.

2010 Outlook: I'd keep Haren rated about the same heading into 2010 as he was for 2009.

Round 6 - Victor Martinez, C, 1B (65)

V-Mart was my favorite pick of the draft. Why? Because no other pick showcased my strategy better than this one. I admittedly struggled when I was on the clock here, mainly because I was also considering Adam Dunn. The way I saw it, my choice was between the best hitter available (Adam Dunn, who you can pencil in for .400/.500 and 40 homers every season) or the guy who could best balance out my team (Victor Martinez, who also goes .400/.500 with decent power at a scarce position, catcher, plus he has 1B eligibility and thus could backup Howard in an emergency).

Like V-Mart, Dunn also had dual eligibility (OF/1B) and could have backed up Howard. But I already had 2 OFs, and having V-Mart at catcher would have been amazing value if he could stay healthy and go .400/.500. Not only is V-Mart a better hitter than almost every other catcher in the league, but I had read that his manager (for the Indians) was going to make sure his bat was in the lineup every day, even when he wasn't catching (most catchers take at least 1 game off per week). In V-Mart, I saw a way for my team to potentially dominate the position of catcher both in terms of quality and quantity, so I snatched him. Fortunately, he stayed healthy and, as I had hoped, proved to be a key difference for my team.

2010 Outlook: Since V-Mart actually stayed healthy last year, his rating goes up for 2010. But don't look for his overall numbers to be better in 2010 than they were in 2009. 

Round 7 - Joe Nathan, RP (80)

Nathan was 34 going into last season, and some people would have stayed away from him in a keeper league. (Maybe worried that he'd hurt his elbow and miss the season with Tommy John surgery or something.) But I just saw a guy who was among the best in the business. He had a relatively clean medical history, and since I also like to get at least one bona fide elite closer relatively early in the draft, I went for Nathan. Fortunately, he went on to have a career year in 2009 with 47 saves.

2010 Outlook: Okay, so I guess all those people who were worried about Nathan's age can gloat now. He's out for the year with that Tommy John surgery. But this is another pick that I'm not going to second guess.

The core

I was really happy with my first seven picks. I had five hitters who, if healthy, were great bets to produce at or near .900 OPS levels. Four of my five hitters were coming off at least three straight great seasons. And with Victor Martinez, I had potentially found an elite player at a scarce position, C, who could also serve as an emergency backup for my top pick Ryan Howard at 1B if he went down with an injury.

Also in those top seven picks I managed to take an ace SP, Dan Haren, and an All-Star closer, Joe Nathan. By this point, many of my opponents had a head start with pitchers, but my plan was to try to catch up in pitching either through the latter part of the draft or through free agency. For now, I was happy to stock up on top hitters.

For anyone interested in my picks from Rounds 8 to 24, I've posted them in the comments below. I didn't always take my own advice, but for the most part there was a method to my madness. Perhaps I can learn more from my mistakes than from my successes.

Now that the draft is over, it's time to let the games begin. In part six we'll look at making roster moves during the season.