A Rare Baseball Feat, But Does Anyone Care?

Certain individual feats catch the imagination of MLB fans and journalists. Two that come to mind would be hitting for the cycle and throwing a no-hitter. These feats involve elegant number combinations and signify a player's excellent performance. They're also relatively rare. Since 1876, there have been 269 no-hitters; and since 1882, there have been 291 occurrences of hitting for the cycle. Doing the math, that's about two no-hitters and two cycles per year.

On a similar note, a couple years ago I posted a question for which I didn't have an answer:

When was the last time a player had two steals and two homers in the same game? 

It led to an interesting discussion, with Pauly finally tracking down a box score that showed Carlos Beltran accomplishing the feat in 2004. I was glad to know that it had been done, but I was still wondering how many times it had been done. So the mystery lingered.

From mid-2007 through 2009, I scoured box scores nearly every day during baseball season in hopes of noticing a player who accomplished the feat, but I found none. I also did an occasional web search to see if I could find answers in baseball history. I even tried asking Jayson Stark on Twitter. But other than Pauly's Carlos Beltran find, I was coming up empty. Just how rare is it for a batter to go for two homers and two steals in a single game? The answer was proving to be elusive.

Until now.

Thanks to Sean Holtz of Baseball Almanac, he searched his digital box score database which goes back nearly 100 years (early 19-teens) and has provided what might be the most complete answer available. According to Holtz, the feat has only been recorded 13 times. This means that hitting two homers and stealing two bases in a single game is about as rare as throwing a perfect game, which has been done 20 times.  

So who are these legends of the game that we've never heard about? Here's the list of 13 men known to have hit at least two homers and stolen at least two bases in one game:

#, Name, Date, Team, Pos
1. Jack Fournier, 1921-05-21,STL,1B
2. Don Kolloway*, 1941-06-28,CHW,2B
3. Tommie Agee, 1971-07-22,NYM, CF RF
4. Joe Morgan, 1973-04-15,CIN,2B
5. Howard Johnson,1987-07-11,NYM,3B
6. Dante Bichette, 1994-06-27,COL,RF
7. Kirk Gibson, 1995-05-28,DET,DH
8. Gary Sheffield, 1995-09-18,FLA,LF
9. Chipper Jones, 1999-09-05,ATL,3B
10. Carlos Beltran, 2004-08-27,HOU,CF
11. Rafael Furcal, 2005-04-15,ATL,SS
12. Chris Duffy, 2006-09-07,PIT,CF
13. Ryan Spilborghs, 2009-05-02,COL,CF LF

*All the people on this list hit exactly two homers and stole exactly two bases in their games, except one. Don Kolloway hit two jacks and was an absolute jackrabbit on the bases with four steals.

Now, in fairness, our data for perfect games goes back further than our data for these 2-homer/2-steal games. And it appears that going for two homers and two steals in a game has become more common since 1994. This could be for a variety of reasons. But still, since 1994, only eight guys have gone 2/2 in a game and only seven guys have thrown a perfect game. I'm willing to concede that throwing a perfect game is a more impressive feat, but hitting two homers and stealing two bases in a game is much more difficult than hitting for the cycle.

So why doesn't going 2/2 in a game get more media attention? I obviously missed Ryan Spilborgh's 2/2 in 2009, even though I had been trying to keep an eye out for it. Going back and reading that game's recap is actually funny because, aside from the box score, there is no mention of the special achievement. The article simply says, "Spilborghs homered twice and drove in three runs."

Maybe what we need to do is create a name for going 2/2 in a game. After all, throwing a "no-hitter" and hitting for "the cycle" sound cool and give symbolic meaning to these special feats. Perhaps we could name going 1/1 in a game as "[Blank]," and then 2/2 would just be "Double [Blank]." Any suggestions for a name out there? You never know, if we toss out five or six ideas, one of them might stick. One day we could hear Joe Morgan on Sunday Night Baseball say, "Hanley Ramirez just got a [Blank] with that steal. Now a [Blank] is what they call getting a homer and a steal in the same game. Back in my day, one time I got a Double [Blank]. That's two homers and two steals in a game."

But I digress. The important thing is that at least now we know. So the next time a player on your favorite team comes up to bat in the top of the 9th with two homers and a 12-3 lead, rather than rooting for him to hit that third homer, which has been done hundreds of times, you might want to instead root for him to single and steal second and third. Then he'd join a much more exclusive club.

The 2010 Razzballies

If you haven't checked out the year-end awards over at Razzball yet, well, you should. Here's a taste:

Player You Traded For That You Most Regretted – Did Pablo Sandoval really just hit .250 on my team with 7 extra base hits in three months?

Ouch. That one struck a little too close to home.

Book Blogger Appreciation Week

This week, September 13 to 17, is Book Blogger Appreciation Week. I know, that was news to me as well. However, that won't stop me from trying to join in on the fun. If you'd like to see what some bloggers are doing for this annual event, here's a few places to check out:

Her Book Self - This book blog is run by Lisa Guerrero, who also stops in here at My Baseball Fantasy from time to time. (And she's a die-hard Cubs fan. Sorry, Lisa, I just lost the Cardinal and White Sox vote for you.) In any case, seriously, her book blog is the real deal.

Behind the Curtain - This is my other blog where I wander into the literary wilderness of books, writing, and randomness. But there's nothing random about this week. I got to interview a talented blogger at "Hair In My Coffee." You can read the interview here.

And Book Blogger Appreciation Week doesn't end there! I'll be posting a long overdue baseball book review right here later today.

Cuban, Almost Texas Ranger

I just read Mark Cuban's blog post about his unsuccessful attempt to buy the Texas Rangers. I thought it was a good read and once again shows his business savvy. Here's an excerpt from his perspective regarding how there could have been a TV money synergy with him owning both the Mavs and Rangers:

In addition, as everyone told me time and again, the Rangers TV deal ran out in 4 years.  Combine that with the Mavs TV deal running out just a few years later and it could either form a foundation for a new sports network, or preferably cause Fox to pay an ungodly amount of money to keep the teams on FSN.  Fox had more to lose from a competitive sports network being formed, particularly in Texas,  than a new network had to gain from being created. So the leverage of owning both teams was enormous.

That was a financial win for both teams.  The ability to earn more money from TV revenues for both teams meant more money could be put on the field/court.  It was a unique situation.

Honestly, I'd like to see Cuban buy the Pittsburgh Pirates. He has shown an interest in buying them, and I actually think he could turn them around.

Hit Parade: 7/25 - 7/31

MAYBE THEY'RE NUTS: Why don't more MLB players wear cups? (And if Huston Street doesn't wear one, will he change his mind?)

WHAT'S WITH ALL THE NO-HITTERS this year? Uh, not much, really. Joe Sheehan's article from a few weeks ago still holds up today: "This isn't actually that unusual, even in modern baseball history. Back in 1990 there were four no-hitters in June alone, capped by Dave Stewart and Fernando Valenzuela each tossing one on June 29. A year later, there were five no-hitters in a two-month stretch starting just before the All-Star break, including two combined no-hitters and a perfect game by Dennis Martinez. Those two seasons, '90 and '91, are tied for second place all-time in number of no-hitters thrown at seven, and they hold the modern record."

ARE THE WHITE SOX running into trouble? (Personally, I buy into the 70% theory.)

NEW BULLS' FORWARD Kyle Korver demonstrated how not to throw the first pitch at a Cub game this past weekend.

HAWK IN THE HALL: "I never knew what it felt like to be loved by a city until I arrived in Chicago. You are the reason I kept playing the game. I can't thank you enough for what you gave to me. You were the winds beneath the Hawk's wings." (Congrats to Andre Dawson!)

REPORT CARDS: Chairman Gau is handing out grades for the first half of the UPL fantasy baseball season.

ADVANCED FANTASY BASEBALL: Post All-Star Break Prospects to Watch. (I was disappointed a few days ago to discover that Domonic Brown is not available in the UPL. Blast you, CJ! Fortunately, this article goes way beyond Brown.)

CARLOS QUESTIONABLE: This is for all you Sox fans and Carlos Quentin fantasy owners out there:

HT: Carl Skanberg's Smells Like Mascot.

It's the All-Star Break. Do You Know Where Your Team Is?

I thought Tom Verducci had an interesting piece over at SI.com called, "Why All-Star Break Standings Should Not Be Overlooked." Among his fun nuggets of info:

• Now that the Reds have finally reached the All-Star break in first, that leaves only four teams in the wild-card era that have never led their division at the break: Colorado, Florida, Tampa Bay, and Toronto.
• In the 14 years of the wild-card era, every team with at least a 5-game lead at the break went on to make the playoffs. Well, every team except the 2003 Royals, which blew a 7-game lead. (This season no team has a 5-game lead at the break, although the Texas Rangers have come the closest with a 4.5-game lead.)

If you do check out the article, you'll see that there's some bad news for the Cubs.

Pauly Gets the Call

Okay, so I have some fun news. Pauly, a Charlie Hustle Award Winner and fellow UPL manager, has been called up to greener blogging pastures at Advanced Fantasy Baseball. His first article is already up: "10 Guys Available in 80% (or more) of ESPN Leagues that are Worth a Look."

It seems like just yesterday that Pauly officially started blogging about baseball. But he's been a baseball fan his whole life and is a great addition for the Advanced Fantasy Baseball blog, where the tagline is "Advice on who to keep and who to chase in your league."

You can check out Pauly's first article here. And I'll be looking forward to what he comes up with next.

Congrats, Pauly!

Number 11

I liked this one from the blog Smells Like Mascot:

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 Vindictive Separatists

So, for the first time ever, I'm in two fantasy baseball leagues. I'm still playing in the UPL, and I've now added the CryBabies League into the mix.

Mr. Hayes (of Mush Heads' UPL fame) is the commissioner of the CryBabies League, which is a head-to-head format. There are only eight teams, so each team is loaded with talent. The most important thing is to make sure your team is hitting on all cylinders the last few weeks of the season.

The Mush Heads gave me a rude awakening in Week 1, drubbing me so badly across the categories that I found myself in last place. After Week 2, I climbed from 8th to 7th. So technically, even though I'm doing terrible in the UPL, I'm doing even worse in the CryBabies League. (Side note: I was a hypocrite and didn't take my own drafting advice, instead settling for an autodraft that saddled me with my top two picks being 3Bs: Alex Rodriguez and David Wright. I'll likely have to make a trade at some point.)

But the CryBabies League is fun. One thing I've noticed is that there's no shortage of entertaining team names, such as "Hemroids," "Apple Sucks," "tballchamps," and my personal favorite, "Steroid to Heaven."

In order to come up with my own team name, I went to Razzball's Fantasy Baseball Team Name Generator. I selected an "agitated adjective" for category 1, and then a "war term" for catgory 2. And voila! "Vindictive Separatists" was my randomly generated team name. Works for me.

I think it's OK to pick a team name by random. The problems come when you try to pick players at random. We'll see if I can dig myself out of the cellar by season's end.

A League of Her Own? Japanese Girl Brings Wicked Knuckleball to U.S. Pro Team

I've thought about it before. Somehow I end up on a major league team, we're up 3-2 in the bottom of the ninth, and the manager calls on me to close the game. I'm, of course, not major league material, so what would I have to do to get the job done?

As it turns out, I can throw a bit of a knuckleball. Granted, it's not major league quality, but it'd be my only chance. Either that or throw my 65 m.p.h. fastball at the other team's best hitter's head in hopes that (after he easily steps out of its way) he'd be enraged, chase after me, and then after I sprinted back to the bullpen and safely locked myself inside, the umps would throw him out of the game.

So I guess it should come as no surprise that the first woman ever to be signed by a U.S. professional baseball team is a knuckleballer. Her name is Eri Yoshida, she's been playing in Japan and has now signed with the Chico Outlaws in California. Here's an excerpt from Nicolas Lewis' article on Technorati:

[Yoshida] has received some coaching from Tim Wakefield, and both he and her Chico bosses - former major-leaguers Garry Templeton and Mike Marshall - see something in her that gives them confidence, so at least for now, I will express the same.

We'll wait and see how Yoshida's pitching career progresses and whether she's able to climb the minor league ranks. Although, my guess is that right now she could mow down the Astros' lineup.

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.

Overrated?

Razzball recently listed their 10 overrated players for 2010. I noticed that a whopping 5 of the 10 are currently on my UPL fantasy team:

• Victor Martinez
• Pablo Sandoval
• Javier Vazquez
• Manny Ramirez
• Aramis Ramirez

I would have had a sixth on this list if I hadn't lost Billy Butler in the expansion draft. Whew!

My strategy: Pitcher evaluation (Part 4 of 7)

This is the fourth in a seven-part series documenting my fantasy baseball strategy. Part three discussed how I evaluate hitters. Now we'll flip the script and look at pitchers.

Last spring, Edwin Jackson likely went undrafted in every fantasy league outside of Detroit. But on April 7, 2009, he tossed 7.1 strong innings of one-run ball in his first start for the Tigers. Suddenly he was on many fantasy baseball managers' radars as someone who was worth considering for a roster spot. However, if you were in the Urbana Premier League (UPL), Edwin Jackson was already long gone.

So what's my secret? Do I really have a special method for evaluating pitchers, or did I just get lucky last year with Dan Haren, Javier Vazquez, Wandy Rodriguez, Edwin Jackson, Joe Nathan, Brian Wilson, Dan Qualls, and J.P. Howell? Well, I've always admitted that luck is a significant part of fantasy baseball. But when we're talking about accumulating stats over a 6-month period, I also think you need to put yourself in position to be lucky.

As mentioned in my keeper theory post, it's easier to predict how players will perform this season than next season. Something similar can be said when comparing hitters to pitchers. While it's difficult to predict how hitters will perform in any given season, it's even tougher to predict pitchers. 

But picking pitchers is still 50% of roto baseball, so we need to have a strategy for it. In the UPL where I play, there are six pitching categories: W, L, K, S, ERA, and WHIP. Below is how I study the categories when evaluating a pitcher. 

Walks and hits per inning pitched (WHIP)

When I study a pitcher's stats, I begin with WHIP. A pitcher is supposed to make it hard for batters to even reach base, and WHIP is the best measure we have in this department. Really, my WHIP strategy isn't complicated. I tend to look for guys who I think can have a season WHIP of 1.20 or less. 

Strikeouts (K)

After WHIP, I look at strikeouts per nine innings (K/9). My thought here is that a pitcher with a high K/9 can be more than good. He can be dominant. After all, when you strike out a batter, the batter has no chance of reaching base (barring a swing at a pass ball or wild pitch). But even a weak grounder to the pitcher gives the batter a chance.

One thing to keep in mind is that pitchers with high K/9 ratios tend to throw more pitches and suffer more wear and tear. Just think how each strikeout requires at least three pitches, whereas a groundout could happen on the first pitch. However, I don't worry about this too much unless a pitcher has already shown some significant history of injuries. (For example, I wouldn't be too interested in Ben Sheets or Rich Harden at this point. But if either of them were converted to a closer, like Kerry Wood, then that could be a different story.)

In terms of K/9 ratio, I like to see at least 8 K's per 9 innings for a pitcher. Anything less than 7K/9 usually gets me thinking about a replacement.

Saves (S)

I place a high value on saves, mainly because this stat is not quite as difficult to predict as some of the others. If you know that a pitcher is the established closer for a team, then presumably if he stays healthy he'll rack up some saves.

By now it should be self-evident why I also value dominant setup men. First off, they can help out with WHIP and K's. Second, they're potentially in line to become a closer and hence pick up saves as well.

Earned run average (ERA)

Honestly, if a pitcher has a low WHIP, then I'm not too concerned about his ERA. The only exception is if I notice that the pitcher gives up a high number of home runs. In that case, a pitcher could have a low WHIP and still sustain a high ERA, which would be troubling in the long run.

Wins and losses (W/L)

Do you want to know a dirty little secret about the UPL? Wins and losses are garbage categories. This is true for any league that counts W's and L's instead of quality starts (QS).

I find W and L so hard to predict that I've taken to ignoring them. They're basically just luck. I would have argued for getting rid of these categories, but then I realized that the middle of the UPL Baseball scoreboard is kind of a fun place to have a roulette wheel.

Some people get caught up in whether a pitcher is on a good team or not. Part of the thinking here is that if a pitcher is on a good team then he'll pick up more wins, or if he's on a bad team he'll pick up more L's. I try to avoid that thinking. I'm more focused on whether the pitcher has a low WHIP, high K/9, and then perhaps if he's in a hitter-friendly park or not. Whether his team is slated to win 60 or 100 games doesn't really concern me too much.

American League vs. National League

Yes, I tend to favor NL starting pitchers over AL starting pitchers. If everything else is equal, then I have to believe that NL starters getting a weak-hitting pitcher at the plate once every nine at-bats instead of a talented DH makes a difference over the course of a season. However, this isn't a primary consideration.

I also pay attention to the division that a starting pitcher plays in. Will he being going up against elite offenses on a regular basis, or is he in a division with relatively weak offenses and pitcher-friendly parks? Again, this is only a minor consideration; and it's not a factor when thinking about closers.

About that Edwin Jackson pickup

After last season's UPL draft in March 2009, I got curious about the waiver wire and which players had gone undrafted. In doing some research, I came across a controversial article written by Michael Salfino. In it, he compared a 24-year-old Edwin Jackson to a 24-year-old Bob Gibson. He then went on to say that Edwin Jackson might come out of relative obscurity to have a breakout year similar to the way Cliff Lee did in 2008 or Esteban Loaiza in 2003.

Even now, people would look at you weird if you mentioned Edwin Jackson in the same sentence as Bob Gibson. Heck, even comparing Jackson to Cliff Lee would put you on shaky ground in most fantasy baseball circles. But can you imagine if I had gone around telling people back in March 2009 that I had read some article comparing Edwin Jackson to Bob Gibson, so now I'm going to pick him up because I think he'll have a breakout year? Yeah, I would have been mocked to say the least. Troy Patterson over at Roto Savants could give you a taste of the criticism I would have received.

But here's what the critics missed. Salfino's article wasn't trying to say that Edwin Jackson will be as good as Bob Gibson or Cliff Lee (although admittedly the Yahoo article title was a bit misleading). The article was simply reminding readers that Edwin Jackson is still young and talented. Its main message: There's still hope for Jackson to develop into a much better pitcher.

Furthermore, when I looked at Jackson's numbers for myself back in March 2009, I noticed that his WHIP from 2006 to 2008 was 1.84, 1.76, and 1.51. Those numbers were bad, but they were steadily going in the right direction. So I took a flier on him before the season even started, not in hopes that he would be Bob Gibson or Cliff Lee, but in hopes that he'd be a solid fantasy starter for my team in 2009.

Looking back on what Edwin Jackson did in 2009, for the first half he was an All-Star and then in the second half he tailed off. Overall, I'd say he was simply a solid fantasy starter for my team. That's all I wanted.

Closing time and final thoughts

Of course you want pitchers with low WHIP and high K/9. Everyone does. But where I differ is that I don't go after the "brand name" pitchers. That's because, compared to hitters, it's very tough to predict which pitchers will really perform the best from year to year, especially when you factor in injuries.

The key for me isn't so much where I focus, but where I don't. I tend to ignore W/L, quality of team, and the big names. This frees me up to focus on WHIP, K, and who I think is really ready to perform now--whether he's a steady veteran or a blooming prospect.

So far in this series we've discussed my keeper theory, my framework for accumulating points, and how I evaluate hitters and pitchers. I'd say we're ready to draft. That's next time in part five.

My strategy: Hitter evaluation (Part 3 of 7)

This is the third in a seven-part series documenting my fantasy baseball strategy. Part two discussed how I think about roster spots for accumulating points in a roto league. Now we'll delve into filling these roster spots with players. Let's start by looking at hitter evaluation.

Maybe you've heard this one before. Right after you've tried something and failed, someone attempts to cheer you up by saying, "It's okay, you can't be successful every time. Just think about a major league hitter. If he's successful just three out of every ten times, he's doing a great job."

While such words of encouragement might make you feel better, they aren't actually true. My response to the above statement would be something like, "Uh, no. If a major league hitter is successful just three out of ten times, then he's either a catcher or on his way back down to the minors."

Gold: On-base percentage

In the UPL 6x6 roto league where I play, the six hitting categories are HR, R, RBI, SB, OBP, and SLG. (Noticeably absent is batting average, which is fine by me.)

When analyzing a hitter's stats for fantasy baseball, the first thing I consider is the on-base percentage (OBP). In fact, I place so much emphasis on OBP that even if your league doesn't count OBP, I'd still suggest that you start with OBP when evaluating a hitter. Why? Because of two reasons. First, the more often that a player gets on base, the more likely that good things will happen (runs scored, stolen bases, runs batted in, etc.). Second, OBP is the best measure of a hitter's ability to be consistently productive.

One of the main points in the book Moneyball was the importance of using OBP, not batting average, when evaluating hitters. This is because OBP measures all the ways a hitter can safely reach base, whereas batting average largely ignores walks. A hitter's ability to draw walks says a lot about a hitter's ability. That's why I never bother with batting average if OBP is available.

A great OBP would be in the neighborhood of .400 (a hitter who reaches base four times for every ten at bats). I'd consider an OBP of .350 to be good, not great. But my reaction to an OBP of .300 would be, "Hmm... is there a better option available?"

Here's another way to think about it. At the most basic level, hitting entails two things:

1. Recognition. A major league hitter has a split second to decide if the pitch is a good one to hit.
2. Execution. If the hitter has decided the pitch is good to hit, then he must strike like a snake to get the barrel of the bat squarely on the ball.

Some hitters have mastered recognition, but are relatively poor at execution. Whereas other guys might excel at execution, but have trouble with recognition. As you can imagine, hitters who are good at both recognition and execution are consistently the best hitters.

So how do we find hitters who are good at both recognition and execution? Start by looking at OBP. An OBP above .400 is really a great sign. If you can find a hitter who has had an OBP above .380 and played at least 145 games in each of the last three seasons, then you're looking at a really consistent hitter. That's my gold standard.

Silver: Home runs

After OBP, the second-most important stat that I consider is home runs (HR). Similar to what I said about getting on base, whenever a player hits a home run, good things happen in other categories. In fact, every time a player hits a home run, not only is your home run total boosted, but so is your runs batted in, runs scored, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage. In the UPL, one swing of the bat can boost 5 of your 6 hitting categories (all except stolen bases).

Possibly more than any other stat, home run production can be affected by the ball park. So if a player is switching teams or if his team is moving to a new ball park, keep this in mind when you're trying to estimate how many home runs he will hit.

Bronze: Slugging percentage

In truth, slugging percentage (SLG) is rarely the deciding factor when I'm considering a player. I don't think that I ever picked up a player specifically because he had a high SLG. This is because I'd be more interested in the player's OBP and HR production. But if a player has a historically low SLG, then that could definitely be a dealbreaker.

Whether it's in the draft or on the waiver wire, I'm often on the lookout for hitters who I feel have an OBP/SLG potential of .400/.500.

The rest: Runs, runs batted in, and stolen bases

I tend to lump runs (R), runs batted in (RBI), and stolen bases (SB) together. Sure, these stats count just as much as the others, but they're tougher to predict. R, RBI, and SB are more dependent upon where a hitter bats in the lineup and the quality of hitters he's surrounded by. Hitters batting first through fourth tend to score the most runs, and hitters batting third through sixth tend to get the most RBIs. Obviously, hitters batting third or fourth are especially desirable because they are in a prime spot to both score runs and get RBIs.

One particular problem I have with trying to predict SB is that speed guys tend to get hurt. Sometimes it feels as though the faster the guy, the more likely he is to get hurt. I think this is especially true of guys who play the outfield and do a lot of running, cutting, and diving. For example, let's compare a speedy center fielder with a masher first baseman. If the first baseman tweaks his hamstring and leaves the game, he might be okay to come back in a day or two and do his thing: mash the ball on offense, and walk three steps and catch the ball on defense. But if the speedy center fielder leaves the game with the same injury, he probably can't come back as soon because he has so much more ground to cover on defense. Plus when the speedy guy does come back from the hamstring tweak, he might be advised to not steal bases until he's 100% healthy. So for that same hamstring tweak, the masher at first base might be back to mashing within a game or two, whereas the speedy center fielder might not be back to stealing bases for a week or two.

Beat the system

Having an eagle eye for spotting players with high OBPs can give you an advantage over your opponents who overvalue other stats. It also can help you cut through the smoke and mirrors of Yahoo's rankings. One problem with typical computer rankings is that they'll weigh OBP equally with other hitting categories.

While the Internet will always be buzzing about the hottest waiver wire player who gets five steals in a game or four homers in two games, I tend to focus more on hitters who have quietly put up an OBP of .400+ over the past month or past week at a position you need. Following this strategy, I managed to pick up guys like Carlos Gonzalez, Billy Butler, and Chris Coghlan last August, and they all contribued to my team down the stretch. (CarGo especially so. Shortly after I picked him up he homered in four straight games. I'm sure the Internet was buzzing about him by then.)

Of course, it's fine to pick up a player who's on a hot streak. But everyone's looking for that player, and besides, those hot streaks end. However, if you find a guy who's flying under the radar while emerging as a consistent hitter at the big league level, that type of production tends to last longer and will be more valuable to your team.

Next week our series continues with part four where we'll discuss pitcher evaluation. The current working title for that post is "Picking Pitchers? It's Nothing More than Luck and a Wave of the Magic Wand."

My strategy: Point accumulation (Part 2 of 7)

This is the second in a seven-part series documenting my fantasy baseball strategy. Part one discussed my keeper theory. Now we'll explore how I utilize roster spots to accumulate points. But be forewarned: You're about to enter the Matrix.

The Urbana Premier League (UPL) where I play fantasy baseball is a 6x6 roto format. Since each team has 24 roster spots, you can think of each team as having 24 active players at any given time, and each player has 6 statistical categories associated with him. So in a way, each manager is managing his own matrix; and as the team matrices accumluate stats and are merged daily, they form a bigger and all-important matrix: the scoreboard.

When I look at my fantasy baseball team, I don't start by looking at the players. I start by looking at an empty matrix of roster spots that needs to be filled by players. Each roster spot is a valuable piece of real estate. 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.

When looking at each starting slot where stats can be accumulated (i.e., catcher, first base, starting pitcher, relief pitcher, etc.), I kinda think of these slots as guns on a warship. Each manager gets the same size warship with the same number of guns (starting slots). Some guns might be bigger and others might be faster. But regardless, I want to be sending out a steady flow of gunfire from every gun on my ship. In order to accomplish this, I have two players available at each position whenever possible. That way if one player has a day off or gets a nagging injury that lasts two or three days, I have a ready backup already on hand. Gotta keep the bullets coming.

In a roto league where each stat counts equally (my league is 6x6) and points are determined by where you rank in each category, my stated goal is to pursue first place in each category. In order to be very competitive in each category, my team needs to be balanced. After all, how can you lead the league in R, HR, RBI, SB, OBP, SLG, W, L, SV, K, ERA, and WHIP, unless your team is good at hitting for power, getting on base, stealing bases, scoring runs, striking out batters, saving games, and keeping opposing hitters off base?

Now some people might say, "Wait a second, if you're truly in a competitive league, it's impossible to lead the league in every category." And to this I'd say that's likely true. But there's a difference between an expectation and a goal. And besides, there's something else at play here. Almost as important as how many points my team accumulates is where the points come from. My main emphasis is to have a balanced team.

Okay, so maybe this all seems obvious. After all, everyone wants to have strong hitting and pitching. But what I'm referring to here goes beyond a balance between hitting and pitching. I want balance from roster spot to roster spot. How do I achieve this? Whenever possible, I want players who can rack up points in multiple categories, and it's a bonus if those players have eligibility at multiple roster spots (positions). That way, in a sense, the points that my team puts on the scoreboard can come from anywhere and everywhere.

The reason that I want the best set of bench players possible is fourfold:

• First, I want to foster competition at each roster spot. If a player slumps, then I'll put a hotter player in and won't reinstate the former starter until he plays his way back into my lineup.
• Related to my previous point, I also like setting up platoons at as many roster spots as possible. For instance, last year I noticed that Michael Bourn's OBP against lefties was terrible, but against righties it was okay. So whenever he started against a lefty, I tended to bench him in favor of a better option. If you're able to play the percentages to your advantage, then why not?
• Third, in the UPL (and most leagues) there is a cap on the number of games that can be played at any position. Most fantasy managers don't even come close to maxing out all of their "innings pitched" or "games played" at each position. However, by having multiple players eligible for each position, you can come close to maxing out each position at season's end. By doing so, you'll squeeze out a few more points along the way. 
• Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, my strategy assumes injuries. I don't know when or where, but injuries will happen. When they do, I want to have a solid short-term solution in place. Necessity is the mother of invention; and like the Internet, my team is built to survive a disaster.

As described above, my team mimics a greedy algorithm by going through every single day trying to maximize production from every single roster spot. My team also is like a distributed system in how I try to avoid becoming too dependent on one or two players for overall team success. So if my strategy really can be summed up in this way, how might we expect my team to perform in a given season? In theory, by deploying a greedy algorithm, my team should get off to a relatively quick start; and when it loses a key player to injury, while the loss hurts, the distributed system of the team should still be able to play in a competitive manner.

So what did my team do in 2009? Well, I blogged on May 6 that my team had gotten off to a quick start. At the time, little did I know that on the following day my #3 pick Manny Ramirez would be hit with a 50-day suspension, and then the day after that my #4 pick Aramis Ramirez would hurt his shoulder and land on the 60-day DL. Sure, that made me nervous. But I had already done the best realistic planning I could possibly do for such an unexpected situation. I shifted some of my team's parts around, and we stayed competitive. Later in the season my #2 pick Carlos Beltran also was lost to injury. However, my team was still able to hang on to win the championship.

Now don't get me wrong. The fact that my team finished in first proves nothing about my strategy. The key here (at least to me) is that my team was able to get off to a quick start, and then despite significant personnel losses, stayed competitive. Those characterics seem line up with a strategy that claims to emulate a greedy algorithm running on a distributed system.

Earlier I mentioned that when I look at my fantasy baseball team, I start by looking at an empty matrix of roster spots that needs to be filled by players. But of course, things get more complicated when you start looking beyond an empty matrix. With a 24-man roster in our 6x6 UPL league, every team's matrix is 24x6 if you're looking at each player's counted stats. Although, there are really more than 6 numbers per player. We can add age as a number, plus we could try to rate how players are trending at any given time or in which matchups they excel. That 24x6 matrix can start getting much bigger when you consider all the ways a manager can rate the players.

But let's keep this simple. Fantasy baseball always comes down to filling the empty matrix of roster spots with players. In order to do this well, we need to do a good job of rating the players. In the next part of this series we'll discuss hitter evaluation; and then in part four we'll look at pitcher evaluation.

My strategy: Keeper theory (Part 1 of 7)

Welcome to the first in a seven-part series chronicling my fantasy baseball strategy as it applied to the 2009 UPL season. The primary purpose of this series is to document my current thoughts about how I approach the game of fantasy baseball. Along the way we'll look at some real-life examples of challenges my team faced in the 2009 season, and why I did what I did each step of the way.

Last October the UPL wrapped up its 9th season--and first as a keeper league. Naturally, going into the season I wanted to have a successful strategy, but I especially wanted to adapt well to this new format because the last time the UPL switched formats (in 2003, going from point accumulation to 6x6 roto) I struggled for 3 or 4 years trying to implement a solid strategy. Given that history, and the fact that I hadn't won the UPL championship outright in 8 years, I was very motivated to do well in 2009.

Part of the allure that people have with a keeper league, aside from the fact that it's more realistic, is that you can do more than just win a championship--you can build a dynasty. On the flip side, if you screw something up then it could cost you for years to come. So from that standpoint there's a little more thrill involved in a keeper league.

Like everyone else in the UPL, as the inaugural baseball keeper season approached in 2009 I had high hopes of fielding a team that would not only be competitive in 2009 but also for 2010 and beyond. So how would I implement a new strategy that enabled my team to be competitive now, yet still plan for the future? This was the fun new challenge of the keeper league. The rules of the game had changed, and with these new complexities, our strategies had to adapt. As I recall, there was quite a bit of talk regarding how we'd need to alter our approach to this new problem.

But after giving it some thought, I soon came to a very different conclusion. In fact, I nearly blogged about my new views regarding a keeper league strategy before the 2009 season started. However, two things kept me from doing so: 1) I didn't think anyone would believe me and 2) Why give away my strategy?

Well, there was also a third reason. If in fact my general approach to the 2009 season was better than my opponents, shouldn't it become apparent after 2 or 3 months? I mean, I'd look really silly if I wrote a long post in March about how my strategy was better than my opponents, only to find myself mired in 17th place come July. Now this doesn't mean I'd have to win the championship in order to prove that my strategy was solid, but at the very least I'd have to field a competitive team before anyone would take my keeper theory seriously.

So what was my keeper theory? Earlier in this post I asked the question, "...how would I implement a new strategy that enabled my team to be competitive now, yet still plan for the future?" And it's true that my initial thoughts about a keeper league centered around this question. However, I started to run into problems when I tried to settle on a logical way to alter my previous season's (2008) strategy for the 2009 keeper league. Starting in 2006 I had learned to focus more on players with high-OBP's and strong track records of performance over multiple years. In 2007, I like to think that I improved upon that strategy with my willingness to draft older players, so long as they had a strong (and recent) track record of performance. In 2008, I had the same basic strategy, although I did deviate from it in a few key ways and it cost me. So for 2009, would I cook up a new strategy or would I be better off trying to get closer to the 2007 strategy that carried me to a UPL co-championship?

In every UPL baseball season prior to 2009, we all had the same simple goal: win now. Everyone clearly understood that you needed to acquire the players who would perform the best this season. But with the introduction of a keeper league where you can keep many players from year to year, suddenly the reward system expanded. Not only was there there a reward for acquiring the best players of this season, there was also a potential reward for picking the best players of next season or beyond.

And this is where a formerly complex problem became rather simple for me. It's already very difficult to speculate on which players will perform the best this season. As we gaze further into the future, it becomes even tougher to predict which players will be the best in the years ahead. (For example, if you had to make predictions today, would you be able to better guess the 2010 All-Star team or the 2011 All-Star team?) For me, this part of the equation was settled: My best guesses will be guesses about this season.

Fortunately, the first part of my equation dovetails nicely with the second part. If indeed you dream of fielding a team that's highly competitive for 5 straight years, doesn't the journey of a thousand miles begin with a single step? How can you have a great team for 5 straight years without first having one great team? So here again my strategy became obvious to me: Go all in for this season.

By now it should be apparent what my keeper theory was for the 2009 UPL Baseball season: Don't change anything.

It's kinda funny. For years all of us in the UPL honed our fantasy baseball skills to become better and better at acquiring the best MLB players of today.  But when the rules were changed in 2009 to allow us to speculate on something far more difficult, picking the best MLB players of the future, most UPL managers felt some need to alter their strategy away from having a laser focus on picking the best players of today. Imagine my delight when one of my top opponents signaled a retreat from his previous strategy by looking more closely at age.

 Now, for those of you with a good memory, you might recall my post from last March 19 when I wrote, "This year it's a keeper league, so that alters the strategy--and raises the stakes." Some might argue that this is proof that I was planning to alter my strategy for the keeper league. But I ask you: Is psychological warfare not allowed in fantasy baseball? Is it morally wrong to lull my opponents to sleep by praising their drafts as better than mine? Is there an unspoken rule against predicting a newcomer to the league will finish in the top 3, when really I just want to put the league's target on his back instead of mine?

And besides, if you're looking for clues about my keeper theory from what I wrote last March 19, you'd get a better sense of it from the opening lyrics of the song in that post:

Look, if you had one shot, or one opportunity
To seize everything you ever wanted--One moment
Would you capture it or just let it slip?

From the beginning I planned to play as aggressively as possible, just like in years past, in pursuit of the championship at season's end. So don't count me among those surprised that my team came out and tore the roof off like two dogs caged. That was kinda my goal.

Stay tuned for part two of this exciting series next week when I explore the finer details of point accumulation. And, in a shocking plot twist, we'll discover that the Chairman has more in common with Rup than he ever dreamt possible.

Welcome to Bloggerville, Pauly

I remember telling Pauly back in '08 that he should start a blog; and nearly two years later he's finally delivered the goods. Today is the world premiere of Pauly's Fantasy Hoops and Baseball Corner.

So what can we expect from Pauly's blog? Well, let's keep in mind that Pauly was the first ever to win the prestigious Charlie Hustle Award back in May 2008. Here's what I wrote about him at the time:

I had known for quite a while that my co-worker Paul was a baseball fan. However, it wasn't until this season that I realized just how passionate he is for both the MLB and fantasy baseball. Whether he's laughing his way to the bank in Vegas betting against over-the-hill pitchers, boasting about ripping somebody off in a trade, telling me about obscure sites to read for extra baseball knowledge, or spending all of his fantasy basketball winnings to pay $120 for MLB.com's online TV coverage complete with 6 window screens at once with audio alerts for whenever one of his fantasy players is coming to the plate, Paul (a.k.a. "Pauly") has continued to demonstrate an unparalleled commitment to "America's Pastime."

I also should add the countless times I've discovered breaking MLB news in my email courtesy of Pauly. Whether it's Manny Ramirez's 50-day suspension or Mark McGwire's steroid admission, I often hear it first from Pauly.

I'm looking forward to reading Pauly's perspectives on hoops and baseball. You can check out his blog here.

Fantasy Baseball Hot Stove

Just discovered another fantasy baseball blog. If you're starting to think about the upcoming season, you might want to check it out. During this offseason, they're counting down the top 150 fantasy baseball players leading up to Opening Day. The site is Fantasy Baseball Hot Stove.

Note: Since Aramis Ramirez is one of my keepers, this post is of particular interest to me.

The New Mr. October?

Most mornings when I'm eating breakfast before work, I'll watch a few minutes of SportsCenter. Today they ran some statistics that caught my attention. The following is a comparison between Mr. October himself, Reggie Jackson, and Alex Rodriguez through their first 42 playoff games:

Reggie Jackson: 42 games, 151 at-bats, 40 hits, 7 homers, 19 rbi, .265 batting
Alex Rodriguez: 42 games, 158 at-bats, 46 hits, 9 homers, 25 rbi, .291 batting

We all know the media beating that A-Rod has taken in recent years for his struggles in the postseason. But his recent success at the plate seems to put him in good company. Through their first 42 playoff games, A-Rod hit for a higher average, 6 more RBIs, and 2 more homers than Reggie Jackson.

In fairness, as Larry Brown points out, Reggie Jackson batted .400 with 8 homers and 17 RBIs in 15 World Series games for the Yankees. So I think we'll have to wait for A-Rod to play in even one World Series game before the Mr. October comparisons can be made. And, for what it's worth, SportsCenter noted this morning that in Reggie Jackson's very next playoff game (#43), he hit 3 homers.