RSOB Chapter 7: The BABS Marketplace Analysis
New to “Ron Shandler’s Other Book”? Read the Introduction.
Whew! That last one was a loooong chapter.
Yeah, notice how quiet I was. That was a lot of data and I’m not so sure I agree with all of it.
New ideas take time.
Sure, but why should I dismiss the collective wisdom of the masses?
Actually, the collective “wisdom” (those are air quotes) of the masses is very important. That “wisdom” (air quotes again) represents the mindset of the marketplace. But even if that “wisdom” (you know) is completely off base – and it usually is – it provides an important marker for your draft prep.
You see, all this BABS intelligence is just half the story. If you use the Chapter 6 ranking sheets alone – and even the upcoming one in Chapter 8 – you will likely overdraft/overpay or underdraft/underpay for most of your players, and randomly.
We need the marketplace. We need ADPs and AAVs (average auction values). Otherwise we’re just drafting in a vacuum. The marketplace tells us what our competitors may be thinking, which also tells us what we are going to have to pay (in auction dollars or draft slots) to get our players. You should never draft exclusively off an ADP list or off of BABS alone (she gets a little cranky).
It’s the marriage of the two that makes the magic. Or rather, the players with the most conflict provide the best opportunities for profit.
Hardly a marriage at all. Sounds more like we should be looking for irreconcilable differences.
Agreed. We need to know the players where the marketplace and BABS disagree the most. We’re looking for the biggest conflicts. When BABS is higher on a player than the marketplace, that’s a profit opportunity. When the marketplace is higher on a player than BABS, that’s a player you pass on.
So, what is the marketplace saying these days?
The ADPs and early drafts are saying that the first round is a challenge. How do you integrate veteran first round earners (Trout, Goldschmidt, Kershaw) with new first round earners (Donaldson, Machado, Arenado), potential 2016 risers (Rizzo, Correa, Bryant) and probable 2016 rebounds (Miggy, Stanton, McCutchen)? Any of these players could finish in the Top 5, let alone Top 15.
Then, once you decide where to slot these players, how do you square those decisions with the knowledge that 10 of the Top 15 are not going to earn back that value?
I don’t know. So I asked the Touts.
Back in January, I polled them with this question:
Research over the past 12 years has shown that, on average, 10 of the players in the ADP Top 15 will not earn back first round value. Below are the current NFBC Top 15. Mark an “X” in FIVE who are the most likely NOT to earn back this first round draft slot.
I figured that picking all 10 would be a nearly impossible task, so I only asked for five. And even with only five, the results were all over the board:
1. Mike Trout 0% 2. Paul Goldschmidt 0% 3. Bryce Harper 10% 4. Clayton Kershaw 10% 5. Josh Donaldson 13% 6. Carlos Correa 42% 7. Nolan Arenado 35% 8. Manny Machado 39% 9. Kris Bryant 61% 10. Giancarlo Stanton 48% 11. Anthony Rizzo 26% 12. Jose Altuve 39% 13. Max Scherzer 77% 14. Miguel Cabrera 65% 15. Andrew McCutchen 32%
My votes were Correa, Machado, Bryant, Stanton and Scherzer.
This is a fascinating poll. It’s not too surprising that the top five names garnered the fewest votes, but the players with the 6th and 7th most votes had ADPs of #11 and #15! Why aren’t Rizzo and McCutchen ranked higher in the ADPs? Bryant, Scherzer and Cabrera were voted off the island by well over half the Touts. If that’s what top experts believe, why are those players being drafted so high?
If we re-rank these players based on the Touts’ expectation, our ADPs look a little different:
1. Mike Trout 0% 2. Paul Goldschmidt 0% 3. Bryce Harper 10% 4. Clayton Kershaw 10% 5. Josh Donaldson 13% 6. Anthony Rizzo 26% 7. Andrew McCutchen 32% 8. Nolan Arenado 35% 9. Manny Machado 39% 10. Jose Altuve 39% 11. Carlos Correa 42% 12. Giancarlo Stanton 48% 13. Kris Bryant 61% 14. Miguel Cabrera 65% 15. Max Scherzer 77%
I find this ranking more palatable. Far from perfect, but better.
This exercise begins to show the process of comparing our expectations to the marketplace. The marketplace may be drafting Correa 6th, but the Tout expectations see him as perhaps the 11th best player. I suspect he gets pushed up five spots because of the Fear of Missing Out, but that decision has to come with knowledge of the extreme risk.
Once this process expands out beyond the first round, then the real profit and loss opportunities come into play. A player with a 7th round ADP who BABS sees as a potential 5th round talent becomes a prime 6th round target. A player with a $27 AAV who BABS sees as $30-plus talent becomes a prime buy candidate at anything under $30 and a potentially still-prudent buy once bidding hits the $30s.
Before we start digging into the BABS overall rankings, let’s take a look at how the top end of the marketplace shakes out, in BABS terms. Here is the NFBC Top 40, as of mid-February:
| ASSETS | LIABILITIES | ||||||||||||||||
| BATTER | Pos | Tm | PT | Pw | Sp | Av | Pk | Rg | Av | Inj | Ex | Nw | Pk | Ag | Rg | ||
| PITCHER | Pos | Tm | PT | Er | K | Sv | Pk | Rg | Er | Inj | Ex | Nw | Pk | Ag | Rg | ||
| 1 | Trout,Mike | 8o | LAA | F | P+ | s | AV | ||||||||||
| 2 | Goldschmidt,Paul | 3 | ARI | F | P+ | AV | |||||||||||
| 3 | Harper,Bryce | o9 | WAS | F | P+ | AV | inj- | ||||||||||
| 4 | Kershaw,Clayton | SP | LA | F | E+ | K+ | |||||||||||
| 5 | Donaldson,Josh | 5 | TOR | F | P+ | AV | |||||||||||
| 6 | Correa,Carlos | 6 | HOU | F | PW | AV | EX | Rg | |||||||||
| 7 | Arenado,Nolan | 5 | COL | F | P+ | AV | |||||||||||
| 8 | Machado,Manny | 5 | BAL | F | p | AV | inj- | ||||||||||
| 9 | Bryant,Kris | 5 | CHC | F | P+ | s | e | ||||||||||
| 10 | Stanton,Giancarlo | o9 | MIA | F | P+ | AV | inj- | ||||||||||
| 11 | Rizzo,Anthony | 3 | CHC | F | PW | AV | |||||||||||
| 12 | Altuve,Jose | 4 | HOU | F | SB | AV | Rg | ||||||||||
| 13 | Scherzer,Max | SP | WAS | F | ER | K+ | |||||||||||
| 14 | McCutchen,Andrew | 8o | PIT | F | P+ | AV | |||||||||||
| 15 | Pollock,A.J. | 8o | ARI | F | p | SB | AV | ||||||||||
| 16 | Cabrera,Miguel | 3 | DET | F | PW | AV | inj- | ||||||||||
| 17 | Betts,Mookie | o8 | BOS | F | p | SB | AV | e | |||||||||
| 18 | Gordon,Dee | 4 | MIA | F | S+ | AV | |||||||||||
| 19 | Arrieta,Jake | SP | CHC | F | ER | KK | Rg | ||||||||||
| 20 | Posey,Buster | 23 | SF | F | p | AV | |||||||||||
| 21 | Encarnacion,Edwin | 3 | TOR | F | P+ | AV | |||||||||||
| 22 | Abreu,Jose | 30 | CHW | F | PW | AV | |||||||||||
| 23 | Marte,Starling | o7 | PIT | F | p | SB | AV | ||||||||||
| 24 | Springer,George | o9 | HOU | F | PW | SB | a | INJ | e | ||||||||
| 25 | Davis,Chris | 3o90 | BAL | F | P+ | a | Rg | ||||||||||
| 26 | Sale,Chris | SP | CHW | F | ER | K+ | |||||||||||
| 27 | Bautista,Jose | o90 | TOR | F | P+ | a | |||||||||||
| 28 | Bumgarner,Madison | SP | SF | F | ER | KK | |||||||||||
| 29 | Fernandez,Jose | SP | MIA | M | ER | K+ | INJ | ||||||||||
| 30 | Greinke,Zack | SP | ARI | F | ER | k | Nw | Rg | |||||||||
| 31 | Schwarber,Kyle | o72 | CHC | F | P+ | EX | |||||||||||
| 32 | Cole,Gerrit | SP | PIT | F | ER | k | inj- | ||||||||||
| 33 | Harvey,Matt | SP | NYM | F | ER | KK | |||||||||||
| 34 | Price,David | SP | BOS | F | ER | k | Nw | ||||||||||
| 35 | Votto,Joey | 3 | CIN | F | P+ | AV | Rg | ||||||||||
| 36 | Blackmon,Charlie | o8 | COL | F | p | SB | AV | ||||||||||
| 36 | deGrom,Jacob | SP | NYM | F | ER | KK | |||||||||||
| 38 | Martinez,J.D. | o9 | DET | F | P+ | a | |||||||||||
| 39 | Kluber,Corey | SP | CLE | F | ER | KK | |||||||||||
| 40 | Cespedes,Yoenis | o78 | NYM | F | PW | AV | Rg | ||||||||||
These are supposed to be the best players in 2016, in rank order. But you can see disconnects in the skills from the very top.
After the Triple-Asset threat of Mike Trout, you have a nice grouping of players with “P+” power and “AV” batting average. But Carlos Correa jumps out right away, with less power than the others at that level. Even if he had more of a track record and you could justify drafting him that high, his skills profile doesn’t measure up for the #6 pick. And if you play the “position scarcity card,” that’s just not something you do in the first round when there are players significantly higher on the skills scale.
Manny Machado stands out even moreso at #8. As much as I love him for $16 on my keeper league team (more on that in a few weeks), he probably does not belong here as well.
The #9 player – Kris Bryant – is the only one among the top 20 batters who does not have a “AV” batting average ranking (and the only one among the top 23 who is actually below the mean for that skill). Despite his (P+,s) profile otherwise, this seems like a reach.
Who does belong up there? Andrew McCutchen, for sure. His #14 ADP is depressed by the recency bias of last year’s “relative” disappointment. He was a top 3 pick last year; nothing has changed significantly, and he’s healthy now.
Edwin Encarnacion (#21) and Joey Votto (#35) are also in the same skills class and are probably going too low.
As noted in earlier chapters, Dee Gordon should probably go ahead of Jose Altuve. A.J. Pollock, Mookie Betts, Starling Marte and Charlie Blackmon should be drafted much closer together; they are essentially the same guy. And when talking about Triple-Asset threats, the only other one on this list is George Springer. If healthy, he could way outplay his #24 ADP.
On the pitching side, it is one part “recency bias” and one part “team expectation” that has Jake Arrieta going ahead of Chris Sale. I can almost buy that, but I’d still draft Sale first. I can’t imagine Arrieta not regressing significantly off last year’s performance spike.
Similarly, it has to be recency bias that is pushing the lesser-skilled Zack Greinke and Gerrit Cole ahead of Matt Harvey, Jacob deGrom and Corey Kluber.
Note that every player in this Top 40 owns at least two Assets, except for one. What is Kyle Schwarber doing here? If you look at any set of player projections, his numbers look a lot like those of Jay Bruce, who is currently going outside the ADP 150. Yes, the catcher position is thin, but you are giving up so much so early by drafting him so high. And this is a player who could easily find himself back at Triple-A if he starts 2016 with the defensive prowess he displayed in the post-season. Is this the 31st best player in baseball?
You’ve never really addressed the issue of position scarcity. How does BABS handle that?
Yeah, I probably should have addressed it earlier. Well… BABS looks at position scarcity and shakes her head disapprovingly.
Position scarcity would only matter if we could really project the players at the bottom of the player pool. The numbers are so small and variable in those later rounds – the $1 end-game – that it hardly matters. The difference between the last catcher or say, the last outfielder – which is what the positional scarcity reach is all about – is not sufficiently projectable to justify the numbers you give up at the top. If you’re so worried about it, draft your last catcher a round two earlier – or spend $3 instead of $1 – but don’t take away from the huge productivity available in the early rounds.
To wit… last year in Tout-NL, Welington Castillo (19 HR, .237) went for $2. End-game $1 players included Peter Bourjos, Ichiro Suzuki and John Mayberry. In the mixed league, Nick Hundley (10 HR, .301) went for $1, as did Ike Davis and Matt Joyce.
Chapter 8 will include the complete player list, in BABS rank order. Alongside it will be the current marketplace rankings. The potential profit opportunities will be highlighted.
Finally. Y’know, I’m the type who likes to jump in first and read the instructions later. You’ve made that impossible for me.
I know. But the instructions are important. And “jumping in first” is not something you can do with BABS. She’s not that type of draft process.
But yes, it’s finally time for the reveal.
On Friday.
More great stuff. How do you rank the value of differing values in different categories?
Presumably a P+ is equivalent in value to an S+ (and a p to an s), but is there more inherent value to a player with, say, a P+/-/-, compared to a p/s/-?
For example, you have McCutchen P+/-/AV while Pollock is p/SB/AV. Are these functionally equivalent value? Doe p + SB = P+?
You’re overthinking this. Remember that the whole point of BABS is to get away from this type of precision. When the complete spreadsheet is released on Friday, players will all be grouped into like-skilled buckets. The buckets will be roughly ranked, but the important information will be how they appear in comparison to the ADPs and AAVs.
Hi Ron,
Great stuff! I can’t wait foe Chapter 8’s profit opportunities! I’m sure you will show “Marketplace” Rankings in terms of ADP vs BABS Rankings. My main league is an Auction league. It would be very helpful if your Chapter 8 Profit opportunities could include Average Auction Value vs BABS Value. I know that may not be easy to do, but it would be great for those of us who play in Auction leagues. Any chance you could include such a comparison?
Fully plan to do so, but don’t expect players listed with precise values. The AAVs will be calculated off the NFBC ADPs, but BABS values will be presented as a $30+ bucket, a $20+ bucket, etc. etc. Remember – precision is our enemy because it lulls us into thinking we can be more accurate than is actually possible.
Sounds good! The Accountant in me likes “Precision”, but I know you are “right on” with your last sentence above! Thanks!
This is great! How do we adjust BABS that use OBP instead of BA?
Ron,
For years I have been trying to come up with a”system” that groups players of similar skills. You have accomplished this! Now I should have greater flexibility in both my draft and auction leagues. This is similar to the Universal Draft Grid in “The Forecaster”, but more specific. Can’t wait to see the entire group.
I’ve been getting this question every 10 minutes. I just added it to the FAQ.
Hi Ron … It wouldnt be surprising that the folks subscribed to your content at this point are players on the leading edge of Roto play. The incorporation of OBP and Holds might be more pervasive among this group than in the greater fantasy community as a whole.
It might make for a interesting poll.
Larry Schechter is shaking his head.
Right Phil! Ha
I read Larry’s book and busted it out again this offseason just to see if it was something I wanted to try to incorporate. Too strict for me. I have “my guys” from time to time and also playing in keeper leagues makes me want to have the freedom to chase certain guys/positions etc that I feel Larry’s method wouldn’t allow.
I still don’t know how to view Schechter’s approach. Given that I am on this forum – safe to say that I tend view things the way Ron does… but man! Larry has such incredible success.
Ron:
Is there available information on ADP for AL and NL only leagues?
I believe NFBC keeps those records. I will be likely publishing an update in a few weeks that includes league indicators so that AL and NL can be more easily separated.
I don’t think this question is a matter of looking for precision as Ron suggests; it’s a matter of trying to prioritize the buckets. I also don’t think it’s much different than what’s been described throughout RSOB. If I have to choose between McCutchen and Pollock, how do I do that? There’s an argument that they are equal given their respective net benefit in different categories: one provides more power, the other provides more speed. But, the level of benefit they provide across those two is relatively equal. That argument, I think, embraces the kind of imprecision Ron advocates.
While McCutchen and Pollock provide a generally equal level of assets, the prioritization can’t be answered outside the context of an auction/draft/roster. They are equal unless you need more Power in which case McCutchen is the clear choice. More speed needed? Pollock. And that gets into the roster construction pieces later in RSOB.
With that said, I have personally converted P+, PW, p to 3, 2, and 1 values. I don’t think that adding numbers necessarily attempts to add precision; I’m still using the numbers nominally as categories. It just allows for sorting. As I’ve done that, I’ve also out of curiosity been able to do exactly as you suggest and add Power bucket + Speed bucket to have a composite Power/Speed rating. Players that contribute to both rise to the top of the list. I don’t think that’s any different than what has been argued in RSOB; it’s just more excel friendly for personal exploration 😉