A 2021 Path to LIMA, and LISA

We know that 2020 was a different animal. And despite a full 162-game schedule ahead of us, 2021 is going to be different too. Potentially, very different.

There are some ongoing trends and reported changes that will affect the numbers this year, but we can only imagine how. The best we can do is set out a series of assumptions, speculate what the fallout will be, and make some educated guesses as to what could happen. Then we can decide how much of a leap of faith we want to take in planning out our fantasy rosters.

I conducted my own thought exercise, playing out certain possibilities and running some numbers. And I think there is a very LIMA-esque path that we can take in 2021.

As it turns out, I’m not the only one who is seeing the possibilities. Nuggets of this idea have been popping up in several places, from last weekend’s First Pitch Florida Online event, to our own Pat Cloghessy’s column in the current BABS update. But we can flesh it out a bit.

Let’s start with some assumptions

With starting pitchers’ workloads conceivably spiking by 100 innings or more from 2020, MLB teams are going to be careful with their usage this year. We are already hearing growing talk about 6-man rotations, and that talk could increase as we get closer to Opening Day. It’s entirely possible that most teams may default to that set-up – whether formally or informally, whether from the get-go or during the season – even if those 6th starts just become regular bullpen games.

Consider: A starting pitcher going every 5th day will get 32 chances to start a game. If we are generous and give them five innings per start (it was only 4.78 in 2020), that would be 160 innings. Your studs will get more, but they’d have to go 6 1/3 innings per start to get to 200. That is not something to bet on any more.

But what if more teams move to 6-man rotations? Now each pitcher would only get 27 starts, which would be 135 innings. 170 would be the new 200. Anything is possible. It would not be a surprise if the Jacob deGroms and Walker Buehlers top out at 160-170 innings. Those lost frames will pump up the workloads – and values – of some prime-skilled relievers.

This is where it gets interesting

Remember that rosters are back to 26 players this year, so teams can’t splinter playing time as much as they did in 2020; innings will be more concentrated in fewer arms. And the three-batter-per-appearance requirement is still in effect. So, what types of pitchers are most likely to be the beneficiaries of those lost starter innings?

Multi-inning relievers, especially those with experience as starters. Swingman types.

Suddenly we have a new class of pitcher that could see an increase in value, especially if they are highly skilled. These pitchers could be hidden gems. Along with the innings would come more strikeouts. The futile exercise of chasing wins might find a potentially new target. Plus… if the deadening of the baseball has any real effect, that increases the upside possibilities even more.

And BABS has already identified these pitchers for you.

The class of (P)art-time hurlers are those projected for 85-119 innings. That’s our sweet spot.

Below is a list of (P) pitchers and some select No-timers. The (P)s include some potential 5th and 6th starters. The No-timers are pitchers who have experience as starters and could be stretched out for consistent multi-inning work. All of these pitchers have positive asset ratings. It’s an intriguing group.

ADP	R$	PITCHER	Tm	PT	Er	K	Rg		Inj	Ex	Rg
620	($5)	Green,Chad	NYY		ER	K+
355	$0	Peralta,Freddy	MIL	P	e	K+				e
486	($3)	Lugo,Seth	NYM		ER	KK	Rg+		INJ
561	($4)	Duffey,Tyler	MIN		ER	KK					Rg-
597	($5)	Suter,Brent	MIL	P	ER	KK			INJ	e
303	$2	Kopech,Michael	CHW	P	e	KK			INJ	EX
438	($2)	Sims,Lucas	CIN		e	KK			inj-	EX	Rg-
520	($3)	Rogers,Trevor	MIA	P	e	KK	Rg+			EX
644	($6)	Loaisiga,Jonathan	NYY	P	e	KK			INJ	EX
233	$4	Gonsolin,Tony	LA	P	e	k				EX	Rg-
518	($3)	Stripling,Ross	TOR	P	e	k	Rg+		INJ
698	($6)	Norris,Daniel	DET	P	e	k
721	($7)	Pena,Felix	LAA		e	k			INJ	e
736	($7)	Strahm,Matt	SD		e	k			INJ		Rg-
327	$1	German,Domingo	NYY	P		KK				e
733	($7)	McHugh,Collin	TAM	P		KK
374	$0	Alzolay,Adbert	CHC	P		k				EX	Rg-
425	($2)	Howard,Spencer	PHI	P		k	Rg+			EX
427	($2)	Houck,Tanner	BOS	P		k				EX	Rg-
439	($2)	Lorenzen,Michael	CIN	P		k
650	($6)	McKay,Brendan	TAM	P		k			INJ	EX
669	($6)	Rodon,Carlos	CHW	P		k	Rg+		INJ
699	($6)	Chatwood,Tyler	TOR	P		k	Rg+		inj-
739	($7)	Andriese,Matt	BOS			k
749	($7)	Kennedy,Ian	TEX			k	Rg+
751	($7)	Newcomb,Sean	ATL			k	Rg+

What are some of the things that jump out at you from this list?

There is a ton of strikeout skill here. The counting stats you sacrifice by passing up high-end starters are wins and strikeouts. We can’t count on wins, but strikeouts? Yes, this list says you may not have to sacrifice those.

Nearly all of these players are free picks! You don’t have to plan in advance for them; they’ll be out there waiting in the reserve rounds. So, you can buy any $1 pitchers to fill your active slots — they could well be just placeholders anyway. Look for guys who might give you anything – even bad innings – because you never know when a Zach Davies (ADP 443 last year) might come out of nowhere.

Not everything is roses. As exciting as the possibilities are, these players possess plenty of health and experience liabilities, so any strategy that relies on them will be risky.

This is not an exhaustive list. You can scan down the BABS rankings and pick off other (P) names. Michael Fulmer anyone? Cal Quantrill? Are you feeling lucky? There are many other No-timer possibilities too. Of course, as you dig further, the skills diminish, but additional research into each MLB team’s depth charts could reveal other opportunities. This is just a starting point.

We used to say that a high-skilled reliever has more value than a No. 5 starter. Well, with some relievers striking out more than 100 batters, I think we can dig our heels into that idea. And then it starts sounding more plausible that you could pass up elite starters and build a pitching staff around a few 2nd/3rd tier starters, your saves sources and a handful of these (P)s. That construct will cost you a lot less than a typical pitching staff, allowing for a greater investment in hitters. Call it LIMA 2021 (because who knows if this environment will last beyond the upcoming season).

Better yet, let’s call this class of pitchers LISA. That’s Low Investment Support Arms. She could be BABS’ bestie.

Let’s see if we can carve a path to a pitching staff around this concept. I’ve run some numbers and it’s pretty interesting.

Here is a typical pitching staff constructed from the dollar values in the LABR 12-team mixed auction last week:

R$	STANDARD Staff	S/R	Tm	PT	ER	K	SV		INJ	EXP
$28	Nola,Aaron	SP	PHI	F	ER	KK
$16	Gray,Sonny	SP	CIN	M	e	KK
$13	Berrios,Jose	SP	MIN	F	e	k
$5	Urias,Julio	SP	LAD	M		k				e
$2	Stroman,Marcus	SP	NYM	M	e
$1	McKenzie,Triston	SP	CLE	M		k				EX
$1	Leclerc,Jose	rp	TEX			K+	sv-		INJ
$3	Colome,Alex	rp	MIN		e		sv-
$17	Hendriks,Liam	rp	CWS		E+	K+	SV

This $86 Standard staff uses a 6/3 starter/reliever split. It grabs some higher-end starters, a top closer and two arms from uncertain pens, and fills the middle with a few speculations.

Now, check out this LISA staff:

R$	LISA Staff	S/R	Tm	PT	ER	K	SV		INJ	EXP
$23	Glasnow,Tyler	SP	TBR	M	ER	K+			INJ
$13	Fried,Max	SP	ATL	M	e	k				e
$10	Corbin,Patrick	SP	WAS	F	e	KK
$1	Gonsolin,Tony	SP	LAD	P	e	k				EX
$1	Kopech,Michael	SP	CWS	P	e	KK			INJ	EX
$1	Peralta,Freddy	rp	MLW	P	e	K+				e
$1	Suter,Brent	rp	MLW	P	ER	KK			INJ	e
$1	Leclerc,Jose	rp	TEX			K+	sv-		INJ
$10	Pressly,Ryan	rp	HOU		E+	K+	sv-		inj-

I decided to include Tyler Glasnow (pictured) as an anchor here because his skills upside is so high that he’s worth the innings risk. His price is still a discount from the elite arms. Fried and Corbin are the cheap mid-level starters that provide some innings stability. After choosing two cheap closers, I drafted four LISA-level pitchers.

This is probably a bit extreme. Three LISAs might be safer. But this particular group would have cost me just $61, a $25 savings that I could have put towards a beefier offense.

At first blush, these two staffs don’t look even remotely comparable. It seems impossible that the LISA staff could be as competitive as the Standard staff. From a BABS perspective, LISA has a few more assets but also a bunch more liabilities. But I plugged in the projections from BaseballHQ.com and the results speak otherwise.

Here is how the respective bottom lines compare, using unadjusted projections.

Staff	Adjustment	W	Sv	IP	K	ERA	WHIP
STD	none	76	74	1196	1239	3.60	1.22
LISA	none	73	48	1038	1192	3.56	1.20

Even without fiddling, you can see that they are closer than we would have thought. The Standard roster bests LISA in all the counting stats as we’d expect. LISA has the edge in the ratios. Aside from saves — which could be managed during the season — it’s all pretty close.

But what if we start injecting some of our assumptions into these numbers? What if the starters see fewer innings than projected? What if those lost innings end up on the ledgers of the LISAs? For the Standard roster, we can skim off some of the innings from the starters. For LISA roster, we can also skim off some starter innings, but also pump up the innings of those (P) relievers. We can run these adjustments as different combinations of 5%/10% bumps and 5%/10% cuts to see the impact on the bottom lines.

Staff	Adjustment	W	Sv	IP	K	ERA	WHIP
STD	Starters -5%	73	74	1146	1188	3.60	1.22
STD	Starters -10%	69	74	1098	1138	3.60	1.22
LISA	Starters -5%	71	48	1012	1163	3.56	1.20
LISA	SP -5%, P+5%	73	48	1032	1186	3.56	1.20
LISA	SP -5%, P+10%	74	48	1052	1208	3.56	1.20
LISA	Starters -10%	69	48	987	1134	3.56	1.20
LISA	SP -10%, P+5%	71	48	1007	1157	3.56	1.19
LISA	SP -10%, P+10%	72	48	1027	1179	3.56	1.19

SP = starting pitchers; P = (P) relievers

If we cut the starter innings from the Standard rosters by even 5 percent, there are at least three iterations of the LISA roster adjustments that put wins and (more importantly) strikeouts in play. If we cut Standard’s innings by 10 percent, all six LISA iterations are possible.

Saves are still an issue, but swapping out one of the (P)s for a real closer helps. It will likely improve the ratios, and depending on the player, might not affect the counting stats much. For instance, replacing a (P) with a 90-100-K closer might be a wash, though potentially cost you $10 more. It could still be worth it.

But for the above example, I deliberately took a more extreme path to see the possibilities.

It’s a rocky path, but it still could be doable.

How does this convert into a draft strategy?

Draft one anchor starter. Maybe.

Focus on building your staff around 2-3 mid-level starters from a tier or two below the elites. In roto-dollar terms, focus on the $15-$20 and $10-$15 buckets. There are a bunch of full-timers that work here – Corbin was one, maybe Charlie Morton, and Hyun-Jim Ryu, Sonny Gray and several in the (e,k) asset group are good candidates too. Unfortunately, in snake drafts, many of these guys are going way too early, so you may need to step down to some Mid-timers to build your innings and K foundation.

Invest in 2-3 closers from the top asset groups.

Then, dip into the LISA pool.

In snake drafts, it may be possible to pull this off with drafting 4-5 hitters in the first six rounds. Then pound mid-level starters and a closer for the next 3-4, and fill holes after that. You can leave 3-4 pitcher slots open until the end-game and then draft a few LISA-caliber pitchers to fill your staff. Or wait until the reserve round.

I inadvertently tried a version of this in my Tout Wars draft last week, drafting Glasnow as the only pitcher in my first six picks. I’ll go more into that draft in the next update.