RSOB Chapter 5: BABS Draft Planning
New to “Ron Shandler’s Other Book”? Read the Introduction.
There is a podcast on Freakonomics Radio called “The Cheeseburger Diet.” This is the story of a Louisville, Kentucky housewife who embarked on a year-long project to rate over 100 local burger joints in her city. She decided to devote two days per week to a dinner of cheeseburgers and fries, and then crown a champion at the end of 52 weeks.
However, she recognized that this journey might have an adverse effect on her weight and cholesterol levels, so she paid special attention to her diet and activities during all those non-burger days. At the end of the year, she had gained no weight and saw only a minor change in her cholesterol levels, but found that the extra effort – which she would not have undertaken otherwise – had pushed her towards a healthier lifestyle overall. Win-win.
When we do things that are bad for us, we’ll subconsciously try to engage in some compensating behavior to dull the effects of the negative. We all probably do that to some small extent in assembling our fantasy teams. If we draft an injury-prone pitcher, we might make a special effort to stock up on healthier arms, or at least avoid others with health issues. But it’s not typically something that we consider a deliberate part of the drafting process.
It needs to be.
Think about the recordkeeping we do during a draft. Most of us probably just add our drafted players to an empty roster sheet. If we are using a laptop, we probably have a spreadsheet or software program that displays our team’s projected bottom line stats, maybe compared to targets that we’ve set. We might even see projected in-process standings for all the teams in our league (a wonderfully pointless exercise).
This is all driven by our inaccurate projections. Given that these projections attempt to incorporate both skill and risk factors into the stats themselves, the end result is one big mess. What’s more, it’s a one-dimensional view of our players and our team, and that’s just not good enough.
BABS provides a two dimensional view of every player, and your team. It offers a visual representation of your roster that shows us how much risk we are incurring alongside our Assets.
Take a look:
| ASSETS | LIABILITIES | |||||||||||||||
| BATTER | Pos | Tm | PT | Pw | Sp | Av | Pk | Rg | Av | Inj | Ex | Nw | Pk | Ag | Rg | |
| ca | ||||||||||||||||
| ca | ||||||||||||||||
| 1b | ||||||||||||||||
| 3b | ||||||||||||||||
| ci | ||||||||||||||||
| 2b | ||||||||||||||||
| ss | ||||||||||||||||
| mi | ||||||||||||||||
| Stanton | of | MIA | F | P+ | AV | INJ | ||||||||||
| of | ||||||||||||||||
| of | ||||||||||||||||
| of | ||||||||||||||||
| of | ||||||||||||||||
| ut | ||||||||||||||||
| PITCHER | Pos | Tm | PT | Er | K | Sv | Pk | Rg | Er | Inj | Ex | Nw | Pk | Ag | Rg | |
| sp | ||||||||||||||||
| sp | ||||||||||||||||
| sp | ||||||||||||||||
| sp | ||||||||||||||||
| sp | ||||||||||||||||
| p | ||||||||||||||||
| p | ||||||||||||||||
| rp | ||||||||||||||||
| rp | ||||||||||||||||
Your legend:
ASSETS BATTERS PITCHERS ------- -------- PT Playing time PT Playing time Pw Power rating Er Pitching effectiveness rating Sp Speed rating K Strikeouts rating Av Batting average rating Sv Saves rating Pk Positive ballpark impact Rg Positive regression LIABILITIES Av/Er Batting average/Pitching effectiveness downside risk Inj Injury risk Ex Experience risk Pk Negative ballpark impact Ag Age Rg Negative regression
This is a balance sheet, but it’s also a “pencil game.” The object is to fill in as many boxes as possible on the Assets side while filling in as few boxes as possible on the Liabilities Side.
This is starting to sound juvenile.
Simple, but structured. Remember? Obviously, you don’t have to use paper and pencil; you can do this all in a spreadsheet. I’ll be providing the templates and ranking lists later on.
And it’s not just filling boxes. There are also some goals.
Targets?
Exactly. Based on the distribution of playing time and skill within your league’s draftable player population, we can determine how many units – or boxes – are needed to assemble a competitive team.
You’re losing me again.
Okay, let’s take a step back and start from the beginning.
Drafting playing time
The process of planning out your roster starts with playing time. The goal in any fantasy draft is to roster players who will give you the most plate appearances and innings in order to maximize the potential for counting stats.
Ideally, you’d love to have a full-time regular, productive player occupy every roster spot for the whole season. Of course, while that’s an admirable goal, it’s never attainable. Injuries are the biggest obstacle to achieving full productivity out of your draft roster. In 12-team AL/NL-only leagues, it’s darn near impossible to fill all 23 spots with full-time players; there are just not enough of them. But that should not stop us from setting some reasonable goals.
Okay, I get that. But how does this relate to my leagues?
Here are the actual numbers, for batters. On average:
In a 12-team mixed league, you should be able to fill every batter spot with a full-timer. In fact, a good 15 percent of your free agent pool will still have full-timers.
In a 15-team mixed league, you should be able to fill 92 percent of your active roster spots with full-timers. That’s 13 of your 14 batter spots.
In a 12-team AL/NL-only league, you should be able to fill 57 percent of your active roster spots with full-timers. That’s 8 of your 14 batter spots. If you think about it, you’re usually able to draft full-timers at 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, 3-4 of your outfielders and maybe a catcher. Everyone else is usually a platoon/part-timer or playing time speculation.
For pitchers, on average:
In a 12-team mixed league, there are more than enough starting pitchers (minimum 120 IP) to fill your complete 9-man staff, should you choose. There are enough front-line 180-inning starting pitchers for every team to draft five of them.
You could fill your complete staff with starters in a 15-team mixed league as well. There are enough 180-inning starting pitchers for every team to draft four of them.
In a 12-team AL/NL-only league, there are only enough starting pitchers to fill six spots on each team. If you’re targeting 180-inning starters, there are only enough for 2-3 spots per team.
As of this writing, there are around 50 relievers projected to have a piece of the saves puzzle in 2016. In 12-team and 15-team mixed leagues, every team should be able to roster three potential closers. In a 12-team AL/NL-only league, all teams should be able to roster two of them. Needless to say, if you focus only on the surer bets, the availability gets much scarcer.
These are averages, but from a goal-setting perspective, they are also minimums. Ideally, you’d want to exceed as many of these as possible to give yourself an edge, but playing time is a scarce commodity and everyone will be scratching and clawing for as many regulars as possible. So this is one area where just achieving the minimums might need to be enough. Once you have a solid foundation on the playing time side, you can focus your efforts of exceeding the averages on the skills side. You’ll find more opportunities there anyway.
Here is a relevant tangent in the form of another short story to show that there are exceptions:
“Once upon a time (in the mid-2000s), there was a fantasy writer named Jason Grey. He was one of the best fantasy players in the land, winning multiple titles and always contending in the Tout Wars-AL national experts league. Jason’s edge was simple, but brilliant – he’d constantly draft more playing time than anyone else. The caliber of player drafted almost didn’t matter because even mediocre regulars stood to contribute in the Runs and RBI categories. While the minimum we’ve set in an AL/NL-only league is eight regulars, Jason would routinely grab 10-12 full-time batters and overwhelm the opposition in counting stats.
Of course, everyone else eventually caught on and Omar Infante started getting bid up to double-digits. But for a few short years, Jason was a superstar. Then he got hired by a Major League ballclub so it didn’t matter any more and he lived happily ever after. The end.”
The moral of the story is, “Even a blind squirrel will find an occasional nut.”
No, no, we all like Jason.
The real moral: “If you can grab an edge in playing time, don’t pass it up.” This is especially true on offense. It’s different for pitching. Stockpiling innings is not always a smart tactic. If you dig a hole in ERA or WHIP, those are tougher to dig out of with too many innings on the books.
These are your minimum goals, summarized. I’d shoot for the 180+ IP goals for starting pitchers but be flexible with the rest of your staff, especially if it’s the choice between innings and skill.
Minimums 12-tm mixed 15-tm mixed 12-team AL/NL --------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------- Full-time batters 14 13 8 All starting pitchers 6 7 6 180+ IP SPs 5 4 2 Closers 3 2 1
Beginning in the next chapter, I will be ranking the players for you such that all the full-timers are at the top, so there will be less for you to keep track of. The bigger incremental advantage you will have is being able to accumulate more skill and less risk than anyone else. That process starts here.
Drafting skill and risk
We already know that, any player who is in the upper half of a particular skill is going to have a BABS rating. A batter with above average power will get a p, PW or P+, depending upon how much above average he is. Those with “p” are just above the mean; those with “PW” and “P+” are higher on the scale. Got that so far?
I think so.
However, skill is not evenly distributed across the player population, so you have to set different targets for each skill. For instance, there are fewer players who have above average speed, so you have to pay more attention to how you draft stolen bases.
Wait. I thought average meant that there would be just as many players above as below.
Not necessarily. The skills of guys like Dee Gordon and Billy Hamilton are so far above the mean that they drive up the average. That reduces the number of players who actually have “above average” skill.
The size of your league will determine how deeply into the player pool you will have to draft. But in general terms, the following chart details how each of the skills is distributed.
POWER SPEED BAT AVG --------- --------- --------- P+ 11% S+ 3% AV 20% PW 15% SB 9% a 35% p 28% s 14% ERA STRIKEOUTS --------- ---------- E+ 2% K+ 13% ER 29% KK 17% e 32% k 33%
Some of these skills are very scarce. You should have little problem rostering pitchers with an above average ERA but if your plan is to target one of baseball’s elite arms (“E+”), you are probably going to have to jump in early or pay a lot. Only two percent of pitchers own that extreme skill.
But it’s good to plan for acquiring at least some extreme skilled players, in any category. The more of them you can grab, the more flexibility you’ll have later on if you end up with some holes in your roster. I’ll demonstrate that in a minute.
At minimum, you want to roster at least average skill in each category:
BABS Asset Minimum Targets
(Assuming a standard roster with 14 batters and 9 pitchers.)
NUMBER OF PLAYERS Asset Minimums 12-tm mixed 15-tm mixed 12-team AL/NL ------------------ ----------- ----------- ------------- Power 14 14 9 Speed 8 7 4 Batting Average 14 14 9 Pitching Eff. 9 9 9 Strikeouts 9 9 9
It is interesting that there is more than enough good pitching for all teams in all leagues to field a solid-skilled staff. But the problem is that many of those players are relievers. So if you were willing to forego innings for skill, you should have no problem maximizing your ERA category.
Of course, that’s not how most of us play the game. If we were to restate these minimums for starting pitchers only, the chart would look like this:
Asset Minimums 12-tm mixed 15-tm mixed 12-team AL/NL ------------------ ----------- ----------- ------------- Pitching Eff. 7 6 4 Strikeouts 7 6 4
Now it becomes a bit more of a challenge. In AL/NL-only leagues, an average team would be expected to roster only four above-average skilled ERA or strikeout starting pitchers. Those numbers are not mutually exclusive so there will be some pitchers who are above average for ERA, some who are above average for strikeouts and some who are above average for both. In fact:
Asset Minimums 12-mixed 15-mixed 12-AL/NL ------------------ -------- -------- -------- BOTH Pitch Eff. and Ks 5 4 < 3
Those are your targets, however…
If you build your team exactly to these averages, you will have… an average team.
So the goal is always to exceed these targets.
I understand that these are my targets. But what if it says I should be able to fill all my batter spots with power and I want to draft a perfectly good player like Ben Revere?
This is where owning players with extreme skills comes in handy. Every time you roster a player with a P+, SB+, E+ or K+, you buy yourself a free open spot. You might consider those plus Assets as double value. So, if you roster a player like Edwin Encarnacion (P+, AV), that would effectively offset Revere’s BABS void in power.
Now, there are no players rated for extreme skill in batting average. That seems like it would be a problem, but it’s more of a cautionary challenge. Given the high variability in BA, you need to stockpile as much potential upside as you can. It’s very easy to fall short here, so you want to do everything you can to keep those “AV” and “a” ratings on your radar.
And good lord, stay away from players with “-AV” on the Liabilities side.
Okay I get that. But shouldn’t Revere’s lack of power be considered a Liability?
Revere’s lack of power could be considered a liability, but a lack of counting stats doesn’t inherently do damage to your team. There are lost opportunity costs from not being able to roster a better player, but it’s different in the ratio categories. A bad batting average or ERA can do real damage. That’s why those are considered Liabilities.
You decide how much of a balanced roster you draft. However, at the end of the final round (or when the last of the auction dollars is spent, or when the last beer is gone – however it is you decide when the draft is over), you should have at least a minimum number of Asset boxes filled on your grid:
MINIMUM NUMBER OF ASSET UNITS
12-tm mixed 15-tm mixed 12-team AL/NL
----------- ----------- -------------
50 47 30
These are what average teams will have. Your goal is to have more.
BABS Liability Averages
(Assuming a standard roster with 14 batters and 9 pitchers and based on each league’s draftable player pool. Players outside the pool typically have more elevated risk factors.)
NUMBER OF PLAYERS Liability Averages 12-tm mixed 15-tm mixed 12-team AL/NL ------------------ ----------- ----------- ------------- BATTERS - Batting Average 0 0 0 Health Risk 3 4 2 Experience Risk 3 4 2 PITCHERS - Pitching Eff. 0 0 0 Health Risk 2 2 1 Experience Risk 2 2 1
These Liability Averages represent the number of risky players an average team would have if all rosterable players were divided up equally. In most cases, you are going to want to consider these as maximums, your risk budget.
(If you are maximizing your assets on the batting average and pitching effectiveness side, then the negative offsets won’t be a concern. That’s why there are zeroes across the board above. There are enough rosterable players that you don’t need to draft someone who would be a drag on those ratio categories. But if you find yourself getting shut out on the better players, you want to at least avoid those who are Liabilities.)
You decide how much risk you want to take on, but at least you now know what an average team would bear. However, at the end of the final round (or when the last of the auction dollars is spent, or the beer… well, you know), if you’ve taken on an average amount of risk, you would have no more than these number of Liability boxes filled on your grid:
NUMBER OF LIABILITY UNITS
12-tm mixed 15-tm mixed 12-team AL/NL
----------- ----------- -------------
10 12 6
These are what average teams will have. Your goal is to have fewer.
Once more, your targets. These are the number of boxes you need to have filled in by the end of your draft to have constructed a team of average playing time, skill and risk.
NUMBER OF PLAYERS
12-tm mixed 15-tm mixed 12-team AL/NL
----------- ----------- -------------
Full-time batters 14 13 8
Starting pitchers 6 7 6
180+ IP 5 4 2
Closers 3 2 1
Minimum Assets 50 47 30
Maximum Liabilities 10 12 6
You’ll note that we want to have far more Asset units than Liability units. It’s the same concept as eating healthy for five days so that we can have our cheeseburgers over the weekend.
Now let’s add these targets directly to the BABS worksheet:
| ASSETS | LIABILITIES | |||||||||||||||
| BATTER | Pos | Tm | PT | Pw | Sp | Av | Pk | Rg | Av | Inj | Ex | Nw | Pk | Ag | Rg | |
| ca | ||||||||||||||||
| ca | ||||||||||||||||
| 1b | ||||||||||||||||
| 3b | ||||||||||||||||
| ci | ||||||||||||||||
| 2b | ||||||||||||||||
| ss | ||||||||||||||||
| mi | ||||||||||||||||
| of | ||||||||||||||||
| of | ||||||||||||||||
| of | ||||||||||||||||
| of | ||||||||||||||||
| of | ||||||||||||||||
| ut | ||||||||||||||||
| 12 MIXED | 14 | 14 | 8 | 14 | 0 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||
| 15 MIXED | 13 | 14 | 7 | 14 | 0 | 4 | 4 | |||||||||
| 12 AL/NL | 8 | 9 | 4 | 9 | 0 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||
| PITCHER | Pos | Tm | PT | Er | K | Sv | Pk | Rg | Er | Inj | Ex | Nw | Pk | Ag | Rg | |
| sp | ||||||||||||||||
| sp | ||||||||||||||||
| sp | ||||||||||||||||
| sp | ||||||||||||||||
| sp | ||||||||||||||||
| p | ||||||||||||||||
| p | ||||||||||||||||
| rp | ||||||||||||||||
| rp | ||||||||||||||||
| 12 MIXED | 6/3 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||
| 15 MIXED | 7/2 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||
| 12 AL/NL | 6/1 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
Your goal is to do better.
You are now almost ready to head out to your draft. There is one missing piece – the players. In the next looooooong chapter (staggered over a good part of next month), I’ll analyze the player pool, position by position. Then we’ll come back and I’ll run through an actual, live draft to show you how it all comes together.
Ron:
I know you are planning on publishing the player data over the next several weeks. I am going to be mocking consistently over the month of February. Any timetable for when the player rankings will be complete? I really want to implement this new system for my 2016 drafts, mock as well as real. Sorry if I am impatient but right now I am between football and baseball writing schedules and it would be great to process your system while I have some downtime.
Great work
I am in a 12-team, 5X5 mixed league using a snake draft. We have 14 batters, 9 pitchers and 5 bench players. I use all my bench players as pitchers using a total of 9 starters and 5 relievers. Our categories are standard with one exception. We use a Relief category that combines saves and holds instead of just saves.
How do I value my relievers in this situation and what totals should I end up with for the total roster.
As I noted in the comments after Chapter 4, BABS is not going to be a perfect fit for every hybrid format. That said, if you identify the Holds sources and give them a (sv-) rating, you will have expanded the pool from which you can draft relievers. With a larger pool, you can more easily fill your roster requirements, but whatever starter/reliever split you would normally use probably won’t change. The bigger impact would be if you were in an AL/NL-only league.
Great so far, albeit a bit scary drafting using BABS vs. traditional (though flawed) statistical projections. I’ve always been one to zig while others are zagging, so I’m soaking it all in. While doing so, I’m trying to translate the above to 10-team AL/NL-only leagues (ESPN standard league settings, but in my case, an offline local league where its tough getting together 12 interested and engaged teams). There’s less player penetration, so it should be easier to satisfy roster requirements at virtually all positions. My thoughts on a distribution would be:
NUMBER OF PLAYERS
10-team AL/NL
——————
Full-time batters 10
Starting pitchers 7
180+ IP 3
Closers 2
Minimum Assets 40
Maximum Liabilities 9
Does that look about right?
P.S. My spacing looked much better before I hit “Post”.
That looks about right. I am assuming this takes into account the smaller roster size too? The ESPN standard is 21-man rosters, 1 catcher, etc., isn’t it? (I should know this.) You probably already know, but in 1-catcher leagues, you can pretty much wait forever on that position. Monday’s article on catchers will identify some nice options where you leave your catcher to just about the last pick of the draft.
I guess im the only one but this is brutal. Some of this makes zero sense. Extremely dissapointed.
Bobby – If you can explain specifically what makes no sense, I can hope to explain. Some of this will become more apparent as we go through the player ratings and run through a live draft. From what has been published so far, it’s not surprising that it all seems too theoretical, if that is the problem.
I already do a version of this but it is more on the fly and in my head than actually charted out. I would often pair Altuve with Chris Carter to have two average players. this is easier sometimes than finding “complete” players.
These opportunities are easier to identify with BABS, but that’s just one part of the system. And really, just a small part.
Ron, I too am new this this theoretical methodology, but I’m open to it, obviously. Not gonna lie here, but I’m lost 🙁 i’ve had a great deal of success in standard fantasy leagues over the years. I am looking for that edge and that’s why am here. My league consists of 10 managers with OBP instead of average. We roster 30 players, 12 hitting positions, 10 pitching positions, 8 Bn spots, 5 DL and 5 NA spots. It’s a keeper league with intense keeper rules.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on my core of keepers. The stove is heating up in my league currently and I have a bunch of people interested in players that I need to disposition. I don’t have a firm grasp on how to do the Babs sheet yet, but I have a deal on the table to trade a potentially risky player for Max Scherzer en route to landing Marte.
My core:
Edwin Encarnacion
Carlos Gomez
Tulowitzki
Arenado
Correa
Price
Gray
Arrieta
JD Martinez
Betts
Any help on how I could start rating these guys early in order to decide on making this trade?
Ron,
I sent you an email with a question about this article a week ago but I’m beginning to think this may be the best way to contact you. I love the book so far but I am struggling to figure out how I would create a BABS balance sheet for my league settings and also the number assets/liability totals I should be targeting. I am in a 16 team keeper league both AL/NL our roster layout is 9 batters: c,1b,2b,3b,ss,3of, U & 9 pitchers: all utility. It is a 5×5 (standard) but head to head league. I am very interested in using this strategy going forward. We have a $150 salary cap and my core keepers will be Mookie Betts $7 Correa $8 Franco $8 Panik $4 Conforto $4 and Piscotty $4. Any insight on how you would approach the upcoming auction draft? Thank you for you help and hard work.
Joe
Joe – As I’ve written in earlier comments, these hybrid leagues are going to require a bit of tinkering. The targets in a 16-team mixed vs 15-team would not be appreciably different if not for your abridged roster construct (18 players?). Try going with 78% of the roster targets (18 players vs 23). Here is an early view of your players. Note that these ratings will not be finalized until they are published. (Assets | Liabilities):
Mookie Betts (p,SB,AV | e)
Correa (p,AV | EX,Rg)
Franco (p,a | inj-,EX)
Panik (AV | inj-,e)
Conforto (P+,AV | EX)
Piscotty (p,a | EX)
You’ve got some moderate power throughout and some decent average, but every one of these players has liabilities – experience and health. There’s lots of upside here but this is a risky group.
As noted in other comments, hybrid leagues will require some tweaking of the targets. Try pro-rating them based on number of teams/your roster size. Here is a preliminary look at your keepers. Note that these ratings will not be final until they are published here. (Assets | Liabilities)
Edwin Encarnacion (P+,AV)
Carlos Gomez (PW,s,a,Rg)
Tulowitzki (PW,AV | inj-,Rg)
Arenado (P+,AV)
Correa (p,AV | EX,Rg)
Price (ER,k | Nw)
Gray (ER,k)
Arrieta (ER,KK | Rg)
JD Martinez (P+,a)
Betts (p,SB,AV | e)
Looks like Greek now; within a week, it won’t. I like this core. Lots of significant assets, few liabillties.
We are allowed 5 bench players as well but 9 batter starter and 9 pitchers starters. However, you’re allowed to swap in back ups daily
This league is actually a standard 14:9 league, not an ESPN standard league. So, no, it does not take into account any difference in roster size. I think I’m dead on on the number of full-time rosterees, I’m a little shaky on the asset/liability side.
Ron,
Thanks for the reply! I have been chomping at the bit hitting refresh waiting for response like a giddy girl in a candy store. This is starting to make sense to me now. So your overall synopsis of my core of keepers is a solid balance of assets versus minimal liabilities? What would your thoughts be on my trading JD Martinez for Max Scherzer and then trading Max in order to obtain Starling Marte? Also, what is the proper way to value players in our keeper system if I were to adopt BABS? An example would be that we get to keep three players indefinitely, however to get to the indefinite disposition, a player is maxed out at three years, at this point he must be kept, traded, or sent back to the player pool. We have a color scheme which dictates how long the player has been kept. If a player is drafted after the 6th rd he warrants keeper consideration and he carries no color and can essentially be kept for 4 years. Our league values players more substantially if a player has more keeper eligibility and with the max of three years for three players some end up with more reds than they can keep and these players get significantly de-valued. Back to the trade of JD (never been kept with 4 yrs of eligibility) for Scherzer (last year of eligibility) to ultimately land Marte (only been kept once). Is this a viable trade? I see Max having ER, KK | nw and Marte having PW, SB, AV. Is that right? The thing is with keeping time. I’m torn.
Ron
Can you clarify maximum liabilities units of 12 team mixed(10) versus 12 team NL/AL(6) for me. It seems backwards to me. Players without liabilities should be easier in mixed versus NL/AL only drafts due to player pool size. I’m sure there is something I’m overlooking.
So far following and enjoying everything else. Thanks for your time.
Without getting into the intricacies of your keeper system, this is essentially a JD for Marte trade. Given your current power-speed balance, this looks like a good deal.
In a 12-team mixed, there are more good players with liabilities that are part of the draftable player pool. In a 12-team al/nl, there will be more low PT players – which admittedly are more risky – but a smaller pool of draftable players with measurable liabilities.
Ron,
Not sure if I glanced over, but was there a benchmark number that qualified for p,PW,P+ etc as well as for the other categories? Not sure if I overlooked it or not. Also, is there any way that I can get access to the Mayberry Method?
Plus, if the liabilities for a player turn out to be too much, these players are more easily replaced in a shallower league.
I read and didnt find anything. What classifies someone with P+ versus PW etc? Is there a number? I’ve been a MLB scout for 10 years and have always used a basis of OFP and 2-8 scale. Scouting a player like Marte with 5 power with an OFP of 60-65 tends to translate to counting stats, in regards to BABS is there a benchmark number that we are looking for when grading? As of right now P+ looks to me like 30+ HR, while PW 25-29, p somewhere from MLB average of 15 -24?
No. The ratings do not correlate to counting stats – that’s the whole point of the system. Counting stats are faulty. The ratings correlate to tiered skills metrics. All the “+” ratings represent the top 10%, etc. It’s all explained in Chapter 4. And the Mayberry Method is available at BaseballHQ.com.
I understand what you’re saying and I did read chapter 4. But to come up with this 10% number that you’re talking about there has to be a benchmark from the previous season in order to get to that 10% 25% 50%. So for me to properly evaluate Marte, am I evaluating from the previous seasons counting statistics? And if I am to calculate this, from what sample size and player pool do I pull from? Is it every single player that hit a qualifying homerun? I’m just trying to get an understanding of the system in order to do some early evaluating.
It’s a rather involved system. Each player’s skills metrics (as noted in Chapter 4) are evaluated over the past 5 years. Seasons that were impacted by injury or any other measurable variable (a few years in Coors, for instance) are normalized. All adjustments are applied to the original metric and all players are ranked. I set the benchmarks (10%, 25%, 50%) for each metric based on a 2015, slightly regressed. So for power, for instance, all of this is done with the “expected linear weighted power index” from BaseballHQ.com. This is done for the entire player population expected to play in 2016.
Good afternoon Ron. I’m really enjoying your book so far, which is no surprise, as I’ve always enjoyed your content both in the Forecaster and previously on BaseballHQ. I understand completely that “BABS is not going to be perfect fit for every hybrid format,” but I didn’t think it would hurt to attempt to get your opinion as to BABS application for my league. If you have the time, I would appreciate any and all insight you can provide me. Thank you.
12 team head-to-head on CBSSports.com
22 man rosters (12 hitters and 10 P, with 8 SP and 2 RP ideal)
Points (most equals a win, like fantasy football)
1 pt each for R, RBI, BB
1 pt single, 2 double, etc.
2 pts. per SB
6 pts. each for W, SV, HD
1 pt. per K
3 pts. per IP (1 pt. per out)
-1 pts. for each ER, HA, BB
1. No review yet, but I’m enjoying this hugely.
2. Really miss Shandler Park.
3. For us lazy members, how about posting a blank “balance sheet” soon? I’d like to print out a bunch and play with this before drafts start.
You can use the blank balance sheet above. Just cut and paste that section into an empty Excel spreadsheet and you’re good to go. I even put Giancarlo Stanton onto your roster to give you a head start!
Ron,
I am really enjoying the roll out of the book. I think I might have missed something. When we are counting up the assets or Liabilities for a player on our balance sheet how should we account for 3 tiers of skills (or liabilities) when trying to accumulate toward the targets you mentioned?
Is it as simple as the top skill equals 3 units, middle equals 2, and the last equals 1 (eg P+ = 3, PW = 2, p =1). In a mixed 15 team league if I rostered 14 guys with “p” ratings for power, I would be average for my league. On the other hand, if had 10 guys with “p” ratings and 3 guys with PW ratings, I could consider my roster above average in power despite not all of my roster containing a “p” or higher in the category.
Also, would an EX count as 2 liabilities while a “e” only counts as 1?
Thanks in advance,
Robert
Each Asset and Liability is considered a single unit, regardless of level. The only exception is that a “+” Asset can offset a blank (below average) category. If you meet the goals with a mix of +, XX and x Assets, you’ll have an average team, and that is BABS’ primary goal. You build strength from there. A team of all “x” Assets would obviously be weaker than a team of all “+” Assets. I have not weighted the individual levels, however, mostly to keep things simple. Best is to just work to build your roster with as many upper level Assets – and the least number of Liabilities – as possible.
Wow. So far, this is very interesting. Such a departure from the way I have traditionally drafted and played FBB! I’m committed to trying this in all of my leagues this year (only 3!). Although, I admit, it is tough to wrap my head around all this right now.
Looking forward to the player analysis.
Ron, I appreciate you pushing the boundaries on how we traditionally look at the game.
I think I get the concept, but am struggling with implementation. In applying it to my league, I’m confused about the asset targets. If I understand the concept, in a 12-team league, you say the average team will have 14 power assets, 14 average assets and 8 speed assets.
But doesn’t that mean that every one of your hitters has to have power and average as an asset? I understand that the P+ guys can count for double. But there are only enough of those full-timers to average around 2 players per roster in a 12-team league. And there are no AVG+ guys by your definition. So how could every team in a 12-team league average 14 power and average assets? That would mean no players would be drafted without the average asset, right?
As far as speed, given the rarity of the speed asset in 5 of the 14 hitting slots on a roster (2 C, 1B, 3B, CI), in order to be “average”, you need to draft speed assets in all but one of your remaining 9 hitting slots. This doesn’t seem to reflect the reality of the player pool at all.
Am I missing something, or maybe misinterpreting something you wrote? I really like this concept and would like to use it, but when I look at the hitting asset targets, they seem way off.
Chris – Nobody said this would be easy. It’s a challenge to construct an optimal roster. I was in a 13-team league last month and drafted power in all but three slots – but also had four P+ guys. I was able to draft batting average in all slots except one. Admittedly, speed is more of a challenge. I rostered six players with speed, including one S+ guy, and as you note, nothing at 1b, 3b or corner (I did get one catcher with some speed and there ARE a few 3Bmen). Perhaps I’ll need to modify a bit and emphasize that, because of the scarcity of speed, you’d need to focus more on “S+” and “SB” guys and less on “s” contributors. I’ll note this in Chapter 8. Thanks.
Given the increase in OBP leagues, is there a way for you to create a list of players who would gain or lose asset status in a league where OBP was the value and AVG was not?
As a rough cut, you could add a “+” to any player with a walk rate of 12% or better.
Ron:
Thank you for all of your work here. It makes perfect sense to me. Having played in an AL only standard auction Rotisserie League since 1987, with five of us original owners still playing, I completely understand the risks and unpredictability you talk about. I’ve only read through this Chapter 5 and am confident that with your additional explanations and rankings, I will be able to implement this concept. My only question is whether, or how, you ascribe values to the players based on BABS. Thanks again.
If Im understanding your question correctly, that is all explained in Chapter 4. Is there something in that chapter that does not answer your question?
Hi Ron,
Keeper question regarding BABS in auction keeper leagues. If a “risk” player is on my current roster at below value (ex: shows $15 value but on roster at $5), should that be taken into account at all? Your suggestion is no more than 2 lacking experience players on an only league roster, but I have about 5 of these value with exp risk players. They are each in their second year of a three year contract, so I was wondering your opinion in this format? Thanks!
Terrific question, and a reminder that I should probably devote an article to keeper leagues in the next few weeks. The short answer is that there is more flexibility with “Experience” risk the further you are from contending. So, if you are looking at a rebuilding season, you want to stock up on young, high skilled players with minimal concern for the experience liabilities. If you are expecting to contend, you should still be as close to the standard benchmarks as possible. But if you have a high-skilled player at a ridiculously low cost, feel free to fudge. I’ll craft something more detailed soon.
I kind of thought it may come down to whether or not I see my team as a contender so you confirmed that thought. Thanks Ron, look forward to your writing about that subject as I’m sure it will assist was th my planning for the upcoming season.
Forgive is this was addressed and I missed it. Could you advise how one would develop asset categories for OBP rather than AVG?
Um… addressed right above. As a rough cut, you could add a “+” to any player with a walk rate of 12% or better. I should probably add this to the FAQ page.
Thanks! I was (am) so eager to jump in that I didn’t catch the many others with the same question. Thanks for your great work. The interview on HQ podcast was terrific!
Ron,
I really like this approach and am very eager to try it out. However, my league is so different from the norm that I am afraid that I won’t be able to effectively execute this plan.
My league is a mixed 10-team 6×6. We use OBA instead of Avg, and the 6th categories are doubles+triples for batters and holds for pitchers (yes, we have holds AND saves as separate categories). Also, since we are a small league, we have larger starting rosters to soak up all the talent. We start two player at each infield position, five OFers (so that’s 15 starting batters) plus 9 pitchers (5 starters and 4 RPs). Plus we have 13 bench spots.
Any suggestions on how I can implement BABS?
Thanks, looking forward to seeing you at First Pitch in New Jersey!
Yes, hybrid formats are not going to be an exact match, but the BABS categories are good proxies for overall skill regardless of the exact categories. The only real adjustment you’ll have to make is the balance sheet targets. Calculate how many players are being drafted in your league overall, compare to the total player pool in the target variations I present, and pro-rate the targets.
Ron, Absolutely love this approach. As you’ve indicated in numerous other comments, BABS will have to be adjusted for leagues that are not standard. I’m in one of those leagues, but my question is a little more general – specifically about how to work in the number of available bench spots into your playing time targets.
As an example, I’m in a 10-team mixed league which starts C,1B,3B,CI,2B,SS,MI,4-OF,UT + 5-SP and 3-RP. We then have 8 bench spots to allocate to any position as we choose. How should these bench spots impact your targets? While my player pool for batters is 150 players for starters (10 teams x # starting batters), that doesn’t take into account that other owners might use anywhere from 0 to 8 bench spots for batters. So really, my batter pool might be as high as 150+80=230 players.
It would seem that the same is true for pitchers as well. I like to use my bench spots almost entirely for pitchers, so while we only start 5 SP, I might end up drafting 12-13 total. This must change the available player pool, correct?
So coming back to question, how do recommend that we handle bench spots when determining our targets/minimums?
The best you can probably do is figure your league is 280 players deep – which is pretty much the same as a 12-team mixed – and assume the owners who go heavy hitting on reserve will balance out those who go heavy pitching. It’s not exact – those last 8 spots are going to be variable no matter what you do – but at least it gives you a starting point.
Ron,
I’ve been very successful grinding the numbers with good results in a NL only 10 team league. That said, I’m intrigued and embrace the imprecise nature of player projections and performance. Our league uses 14 hitters and 9 pitchers. Can you provide me with minimum asset targets? I must admit I’m struggling with the thought that Tyson Ross will put up better numbers than Gerrit Cole given his issues with control and command.
I never said that Ross would put up better numbers than Cole. I said that they would put up comparable numbers within the normal error bar. Whatever variance there is between the two could easily be attributable to normal statistical variance. Could Ross put up better numbers? Yes. But even if he falls short, the difference will be mostly be random. As for your league – figure the depth you draft to, compare to the three league formats I define, and pro-rate the targets.
Hi Ron,
Sorry if you answered this in the article already but, 14 team mixed league, 1 catcher 1, 1st 2nd SS 3rd CI MI 2 DH 5 OF 9 pitchers. Would the 15 team mixed be pretty comparable when your looking at everything? Including the excel sheet with auction values?
Yes, certainly. You probably already know that in 1-catcher leagues, there is no rush to roster one.
Would you mind, after a little more studying just briefly commenting on a hypothetical team that I think I could get in my auction league? After being in the same league with the same players for 8 years you can be fairly accurate on a few things. But the surprises are always there, I got Pollock for $11 last year and people didn’t know why I bid that much. At seasons end they did! This year a few of the guys I like (I liked them a little before, like them more now that you do) Conforto, Revere, Lamb. Conforto at $7 is insane, I want him and think I may have to pay up to 15 I’m hoping for 12. There’s always someone I have to fight with in the bidding war. Revere, I got last year for 14 hoping to get him again for that and Lamb, I’m hoping for $3. Your spread sheet looks like someone got him in the reserve rounds. I don’t know if that will happen or not.
Those are all good players that typically go for less than what they will potentially be worth.
Ron, was there a reason why you went with letter values (P+, PW, P, etc) vs. numeric values (ex. P+=2, PW=1.5, P=1, etc) where the spreadsheet could do the math to calculate “needs” in each category for you?
Because this is not about math, or the precision that math implies. Nobody can project that “P+” is exactly “x” times better than “PW” or “p”. It’s tough for those of us who have the math ingrained (like me!) to wrap our brains around a system that does not use it.
This may be similar to the question above but I am looking for clarification as I begin planning for my first ever draft using BABS.
Obviously AV is better than a. Ideally, all 14 hitters I roster will have AV. When trying to draft to make sure I hit the thresholds for this category, how much of a discount should I give to a player with an “a” instead of an AV? For example, would rostering 8 batters with AV and six with “a” meet the minimum threshold I am looking for, or should there be more players with AV?
Similar question for Stolen Bases. I know S+ counts double, but what about SB vs. S? If I need 8 units here, do SB and S count the same, or should they be weighted differently?
Thanks!
Technically, you could have all players with “p”, “s”, “a” etc. and meet the minimum BABS criteria. The focus should be on getting players with at least above average skill. For every “PW” or “AV” or “S+”, etc. you start building a potentially stronger team, but to assign precise weights to these increments defies what BABS is all about. Every indicator counts as 1. “P+” is not 2 times or 3 times better than “p”. We know it IS better, but I’m not assigning weights. Your goal is to make sure your roster meets the minimum NUMBER OF PLAYERS possessing those skills. For each skill higher than the moderate levels (p,s,a,e,k), you’re adding strength. I’m just going to quantify that additional strength.
Can anyone assist me with figuring out my goals for a 10 team AL only league and an 8 team NL only league? My head hurts from trying to figure out the conversion.
This Tuesday’s column will assist you with going through the conversion.
[…] My Tout Wars-AL draft was actually the least stressful I’ve ever participated in. Thanks to the Broad Assessment Balance Sheet (BABS), I didn’t have to worry about any stats; I just assembled a team with the player targets I had set down. I stopped worrying about overbidding. After all, the only way you can overbid is if you know what a player is actually worth… and we don’t (Chapter 1). So I just focused on Assets and Liabilities (Chapter 4), and drafting the most balanced roster I could (Chapter 5). […]
So here’s mine…
12 Team NL Only, No Bench (Unlimited DL/Minor lists for those who are not active on an ML roster), Keeper (rule is you add $5 to the player’s auction value to keep him, only players kept from the year before or purchased at auction can be kept next year), 15% inflation, standard rosters.
C Wellington Castillo, 13
C JP Realmuto, 6
1B Adrian Gonzalez, 30
3B David Freese, 7
CI Ryan Howard, 7
2B DJ LaMahieu, 12
SS Brandon Crawford, 11
MI Adeiny Hechevarria, 7
OF Matt Kemp 30
OF Marcell Ozuna, 20
OF Odubel Herrera, 14
OF Jay Bruce, 14 (you just lose your guy if he’s traded to the AL, so I’m crossing my fingers)
OF Socrates Brito, 6
U Adam Duvall, 5
P Tyson Ross, 20
P Vincent Velasquez, 10
P Jason Hammel, 9
P Jimmy Nelson, 7
P Homer Bailey, 5
P Alex Reyes, 3
P Jose De Leon, 1
P Jordan Walden, 1
P AJ Ramos, 19
On playing time, I ended up with 5 starting pitchers, 3 are 180 IP guys, and a closer. Ended up with 9 full time position players and only 1 part timer.
I ended up with 10 Power assets, 5 Speed, and 9 AVG. 8 ERA, 9 K, and 1 SV. Total of 42 asset points.
On risk, overall ended up with 3 injury risks and seven experience risks. Only two of those risks comes with a full time player (Realmuto and Herrera each with a low experience risk).
Thoughts? I like it.
I have really enjoyed the new content this season and have already taken BABS out for a test drive in a home league draft. I am very happy with the team I walked away with and it was the most stress-free draft I have been part of.
I have another home league draft and wanted to confirm what my BABS Minimum Category targets should be during the draft. It’s a 10-Team Mixed League with 22 starters (13 batters, 9 pitchers) and 8 bench spots. Add/drops take place every Sunday, but the 30 players on the rosters can be moved around daily to take advantage of favorable or unfavorable matchups.
I am going to be targeting the 12-team mixed BABS minimums for my starting 22 players, but am looking to see how the extra eight bench spots would inflate those, if at all.
Thanks for the great work and best of luck in 2016!
Since you make a good deal of use of your bench, I would include them in your calculation. So you would be drafting (10 x 30) deep into the player pool = 300. 12-team mixed is 276 and 15-team mixed is 345. I would split the difference between the two sets of targets.
Can you talk about asset/liability targets for an 11-team AL-only league with 14 hitters and 10 pitchers? Roughly the same as a standard 12-team AL-only league?
12-team AL drafts 276 players into a 375-player pool. Your league drafts 264 deep into the same pool. Those 12 fewer players won’t make enough of a difference to change the targets.
In standard 10 team mixed with 7 bench spots, H2H daily transactions. Would you draft mostly pitching for streaming to your bench? Max weekly transactions of 3, so I can’t just stream the waiver wire all week. Thanks.
Depends if it is H2H points or H2H roto. If points, then definitely yes draft mostly pitchers. If Roto, you need more of a balance.
Great stuff Ron. Im in an 11 Tm NL Only that drafts 13 hitters (not utility) and 9 pitchers (5 SP, 3 RP and 1 P) Is this difference enough to change targets vs the norm 12 tm 14/10 you have been using? Thanks again!
It’s pretty close. Given the depth of the pitching pool, I might try to nudge up the pitching Asset targets by one (5 ER, 5K), but that’s about the only change I would make.
should have mentioned H2H points, but you gave both options. Thanks!
ruksis 102
ruksis 103