Starters offer small pockets of high skill, low risk

48 Comments

1. Jeff Craig on February 17, 2017 at 8:38 am

   You have Maeda in the same tier as Verlander, Sale and Hamels. What about the IP differential? At this point, Maeda looks more in the 180 range where the others are consistent 200+ (if healthy). Do you take that into consideration or do you think Maeda gets up to the 200 IP range? That could be a significant difference if you have similar skills over 20-40 more innings.

   
   
   
2. shandler on February 17, 2017 at 8:43 am

   We have the variance at about 20 innings. Over the course of a season, what with occasional missed starts, DL stints and the like, that’s not a projectably significant variance. If we had moved Maeda into the “M” tier, he would have been ranked with pitchers mostly in the 130-170 IP range.

   
   
   
3. Hector Rodriguez on February 17, 2017 at 3:32 pm

   Can you explain how high of an impact it is to have Kershaw on your team? I’ve always been gun-shy about drafting an elite pitcher and normally am fine anchoring my team with a solid, high-upside guy who has produced borderline SP1 numbers (Noah last year, Harvey the year before as well as deGrom). This year I have a chance to draft Kershaw but I am finding it hard to quantify that in a H2H league (25 IP limit). Can BABS help somewhat with this, or perhaps your personal experience?

   
   
   
4. shandler on February 17, 2017 at 3:37 pm

   It’s like anything else in this game… the deeper you invest in any individual player, the more risk you take on. For stable commodities, that’s not a bad thing to do because the investment almost always pays off. Kershaw used to be invincible but now you have to consider that 200 innings might not be a sure thing. Personally, I am risk-averse when it comes to expensive players. I won’t draft any obvious injury risk in the 1st few rounds. But others are more willing. You have to take SOME chances to win; I prefer to take them further down the draft board. You approach maybe different.

   
   
   
5. Mike Fair on February 18, 2017 at 10:00 am

   Can you comment real quick on Carlos Martinez? He doesn’t seem to get too much love. In a 13 team $260 auction keeper league, which would you keep? I already have Scherzer for $24 FYI. Carlos Martinez $7, John Lester $18 or Carlos Carrasco $20? I would like to keep 2 of the three to go with Max.

   
   
   
6. shandler on February 18, 2017 at 10:06 am

   Martinez does seem to fly under the radar. You’ll note that BABS still sees him as more of a mid-timer than a 200-inning stud, which suppresses his value. But his skills rank up there in the same asset group as Arrieta, Cueto and Lester. If you believe his gradually increasing workload will build to 200 IP this year, he’d be a definite keeper. As for Lester/Carrasco, flip a coin.

   
   
   
7. Brad Crenshaw on February 18, 2017 at 11:47 am

   Good Morning Ron–

   I would like to argue for–let’s call it a weighed assessment of risk. You and I have already corresponded once about preferring to assign risk to later draft choices than to the first ones–which is, as you point out, the reason you passed on Harper and picked up Blackmon instead in one of your leagues.

   A second principle might be to assign risk to one’s pitching staff, and avoid it as much as feasible in one’s offense. You point out on page 49 of the BABS Project that among pitchers, value is largely in “ratio gauges that have wider errors bars than just about any other metric”. The result is that “most pitchers are not that much different from one another.” They are replaceable. There also are more of them, since there are only two positions–starters and relievers–compared to the 6 offensive categories, so there is a larger pool from which to choose.

   These observations allow for strategies–specifically to draft your offense (hitters with the best tools accompanied by the least risk are expensive), and then only toward the end to go after pitching. We might obtain talented pitching if we are comfortable with the EX risk (Urias, Reyes before Tommy John–but that is itself a case in point–, Luke Weaver, Edwin Diaz) or INJ (McCullers, maybe Knebel).

   In 10 mock drafts so far, I reliably obtained Maeda in Round 11, Salazar in Round 14. By then I had Betts, Votto, Encarnacion, J.D. Martinez, Matt Carpenter, Kyle Seager, Cespedes, Contreras, Fowler, LeMahieu and Peraza.

   And then I go after the above mentioned riskier pitchers. I think it is easier to replace a starter than, say, a second baseman.

   Brad

   
   
   
8. shandler on February 18, 2017 at 11:55 am

   I don’t disagree with anything you write – and I LOVE your teams. (Are they 10-team mocks?) Risk tolerance is a personal decision. It’s certainly possible that many champions this year will have drafted Bryce Harper in the first round…

   
   
   
9. David Irvin on February 18, 2017 at 12:19 pm

   Ron,
   BABS info. will be a huge draft help. Thanks! Your thoughts on ROY Michael Fulmer and Tyler Glasnow ?? Looking forward to N.J. First Pitch.

   
   
   
10. shandler on February 18, 2017 at 12:24 pm

    You can see what BABS thinks above. Fulmer (F/e,k | e) is more projectable than Glasnow (M/KK | inj-,EX) though Glasnow has higher strikeout upside.

    
    
    
11. Brad Crenshaw on February 18, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    I have tried all formats in the mock drafts: 8, 10 and 12 team leagues. Most folks seem to be content with a fairly close version of the current ADP–which should be expected, since the ADP itself reflects what most people are valuing–against which BABS has herself been consistently distinct. Yahoo, of course, thinks I’m a failure since they measure my team according to their ADP’s. But I will be over the moon if, in my league draft, I get a team like this.

    I belong to a custom league, which has a core of 8 teams, and then depending on the interest we can generate among friends, has gotten up to 10 teams. The custom part allows multiple other categories–such as walks, strikeouts and errors for the offense, and losses and no hitters for pitching. So for Seager, I have to tolerate the number of errors he makes at 3rd. And with pitching, for every win I go for, I risk accumulating losses. So team composition is influenced by risk factors other than those BABS helps me with. It’s a fun league.

    
    
    
12. John Roberts on February 20, 2017 at 11:55 am

    Ron, I am new to your work interesting stuff. Still trying to wrap my head around it all. Is it possible to get spreadsheets for each position such as are shown in your articles?

    
    
    
13. shandler on February 20, 2017 at 12:09 pm

    You can mark these tables with your cursor, and cut/paste directly into your spreadsheet.

    
    
    
14. tom rippon on February 20, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    Ron;
    I am new to BABS. Does this page suggest that Tanaka is a better pick than Sale? Or does it suggest that I should take Tanaka ahead of his ADP? Thanks.
    Tom

    
    
    
15. shandler on February 20, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    Tanaka is at the tail end of an Asset Group (ER,k) that is ranked slightly ahead of the (e,KK) Asset group in which Sale is the highest drafted pitcher. BABS does not rank players; BABS ranks Asset Groups. Within each group, the players are sorted by their ADP. In your case, the selection of Tanaka at or ahead of his ADP could yield a skill set similar to those ahead of him in that group (Arrieta, et al). Regarding Sale, you can pay full price for him or wait for Hamels, Maeda, etc. and get a similar skill set at a lower price/round.

    
    
    
16. Mark Franceschini on February 20, 2017 at 3:04 pm

    Ron,
    Do you plan on writing a similar (possible profits) for Closers?
    Mark F

    
    
    
17. shandler on February 20, 2017 at 3:08 pm

    Tomorrow.

    
    
    
18. Doyle on February 20, 2017 at 4:14 pm

    I have Kershaw ($44), Scherzer $36), Syndergaard ($18) and Kluber ($18) in a dynasty league. Am I crazy for wanting to keep all 4 aces? 10-team league with a $290 budget. League undervalues pitching a bit. We start 5 SP, 3 RP and 1 P each week and have to set out lineups for the entire week (so no streaming really).

    
    
    
19. shandler on February 20, 2017 at 4:22 pm

    Not crazy if that provides you with your best team overall. But what about bats? Could trading a Kershaw bring you a Trout? Or Arenado? That might be a better use of your assets.

    
    
    
20. Jay Joyce on February 20, 2017 at 6:37 pm

    Ron,

    When using the spreadsheet in a draft format, is it best to just go down the list? Last year a lot of players high ranked BABS guys were available late in the draft such as Dickerson, Khrush and Wellington Beef. I drafted all three, but noticed when it came to late in the draft the best pitchers available were Jumbo and Jeffress as an example. I of course drafted Jeffress and traded him high. I also made what I thought was a glaring mistake by taking Revere in the 4th round (140 players off the board), just based on extreme asset collecting. Thoughts?

    
    
    
21. Jay Joyce on February 20, 2017 at 6:40 pm

    Ron,

    Could you also maybe provide some clarity as to how to look at the spreadsheet if I were drafting say Yahoo format. Going down the list would essentially have me taking Miggy over Machado or Goldy. Am I on the right track?

    Thanks,

    
    
    
22. shandler on February 20, 2017 at 10:19 pm

    You should NOT be drafting players in the order they are on the list. You should be drafting them just ahead of the market. BABS shows you their relative value but if you draft them at that level, you are giving up tons of profit. It’s all about the marketplace.

    
    
    
23. shandler on February 20, 2017 at 10:22 pm

    In that particular case, potentially yes. But you have to consider Miggy’s injury risk in that decision. Is that a point in the draft where you are willing to take on risk (the correct answer should be “no”). Remember – the players are NOT RANKED. The asset groups are what are ranked. The players are just sorted within those groups based on how the market is perceiving them.

    
    
    
24. Jay Joyce on February 21, 2017 at 12:12 am

    Thanks for the replies. I am still not following. Can you provide a more concise example?

    
    
    
25. shandler on February 21, 2017 at 12:08 pm

    Best for you to go back to chapters 5, 7 and into 8 in The BABS Project eBook. I would just be rewriting the explanation here.

    
    
    
26. Stephen Rayburn on February 21, 2017 at 1:06 pm

    So by quick count it looks like you project about 125 SPs to have some value in 2017. The biggest outlier I’ve found between BABs and most other fantasy SP rankings is Taijuan Walker. He consistently seems to appear somewhere in the SP60-70 range in many other sources although BABs doesn’t have him listed among the 125 expected to produce value this season. For example, Yahoo currently shows him as 100% drafted and going just outside the top 50 SPs. Can I assume that between his frustrating history of little to no growth, combined with move to Arizona, you think he is being significantly overrated this year?

    
    
    
27. Stephen Rayburn on February 21, 2017 at 1:09 pm

    FYI – I understand that BABs isn’t a ranking system, however, it seemed safe to assume that by listing 125 SPs that you project to return value in 2017 and leaving Taijuan Walker’s name out, that you at least wouldn’t consider him among a hypothetical top 125. Thanks.

    
    
    
28. shandler on February 21, 2017 at 1:11 pm

    Velocity down. Dominance down. Home runs up. Moving to a ballpark that’s not going to correct those deficiencies. He’s young and could certainly start living up to his billing, but that’s not something you want to invest in… yet.

    
    
    
29. shandler on February 21, 2017 at 1:13 pm

    Safe assumption, yes.

    
    
    
30. Tyson Schritter on February 22, 2017 at 5:12 pm

    Hey Ron,

    I’m in a keeper league with contracts (12 teams, $315 budgets, 6×6 with OPS, IP/Holds, no Ws, start 5 SP, 3 RP, 3 P). The league is a few years old so there is a good amount of inflation.

    I had to take on a bloated Greinke contract $32 this year/ $35 next. If I cut him now, I pay a $26 penalty that comes out of my auction budget, but get out of next year’s salary.

    I also have Strasburg ($28), G. Cole ($24), Arrieta ($12), Thor ($7). There is little chance I could trade Greinke unless I take on an equally bad contract.

    A couple questions: does BABS look at more than one year of variables?

    Could Greinke’s past 3-4 year track record give him a better chance at getting back in the $20-$29 range of pitchers or even the $19-$10 over the next couple years?

    If he could end up being closer to a $20 pitcher, then he might be worth keeping instead of eating the penalty. Thoughts?

    
    
    
31. Tyson Schritter on February 22, 2017 at 5:22 pm

    I should also mention we have a cap on keepers at 15 (25 roster spots).

    My keeper priority list looks like this:

    1 Mike Trout, OF, LAA $22
    2 Kris Bryant, 3B/OF, CHC $8
    3 Syndergaard $7
    4 Xander Bogaerts, 3B/SS, BOS $7
    5 Jake Arrieta, P, CHC $9
    6 Jake Lamb, Ari 3B $4
    7 Jose Peraza, Cin 2B, SS, OF $3
    8 Jean Segura, SS/2B, MIL $17
    9 Stephen Strasburg, P, WAS $28
    10 Gerrit Cole, P, PIT $23
    11 Odubel Herrera, Phi OF $4
    12 Mark Trumbo, Bal OF, 1B, DH $13
    13 Kenley Jansen, LAD RP $29
    14 Alex Colome, TB RP, SP $4
    15 Matt Kemp, Atl OF $26
    ——————-
    16 Stephen Vogt, Oak C, 1B, DH $16
    17 Chris Sale, P, CHW $33
    18 Zack Greinke, P, ARI $32

    
    
    
32. shandler on February 22, 2017 at 6:33 pm

    You have a pretty strong team. If you ate the penalty, it might not hurt that much. However, if you keep Greinke and cut Kemp, you’ll do fine too. Yes, Greinke is overpriced at $32, but he has a history of being better. I think a return to $20ish territory is a pretty good bet.

    
    
    
33. Jay Joyce on February 23, 2017 at 3:26 am

    Ron,

    What are your thoughts on keeper situations? I have Carrasco for one more year and have Wil Myers and Danny Duffy for up to three years each. I have a deal on the table right now to get JD Martinez who I can keep for two more years for Myers and his three. I also have an opportunity to get Sano for pennies on the dollar for three years. Do I make either move costing me the loss of Carrasco this year when I won’t be able to keep him next year? Keep Duffy in the fact that I have 3 yr control over him? OBP league also.
    I’d look like this; Betts, Arenado, Starling, Scherzer, JD Martinez, Sano, Verlander, Price, Contreras and Moncada.

    
    
    
34. shandler on February 23, 2017 at 7:37 am

    This looks like the beginnings of a team that could win THIS year. When you are in that position, I’d be more interested in what mix of players will help me reach that goal THIS year rather than worrying about what players will still be under contract in future years. So which mix makes you stronger in 2017? I’d think Carrasco and Myers would be better than JD and Sano.

    
    
    
35. Jay Joyce on February 23, 2017 at 12:14 pm

    I won it last year, but this league is all about eligibility when it comes to keepers. BABS is not fond of Wil and from my scouting days in KC I just can’t quit him. You also mentioned his poor hard hit rate, but potential sustainable speed. JD provides P+/AV while Wil….well you know. Sano on the other hand has a lot of eligibility and real raw power P+/a* which is nice in the OBP format. You don’t see him as a 40 HR star?

    
    
    
36. shandler on February 23, 2017 at 12:59 pm

    That’s not the issue. Batters are easy to find. A staff of Scherzer, Verlander, Price, Carrasco would be huge.

    
    
    
37. Jay Joyce on February 23, 2017 at 1:01 pm

    Copy that.

    
    
    
38. Tyson Schritter on February 25, 2017 at 10:52 am

    Thanks

    
    
    
39. Thomas Dersham on February 27, 2017 at 5:53 pm

    Question on Bumgarner, you have him with an “X” next to his name on your most recent update as overvalued. Seeing how the others in his skill set are all AL pitchers, would you still consider him as an overvalue if in NL only? I actually own him in my NL only at $33 and truly think he’d go for pushing $40 with the trio ahead of him all owned. If I’m understanding BABS correctly, the “X” is because there is better value with the other ER, KK if in a mixed league, but ‘only’ leagues that would change the status?

    
    
    
40. shandler on February 27, 2017 at 5:57 pm

    Context is everything. If $33 is a good price based on your league, then you have to go with that. Remember that the “X”s and “+”s are all based on industry averages.

    
    
    
41. Scott Freeman on March 6, 2017 at 3:03 am

    about to start prepping for drafts. Are these BABS spreadsheets available in Excel? Love these positional lists. I’m going all in on BABS! 😉

    
    
    
42. shandler on March 6, 2017 at 8:52 am

    You can copy/paste the charts from your screen into Excel.

    
    
    
43. Andrew on March 6, 2017 at 2:54 pm

    Ron,

    I’m just about going crazy trying to figure my pitching plan for my NL-only 10-team 5×5 league with minimal keepers (keep 3 players for one year only at prior year’s auction salary). Quite frankly, there’s not much to choose from.

    The (ER,K+) group will cost $30 and has just one healthy player – Syndergaard.

    The next group down (ER,KK) has but one NL pitcher – MadBum, and he’s in the $25 tier and will cost about the same as Thor.

    After that is the (ER,k) $15 tier which will likely cost a $10 premium for the healthy guys. The question then remains is whether paying market value for the INJ liability guys is worth the risk. I say paying $20-$25 for an injury risk is a bad investment.

    The (e,KK) group is a group of one full-time pitchers– Matt Harvey who you mentioned above as a health hazard. Nicasio’s playing time indicator in the new version of the BABS master report is devoid of a playing time indicator likely because he may be relegated to the bullpen (and therefore, may not be properly placed on the list?).

    The pitchers from the lower other groups seems to have some sort of liability that offsets the small amount of assets they bring to the table.

    So, what is an owner to do? My initial thought is to grab the two healthy guys at market or slightly above market – Thor and MadBum, and then wait to the end game to fill out the staff with high-upside starters. However, this means that I’m highly concentrated in two players and it will be likely that my Ws and Ks will lag behind.

    Either way, it looks like I’m overpaying for starting pitching talent. The question is, and assuming I land Thor at market value or slightly above… how to plan for the dearth of talent and the risks associated with the player pool as a whole without overpaying too much?

    
    
    
44. shandler on March 6, 2017 at 2:57 pm

    Admittedly, it’s a challenge. The number of players coming into the season with injury risk this year is very high. If you can wait a few weeks, the NL-only chart posting March 17 may help put these players in better perspective.

    
    
    
45. Andrew on March 6, 2017 at 3:11 pm

    I do have the luxury of time, so I’ll patiently wait. Eh… maybe not so patiently, but I’ll wait. In the meantime, I’ll fit Thor for a jersey. Thanks!

    
    
    
46. Scott Freeman on March 6, 2017 at 9:25 pm

    perfect! thanks

    
    
    
47. Jon Libbey on March 28, 2017 at 12:08 am

    Hi Ron
    Just wondering about a couple differences between the asset ratings in this post and the asset ratings in the BABS 2017 master. For example, Luke Weaver shows up here with an e,KK rating, while in the 2017 Babs master he is rated only as k, which pushes him to a much lower tier.
    Just curious has his skills rating been updated for this post?
    Thanks!

    
    
    
48. shandler on March 28, 2017 at 8:42 am

    This post was on Feb. 17 and based on preliminary January ratings. They’ve been reassessed and updated since then.