Let me start by saying I am in a number of fantasy baseball leagues this year. By far the most fun is a 5x5, 10 team, live draft, custom league that is on the ESPN website. There, all 10 teams are manned by active owners who have a keen interest in succeeding and possess good general baseball knowledge. We've even seen some worst-to-first movement over the years, and last place team owners keep up with their teams as much as first place teams do. I am preparing for the draft in which I have the #5 overall selection, thus being virtually unaffected by the snake (1st picks last in each succesive round), and I have come to an interesting conclusion. Fantasy baseball is in the grips of its biggest change since before I even started participating 10 or 11 years ago: pitching stars are the new juggernauts.
With the inflated, PED-fueled, offensive counting statistics sinking, I think we can expect an offensive regression to the mean. For instance, Mark Texiera is listed this year as the best or the second best American League first basemen (after Miguel Cabrera) and about the 11th overall best fantasy player, coming off a season in which he hit a league leading 39 homers and 122 RBI. Our collective wisdom, though, recalls the days of yore. 39 homers and 122 RBI's would have made Tex a top fantasy player, but by no means a guaranteed first or early second rounder! For instance, in 2003, 6 first basemen around baseball had comparable or better seasons to Texiera's last year. In 2001, 5 first basemen in the American League alone had comparable or better years. And that only counts first basemen...and this was before Albert Pujols switched to first base! But now, the days of finding 100 runs scored, or 40 homers in rounds 4 or 5 are gone. In 2004, 10 players had at least 115 runs scored. In 2009? Just 2. The numbers are sliding back to the norm. And with them, offensive fantasy stars have become dimmer, leaving room at the top for pitching.
I expect average ERA's to go down, strikeouts to go up, as non-juiced players have trouble recovering from workouts and games and cant get around on the ball. I also expect win totals to increase as starters are strained less to throw the same number of pitches, not worried that a juicer will make a low outside changeup look like a belt-high fastball.
The effects of this "offensive regression to the mean" will be to change strategy at the top of the draft, and take pitching over offense for all but the most elite hitters in the game. The regression to the mean doesnt just mean that the offensive counting statistics go down. This means that there will be far more replication in the type of offensive numbers being posted by fantasy worthy players, because the average is populated by more players, who might otherwise have been performing in an, ahem, enhanced fashion. There will be a lot more .280 15HR 80RBI guys, and a lot fewer .304 37HR 115 RBI guys. In fact, after much consideration, I have determined this draft to be one of the weakest offensive drafts I have seen in all my fantasy years. There is virtually no depth. This means we have to change our expectations, and our strategies.
On the other hand, there will be more emphasis on pitching stars because they are likelier to have the type of seasons that could carry a fantasy team. Generally there are fewer pitching slots on a roster. In addition, some, if not all, of those slots are fueled by the demands of the “Saves” category to the exclusion of the other 4. So, if we knew that pitchers in general are going to perform better than the regressing average hitter, we should take them earlier because its harder to add and replace later. Drafted pitchers who perform well will stay on their teams, or command higher trade value, making them more difficult commodities. Last year, 10 pitchers had 200 or more K’s, with Verlander and Lincecum topping 260 K’s. In 2006, there were 6, with only Santana over 220 K’s. In 2005, there were 8 200K pitchers with one guy (Santana) over 220K’s. last year, 10 pitchers had ERA’s under 2.89. In 2008, 6. In 2007? 1.
But wait. This all begs the question....if this is the weakest offensive draft in a while, do you draft the best offensive players early, or do you take pitching early because offensive weakness really means offensive regression to the mean (i.e. the resource that wont be available later in the draft is good pitching)? I am a believer in the latter. Take pitchers earlier, you say? This is slightly counter-intuitive, because you would think that great hitters become more unique. But the point is that one wants “greatness” out of top picks. We want outsized performance. Very good wont cut it. And in these lean offensive times, pitchers are more likely to have super sized seasons than hitters.
In my top picks I like to have uniqueness, even if its not necessarily the "best" player. Of course, I wont pass on a great player, but obviously draft depth is the key to achieving value picks. So, recall, I am at pick number 5. I expect Pujols, Hanley, Braun, and A Rod to be gone at this point. The most unique players, then, at that draft position that can definitely repeat the performance of being a top pick are Chase Utley and Tim Lincecum. Carl Crawford is unique but I question his ability to perform at that high a level again. The Rays lineup top-to-bottom is average at best. Crawford would fare a lot better hitting triples in the wide expanses of Citi Field, say, then Tropicana Field. On the other hand, he is on a contract year. So, Crawford is a maybe. Matt Kemp is good, too, but again I am just not sure he is a first rounder. 97 runs? 101 RBI's? 26 homers? 34 steals is nice. Its great with those other numbers. But I want a monster out of my top pick. And Kemp is no monster. Miguel Cabrera? Prince Fielder? Mark Texiera? There is not enough of a substantial difference between any of them and Adrian Gonzalez, Kevin Youkilis, and Ryan Howard. Why spend a top pick on of those guys? And if thats the case, Utley is age 32 and Lincecum has a style that lends itself to injury. I considered David Wright, Evan Longoria, Jose Reyes, even Justin Upton at this spot too. Each is potentially more valuable and capable at that slot than any of the guys I have mentioned. I have considered them all.
What happened to massive sluggers in deep, lineups? They are mostly gone. This is the new era, baby! Kendry Morales was a revelation last year, with the second best slugging percentage in the American League last year. Yet his numbers compare favorably to Paul Konerko’s best seasons. Are big time fantasy sluggers becoming Paul Konerko? I say yes. What happened to potential 40/40 guys? I don’t see any, except maybe Kinsler, because of Texas Stadium.
The reason this draft is so troublesome for us is because many of us are hitting on the same thing: there is a substantial lack of quality hitting depth. I believe this season will be about pitching, and one category offensive studs. The era of readily available multi dimensional talent will give way to star players who do it all to a much more tame degree. Think about it, baseball is reverting back to its classic form. Up the middle players are basically speed-good glove-no hit guys. First and third are your power slots. right and left is where everyone else goes, and its a mixed bag as to whether the guy is good or just a place holder. This is the way most teams are built. (on another note, this leads to a secondary conclusion - the Yankees may dominate even more in this era where money cannot be counterbalanced by a performance enhanced player or players on another team).
Again, the strategic choice as I see it is whether to draft offense early because of later dearth in quality hitting, or draft pitching early because that will be dominant. And i conclude that when offense was huge, we still drafted hitters first, even though there was a dearth of quality pitching. So in these leaner offensive times, you take pitching because thats where we are likely to see some outsized numbers. For instance, I wouldnt be surprised to see a 300K season out of some pitcher soon. or a 25 win season. or multiple ERA's under 2.20.
On this basis, I am likely to take Lincecum, not withstanding his possible injury proneness, and even with Utley sitting there at a thin position.
Written by:
