Grand Theft Roto
Often, ESPN runs a feature called Grand Theft Roto, where the writer picks out players that are overperforming or underperforming and says to either trade them for a farm or trade the farm. This is about as parallel to the stock market as we could get, but I figured it needed a little bit more objectivity...
This is the last time in awhile that I will bring up "tiers" from a purely strategic sense, but it warrants discussion. When is a player worth "selling high". Well, I would say that if a player is playing a tier above where you expect him to perform, you can gain marginal value. If he is performing better but still within his tier, you might want to simply hold. You likely won't gain a substantial bounty.
Secondly, when is a player worth "buying low". This one is more valuable, for if a player is performing a tier less than you project, get him. Most players return to their tier, and it's especially likely that a player will return to his norm if it's just a slump (watch injuries though).
What does it mean to "project a player isn't in the right tier"? Really, this is a gut instinct. If you ranked someone in a certain place during the offseason and they aren't living up to it, go after them unless you believe the underperforming version is the real player. Likewise, if a player is performing above what you thought, but you think that he will maintain that, don't trade him. Even if you turn out wrong, you will have done what you thought was right, and hence should be more satisfied.
Labels: Economic Editorials
posted by Zachary Piso at
10:39 AM
4 Comments:
In this situation... how would you address guys like Manny Ramirez? I picked him up last year but he never really lived up to what I thought he would be. I was lucky that I got him cheap, overall. Chalk it up to injury, a preseason overprojection, or both?
Ramirez is a case of a post-peak player who had a lingering injury. Old players simply can't be counted on to perform to the level of their previous years, but when you draft a player with 40 home runs you count it in the back of your mind as 40.
This comes down to the dilemma of drafting last year's team. Fantasy players too often decide a player based on his previous years' (apostrophe after the S) stats, and also overvalue the importance of the past year's (apostrophe before the S) performance. This deserves an entire thread, but hopefully this serves as a simple explanation.
The players that you should be worried about are guys like Jason Bay. If you can successfully avoid the player's that no one expects to have a fall off, you don't need this blog.
What do you think of as an age limit for players, then? I suppose it probably requires a new thread, but what do you consider a ceiling?
The general consensus for batters is that the "peak at or around 27", and hold that peak till thirty, where they begin to regress. I wouldn't say that there's a fall off, and often there are exceptions to the rule. However, as cynical as this may sound, I wouldn't be surprised if those exceptions become much more rare in a post-steroid era.
Pitchers are another story. Pitchers who are brilliant at their prime (say, John Smoltz or Bartolo Colon) must adapt as they regress. Smoltz is still brilliant at the age of 40 because he knows how to use complimentary pitchers, whereas Colon can barely find a team.
I would say that after 30, you can usually approach their age 30 year as their performance ceiling (I know this isn't what you meant, but it's related). Anything more should be considered bonus, but if a Jermaine Dye puts up a 40 HR season in his mid-thirties, you still shouldn't draft him for 40 bombs.
Post a Comment
<< Home