Quantum (Baseball) Mechanics
The following is a reprinted article from before Rotonomics worked with MLB Front Office. We here at the blog consider it beneficial reading to our new readers.
Ah, theoretical physics. I can't help but consider whether or not I'd have been up to a career in this field had I never become obsessed with fantasy baseball. But as that is a path long ago abandoned, I must instead integrate one particular idea into the dirt baseline of the fantasy world. Quantum mechanics involves the premise that all energy is divisible into quanta, the smallest form it can maintain. In Quantum Baseball Mechanics, this "smallest form" of value is what I call "minimum pitcher above free agency" (marginal pitcher or MP). It relies on the following condition: in every fantasy baseball league ever, every team is trying to improve their pitching core. A pitcher that is slightly better than free agency is likely sought by most every team, but it is the lowest valuable commodity in the realm of trades.
Now, marginal pitchers can be used to gage player values and team values. Often I see the phrase "tiers" applied to drafting strategies, but how do we determine which players belong in each tier. Let's define a "tier" as followed: If Player A is better than Player B so that the trade "Player A = Player B + 1 minimum pitcher above free agency", then Player A is one tier higher than Player B.
Lastly, marginal pitchers must be considered when evaluating your team. Each team's value can be determined by total "MPs", where the players are equal to the number of tiers they are over the best free agent player at that position. Hence, Utley is one tier above Phillips/Upton/Roberts, who is one tier above Cano, who is one tier above Kinsler/Kendrick/Weeks/etc., who are one tier better than free agency. Utley is worth "4 MPs" since each trade from the free agency would require a total of 4 league-minimum pitchers.
So, here's the question. What stats represent a "minimum pitcher above free agency"? I would say an ERA around 4.00, a WHIP around 1.35, and a K/9 around 6. Thoughts?
Labels: Economic Editorials
posted by Zachary Piso at
11:39 AM
6 Comments:
Don't other stats factor into determining a marginal pitcher? I'd add 10 wins to your stat-line, I figure K/9 covers strikeouts, and pitchers with multiple complete games aren't marginal.
Also, just for personal clarity, would you say that total MPs = total value of your team? Like, where Utley = 4 MPs, can you translate some other big name players? I'm just trying to get a feel for the discrepancies this may cause (or how position might affect it)
I'm planning on doing a full analysis of each position, starting (inherently) with pitchers. It will take some time but I expect to have starting pitchers up over the weekend. The issue comes down to the league setting, particularly number of teams and number of picks.
Wins and complete games are cumulative, and the issue there would be consistency over the season. A player with ten wins in May is worth a ton, but in September is barely serviceable. If wins are relevant, then the best thing to do is pick a good team, so the cumulative stat I would find relevant would be "winning percentage of the team". There are exceptions (i.e. Matt Cain and Rich Hill), but in general a pitcher on a good team with good peripherals should win games.
Do you think strength of schedule is worth factoring into your rankings? I.e. Would Liriano be less valuable because he faces Detroit, Cleveland and the ChiSox on a regular basis, or is the difference negligible (he still gets to face Kansas City, for example)?
Or maybe this is a factor that's difficult to rate until the season starts... it becomes more relevant in May.
Once upon a time I started Gil Meche against Cleveland that ended up winning me the week...
Yahoo provides stats on Pitcher vs. Team, and in my opinion you can only sit a pitcher if it's unreasonable to start him. This is rare, and should be done rarely, because missing a start or two can ruin the worth of a pitcher to your team.
Peripheral stats should consider strength of schedule as long as the player has played those teams. The appearance of success when it comes to "marginal pitchers" is more valuable than future success when it comes to trading, and if you can dupe another fantasy player into buying a guy who has only faced the O's, A's, and any other team abbreviated simply with a letter, then you will win the deal by far.
The concept of knowing where "replacement level" lies is a fundamental sabermetric idea. If you can't identify this, you can never make a decision on whether or not to drop a player unless he's suffered a season-ending injury. The issue here is that for many positions there won't be one replacement level that fits all leagues, as teams, positions, and roster sizes affect the location of "replacement level".
See, I disagree with that idea, which I elaborated a bit more on "Sunk Costs are Sunk". Dropping a player with potential to have a major impact isn't simply a cost to your team, but also a cost if another team picks him up.
So struggling player = replacement level runs into problems when you couple the opportunity cost of the chance of him rebounding with the chance that he will perform on another team. To me, this basically doubles the players value, since those aforementioned possibilities are equally damaging. Thoughts?
Post a Comment
<< Home