Team Need vs. Best Available Player
It's your turn, end of the fourth round, and for some reason Brian Roberts is on the board. You glance at your cheat sheet, and realize you've projected the future Cubs'--okay I'm not going to let that one go--second basemen to bat just under .300 and steal 50 bases-in other words, he's a steal this late in the draft (no pun intended, I did say "in other words" but I lied...).
So there are the main principles in taking the better player even when your team would benefit from someone else. But remember, it is the best team that wins leagues, not the best bench. Compromising flexibility can diminish the utility of the free agency for your team, while leaving gaping holes in your roster sends a clear signal to other owners that they don't have to offer a fair deal to you. I don't want this to be an exhaustive list, because I hope to hear some takes from everyone else out there.
However, you look at your team, and you already have Jose Reyes, Carl Crawford, and Russell Martin. Okay, okay, let's not even deal with such extremes. Instead, let's say you have Reyes: What should you do?
This is a classic example of team need vs. best available player, and I've heard many opinions of what constitutes a sound strategy. What I'd like to examine is many of the factors that you should weigh in your choice:
- Liquidity - This is an economics phrase that describes capital, which is a good way of looking at each of your selections. The most common argument for taking the best available player is that he has more value, but value is only "valuable" if you can move the player. In this situation, Roberts would gain value if you could trade him for a pick that went earlier; however, it is crucial to note that every pick before yours passed on the second basemen. At some point in the season, Roberts should yield plus value, but it will likely be long after the draft is fresh in your opponents' minds.
- Scarcity - I've heard so much about how speed should be drafted early because power can be found late in the draft. This is true to the extent that low average sluggers will likely stick around, but even those sluggers won't provide much more than 25 HRs (Luke Scott, Rick Ankiel, Jason Giambi). I'd rather draft power early and grab guys like Justin Upton, Willy Taveras, and Michael Bourne with those later picks. So, in the Team Need vs. B.A.P. dilemma, I'd bias my choice in favor of taking a high average slugger before a high average base stealer.
- Opportunity Cost - In economics, opportunity cost is derived from limited resources. In fantasy baseball, that resource is roster spots. Should a team with David Wright take Aramis Ramirez if his league mates fail to draft him before the team's fourth pick? In this case, I'd say yes, as the value (derived from scarcity and liquidity) outweighs even the steepest opportunity cost of a utility spot. With at least three outfield spots, the opportunity cost of an OF spot is less than any other offensive position.
- Marginality - How much better is the player? A full round of ADP, or even the better part of one, should make the decision tough. If it is a few picks, you are trusting your cheat sheet too much - ADP is just that, an average. Because after the draft, the ADP become the DP, and this is what most owner's will correspond value to.
So there are the main principles in taking the better player even when your team would benefit from someone else. But remember, it is the best team that wins leagues, not the best bench. Compromising flexibility can diminish the utility of the free agency for your team, while leaving gaping holes in your roster sends a clear signal to other owners that they don't have to offer a fair deal to you. I don't want this to be an exhaustive list, because I hope to hear some takes from everyone else out there.
Labels: Economic Editorials
posted by Zachary Piso at
10:12 AM
4 Comments:
I agree that you should take the best player available, but like you said, liquidity needs to be taken into account. It is only a good pick if in return you can get a better player, in a position you needed at that time, than you would have had you just picked a player in that position. Notice I said at that time. Don't be fooled into thinking that just because you trade for a player that was drafted earlier you are getting a good deal. Let’s say you get a first baseman drafted in the second round for a second baseman you drafted in the fourth round. Although you are getting a player drafted earlier, it is not a good trade if you drafted a first baseman in the first round. You are now stuck in the same situation only worse, because it will be harder for you to deal him and get higher value.
The end of Zach's post is also very relevant. As he said, picking the best available player instead of filling your roster may leave you with many holes. Other league members could see this and decide not to trade with you. Their benefit of screwing your team over may exceed their cost of not getting the better player. Although this is somewhat true, I see it a little bit differently. If it were a one on one league, this theory would hold true most of the time, but because there are many members, the prisoner’s dilemma comes into effect. Other members see you with many holes in your team and first think what Zach said. By not trading, they will screw you over. But After thinking about it, they realize that someone else may trade with you. If someone else trades with you, the first guy has missed out on improving his team and has also failed at sabotaging your team, thus the other teams have improved and his team has worsened relative to the other teams. Because of this reasoning, he will defect and trade with your team. This would not be the case if all the other members got together and decided not to trade with you, but I would not be too worried about collusion in fantasy baseball. So... I believe that taking the best available player is the right thing to do in any situation, given you can get a better player at a position you need and that you are willing to negotiate many trades.
Ah Caleb, this is your first season on fantasy baseball. Collusion, as you will find out sooner than later, is a common swear word among fantasy baseball circles. It has happened in at least one league I've been in every year and is one of the reasons I try to commish my leagues.
While I never mentioned teams "screwing" other teams over, you make an astute point. Leverage only works when the threat of other teams stepping in isn't likely. Otherwise, a shortage at a position could end up yielding great results since every team would expect you need that position, and expect that the other teams know it also.
I'm not sure I meant to convey that you should take the best player available, in fact I'm leaning the other way. Someone convince me thoroughly.
I am in a 12 team keeper league and I am keeping Jimmy Rollins and Hanley Ramirez. We have two Util slots.
Some of my fellow owners have given me a hard time about keepeing two SS, but I am very happy to do so because I am getting two very valuable players with a nice power/speed combo AND I am keeping one of the other owners from having a scarce commodity.
When you say "some" of the other owners, I'm curious exactly-for lack of a better word-which? Do those owners need shortstops? Do the ones that are all for it have Reyes, or even Tulowitski or Jeter?
While the attitudes from league to league should vary slightly, the rules of Fantasy somewhat streamline the personalities and strategies. It would be interesting to analyze not the baseball players of every league but the fantasy baseball players, because I expect it influenced factors such as "liquidity" and "scarcity" as much, if not more, than the player pool.
Post a Comment
<< Home