As the major league season gets underway fantasy drafts are becoming scarce along the lines of late high-school students after the bell rings; most of the students are already inside but there are a few who still want to get in. With these drafts come the differing (and always correct) strategies of every participant and expert. While most will content it is much more difficult to find a great second-baseman than first-baseman, starting pitchers will usually find themselves at the forefront of strategic arguments.

Is it better to go for top-tier pitchers a tad earlier or to wait until later rounds and end up with a bunch of good, not great, starters?

It has always been my strategy to draft guys like Johan and Oswalt early and then get #3-caliber pitchers a bit later. Others, however, have been equally successful while employing many Derek Lowe's and Andy Pettitte's, good pitchers but not of the same fantasy caliber of Johan or Oswalt. In order to investigate the different strategies I will call upon my SP Effectiveness System. For those unfamiliar the system weights twelve different statistics in order to determine which pitchers were the most effective regardless of sometimes luck induced stats such as W-L and ERA.

The SP Effectiveness database I created holds stats for every SP from 2000 until now; it also breaks the pitchers into different groups based on the rotational position they pitched similar to. Looking at these rotational breakdowns, year by year and accumulatively, helps us determine which strategy is better or if it is a wash.

With regards to specifics I am going with a 6-SP approach: the top-heavy group will consist of two #1's, one #2, and three #3's; the consistency group will consist of five #2's and one #3. The argument in favor of the top-heavy group is that the pitchers are usually proven aces that have consistently racked up a ton of relevant statistics. Of course the detriment is that this strategy prevents fantasy owners from drafting some great position players. The consistency group likes how it might be able to get equal production, later down the line, thereby allowing them to draft these better production players.

I took the averages of #1, #2, and #3 SP's and used those numbers for each year of this study. Let's start by looking at an example. For instance, in 2000, a #1 SP averaged +69, a #2 at +41, and a #3 at +31. The top-heavy group would be:

= 2(#1) + 1(#2) + 3(#3)
= 2(69) + 1(41) + 3(31)
= 272
= 272/6
= 45.3

Therefore, the top-heavy group in 2000 would average a +45.3 in SP Effectiveness Points. Here are the results for the consistency group:

= 5(#2) + 1(#3)
= 5(41) + 1(31)
= 236
= 236/6
= 39.3

The consistency group would average +39.3 SP Effectiveness Points. Let's take a look at 2000-2007 results:

2000: Top-Heavy = 45.3, Consistency = 39.3
2001: Top-Heavy = 43.3, Consistency = 40.0
2002: Top-Heavy = 43.7, Consistency = 39.3
2003: Top-Heavy = 41.7, Consistency = 39.0
2004: Top-Heavy = 42.7, Consistency = 37.3
2005: Top-Heavy = 42.2, Consistency = 39.8
2006: Top-Heavy = 41.5, Consistency = 38.2
2007: Top-Heavy = 42.8, Consistency = 40.8
Overall: Top-Heavy = 42.9, Consistency = 39.1

The results tell us that going with my strategy has only had a slightly more effective outcome in terms of starting pitching. Make no mistake: this does not mean the strategies are equal. Since both are within three points (very close) it means that it would probably be better to draft the better position players early and go for the Lowe/Pettitte as opposed to the Oswalt/Santana. If the results were staggeringly in favor of a top-heavy group then yes, get the aces, but since they are not it would probably be a better strategy to spend a 4th round pick on a great 3B or 1B instead of an ace pitcher.