Mythbusters: Homerun Derby Hangover

This entire post is lifted from our friends over at FantasyHurlers.com. They run a great site and are one of the few Fantasy Baseball blogs that I read regularly (I don't know if this makes me a bad analyst or not--but I do spend a lot of time on FanGraphs, probably too much time. Anyway, it fit our bill perfectly and I promise to plug for the author, Mike Bock. So go read their site and comment frequently.

Bobby Abreu (unless he's changed his tune) blamed the Home Run Derby for screwing up his swing. Anecdotally, there are a few other guys who complained about the Derby. I would imagine that professional hitters, even if they do get themselves out of whack, would figure out the problem within a week or two. Still, let's look at the evidence.

Abreu was never a big home-run hitter (though he had a few big-time years). It's plausible that his line-drive oriented swing (as opposed to an upper-cutter like Ken Griffey Jr.) might get wonky. But, maybe Abreu just got old or regressed to the mean, and it's merely a coincidence that it happened shortly after the 2005 Derby. He hit 18 home runs that year before the break and only six after. He hasn't topped 20 since. Hmm, have we seen the same downturn from anyone else?

Well, 2006 winner Ryan Howard smashed something like 89 home runs after that year's break (or, about 30), so no help there. Last year, Vlad hit almost identical numbers before and after the break. In 2004, Miguel Tejada hit 19 after and only 15 before. You must go all the way back to 2003 to find a drop-off similar to Abreu's: Garrett Anderson hit only seven in the second half after launching 22 in the first.

I stopped looking around 1999, but I didn't see anyone else with an unusually large drop in performance. So, basically, the Derby curse looks unfounded. Maybe the guys that lost the Derby are the ones that truly messed up their swings, but I doubt (if I looked) that would be the case.

So, does this mean I think you should sell Josh Hamilton? I do, but not because of the Derby. He abused his body for a long time, may not be ready to go a full season, and his numbers are so insane they're likely unsustainable. If you can get a Jose Reyes or Hanley Ramirez (any news on his shoulder?) for Hamilton and a middling SS, do it

Mythbusters: Paying For Closers

You've heard it, and so have we. The perennial advice of every draft strategy article campaigns against the early drafting of closers. "Just don't do it," they warn, "you'll regret it for the rest of your life." This may be a little extreme, but if you read those articles, you'll realize that its pretty close to reality. And if you read our articles, you'll realize we dislike this strategy. In Rotonomics preseason analysis, we recommended drafting upwards of five closers, building an early lead in saves, and selling high on as many as you can spare once teams get prematurely desperate for saves. So who was right in their suggestion? Enter Rotonomics vs. The Fantasy Baseball World...

So how shall we look at this myth? Well, since I'm poor I can't do what I had wanted to do, which is to compare end season Yahoo! rankings in 2007 with preseason MockDraftCentral ADP (included only in the premium membership) for the year. Instead, we will have to settle for the same strategy, applied during the current 2008 season. I know, you're probably bummed settling for more relevant information far more statistically volatile.

So looking at it by Tier, the ADP had the first tier of Papelbon, Putz, Rodriguez, and Nathan with an average of 51. Obviously, Putz has been a complete bust thus far, so lets consider the first tier with a bust rate of 25%. The average current rankings of these players is one round higher, at 61. Not one of the four players beat their draft pick, suggesting they were all overrated.

What about the rest of the draft board? Looking at the middle tiers (all but the last) it gets a bit more interesting. The ADP of the middle tiers was about 88, but their average performance was 116, more than two rounds higher. I can't even pinpoint a definitive bust, though Jose Valverde, Huston Street, and Trevor Hoffman all painfully underperformed their draft position. The only player to beat their draft position was Mariano Rivera.

Historically, how have closers been by year's end? Well, in 2007, only two closers should have gone in the first four round (with year end rank below 48), while two more would have gone in the round after that. In 2006, five closers should have gone in those first four rounds, while three more would have gone in the fifth. In other words, the fourth round is fine value for the best closers, provided you choose the right ones. So far it's not looking that way this year, but I expect the rankings will come around.

Finally, how bout those bottom tier closers? Of the seventeen closers not already taken, six have been complete busts, either spending much of the year injured or outright losing their job. The rest? Most (64%) have beat out their draft position, some by as many as three rounds, with Brad Lidge, Kerry Wood, and Troy Percival being some of the best buys. And in place of many of those busts, quality arms have risen to the occasion to be picked off of the waiver wire, such as Jon Rauch, Brandon Morrow, and Salomon Torres.

So the verdict? You are only overpaying for saves if you pick a player who busts. Unfortunately, this is usually the result of an unpredictable injury, as is the case with J.J. Putz this season. But at a bust rate of 25%, its the same as top round players, so bust rate shouldn't be the concern. However, I still don't advise taking top tier closers. Because it is such a small tier, and the demand is so high, the "price" is inflated. It isn't until the bottom tier where the best value can be had. No scarcity means every manager is content just waiting for a late round run, and so grabbing those guys comes at pretty much no cost (ironically, starting a closer run where almost every pick in the round is a closer means you got your guy while that position player you hoped would come around has a very good chance of doing just that). And if you look at the numbers, guys like Brad Lidge and Kerry Wood are easy targets. Plus you can always fall back on the waiver wire or trading for someone's surplus.

Mythbusters: 27 Year Old Pitchers

Welcome to the newest segment of Rotonomics (which is the newest segment of MLBTradeRumors), entitled Mythbusters. I think it's only fair to rip off the idea since Pete and I look very much like the actors on the show (Pete is on the left, though I'm not sure that this is the more denigrating position) . As we discussed in our "Surveying the Signals" editorials, one aspect of life that economics has a great deal to say about is signaling. In the macro-level Fantasy Baseball world (as opposed to micro-level signaling in your own league, which is also important), most of this signaling can be perceived in the articles run by megasites such as Yahoo! or ESPN. Our hope here in Mythbusters is to uncover some of the cliche article suggestions, and decide whether or not this information is reliable.

In our first edition, I'd like to kick off "Pitcher's Week" with a characteristically "pitcher" issue, the legend that 27 year old pitchers have a good shot at throwing their career year. Along with the "three-year plan" (stolen from a legendary high school Statistics teacher better left unnamed), which is the theory that pitchers in their third major league season will also peak, a pitchers age is often cited as evidence for an imminent breakout. Now, most of the arguments I have seen are notably anecdotal, where they cite success stories of the past, but to be fair the amount of statistical research the myth may have one day sprung forth from will not be matched. Rather, we will look at the 2008 season, and see what we can conclude.

So, who was 27 this season? Well, a complete list was compiled over at the "Scouting Book" blog, and I thank them for their work (which I will now steal). Only counting the starting pitchers that began the season on everyone's fantasy radar, there are a total of sixteen names. Who beat their career numbers so far?

The Winners: Joe Saunders shows the greatest improvement, with an ERA more than a point and a half south of his career number of 4.71. Looking at last week's Fantasy Roundtable Discussion, several authors expect the Angels star to fall back to Earth, but he'd need a complete collapse not to beat his averages. Also, Daniel Cabrera is beating his best years, although the results have been far from breathtaking. Jake Peavy, C.C. Sabathia, and Carlos Zambrano are all beating their average ERA numbers, though none have thrown better than past seasons (when Peavy and Sabathia each threw Cy Young seasons last year). John Maine is also beating his career numbers but is more hittable than ever with regard to WHIP and BAA. Dan Haren is right now beating his best season, but his ERA is .70 higher than it was in the first half last season, so I'm going to hedge my bet and predict he won't keep it up. Similarly, Daisuke Matsuzaka is beating a terrible career ERA, but has shown himself to struggle with the length of an MLB season. For fairness, we will exclude these two from our conclusion.

The Losers: These are the unqualified flailers. If you were counting on anything from Brett Myers or Oliver Perez, you are probably far from the lead in your league. Jeff Francis, Joe Blanton, and the perennially injured Mark Prior look like they will have little value this season. Even Josh Beckett has been a disappointment--at least we could figure out to bench Sabathia during his consistently awful start and exceedingly brilliant followup. Shawn Hill and Adam Wainwright haven't surpassed their career bests, and injuries seem to cripple any chance of doing so.

So the verdict? Without factoring in the ambiguous Haren and Dice-K, we have only two unqualified success stories. Counting the three aces who were discussed among the winners, who I expect will at least beat their draft spot (even the second-rounder Jake Peavy), we have five winners, and nine losers. I'd have to say that this myth is busted.