Target Drafting Article

[bjoak]

Todd,

I read (and enjoyed) your NFBC newsletter article. It was similar to the SI article you wrote last year, but I liked how you delved a bit deeper this time. I'm not sure if it's posted anywhere that I can comment on it so this seemed like a good place.

I'd like to challenge you with a response and a few questions if that is okay. I target draft, but I go in very prepared with very detailed draft plans. I'm not drafting Bloomquist or Taveras to desperately try and meet my targets. Rather, I am finding the places where, say, steals are the most valuable and I'm drafting them there. If I miss on the valuable steals from that spot, I go to something else that's valuable there and I have an alternate plan to go after steals somewhere else where they're valuable. I guess I could theoretically find myself in a bind where I was desperate at the end, but that usually doesn't happen. If it does, I go into the season looking for what I missed, rather than trying to pull a Taveras maneuver.

In the end, if I just tried to draft the most valuable player (according to my stuff--not ADPs), I don't think I'd do that much better because I organize it so I am taking really valuable players anyway. I plan it that way.

So...

1. If I could draft a team that is just about as good by going after targets, what is the benefit to *not* going after them?

2. Do you have strategies in mind for good alternatives to target drafting? I mean you have to fill positions anyway so just taking the MVP of every round can still be difficult.

3. I met my target in steals this year and my team is still slow! And I feel like there are few free agents who can help me. Sort of proves your point, BUT if I got far less speed because I wasn't worried about the speed target, I'd really be in trouble, wouldn't I?

4. Buying into your thesis that injuries, flakes, etc. kill your totals throughout the season, is it plausible to say that players with a broad base of skills carry more value (Hunter Pence vs. Adam Dunn or Juan Pierre, say) than one-dimensional players even if they carry the same pure value because losing them won't offset any one category too much? If so, does drafting those types of player's make target drafting more feasible?

5. Does not going after targets change the potential value of certain stats? For example, if you draft a really slow team then Hunter Pence's 15 steals won't be worth anything to you because you'll end up in last place in steals anyway. By the same token, all the other stats become more valuable. At that point don't you focus on certain categories which becomes sort of like target drafting anyway? Hmm?

6. Similarly, some people who don't target draft run into the problem of drafting, say, Ichiro and then punting average because of events later in the draft. By not target drafting, do you run the risk of nullifying players you pick up earlier in the draft?

I don't expect an answer to all of this at once. Think of it as fodder for your futre newsletter essays, if you like.

[Todd Zola]

Thanks Brian.

I am definitely going to bookmark this post and broach the subject again next spring, hopefully with more data at the ready.

But, I have been thinking about this, partially because I know I am going to be asked about it for a Baseball HQ podcast I am doing but mostly because I now realize I have not perfectly crystallized the primary point I have been trying to make.

As an aside, to be 100% honest, this is what I miss most about the original Mastersball forum that disappeared into cyberspace. I cannot remember how many times I would write or say something to then be asked about it on the forums where a long, thoughtful and interesting discussion would ensue. But I digress.

Okay, here is another attempt to explain my point better....

My primary point is that if someone new to fantasy baseball or perhaps looking to change things up finds a piece on target drafting and says "Cool, I want to try that" may be doing their team a disservice if their #1 objective is to take a set of projections and use it to meet their targets. There is more to projections than the static number attached and not having a thorough understanding of what they are all about may lead to target drafting being more detrimental than beneficial. I believe the goal should be to set yourself up with the best possible team to then manage into a champion

Here is an oversimplification of what I am trying to say....

TARGETS ARE 285 HR and 165 SB (going to assume the others are in line)

You have 280 HR and 150 SB with one hitting pick left. Your options are drafting a guy projected to get

A) 5 HR and 15 SB
B) 20 HR and 10 SB
C) 0 HR and 25 SB

A leaves you exactly at your targets
B beats HR by 15 but SB are short 5
C beats SB by 10 but HR are short by 5

We can argue about which is best, but personally, I feel A is the least desired option even though it is the only one that made the targets. I would rather have either B or C to work with for the next 26 weeks.

Ultimately, it may not come down to the choice of your last player to define your final numbers, but the total of the 14 hitters. Maybe it is a choice of a single player, but in round 12. Or maybe it is a couple of players along the way. My point is fixating on a set number may restrict you from adding a little more talent to your roster. With injuries, slumps etc, maybe you have some "lost" power already covered. Chances are injuries are going to necessitate that you make up for lost steals, so maybe you now just need to make up a few more.

Another angle is which is a better choice -- someone like Josh WIllingham or Russell Branyan? Perhaps you are using a set of projections that are optimistic and have Branyan playing full time for Arizona and projected to hit 30 HR.. Which is better a risky 30 or an almost automatic 15-20? I think an argument can be made for Willingham, even if taking him with your last pick leaves you short in HR while taking Branyan,or Jack Cust, etc would mean you reach your target. You can make a similar argument if you are short SB and Podsednik or someone similar is left that can put you over your SB target and leave someone like Marlon Byrd on the table.

[bjoak]

Todd, Thanks for the response. I get your point much better now and mostly agree. True that about Willingham and Branyan.