Budget Alocation - a new thought

[viper]

Time for some edge-of-the-box thoughts.

We draft hitters and pitchers. We allocate our auction budgets in some type of percentages. The old standard was around 70/30 but the $200 hitting budget is closer to today’s thoughts and that would be a 75/25 mix. Looking at the pitching aspect of any ratio, it is really comprised of two separate and distinct parts – starter & non-starters. For the most part non-starters are only closers and possibly closers-in-waiting.

Jumping around a bit, the idea of the $9 pitching staff is not summarily dismissed. This idea essentially means you will have no closers. This is the ultimate in the Bully Hitting-Manage Pitching theory. The problem with this strategy is you either have to trade assets for a closer [assuming you are not in a no-trade league] or be real good in using FAAB for new closers.

I realize that closers do impact ratios but depending on your league size and rules, only a few special closers can have a real positive impact {Papelbon Plan] and only a few can have a severe negative impact [Todd Jones Plan].

My question is why not include closers in you mental hitting budget? In AL-only or NL-only leagues, you allocate a certain amount for closers but put that budget into this new grouping. What you have for hitting/closers will be higher than before, maybe $225 while $35 is allocated for starting pitchers. I feel this follows the “Bully Hitting – Manage Pitching” mantra I have heard. You cannot manage saves but they too must be bullied. My idea is to change from a hitting/pitching mix to a bully/manage mix.

This would equate to the NFBC where you will likely have two closers and seven starters each week. While you pray and hope all drafted position players stay healthy because be forced to use a replacement player by definition reduces your five offensive category expectations, the same is true for closers. You mange pitching with a careful management of free agent two-start pitchers and/or avoiding bad starts by your non-stud starters.

Is this bully/manage budget allocation concept stupid or does it make a little sense?

[Todd Zola]

It makes perfect sense, though the application would be different in an AL or NL only auction vs a mixed auction. In the only leagues, I would want a closer with the job fairly secure. I usually budget $20 for a closer and throw out the best one at $20. If they go higher, I wait and get the best one I can for $20. Last year in the NFBC NL Auction, I had the first toss, threw out Billy Wagner at $20 and got crickets. In the AL, I threw out Papelbon at $20 and he went for $28 or so, so I passed.

[viper]

It may have been something I did mentally but I don't think so. In my "only" leagues" I tend to want two closers but I plan a post on that subject shortly.

[cwk1963]

This is an interesting twist, Viper. I normally went with the 77/23 split which left about $60 for SP, CL and MR (which helps in a k/9 league). The problem is, with the top SP and most closers going for more than $20, one of each would cost a minimum of $40 and leave only $20 for 7 more pitchers - just under $3/pitcher. Not going to get you much. In my league I already have an $11 Wood and $13 Liriano and $15 Gallardo. So what I might do instead of the normal $60 pitcher budget is put my closers in with my hitters - budgeting $20 for a 2nd closer. Then I would have 5 pitcher spots to fill. If I go with the same $60 budget for 7 pitchers, that leaves me about $6.50/pitcher (after deducting for Liriano and Gallardo) instead of under $3. Since I'm always near the top in hitting but scratching for points in pitching, I like this better. Everyone in the league knows I don't spend for catchers or closers but this year I'll zig and add one of the big catchers to my $2 Laird and a pretty good closer. Maybe that'll confuse them enough to get some value at other spots.

[viper]

what I'm saying though is that you move the closer(s) to your hitter budget but you also move dollars over. If you were normally 190/70, you would now be an augmented 210/50 assuming you move $20. It is really not a lot more than a new bookkeeping system but it is one that separate the "bully" part from the "manage" part. I'm looking more at a 215/45 split in my "-only" leagues. The question is can I manage 7 pitchers on a $45 budget. I somehow doubt that either CC or Johan will be on either team.

The real question is how will the new Paul handle this. I'm pretty sure I manipulated it to give dollar amounts for just starting pitchers last season but the older I get, the faster the memory fades.

[Todd Zola]

There is no new PAUL (yet) and it can't handle it - but it doesn't have to as all your idea relates to is bookkeeping, not how much you want to pay.

[cwk1963]

what I'm saying though is that you move the closer(s) to your hitter budget but you also move dollars over. If you were normally 190/70, you would now be an augmented 210/50 assuming you move $20. It is really not a lot more than a new bookkeeping system but it is one that separate the "bully" part from the "manage" part. I'm looking more at a 215/45 split in my "-only" leagues. The question is can I manage 7 pitchers on a $45 budget. I somehow doubt that either CC or Johan will be on either team.

The real question is how will the new Paul handle this. I'm pretty sure I manipulated it to give dollar amounts for just starting pitchers last season but the older I get, the faster the memory fades.

I actually took your idea, viper, and tweaked it a bit. I feel that I've been more than sufficient in the hitting categories (i.e. - you only have to be 1 HR better than 2nd place). On the other hand, I've been back in the pack in the pitching categories. That's because I don't spend that much on pitching. Based on how the league's been going the past few years, I've over-bullied hitting to the detriment of pitching. I don't want to include closers in the pitching budget since they go for widely variant amounts that could skew things. I'd rather take away from the hitting side for closers and leave the other 7 pitching spots to themselves. I'm confident in my ability to get the hitters I need to get the stats I want.