Home Runs as a benchmark category

[viper]

Posting in Strategy & Theory seems correct for me. And January 1, is late enough to start.

Todd, you have previously stated that the Home Runs category correlates to winning leagues better than the other categories. Without looking all that closely to any projected home run totals for your drafted teams, it seems you are consistently under numbers you would normally want. Whether this be true or not, do you still feel that HRs are a key?

[Todd Zola]

Posting in Strategy & Theory seems correct for me. And January 1, is late enough to start.

Todd, you have previously stated that the Home Runs category correlates to winning leagues better than the other categories.

What viper is referring to is a study I do every year that shows that on the average, the teams that win do the best in the hitting category of HR and it is very, very very rare they finish in the bottom half of the category.

Without looking all that closely to any projected home run totals for your drafted teams, it seems you are consistently under numbers you would normally want. Whether this be true or not, do you still feel that HRs are a key?

Not for nothing, but if you haven't looked that closely at the projected HR totals for my drafted teams, how can it seem I am consistently under the numbers I want?

That said, I have no reason to believe the above HR trend will not be the case again, so yes, chicks and I have something in common, we both dig the long ball.

Something I am going to do when I get through the 2009 projections and profiles is to look at my deficiencies from last season, specifically with respect to drafting (as opposed to auction) and try to determine if there was an overall theme I can correct. I believe I already have one which I will discuss later. But taking a quick glance at my NFBC draft teams from last season, where I finished in HR was NOT a problem at all. If the drafts I have done thus far appear light in homers, that is either that we disagree with our power projection for the teams or my instinct on a couple of players is off as we have not yet assimilated a set of projections that i will call "fantasy friendly" -- a term that will be better understood once Gary explains the projection methodolgy.

I did total HR using projections from another site and if I recall, my first team was light, after that I am OK.

[cwk1963]

I, for one, agree with being near the top of the HR category. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (which I can attest to since I am far from being one) to equate a HR with a R and at least 1 RBI. Ichiro (for all his worth to the BA and SB category) doesn't get you much with each of his singles. He then has to depend on his legs to get you something in SB or someone else to get you help in the R category. That being said, he could provide a buffer in the BA category to allow the rostering of Adam Dunn or Ryan Howard. I try to maximize the HR category and it works well for me in the final standings in my auction leagues.

[Guest]

I've not even spoken to Todd about this, but let me posit a theory here to beat around, especially because its a great lead-in to one of the weekly articles I'm going to do, which is "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" - a fancy phrase which I first learned watching my favorite TV series of all time, The West Wing.

The phrase translates as "after this, therefore because of this" and stands for the concept of correlation without causation.

The theory would be that while HR correlates best to winning teams in leagues, that it's not the HR themselves that cause the leagues to be won, the HR are more a byproduct of the overall success of the team than the cause.

For example, the HR output probably means a team that stayed relatively healthy and accumulated a lot of AB and thus the other counting categories, also likely representing a team with a few breakout hitters (either due to playing time or skills explosion). For all we know, HR are a category which is most easily acquired relative to the other categories (insofar as concentration/distribution of stats through the player pool), or something to that degree.

And as mentioned above, per our methodology, a HR is worth a R scored and about 2 RBI, so obviously they go hand in hand.

What Im getting at is that while statistically HR do seem to be the category most correlated to winning, that doesn't necessarily mean anything as it relates to how a team should draft in the pre-season. Again, you could have a team that focused on the OTHER categories at the draft table and took advantage of some skills growth and relative health to also put up excellent HR numbers.

Im not questioning any of the analysis done to date, Im throwing out the discussion point of "conceding the proven point that HR correlate best, what does that actually mean about drafting strategy? Im not ready to concede that it means load up with power, yet. It might mean many other things. Hopefully we can discuss them here.

[Todd Zola]

I suspect "target drafting" will be a much-discussed principle in the coming weeks, along with the proper use of ADP (average draft position).

That said, I do agree with Gary in that there is definitely a cause-effect dynamic going on. But at the end of the day, the best way to make sure you have a lot of HR is to draft a lot of HR.

[cwk1963]

That's interesting, Gary, and while I agree that you might get some extra HR from skills growth I still think it's a relatively small percentage of the whole HR pool when compared to those who demonstrate a certain amount of HR production year after year. If you do draft those other categories, you still only really gain production solely in those categories whereas HR give you a boost in 3 categories from 1 action (hitting a HR). I think that's why people, for the most part, tend to shy away from drafting the Willy Taveras' of the world until they've built up a foundation in the other categories.

[Guest]

I just wonder whether those teams putting up all those HR really drafted for them or ran into the Carlos Quentin's of the world.

I'm being serious, I agree with everything posted above but I struggle with the idea that power=title (yes I know, not that simple) given that the marketplace as a whole isn't really pricing it that way. The market is all over the 65/35 split but I havent seen overwhelming evidence the power thing is happening at draft tables.

I agree in the final results, Im just not sure its being drafted that way. I think people cover other bases and the power fills in better than expected.

[cwk1963]

I just wonder whether those teams putting up all those HR really drafted for them or ran into the Carlos Quentin's of the world.

I'm being serious, I agree with everything posted above but I struggle with the idea that power=title (yes I know, not that simple) given that the marketplace as a whole isn't really pricing it that way. The market is all over the 65/35 split but I havent seen overwhelming evidence the power thing is happening at draft tables.

I agree in the final results, Im just not sure its being drafted that way. I think people cover other bases and the power fills in better than expected.

I see what you're saying - but that doesn't mean I'm changing my story . There is (at least I hear) more talk about the split than about going for the power. But I think people do tend to draft/bid for HR even though they may not say it. I read a lot of mocks and real draft/auction results and there always seems to be comments like "I drafted Willie Speed because I was light on SB" or "I drafted Joe Singles because I needed to cover Adam Dunn's BA drain". But these seem to come more as after thoughts a little later in the draft as opposed to drafting benchmarks. I still think that, with the minimum 3 category help a HR hitter gives you, people intrinsically (and knowingly) make those choices even if they don't announce 'why'. When you look at pre-draft tiers or ADP, people are slotted where they are for a reason and the reason is the pre-supposed production they will bring at a certain spot. After all, how do tiers or rankings get determined? It's by the production the ranker thinks they will attain and HR helps to cover 3 of those categories. I think this may be muddied up a bit when more categories are added depending on what those cats are. But for the traditional standard 5x5 categories I think HR is a main part of the benchmark.

[drapes]

Count me as one willing to give the notion of the HR benchmark a test run. Granted my case as you will see is a bit unique. I've lost in the semis and then finals two years running in Bod's 14 Team H2H dynasty league with what I perceived to be (and was told were) ridiculous teams. Now this is a dynasty league, so this isn't so much about how I drafted, but all the same, I applied the same principle in a flurry of deals over the last 72 hours. In H2H, target stats need to be looked at a bit differently. I'm looking to win 6 of 10 cats every week rather than accumulate X amount of HRs or SBs at season end. I have traditionally been a bit of a streamer, with relatively good success in the past, but not successful enough to fly the flag. So I wanted to build a team that I intend to leave untouched barring injury or catastrophic Richie Sexsonitis.

So after chatting up the idea with Todd over IM, I decided to trade away Hanley Ramirez and Curtis Granderson, essentially punting steals, choosing instead to build up in HRs, BA, and ridiculous pitching. Here's the result (you may recognize it from the keeper forum):

Offense:
C - Vic Mart
1B - Derek Lee
2B - Robinson Cano
3B - Miguel Cabrera
SS - Yunel Escobar
OF - Manny Ramirez, Adam Dunn, Xavier Nady
UTIL - Lance Berkman
UTIL - Chipper Jones

Pitchers:
Roy Halladay
Brandon Webb
Dan Haren
Roy Oswalt
Ted Lilly
Randy Johnson
Manny Parra
Joe Nathan
Kerry Wood

A few of you have mentioned that no one intends to explicitly target power in the auction/draft, but rather find a bit of luck, and or realize that they've got speed, now they need to balance it out with some power. So why not go balls to the walls and test it out? I'm just wondering if anyone has tried to draft/auction targeting power power power and power. I sure in a draft, getting a pitching staff like the one I dealt for wouldn't be possible, even totally ignoring speed. But...

What if one were to attempt to go all power combined with Todd's Papelbon plan? Expensive closer, enabling better bargains at SP?
Could that be pulled off? I'm seriously considering giving something like this a try in my AL Only auction.

Lots of words... hopefully some were useful.

drapes

[Guest]

Very useful, drapes.

And for the record, Im not even suggesting I believe what I'm posting here, but I am throwing it out there for public consumption. cwk if you strapped me to a lie detector machine you'd find me in agreement with your posts. However, I think it's important to raise the fact that one has to get these power numbers in concert with filling in the remainder of a team, and so I perhaps think it important that we put at least one essay out on how one would find relatively safe, cheap power.

I do think blind power drafting would cause problems in many leagues, certainly not with drapes juggernaut, however.

[Todd Zola]

As an aside, communicating with drapes about his team emphasized the need for some attention given to head-to-head strategy. We'll be sure to broach this in the Draft Kit and if drapes is so inclined, he can post his team in another thread specifically about H2H strategy and why the team looks like it does as there were at least 2 pretty interesting "reasons" he went down the road he did.

Of course, there are some league mates of his lurking and he may be giving away too much.

[drapes]

As an aside, communicating with drapes about his team emphasized the need for some attention given to head-to-head strategy. We'll be sure to broach this in the Draft Kit and if drapes is so inclined, he can post his team in another thread specifically about H2H strategy and why the team looks like it does as there were at least 2 pretty interesting "reasons" he went down the road he did.

Of course, there are some league mates of his lurking and he may be giving away too much.

Agreed, this might not have been the best context to post my H2H team, and I'll probably go ahead and post a follow up thread to remedy that. As far as the leaguemates go... I fear no one but Patrick who is wily like a fox and consistently smokes us.

But the end of my post I believe still warrants a bit of consideration:

Would it be possible/potentially profitable to attempt to use the Papelbon Plan as a way to afford attempt pulling off an intentionally power-centric draft/auction strategy?

[cwk1963]

I agree that H2H requires a somewhat different strategy. I believe you can target power in standard roto leagues more successfully because a bad few weeks or month from a few of your players will not lose you a bunch of games - things tend to even out in roto over the course of the season.

[cwk1963]

And for the record, Im not even suggesting I believe what I'm posting here, but I am throwing it out there for public consumption. cwk if you strapped me to a lie detector machine you'd find me in agreement with your posts. However, I think it's important to raise the fact that one has to get these power numbers in concert with filling in the remainder of a team, and so I perhaps think it important that we put at least one essay out on how one would find relatively safe, cheap power.

I do think blind power drafting would cause problems in many leagues, certainly not with drapes juggernaut, however.

Gary, this hits the nail on the head. When I say target HR/power I do not mean to do so blindly - and I make sure I don't as best I can. Yes, it is rare that a team wins a competitive league if that team is not well-balanced. And that is the key. Target a strong base of power while keeping an eye open to make sure you don't leave open any glaring holes.

[50 Desert Eagles]

Wow this is a lot of data to swallow...ok, but I have a question...sorry for butting into this forum....BUTT if Hr's is the way to draft(power) then judging my the mock draft we just did, the leader in the HR projections should have finished first or close, but the HR leader was actually 9th.....Or is this just because its a projection? Thanks all

[Todd Zola]

My data shows that the leader does not have to WIN the category, but they usually, and by usually I mean better than 95% of the time finish in the top-half of the category - with HR being the only category in which this is true.

[drapes]

According to SART, the team I drafted in the forum mock draft here is projected for 283 HRs, good for 10 pts of 12. And I have to say that I'm slightly surprised. I was concerned that by focusing too heavily on positions and tiers that I might have shorted myself on power. But by targeting 20+ HR guys throughout to try to compensate, it appears as if it worked out. Here they are:

C - Ryan Doumit
C - Jeff Clement
1B - Derek Lee
2B - Alexei Ramirez
3B - Evan Longoria
SS - Jimmy Rollins
MI - Kelly Johnson
CI - James Loney
OF - Matt Kemp
OF - Magglio Ordonez
OF - Andre Ethier
OF - Milton Bradley (aka "The Game" - as dubbed on Bleed Cubby Blue)
OF - Adam Jones
UT - Paul Konerko

Longoria is arguably the only "big bopper" in there, and he's no Howard, Braun, Fielder, etc... It could be fairly argued however, that a lot has to go right for some of those guys to reach their projections, or at least nothing better go wrong (I'M LOOKING AT YOU THE GAME!)

However, thanks to an unattractive opinion of my pitching staff (Which I really like actually), SART has me finishing 5th overall thanks to a weak 22.5 total pitching points.

[cwk1963]

Longoria is arguably the only "big bopper" in there, and he's no Howard, Braun, Fielder, etc... It could be fairly argued however, that a lot has to go right for some of those guys to reach their projections, or at least nothing better go wrong (I'M LOOKING AT YOU THE GAME!)

Wouldn't this already be taken into consideration in the projection? In other words, aren't the projections a realistic view of what those guys should do as opposed to a pie-in-the-sky view of what they are hoped to do?

[drapes]

Longoria is arguably the only "big bopper" in there, and he's no Howard, Braun, Fielder, etc... It could be fairly argued however, that a lot has to go right for some of those guys to reach their projections, or at least nothing better go wrong (I'M LOOKING AT YOU THE GAME!)

Wouldn't this already be taken into consideration in the projection? In other words, aren't the projections a realistic view of what those guys should do as opposed to a pie-in-the-sky view of what they are hoped to do?

Yes... but Milton Bradley has a way of defying "expectations." One could argue that Konerko could start to regress at a quicker rate than expected, that he might be more susceptible to injury. One might also argue (and many have, though I certainly don't) that Todd's projections for Kemp are optimistic.

[50 Desert Eagles]

Let me pose another question about this HR theory...Would this still come into play over the scarcity theory in a 20 team mixed league? Or does that change it a bit in your humble opinons?

[Todd Zola]

My research shows this is regardless of league size. The original studies were done using over 100 12-team AL only, over 100 12-team NL only and over 50 12-team mixed. The "in the top-half of HR" was good for EVERY SINGLE LEAGUE!!!.

The essay is currently archived for Platinum, but I will probably bring it out from behind the firewall soon.

I have been anecdotally following the results in all the leagues I play in since and ONLY TWICE since has the champion finished in the bottom-half in HR.

[Trav The Ump]

Holy geez, its been over two years since I posted or asked anything meaningful in here. The fact that I went to the strategy section speaks something about me personally I believe. Lol. Anyways.

I have not played NFBC, up in Canada it'd be tough to get get in plus costs etc. But I do play in a 5x5 AL only league that is going into I think it's 15th or 16th year. I do a lot of math on average finish of money teams, totals, etc of my league as I now have enough year's of numbers to to be useful. So this may or may not apply. Is HR's not the easiest category to trade away?

I'd argue that Jack Cust returns more in a trade than say a guy who chips in a little bit all across the board in season. Now in reality this may not be true or in a fantasy value wise. But when it comes to in season management when said team is light on homers its easier to trade for Cust than say Scott Podsednik back in his heyday with the Chi Sox if your short on SB's. Meaning the team who is HR heavy coming out of the draft will find more trading partners and in fact more value in those trades in reality than is perceived? This allows them to retain their lead in HR's but also fix gaps in the rest of the roster.

I'm rusty, its been a long time. Hopefully I'm not way off base.