One shortcoming of a standard 5×5 setup: imbalance.
Last year, as we inaugurated our league with a more-or-less cookie-cutter setup on a free online host, we used the classic 5×5 for our head-to-head matchups: R, HR, RBI, SB, and AVG on the hitting side, and W, SV, K, ERA, and WHIP on the pitching side. These categories provide a fine enough introduction to the basic terms of fantasy baseball, but what if you want to expand your vocabulary a bit?
In another post I want to dig deeper into which specific categories might be better for fantasy baseball competition than some of the ones above. But first I think it could be helpful to examine the idea of balancing stat categories, especially in the case of the pitching stats. I think that, beyond any concern about the quality of the categories themselves, the standard 5×5 pitching setup is skewed to favor certain strategies over others.
Let’s take a hypothetical of the pitching side of a 5×5 matchup between Manager A and Manager B. Manager A pursues the tactic of “streaming” starting pitchers, filling all open pitcher roster slots with new starters each day to gun for Wins and Strikeouts, while likely sacrificing ERA and WHIP as a tradeoff. Meanwhile, Manager B fills those pitcher roster slots with relievers, maximizing his or her chances of winning ERA and WHIP (while conceding Wins and Strikeouts), and, crucially, gains an edge on the Saves category. By following this simple strategy, Manager B can expect to win on pitching the majority of the time by taking three categories to Manager A’s two.
It is a little uninspiring to see that one approach could have a built-in advantage over the other–especially for pitching stats, which by their volatility should require careful consideration. Ideally, the stat categories would provide a level playing field, where aggressive, W-and-K-heavy tactics could have as good a chance at winning as more cautious methods. That way, managers of all kinds would have equal space to perfect their own tactics, and the winner is whoever plays the best game, instead of whoever plays the only game.
In this case I think the solution is to add an Innings Pitched category, which would tend to reward teams with many starters over teams with many relievers (and which would give us an overall 5×6 setup). In the hypothetical above, the two generic strategies would usually lead to a three-to-three split, meaning the managers, if they wanted to win and not tie, would be forced to think more about which players they use each week, and how they use them. That’s what I’m aiming for when I talk about balance–providing an even ground for more, deeper, and craftier managing to produce more active, dynamic, and inspired competition.
But what do you think? Is aiming for balance a misguided quest? Is it better to use other pitching categories than the ones here? I hope you’ll add your thoughts below.
articleId=’17533′;
6 responses so far ↓
1 Ambiguity // Dec 3, 2007 at 4:50 pm
This is a quest I have been on too. I am trying to find a balance between different stats and also trying to include some more sabermetric stats (or as much as I can get with Yahoo). A 5×6 setup may be okay, but I try to cut out the streaming pitchers option by limiting each team to 25 moves per season (I may change it to 30 this year). I do this because I like the managers to focus on the draft a bit more and to consider trades more. Would love to see your thoughts on balanced batting categories. Last year, I did RBI, SB, K, OBP, and SLG. I’d like to improve this and continue making it more balanced.
2 geo // Dec 3, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Our league looked to find the set of categories that made players worth about as much as they are in “reality”. The pitching problems here are a really good example, but the problem exists in hitting in a different way.
Steals are not 20 percent of a player’s value. Lots of teams almost NEVER take bases, and do quite well. By diluting your categories from 5×5 to 7×7, you can keep steals, but devalue it a little bit so that a guy like Scott Podsednik isn’t a star.
Making steals a net category or even punishing getting caught more than you reward succeeding is another way to improve the way in which basestealers are valued.
3 Gypsy Soul // Dec 9, 2007 at 3:21 am
Though my comment seems pretty unsophisticated I was under the impression that having a minimum number of innings requirement in a 5×5 tends to mitigate the advantage you are referring to in this article.
I just found this blog and it looks intriguing, I have used Rotoman’s site along these lines for a long while. However, strategy on that site isnt paramount, most people want to know whether they should trade players X for players Y, nevertheless, there is still much that can be learned re strategy on rotoman’s site as there are lots of very saavy people contributing there.
4 Langster // Dec 12, 2007 at 11:16 am
Who do we want to win our fantasy baseball leagues? What behaviours should be rewarded? And then, how do we select the correct scoring categories to allow the person with those attributes to be able to win?
I am currently of the opinion that almost whichever categories are chosen, the game remains essentially the same.
Even if we include runs created, win shares per game, VORP, component ERA or any other sabermetric measure, the game comes down to identifying which players are going to excel in the chosen categories. Players will adopt strategies that are permitted within the league rules to maximise their chances of winning.
For the issue of ’streaming’ starting pitchers, I agree with the suggestion by Ambiguity above of limiting roster moves. A couple of leagues I play in have locked lineups for each week. But in this format, teams with pitchers that have 2 starts in a particular week have an automatic advantage in some categories. Maybe in a head-to-head format it’s just not possible to level the playing field!
5 Andrew C. // Dec 12, 2007 at 10:06 pm
These are all very good points. Balancing hitting stats is definitely a challenge, and one that I think geo captures very well with regard to steals. I’m hoping to find a good balance for hitting stats next year.
All this said, langster’s point is well taken, that any configuration of stats is going to give rise to a new set of strategies, and managers are going to pursue the ones they think are best for winning.
Limiting roster moves is good for limiting streaming, but I have to admit I kind of admire the streaming tactic, in a perverse way. I like it when managers get a little risky, especially with roster moves and trades.
While it seems strange to offset the categories to benefit a ‘risky’ strategy (is it even a risk then?), I think pitching is a little lopsided on account of how many more relief pitchers there are–and , a poor, one-inning, relief outing can be evened out (by simply starting more relievers) more easily than can a poor, five-inning start. This way the IP category is used as a hedge against relief-centered strategy.
6 bjk15 // Jan 4, 2008 at 11:53 pm
The only keeper league that I do has an IN minimum to negate the use of only relievers. We use 900 IN. In a competitive league, I do not believe that a cap should be put on IN as I have known too many non-keeper leagues to incorporate.
Also speaking from a keeper league perspective, my proposals for significant league changes such as category changes should not be enforced for two years from the league’s 2/3rd majority decision date, thereby allowing ample time to accommodate said changes. There has yet to be any significant changes to this league to verify the “effectiveness.”
I have done one non-traditional stats league that was not favored due to most fantasy players typical playing style even though it incorporated the standard 10:
R, 2B, 3B, HR, RBI, SB, BA, K, OPS
W, L, CG, SHO, SV, K, ERA, WHIP, K/BB.
Personally, I prefer categories that I am inclined to believe that enhance ‘good’ events and penalize ‘poor’ events:
OBP, SLG, Fielding%, R, RBI, SB
WHIP, K/BB, ERA, W, K, SV
while imposing a league minimum on number of IN pitched and ABs. I know that each category has their negatives (especially Fielding%), but I like have 3 ‘rate’ stats and 3 counting stats so as to not completely discount either theory… in my theory. I mean, R, RBI, and SB are enhanced by opportunity as are W, K, and SV (although I hate including saves). I would almost prefer quality starts because they occur more frequently and can partially negate a good outing by a pitcher who gets a no-decision or a loss because of a lack of run support or pen support… but it feels like that is just me…
Leave a Comment