Courtesy of The Poughkeepsie Journal, here is this week’s roundtable. the topic was one that is near and dear to my heart; we were asked to name three things that we find the most annoying in fantasy baseball. There were lots of varied answers on many different areas. If you have any please email me at thegeneral@fantasybaseballgenerals.com; I would love to have a few to discuss on Sunday during the Baseball Gurus Show.
This week we discussed our three biggest pet peeves in fantasy. My three were:
1. Owners that lowball trades and declare players “untouchable.”
2. The structure of mixed leagues.
3. The inability to devise a way to accurately value middle relievers.
Some of the others:
Tim Dierkes of RotoAuthority mentioned teams with co-managers. I don’t have a problem with this as long as one is the primary decision maker. In many high stakes leagues most teams have co-managers because you need two to put up the money. Additionally, if used correctly it can be a great way to get maximum value on trades.
The Fantasy Baseball Geeks mentioned one that I hadn’t thought of at all, and that is vulture wins by relievers. They also mentioned one that almost made my cut, who they describe as “The Baseball America Owner:”
Some owners are so focused on being “the guy” that drafted Ryan Braun first that they load up their rosters with too many prospects and cannot field a decent team for the current season.
One that every owner can relate to was rasied by Zach Piso at MLB Front Office; the “quitter.” This is one that raises its head in many many leagues. To me when you agree to participate in a league you are agreeing to make your best efforts, especially later in the year, and it shouldn’t take forever to activate guys into empty spots or just pick up free agents to fill spots. We should all try to have some integrity in the process.
The final one I wanted to mention was trade votes/vetoes. This was mentioned by more than one expert. The standard shouldn’t be whether it is unfair it should be whether it is cheating. Most owner’s will say this, but when the time comes to vote this is not the way it actually gets handled. Why not?
6 responses so far ↓
1 Mike Podhorzer // Jun 6, 2008 at 12:36 pm
One of the best Roundtable topics of the season so far. Easily my biggest pet peeve is that of the Wins category. Whether my pitcher gets no run support or the bullpen blows it, the frustration and anger never gets old.
2 Neil // Jun 10, 2008 at 6:27 am
My beef is with the 2-start pitchers. If Johan Santana costs $39 during a 1 start week, he should cost more than that during a two-start week. The difference between a one-start pitcher and two-start pitcher is HUGE. Starting pitchers should have two price tags – one for one-start weeks and one for two-start weeks. The system discourages you from using expensive aces during one start weeks – you’re better off saving them for their two-start weeks, where you get double the bang for your buck. I will gladly take 2 starts from a $17 - $20 Tim Hudson/Adam Wainwright/John Maine than one start from a $30+ “ace”
3 Mike Podhorzer // Jun 10, 2008 at 7:16 am
Neil, what type of league is this where you purchase players every week?
4 Neil // Jun 10, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I don’t think I was clear - we play in a pretty normal league. It’s a salary cap league with 10 teams. We get $260 to spend on 23 players (14 hitters plus 9 pitchers), plus an additional $90 to spend on 6 bench players. That comes out to about $11 per starter and $15 per bench player. We use the Sporting News magazine’s pre-season prices for all the players and these prices can be a bit extreme (e.g. $20+ for the elite closers, $30+ for the ace pitchers, $10 - $15 for your typical weak hitting SS). Being as the 10 fantasy teams can only “own” 290 MLB players (29 players per team multiplied by ten), that means more than 400 real life ballplayers are unowned in our league. Since we can only spend $260 on 23 players and $90 on six bench players, a lot of the really expensive players are unowned each week…especially the pitchers and those performing at levels under their price tag. I’ve been very good at snagging $1 players making some serious contributions (e.g. Brandon Lyon, Salomon Torres, Fred Lewis, Joe Saunders, Jeremy Guthrie, Dana Eveland), so I can fit a few $30+ two-start pitchers into my lineup each week. Once the lineup locks, I dump the $30+ pitchers and pick up $30+ pitchers making two starts the next week. It’s hard to justify spending $39 on Santana for one start when there are so many good pitchers available for less money and two starts. However, even though I’m very guilty of churning elite 2-start pitchers each week, I think it’s a silly system that allows me to do so. I would vote for some kind of innings cap or a larger focus on average/ratio stats, but then you’re encouraged to play a lot of middle relief guys and you’re penalized for having pitchers who go deep into games.
5 Mike Podhorzer // Jun 11, 2008 at 6:18 am
OK, so if i understand correctly, multiple owners could own the same player for the week, correct? Is this similar to the Sporting News and CDM contests?
If that’s the case, then you are right there is no reason to pay the high prices for the 1 start from a top pitcher. You should probably always choose 2 start pitchers to fill out your weekly rotation.
6 Neil // Jun 25, 2008 at 6:20 am
Hi Mike,
Nope…a player cannot be on more than one team. Basically the problem is that there are only 10 fantasy teams, but there are 25+ starting pitchers that are “expensive” (i.e. $20+). Even if each fantasy team owns and retains one expensive pitcher throughout, there are always 15+ unowned expensive pitchers floating about (just like there are unowned expensive hitters floating about). On any given week, there are usually 3 unowned expensive pitchers making two starts, so I grab them because they are far more valuable than an expensive pitcher making only one start. Then I dump those 3 pitchers and grab a different 3 the next week. It is a lame strategy, but it is working very well.
Leave a Comment