This is an annual tradition at askblog. If you want to see previous posts, type “fantasy baseball” in the search box. If you wish to comment on this post, please note that your points might be addressed in some of those earlier posts.
Let me define a reliable player as one who has performed at a high level for the past three seasons.
As a trend, I see a decline in the availability of reliable players of four types:
1. Catchers. Does that mean you should aim to get one of the most sought-after catchers anyway? Is it worth carrying an extra catcher to increase playing time at that position, at the risk of wasting a roster spot on a player who will contribute very little?
2. Slugging first basemen. I am inclined to favor paying a premium for one of the remaining reliable sluggers at that position.
3. Closers. Whether intentionally or not, most fantasy owners are going to be picking up their closers during the season rather than ahead of time.
4. Starting pitchers who account for 200 innings. [NOTE: after I wrote this post but before it appeared, a number of “professional” fantasy baseball pundits commented on this recent development.]
All of these trends are ongoing. But the one that has really snuck up on me is (4). It seems as though not that long ago 200-inning starters were plentiful. And among relievers, teams seem to be spreading the innings out over more pitchers, with fewer innings per reliever.
It used to be that if your league had a ceiling on the total number of innings that your pitchers could accumulate, you had to be careful about not going over that limit. Now, unless the league lowers its ceiling (unlikely), you can probably ignore it. Your challenge will be finding innings, not staying within limits.
I used to think that in a Yahoo league the innings ceiling meant that the ideal pitching staff had 6 relievers and just 4 or 5 starters. Now, that might cost you a lot of points in strikeouts because you don’t accumulate enough innings. It might be better to have 6 starters and 5 relievers, but that approach probably costs points in the ratio categories. I haven’t really decided how to approach pitching in light of the latest trends.
Finally, I will re-iterate that I think that real baseball would be more fun to watch if there were more balls in play, with fewer strikeouts and home runs. My suggestion would be to use a slightly larger and less lively baseball.
Finally, I will re-iterate that I think that real baseball would be more fun to watch if there were more balls in play, with fewer strikeouts and home runs. My suggestion would be to use a slightly larger and less lively baseball.
Modern baseball makes me think of the famous characterization of World War One: “months of boredom punctuated by moments of terror”. But I don’t think nibbling around the margins is going to fix things. Fielding is just too good, especially with databases of where a hitter is likely to hit, and thus where a fielder should play. There are way too many fly balls that go to someone who hardly moves. A moment of excitement (“that could be extra bases!”) turns into a yawn.
My radical suggestion: one less fielder. The pitcher and catcher have to stay where they are but everyone else can go anywhere the manager desires. Not only would it make the game more exciting but it would make for a lot more talk ABOUT baseball, as there would be a lot more strategy and risk–which fans can then analyze and complain about.
Have you ever checked out Ottoneu? Fun format and community, would be interesting to see how a more objective or academic view of how it stacks up. ottoneu.fangraphs.com – players have built all sorts of models and evaluation tools, including surplus calculator. Fantastic and engaged owner of the site as well