Back To The Fundamentals

For whatever reason my teams have been on a colossal losing streak lately. I generally win more than I lose (barely) but the last ten teams or so I've put together haven't done that at all, and I'm on a major ring drought, so I'm feeling like it's time to take a closer look at some of my general strategies and see what needs to be fixed. I figure this could also be informative for newer players to see how some other folks out there like to build their teams.

Here are some basic rules that I try to follow. I'd appreciate any feedback that might help me right the ship, as it were. Also, if you have some fundamental principles that you like to follow with your draft cards, post them here too, if they aren't trade secrets or whatnot.

Here are some things that I try to do, in no particular order:

*I generally try to do about a 65/35 mix between hitters and pitchers. More for pitchers the smaller the cap gets and vice versa for larger caps.

*Minimum 2 fielding range for middle infielders. Minimum three for corner infielders. (Defense is less important for pitching parks)

*Minimum range of 2 for LF/RF or 1 for CF. Prefer to have a -1 arm or better in RF.

*Catchers are the only position where I'm ok with a "2" injury rating. I try to keep their range at 3 or better, but I'm more concerned with errors, passed balls, and throwing errors. If it's a ballpark that's prone to singles, I want a catcher with a -1 or better arm. If it's a pitchers park that'll limit singles, I'm ok letting my money pay for their bat instead.

*Bullpen with DH is usually a closer and two decent relievers and one junkballer for mopup duties. I usually stay away from lefty/righty specialists (because it seems like Hal can never figure out how to use them correctlyi) but I do almost always make sure I have one righty and one lefty reliever. Sometimes when there's no DH I'll go with 4 decent relievers. ("Decent" meaning generally somewhere between $3-4m relievers for a $100m cap.)

*I usually try to have a balanced rotation instead of having one ace and one crappy starter and two guys somewhere in between the two of them. I'd prefer to have four middle-quality starters rather than have a weak spot at every fourth game in the rotation.

*If I can get one platoon in there, great. More than two platoons is counter-productive.

*I generally use *SPs unless I'm in super low cap leagues. If it's a DH league or if I'm in a tight pitchers park, then I'm trying to get guys that go 8+ innings. Otherwise I'm spending my money on guys that go 7 innings so my bullpen guys don't go to waste.

*I'll never spend more than $.6 on a bench player unless he's backing someone with high injury probability. And with those bench players I choose to prioritize their gloves over their bats.

*I generally prefer to emphasize OBP over SLG, unless it's a full on hitters' park. I still want to have guys with BPHRs when I have a hitters park, but by my observation they won't do me any good if they get on base 30% of the time. Add to this rule the fact that hits are way better than walks. I'll take a high batting average over any other hitting stat any time.

*Speaking of hitting, when I'm comparing players on Diamond Dope, I usually factor in their NERP score more than anything else, mostly because it also factors in Runners Batted Out.

That's pretty much what I can think of so far. Does any of this totally fly in the face of anyone else's rules? Any other feedback that comes to mind when you're reading this? I'm hoping some other folks will take a minute to put down their drafting guidelines too so I can see some other perspectives.

Cheers!

I generally try to do about a 65/35 mix between hitters and pitchers.

The dice suggest a 63/37 split would be optimal but I find middle class pitchers comprehensively overpriced. Aces are also overpriced, just not as much as their inferiors. I usually end up closer to 55/45 or even 50/50.

More for pitchers the smaller the cap gets and vice versa for larger caps.

Agreed

*Minimum 2 fielding range for middle infielders. Minimum three for corner infielders. (Defense is less important for pitching parks)
*Minimum range of 2 for LF/RF or 1 for CF. Prefer to have a -1 arm or better in RF.

Rules like these are made to be broken. I can think of valuable cards below these levels for every position. Actually, subtract 1 from the infield numbers and subtract 2 from the outfield numbers and then you'll have some more meaningful "rules." As it is you're just needlessly filtering valuable cards.

Catchers are the only position where I'm ok with a "2" injury rating.

Durability is probably the most overpriced skill, yet many players pay for it out of risk aversion. Outside of high caps my teams average zero bulletproof players and one green italics guy. Maybe two 2s. Black 1 is the sweet spot.

I try to keep their range at 3 or better, but I'm more concerned with errors, passed balls, and throwing errors.

I wish catcher defense was more important because it's so important in real life. The Catcher Blocking the Plate max rule solves for some of this gap, but moreso in Windows than 365 because HAL is too conservative sending baserunners home. As it is, catcher-defense is medium-important in 365. You can go all the way down to 4(+2) at low caps.

Bullpen with DH is usually a closer and two decent relievers and one junkballer for mopup duties. I usually stay away from lefty/righty specialists (because it seems like Hal can never figure out how to use them correctlyi) but I do almost always make sure I have one righty and one lefty reliever. Sometimes when there's no DH I'll go with 4 decent relievers. ("Decent" meaning generally somewhere between $3-4m relievers for a $100m cap.)

Sounds like too much bullpen. The golden rule in 365 is Money On The Field. You shouldn't have 15% of your payroll just chilling in the bullpen for 2/3 of every game. And I wouldn't mix the junkballer in with the decent guys because I assume HAL will overuse the mopup guy. Have to commit to one of two strategies: No Wrong Answer or, my preference, No Right Answer. I keep my bullpens cheap af below high caps. 3 or 4 specialists, I haven't noticed HAL misusing them as long as I set them to avoid their weak side.

If I can get one platoon in there, great. More than two platoons is counter-productive.

Would like to know more about why you consider them counter-productive. Not saying you're wrong. But generally below $140 my entire bench is platoon counterparts. $140 I average only one platoon, $200 I average 7.

I generally use *SPs unless I'm in super low cap leagues.

I agree 4-man is generally superior and more flexible than 5-man, there are just so many more options. But I haven't noticed 5-man becoming more viable at low caps, if anything I use it most at $200 where SPs are less important because I'll actually have a bullpen.

I'll never spend more than $.6 on a bench player unless he's backing someone with high injury probability. And with those bench players I choose to prioritize their gloves over their bats.

Broadly agree, although I don't think it matters if you prioritize defense or offense. If anything prioritizing defense can implicate HAL's sometimes questionable defensive substitution logic. But I'd say the importance of defense/offense remains basically the same ratio for your bench guys as your starters, unless there's something I'm not considering.

I generally prefer to emphasize OBP over SLG

Correct, OBP is ~3x more important than SLG.

I still want to have guys with BPHRs when I have a hitters park, but by my observation they won't do me any good if they get on base 30% of the time.

Ehh I can think of some cheap guys with a .200/.300/.500 line who are still valuable at low caps. It's all about the price.

Add to this rule the fact that hits are way better than walks. I'll take a high batting average over any other hitting stat any time.

Yes hits are better than walks, but that does not mean walks should be completely ignored like they are in AVG. OBP is by far the most meaningful of the 3 slash line stats, and AVG includes the most noise.

Thanks for the input! There's a couple things you said here that I'm definitely going to take to heart, particularly with defense and with my bullpen.

To your questions and comments, I generally try to have no more than two platoons because I don't want my bench backups overrun by platoon guys. Also I feel like injuries leave me vulnerable when I'm too heavy on platoons. When you've got Kirby Puckett facing 30% RHPs you've got problems. Agreed that mega-high caps are more platoon-friendly.

Also in re: five man rotations, I've mostly worked in five man rotations at lower caps (I sometimes play < $60m leagues) if anything just because of your "money on the field" rule. Half a million isn't anything if we're playing $140m but at $45m that unused $.5m represents a usable part of your payroll.

Thanks again for weighing in. Looking forward to hearing what some other folks have to say.

hi leeroy,
Great stuff.

Of course, I don't disagree with anything Max said. And if I did, I'd need to provide some data because his success speaks more loudly than someone's perceptions.

That said...
I think the best lesson to draw from it all is that while there are some helpful rules of thumb that are generally applicable to a majority of scenarios, each league is a unique case.

My advice is maximize the value of your fielded team's salary for what it will face each night.
This game is all about getting more value inside your salary cap than your opponents.

With sometimes true or generally true rules like these you listed, the tough thing is we never can know if our decisions are sub-optimal when we are following a one size fits all approach. What I mean is, if a Pitching:Hitting salary ratio generally seems to give us decent results most of the time, we may consider it to be the chosen approach. But there is no way to know if our 85 win team was actually being held back by our choices, and that it generally only works inside the boundaries of typical league environments we happen to play in. It is our bias.

Example 1. Don't pay ahead for injury insurance.
Paying for injury insurance is probably the single limiting strategic choice you can make writ-large.
So, as Max said, injury "prone" players are a way to extract value for your roster because you aren't paying ahead for insurance against injuries that may not occur, as opposed to when you pay for green 1s and 0s.
Most times, that "black 1" player will outperform the modeled price because the injury rate will be lower impact than it was priced for.

Certainly you can still mitigate your risk. Just please don't be the guy who bitches about the 15 games that Bagwell missed. It is baked into the cake already.

If it is a hard habit to break, then maybe don't make that injury prone player your top guy, or get multiple guys who can cover. So, "black 1" dudes like Torriente, Delahanty, Dandridge, and Yelich (et al) can be synergistic on the same team. Because they can cover each other and you maybe only need one decent backup who can hit to cover most possibilities. Bottom Line: Most of the highest value players are not green injury types.

Same kind of idea goes for the other strict rules you mentioned on defense, salary etc.

So, another simplistic example on value at an individual card level is a guy like Hugh Duffy.
SOM carded him to reproduce his actuals to a LHP rate that is lower than we see in 365 in most leagues. We aren't doing season replays....but in 365, his price is still determined according to a standard assumption for RHP:LHP (let's say approx 2:1 RHP:LHP). But say you are in a league with 55% LHP. Now his 11M salary, which is already a decent bargain in most parks, is a superb value. He will be engaging the strong side of his card more often than he was priced for. Do the contextual analysis each time.

In those ways, seek to optimize the value of each choice on your team, for your park and your opponents' parks and players. You can know exactly how your park weights will play for the season, even if not how opposing rosters will end up for opening night. And yes--in general, minimize salary that is on the bench each night.

IMO, "correcting" your rules is not the problem. The problem is having only strict rules without conisdering the assumptions that make them valid. Only use them as a first guess for simplicity. Don't fit your teams into your generalized ruleset or you may be excluding a lot of potential value for some situations.
Instead, fit your team to the league environment.

Back to fundamentals to me means don't use religious-like dogma as objective rules. Do the analysis unique to each team's environment, even if as a rough approximation.

oh one more thing...remember that every team's season is just one possible solution of a range of solutions. Your 90 win team may only be expected to win 82 games if you simmed the same season a 1000 times.

So don't get too attached to single season outcomes. Odds are you are somewhere within a standard dev of expectation but not necessarily at your most likely outcome.

When I’m in a funk I recreate a team I had success with and add a twist to it. It won’t be an exact copy of said team but will use the same ballpark and a few players to give me a starting point. On the more analytical side max and Frankie are two good people to get advice from

To your questions and comments, I generally try to have no more than two platoons because I don't want my bench backups overrun by platoon guys. Also I feel like injuries leave me vulnerable when I'm too heavy on platoons. When you've got Kirby Puckett facing 30% RHPs you've got problems.

So the way I think about this dynamic is that if you go with zero platoons, your bench should still be extremely cheap outside of one primary guy who can fill in for multiple positions, often your fourth outfielder. In that scenario, in terms of accounting for injury risk, I assume an injured player's replacement will be replacement level, that's sort of the whole idea behind the concept. Now obviously if your bench is all platoon counterparts you've got to find the replacement there, which means that replacement and his counterpart are probably going to be facing some same-handed pitchers for the duration of the injury. But I find I'm usually able to rearrange things so that the completely helpless guys remain in platoons. Certainly someone like Gates Brown is never left twisting in the wind against lefties. So in the end, the "replacement" and the same-handed matchups that result is not far off from replacement level. Same as would be the case for a full-timer backed up by a bench guy.

Also in re: five man rotations, I've mostly worked in five man rotations at lower caps (I sometimes play < $60m leagues) if anything just because of your "money on the field" rule. Half a million isn't anything if we're playing $140m but at $45m that unused $.5m represents a usable part of your payroll.

The better way to think about this is think of the 50 cents distributed to increase the salaries of the 4 SPs. 4 is usually better than 5 even after accounting for the 50 cent "fee."

Thanks for the input!

You're very welcome. And I also co-sign everything Frankie wrote, especially in terms of tailoring a team to its league.

Thanks for all the comments. I'm taking notes. Looking forward to hearing more.

From the pre-Sporting News forum, here is the first post in the Newbie Advice Thread, authored by MARCPELLITIER. It's pushing 20 years since it was written but fundamentals don't change.

These are always my favorite threads on here. Will go back and read the rest, but interesting point on risk aversion as it pertains to injuries. I am definitely guilty of this, especially when I am investing $7m or above in a player. I might rethink this.

My other take away is that I spend too much on pitching. For me historically, my pitching heavy teams have been the ones that win, but less so lately.