Veto review. - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Veto review.

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Veto review.

Postby bleach168 » Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:14 pm

Let's take a look at some interesting trades that were called into question last year. With hindsight being 20/20, it makes it easy to discuss whether or not good advice was given.

I did a search using the word "veto" and starting March 1, 2004 through May 1 2004 and this is what I came up with (note I am discarding cases that are not single season, standard 5x5),

Case #1
Soriano + Klesko for Beltran + Jeter
9 people said no veto
0 people said veto
3 people favored the Beltran/Jeter side
Result: Beltran/Jeter side won the deal 9.92 to 1.89 (using ESPN's 2004 player rater, I am reseting negative scores to zero)
Comments: Huge differential. Maybe the deal should have been vetoed as some correctly felt it was unbalanced.

Case #2
ARod + Chipper + Padilla for Furcal + Hidalgo + Smoltz
1 person said no veto
8 people said veto
9 people favored the ARod side
Result: ARod/Chipper/Padilla side won the deal 5.60 to 2.27.
Comments: Interestingly, the word collusion was never used in the thread. Everyone did agree it was a lopsided deal and should be vetoed regardless.

Case #3
Weaver for Pineiro
15 people said no veto
0 people said veto
1 person favored the Weaver side
Result: Weaver beat Pineiro 1.15 to 0.
Comments: Injuries kept Pineiro from scoring higher.

Case #4
Jenkins + Cintron + T. Hall for Delgado + A. Jones + Beltre
3 people said no veto (if not collusion)
? people said veto
Everyone favored the Delgado/Jones/Beltre side
Results: The Delgado/Jones/Beltre side won the deal 7.54 to 0.35.
Comments: Never proven to be collusion but the deal probably should have been vetoed since it was clear who was winning the deal.

Case #5
ARod + Womack + Escobar for Jeter + Damon + Beckett
16 people said no veto
0 people said veto
3 people favored the ARod/Womack/Escobar side
Results: The Jeter/Damon/Beckett side won 7.79 to 7.28. The positional flexibility of ARod and Womack makes the deal a draw.
Comments: Definate no veto.

Case #6
ARod for Berkman + W. Miller
2 people said no veto
0 people said veto
1 person favored the ARod side
Results: The ARod side won the deal 5.60 to 3.87.
Comments:

Case #7
Guardado + Vidro for Soriano + Aurilia
4 people said no veto
0 people said veto
2 people favored the Soriano/Aurilia side
Results: The Soriano/Aurilia side won the deal 1.89 to 0.
Comments: A healthy Guardado would have swung the deal the other way, but an astute cafe member correctly predicted a DL stint for Guardado diminishing his value.

Case #8
Herges + Kielty for Berroa + Glavine
0 people said no veto
2 people said veto
Results: Berroa/Glavine side won the deal 0.29 to 0.
Comments: It was an awkward situation to begin with and makes for a poor case study. Explanations for vetos were not given.

Case #9
Percival for Gagne
0 people said no veto
3 people said veto
Everyone favored the Gagne side.
Results: Gagne won 4.03 to 0.
Comments: Probably collusion. Veto should have been made.

Case #10
Hunter + Fullmer for Baez + Crawford
4 people said no veto
0 people said veto
3 people favored the Crawford side.
Results: Baez/Crawford side won the deal 4.49 to 1.22.
Comments: Maybe a veto was in order?

Case #11
Arod + Baldelli + Hillenbrand + Williamson + Pineiro for Mulder + Berkman + Burroughs + Greene + Nathan
7 people said no veto
0 people said veto
3 peole favored the Mulder/Berkman side.
Results: The Mulder/Berkman/Nathan side won the deal 6.55 to 5.80. The position flexibility of ARod makes the deal a draw.
Comments: Definate no veto.

Final comments,

Cafe members were never wrong when predicting the winning side of a trade - in these cases at least. I think we should give our people a lot of credit.

However, for the most part, those who proclaimed a winner still voted against vetoing. This is probably due to their philosophical belief in how fantasy baseball should be played. I'm sure these people still stand by their decision.

On average, the difference between winning and losing a trade was plus or minus 2.9 points in the standings. If a team were to pull off 6 or so such trades, you're looking at a gain of 17 points in the standings. Seeing as how Cafe members were nearly perfect in predicting the winners and losers of each trade, it's easy to see those same members profiting 17 or even more points strictly through trading in their own leagues (if they choose to do so).
"And so he spoke, and so he spoke, that lord of Castamere. But now the rains weep o'er his hall, with no one there to hear." - The Rains of Castamere
bleach168
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 5058
(Past Year: 16)
Joined: 22 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Mookie4ever » Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:48 pm

Wow bleach you did a lot of research on this.

Very nice and good results. Funny that I seem to recall Cafe members being a lot more divided in their opinions on trades last year. Maybe I just remember the more heated threads.

Anyways, good job.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19545
(Past Year: 268)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Postby Tavish » Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:08 am

Excellent research bleach, most people here already know the Cafe members are on top of their game when it comes to player values. Its always nice to see some results. There was actually one comment I took some exception to though.

Comments: Huge differential. Maybe the deal should have been vetoed as some correctly felt it was unbalanced.


Using the veto on deals because you (not you specifically) feel it is unbalanced can be a dangerous misuse of the power. Collusion is the only reason to veto a trade, it doesn't work well as a babysitting device for clueless owners.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11071
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby bleach168 » Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:31 am

Question for you Tavish. In cases #2, #4, and #9 where most respondents voted for the veto, do you agree with them?
"And so he spoke, and so he spoke, that lord of Castamere. But now the rains weep o'er his hall, with no one there to hear." - The Rains of Castamere
bleach168
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 5058
(Past Year: 16)
Joined: 22 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby pokerplaya » Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:32 am

Tavish wrote:Excellent research bleach, most people here already know the Cafe members are on top of their game when it comes to player values. Its always nice to see some results. There was actually one comment I took some exception to though.

Comments: Huge differential. Maybe the deal should have been vetoed as some correctly felt it was unbalanced.


Using the veto on deals because you (not you specifically) feel it is unbalanced can be a dangerous misuse of the power. Collusion is the only reason to veto a trade, it doesn't work well as a babysitting device for clueless owners.


Well said. I agree completely. I'm sure I was in a few of those threads saying no veto.

Nice thread, Bleach.
pokerplaya
Kitchen Staff
Kitchen Staff

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 12812
(Past Year: 9)
Joined: 18 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby agchris02 » Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:34 am

there is only ONE FOR SURE reason to veto, and that is collusion,

absent collusion the ONLY time to veto is when one owner (we'll call him "the idiot") is being CLEARLY taking outside, bent over, and being introduced to a broomstick. And that has to be "clearly" -- close calls at the time dont cut it. Even the percival for gagne trade LAST YEAR PRESEASON shouldnt have been vetoed absent collusion.
Jackalope
agchris02
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1562
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Dallas Tx

Postby loophole21 » Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:11 am

agchris02 wrote:there is only ONE FOR SURE reason to veto, and that is collusion,

absent collusion the ONLY time to veto is when one owner (we'll call him "the idiot") is being CLEARLY taking outside, bent over, and being introduced to a broomstick. And that has to be "clearly" -- close calls at the time dont cut it. Even the percival for gagne trade LAST YEAR PRESEASON shouldnt have been vetoed absent collusion.


I completely agree. If two competent owners, agree on a trade, and each believe that the trade is improving their team, there should not be a veto.
loophole21
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 241
Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Ft. Lauderdale

Postby Tavish » Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

bleach168 wrote:Question for you Tavish. In cases #2, #4, and #9 where most respondents voted for the veto, do you agree with them?


From just looking at the trades and not knowing any sort of background information, no I don't agree that any of them had reason to be vetoed. The only one you could immediately assume was possible collusion was the Percy for Gagne.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11071
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball


Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fantasynut03 and 12 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact