I tried something like this in 2008, I think I had Santana/Peavy/Papelbon....pitching is so variable every week in H2H that this just doesn't work. Every few weeks someone will get lucky with a 80 inning, 2 ERA week and knock you on your butt.
What you want is lots and lots and lots of hitting, and depth with your SP. You can easily get away with a whole staff of SPs you draft after pick 100. They're usually there to take.
Good points, I do love hitting - you can't get enough, but lets talk about what it would take to make this work. Not 3 or 4 aces, but 5 or 6 top 15 pitchers, while 15 owners battle over the top 40 hitters. With this half auction, lets say the other 15 teams grab 3 hitters each (on average) and I'll grab 4-5 SPs... So my offense is behind these other offenses by 3 hitters, maybe a 4th here of there. 16 team offenses are super thin anyway, what do I need to compete weekly? What type of stats am I chasing? There's no Pujols/Votto/Hanley/Braun offenses out there, Pujols/Stanton... and the same CI/MI guys that will be available to me in the serp.
It just seems the margin of error is so much smaller than in more balanced approaches and, as importantly, the options available for tweaking a team as the season progresses are so much more limited that you almost have to be flawless-- and lucky-- to pulled off a strategy like that.
More importantly, do people really end up having fun during these "experiments?" I can it becoming a downer pretty quickly in most cases.
I definitely think it can be fun for a change, I mean 99% of time we play a balanced strategy that can be fun enough but just to change things up a bit and take a shot with something rarely accomplished... why not. I think the luck factor is the same for all 16 teams, not just some who takes an early pitcher... I think the risk factor is the same with hitters, just look at last year. If you took Kemp, Bautista, Tullo, Votto, Ellsbury or Longoria in the 1st-2nd round last year... your first overall pick finished outside the top 50 in rankings. That's 6 of the top 15 ADP players outside the final top 50. Maybe some of those guys were on "risk" lists, but last year guys would tell you to draft Tullo over Verlander in the 1st round... since pitching is riskier.
Of the top 30 pitchers (ADP) last year, 19 finished inside the top 50 (11 finished outside). Of the top 15 pitchers (ADP) last year, 11 finished inside the top 30... Halladay, Lincecum, Haren & Lester fell off
Here are some of the auction values from last year: Kemp (40), Joey Bats (40), Tullo (41), Votto (39) As for pitchers... Kershaw (25), Lee (21), Weaver (20), Price (16)
That's four ace pitchers for the price of 2 first round hitters (that underperformed).
My thoughts for this strategy, how far behind is my offense from a guy who spends big bucks on hitters that fall flat and miss time... if you drafted Pujols/Votto/Uggla... while I drafted those 4 SP's... my offense is really only behind by Pujols... starting round 6 (the real serp), we're drafting the same hitters, only I don't waste as many picks on pitchers since I have the aces already. In the later rounds, it would be lucky to draft a top 10 catcher, but it would be even luckier to draft a top 10 pitcher.
So you make your argument by pointing out the prices of 4 underperforming hitters and 4 outperforming pitchers (except Lee's W/L)?
The problem is still the shenanighans that can take place in H2H. There is absolutely no way that most teams will try to slug out with you in pitching. They will let you take W's and hope they get lucky with ratios while probably easily winning losses. SV's will be a tossup but I'm not sure you'll be able to invest a lot in closers since you have a lineup to fill. Despite having a dominant pitching staff I don't think you will win more than 50-60% of the pitching points. And your offense won't be very good either.
I'm not sure why you are interested in competing (comparing) with the team that took Pujols, Votto and Uggla. At least i wouldn't benchmark my success against a team that was probably one of the worst in the league unless it hit on some later draft picks.
Chaos151p wrote:Good points, I do love hitting - you can't get enough, but lets talk about what it would take to make this work.
What is the minimum IP requirement? Higher is better. We need to know the number because if it is low then a high RP strategy will be very effective against your team.
The main problem I see here is in your scoring categories- W, L, SV, ERA, and WHIP. Using Losses instead of Strikeouts is a HUGE hit to the strategy you are proposing. It essentially throws out a category you will win 100% of the time (Ks) for a category you will lose 80% of the time (Losses).
Any opponent whose roster has an average amount of pitching depth will beat you by simply starting 1 Ace SP (or 1-2 SP who have good matchups) + a bunch of good RP. This kind of team would beat you in Losses and be very competitive in ERA and WHIP. And if you don't have more closers then you are looking at going 1-4 in pitching (more good RP = more save opportunities). And with no plan for offense, you can't afford for this to happen more than a couple of times.
And speaking of hitting... if you are hellbent on going with this elite SP strategy, you should target specific categories in hitting too. Go all speedsters (for Runs, SB, and OBP) or get as many power hitters as you can (for R, HR, RBI). If you go for the best bargain hitters, you won't consistently beat teams with good hitting. I'd be looking to punt 1-2 hitting categories for a better edge in the other 3.
This strategy may work at first, but once managers figure out what you are doing, they will simply increase their depth of starters and RP. Best case scenario is that all of your SP do great and you consistently win W, SV, ERA, and WHIP. Once the playoffs draw near then good teams will make their pitching more balanced and beat you in the playoffs.
Chaos151p wrote:I definitely think it can be fun for a change, I mean 99% of time we play a balanced strategy that can be fun enough but just to change things up a bit and take a shot with something rarely accomplished... why not.
Having a fun experience is always good. But ask yourself, wouldn't it be more fun to win? Winning is winning regardless of how you did it. Sure, it would be cool to win with some quirky strategy, but then why hasn't this been done before? Maybe because you'd need a lot of luck for it to work?
My mistake, it's K's not L's - so essentially it's trying to take the advantage in 4 of the 5 pitching categories. There is no innings limit, but I doubt owners will bench all of their starters once they've figured out my rotation is better.
As for the speedsters, I was just analyzing this approach - it seems like the best combo with the elite pitchers, I couldn't expect to compete for HR/RBI on most weeks... but steals & runs, that's another story. Although most owners will like a guy here or there to add speed to his roster, I could just target steals alone... say 30-40+ steal guys. In rounds 7-10 I could probably add 160 steals and 160 runs (granted its H2H but you know what I mean). That type of offense at least I've got a better then average shot at 2 hitting and 4 pitching categories... and that's my minimum goal (6-4 each week).
There's a lot of feedback about other owners possibly loading up on relievers to counter my era/whip... I just don't see it. What owners are dropping bench players or bench starters for a one week fillin or 2 or 3 one week mid relievers just to try and keep their era/whip low. I don't see it happening. Even so, even if one guy tried it - my top pitchers are no match for his rotation of some starters and some mid relievers? There aren't closers out there on waivers in a 16 team league.
Speaking of closers... that is an issue - I can't sacrifice a serp pick for closers, I need hitters (or speedsters) at that time, I'll have to buy two of them at the auction (say two lower tier guys for $5 each, like Nathan & Holland let's say). Still leaves me $90 to spend on starters and I get my closers out of the way
kab21 wrote:I'm not sure why you are interested in competing (comparing) with the team that took Pujols, Votto and Uggla. At least i wouldn't benchmark my success against a team that was probably one of the worst in the league unless it hit on some later draft picks.
That's what I was saying, any team can hit on some later picks - it doesn't matter who you draft 1st or 2nd. But I am interested in seeing some actual draft results: here's one, he finished 133-90 (regular season first place)... picked up Kemp (40), Hamilton (22), Lawrie (26), Rivera (12)
This guy spent 12 on Moe... and then 3 hitters - Hamilton finished 5th, Kemp 82nd and Lawrie 162nd
Chaos151p wrote:There's a lot of feedback about other owners possibly loading up on relievers to counter my era/whip... I just don't see it. What owners are dropping bench players or bench starters for a one week fillin or 2 or 3 one week mid relievers just to try and keep their era/whip low. I don't see it happening
I think that idea was thrown out there because you listed Losses as a scoring category instead of Strikeouts. That is a big, big difference and changes things completely.
Chaos151p wrote:There is no innings limit, but I doubt owners will bench all of their starters once they've figured out my rotation is better.
It isn't the innings limit that I am concerned with. The minimum IP requirement (how many innings you need to reach in order to qualify) is the key here. If you are using the standard Yahoo minimum of 7 IP per week, that is not as good for your strategy. A higher IP requirement would force people to use more starters- this would be good for you since using more SP is your strength.
I also wouldn't underestimate other owners either. Any smart manager would look at your pitchers, realize that they probably won't win Wins and Strikeouts and thus go for the minimum IP- nothing more. This gives them a much better chance at winning ERA and WHIP because (generally) the more IP you have for the week the more likely you are to hit the average for that week. A team with a couple of good closers and 1 Ace OR 1-2 SP with good matchups would probably beat you in pitching 3-2.
Assuming you do go with speedsters and split hitting 3-2 or 2-3 most weeks, you'd really need to lock down Saves. You would have to be the most active manager on the waiver wire for replacement closers. Since your punting 2-3 hitting categories you are most likely looking at 7-3 as your best case scenario. And if this is the case, you can safely assume you won't be a top 1-2 team by seasons end (balanced teams have the ability to go 10-0, 9-1, etc). And with the H2H playoff tiebreaker being record vs opponent followed by playoff seed, you can't afford to lose to Saves IMO.
Very true about saves, I would need to win 5 pitching categories... especially in the playoffs - If I'm not a top seed then I'll need 6 wins, since a 5-5 would lose in a tiebreaker.
For the innings limit, I'm not too concerned - there is no limit, technically you could bench everyone and have open P slots - but that's not happening (or I could ask the commish about this loophole)... I'm just not that worried about it. Let's just assume most week, owners want to start as many games as possible - and maybe verse me, they'll only want to start their best games, but they're not leaving open starter slots - and picking up mid-relievers is a waste, they'd drop a legitimate starter or bench hitter for an 8th inning guy. Just assume I'm starting 5 aces, maybe 6 - but I'd like to start 3 closers to shoot for saves... so my 5 SP's get 6-7 starts and you've got 6 starters with anywhere from 7-10 starts. You can try to take wins and k's with more starts... but my 5 guys are 10 k/9 pitchers, and 4-5 of my opponents barely scratch 140 for the year.
I'm not saying its fool proof, I'm not saying it's remotely as much fun as say buying Braun & Trout - but for the sake of argument, I think it can work with a lot more thought. Some guys take 2 aces and call it a day... the guy who won last year only started 3 starters (Hamels, Cobb, Guthrie)... he had Kimbrel/Hanrahan/Reed and 2 more mid relievers. His offense was so-so, can't remember him really competing each week (with Braun, Pedrioa, Ian Desmond... and a few guys like Callaspo, Span, Hunter, Chipper)