An Iconic Fantasy Baseball Community
Moderator: Baseball Moderators
Apollo wrote:This is a much more reasonable strategy in H2H than in Roto, though I'm not in huge favor of it in either format. In Roto, benching Matt Holliday due to a slump runs the risk of missing out on valuable statistics that he's putting up even during his slump vs replacement, as well as stats you miss out on in the time period after he's out of his slump and you insert him back in your roster vs. replacement. Last year, for example, if you started Matt Holliday every single game, and never removed him from your lineup, he added to your Roto scores .340, 36 HR, 137 RBI, 120 R, 11 SB. In my opinion, benching him during his 'slumps' increases the odds at losing out on his stats than adding those of a replacement level player, in the short run.
I disagree with this attitude. First of all, last season's Matt Holliday is a bad example (though I know you weren't the one who brought him up) because he never had a three-week slump. But say for the sake of argument that you know Matt Holliday will hit .340 with 36 homers, 137 RBI, etc. etc. Now, it's mid-July, and he's mired in a two-week long 8-for-52 slump. You have an average guy -- say young Jeremy Hermida, or maybe Raul Ibanez -- sitting on your bench, and he's batting .360 with 3 homers in the last week. I feel like you have to put him in. Just ride him for a few days. As soon as he puts up a couple 0-fers or Holliday hits a home run, you put the stud back in. You miss out on one good game, tops. There's no risk there.
Sure, you can get .340 with 36 homers by never taking Holliday out. That's great. But why settle for that? If you're careful during slumps, maybe you can get .344 with 39 homers. And every little bit helps.
What are your thoughts, bigh0rt?
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:BitterDodgerFan wrote:how about sitting your non-stud lefty against a tough LHP? like hawpe, should he be benched because of the R/L splits in favor of someone who is facing a more favorable matchup? there are some players that will be benched against lefties often, so it works out. or if you have a wily mo pena facing a lefty or matt stairs facing a righty, then this would be the time to play them in favor of someone like hawpe facing a lefty, no?
Yes, I definitely use L/R matchups for my non-studs. Lefty hitters often drop further than they should in drafts, and that's who I usually round out my bench with. Match-ups based on hot/cold streaks or individual player matchups, however, is a futile exercise, imo.
swyck wrote:Very wrong. You're not taking regression to the mean into account here.
Over the long run (the season) the better player will outperform, period.
You can't time slumps. A lot of people lose money in the stock market thinking they can time things. Same thing.
If Holliday is in a slump for a week, you've already had that slump in your lineup. If you now bench him, he may come out of it immediately, and you lose those numbers. Same with Hermida's hot streak. He's already had that streak, there is no reason for him to continue it. IMO you are more likely to underperform then to overperform since you are chasing (or avoiding) performance that has already occurred. You have no way of knowing when a slump will end or a new one start.
I think the major disagreement here is that you think eight consecutive 0-for-4s will have no relation at all to what Matt Holliday will do the next day* -- in other words, that slumps are merely statistical anomalies where the coin comes up heads 6 days in a row. This seems very unlikely to me. Now, there is probably no way of proving either one of us correct or incorrect (unless Bill James has done a study on this already, which would be awesome). So in the absence of data, I'll pose a rhetorical question:
In your heart of hearts, if you have Matt Holliday coming up and the pennant on the line, do you want him to be stuck in a 2-for-26 slump?
*Out of curiosity, I skimmed Holliday's game logs and found that he had back-to-back oh-fers only three times all season, and never once had three in a row. That's insane!
I think you're kidding yourself if you think that immediate past performance has no correlation at all with immediate future performance.
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:I think you're kidding yourself if you think that immediate past performance has no correlation at all with immediate future performance.
Actually, you're kidding yourself. This has been studied over and over and over and over and over again, and if you have not seen the research, I suggest you take a look on "hot hand" research that's readily available through any major net or academicsearch engine.
What it clearly shows is that recent good or bad performance adds NO value to predicting what will happen next. Zip. Zero. Zilch.
Even in the midst of a big slump or streak, the best prediction of a player's performance over the next few games is an unadjusted long term average of the player's past performance.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests