The Quinton: Beating t... (03/22)
Notes from the Field: ... (04/05)
the archives are now free.
10 comments have been left for this article. BP Comment Quick Links
| |
|
|
April 5, 2016 The QuintonKeeper-League Auction Takeaways
On Saturday, I participated in my NL-only keeper-league auction. On Sunday, I participated in my AL-only keeper-league auction. Below are some takeaways from these auctions. Spending with the Market So, we get it: As tempting as it is to spend (read: overspend) with the market to get a team that is similar to the one we imagined heading into the auction, we should take as many discounts or at-price players as possible, which often will mean straying from the market when it is incorrectly valuing a certain type of player. That said, the desire to act in accord with others, to embrace league norms, is a powerful influencer. Spending with the market, regardless if the market is spending optimally or not, is defensive decision making—it gives an excuse for our decision should our decisions not work out and that is a very appealing proposition to our risk averse minds. It is not very appealing, though, if we want the best odds of winning. Lastly, it is scary to stray from the herd for the first time, but if we can make ourselves do so, the benefits can be tremendous largely because no one else is doing so because of the obstacles just mentioned. Theoretical vs. Real Inflation I think the knee-jerk reaction to this outcome would be to bump up pitcher prices next year and reduce hitter prices. I think this is a mistake because it appears there is more advantage to be gained by grabbing hitters at fair or discounted prices than there is lost by going cheap on pitching (it worked last season so there is some precedent). Instead, I think the correct response—if I could be certain that the league was going to overvalue pitchers—would be to keep fewer “at-price” hitters. In other words, in my theoretical calculation, I had Brett Lawrie as a keeper at $16, but given the actual prices, this proved to be a mistake as I could have gotten a more-productive hitter with that $16 in the auction or I likely could have purchased Lawrie at a cheaper price. This is would be a dangerous game to play because you could end up forfeiting value from a keeper if the market corrects itself. That said, there is a lot of value to be gained by taking advantage of real inflation versus theoretical inflation, so we just need to weigh the pros and cons as best we can.
Jeff Quinton is an author of Baseball Prospectus. Follow @jjq01
|
Good article. I play in a keeper auction league where we keep up to half our roster each year. I decided long ago that having a draft plan or set player targets was a waste of time. That plan and those targets were only valid until the first player hit the bidding block. Once bidding starts it is all about the real time market forces of the draft and accurately assessing those forces as soon as possible. And the key as you point out, is to figure out where the bargains will likely result (or in a nod to Michael Lewis, find the undervalued commodity).
Too many team owners bidding practices are driven by the idea of need; I need a 3B so I must pay the going rate to get a good one. I see that all the time in my league and such a rigid approach results in too many at value or overvalued players and few relative bargains that you can carry over to the following year.
Yup definitely. I think there is an idea regarding need that it needs to be filled during the auction. In keeper leagues particularly, where trade markets tend to be active, our immediately post-auction teams do not need to be perfectly ideal. The more trade value we can acquire (often with good keeper prices) the better we can form our team in season.