The first thing to get a grip on in any fantasy sport is drafting. Each league type (ROTO, FP, H2H, etc.), has its particular issues and concerns to which the fantasy manager MUST be aware, lest he end up drafting the fantasy equivalent of the Toledo Mudhens. In addition to the different concerns based on league type, there are also a number of different options of HOW a draft can be conducted. Each of these draft methodologies can lead to various problems. The purpose here is to concentrate on Fantasy Point leagues (Sandbox specifically), though we may mention other league types for comparitive purposes.
BEFORE THE DRAFT BEGINS
We'll assume it's March and you're preparing to draft for a fantasy point league. The first thing you really need to do is to rank players at each position. In truth, you *could* just rank all players by your projection of total FPs for the coming season, but if you end up with 15 pitchers, 10 OFs and no infielders, you're not likely to have a very good season.
This may seem a Herculean task, but you actually don't have to rank ALL the players. The number you do need to rank will be determined by the size of your league. The more teams in the league, the more players you'll need to rank. In an 8-team league, only 200 players total will be drafted (25 * 8), while in a 14-team league that number grows to 350, (25 * 14). But, since you need to rank by position, you need to know how many players to rank at each position.
A good *starting point* is multiplying the *typical* draft card by the number of players in your league. A fairly standard draft card will pick the following:
CA - 2 1B - 2 2B - 2 3B - 2 SS - 2 OF - 6 SP - 7 RP - 2 Multiplying that out by your league size, you'll end up with
==================================== #TEAMS = 8 - 10 - 12 - 14 - 16 ==================================== CA - 2 16 20 24 28 32 1B - 2 16 20 24 28 32 2B - 2 16 20 24 28 32 3B - 2 16 20 24 28 32 SS - 2 16 20 24 28 32 OF - 6 48 60 72 84 96 SP - 7 56 70 84 98 102 RP - 2 16 20 24 28 32 TOT = 200 250 300 350 400
The above table is just a starting point. But it does give you starters and backups at every position, (except RP). Obviously, the larger the league, the deeper into the talent pool you'll be forced to dip, and therefore your knowledge of mediocre players will become increasingly valuable.
The best place to begin your pre-draft rankings is by simply using last seasons year end rankings, which are based on total FPs. This is actually what any default draft would be based on, **IF DONE BEFORE THE SEASON BEGINS**. It is important to note here that once the season begins, last seasons rankings go out the window (as far as Sandbox is concerned), and drafting in a late-starting league makes manually ranking your draft card IMPERITIVE. I'll get more into this later.
Of course, looking at just last year's FP totals is only part of the picture. Total FPs doesn't take into account injuries, off years, career years, changing teams, retiring, etc. I'll do my best to prioritize adjustments to the pre-draft list and present them in order of importance. The reader may disagree with the order, but it's best to take into account all the factors as much as time and knowledge allow.
The important thing to remember is that you want to project the total FPs you expect to receive THIS season by drafting a given player. So, ultimately your draft card rankings should be YOUR guesstimate of how many FPs you think guys will put up over the course of the entire season.
GOING, GOING, GONE
First, be certain to re-rank any players who retired during the off season to dead last on your draft card. If you don't know who retired, go on the forum and ask - or search the ROTO sites for projected starting lineups. In general, star players who retire get lots of publicity, but some slip away more quietly than others. Managers who fail to rerank retirees may end up with a Hall of Fame roster, but a last place finish. In 2002 drafting McGwire, Shaw, Paul O'Neil, and Tony Gwynn would have resulted in lots of work with the waiver wire, and a lot of ridicule from your fellow league owners.
These guys go last, because their projected FPs are guaranteed - zero! Occasionally, you'll get a fence sitter who talks about coming back *maybe*, like Shaw in 2002. But, IMO, you are much better off moving him off your card, or at least moving him WAY down in your rankings.
Come Back, Shane!
Injuries are the number one way to kill FP totals. A super talent like Nomar or Pedro gets hurt and misses half a season (or more), and they can end up ranked behind guys like Wilton Guerrero or Calvin Maduro. It is important to move these guys up on your draft card. How high to move them up is one of those unanswerable questions that arises every season.
A guy who has had injuries in a number of seasons, ("Moises Alou - paging Mr. Moises Alou!"), is a much higher injury risk than a guy who has had one major injury to keep him out one season. ("Frank Thomas"). In truth, EVERY player is an injury risk, just some more likely to get hurt than others. It's a judgement call whether to give them "full" credit for the coming season, partial, or none.
For FP leagues, your best bet for ranking your players is projecting their FPs for the season, and listing them in a spreadsheet like Excel. This will allow you to resort them quickly and easily. For injury prone players, the approach I like is to go ahead and guesstimate how many games said player will play and then add in the points you'll get from a waiver wire fill-in to get his *value* total.
Example: Moises Alou normally produces about 3.7/game. But, I'll be conservative and say 3.5 based on moving to Wrigley. I guess 110 games, which is only 385 FPs, and would have him barely cracking the top 50 in total FPs. BUT, I'm going to get points for the guy who plays that other 52 games, too. So, I figure on getting 2.7 for his replacement for 40 games. (Why 40 instead of 52?). Because MOST starters don't actually play all 162 games - and 150 is a nice round number most regulars will be pretty close to. So, 40 * 2.7 = 108. So, I'd put Alou's worth at roughly 458. I'll round down to 450 as a gut feeling. That would end up with Alou ranked somewhere around 25 among OFs (for my 2002 draft card). (In hindsight, it's obvious that this pre-2002 assessment ended up being WAY off - but it's hard to predict career years or career awful years).
In any case, the work you put into your pre-draft rankings is NOT *just* for the draft. It is data that you can go back to all year long when rating trades, considering waiver options, etc. And it has the advantage of giving you a LOT of time to work on. You can begin working on your pre-draft rankings for 2003 as soon as the 2002 season concludes. That gives you MONTHS to examine career records and trends, etc. Of course, as the season approaches and teams make trades, you'll need to adjust your rankings, but only for those guys who change teams, or spots in the lineup, and incoming rookies, etc.
Another key point in *comeback* players is those that weren't injured, but under-performed last season. You have to decide whether the down year is a fluke, and the player will come back strong, (Glavine 2001 and 2002?), or whether the drop-off is a sign of things to come, (Chuck Knoblauch 2001 and 2002?). While you have to decide whether these guys will come back to established levels, this requires that you look deeper on the lists and farther back than just last season. It takes time, but you've got months - so don't waste 'em.
LIKE A SPIKE THRU YOUR FOREHEAD
So, you've dumped the retirees and boosted your comeback players. Your draftcard should be shaping up. But, another key group of players to examine are those who had *breakout* seasons. Young players can often take a few years to season, and then suddenly jump up the ladder of FP production. Some maintain new levels, others don't. Veteran players can also have massive jumps in performance. But, is it genuine improvement, or just a *career* year? Is there any way to tell genuine improvement from a statistical abberation, (or spike)?
Not really.
A spike in performance isn't truly defined until the year AFTER a jump in numbers is completed. But, as a general rule, VETERAN players do NOT maintain jumps in performance UNLESS their was an external factor in play. The #1 external factor is changing teams. Changing teams means a new park, new coaches, and often a new spot in the lineup.
Brian Giles left Cleveland for Pittsburgh in '98/'99. Going from a great hitting AL club to the dregs of the NL was cause to think he'd get worse, (and from a FP standpoint, he wasn't that great in Cleveland). But, in Cleveland he was platooned, failing to get 400 ABs despite appearing in 130 and 112 games in '97 and '98 respectively. In Pittsburgh, he got a chance to play full time, becoming THE MAN in the Pirate lineup. So, the jump in BA, HRs and most importantly FP average for 1999 had an external cause. He has subsequently maintained his levels. Same story holds for Luis Gonzales moving to Arizona.
But, look at Jeff Kent in 2000. At the age of 32 he sets personal bests in BA, slugging, HRs, and Runs. This was his 4th season in Frisco. No major change between '99 and '00. And for 2001 and 2002, he's returned to his '99 levels. In 2000, Darin Erstad also went bonkers, batting .355 at the age of 26, when his best performance up to that point had been .299. He set career bests in hits, BA, Runs, HRs, RBI, and SBs. But, he had been with the Angels 4 year prior to 2000. While young enough to think the jump *might* be real, instead he slumped back to his '99 levels (which had been an *off* year), batting .258 with an anemic 9 HRs. Carlos Delgado had a similar spike in 2000.
Coming into 2002, the *spike* guys for 2001 included Bret Boone, who jumped his FP average from 2.2 to 3.5. Most people were skeptical about his ability to maintain that new level, since he was 32. At the All-Star break his FP average was a less than spectacular 2.7. Better than previous levels, but not by much. Rich Aurillia also suffered from *Spike Syndome* in 2002. Then again, 2002 ended up with Kent returning to his 2000 "spike year" numbers.
In any case, when setting your draft card, consider the guys who had career years and decide on a case by case basis whether to project them to maintain the new level, drop back to previous levels, or split the difference. For young guys, (2nd and 3rd year), there is often a tendency to assume continued improvement after a jump in production.
ONLY THE YOUNG DIE GOOD
Judging up and comers is a joy and a torture. Mountains of magazines are produced every spring touting the next hot prospects. There are the 2nd and 3rd year players who are due to breakout, (Soriano, Hillenbrand, Halladay). There are also the pheenom rookies getting their first shot at a full time position on a big league roster, (2002 being the year of the killer B's - Burroughs & Blalock).
As a general rule, players will make one (1) MASSIVE jump in production and then plateau. Players, as a rule, do NOT improve gradually. There is often a tendency for managers to over-estimate improvement of young players who DO have a breakout year, while under-estimating improvement of young players who didn't.
The phrase "he can only get better" generally makes me cringe, because it's most often used in precisely the wrong circumstances. Shea Hillenbrand (2001), puts up .263, 12, 49 stats for a dreadful 1.6 FP average. *HE* can only get better. But guys like Berkman and Pujols, who have incredible breakout years - THEY can most definitely get worse. One only need to examine the lists of past Rookies of the Year, to see that it does NOT guarantee long term success. Do the names of Chris Sabo, Jerome Walton, Walt Weiss, and Marty Cordova ring any bells. Each won the ROY award.
The cries that Troy Glaus was going to be better than Chipper after his breakout sophomore season in 2000 still make me shake my head. I looked at Glaus and saw the second coming of Dave Kingman. But big homer numbers tend to blind people from looking at walks and Ks, (which are critically important at Sandbox). When you learn the Mark Bellhorn had a better OPS in 2002 than Bellhorn, do you think "what a compliment to Bellhorn," or "what an insult to Glaus?"
In any case, it is important to look at youngsters and read the trades to see which players are targeted to get PLAYING TIME. You can't tell if a Hillenbrand or Soriano is going to get better with any certainty. Just as many people were lauding Toby Hall coming into 2002 as they were Soriano (while Hillenbrand was ignored). But, often you CAN get info on who will be starting, and where in the lineup they'll be hitting.
Regardless of ability, if your rookie pheenom is going to be platooned, spending 1/3 of his time on the bench, and getting to pinch hit once a week, his FP average is going to get hammered. But, you must take these guys into account on your draft card, (at least those who will be included in the draft). So, it's important to do your homework, and move the sleepers you like up on your draft card.
POLICE THAT LINEUP
You're mostly done at this point in ranking your players and projecting their FPs. However, one other factor to pay attention to is position in the lineup. Most good players are set in stone in the batting order. But for FP purposes, moving up or down in the order can generate significant impact on results. Think of it this way. The guy batting #1 will AVERAGE almost one full at bat more per game than the guy batting 9th. While I don't have exact numbers, it's roughly a 10% difference in plate appearances for as you go down the order.
And based on ability, each player will produce a certain number of FPs PER **AT BAT**. While FP averages are computed on a per game basis, the ability of the hitter is much more reliable on a per-plate-appearance basis. If Joe Blow generates 12 FPs over 3 games (in 12 plate appearances), he's averaging 4.0 per game and 1.0 per plate appearance. If a PINCH-HITTER has exactly the same hitting results, but only gets 1 at bat per game, his FP average and plate appearance average are both going to be 1.0.
In 2001 Soriano hit 9th, and totaled 359 FPs. He ended up with 614 plate appearances. That was a .5846 per appearance FP average. In 2002, he moved to the top of the order and had 546 FPs in 741 plate appearances, (.7368 average). Obviously, he improved dramatically. But his FP average per game jumped from 2.272 to 3.5. But, if he had continued batting 9th (with the same number of at-bats as '01, but the .7368 appearance average of '02), his FP per game average would have only jumped up to: 2.90. That doesn't even take into account being surrounded by weaker hitters, reducing RBI and/or run totals. So, pay SPECIAL attention to players whose lineup position changes.
UP PERISCOPE
In addition to where players are batting in real world lineups, it's important to understand relative strengths of the different positions. But comparing shortstops to 2Bs to outfields to relief pitchers is an incredibly complex task. Starters, Relievers and hitters are all on slightly different scales. And with multiple outfielder positions to fill, plus a UI, (as well as multiple pitchers), judging thin or deep can be almost maddening.
Setting depth is tricky, but not impossible. The important thing is to not totally lose sight of the #1 factor in FP baseball (total FPs) when assessing the thinness or depth of different positions.
Size of League
More than anything else, the size of YOUR league determines how deep positions are. There is a DRAMATIC difference in depth between an 8-team league and a 12-team league, for each position. There are SOME constants, though.
1) Relief pitchers get more valuable in larger leagues. RPs are aften dismissed for keepers, because they often have wide swings from year to year in total FPs. But this is likely due to the fact that MOST leagues have 10 teams. With 30 real teams, that's 30 real closers, and only a need for 20 - 25 closers in the league. So, you can usually find a couple of decent emergency fill-ins on the wire. But in a 12-man league, the number of surplus closers drops to next to nothing. (Any league above 12 closers get REAL valuable).
2) Judging the infield positions against each other (cA/1B/2B/3B/SS) is about the easiest to do - but there are some issues here as well. Utility Infielder can be drawn from ANY of these guys, but will "typically" come from the 1B list, which means that isn't as deep as one might think. The #1 factor most consider is the difference in FPs from top to bottom, (in a 10 team league that would be between 1-10, in a 12 team 1-12), at each position. Many people conclude that if there is a 200 FP difference between top and bottom at second, and a 350 point difference at short, then second is much deeper. That is a nice place to start, but it doesn't tell the entire story.
You must also look at tiers at each position. At short, AROD will get 100 more FPs than the next best SS. But there were 4 other 2Bs within 100 of Soriano. In order to judge depth, you need to actually *remove* the top tier at each position. The top tier WILL go high, so you don't need to put a lot of work into this. It's judging depth AFTER the top tier that gets tricky.
At short, AROD is a top tier by himself, but let's include Tejada, Nomar and Jeter as the rest of the "cream" at short. You'd ignore Pujols for third, Soriano/Kent/Vidro for 2B, and Giambi/Helton at first, and Piazza/LoDuca at catcher. Remove them, and the depth goes:
(12 team league assumed) SS - Tejada to Guzman 469 - 333 = 166 3B - Rolen to Polanco 472 - 346 = 126 2B - Durham to Alomar 468 - 343 = 125 1B - Palmeiro to Sexson 535 - 413 = 222 CA - Posada to Varitek 350 - 260 = 90
Notice something? Catcher, Second and third actually have the least range covered from top to bottom (after discounting the cream). This actually makes them the DEEPEST positions. Meanwhile, first base appears the THINNEST position, which goes almost 100% contrary to popular opinion. The mistake too many people make is comparing the POINTS at 1B to the POINTS at SS. You look at McGriff with 401 FPs as the 15th ranked 1B, and you think "really deep position", because it's more total points than 7th or 8th guy at the other infield slots.
Such thinking hurts in TWO ways. First, it ignores the fact that some positions start at a higher level than others. If Jeter & Nomar are included in the cream for shortstop, then 2B/3B/SS all start within 3 points of each other. THEY are on the same "scale". But First base starts up at 535. There were 8 1Bs in the "cream" section of 1Bs, *IF* you want to make the scales start at the same place. And the catcher scale is obviously starting much lower than everyone else's.
So, you *could* assume an 8-man "cream" for 1B, and it suddenly becomes the deepest position. (462 - 413 = 49). I did this to illustrate that perception of deep and thin is very dependant on how one looks at the data.
So, let's assume that we use an 8-man 1B "cream", and determine it's the deepest position, while short is the thinnest at 166. HOWEVER, with first having an 8-man "cream", short having a 4-man cream, second having a 3 man cream, and third with only a single guy, you're really talking about two different types of depth. You're talking about a 120 point difference within the "cream" at first base. At 2B it's only about 50. (after AROD it's also about 50 at short).
Ultimately, it's important to get as much "cream" as you can, but you must remember that TOTAL FPs are your ultimate goal, and getting the Cream at catcher, (393), plus the dregs at third (346) isn't going to get you as much as the 2nd tier cream at first (535) and the dregs at catcher (260). It's a balancing act that is not only impacted by the players available and size of league, but also the flow of you draft (assuming live draft).
LIVE FROM MILWAUKEE, IT'S DRAFT DAY NIGHT
For any type of live draft, the number one piece of advice I have is "come prepared". If you've ranked your players and have done your research, things will likely go okay for you. But there are still concerns about draft methodologies to consider.
Assuming you came prepared, the thing I look at most strongly during the draft is "don't follow the parade - lead it". If there is a sudden run on starting pitching, (8 guys went since you last drafted), do NOT draft another SP. You're guaranteed to get a worse one than those that have been chosen, AND whoever ends the run gets a better guy at a different position.
You'll end up with a much better team if you can INDUCE runs. You can do this by double-tapping the same position (for OF, RP, SP, 1B/UI), if you have a spot near either end of your snaking draft. Or, by creating a double tap by going to the same position as the guy 1 or 2 in front of you did, (especially if you have someone ranked higher than the guy he took at that spot).
Last season, I was drafting 12th, so I double-tapped RPs in round 5/6. Two had gone in the previous two rounds, and suddenly there was a run on RPs, and I already had both of mine. You do need to react to how the draft is going, but if you believe in a strategy ("pitching wins"), then stick to your strategy.
In the middle rounds, especially pay attention to everyone else's roster. If you're in a 10 team league and 9 2Bs have been drafted by the 7th round, you don't need to draft a 2B, because no one else needs one. You can wait until round 15 or so, and still get the same guy, (unless you think he's gonna end up as someone's UI).
Don't go overboard on your "pet" picks. If you're really high on Contreras having a killer season, fine. But if he's going in the 10th round or later in all the mock drafts you've seen, don't grab him in the 3rd. Wait until the 8th or so. If someone takes him in the 7th, you still may be able to trade for him.
IN CONCLUSION
In the end, you *are* trying to predict the performance of each player in the coming season. It is MUCH easier to predict based on past performance than on assumptions of improvement. It's also important to remember that a good draft will NOT win a competitive league. It will be the moves you make during the season that let you win. But a BAD draft can take you out of the running. So, you shouldn't take risks rampantly. If you really like young players with upside, that's fine. But if you draft nothing but these guys, you'll be in a heap of trouble, because you'll likely have more failures than successes.
Sure, take a chance on an injury prone star (Manny, Pudge, Juan Gone), if you want to, but don't fill up your entire lineup with these guys. A nice mix of reliability and risk will typically turn out better in the long run.
But most of all - have FUN!