UMBCOriole
02-29-2008, 11:50 AM
For the longest time, almost as long as I've been playing fantasy baseball, I've loved drafting closers early and getting 2 or 3 of the best of the bunch. I am a stat geek and there's obviously no better way to bring your ERA and WHIP categories down while bringing your Ks up than with a dominant closer or 2 (or 3). This effect doesn't take into account how few innings closers pitch each year, however. This is where my theory kicks off.
In a recent 12-team "Geek" draft, I was able to snag Jonathan Papelbon, Joe Nathan and Rafael Soriano, in the 5th, 6th and 10th rounds respectively. I figured this to be about average draft position for all three so let's assume it is for now. Let's also assume that Papelbon, Nathan and Soriano have a good chance of matching their numbers from last year, simply because they have been matching those numbers for the past three years at least, in essence, qualifying as a top-end closer (or closer material, in the case of Soriano). These stats are only over 60-70 innings pitched for each. But what if you combine them?
Now, just using a simple calculation to combine, based on last year's ratio stats, relative to innings pitched, for each we have the following:
ERA WHIP IP ERA * IP WHIP * IP
Soriano 3.00 0.86 72.00 216.00 61.92
Papelbon 1.85 0.77 58.00 107.30 44.66
Nathan 1.88 1.02 71.00 133.48 72.42
201.00 456.78 179.00
ERA* WHIP*
2.27 0.89
where ERA* and WHIP* denote the combined ERA and WHIP for the three, achieved over 201 innings, about the equivalent of a healthy starting pitcher.
Another simple calculation, addition, shows that combined, the three had 8 wins, 83 saves (likely to increase due to Soriano being the closer now) and 231 Ks. Other than the wins, not too bad for 201 innings of work. In my mind, you get the equivalent of an ace pitcher on the Nationals (low win total) with the 83 saves to boot, perhaps a first-round pick in most leagues.
Here is my question, which holds this theory up. Is it worth a 5th, 6th and 10th round pick to achieve numbers akin to a first-round, and possibly first-overall pick in the draft. The ratios are great, especially, when combined over 200+ innings. The Ks are great. The saves are phenomenal. The wins are lackluster but can't you punt one category to take the rest?
The fact that you're getting three guys also provides some insurance because if your top pitcher goes down, it could greatly affect your team, unless your quick with waiver pickups. If one of the three closers goes down to injury, there are still two others to pick up the slack.
Where does my theory have its limitations? The fact that it is less likely that an ace like Johan Santana have a bad year stat-wise than does one of the closers. The fact that although three guys provides insurance to an injury as mentioned above, there is also three times as likelihood that an injury occurs. I may need to revise that depending on the likelihood that a starting pitcher or a reliever gets injured. The fact that in rounds 5, 6 and 10, there are still diamonds in the rough to be found at positions like OF and SP and I'm "wasting" the picks on ol' reliable closers.
In my mind, I am more than thrilled to get all three of those guys who have consistently put up numbers for the past few years and, thus, not likely to be a flash in the pan. I know, I know, past performance is not guarantor of future success but, I think, for closers, it's a pretty good sign.
I'll let you know how this works out for me.
In a recent 12-team "Geek" draft, I was able to snag Jonathan Papelbon, Joe Nathan and Rafael Soriano, in the 5th, 6th and 10th rounds respectively. I figured this to be about average draft position for all three so let's assume it is for now. Let's also assume that Papelbon, Nathan and Soriano have a good chance of matching their numbers from last year, simply because they have been matching those numbers for the past three years at least, in essence, qualifying as a top-end closer (or closer material, in the case of Soriano). These stats are only over 60-70 innings pitched for each. But what if you combine them?
Now, just using a simple calculation to combine, based on last year's ratio stats, relative to innings pitched, for each we have the following:
ERA WHIP IP ERA * IP WHIP * IP
Soriano 3.00 0.86 72.00 216.00 61.92
Papelbon 1.85 0.77 58.00 107.30 44.66
Nathan 1.88 1.02 71.00 133.48 72.42
201.00 456.78 179.00
ERA* WHIP*
2.27 0.89
where ERA* and WHIP* denote the combined ERA and WHIP for the three, achieved over 201 innings, about the equivalent of a healthy starting pitcher.
Another simple calculation, addition, shows that combined, the three had 8 wins, 83 saves (likely to increase due to Soriano being the closer now) and 231 Ks. Other than the wins, not too bad for 201 innings of work. In my mind, you get the equivalent of an ace pitcher on the Nationals (low win total) with the 83 saves to boot, perhaps a first-round pick in most leagues.
Here is my question, which holds this theory up. Is it worth a 5th, 6th and 10th round pick to achieve numbers akin to a first-round, and possibly first-overall pick in the draft. The ratios are great, especially, when combined over 200+ innings. The Ks are great. The saves are phenomenal. The wins are lackluster but can't you punt one category to take the rest?
The fact that you're getting three guys also provides some insurance because if your top pitcher goes down, it could greatly affect your team, unless your quick with waiver pickups. If one of the three closers goes down to injury, there are still two others to pick up the slack.
Where does my theory have its limitations? The fact that it is less likely that an ace like Johan Santana have a bad year stat-wise than does one of the closers. The fact that although three guys provides insurance to an injury as mentioned above, there is also three times as likelihood that an injury occurs. I may need to revise that depending on the likelihood that a starting pitcher or a reliever gets injured. The fact that in rounds 5, 6 and 10, there are still diamonds in the rough to be found at positions like OF and SP and I'm "wasting" the picks on ol' reliable closers.
In my mind, I am more than thrilled to get all three of those guys who have consistently put up numbers for the past few years and, thus, not likely to be a flash in the pan. I know, I know, past performance is not guarantor of future success but, I think, for closers, it's a pretty good sign.
I'll let you know how this works out for me.