Masahiro Tanaka and Fantasy Baseball 2014 - part two

Masahiro Tanaka and Fantasy Baseball 2014 - part two

by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (2-7-14)

[Part one - Mike freaking Trout]

[Starting next week Seesaw Sports will be moving to Buzzchomp - You'll find posts both here and there for a week or two as we transition our readers. Thanks!]



TODD:
There is certainly no arguing that Andrew McCutchen or Freddie Freeman feel like safer picks than elite starters from last year like Scherzer and Sanchez. That is always a given; batters are safer. However, the point of the theory was that if you were able to grab the top starting pitchers, you'd be okay if one or two missed because your lineup would still be in fine shape. The overall dominance of Mike Trout across all scoring categories would allow for "fill-in" batters later on.

It would be a less comfortable way of drafting. There is no doubt about that. I guess it would be hard to pull the trigger on the likes of Felix Hernandez and Cliff Lee and Stephen Strasburg when so many other players seem much safer and reliable in those early rounds.

Speaking of questionable pitchers, where are you taking Masahiro Tanaka this season in fantasy? He will not technically be the New York Yankees' ace, but he will be in spirit. Or they at least need him to be. So is he an ace fantasy pitcher? He doesn't appear to be the strikeout maven that Yu Darvish is. And the possibility exists that he will bomb completely in the major leagues. So where would you take him and at what point is he too rich for your blood and you know he won't be appearing on any of your fantasy teams?


DAN:
I'm all for drafting uncomfortably, but pinning down a draft strategy that requires you to practically dislike your first four or five picks because of uncertainty alone feels wrong. I forced myself last season to not draft any pitching early. The jury is out on whether it was a successful strategy or not, but it was really hard. Doing the opposite feels nearly impossible, but with a player like Mike freaking Trout, its not completely in left field. (Did you enjoy my corny baseball pun? Did asking you about it and pointing it out completely ruin the joke? Was it already ruined from the start?)

I love that you brought up Mr. Tanaka. The newest addition to the Yankees' starting rotation is a much safer pick in my opinion than Yu Darvish was. The main reason here, when Darvish came up the Rangers were good, but not a team that won in spite of its pitching. The Yankees have been a team, for the last few seasons, that wins games in spite of its pitching. Last year was a bit more balanced, but overall their lineup has compensated for off nights by the pitching staff. Hence the consistent high win totals. So even if he is an average pitcher, a la Ivan Nova, he will get victories and do well in several statistical categories.

For some perspective, in an auction league I paid $17 for Yu Darvish in his rookie season. I thought he would be damn good and was right on the money. I wasn't going to pay higher than $22 for him, he was unproven, but he definitely warranted a solid bid with all his upside. So where does that leave Masahiro Tanaka? He has the potential to be a great number two for the Yankees and an ace on many other teams. I don't see him surpassing CC Sabathia or even Pineda's ceiling with New York, but that only improves his fantasy value. If he's the number two or three pitcher, he'll be facing other team's two and three guys. That's great news for your fantasy wins total. I think I've finally gotten around to a real answer for your question.

In a snake draft (obligatory Booo from a big fan of auctions) I would take Tanaka anywhere in round seven and below. He is not a top five pick, but snatching him in the seventh round before anyone else does seems warranted. I love the consistency and upside of Japanese pitchers and its a risk well worth taking. In an auction draft (obligatory cheers) I'd pay up to $15 bucks for him, maybe a little higher. I don't love him like I did Yu Darvish, but he is a Yankee. The mid level pitchers go in the twenty dollar range, so reaching for a rookie at fifteen bucks seems solid to me. I'd be shocked if I had to pay that much, but he's a big name and they come at a price.


TODD:
Chasing wins in fantasy baseball is a flawed and dangerous tactic. There is little correlation between a team a pitcher plays for and his ability to grab a win. There is also an even lower connection between a pitcher being great and his ability to be elite in the wins category. There is just too much out of his control.

The stat that is easily predictable is strikeouts. And with Tanaka, his strikeout potential seems to be considerably lower than Darvish. With that said, I believe your estimate is still low!

Being a big-time news story, playing for the Yankees and all the rest, Tanaka is incredibly hyped up. Although he is coming over as a worse prospect than Darvish was according to scouts, he may be a bigger deal. I can see him going earlier in snake drafts than you mentioned and for more dough in auctions. Of course, I'm with you. I'll stay away from Tanaka in all leagues unless he becomes a bargain...which won't happen. I would much rather get my hands on a known commodity at that price and take a chance on someone cheaper later in the draft.

[If you missed Part one - Mike freaking Trout]

Fantasy Football: Evolution & Naming your fantasy team - Part two

Fantasy Football: Evolution & Naming your fantasy team - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (8-23-13)

[Part one - Is a two QB league evil?]



TODD:
You are spot on about wide receivers in fantasy football, but I don't know why this upsets you. Wide receiver has a few studs, the best of the best. Calvin Johnson, A.J. Green are clear; perhaps Brandon Marshall and Dez Bryant could be on that level. There are just a few of them though. After that, there are about 30 interchangeable guys. You were exaggerating to make your point but your lofty number might be pretty accurate. Demaryius Thomas, ESPN's 6th rated wide receiver this season, is costing about $24 more than their 36th rated wide receiver, Mike Williams, and I just don't see it. Sure Thomas has a bigger upside I guess, but Williams scores touchdowns and is a pretty consistent performer. I'd much rather have Williams and the extra dough to spend on a running back. To me, this is just one more instance of separating the smart fantasy owners from the followers. Thomas and Andre Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald are all going to be taken for big money but the receivers going $15-20 cheaper might accumulate 85% of their stats for a fraction of the cost.

It will be interesting to see if the same thing happens at quarterback in normal leagues. The top guys are veeeerry expensive. The bottom guys who are capable of being pretty damn good (Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers, Jay Cutler, Josh Freeman) are going for a buck or going undrafted completely. In a one QB league, it seems plausible that an owner could grab two or even three of those dirt cheap signal callers and play match-ups to a title.

But if fantasy is becoming too offensive heavy for you, which seems like an odd complaint but whatever, they do have IDP leagues. Individual Defensive Player leagues are detailed and confusing. The best performers, as you hinted at, are linebackers and defensive backs. Tackles do usually count, as do interceptions and sacks, etc. But some of the more popular defense-men aren't the best fantasy performers which leaves preparation and success in such a league on quite a learning curve. Also, the scoring settings will be of utmost importance. If certain actions are worth too much, suddenly Eric Weddle or Sean Lee become more valuable than the top offensive guys. It may be worth a try one of these years but, if we're not careful, we may be left on the inexperienced/noobie side of a competitive league.


DAN:
To those in one QB only leagues, don't listen to Todd. You're crazy if you take three average quarterbacks and try to play the matchups all season long instead of say, taking Tom Brady. That's like not paying as much as humanly possible for LeBron James in NBA fantasy basketball. Its crazy talk. When you can only start one QB you absolutely need a stud. Grab one of those top five guys and you are almost guaranteed an extra ten points a week over a less expensive counterpart. I'm not sure the list is any deeper than five quarterbacks who I'd pay big money for. Miss one of them and definitely grab Eli Manning and Jay Cutler for fifteen bucks combined if you can.

My main complaint about the evolution of fantasy football is not that its offensive heavy, its that all the emphasis has fallen to the quarterbacks in the last five years. When I first started playing fantasy football I felt like I was picking all my favorite players to be on my team. And no, I wasn't losing. The QB, Running Back and Wide Receiver positions felt balanced, with a skew towards the running backs as the killer commodity. With all the NFL rule changes favoring the passing game, and a ton of new QBs being good to great runners themselves, two things happened. First, the running back position in fantasy football got killed. Its not the stud it once was and there are less stars to go around. You end up drafting players you don't yet know. The second thing, which we already touched on, is that the Wide Receiver position is watered down to where the top two guys on every team are more or less even.

I know I'm exaggerating, but the reason I LOVED fantasy football in the beginning was because I could nearly draft a team full of players I knew and adored. I still love fantasy football, but its become more and more like fantasy baseball where you have to play the numbers and ignore the name of the player. That's all well and good, but something got lost along the way. I like to know what the players on my fantasy team actually look like. I want to know I'll care about them again next season, or at least hear how well they have continued to perform. One and done seasons by players is common on a fantasy baseball roster, but has crept itself into fantasy football now too.

On the fun side of things, one of my little joys in life is picking team name's for fantasy football etc. Yet I'm thoroughly confused, as I seem to be alone in this. I think I'm one of maybe two in our leagues who actually changes up their team names. You have the exact same team name for every fantasy sport you play and have always had this team name, never once changed it. And you are not alone by any means. Come on man! 

My rule of thumb for a fantasy team name, if I win it all (or even finish top three if its a killer name) then the name can stay another season. The reigning champ (or close to it) has to defend his or her crown. Otherwise, the name has to go. A loser name has no place around here.

I realize I opened two doors for you. You'll probably point out how you always win, not an exaggeration, and therefore keep your team name. You'll also mention how its absurd for me to be a New York Jets fan and then make the statement about ditching a loser team name.

Go on. I'm ready.


TODD:
Yeah, I am glad you realized this blatant setup. I don't change my fantasy team name because I don't ever finish lower than third.

Even if that was not the case though, I like to keep my team name consistent, to build the brand if you will. However, as league commissioner, I do enjoy changing the league name a bit every season. The names used to be rather clever; recently I've been finding classic or obscure deceased players to name the season after. It is kind of fun in its own right. Nevertheless, my personal team name needs to remain the same so opponents know who they're dealing with!

Let's revisit fantasy football once the season has gotten underway. We don't want to give too much away now, before we've even drafted.

[If you missed Part one - Is a two QB league evil?]

Image credit: here

Fantasy Football: Is a two QB league evil? - Part one

Fantasy Football: Is a two QB league evil? - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (8-19-13)



TODD:
There is something inherently evil about fantasy football leagues in which owners are allowed to start two quarterbacks. This sounds ludicrous to people who do not play fantasy sports. In fact, this may sound rather stupid to others as well. But the evil exists in the logic behind the action. You see, in leagues that allow players to start two quarterbacks, it is a death sentence to not do so. Quarterbacks score so many more points each week than other positions. Even starting a "bad" QB is preferred to starting a solid running back or wide receiver. The numbers back this up.

Last season, Ben Roethlisberger was the 19th highest scoring quarterback (depending on league scoring settings of course). In other words, in a normal league, he started for pretty much nobody. Big Ben was also the 24th highest scoring PLAYER, meaning there were only five non-quarterbacks in the entire NFL who scored more fantasy points than him. They were the five best running backs from a season ago. Roethlisberger, as a bench quarterback and oftentimes a free agent, scored more points than every wide receiver in football; more than Calvin Johnson. He was better than all tight ends and all but the top five guys at RB. He was better than Ray Rice and C.J. Spiller, etc.

So we start with a league that 'allows' two quarterbacks to be started. This is a careful, yet important distinction between leagues that 'require' teams to start two quarterbacks. The decision comes in the form of a flex position and that position generates the evil. Because what it does is create an uneven playing field between owners and an unhealthy value on the QB position. Suddenly, Andy Dalton or Josh Freeman are more valuable than Marques Colston or David Wilson. In normal leagues, the Daltons and Freemans would not even be rostered, let alone started. They are outside the top 12-15 quarterbacks. Thus, they serve no purpose other than bye week filler. Except in these evil leagues where they become vital.

The comparison between Dalton and Colston isn't even apt. Colston is a second tier wide receiver. He is going to be a starter in most every league, as a wide receiver. The teams that are able to start three receivers better than him and thus have the Saints big man as a flex filler are few and far between. The same goes for players like Wilson, borderline number two running backs who may have to battle for carries in real life.

These guys become less important than the bottom feeder QBs but are still starters. The dreaded flex position becomes a battle between Dalton, scoring 12-15 points per week, and a flex RB or WR like, say, Brandon LaFell. This man will score 7 points if you're lucky. Weeks where he does not get in the endzone, owners will be fortunate to scrounge together 55 yards from these fellows. And now you see the problem.

Here's the bottom line: if you play in a league where a second quarterback is allowed to be started, and you do not have a second quarterback to start, you're essentially down 10 points before your matchup even begins. Good luck.

We both play in a fantasy football league that employs this. Full disclosure: I am commissioner and created this evil environment. I can't say that I'm proud of myself. It haunts me. It is my fault people have to consider drafting Sam Bradford over the likes of Hakeem Nicks. I live with this weighing over my conscience.

I guess my question to you is, am I a bad person?


DAN:
I'm not sure your question has anything to do with the fantasy football league you created. Zing!

You're commissioner of this so called "evil" league, so if it bothers you so much to this day, why did you ever build the league this way? Personally, as someone who has played in such a league for several years now, I'm a little shocked you dare to call it evil and I know exactly why you created your league in this way.

Having a flex position in fantasy football is awesome. You can start anyone you like, but more importantly, it exposes the inexperienced or disinterested player. You wanted to create a competitive league of players who are informed and actually like football. This flex position shows you, as commissioner, who falls short of those expectations. It only took one week of my first season playing with a flex roster spot to realize I'd be an idiot not to play two quarterbacks. Unless you somehow end up with three of the top five running backs in the league, then you're going quarterback all the way for the flex.

I'm going one step further. Its pretty moronic not to have three quarterbacks on your roster. You need a bonafide backup at all times to fill the QB and flex position. But evil? Hell no. I actually enjoy how the flex position gives someone like Mark Sanchez value. Mark freaking Sanchez had fantasy value in his first two years as a pro! He had none last season, but before then he did. With a ten team league we're talking the top 20 quarterbacks being on roster. That's 20 of the 32 quarterbacks in the league collecting points every week. If we add in the three per team wrinkle, that's 30 of 32 quarterbacks being employed by the members of our league. I love this! When in all of sports would you ever find yourself rooting for Ryan Tannehill, sorry Dolphins fans (no I'm not)? You wouldn't unless you had to add him to your team for the points.

I'm actually more fed up with the Wide Receiver position in fantasy football. When I started playing fantasy, the WR position was a money spot. You could rake it in, clean up, with the right guy on your team. Now its like there are three top guys and then 30 who all put up ten points a week. What's the point? Its annoying and disappointing and its the quarterbacks' fault. They are all spreading the ball around so damn much that no one is dominant week in and week out any more.

I think ultimately, fantasy football has always been offensive heavy. But with the watering down of the WR position, the ineptitude of the kicker slot and the top heavy need for quarterbacks, can we get the defense more involved? Why hasn't this been sufficiently worked out so that its fun? Linebackers and Safetys/Cover Corners accumulate statistics week after week. I'm not suggesting we count tackles, but would that be so bad? We count yards after all.


TODD:
You got me. Guilty. I did this on purpose to set the noobies back. If someone doesn't start two quarterbacks, it essentially becomes a white flag to the rest of us that they aren't going to be winning this league anytime soon.

And by the way, I kind of like Ryan Tannehill this season. I am happy to hear I won't be competing with you when his name comes up for bid as a third quarterback.

As for wide receivers, you are exactly right but I don't know why this upsets you.

[Part two - Evolution & Naming your fantasy team]

Image credit: here

MLB Opening Day Mash up now w/ Fantasy! - Part Two

MLB Opening Day Mash up now w/ Fantasy! - Part Two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (4-5-13)

[Part One of the MLB Mash up]

TODD:

I'm not on board with your Red Sox and Mets hate. Obviously I don't want either team to succeed, but I am not sure they will both be terrible. The Red Sox have loads of talent still. Their lineup is actually looking better than what the Yankees are going to be forced to trot out. And the Mets have some great, young pitching. They may very well finish third in that division although that is more of a shot at the Phillies and Marlins than confidence in the Metropolitans.

In regards to money buying wins, I think everyone agrees that is not the case. The past success of the Twins and Athletics as well as the current run of the Rays proved that. However, money helps. It is easier to overcome roster mistakes. That is a given. Although if a money-laden team tries to reverse course and be thrifty, it makes it even harder to succeed since they already paid for so many terrible contracts before that decision was made!!...not thinking of any team in particular, just a general idea for the landscape of the sport; that's all.

Speaking of spending money, we recently had our fantasy baseball auction draft and a funny thing occurred. People are always nervous to spend too much right away in these things; I get that. However, what has happened more and more each subsequent season is that people have way too much money left over in later rounds. Solid players start to get bid up because owners were targeting them as cheaper options to a star player. Late round values don't become values at all as the money floods the market. The same thing happens in real life sports with a salary cap. NBA or NFL teams seem to offer more money for lesser players if they have the cap room. As odd as it sounds, has baseball, with its unlimited salaries and ultimate capitalism, become the smartest with its money?

Sure everyone hates Marlins' owner Jeffrey Loria because he dismantled his entire team. But doesn't that seem smarter than overpaying for players who won't make a big enough difference?

DAN:

Hate is a strong word. Neither the Red Sox or Mets will be playoff contenders this season, but I'm not saying they'll bottom out or anything. Its just exciting to see who can be worse! The Mets are taking a head start with the growing length of their Disabled List to start the year. And yes I know, the Yankees list of disabled players (how funny does that read) is much longer, but we aren't talking about the 27 time world champions right now.

I think you may be on to something big hear, baseball has become much smarter with its money out of necessity. Since anyone can spend whatever they want on any player, over time everyone is either going to get smart or get burned. Now the biggest spenders of the last decade, the Yankees and Red Sox, both got burned and had some smart signings. But overall, the big money deals have burned both teams. The league overall, leaving out the Dodgers and Angels, have definitely learned from history. My feeling is that the Angels have been more or less smart with the money, but the Dodgers are acting like its 2003 and the A-rod deal hasn't happened yet. As a resident of Los Angeles, I hope they get lucky.

I want to touch on the Marlins for a moment before commenting on the wacky hijinks that ensued during our Fantasy Baseball draft. Your idea that selling off all the high priced talent is smart if those players can't make a big enough difference misses one huge asterisk of a point. You can't cross the line. Its smart to trade or release players who are under performing their contracts. But in doing so, you need to then sign new guys to be competitive and get better. I haven't taken a look at the Marlins farm system of late, but chances are this team will suck in 2013. If you're a Marlins fan, opening day has arrived and you can already start looking toward 2014. That is just awful. The Marlins re-branded themselves last year and now trot out this mess. Come on man!

Now the good stuff, fantasy baseball. I actually found that people were overpaying for just about everyone from the very beginning. Then, when something juicy was happening in an NCAA basketball game, you could sneak in and win a guy at auction for his actual retail price. Otherwise, it was bid up, bid up. I loved and hated this. Personally, bidding up players that I don't want is the most fun thing in the world. I must have done this at least six times and never once did I win the guy. It was awesome! But overall, the prices for drafted players were up there and no one will be keeper material because of it. Did you see the prices for catchers? Its a freaking catcher! How can you pay over five bucks at auction for Jesus Montero of the Mariners? He's a two dollar player at best. And then the relief pitchers, well, what the hell was that about? Every year the entire crop of successful relievers from the season before is cut in half and one side sucks while the other manages to be average. Then there is a whole group of unknown guys who manage to be awesome. Why the spending spree? Insanity and it was great!

TODD:

I'm with you on the catcher front. I was perfectly happy waiting and waiting...and waiting for my starting catcher. I ended up nabbing Jonathan Lucroy for a few pennies. Okay, actually it was $4 because someone who already had a catcher bid him up to screw me.

But the relievers was an interesting development. I partook in this insanity of which I normally avoid. Never Pay For Saves: it is the epitome of fantasy baseball advice. Saves come into the league during the season at a higher rate than any other stat. So many closers get hurt/lose their job that paying for an elite closer is almost heresy. And yet I paid for saves...kind of.

When I became aware of the growing trend of the league (i.e. people were saving their money too much and the values later in the draft were going to be expensiveeeee), I realized I too would have too much money left over. If I knew this ahead of time, I would have bid more on the good players. Instead of bidding up replacement-level bats though, I decided to go ahead and pay for five starting closers who were below the elite level but have the job locked down for opening day. Our league allows for three RP slots and two P slots. To me, that means I can start five closers each and every day, so I paid for them. Will two, maybe three of these gentlemen lose their job before the end of June? Perhaps. Will I regret my decision? Almost certainly. Was there a better alternative after I got caught in the midst of the money save? Not that I can see. Should I stop asking myself questions and allow you to ask a few? I suppose.

DAN:

I did my best to spend early on the available big bats while grabbing some pitching along the way. I held off on the relievers because they are nearly impossible to predict. I think May is a good time to snatch up or trade for relievers. Too bad we can't put a hold on their stats until Memorial Day. I'm now going to take this opportunity to "Raise the Roof" for my boy Yu Darvish. I used a keeper on him for a measly $17 and he rewarded me by starting the season with a near Perfect Game, twenty six outs on fourteen strikeouts. No complete game, but I'm not greedy. Go Yu!

The trends really surprised me in our fantasy baseball draft for two reasons. The first is that offseason ratings for baseball players, especially pitchers, is notoriously a poor indication of the upcoming season's success. Last year's stats carry over for mainly the top 15% of guys, the cream of the crop, and a quarter of those are keepers (all numbers approximate). So why spend money on risky business? I guess that's why auctions are so much fun! Bidding up the copper while you snatch some gold for the same price is oh so much fun. Here's hoping you do regret your decision and someone else, ahem, me, finally dethrones you as champion and wins the league.

One final thought on the actual games being played by real life people, how many MLB players do you think are playing fantasy baseball? I know quite a few football players play fantasy football, but this is much easier to accomplish. Fantasy baseball is a completely different game on a whole new level and playing fantasy while competing would be maddening. You definitely can't have yourself on your team. Unlike football, each at bat is so mental and each pitch a grudge match already that adding on the pressure of stat padding for fantasy purposes would crush even the best players. Maybe that's what happened to Tim Lincecum. And could you even have teammates on your fantasy team? You want to win your team's game, but if Player X works a walk instead of getting a hit do you applaud him getting on base or be pissed for lowering your fantasy team's overall statistics? I don't see this ending well.

TODD:

I think zero MLB baseball players play fantasy baseball. That number again, just to be clear, was zero.

I bet a ton of guys play fantasy football though. As you brought up, it seems counterproductive for players to participate in fantasy games involving their own sport. It might also be against league policy. I am not sure where you heard that football players are playing fantasy football, but I find that really hard to believe, no matter the ease of the game. Especially if it is for money, how is that different than gambling on your sport? Pete Rose got banned from baseball for life for essentially owning himself on all his fantasy teams. He never bet against the Reds. But he still bet.

Fantasy sports is more of an outsiders' activity. If athletes play, they play it in sports other than their own, where they would be outsiders.  Now let the games begin!

[Part One of our MLB Mash up]

The Future of Fantasy Continued

The Future of Fantasy Continued
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (1-25-13)

[Part One from Monday]

TODD:

I think FCS (Fantasy Championship Series) is already taken but I am a huge fan of unnecessary acronyms. How about FYF, pronounced like fife, the flute-like instrument.  Full-Year Fantasy.

In answer to your FYF question, you would not have to choose between starting Adrian Peterson and LeBron James. My version of FYF works like this:
- Each sport has a starting lineup and the weeks themselves are irrelevant
- Scoring isn't points based so whatever each player accumulates goes towards a team's total

Do it any other way and owners could skew their rosters depending on the month to win the most weeks, without ever having the best teams. So in your example, if Peterson was starting at running back and LeBron was starting at power forward, you would gain points for whatever stats they gathered. The problems begin when trying to decide how many points each action is worth. Whats the basketball equivalent of rushing for 100 yards and a touchdown or vice versa?

I can see why you think FYF is too big of a hurdle to climb. It would be a huge undertaking to work out all the bugs and problems associated with it, too big for us to do this week.  But SOMEONE will eventually figure it out.  After years of failure, Full-Year Fantasy will be THE. NEXT. BIG. THING.

Your addendum to fantasy football is interesting and it already exists in a way. There are leagues that play fantasy football through the real-life playoffs. Teams can protect some of their players and the rest go in a pool to be redrafted. The key is to select players who not only will perform well, but who also have the best chance of sticking around for multiple rounds of the playoffs. For example, even though Adrian Peterson is a stud, he only lasted one game this post season and his team was the underdog going in. Peterson might not have even been worthy of a top three running back pick because of those parameters.

The week eight injury supplemental draft sounds like a similar plan, only more infuriating. I actually kind of hate it. So someone who drafts amazingly and ends up with the deepest team in the league through sheer will and commitment ends up getting punished in week eight? Am I understanding this correctly?  I'm not quite on board with this idea. Read: this idea is stupid.

DAN:

You completely missed the point of a supplemental draft and its really nothing like a redraft for the playoffs. The injury draft isn't intended to punish the top team who drafted great and through sheer will has the deepest team in the league. That WOULD be stupid. It's intent is to combat the major issue I see with fantasy sports in general. No one wants to trade!

Every person wants to give up their crappy players for someone's good ones. Its taken me a long time to 'figure out' what level of quality is necessary to garner interest from an opposing team for a trade. I'm proud to say I've gotten trades approved in every fantasy sport. However, many have been with you because you actually understand this level of quality and enjoy trading. Most people are boring and think if they stand pat then their roster will eventually come through. Those people lose.

The idea here is to create a midseason. Perhaps its even a buy week so everyone can dial in and reassess their team to see if they have dead weight and what their needs are. Instead of just putting two players into a draft pool, every player is weighed on a one to ten scale of performance. You have to put seven points into the draft for example. And if you select a six or seven in the midseason draft, it comes with caveats assuming no other team got anyone higher than five. If you're in last place, I think you sacrifice five points the following week to grab a top tier player. This allows for a potential mulligan for those teams that go unlucky drafting. Trying to put some skill back into the game is a good thing.

As for FYF, naming a sports competition after a girly musical instrument is dangerous ground. And I completely disagree with the notion of NOT deciding between All Day Adrian Peterson and The King Lebron James. That's the fun part!

FYF works because you HAVE to make that call. And stacking your team wouldn't be possible with the proper position slot restrictions. I love the idea of weighing a 100 yard game versus a 10 assist game. The fact that you are smashing all sports into one is the appeal to me. I'm not saying it will be easy, we agree on that, but its the whole point.

TODD:

There is definitely tons of room for improvement in the fantasy sports landscape. We haven't solved anything here, but perhaps we got the ball rolling. FYF needs a lot of work and since neither of us are the man to do it, we'll play the waiting game.

I have to poke further at this mid season injury draft in fantasy football.  I understand your reasoning; I'm just not sure it is worthy of a game tweak. Part of the fun of fantasy sports is finding out the personalities of the other owners: who will wheel and deal, who is overly attached to certain players; who is an idiot. This goes right along with finding a trade partner. Forcing the dealing with a convoluted mid-season system seems shortsighted.

The same goes for overcoming injuries. It's almost all luck with injuries in fantasy football and finding replacements and jumbling rosters with a mid season draft because a handful of stars get hurt every season does not fix that problem. If your first round pick gets put on IR, I'm not sure an unprotected, middle tier fill-in during week nine is going to make much of a difference.

You didn't completely waste your time though. The point ranking system has real potential. I feel like it might be perfect for the off-season of a keeper league: you get to keep a certain amount of "player points" in whatever combination you want. Knock yourself out and keep one twenty-five point guy (or whatever) or keep three solid starters at eight points a piece. I like that; that has major potential. Of course, it would be hell trying to get everyone to agree on each player's point value. Once that's done, by a governing body or what not, this system has a slight edge over keeping players based on auction pricing alone.  A player evaluation would be more in line with their past season performance rather than their dollar amounts from the previous March, which is often arbitrary a year later.

Fantasy!

[If you missed Part One from Monday]

The Future of Fantasy

 
The Future of Fantasy
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (1-21-13)

DAN:

Bill Simmons has a huge love/hate relationship with fantasy football, but really he's just addicted to the game and hates to lose. We've both agreed that there is a ton of luck involved in fantasy football as opposed to fantasy baseball, but fantasy sports are fantasy sports. You have to get lucky in your draft to do well and you have to hope other people are stupid.

This being said, where do you see fantasy sports going in the next five to ten years? If Simmons had his way, the entire sport of football would revolve around fantasy alone to improve his gambling opportunities. He would probably require Vegas to be involved too. For me, I love the small advancements over the last decade, like free up to the minute stats rather than having to pay for the feature, and projections, analysis, etc. It makes the game more interactive and fun.  Where do we go from here?

TODD:

I agree that the small advancements to fantasy sports have been superb. Step by step, fantasy sports are becoming more popular, more mainstream and, overall, just better. Other than a few more, small improvements, there is really only one place for this to go: Full-Year Fantasy.

I have written about this before and tried to come up with a system myself once upon a time, to no avail, but the product is coming, somehow, someway. Full-year fantasy would be one fantasy league that combines multiple sports and runs through multiple seasons. Depending on which sports you and your friends follow and want to play would determine which to include.

All the players from all those sports would be drafted and accumulate stats in their respective seasons. As the calendar year progressed, each subsequent season would run into the next and only at the very end of the year would a champion be crowned. It is really a fantastic bit of fake management; just imagine being able to trade Adrian Peterson for LeBron James. The possibilities are endless.

Of course, the reason this has not been widely available yet is because there are many problems.  I'll just quickly name four:
(1) when to start the scoring season
(2) when to hold the draft
(3) what scoring system to use
(4) how to distinguish between high count stats (like rushing yards in football) and low count stats (like stolen bases in baseball).

It may take years of awkward failures and unhappy participants but, I think, eventually, full-year fantasy will be the next, big thing.

DAN:

The "idea" of full year fantasy is better than the actual participation in such an endeavor, in my humble opinion. It solves one major issue I have with the current fantasy sports landscape, the overlapping seasons. It's a good thing I'm not a huge basketball fan, because the first several months of fantasy basketball basically don't exist for me since fantasy football is still happening. And come Christmas I feel like I need a break. I play fantasy basketball and enjoy it, but from Christmas until mid March is a fantasy sports breath of freedom that is much needed. Fantasy baseball is just too dynamic.

Year round fantasy, full-year fantasy, or as I like to call it the "FCS" or Fantasy Championship Series, would be amazing and yet completely overwhelming to participate in as fantasy sports currently stands. I propose we hash out something which would actually be fun to play and not just a headache to set a lineup for. Do we have to choose between starting Adrian Peterson in week fifteen or LeBron James for five games in that same week? How do we even divvy up the sports? The one thing that is very, very clear to me are which sports make the cut. Sorry hockey, auto racing and golf, but baseball, football, and basketball are our winners here.

As for fantasy football itself, I think something big is coming. Something that removes arbitrary luck of injury from the game. We all draft bench guys and some leagues let you play with an injured reserve (IR) spot on your roster, but what about an injury draft at the half way point of the season?

Fantasy Football Addendum:
In week eight, the half way point of the season, an injury draft is held. It would have to be on a Wednesday night (mid week) and along the lines of a real life expansion draft. Every team must place at least one player into the draft and nominate one other player from someone else's team. Each team can also mark six guys as safe, untouchable.

The draft lasts two rounds.  It now gives everyone a chance to steal players from a team that got lucky with a super deep bench, or snatch up a guy who was an injury replacement, or grab someone that got hurt early and is coming back. I love this for two reasons:
(1) More auction draft time!
(2) When everyone gangs up on the team in last place to nominate his best player for the draft, said person isn't participating and keeps no one safe, and now we can all bid again to draft the one and only 'All Day' Adrian Peterson.

[Part Two]