Traditional Categories, Fantasy, Reality
I am not a fantasy expert. In fact, I’m pretty lousy at fantasy (as my various league-mates can attest), and the more I learn about “real” baseball the worse I get at fantasy. I’m not here to give fantasy advice (ahem), or tell people how it should be played (I participate and enjoy different kinds of leagues). I’m not even here to defend fantasy baseball (Carson already did). This isn’t even really a “fantasy” column. I simply want to suggest that traditional 5×5 (W, K, ERA, WHIP, S; BA, R, RBI, HR, SB) fantasy categories aren’t as retrograde as one might think, and in fact, may be in one sense more “realistic” than more recent fantasy scoring methods.
How can a writer for FanGraphs, of all places, be serious about traditional fantasy categories being more “realistic” than, say, ERA? This site doesn’t even use that to value pitchers! Steals on the same scale as home runs? Runs and RBI? Batting Average? Pitcher Wins? Even [terrible GM du jour] doesn’t care about those! Well, get ready to squeeze those mind grapes.
What I’m calling the “realism” of traditional categories isn’t come based their being “analytically correct.” In fact, I think it comes from the exact opposite, from their relative arbitrariness (for lack of a better word). While here at FanGraphs we talk about teams “buying wins” on the market, the teams, of course, aren’t literally buying wins, but players who can help them win [insert Royals/Astros/Mets joke here]. This is best done not by looking at how many “runs” a hitter might score or drive in, or projecting how many “wins” a pitcher will get, of course. Smart front offices will look at projected linear weights runs above/below average, or runs saved above/below average using some sort of defense-independent stat like FIP, tRA, or some kind of component ERA.
While these are superior methods ways to judge how many runs a team will likely score and allow and thus how many games they will probably win, we also know that they aren’t a “perfect fit” to actual baseball games. We know, that the team runs scored column is (almost) never identical to their wRC, or (non-calibrated) BaseRuns. Sometimes terrible hitters like Jose Guillen and Tony Batista rack up lots of RBI. Sometimes Scott Feldman wins more games than Zack Greinke. That doesn’t mean that teams should be going after Jose Guillen,* or trading Zack Greinke for Scott Feldman. This is the reality of the “looseness of fit” between our analysis of the game and the way actual games turn out.
* Wait, I’m a Royals fan. I meant to say, “Jose Guillen is due for a classic age-34 ‘breakout,’ and teams would be foolish not to look into taking on half his salary off of the Royals’ hands.”
Yes, part of this is adjusting projections for a fantasy context, e.g., how many runs will this high-OBP guy get score now that he’s in a better lineup, or how many games will Roy Halladay win now that he’s in the best team in an easier division. But I’m primarily (and obliquely) addressing something different — a conceptual gap. In real baseball, there’s a gap between how many runs a team “should” score and allow according to linear weights (or whatever), and how many they do. In more advanced fantasy leagues using say, linear weights, that gap isn’t present. I’m sure baseball GMs (the smart ones with good teams, anyway) would love baseball to be that way, so they wouldn’t be subject to those random variations. But reality has a way of evading our conceptual grasp. In this way, the experience of traditional (rather than “sabermetric”) fantasy more realistically reflects the experience of baseball reality.
Matt Klaassen reads and writes obituaries in the Greater Toronto Area. If you can't get enough of him, follow him on Twitter.
armis?
Vi et armis is an archaic Latin legal phrase which means “with force and arms.” In other words, it means that the subject was taken by force or was under arrest. —- taken from Wikipedia.
heh… see my post that is (as I type this) at the end of the comment thread. Mostly, I’m an idiot. Um, I mean, yeah, taken by force.
I was more ready to believe that you would unearth archaic latin legal terms and force us to learn them by using them repeatedly.
I agree entirely! Whereas actual runs aren’t good estimators of future success, they do cause real success or failure. Great post!
I agree, this is an excellent post. I’m not really a fan of fantasy sports for many reasons, but I was goaded by friends who don’t understand why I love baseball so much but don’t enjoy fantasy to join their fantasy league. The season obviously hasn’t started yet, but I can easily see how learning more about baseball makes you worse at fantasy. Also, I look at my fantasy team and see a team that if it were a real team I would love to build around to start a franchise. I also see that a team whose best offensive player is Mark Reynolds will likely finish last in my fantasy league and thus give me a reason to never play again. lol
armis, yeah, I was wondering about the armis.
see my comment below re “armis”
Based on the context, I think “armis” is supposed to read as “aren’t”.
I agree–the question is, why?
Sticky fingers lead to sticky keys.
I think there is even more to that. It’s easier to project the sabremetric stats since they are more repeatable – that’s why they are more valid measures of a player’s talent. The traditional stats are more dependent on the team – especially RBI’s and pitching wins. So it is more interesting for the fantasy player because more research is involved. It’s easier to list the top 50 pitchers talentwise than win-wise. Do you want Zach Grienke on the Royals? Or do you want the Yankees fourth starter? These are more interesting questions than who is better.
It’s even more obvious in football. Do you want Dwight Clark for your tight end this week if Peyton Manning is injured? If the Colts are playing a good defense as opposed to a poor one? These decisions are much more fun when you look at them in context instead of just “who’s the better player.”
nostalgic 49ers fan? 🙂
I don’t care if the Colts are playing the worst defense vs. TEs, Peyton Manning is healthy, and he’s averaging 6 TDs a game to his TE. I still don’t want Dwight Clark at TE, unless we’re turning the clock back and Joe Montana is starting at QB. Now Dallas Clark on the other hand…
Oops. 🙂
I think that was the biggest reason we switched to a point based system where actions provide value based off their effect on the game rather than limiting it to a category. So for example a single is 4 points, double is 5, triple is 8, HR is 10, walks are 2, RBI is 3, runs are 2, steals are 2, strikeout -1, etc. So a solo HR is 15 points of value, but doesn’t actually hit 3 categories.
Players who hit for a high average with a low ISO aren’t at a huge disadvantage, but obviously the player with higher ISO will drive in more runs and thus score more points, slightly offset by the player with a higher average who will probably get more runs. We have points for fielding but it’s not nearly as effective as UZR or some other metric would be.
Pitching fairly balanced as well, IP is 6 (so each out is 2 points), SO 2, ER -2, H -1, BB -.5, etc. Again it’s based off value, so even though pitchers with a crappy team or crappy run support (IE Greinke), a lot of his value is based off his actual contributions. While I think it would be better using FIP (IE subtracting more for HR, currently a HR is -1 for the H, -.5 for the HR, -2 for the ER) this is a fairly balanced method. Wins are 10, loses are -5, so while it is beneficial to have players who get more wins they aren’t entirely behind. Greinke had the highest total points for a pitcher last year in my league, followed by Lincecum and Verlander.
Wow that became a rant, but for the most part I like it simply because it’s better than categories, where OBP is actually useful to some extent. Really from learning more about baseball I think I’m becoming better at fantasy… maybe. But it’s all fun and something to try to apply saber to. And I can pull off better trades by not applying ERA 😉
Oh yeah, of course I totally agree on the “real” baseball level, and I’m in some leagues that are “advanced” as well (indeed, last year, I was in a “FanGraph WAR” league). But I think the noinfrequent “gap” in traditional between who is actually the better player “for real” and what will actually win you the league is intriguing.
I was hoping to use something like WAR or FIP in my league, sadly it just doesn’t work… plus I don’t know any of the more popular fantasy sites that track those stats =(
(and I bet half my league don’t even know what those are!)
I think if you look around, you can find them. Have you tried Beyond the Box Score?
Not yet, I’m in enough leagues for now I think… maybe someday I’ll be able to try it out. Thanks for the tip =)
My league seems to do pretty well. Here’s hoping to it catches on! Thank you Tom Tango for unlocking my brain, and giving me the tools to make fantasy baseball based on runs scored vs run prevented, in a points sense.
Hey, do watcha want. Obviously, I write here, so I for “real” baseball analysis, I use the good stats. And I’m in fantasy leagues that are more “advanced.” I’ not objecting to them. I’m simply trying to point out one area in which traditional fantasy categories might have something “on” the others. To each his or her own.
I total understand it completely. I used to love collecting RBIs and SBs as well.
Re “armis:”
They should all be “aren’t,” but something weird my spellchecker did in the word processor program I drafted this in. I was some weird “replace all” thing, I think. Didn’t notice it until I already had it in the WordPress editor, and I thought I changed it, although I was also having connection issues at the time, so it obviously didn’t save… going in and changing it now.
Fixed
As someone who is doing fantasy analysis for the first time since being introduced to sabermetrics many months ago, I sympathize and generally agree with Matt’s points. I’ve found fantasy much more challenging and at the same time rewarding now that I know the inner workings of baseball and don’t rely on last year’s stats to do my drafts. With any luck, I’ll unfortunately get hooked on it and never leave my mother’s basement.
I like the thinking here. I mean, the idea of considering that what we all assume might not in fact be the best thing out there. Or most fun, or whatever.
But I have to say, I disagree. So WRA and WARP and what not aren’t perfect indicators of what a guy will actually do on the field. Neither are Wins, average, steals, etc. And you could easily make the case that wins, AVG, steals, etc. are way more arbitrary. At least using more advances metrics (or a points based system to simulate advanced ideas) you can agree with the logic behind why you’re getting screwed when a guy’s on field production doesn’t match up with what you expect.
To me standard fantasy stats have the same pitfalls that advanced ones do, but at least there’s more of a correlation behind the advanced ones and more logic behind them as well. Right? Isn’t that just inherently better?
What I DO agree with is that learning more about advanced metrics makes you worse at understanding and using standard ones. Agree 100%. It’s hard to re-train your brain back to where it came from before you started getting more in depth.
I think my point got lost due to my own unclear writing.
What I’m celebrating about the traditional stats is their very imperfections, which presents a challenge to the smart GM to bridge the gap between what advanced stats indicate more accurately and what will actually happen “on the field,” as it were.
This assumes that the traditional stats are more indicitive of what happens “on the field”, no?
I don’t agree with the premise that learning about SABR-y stats makes one somehow worse at the fantasy game. I don’t think it necessarily makes you better, either. I don’t really see much if any correlation between the two (or more importantly, causality).
For fantasy success, its all about finding undervalued assets (both during the draft, through free agent acquisitions, trading, etc etc) in the scoring categories that your particular league uses. In that regard, it’s not unlike the central tenet of Moneyball. Learning more about xFIP or WRAA shouldn’t preclude that.
They’re different animals, definitely. I think what makes it harder is for most SABR-y type people traditional leagues make you value stats that you don’t value. So you don’t want to put the time into researching them because you just don’t care.
It’s not harder per se, in an inherent sense, it’s just more of a challenge because human nature makes you give less of a crap about the traditional stats and you’re much less likely to invest time into doing your homework. That’s my personal experience, at least. Maybe it’s just that I’m lazy.
Thanks for your matter at hand! The security of our highways is a significant issue that is handled by appropriate driver training. If it is agreeable, please see the points I have added on BNSM, http://www.bnsm.eu.