This article is part of our Baseball Draft Kit series.
Rotisserie scoring may have been the original fantasy baseball incarnation, but it now takes a backseat to points leagues. Granted, the bulk of information and advice disseminated focuses on rotisserie. The format dominates industry leagues and the high stakes arena. However, with platforms such as ESPN, Yahoo! and CBS included, points scoring encompasses close to half, if not more, of all leagues.
There are a few reasons why fantasy writers, podcasters and radio hosts concentrate almost exclusively on rotisserie.
• The majority were weaned on rotisserie and continue to play it today.
• Those seeking advice and willing to pay for it principally play in rotisserie leagues.
• There isn't a standard roster composition and scoring system in points leagues so there's no one-size-fits-all set of player rankings. Admittedly, this is also true for rotisserie, but with a few exceptions, rankings are more uniform using conventional rotisserie scoring.
• Rotisserie leagues are considered chess while points leagues are checkers. There's a treasure of books and videos on chess compared to a pamphlet on checkers.
While rotisserie strategy is indeed more complex, there are nuances of points leagues overlooked by their participants. This is especially important since the high stakes industry has entered the points leagues space, specifically best ball format.
The perception points leagues are simpler is accurate in the context of determining player expectations as the common denominator for all players is points. There aren't any stolen-base specialists or batting-average sinkholes. Balance between power and speed or ratios and
Rotisserie scoring may have been the original fantasy baseball incarnation, but it now takes a backseat to points leagues. Granted, the bulk of information and advice disseminated focuses on rotisserie. The format dominates industry leagues and the high stakes arena. However, with platforms such as ESPN, Yahoo! and CBS included, points scoring encompasses close to half, if not more, of all leagues.
There are a few reasons why fantasy writers, podcasters and radio hosts concentrate almost exclusively on rotisserie.
• The majority were weaned on rotisserie and continue to play it today.
• Those seeking advice and willing to pay for it principally play in rotisserie leagues.
• There isn't a standard roster composition and scoring system in points leagues so there's no one-size-fits-all set of player rankings. Admittedly, this is also true for rotisserie, but with a few exceptions, rankings are more uniform using conventional rotisserie scoring.
• Rotisserie leagues are considered chess while points leagues are checkers. There's a treasure of books and videos on chess compared to a pamphlet on checkers.
While rotisserie strategy is indeed more complex, there are nuances of points leagues overlooked by their participants. This is especially important since the high stakes industry has entered the points leagues space, specifically best ball format.
The perception points leagues are simpler is accurate in the context of determining player expectations as the common denominator for all players is points. There aren't any stolen-base specialists or batting-average sinkholes. Balance between power and speed or ratios and strikeouts is moot. There's still an equilibrium with hitting and pitching, but it pales in comparison to rotisserie.
The most common mistake made in points leagues is generating a cheat sheet simply using raw points projections, lumping hitters and pitchers together then sorting. Regardless of the scoring system, this is the wrong approach.
Fantasy football enthusiasts know what follows as Value Based Drafting, credited to Joe Bryant, who reportedly brought the concept to fantasy football from his time playing point-based fantasy baseball. It's really nothing more than replacement-level theory, a notion familiar to most fantasy baseball players.
In short, not all points scored are useful. The player projected to score the fewest points on an active roster is worthless. This extends across all positions. It's easier in football since players are eligible at just one spot and the positions are more defined, other than flex. Baseball is more difficult with multiple-eligibility players along with hybrid spots like middle, corner and utility.
The key to successful points league drafting is ranking by useful points, obtained by subtracting the projected points for the worst rostered player at each position from all others eligible at that spot, leaving the lowest ranked player at each position with zero points. Doing so brings the concept of scarcity into the equation. However, just like with standard rotisserie play, the current player pool is such that the only scarce position is catcher in leagues requiring a pair of backstops. The practical application is when doing the useful points adjustment, it's reasonable to segment the hitting inventory into catchers and non-catchers with pitchers comprising the third pool.
While the algebra is straightforward and routinely handled via spreadsheet, there's a major flaw. Identifying the replacement-level player at each position assumes no roster moves all season. Obviously, this isn't the case in just about every league. In theory, points should be projected for each roster spot, not each player. Some players indeed occupy only one spot all season. However, players get hurt and replaced while some roster spots are dedicated to rotating options with more favorable matchups. While it's possible to generate an intricate treatment for this, part of the allure of points leagues is the simplicity. Not to mention, inherent in such a model is everyone in the league follows the same course, which they don't. So, even though it's possible to secure a more accurate representation of the actual difference in potential points between players, it gets tossed out the window when others are drafting players buried down in the rankings. As will be discussed soon, the result isn't drafting the better player, but figuring out how to marry hitting and pitching to optimize overall points potential. In the spirit of keeping things simple, the practical adjustment to useful points is assuming the static player pool then adjusting draft strategy as necessary.
Implied in the need to adjust rankings from raw to useful points is a marked difference between the two. Because there's so many scoring systems, the changes aren't uniform. However, in just about every case, the relative rankings of hitters and pitchers are altered. This is why a precise replacement level isn't needed. Regardless of the replacement, difference of the potential points between players at the same position remains the same. It's the relative ranking between hitters and pitchers that shifts. If everyone was doing the adjustment, the draft would be decided by the more accurate expectations. Since some are using raw rankings, or even gut feel, one position usually towers above the rest on the cheat sheet. The challenge to points league drafting is not overloading on that position early, forcing the picking of much lower ranked players at the other positions earlier than rankings direct.
As a practical example, many times pitchers float to the top of points-league rankings, yielding a conundrum since there are fewer active pitching roster spots. Filling several early reduces the number available later for sleepers or more efficient streaming candidates. The temptation is continuing to select pitching since they're the highest ranked players. The trick is working in some hitters, even though some competitors will benefit from the majority focusing on batters.
Unfortunately, there isn't any hard and fast rule governing this. It's a matter of feel and experience. That said, there's a rule of thumb easing the urge to stick with higher ranked pitching. Player projections aren't accurate. What's the sensible difference between 10, or even 20 points? In many systems, a home run is worth at least six points, one for each total base, one for a run and another for an RBI. With men on base, it could be worth more. A random gust of wind could turn a deep fly out into a dinger. On the pitching side, wins contribute to pitching points. Lack of run support or a bullpen implosion could cost a pitcher a win or two. Suddenly, the hitter scores more points with the pitcher totaling fewer, flip-flopping them. Hence, one way to decide when to eschew the top-ranked pitcher is when the closest ranked hitter is within a reasonable number of points. The problem is, there's no definitive reasonable number. Here's where the experience and feel comes into play. That said, this is the same sixth sense deployed in all formats, it's just applied in different scenarios.
Sticking with the example of pitching commanding the top of the rankings, mixing in a hitter can be justified mathematically. There's usually more than one arm sitting atop the rankings. Chances are, one will still be there at the ensuing turn after picking a hitter. The result is amassing more potential points than persisting to take pitching as long as they remain ranked at the top. The difference in points between the higher-ranked batters and those finally taken later is greater than the points lost via bypassing pitching on a few occasions. It's a net positive. It won't be long before others take pitching and the rankings are more representative of the flow for the remainder of the draft.
In season, it's strictly about points. Be it trades, streaming from reserve or free agent/waiver pickups, net points are all that matter. One position is no longer "more valuable" than another. There's no need to improve a weak infield by trading from a strong outfield just as it doesn't matter if hitting or pitching is more productive than the
other. Switch the focus from useful to adjusted points. The conversion was a ranking exercise to stock the roster with as many potential points as possible. All moves are simply comparing the raw points potential of the new player(s) versus the old ones. Once
the season has commenced, a point from a catcher is equal to one from a non-catcher which is the same as one from a pitcher.
There's another major reason to avoid overstocking a specific position early. Depending on league rules, specifically the frequency of moves and the number of reserves, it's optimal to dedicate some roster spots to the streaming described as skewing replacement. This is utilized mostly with pitchers, but in deep, or daily leagues, it's relevant with hitters as well.
With respect to drafting late and reserve round pitchers, National Leaguers are preferred. The American League East should be avoided but if there aren't any National League hurlers left, the American League Central still profiles as a strong spot to target with streamers. Pitchers with good pitching venues for their home park are a big plus. In season, it's more than streaming against weak offenses, especially facing that handedness. Home games are always favored. Depending on the scoring, high strikeout arms often accrue more points than those less dominant. Along those lines, streaming against teams with
high strikeout rates can be a sneaky avenue for points.
Draft bats with position flexibility. Home games are best. Hitters in favorable home run venues are ideal. Remember, not all hitters' parks also boost homers. In a one-off scenario, manage for the homer since they rack up more points with one event, the ball leaving the yard. Having a few lefty swingers to choose increases the odds of one enjoying a platoon edge.
Earlier, best ball formats were mentioned. Here, there isn't any roster managing from active to reserve, only FAAB or waiver claims, if allowed. For example, Fantrax's best ball leagues are draft and hold while the National Fantasy Baseball Championship's Cutline Contest schedules two FAAB periods. Players contributing to the scoring each week are those producing the maximum total from a legal lineup. The platform does all the work. To assure each team has ample players to constitute a legal lineup, rosters are extended.
Most of the strategies for conventional points leagues transcend best ball with a few exceptions. Determining useful points is of course paramount. The same finesse is necessary when balancing hitting and pitching, contextual to the league. The same principles discussed above for streaming and spot-starting apply to best ball leagues. The ploy intrinsic to best ball leagues relate to much deeper reserves. It's practical to attack a position or two with quantity over quality, expecting someone from that position to have a solid week. While the season isn't over, when a stud bat gets hurt, there likely will be a consequential loss of production. Backups at that spot are necessary but less attention can go there, freeing up darts for the positions with a weaker base. As opposed to conventional points leagues where there isn't a chief reason to be partial to starters or relievers, closers are beneficial in best ball since saves often come in bunches so a closer can really boost a weekly total. Having multiple increases the chance one notches multiple saves in a scoring period. Lesser quality closers work fine since the points for a save usually overpower lost points from allowing a run or baserunner.
Points leagues involve less work than rotisserie leagues. For some, that's desirable. However, they do present a challenge. With a little extra effort generating a cheat sheet using useful points and taking advantage of early draft flow followed by sage in-season management, the thrill of victory is as satisfying as any other format.
This article appears in the 2019 RotoWire Fantasy Baseball Guide. You can order a copy here.
