Blake Murphy Sports Writing

Title: Risk-Seeking Behavior at the Fantasy Season Mid-Point
Date: July 22, 2009
Original Source: The On Deck Circle
Synopsis: This piece took a look at why risk-seeking behavior should only really exist for middle-of-the-pack teams in fantasy baseball leagues at the mid-way point of the year, because top teams will be risk averse and bottom teams will look to build for the future (or stop paying attention in a redraft league).

What I’ve noticed is that fantasy leagues generally take on a much different tone in the second half of the season. Regardless of the fact that there is very little difference between 51% of games left to play and 49% of games left to play, the All-Star Break (or “halfway point”) tends to mark a shift in focus for a lot of teams.

This can be unfortunate in non-keeper leagues, as weaker managers may just drop off from league activity (or worse, make senseless trades for no real reason). In keeper leagues, all owners have a reason to stay active, but the misalignment of manager incentives can create tough situations for those battling at the top.

For example, the teams at the bottom have incentives pointing them towards acquiring younger or cheaper (if you play in a budget/$-value league) players, which can afford higher ranked teams effective talent at short-term discounted prices.

Maybe more importantly, teams in the middle of the pack seem to take on a high-risk, high-reward approach for the second half, knowing they’ll have to do extremely well to make up a few spots. This risk-seeking behavior can actually help the higher ranked teams by providing them with useful low-risk solutions for the second half. But for higher-ranked teams looking to hold a lead, the need to take on risk is much less apparent.

To illustrate my example, I want to run through a trade I was recently offered. The fifth-placed team in my 10-team league is 14.5 points back of the leader, me, but well up on the sixth-placed team (this is a 5×5 Roto League, standard except OBP is used in place of BAA). Obviously, this person at this point is less risk-averse than myself – after all, sitting in first place with a comfortable position in most categories doesn’t exactly inspire me to shake things up. So when I was offered a two pitcher-for-two pitcher trade by a team battling me for ERA, Saves, WHIP, and strikeouts, I was cautious to say the least.

I would acquire Dan Haren and Yovani Gallardo for Zack Greinke and Cole Hamels (who I have just acquired for xFIP-disaster waiting to happen Nick Blackburn and K-less Derek Lowe). Below is a chart comparing their performances on some standard and peripheral metrics.

From this, the trade is a toss up. Haren and Gallardo have better surface numbers as a pair. However, looking at peripheral numbers, it is obvious that Gallardo is due for a bit of a slide, Hamels is due for an improvement, and Haren and Greinke are essentially too close to call moving forward. The problem here is that FIP and xFIP disagree on Greinke significantly because of his low HR/FB rate – whether or not he can keep that down will have a large impact on his second-half success.

In terms of counting stats, wins are difficult to predict but a slight edge goes to Greinke/Hamels. Though Haren/Gallardo have slightly better rates, strikeouts will depend largely on innings, which I would assume going forward Greinke/Hamels would receive more of, mostly because Gallardo’s workload may be under the microscope towards the end of the year (note that Fangraphs’ updated ZiPS projections confirm this). Really, the counting stats are difficult to predict, but if we assume a wash in strikeouts and wins, and note the similar xFIPs going in both directions, the trade seems very even.

Clearly, this fifth-placed team is crossing his fingers either that Hamels/Greinke will be better than Haren/Gallardo or his research on these four has shown him something different than mine has. However, as a first place team doing well in pitching categories, there is little incentive here for me to make the move – Gallardo is due for a decline, Hamels for an improvement, and Greinke/Haren are basically too close to prefer one over the other. I declined the trade, citing my risk aversion – the risk here is in Gallardo/Hamels, and I am more confident in Hamel’s second half prospects than Gallardo’s.

While this explanation is more drawn out than is necessary for the message of this article, I think it does a good job illustrating my point – at this point in the fantasy season, it is not enough to just look at your side of the trade. While this trade is probably a fair one, I’m in first place – why would I risk giving someone chasing me in pitching categories an edge?

Leave the risk-seeking for those with ground to make up, and take a second to think about your opponent’s incentives when offered a trade. And if you’re in my league and you’re reading this…enjoy looking up at me!

Resources: The Hardball Times, Fangraphs

—
Oh, and I’m also on Twitter, though I’m inclined to follow that sentence with ‘sadly.’ You can follow me here.