The Z Files: Winning Tendencies, Part Three

Welcome to the third part of Winning Tendencies, an in-depth look at the 2019 National Fantasy Baseball Championship's Main Event contest, with an eye towards observations and strategies applicable to general rotisserie formats. This installment focuses on a few specific aspects of roster construction, breaking down how teams approached pitchers, catchers and multiple eligibility players.

By means of review, the 2019 NFBC Main Event consisted of 38 individual 15-team leagues, each crowning a champion. All 570 clubs were then lumped together in the overall to determine the Overall Winner.

Much of the data will be presented an average of each standings place. In addition, the majority of the forthcoming research involves the level of draft capital invested in each area. This is quantified via the table presented in last week's Winning Tendencies, Part Two where each draft spot is assigned expected earning based on historical data, borrowing results from conventional $260 budget per team auction pricing.

PITCHERS

If you play or follow the NFBC, it's no secret the pitching market is aggressive, probably ahead of most home leagues and certainly more so than standalone industry leagues, although the latter is catching up. The NFBC has unique rules, most notably being devoid of trading, which funnels a higher percentage of assets towards the mound.

To lay the groundwork, let's determine the percentage of draft capital teams dedicated to hitting. Keep in mind this is solely representative of the Opening Day lineups. Obviously, how a team manages their pitching shapes their success, but this study avails a look at the initial foundation. Also, due to the nature of expected earnings, the delta between players is non-linear, especially in the first round. This results in the first few draft spots having a little more than $260 worth of draft capital, a figure that dips below $260 in the middle slots before returning to $260 by the end of the round.

Furthermore, earnings expectations are defined by a designated hitting to pitching split. In an auction, this is set by actual purchase prices. In a draft, it's relative to the designated split. The soon-to-be-presented split isn't important. What matters is the portion each team spends on pitching relative to the others.

With that as a backdrop, here's the percentage of draft capital, on average, each standings finish spent on pitching:

It should be noted the earnings expectations was determined using a 69/31 hitting to pitching split, standard for most 5x5 rotisserie auctions. Ergo, what this table says is most teams spent about $100 on pitching based on 69/31 pricing. For what it's worth, this is consistent with the typical pricing in the NFBC Auction Championship where the split is conventionally 68/32.

Unfortunately, there isn't anything to be gleaned from this data. That is, the top placing teams didn't approach pitching in a distinctive matter, at least not in the overall sense. Hopefully, looking at pitching in a more granular manner will prove more fruitful.

STARTING PITCHERS

Let's divide pitching into starters and closers and research at what point in the draft teams invested. For this purpose, the 23-round draft with be divided into four parts: Rounds 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 and 16-23.

Here's the draft capital the average standings finish spent on starters:

In the aggregate, league champions not only invested heavy in pitching, they started early. On average, league winners spent about three-quarters of their pitching budget by Round 10. This isn't to say they didn't draft wisely in the later rounds, but in terms of volume, the champs were aggressive. This isn't a revelation as the NFBC is a monkey-see, monkey-do contest. The main reason so many spend early on pitching is it's a winning strategy.

While there is a discernible difference in what winners spent in terms of draft capital, it isn't that much more than everyone else, suggesting they generated more profit from their picks. Again, not unexpected since they won.

CLOSERS

Here's the same data for closers:

This is more interesting as almost universally, league winners faded closers in the first five rounds. In fact, only five of 38 champs selected a closer early, expending a late fourth or fifth rounder to secure saves. Further, winners invested the least amount of capital on closers, compared to the 14 teams below them in the standings. While this is another example of data supporting intuition, seeing the results laid out in this manner should really make you think twice when considering picking a top-ranked closer.

Earlier, it was suggested some trends are unique to the player pool and specific format. This will be put to the test this season as the landscape is different. The current conventional wisdom is to nail down one of the top saves specialists, since the opportunities to land a closer in free agency is reduced, plus many feel leashes will be shorter so grabbing a less risky arm and not worrying about the category appeals to them. It will be very intriguing to see how this plays out. Personally, while I understand that line of thinking, and the 2020 dynamics are obviously different, the data is too convincing. My lean is to still prioritize starting pitching over closers in a mixed league.

THE TOP 100 OVERALL

The aggregate data strongly suggests the best road map involves hammering starting pitchers early. Let's hone in on what the top 100 overall teams did in terms of drafting pitching. Here's a team-by-team review of the first five hurlers drafted by the top 100. The team designation is the League number followed by the finish within the league. The players include the round and pick within the round.

Here's a breakdown of the different combinations:

In what could be the most telling piece of information in this section, the following table shows the round each team drafted their first starting pitcher:

Since there are 100 teams, the number of teams doubles as the percentage of teams drafting an arm in that round. Two-thirds of all teams is eye-opening. Now the data for the 38 league winners:

Now, almost three-quarters of the champions rostered a starting pitcher in their first two picks, and all of them had one by the conclusion of Round 4.

On the surface, this may seem to contradict the approach I've preached the last couple of seasons, but it actually shows support. My dictum has been not to force pitching early. Please note, I'm not saying categorically avoid pitching, there's a difference. Obviously, taking at least one arm in the first two rounds is a winning strategy as 74 percent of champions did just that. However, 26 percent did not. What I'm saying is don't force a lesser pitcher into the second round just to make sure you exit with at least one arm. After all, based on ADP, 10 pitchers were taken in the first two rounds. Even if a squad or two doubled up, between seven and nine teams drafting a pitcher in the first two rounds in every league did not win. Your team, your call, but what this tells me is Plan A is selecting a pitcher in the first two rounds, so long as he warrants that draft spot. Plan B is waiting until the third or fourth and not forcing an unworthy into the second. In my mind, too many follow

Plan A: Draft a pitcher in the first two rounds

Plan B: If there isn't someone qualified available, see Plan A

OK, back to data…

Top-100 PITCHING SHARES

Below is a table displaying the number of times each pitcher was among the first five pitchers taken by a top-100 squad, along with the ADP:

Looking at the starters, it's interesting to note while most teams struck early, three of the most universally drafted hurlers were picked in the eighth round or later, suggesting there's more to building a winning staff than securing an elite arm.

As interesting as that is, the takeaways on the closer side is eye-popping. Keep in mind, much of the discussion herein revolves around draft strategy and not how the players performed. However, check out the most-represented closers. Davis was an unmitigated disaster, while Hicks was effective, but for only half a season. Hence, not only did competitive teams often wait on closers, they recovered from under-performing selections, further driving home the credo to wait on saves.

CATCHERS

It's time to turn our attention to the other side of the battery. Positional scarcity, relative to the number of draft-worthy players available, doesn't exist in today's environment except behind the plate. The quality and quantity of the catching inventory is miserable. As such, scheming an approach is necessary. What follows is how the average team at each standings finish broached that conundrum in terms of draft capital, based on the $260 allotment discussed previously. The data is segregated into early rounds (1st to 8th), middle (9th to 16th) and late (17th on).

Now the number of receivers chosen in each portion of the draft:

While it may appear there's nothing to be gleaned from this table as there isn't a definitive trend, that in itself is a lesson. There isn't a better or worse way to approach the position. Success was found drafting early, middle and late.

Curiously, the bottom dwellers invested more assets in the middle rounds than those at the top of the standings. This is likely due to so many catchers excelling from late picks. Some examples are Omar Narvaez (ADP 298), Mitch Garver (404), Carson Kelly (421), Christian Vazquez (478) and Roberto Perez, who went undrafted.

The composition of the 2020 catcher inventory is perceived to be different than last season, so the drafting approach could be adjusted. Specifically, many view J.T. Realmuto as having a bigger gap between himself the next highest-ranked backstop than can be found further down the rankings. The advantage of this drop-off varies by format, but the consensus is if you want to pay up for a receiver, it's Realmuto or no one else.

Last season, an average of 2.6 catchers were drafted in the first eight rounds. The March ADP for catchers in 15-team leagues (most of the Draft Championship variety) shows three backstops with an ADP in the first eight rounds: Realmuto (53), Gary Sanchez (96) and Yasmani Grandal (111). Garver and Willson Contreras land in the ninth round. Given the above, the best approach may be to try and snag Grandal, Garver or Contreras in Round 9.

MULTIPLE ELIGIBLITY PLAYERS

Conventional wisdom suggests MEPs (multiple eligibility players) are integral to a championship lineup, as they provide roster flexibility so the best reserve or free agent can replace an injured or under-performing player. What follows is the draft capital each standings finish directed to MEPs along with the number of MEPs drafted, divided into early, middle and late.

Here's a fine example of why it's best to run the numbers and not rely on intuition. The top teams failed to chase MEPs while the lower squads made a point of populating their rosters with flexibility. Perhaps this should have been obvious, but now it makes sense. The utility of a MEP is format dependent. I'll stick to my gut and contend they're crucial in the Draft and Hold format. However, the Main Event has a seven-man reserve with no injured list. As such, each competitor must house hurt players, prospects, speculative closers and spot starters to be deployed in favorable matchups, leaving precious few spots to fortify a lineup with a bat. That reduces the optimization effect of MEPs. To put it another way, you don't make up the stats left on the table when jumping a MEP over a better player. Sure, break a tie with Alex Bregman or Cody Bellinger, but don't leapfrog Kris Bryant over a more productive hitter just to gain his dual position eligibility. Maybe later, when the opportunity cost is lessened, it could be profitable to target Eduardo Escobar or Tommy Edman, but don't prioritize loading up on MEPs, at least not in formats with limited or restricted reserves. In draft and hold, or leagues with daily moves, they remain integral.

SUMMARY

• Drafting starting pitching early in the NFBC remains a strong play, though there are alternate pathways to success so while suggested, it isn't obligatory. The approach in your home leagues may differ, especially when trading is allowed.
• This season's impending quirky schedule notwithstanding, successful squads didn't worry about saves.
• While there isn't a best approach for catchers, don't be reticent to pay up if the opportunity is there.
• While multiple eligibility players are useful, the extent they help add stats to your roster depends on the composition and depth of your reserve list.

Next up: Winning Players