Predict The Future! (Or…At Least Know What’s Next)
I was just reading an article about Jason Kidd.
Oh. What’s that? You’re playing MLB DFS? This is an MLB DFS article? You have no idea who Jason Kidd is? (“Um, no. I know who Jason Kidd is – I just don’t want to hear about him right now! I want to hear about baseball. Duh.” I get that! – give me just a moment, though, and you’ll see what I’m doing here.)
Jason Kidd was a 10-time NBA All Star point guard, and he is now the head coach of the Milwaukee Bucks. The article I read was on ESPN, and it talked about Jason Kidd’s mid-season trade for Michael Carter-Williams.
Michael Carter-Williams (“MCW”) is a point guard who won Rookie of the Year last year, but who seemed to take a major step back in his second season. The Bucks (who had come into the season as a team everyone expected to miss the playoffs by miles) were surprisingly high in the playoff standings when they made the trade for MCW. They already had a great young point guard: Brandon Knight. They traded away Brandon Knight as part of the deal.
After that trade happened, the Bucks seemed to fall apart. They went 11-18 the rest of the regular season, just barely scraping their way into the playoffs. As I type this, they’re down three games to one in the first round against the Bulls, and by the time you read this, they may very well be eliminated.
Plenty of people have criticized Kidd and the Bucks for the trade. They could have been the five seed (or even the four seed!) in the playoffs, no question, and had a better shot at reaching the second round! Instead, they fell to the 6 seed (and nearly fell farther!). Why would Kidd have traded for a raw player with so many more holes in his game than the guy he already had? Why would he have messed with a team that had a good shot at reaching the second round?
Why? Presumably, the answer to the question is simple: Kidd was less interested in “making it to the second round” this year, and was more interested in working toward a championship in the future. Right now, MCW is a worse overall player and point guard than the guy the Bucks traded, Brandon Knight. But Kidd surely believes that, in the future, MCW has a much higher ceiling.
This was the basis of the article I was just reading. It talked about how Kidd made a career off of seeing things others did not see; that was how he made the passes he made and opened up his offenses the way he did. That was how he made the playoffs 17 consecutive seasons as a player, and how he has now made the playoffs his first two years as a coach.
More than likely, he did not trade for MCW because he wanted to move an extra round or two deeper into the playoffs this year; instead, he probably traded for him because he sees that MCW has the potential to make his team better in the future. He sees what’s next, and this is what he is focused on.
Bill Belichick is the same way. (Not that I need an excuse, as a lifelong Patriots fan, to inject Bill Belichick into any conversation. But, there you have it. There he is.) When Belichick drafted both Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez, everyone around the league speculated that he did so to create a sort of safety net for the team, given Gronk’s back issues and Hernandez’ character concerns (hmmmm). Very few people anticipated that Belichick drafted these guys with the intention of using them both at the same time and creating massive mismatches with opponents.
By the time Hernandez was hauled away (which, can we pause for a second to say just how crazy that whole thing is? – I mean, sheesh!), a large chunk of the rest of the league was trying to build their own “two tight end” offenses to create mismatches as well. The talk then shifted to, “What are the Patriots going to do? How are they going to replace Hernandez?” I’m sure that was never the question Belichick asked, though. Instead, he probably asked something more along the lines of, “How can we adapt?”
Look at the Patriots offense over the years, and you will realize it’s always changing based on their personnel, their strengths, and their weaknesses. Same thing with the Patriots defense. It’s not, “We have Revis, but we run a cover 2 and he’ll have to fit into our system” (sorry, Bucs fans!), but instead, it’s: “We have this cornerback who can shut down the other team’s best receiver; how can we adjust our defensive game plan to maximize the impact we get from this guy’s talent?” It’s an approach to thinking that is always one step ahead. It’s an approach to thinking that sees what’s next.
One final story, then we’ll tie a nice bow around all of this and move on. This story has to do with me, and with a guy we all know as Trent “bleeping” Richardson.
Two years ago, before I discovered the beautiful game of daily fantasy sports, a buddy and I launched a fantasy football site with the following concept: We would watch film of every game, and would provide our subscribers with a breakdown of all fantasy-relevant players based on our film study.
During the year when we were running this site, the Browns traded Trent Richardson to the Colts. I just went back and read the comments on the ESPN article announcing the trade (this is not the first time I have done this; those comments are always a treat to read!), and here is just a sample of the comments at the bottom of that article:
(572 thumbs up) – The browns are clearly dumping salary in hopes that LaBron James will return next season…
(206 thumbs up) – Cleveland took one look at Jacksonville and said “If we want the #1 pick, we have to get even worse. Let’s start Hoyer and trade Richardson.” Look for Jacksonville to respond by picking up Tebow. It’s on, now.
(105 thumbs up) – If you look real hard, you can see how this trade will benefit the Browns in a lot of ways……Nah just kidding, this is one of the stupidest trades I’ve ever seen!
(This one was a response to that comment; in retrospect, it’s quite funny…) – Actually, if they play worse enough this season, they’ll have the #1 pick and Johnny Manziel. Just like the Colts picked up Andrew Luck after having one of the worst season. Long-term, great move for the organization to take a chance on a potential franchise quarterback.
(68 thumbs up) – I don’t think I coulda pulled this trade off on Madden.
(Response to that one) – just tried and got rejected.
That was the general public consensus at the time of the trade. Now, of course – a year and a half later – everyone thinks the Colts made a really poor move. But at the time, we all thought Trent Richardson was awesome.
Then, I watched film of Richardson’s first game with the Colts. It was a disappointing showing, and most analysts talked about how he looked hesitant in hitting the hole, but they assured readers and viewers that Richardson remained a great “buy” target in fantasy leagues, as he would quickly settle in with his new offense, and his talent combined with that offense would lead to a monster season.
But you know what I wrote in my writeup after watching film of that game? I wrote that Richardson looked slow. No qualifying statements needed. Not “slow to make a decision,” or “hesitant.” No. He looked slow. Holes opened in front of him, and they closed before he could get there.
I went back. I watched film of some of his games with the Browns. I realized: Oh, it’s not that the Browns blocking sucks. It’s that Trent Richardson sucks. And this is what I told readers (uh…the few readers we had) in my writeup of Trent Richardson that week. I told them to sell now while there was still a market. Trent Richardson, it turned out, was not a very good NFL running back.
But here’s the crazy thing (and here’s how all this ties in together!): There is absolutely no way I am better at film study than some of the experts who were talking about what a great buy-low target Richardson was in season-long fantasy. I was a film rat when I played football in high school, and I helped coach football for a few years after high school (with my main contributions being Saturday morning film study with the coaches, and acting as “that guy in the booth with the headsets” on Friday nights). That’s a decent foundation for studying film, but it’s downright kindergartenish compared to what some of these writers and guys on television had. So it certainly was not that I “saw something others didn’t see.” Instead, it was simply that I was willing to see something others were not willing to see.
And that, my friend, is what daily fantasy sports is largely about.
We often don’t realize it, but there are so many narratives we tend to follow and pay attention to, and if others adjust away from these narratives and preconceived notions before we do, they gain an edge on us while we fall behind.
Of course, in sports other than baseball, identifying and getting rid of preconceived notions is a bit more difficult than it is in MLB, as those sports often require something such as my Trent Richardson moment: actually seeing something with the eye, and being willing to acknowledge what the eye is trying to tell you.
With baseball, however, the entire sport is statistics-driven. And almost all of your DFS decisions should be statistics-driven. And this means that statistics can lead us away from the preconceived notions we (and others) have, and can instead guide us toward an edge on the field through profitable, +EV decisions.
People sometimes ask me how I came to the decision to use certain players on my rosters. One decision recently that led people to ask me this was when, in cash games, I rostered Clint Barmes batting 8th at Coors Field, when I could have instead used Jimmy Rollins batting 1st at AT&T Park. The simple answer? I looked at the numbers and took out my knowledge of what the ownership discrepancy would be, and took out my knowledge of which was perceived to be the better play. I took out the names, even. I just looked at the numbers, and how everything lined up. Looking at the numbers alone, I felt Barmes was the preferred play (Rollins had zero hits and a walk that day at high ownership; Barmes had a home run and a walk).
The same thing occurred this last Friday, when I rostered David Freese in cash games even though I knew most of the field would be on Josh Donaldson that day. The numbers told me Freese was the better play, so I threw away my preconceived notions and saved the money and used him (Donaldson had a single and a run scored; Freese had a two-run homer).
Are there times when these plays don’t work out? Of course! Heck – the same day I used Freese, I also used Giavotella batting 9th instead of using Devon Travis batting 2nd. Travis hit a home run at high ownership, while Giavotella came away with nothing but a walk. (I also expected Freese to have his big fantasy impact against the left-handed starter Wandy Rodriguez, not against the right-handed reliever he faced in the 7th!)
But I trust the numbers more than I trust my preconceived notions and my biases and my “knowledge” of which plays are best. Why do I do this? Because…
By trusting the numbers, I am able to see “what’s next,” and am able to roster guys one step ahead of the rest of the field.
By trusting the numbers, I am able to adapt to what the best plays are right now, instead of what the best plays were last week or last year.
By trusting the numbers, I am able to make consistently +EV decisions – and if you are making consistently +EV decisions, you will consistently profit!
What are we going to do with the rest of this article? You guessed it! We are going to look at some of the numbers that most people seem to be ignoring. We are going to make sure we are in great shape, this upcoming week, to know what’s next, to adapt, and to make decisions that will cause our bankrolls to grow!
Ready?
Let’s go!
TEAM MYTHS & MISCONCEPTIONS
Note: It is true, for all this, that we are still dealing with “small sample sizes.” As each week passes, however, we need to grow more and more comfortable with the sample sizes we have, and we need to realize that these are things we can take advantage of. Some of the stats and indicators below will change over the next several months, but pay attention; most of them will not! And since you cannot know, right now, which of these are fluky and which of these are predictive, realize this: most of these will turn out to be predictive. And if you realize this before the rest of the field does, you will be able to use these stats to your advantage far sooner than your competition. Sure, some of these stats are misleading and will lead you and me astray, but most of them are not (and will not), which means we will make more consistently +EV decisions by paying attention to this information than others will be making! And that equals more consistent profits.
The Rockies are awful on the road: False. Last year, the Rockies had the second-worst wOBA in Major League Baseball on the road, leading people to continually stack the Rockies at Coors, and then continually upgrade pitchers against them when they were playing on the road. While that may end up becoming the case yet again, I am certainly holding off on using pitchers against them, even on the road. They have a middle-of-the-pack 21% K rate on the road (inflated, in part, by the 12 Ks Kershaw racked up against them in only 6 innings!), and they have a more than respectable road wOBA of .313. They are not as potent on the road, for certain. But I’m not racing out to use pitchers against them, either.
The Brewers are still too talented to upgrade pitchers against: False. You’ve probably figured this one out already, but it’s still scary to upgrade pitchers against what we perceive – from last year – to be a top-end lineup. But not only are Lucroy, Gomez, and Gennett all on the disabled list, but Aramis Ramirez has looked like a shell of himself so far this year, Ryan Braun is no longer the Ryan Braun we remember, and even when they were healthy, Lucroy and Gennett were having serious problems at the plate. For now, the Brewers have the second-highest K%, the second-worst walk rate, the worst team wOBA, and the second-worst ISO in the Majors. Most people are no longer scared of the Brewers lineup, but most people are also not yet realizing that this is a better matchup for pitchers right now than even the Phillies lineup. The way you’ve been upgrading pitchers against the Phillies? Yeah. Start doing that against the Brewers!
The Twins should be picked on by all pitchers: False – sort of. The Twins have continued their early trend of being better against lefties than they are against righties. They are not a scary matchup against any pitcher right now – certainly, I would not say downgrade pitchers against them, as their wOBA and ISO are awful against pitchers from both sides – but so far, the Twins have the 8th-lowest K% vs lefties. Because teams face lefties less often than righties, this could prove to be fluky, and you should certainly keep an eye on it, but so far, they have been less of a strikeout upgrade against lefties than they are against righties.
The Cubs are free swingers: False. Most people still think of the Cubs as a team that is easy to get strikeouts against, and that does very little to make a pitcher work. “Sure,” the thinking goes, “the Cubs have some power and might knock a couple homers out of the park against my pitcher, but my pitcher will be able to go deep into the game and will rack up a lot of strikeouts.” Currently, the Cubs have the 7th-highest BB% in the Majors, and they have the third most plate appearances per game in the Majors. They are also in the top 10 in runs per game (and as these younger players keep developing, they should only climb higher in this category!). In short: these guys might strike out at the third-highest clip in the Majors so far this year, but they are also leaving a lot of land mines for your pitcher to step in along the way.
I already know the best teams to stack: Do you? The go-to teams these days are the Blue Jays and Tigers, with the Orioles heavily mixed in. What do you want in a stack, though? 1) You want the potential for a lot of runs. 2) You want some home runs mixed in (home runs, after all, are your money-makers!) 3) This is the one most people forget about: you want your stack to be low-owned, so you actually have a solid shot at winning a GPP! Stacking the Tigers and Blue Jays will get you a high score on the day those teams go off, but you will also be alongside a massive chunk of the field. So really, these are not “the best” teams to stack. Instead, “the best” teams to stack are those with home run and run-scoring potential that is similar to that of the high-owned stacks, but with lower ownership. Still think you know which are the best teams to stack, then? How about these: The Yankees are third in the Majors in runs per game, and they are tied with the Blue Jays for the most home runs per game. The Dodgers are three home runs shy of the Jays, Yanks, and Orioles for the league lead, and they are sixth in runs per game; they also have the highest wOBA in the Majors against right-handed pitching, and they are continually overlooked by DFSers because their games usually start so late. There are other great teams to stack (including teams such as the Angels and Red Sox, who have not fully come around just yet, and you can be a step ahead of your competition by stacking them before their ownership spikes!), but those are two in particular that no one is heavily stacking, and that give you a ceiling equal to what the Blue Jays give you!
The Braves and Mets are great teams to target with pitchers: False. You have probably realized at least one of these already, as the Mets have been on a tear lately, but even though I’ve mentioned this about the Braves several times, most people continue to ignore it. Listen: the Braves have the 7th-lowest K% in the Majors. The Braves are just ahead of the Giants, Indians, Nationals, Pirates, and Angels in team wOBA, and they’re in the top half of the league in BB%. They’re not scoring a ton of runs at the moment, and I don’t expect them to. But I am also not upgrading pitchers against them. Yes, their lineup looks bad on paper…but look at this other paper – the one that shows actual results. According to this paper, they’re not the easy matchup so many people keep thinking they are.
The Angels are big disappointments this year: Maybe. But not as much as you might be thinking. While the Angels are in the bottom half of the league in runs, and are above only the Brewers, Twins, and Phillies in team wOBA, they also have the second-lowest batting average on balls in play (BABIP) in the Majors. For those of you who don’t know: BABIP always normalizes over time to around .300 (with individual player dips and rises within 10 points of there, depending on their batted ball profile). Currently, the Angels have a BABIP of .249! This means that they are due for positive regression, and things will start looking a lot better once that happens. Other teams with notably low BABIP: Rangers at .240, Reds at .257, Red Sox at .263, Pirates at .264, and Nationals at .269. The Phillies and Braves are also low on this chart, but I don’t expect any of us to be heavily using their hitters in search of positive regression; and the Indians are low on the list, but I think part of this is attributable to consistent weak contact made against a barrage of left-handed pitching (because, you know, the Indians decided it was okay to go another year with almost no right-handed bats, so other teams just keep using left-handed pitchers against them!).
Stats are a fixed thing, and once I import things into a spreadsheet I’ll be set for the year: Noooooo!!!! All year long, you need to be keeping up with what is happening around the league, because trends are always changing! By constantly keeping up with things, you will constantly stay one step ahead of your competition – seeing “what’s next” and adapting accordingly, instead of always being left eating yesterday’s potato soup.
That’s all for today, my friends. Go forth and profit – and I’ll see you at the top of the leaderboards! (And in the meantime, hopefully I’ll see you on Twitter – the handle is JMToWin, and the link is in my RotoGrinders bio below! – as I use Twitter throughout the week to tweet my pitcher rankings and my thoughts on most days’ slates!)