RotoGuru - Baseball Feedback Archives

This site's features are best exploited using Netscape Communicator 4.0 or higher. You can download a Netscape browser free by clicking on the Netscape Now icon.

Feedback

This page is devoted to feedback I've received from you. If you have a question to ask or a comment to make, send me an email and if I think it's of general interest, I'll post it here.

Click here to move ahead to current feedback letters.

Guru:
While I'm still not comfortable with the changes that were made for player pricing at smallworld baseball regarding pitchers, I've seemed to be able to adjust to that, and I'm now (as of 4/28) #1 overall in smallworld rankings at your site with my team, Heckler Hellhounds.

However, even with my initial success, I still feel that the points earned by pitchers in the game deviates from their normal relationship to a team in MLB and at smallworld. On the average MLB roster, pitchers take up 11 roster spots out of 25, or 44%. On a smallworld team, pitchers have only 5 roster spots out of 14, or 36%.

With the new point system put in place at smallworld, you now have 36% of the players accounting for roughly half of the point totals. Since they are using a strictly mathematical model of individual player pricing to produce a simulated game of baseball, shouldn't each player be given the same weighted value across the board?

While I'm no mathematician, it would make sense to me that in the scoring system, pitcher's point totals individually should at least attempt to achieve an average of something around 7%.

I feel that smallworld should evenly distribute the points throughout the entire game based on the roster size. When your average #4 starting pitcher has the same points at the end of the year as Griffey or Bonds, it doesn't provide a realistic view of the value of these players in the real world of baseball. While it would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve this through a game like smallworld's, an attempt should at least be made even if it means some sacrificing in the mathematical formulas.

I'm sure that some adjustment could be made in calculating the pitcher's point totals to give a more accurate reflection of their actual number on a smallworld roster(5 out of 14 players). I'll leave the calculations of that to the mathematical wizards like yourself. - Derek (4/29)

response from Guru:
I share your concerns about the pitching formula. Based on some preseason comments I received from Smallworld staff, the changes were made to deemphasize strikeouts, and to make pitching worth approximately half of each team's overall points, since that balance is more consistent with the real game. However, on a real team, roughly half of the players on a roster are pitchers. It seems like a better approach would have been to expand the roster to include more pitchers.

While my early reaction was that the changes were generally palatable as long as pitchers' prices reflected the extra scoring potential, I find that there are still some very undesirable features:

Weak pitching performances can still have reasonably good scoring potential. And pitchers really must be scorched to score negative points. This reduces the risk of picking up a mediocre pitcher
Consider this linescore for a middle reliever: 4 IP, 2 ER, 3 H, 3 BB, 2 K. Not bad, but certainly not stellar by any means. It produces 46 SWP. That's one point more than a grand slam! Somehow, relative value seems out of whack, doesn't it?
When you look at the point leaders, pitchers dominate the board. This gives the impression that pitchers are more valuable (regardless of price), which I suspect has led a lot of managers to focus on pitchers rather than hitters (or relative value).
The higher point potential makes the rewards for trading for starts much more competitive with trading for gains. While I still favor a gains objective at this point in the season, I suspect the scales will shift around the All Star break. Frankly, I'm less interested in a game for which the optimal strategy is trading for extra pitching starts. Ten weeks of trading for starts will get to be pretty tedious, I'm afraid.

But, you've got to play the hand you're dealt. Actually, I thought last year's formula was pretty good. I think it would have required only very minor tweaking. Maybe next year... - Guru

Guru:
Worthy of note: 11 of top 22 Echelon baseball leagues are ....What a leader! - Mike V. (4/27)

response from Guru:
To paraphrase a saying, "Those who can, do....
Those who can't.... er, lead." - Guru

Guru:
The only meaningful use that I can see from the SW team summary statistical breakouts is to see how the leaders in my division or the world are getting their leads, either with pitchers or hitters. What I found out is my hitters are almost top in points, while my pitchers innings pitched are relatively low compared to the leaders. - Jon M. (4/26)

response from Guru:
I guess that depends on what the definition of "meaningful" is. - Guru

Guru:
I have a SWBaseball strategy question for you. It's about my extra cash, and whether I should invest it, or allow it to accumulate unused. As I buy players trying to increase my net worth, I have been trying to buy lower priced players than I am selling, in the hope that their value you will increase, and therefore make me money as well as (hopefully) earning me more points. As I continue with this process for the third pricing period, I'm wondering if I should continue to allow my extra cash to go unused, or should I re-invest it into high priced players whose values don't seem to move much for now?

As I see it, both approaches have positive aspects to them. If I allow my cash to sit dormant, that gives me more players to choose from when it comes to selling players on my team. Meaning, if I don't spend that money on Pedro Martinez or Curt Schilling, it gives me two more roster spots to work with on increasing my teams worth. As I don't want to waste trades, if I had these pitchers on my team, I wouldn't plan on dropping them until it comes time to rotate pitchers or if they happen to fall apart. That might seem foolish because I still have three pitching spots to work with, but many times these spots are filled with lower priced players who are playing well and whose values may not have yet reached their highest point.

On the other side of the coin, with these players on my team I will most likely earn more points, (that's the name of the game!), and save myself from having to add them to my team at a later date when I may have missed my opportunity to buy them at their cheapest point.

I've only used this example with two pitchers. Maybe, if I add big dollar players it should be a position player and not a pitcher in the early going? - Ed L. (4/25)

response from Guru:
It's not a trivial issue that you raise, and it's probably even more acute if you're on the CNN side of the game. I'll tell you how I address this situation - but I'm not sure I've got the optimal solution, either.

If I build up enough cash that it's unlikely I'll need it to be able to pull off that "next trade", then I look for some star player that I can add. I try to find a player who satisfies these two conditions:

He is someone that I would probably be happy to own all year (barring injury).
He plays a position where there aren't any other obvious buying opportunities.

For example, last year I added A.Rod at SS pretty early in the year, and just held him throughout the season. (In fact, this year I drafted A.Rod on my CNN team, for the same reason. Obviously, it didn't work as well this year!) Perhaps using one pitching or outfield slot for a "keeper" would also make sense, since that still preserves trading flexibility.

You probably ought to wait until the end of a trading cycle to make this type of move, though, just so you have enough trades available to adapt to any last minute needs (good or bad).

Ultimately, you are building value in order to be able to afford this type of player. So it doesn't hurt to get there sooner than later with a few of your roster slots, since these guys will probably be subject to gradual price gains throughout the season. - Guru

Guru:
I have a question that pertains to Small World. I was looking at the price updates and I noticed that only one player passed half of the possible loss barrier (J.D. Drew with 2/3 of the possible loss). Is this a normal distribution for the game? Can we expect this all season? I ask because if you have a player who is playing poorly, perhaps you might keep him and hope for a rebound and save a trade. This would obviously be a poor strategy now but this could be very important for the second half. - M.J. (4/24)

response from Guru:
I think the best answer is "it depends".

It's tough for a hitter to have a sudden "bad game", since 0-for-5 just results in -5 SWP. Usually, the things that trigger a big selloff are an injury, or else a rush to buy someone else at the same position. Pitchers can be an exception, since a really bad pitching outing can show up as a large negative point value.

Drew's problem stemmed from the fact that he had so much preseason hype that he was probably heavily drafted. So when he started out slowly, he was an easy candidate to sell in trade for someone like Chili Davis. But if a player isn't heavily owned to begin with, then his downside is limited. - Guru

Guru:
I was going to ask you why when I add my points at the CNN site managers statement my total is higher than they show. But after lots of adding and subtracting I discovered that they don't show the minus for Outs(AB's-Hits) on the manager's statement page. You might want to pass this along to other Gurupies. - Jon M. (4/23)

response from Guru:
Done.

I don't know why they show those statistical breakouts anyway, I can't think of any meaningful use. - Guru

Guru:
It's great baseball season is here and well under way. I'll be glad when the regular basketball season ends so I can concentrate on my baseball teams a little more. But since my basketball team is still hanging in there, I've got to hang in there til the end.

So, this is my question. Having never followed the NBA regular season very close at all and as playoff spots and seed positions become secure the last week of the season, does this normally have much of an impact on possible playing time of key players? Or do you just have to feel it out player by player and team by team?

I know most of the races are pretty tight, so there is a chance a lot of the games will have an impact on which teams make the playoffs and who plays who right til the last day. - Steve H. (4/23)

response from Guru:
I know the problem. Keeping track of two sports is really a challenge. Sometimes I feel like my "Windows" brain only has a "DOS" attention span.

I think the player situation is a team-by-team, player-by-player thing. Teams with their playoff position locked up may rest regulars a but more, but most playoff-bound teams still have positioning at risk, so unless a game is really meaningless, playing time will probably be normal.

Teams that are out of it still will go all out if they are playing a team that is in a meaningful game. So there aren't going to be too many totally meaningless games. It's not at all like baseball, where most games in the final week are inconsequential, and rookies get some extra PT.

Some players with injury problems might get shut down a day or two early if there is no hope. These will just have to be watched closely.

And some players probably will be looking to pad their stats (which could be good or bad), once the coach realizes that the team won't be advancing.

So, I have no general rules of thumb to offer. As the last week unfolds, you just want to preserve as much flexibility as you can. - Guru

Guru:
A bit of advice, if you please. You have often referenced your late-season charges following the accumulation of roster value. I am wondering, what is your target point for hanging in the race until you make your charge. My teams are all hovering around the 3000 ranking in SW Baseball, usually at or near the top of my division. Should I be striving to pick up a few more points right now, or am I close enough to the top to maintain my focus on gaining roster value? - Britt S. (4/23)

response from Guru:
Time for a reality check!

You're in good shape. My current baseball rank is around 18,000! And I'm not conceding anything yet. On the SW side, there is only a 400 SWP difference between a ranking of 18,000 and a ranking of 3,000. That's only two good pitching starts! At a ranking of 3,000, you're only 700 SWP out of the top 100 - and a lot of those teams are doing it mostly with pitching. So you have plenty of time to climb.

Essentially, the "charge" takes place automatically, as long as the gains have been building. The charge emanates from the higher production which is the natural outcome of a well-formulated expensive roster.

The only strategy decision relates to the proper time to shift the trading focus from gain generation to point production. That decision isn't based on how your team stands, but on the relative expected point production of one strategy vs. the other. When the season is young, the expected points to be earned by owning higher value players is significant, since those points will be produced over a long period. But once the expected future point value of a "gains" trade is less than the point value of trade in a pitcher rotation strategy, the pendulum shifts. Of course, a lot of this is subjective, because you cannot know in advance what the extra value created by a "gains trade" will be. That also applies to a pitcher swap, although over a lot of pitcher trades, it's reasonable to assume you'll get the relevant average over time.

Think gains! - Guru

Guru:
I've been employing the pitching rotation strategy in the Ballpark Dreams game with modest success. However, as the salaries continue to escalate, when does the hold strategy then necessitate itself? I'm already more or less stuck with the hitters I have given their appreciation (and the appreciation of other players as well), and it's hard to really trade the Kevin Appier's and Jeff Weaver's of the world.

You did an intesting analysis of the quandry for Full Court Basketball - analyzing the "trade for games" strategy vs. the "buy and hold" strategy. Over an 82 game season a buy-and-hold would seem to work better in the long run, but obviously in a 50-game schedule the trade for games strategy proved superior (guess which one I used....). - Greg R. (4/22)

response from Guru:
This will be a good topic for an article, but in the interest of expediency, I'd advise you to hang on to Appier.

My quick reasoning goes something like this.

By rotating pitchers every 6 days, you can get about a 60% increase over holding a pitcher for the long term, all other things being equal. (i.e., you get about 20 starts in 60 days, vs. only 12 starts by holding - assuming a start every 5th day.)
Player prices seem to be generally trending toward a price relationship of 10 BPP/EG. This isn't an absolute standard (there's some sort of averaging process that causes prices to jostle around a bit), and it may be that a slightly different standard will apply for starting pitchers. But, if Appier averages 75 BPP per start (which he has done so far), that should work out to around 15 BPP/EG, which implies a price target of about $1,500,000.
If you can hold a player for a value of $313,000 that is really worth $1.5 million, then you're getting a productivity boost of almost 400%. That's much more valuable than the 60% boost you'd hope to get by rotating. In fact, as long as he produces more than 60% above the level implied by a $313,000 price, you're better off holding on. This would only require Appier to produce about 5 BPP/EG, or 25 BPP per start - which should be a slam dunk, if he stays healthy. Of course, that IS the big question with Appier.

The problem in Full Court was not so much the 50 game schedule, as it was the injuries and performance shifts. Aside from a few guys like Anfernee Hardaway and Eric Snow, there weren't many players who it paid to hold from beginning to end. So, when early bargains like Paul Pierce got hurt, and their production slackened, the residual opportunity costs of not actively swapping them from day-1 was a heavy anchor.

Holding players makes sense if they can produce at a level sufficiently high to justify the lack of trading. For hitters, that will mean it almost always makes sense to hold onto players at a discount. For pitchers, though, that 60% hurdle rate won't be attainable by many, and active trading will be the best approach. But Appier looks like one of the keepers. - Guru

Guru:
I am sorry to see that your daily blurbs have hardly touched on Hoops since the beginning of the baseball season. I thought that after the first few days of the baseball season or surely after the first week, Hoops commentary would pick up again. We're in the middle of the stretch run and it seems all we hear about is baseball. I am not suggesting that you should cut back on baseball, just that Hoops should get equal billing, especially considering that it's crunch time. - Gareth (4/21)

response from Guru:
It's tough to balance the comments between the two sports. In fact, it's tough just to cover two sports at once. I've intentionally emphasized baseball because I think there are more people interested in baseball vs. hoops right now, for several reasons:

Baseball is the most popular fantasy sport.
Many people have lost interest in hoops, now that baseball season has started. (In fact, a number of Gurupies told me early on that they were playing Hoops only as a way to kill time until baseball started.)
Baseball site development is at the center of my attention right now.
My blurbs tend to focus around what I've been thinking about. I guess I haven't been thinking about Hoops as much.

In any event, I looked at my last few blurbs, and I see that they are pretty "hoops-free". I'll try to be mindful of preserving a better balance.

Thanks for calling it to my attention. - Guru

Guru:
Yesterday there was a game that was in the late innings before 12:00 noon. I thought to myself that maybe I could go and trade for the players that were having a good game (Arrojo) and get those points for that day. The deadline to get points for players who play that day is 12:00. I still would have had a significant amount of time to trade for these good outings before 12:00.

Can this really happen on Smallworld? Or maybe I'm missing something. - Craig H. (4/20)

response from Guru:
It probably could have happened - in fact, some people probably did the trade - but I think that's the only game all season that starts before 1:00 EST. So it's not a very big deal.

Now if someone had started the game like Ivan Rodriguez did last week, with 9 RBI's in the 1st three innings - then you'd have something worth capitalizing on. But no one did. - Guru

Guru:
Maybe it's partially because my teams are doing well, but this looks to be a great season at both SW and BP. The setup for both appears to be very competitive in two totally different manners, and both have done a wonderful job of starting the season w/ very few problems and certainly none of the past frustrations.

Re your delayed essay on BP, I hope you address what you think is going to happen as the season progresses and the escalating price of good pitchers makes it more difficult to make the required frequency of trades. I think that the strategies of the game will change gradually with an increasing import on position players. - Mike V. (4/20)

response from Guru:
One axiom that I believe in very strongly is that the best way to learn how to do something well is to really screw it up a few times first. That said, I'm having a wonderful learning experience during my first couple weeks of Ball Park Dreams. But I don't feel like I'm ready to author an "expert" strategy piece just yet. (Any volunteers?)

I started out figuring that maximizing starting pitching exposure was the way to go. So, I've been typically carrying 6-7 pitchers all season. At times, in order to be able to afford the best starters who were in line to start next, I've even gone with some open hitting slots. Unfortunately, while the plan may have been sound, the execution has generally stunk. I've had a knack for picking up starters just before an implosion - like Clemens and Orlando Hernandez last week. Wen starters are faltering, and hitting slots are vacant, it's tough to feel like you're making much leadway. After an early season run at the top 100, my ranking has drifted back into the 2000's. I know I can make up a lot of ground, but when I look at some of the leading rosters, they look awfully tough to catch. Thankfully, it's still April. - Guru

Guru:
The SW site is up and running very smoothly. I was fairly impressed by their ability to process the first week's price increases -- I didn't make all of my trades, partly afraid that they would not occur. Hopefully I'll be able to maximize roster value for awhile now.

Actually, the first week's price increase concerned me a bit. It looks like they've finally got a reasonable sized adjustment. I agree with you that this week's trading may be more focused, and therefore price changes will be more volatile. However, I am greatly concerned that the optimal strategy IS a pitcher rotation one. Currently, you can achieve a very high level of production with the undervalued players (and since prices adjust relatively slowly, this will continue for awhile). Therefore, the excess cash and trades could be used for a few very lucrative rotations. I am really not sure that it is actually optimal, but I definitely think that they have narrowed the gap considerably. If the next few price changes are relatively small as well, I will reconsider the traditional SW strategy with more vigor. Until then, however, I will assume that price changes will pick up the pace a bit.

With all of the injuries to very good players, there are likely to be a lot of great players available at relatively cheap prices later in the season. - Victor D. (4/19)

response from Guru:
Nice to have you back on the feedback page, Victor, after an extended absence. Sometimes work really sucks, doesn't it?

Going slow probably makes some sense for now, using your trades only when they seem like slam dunk gains. But I wouldn't advocate using any extra trades for starts right now. An extra start today probably isn't going to be worth any more than an extra start in August. Any unused trades should be stockpiled for a rainy day. If and when it becomes clear that pitcher rotations is the way to go, you'll want to have some trades in the bank, anyway, so you can swap your pitchers in the most efficient pattern. - Guru

Guru:
Although my primary goal is to finish first overall (perhaps unlikely), finishing first in the RotoGuru rankings is an important secondary goal. Having finished second in last year's second chance league (the leader had 2 teams ahead of mine), second in last year's NBA playoffs, and first in a few Dream Team contests, I have been frustrated in not making your Hall of Fame.

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the fun you have provided and for the invaluable statistics. Last season when I had excellent strategy but I followed the NBA too little to get off to a good start (I started with an injured Mourning). The second chance league was an excellent holiday gift - a wonderful chance to try again.

This year my Bethesda Panthers got off to a much better start by following the abbreviated NBA preseason closely and using your stats charts. I actually held the overall lead for an extended period in early March (before leaders were posted) but hit a string of bad luck &/or bad decisions. For the past 4 to 8 weeks I have been looking over my shoulder and recognizing that, although a fair bit back, your teams would be tough to beat. It looks like it will a close race. I shifted from dollar maximization toward games maximization a bit earlier than you (and I missed Nesby, in part due to vacation), so it will be interesting to see if I can continue to hold on despite my less expensive roster. Fortunately, there are several 6-10 million dollar players performing nearly as well as the 10-17 million dollar group. - Jay S. (4/19)

response from Guru:
Thanks, Jay. I may or may not catch you. My recent decisions have been working out pretty well, but earlier in the season, I stumbled a few times.

Your letter begs an interesting question. What do I do if I win the RotoGuru rankings? Do I put myself in the Hall of Fame? Probably not. If not, then do I admit the runner-up (assuming that isn't me, too)? Maybe. I'll have to think about it - if it happens. For now, I'm just happy to be in contention again, after a lackluster football showing. - Guru

Guru:
If some people are looking for an up-to-date injury page, there's always the page at ESPN.- Brian (4/18)

response from Guru:
I'd have guessed that most Gurupies would have been able to find that one on their own - but maybe not. Thanks for pointing it out. - Guru

Guru:
Great news on the sustained high traffic on your site! It just goes to show that it's not always a race to the bottom on the 'Net'.

Just thought I'd share with you (and others) a small portion of my RotoGuru habit: Eventually, there comes a time each day when I have to exit your site and either go elsewhere or back to work. Whenever I leave your site I do so by clicking on one of the banners. It doesn't matter if I do anything at the new site--I probably will either get offline or go to a bookmarked site. I use it like Small World's "Logout" button, so that when I'm finally done with my fantasy sports analysis for the moment it's my chance to throw a small bit of change to the Guru for a tip. - Fred C. (4/18)

response from Guru:
Thanks for the tip on tips. - Guru

Guru:
First off, your site is by far the most visited on my computer. Love your work!

I read your article on the pros and cons of either trading for starts with your pitchers or trading for the sole purpose of gaining money (strategy you prefer early in the season). The first strategy should ideally earn you more points and less money gains. The second strategy should net you less points now but more points later in the season when you have built your team up with the money you have made with your smart trades.

My question to you is in my league of 9 teams I am the only person using the second strategy (using trades to gain money). Every other team is trading starting pitchers for point gains. I am way behind in points (1000) but only about $750,000 ahead in dollars. How far is too far behind in points? And how much should I be up in money assuming I am doing a very above average job in trading to gain dollars? My fear is that I will fall to far behind in points and not be able to catch up in the second half of the season. What is your opinion on this situation. - Eric P. (4/18)

response from Guru:
First of all, it's too early to panic.

Second, your comparative franchise value right now tells you as much about the quality of your draft (relative to your competitors) as it does about the quality of your first week trading. Until we've got at least three weeks under our belts, drafted players will necessarily have an impact.

Third, I suspect that potential gains in future weeks may be better than during the first week, now that player ranking information is more widely available.

Still, if most of the competition is trading for starts (and I'm talking about the world, not just your division), then there may be a point that we all have to get on the bandwagon. Remember that the best gains are for the players that everyone else buys. And if everyone else is buying starting pitching, then that's where the gains will be, too. This could especially be true for pitchers who are expecting 2 starts in the next trading period. It will take a few weeks to see how this all develops, but it is possible that trades for extra starts will be the best trades for gains. Maybe.

But I digress.... that wasn't your question, was it? I think the key is to assess whether the expected $gain from a trade is likely to be worth more than the expected gain for an extra pitching start. If you assume that an extra start is worth 150 points (an aggressive assumption, especially if "pitching rotations" aren't efficiently executed - and most probably won't be), then let's figure out how much you need to gain in value to have an equivalent expected point value. Using my 3 SWP/G/$mil benchmark, and assuming there are 145 games remaining, then to produce an extra 150 SWP you'd need to realize a gain of roughly $345,000 [150/(145 x 3)]. That's not a very lofty hurdle! Even if you assume that it will take several weeks for your gain to fully mature, reasonably proficient gains trading should still dominate swapping for pitching starts.

But if you can find opportunities to pick up starts and gains in the same trade, that sounds like the best of both worlds. - Guru

Guru:
I saw in one of your latest blurbs that you gave a couple of sites that list the projected starting pitchers. Is there a nearly 100% correct listing of the starting pitchers? I am playing in a league that I have an alloted number of starts for my pitchers and I can not afford to waste a start just to be on the safe side. I have tried to pick up pitchers that I can have at least one pitcher pitching everyday. I have Tim Wakefield and I have seen that he is listed as the starter on 4/15 and on 4/16. I do not know which listing to trust. I usually have to set my roster the last thing at night or get up early to try and set it up before I go to work. Do you have any suggestions as to help me in my situation? Thanks. - Gary B. (4/14)

response from Guru:
No one site is completely reliable. When you see a discrepancy, you just have to beware. Sometimes, you can research a discrepancy by checking a local newpaper from the team's city. RotoNews has links to the sports pages of all of the newspapers in the major league cities. - Guru

Guru:
I need a sounding board here... what is up with SmallWorld Baseball? I think it would be great if you gave us your opinion on why they changed the scoring system to such a pro-pitching system?

It is so heavily favored in pitching that everyday players, as long as they are starters for the most part, don't really come into significant play. If you have five quality pitchers, and a low-priced everyday, but starting, lineup you have it made and they will carry you. Last year it was obvious when people used their trades for starts, it was a quick fix. Now, it is the only smart decision that I can see barring injury to an everyday player! What good does it do anyone to have a MAC, Gonzo, or even some star and hot player like Will Clark when they can't even be in the top 75 players in the world and cost over $5,000,000!

Pitchers, when they get rocked, don't even get hurt that bad in actuality. Take Chan Ho Park the other night for example:

In 1999 points he gets +25 points despite having a line as follows:
5 IP, 5 ER, 6 H, 3 BB, 3 K, and the loss.
In 1998 that gives him -45 points. That's a 70 point swing and he, for the most part, got rocked.

Though I understand that pitcher prices are higher than hitters due to the point scale, it still doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

How about a article on this and give us your opinion or their rationale for making the game so pitcher heavy whether they throw good or bad? - Will W. (4/14)

response from Guru:
It would make a good topic for an article. But with baseball and basketball overlapping, and some baseball programming still to be done, writing articles is going to have to wait for awhile. So let me take a quick stab at this issue here.

Your point would be valid except for one very important constraint: on a 14-man roster, you can only have 5 pitchers. So regardless of the relative point disparity, the best first baseman might be worth more than the 6th best pitcher, even if the 6th best pitcher outpoints Big Mac by 50%. Even if the top 50 players were all pitchers, you still need 9 hitters. And since every roster slot is completely walled off (there are no wild card slots), there are really 7 different lists that matter - one for each position.

Thus, the point disparity between pitchers and hitters, as long as they are comparably priced, really isn't an issue. It's just an optical illusion.

You also assert that the only smart trading decision is to trade for starts. While this will be true later in the season, I don't agree for now. Let's do some simple arithmetic:

I'll use my actual roster as an example. I used all 5 of my trades prior to the first repricing. If I had just left my roster alone, I'd have gained about $1 million in today's repricing. Instead, by dropping some losers and adding some winners, I gained almost $4.4 million. So those 5 trades netted me $3.4 million.
Stats and averages really don't stabilize this early in the season, but based on the draft price analysis, we could reasonably assume that prices will settle in the range of 2.5-4.0 SWP/G per $million. Let's assume 3 for simplicity. That $3.5m should be able to buy me around an extra 10 SWP/G. [3 x 3.4 = 10.2, which I'll round down to 10.] There are still about 150 games left in the season, so an extra 10 SWP/G should work out to an extra 1500 SWP over the course of the season.
What if I had used those trades to get some extra pitching starts instead? First of all, if I used 5 trades for starts, I'd have only gotten 4 extra starts at best. (I wrote an article on this topic last year, called Pitching Rotation, so I won't elaborate further here. But it's well worth reading, if you haven't done so yet.) If I averaged 150 SWP per start (which is aggressive, but plausible), that would have netted an extra 600 SWP. Even at 200 SWP per start, the marginal gain would have only totaled 800 SWP.
So based on this analysis, I'll be way ahead by trading for gains, rather than starts, even though my current ranking doesn't show it. In fact, even if my trades netted only half as much, I'd still be ahead. But by mid-season, the pendulum will shift, unless I'm either a very good gains trader (which I am), or a very bad pitcher picker (which I also am).

I hope I didn't lose too many of you with the math. Even if you're just average at gains trading, that's what your strategy should be for now. If you disagree, just don't forget to wave at me when I shoot past you in the rankings around July! - Guru

Guru:
I was wondering how the first price change went down last year? Was it a popularity contest or did the sleeper picks go up more in value? I'm just trying to get a feel for which way I should go with my team. - Jeff B. (4/12)

response from Guru:
Last season, the top 5 gainers in the first price change were:

Bartolo Colon +$2.9m
Robin Ventura +$2.7m
Mark McGwire +$2.3m
Miguel Cairo +$1.8m
Rich Butler +$1.8m

McGwire's draft price was $8 million, Ventura was just under $2 million, and the other three were all less than $1 million.

A mixed bag. - Guru

Guru:
Have you looked at the SW Top 50?? The first non-pitcher listed (as of 4/8) is Tatis at number 24!!!!! Since hitters are usually ahead of the pitchers coming out of Spring Training, I would have suspected the opposite. Do you think SW has overdone it with the revamped pitching points?? - Randy R. (4/12)

response from Guru:
As long as the prices reflect the extra production, what's wrong with it? You can expect it to remain this way all season, too. The imbalance was intentional.

I don't consider this to be a problem. - Guru

Guru:
What do you know about the "My Baseball Daily" link on Smallworld's front page? Is it worth the money? From what I can tell, it looks OK. What have you heard? - Craig H. (4/8)

response from Guru:
I've heard nothing. Anyone? - Guru

Guru:
Do you know a site where I can check the following days pitching matchups? - James A. (4/8)

response from Guru:
Most of the major sports sites have this. Try ESPN's 4-day outlook, for example. - Guru

Guru:
Does anybody out there have good baseball injury sources that they would recommend? - Nick O. (4/8)

response from Guru:
I usually check the baseball news page at RotoNews, which tends to be pretty good - although sometimes they miss things. What other sources do Gurupies use? - Guru

Guru:
Do you think the player prices at both the Smallworld and CNN/SI games will be tied together, or will they fluctuate separately? If they are both increased and decreased together, that will make the Smallworld game an even harder game to create an All-Star roster. Because there is more money to be spent at CNN/SI, the big ticket players will be bought with more frequency, increasing their price in the Smallworld game, making them harder to acquire with the smaller payroll. This could make the Smallworld game even more challenging for everyone involved. - Nog (4/4)

response from Guru:
I got several emails on this same topic.

There has been no statement from SW on this, but I'm presuming that pricing will be consolidated. If so, this may start an earlier upward push on higher priced players.

But it will also have an offsetting impact, too. In the $50 million game, very few of the high priced players will show up on any draft rosters. This means that their draft prices effectively become a price floor for the season, since they can't be sold without first being bought. However, in the $75 million game, a number of the stars were drafted on many teams, which will allow subsequent sales to push these prices down - especially for players who fail to get off to a hot start.

So the net impact will likely be mixed. - Guru

Guru:
I would like to let you know just how much I appreciate the work you are doing. I find it so helpful, I almost feel like it is cheating to use your site. However, I am in first place in my SWHoops division, so I won't clear my conscience just yet. - Scott L. (4/2)

response from Guru:
If you want to clear your conscience, just tell a friend about RotoGuru. Just make sure it's someone far enough down in the standings so that it can help him without hurting you! - Guru

Guru:
Am I the only one who doesn't like the 5 trades a week this year in baseball? This gives you about 120 to 125 trades for the year. I liked the old way of 75 trades per year. With the old way, it was kind of like a game inside a game because you had to conserve your trades. You couldn't just trade for a start whenever you wanted and you also had to consider the injury factor. With the way it is this year, the draft isn't as important because you can fix it after 3 weeks. Last year, if you had a bad draft, you were screwed right from the start. I just think that it takes a lot of the challenge out of the game because prices will jump that much more and you can have an all-star team by mid-June. Just wanted to gripe to somebody. - Nick O. (4/1)

response from Guru:
I agree and disagree.

I do find the total number of trades to be excessive, and I think we'll all find this to be the case in the dog days of August.

But I think your point about the importance of the draft is backwards. I think the draft is significantly more important this year, specifically because it will take 3 weeks to fix it. Last year, you could flip the entire roster immediately, so you didn't have to suffer through the first price change with any of your draftees if you didn't want to. This year, at least 9 draftees are going to impact you for one price change, and at least four draftees are going to impact you for two. If you have a poor draft, that'll be a significant cross to bear! - Guru

Guru:
I enjoyed your essay (as usual), but I wanted to clarify one of your points.

You stated that "given the heightened volatility in the pitching point formula (which results in large negative values for a crappy outing), hitters are likely to be more stable in the early going, both on the field and in the price charts." This is true when comparing hitters to pitchers. However, you make it sound as if the new scoring formula makes it more dangerous this year to own pitchers who might get spanked. This does not seem to be the case. The new scoring formula makes the mediocre pitchers much easier to stomach than last year, as they are no longer penalized for losses, they get more points for innings pitched, and each earned run hurts less. They even get an extra 10 points for the games they do win. So your run-of-the-mill 4th starter would seem to be a better bet than he was last year. - Joe R. (4/1)

response from Guru:
You're right.

The point I was trying to make was that pitchers are more volatile than hitters, since they have fewer appearances over a short time frame, and a greater possibility of a negative outing. But this year's formula will dampen the potential downside for pitchers. Last year, losses carried a charge of 20 SWP, IP added 15, and earned runs cost 15. This year losses have no impact, IP adds 21, and earned runs only cost 10. So a bad outing will burn less this year. - Guru

Guru:
I don't understand why people don't want the $50 million dollar salary cap. $75 million is even a worse problem than the original pricing for the Smallworld game. I still think that the prices are on the low side relative to a $50 million cap. I was able to get a number of identifiable names on my team for under $50 million. And the rest of the roster isn't just bench players or set-up men either. Every person on my roster is a contender. (I remember last year when I had Telemaco on my Opening Day roster.)

If the salary cap was $75 million then the good managers could get an all-star team by May 15th. That would take a lot of fun out of the game. Do you remember the joy that you experienced when you saw that Vladimir Guerrero was lifting your team out of nowhere? Or when Bartolo Colon had his great first half? All of these will be irrelevant if everyone has Albert Belle or Roger Clemens on their roster. One purpose of fantasy baseball is trying to win. The odds of that are about 200 out of 165000. The main reason for playing is how much the knowledge that you have gained helps you to enjoy the real thing. - MJ (4/1)

response from Guru:
I agree with your assessment. There are plenty of low priced opportunities out there, if you just do a little homework. I've already assembled my $50 million roster, and I have about $5 million left over. (Obviously, I could have upgraded some slot, but I figured that the flexibility provided by that spare cash could easily save me an early trade.) Putting together a $75 million roster may actually turn out to be a tougher challenge. - Guru

Guru:
I had a blast in your NCAA March Madness Contest - to think the rules almost scared me away. And I was actually surprised at the cash prizes since I didn't even check out that part of the rules. Congrats to you for running such an interesting and challenging contest. When I saw the rather negative feedback in your poll I was afraid that this long/short format would be just a one year wonder. Glad to read that you are bringing this back again next year. Pass along my congratulations to Greg Robinson for his induction into the one of the most vaunted of all Hall of Fames. - Al (a.k.a. Fishin' Rod) (4/1)

response from Guru:
Part of the intent of that poll was to show others that it's OK to enter a complicated contest, and then learn from watching it unfold. Hopefully, more Gurupies will brave it next year. - Guru

Guru:
I realize that the way to eventually have an "all star" lineup in SWB is to buy players that will appreciate in value. My starting team consists of 8 players in the $500,000 to $2,250,000 range, 4 players in the $4,000,000 to $7,000,000 range, and two high priced stars that I couldn't resist. I believe that the 1st 12 players have good probabilities of appreciating. I am relatively new (though old in age) at participating in SWB, and I would greatly appreciate your insights and advice on how to determine when to sell a player and then how to determine which player to buy in his place(who then would have a chance to increase in value).

Thanks for your help and thanks for your website. - JPH (4/1)

response from Guru:
This is one of the more common questions I get, and I must confess that there's no easy formula. Some people have a good feel for this, and others seem to perpetually struggle. You need to be aware that once a player has had a nice runup in value, he's much more susceptible to loss even if his performance is consistent. He's also at risk if someone hotter comes along. But in general, if a player is performing well, I usually find it makes sense to hold for several weeks, just to squeeze out as much gain per trade as possible, as long as the schedule remains attractive. (Schedule considerations will probably be less relevant in baseball, however.)

I try to restrict my buys to players who I expect to appreciate at least $1 million. Many times, though, I expect it to take 2-3 weeks for the price gain to fully mature. So far, on my team at the Smallworld site, I've generated almost $48 million in gains on 40 trades, for an average of slightly over $1 million. And very seldom have I dropped a player just one week after buying him. With baseball gains being limited to a maximum of $1 million per week, holding guys for multiple week changes will be even more important. - Guru

Guru:
I just wanted to thank everybody for the competitiveness of the March Madness contest. I strived hard and persevered to come out on top,... er bottom! After pondering vast amounts of strategies and possibilities I was able to put together a legion of some of the most underperforming teams of the year! I would like to think that my outstanding knowledge and planning can be a role model to all those other Gurupies out there who try to be mentioned in the RotoGuru Hall of Fame (Shame)! Now if they will only follow my example so I can run away with the baseball award for the best team! - Shawn Miller, Abilene Aviators (4/1)

response from Guru:
Your impressive performance was some mean feat.... or do I mean feet? - Guru

Guru:
FYI - Fox Sports has projected starting rotations and rosters on their 'Team Notebook' page - Mike V. (4/1)

response from Guru:
Thanks. ESPN also provides an easy to use applet on their fantasy baseball home page. (which you can get to even if you're not registered for their game). Follow my link, and then click on the "depth chart" link once you're there.- Guru

Guru:
I'm not writing this to promote my site, but to let players know about the many free contests out there. On my site (fantasy games section) I have 9 links. Look at it and do what you want with it. (And I have had your link on there since your Florida vacation - www.geocities.com/Area51/Dunes/5339 - Phillip (3/31)

response from Guru:
Okelee Dokelee. - Guru

Click here for prior feedback letters, by month:

1999: March . . . . . February . . . . . January

December . . . . . November . . . . . October . . . . . September . . . . . August . . . . . July . . . . . June . . . . . May . . . . . April . . . . . March . . . . .

RotoGuru is produced by Dave Hall (a.k.a. the Guru), an avid fantasy sports player. He is neither employed by nor compensated by any of the fantasy sports games discussed within this site, and all opinions expressed are solely his own. Questions or comments are welcome, and should be emailed to Guru<davehall@home.com>.