Strategy Almanac: Risky Business
Perhaps you noticed I took a few more risks in a recent 10-team mock draft for our Draft Kit. Why did I do this? I'll sum it up thusly: The amount of risk I am going to take in a draft is directly proportional to the depth of the free-agent pool.
That's not a hard concept to grasp, but it has large implications for shallow mixed leagues, especially in the endgame of auctions or the final rounds of drafts.
Many owners wind up settling for "safe" bets with their last few picks in a 10- or 12-owner mixed league, and miss out on some high-upside opportunities.
I'm not saying to throw caution to the wind on every pick, but the guideline I follow in that type of format is that, with all else being relatively equal, I take the player with the most upside over the one with the most "bankable" production. In the later rounds especially, I focus on who has the highest ceiling instead of who has a starting job.
This might seem like an obvious way to go, but you would be surprised how many owners choose to play it safe. To those of you who think you're assuming way too much risk, it all goes back to the concept of what is freely available on the waiver wire after the draft.
Like I said in my auction strategies column, the "Stars and Scrubs" strategy is still viable in shallow mixed leagues because of the quality of the free-agent pool. If your pick turns out to be a scrub instead of a star, there is another player out there with a starting job for you to take a chance on.
The same principle applies in a mixed-league draft setting.
The best way for me to illustrate the point is by examining our recent 10-team mixed-league draft. My team wound up being very young overall, even with David Ortiz and Mike Lowell, and Pete Becker made a joke along the lines of, "Hey, you should be a prospects guy!"
I didn't plan on it turning out that way, but it just happened that certain players fell a round or two, and when deciding between two players, I decided to pick the player who hasn't peaked yet. You can see the results for yourself, but one thing I particularly wanted to focus on was my selections for Rounds 20-25:
Active list
21. Gil Meche, SP, Royals
22. Matt Garza, SP, Devil Rays
Reserve list
23. Adam Jones, OF, Orioles
24. Yunel Escobar, 2B/3B/SS, Braves
25. Jay Bruce, OF, Reds
With the exception of Meche, who was pretty clearly the best starting pitching play on the board at that point, the other four picks at the end of the draft are all high-risk but with a ton of upside. I chose Garza over more-certain starting pitching options simply because he had the highest ceiling. Others might go for a solid, stable player to fill out the back end of their roster, but I feel I can get that kind of player later (off the free-agent wire) if necessary. Last year, I targeted Shane Victorino late in my mixed-league drafts because of his steals potential, bypassing what appeared to be safer bets at the time. It worked out for me.
By contrast, here's how two other teams filled out their reserve lists: One team selected Frank Thomas, Mark Buehrle and Mike Cameron, and another picked Bronson Arroyo, Milton Bradley and Moises Alou. I am not denigrating those selections in any way; we might look back at the end of the season and find out those were far better selections. I'm just illustrating the difference in draft philosophies. I chose to use a different style in the late rounds.
Considering that I banked on four of my five starting outfielders (Ankiel, Hunter Pence, Jeremy Hermida and Corey Hart) not taking a step backward, in essence, from their breakouts last season, I wanted to get some more high-upside outfielders in the reserve rounds. Being that Brad Hawpe is the only established player in my outfield, I'm hoping that out of six players with great potential, at least four of them come through to give me the production I need in the other outfield slots. Obviously, I expect my higher picks of Pence, Hermida and Hart to do so, but I'm giving myself some extra chances, just in case.
What if it all goes horribly wrong? It's not as big a concern because there are still veteran outfielders in the free-agent pool with starting jobs to replace them with. Eric Karabell pointed out this works with drafting Barry Bonds late in a mixed-league draft as well. If it doesn't pan out, you have options.
Consider that after the draft, the following outfield-eligible players with starting jobs or the inside track on starting jobs were still out there: Austin Kearns, Bill Hall, Garret Anderson, Geoff Jenkins, Jack Cust, Luke Scott, Brian Giles, Mark Teahen, Jason Kubel, David DeJesus, Jim Edmonds, Dave Roberts, Mark Kotsay, Wily Mo Pena and Jonny Gomes.
Even in a 12-team format, you could remove 10 outfielders from that list to populate two additional teams and still have five decent options to choose from.
It's the same for the other positions. If you wanted to take a leap of faith on an unproven player, or one with uncertain playing time, you'll be covered if the player does his best Andy Marte impersonation. In this 10-team league, there were plenty of players with starting jobs available on the waiver wire if needed, such as:
First base: Casey Kotchman, Richie Sexson, Daric Barton, Dmitri Young, Lyle Overbay, Aubrey Huff and maybe Matt Stairs
.
Third base: Wigginton, Scott Rolen, Casey Blake, Hank Blalock, Eric Chavez, Mark Reynolds, Pedro Feliz, Melvin Mora and maybe Mike Lamb and Joe Crede.
Shortstop: Stephen Drew, Yuniesky Betancourt, Jason Bartlett, Bobby Crosby, Alex Gonzalez, David Eckstein and a healthy Omar Vizquel.
Again, even in a 12-team format in which a few more of these guys were taken, you would still have choices. You're not going to have to worry about empty production from a roster slot.
The bottom-line premise is this: Give yourself a chance to get lucky.
Jason Grey is a graduate of the MLB Scouting Bureau's Scout Development Program and has won two Tout Wars titles, one LABR title and numerous other national "experts" competitions.
