Free Preview
The following is a free sample of a column from Baseball HQ, one of hundreds readers receive during the course of their subscription. Get a competitive advantage in your league by subscribing today!
ROTISSERIE GAMING: The arithmetic of panic
Patrick Davitt - April 18, 2008
Less than three weeks in, and all over the Rotisserie world, collars are starting to snug up as owners see their teams mired in eighth place, 30 points or more back of the leaders. Even on our excellent Reader Forums, ordinarily wise and skilled owners are starting to gripe about their teams and their players. Other subscribers are advising patience and forbearance.
It's sound advice for our game. Because especially in the rate categories, what looks like a daunting deficit is most often actually a small problem: If you have a good team, even a very slow start will turn around if you let your talent work.
Batting Average
For example, look at the Batting Average category. Many a last place team is languishing around the .240 mark and wondering what's going on. Would that same owner be gnashing his teeth if his team were at, say, .260? Probably not. And yet if his team is at a fairly standard 500 AB through the first two weeks, the difference between .240 and .260 is just 10 hits. Less than one hit per day!
And when you extrapolate a .242 500-AB team out to the end of the year, say to 6,500 AB, the capacity to move is startling:
BA to come .265 .275 .285 .295 .305 .315 .325 ========================================================= FINAL BA .263 .272 .282 .291 .300 .309 .319
If this .242 team hits .285 the rest of the way, it will pull the team BA all the way up to .282. The critical point is the number of ABs left. Look at this complete matrix of the .242 team with ABs to date in increments of 500:
BA to come
.265 .275 .285 .295 .305 .315 .325
========================================================
500 .263 .272 .282 .291 .300 .309 .319
1000 .262 .270 .278 .287 .295 .304 .312
Y 1500 .260 .267 .275 .283 .290 .298 .306
T 2000 .258 .265 .272 .279 .286 .293 .300
D 2500 .256 .262 .268 .275 .281 .287 .293
3000 .254 .260 .265 .271 .276 .281 .287
A 3500 .253 .257 .262 .266 .271 .276 .280
B 4000 .251 .255 .259 .262 .266 .270 .274
4500 .249 .252 .255 .258 .261 .264 .268
5000 .247 .250 .252 .254 .257 .259 .261
5500 .246 .247 .249 .250 .252 .253 .255
6500 .244 .245 .245 .246 .247 .248 .248
To read the chart, read down the first column to the number of ABs remaining, then across to the column with the expected BA for the balance of the year. This chart shows how the impact of improved BA is lessened with the passage of time as the AB denominator grows.
In fact, the starting BA doesn't matter—the gain is consistent so long as the number of current and final ABs stays constant:
BA to come
.265 .275 .285 .295 .305 .315 .325
==============================================================
500 +.021 +.030 +.040 +.049 +.058 +.067 +.077
1000 +.020 +.028 +.036 +.045 +.053 +.062 +.070
Y 1500 +.018 +.025 +.033 +.041 +.048 +.056 +.064
T 2000 +.016 +.023 +.030 +.037 +.044 +.051 +.058
D 2500 +.014 +.020 +.026 +.033 +.039 +.045 +.051
3000 +.012 +.018 +.023 +.029 +.034 +.039 +.045
A 3500 +.011 +.015 +.020 +.024 +.029 +.034 +.038
B 4000 +.009 +.013 +.017 +.020 +.024 +.028 +.032
4500 +.007 +.010 +.013 +.016 +.019 +.022 +.026
5000 +.005 +.008 +.010 +.012 +.015 +.017 +.019
5500 +.004 +.005 +.007 +.008 +.010 +.011 +.013
6000 +.002 +.003 +.003 +.004 +.005 +.006 +.006
The converse is also true: If your team is not going to get to 6,500 ABs, the capacity to change the final BA is adversely affected. Look at the same chart with a 5,500-AB team:
BA to come
.265 .275 .285 .295 .305 .315 .325
========================================================
500 +.021 +.030 +.039 +.048 +.057 +.066 +.075
1000 +.019 +.027 +.035 +.043 +.052 +.060 +.068
Y 1500 +.017 +.024 +.031 +.039 +.046 +.053 +.060
T 2000 +.015 +.021 +.027 +.034 +.040 +.047 +.053
D 2500 +.013 +.018 +.023 +.029 +.034 +.040 +.045
3000 +.011 +.015 +.020 +.024 +.029 +.033 +.038
A 3500 +.008 +.012 +.016 +.019 +.023 +.027 +.030
B 4000 +.006 +.009 +.012 +.015 +.017 +.020 +.023
4500 +.004 +.006 +.008 +.010 +.011 +.013 +.015
5000 +.002 +.003 +.004 +.005 +.006 +.007 +.008
Looking at a team with 2,500 current ABs, the two charts of gains shows that a team batting .285 the rest of the way gains 23 points on a 5,500-AB team but 26 points on a 6,500-AB team. Call it another reason to aim at draft to build a roster that will play regularly and amass ABs.
ERA and WHIP
Can we use similar reasoning for the pitching rate categories? Surely we can. Assuming a team headed for 1,100 IP, we can infer about 85 IP to date. Let's imagine this team has started the year with 5.00 ERA. What happens the rest of the way?
ERA to come
3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75
================================================
85 3.62 3.85 4.07 4.30 4.54 4.77
170 3.73 3.94 4.15 4.36 4.57 4.79
Y 255 3.85 4.04 4.24 4.43 4.62 4.81
T 340 3.97 4.14 4.31 4.48 4.66 4.83
D 425 4.08 4.23 4.39 4.54 4.70 4.84
510 4.19 4.33 4.46 4.60 4.73 4.86
I 595 4.31 4.43 4.54 4.66 4.78 4.89
P 680 4.43 4.52 4.62 4.71 4.81 4.91
765 4.54 4.62 4.70 4.77 4.85 4.93
850 4.66 4.71 4.77 4.83 4.88 4.94
935 4.77 4.81 4.84 4.88 4.93 4.96
1020 4.89 4.91 4.93 4.95 4.97 4.98
Even a relatively pedestrian 4.00 ERA the balance of the year leads to a 4.09 year-end value—almost like the first two weeks hadn't happened! Once again, we see the time values are critical: If this team is at 5.00 ERA with 510 IP YTD, even getting a 3.50 ERA the rest of the way only pulls the overall ERA down to 4.19.
And that brings us to the WHIP figures. In this table, the team is at 1.50 through the first 85 IP, which is two weeks' worth of an 1,100-IP campaign:
WHIP to come
1.20 1.23 1.26 1.29 1.32 1.35 1.38 1.41
=======================================================================
85 1.224 1.251 1.279 1.306 1.335 1.362 1.390 1.417
170 1.246 1.272 1.297 1.323 1.348 1.374 1.398 1.424
Y 255 1.270 1.293 1.316 1.339 1.362 1.385 1.408 1.431
T 340 1.293 1.314 1.335 1.355 1.375 1.396 1.417 1.438
D 425 1.316 1.335 1.354 1.372 1.390 1.408 1.427 1.445
510 1.339 1.355 1.371 1.387 1.404 1.420 1.435 1.452
I 595 1.363 1.376 1.390 1.404 1.418 1.432 1.445 1.459
P 680 1.385 1.397 1.408 1.420 1.431 1.443 1.455 1.465
765 1.409 1.418 1.427 1.436 1.445 1.455 1.464 1.473
850 1.432 1.439 1.445 1.453 1.459 1.466 1.473 1.480
935 1.455 1.460 1.465 1.469 1.474 1.478 1.483 1.487
1020 1.478 1.480 1.483 1.485 1.487 1.489 1.491 1.494
Look down the 1.32 column for an example. With only 85 IP YTD, this team can pull its overall WHIP down to 1.335—again, almost like the first two weeks hadn't happened. But if this team is halfway through the year, with 595 IP in the books, the overall result is 1.418—still a useful gain, but not a huge swing.
CONCLUSION
These tables demonstrate something with nearly total clarity: Two weeks into the season is far too early to panic and make major strategic moves. In all the rate categories, it is easily possible to manage huge swings if you have the players in place to log better results over the remaining 24 weeks.
If you don't, that's another story. That is, if your first two weeks of .242 are a fair reflection of your roster of low-contact free-swingers, then it is recklessly optimistic to expect that same group to log an offsetting .290 the rest of the way.
That said, though, not many of us acquire a .242 or a 5.00 ERA team at draft.
Finally, the non-rate cumulative categories need also be monitored, but you can usually see much more easily how you stand and how a surge—or even a return to expected production—will move you in the category.
Receive weekly Baseball HQ insights via e-mail with a FREE SUBSCRIPTION to Baseball HQ Friday. News analyses, gaming strategies and Ron Shandler's Master Notes, every Friday from January through September, always FREE. Subscribe today!
More free reads from the Baseball HQ Library:
Batting Average Buyers Guide: Looking Beyond the 25-Man Rosters
Market Pulse: Draft trends effects
Fanalytics: The LIMA Plan
Fanalytics: PQS and qERA - New frontiers in pitcher evaluation
Fanalytics: Quint-Inning - The Official Rules
Fanalytics: The great myths of projective accuracy
