CT Fantasy Baseball - Interested?

[mattmitchl44]

Not that I need to justify the trade, but I think you've had my team pretty wrong thus far. A few notes, though...

You have Martinez hitting .243 why exactly? He hasn't hit that low in a full season in over a decade. He's 97th percentile in barrel rate, 83% in hard hit rate, 73rd in xBA, and 91st in xSLG. Something would have to go very wrong for him to hit .243 the rest of the season and I'm wondering what you think that will be.

Well, regarding Martinez, if we look at all of the FG ROS models, they have him with a ROS BA of .236 - .249 and a ROS OPS of .720 - .770, so the mid-points there are a BA of .243 and an OPS of .745.

Yates has a 1.79 xERA / 2.01 FIP. Yeah, he's not going to go all season without giving up a HR, but you have him regressing big time and McArthur pitching basically exactly to his xERA / FIP. Neither of them walk many guys but Yates misses more bats.

Same observation - the models have Yates with a ROS ERA of 3.88 - 4.06 and an ROS WHIP of 1.20 - 1.34 (with all but one from 1.32 - 1.34). Same models have McArthur with a ROS ERA of 3.88 - 4.56 (so about 0.25 higher at the mid-point) and a ROS WHIP of 1.28 - 1.35 (bit higher).

And if you look at xFIP to account for the SSS HR differences, Yates is 3.27 to McArthur's 3.20.

But the models also have Robertson, on Texas, being better than Yates with a ROS ERA of 3.35 - 3.97 and a ROS WHIP of 1.18 - 1.30. So if Yates does regress, is Robertson waiting there to take his job?

I would never claim that those models will be invariably right in any particular case, but I think we can say they are not groundless either.

I have a big lead in quality starts and strikeouts. If I can just get to 4 points or so in saves and JD gives me the gains I think I'll get in AVG / OPS, I think it's a good deal for me.

If Soto is hurt, it doesn't matter, though. If Soto is ultimately fine, I think it's +3.5 points in the standings for me if JD hits.

You absolutely do have a big lead in QS and K. And I would have taken Cortes for McArthur in what, at least IMO, would have been a trade that might have helped you without you strengthening QV.

Just saying - if I were in your position, I would certainly be working my way up from the bottom of the standings in my bias of who to go out and make a trade with.

On your last point, I made offers to a couple of teams that are lower in the standings... offers that I felt benefited their teams overall more than mine, and they were rejected without counters.

I would not have dealt Cortes for McArthur. Heck, I didn't agree to trade him for a player I subsequently dropped (in hindsight, maybe I should have taken it, but you withdrew it before I responded IIRC). I have my eyes on a couple of arms who are not on the Royals who I think could be high leverage options for them soon.

Quincy is doing a great job but I'm not worried about him, per se. I'm looking at my opportunities to gain or hold points, and I felt like this was a good opportunity to do so. It probably goes without saying that I disagree with the models (on JD Martinez specifically) and am viewing him as more likely to get me the 3-5 points in AVG and 5-8 points in OPS that I'm looking for.

All fair, and why I likely won't consider vetoing the trade even though, from my viewpoint, it is very lop-sided. If QV were getting this lop-sided of a "win," again from my assessment, in a trade with someone at the bottom of the standings, I would have to veto it because I couldn't rationalize it as being in the spirit of equitable competition.

We can only bring our own perspectives when we decide whether a trade is "unfair" unless the parties involved do justify themselves.

[Quincy Varnish]

All fair, and why I likely won't consider vetoing the trade even though, from my viewpoint, it is very lop-sided. If QV were getting this lop-sided of a "win," again from my assessment, in a trade with someone at the bottom of the standings, I would have to veto it because I couldn't rationalize it as being in the spirit of equitable competition.

We can only bring our own perspectives when we decide whether a trade is "unfair" unless the parties involved do justify themselves.

Oh FFS your Cortes for McArthur trade hardly would have been in the spirit of equitable competition, and far more unbalanced than the trade currently being processed. I don’t see how you can possibly still be whining about this trade, and then actually suggest the he SHOULD have traded you Cortes (who projects #55 ROS) for McArthur (#210 ROS, and that’s generous). Why? Because you think he should have played footsie with you instead. That isn’t a legitimate reason to veto a trade.

[mattmitchl44]

All fair, and why I likely won't consider vetoing the trade even though, from my viewpoint, it is very lop-sided. If QV were getting this lop-sided of a "win," again from my assessment, in a trade with someone at the bottom of the standings, I would have to veto it because I couldn't rationalize it as being in the spirit of equitable competition.

We can only bring our own perspectives when we decide whether a trade is "unfair" unless the parties involved do justify themselves.

Oh FFS your Cortes for McArthur trade hardly would have been in the spirit of equitable competition, and far more unbalanced than the trade currently being processed. I don’t see how you can possibly still be whining about this trade, and then actually suggest the he SHOULD have traded you Cortes (who projects #55 ROS) for McArthur (#210 ROS, and that’s generous). Why? Because you think he should have played footsie with you instead. That isn’t a legitimate reason to veto a trade.

Ok - that's potentially a fair assessment. But I would still say that Cortes (11 VORP) for McArthur (5 VORP) is not as lop-sided as the current deal (24 VORP to 16 VORP). You think it would be more lop-sided because you think McArthur is "terrible," but as explained I don't think he is "terrible" if you are simply looking for potential saves.

But, IMO, the further down the standings he's going to make that deal where he might be giving up more than he's getting, the more I'm going to be willing to allow it without much question.

If he wants to "mine" ggnoobs for saves by giving up a lop-sided premium to get them, have at it. That, IMO, would be the overwhelmingly obvious thing to do.

[An Old Friend]

All fair, and why I likely won't consider vetoing the trade even though, from my viewpoint, it is very lop-sided. If QV were getting this lop-sided of a "win," again from my assessment, in a trade with someone at the bottom of the standings, I would have to veto it because I couldn't rationalize it as being in the spirit of equitable competition.

We can only bring our own perspectives when we decide whether a trade is "unfair" unless the parties involved do justify themselves.

Oh FFS your Cortes for McArthur trade hardly would have been in the spirit of equitable competition, and far more unbalanced than the trade currently being processed. I don’t see how you can possibly still be whining about this trade, and then actually suggest the he SHOULD have traded you Cortes (who projects #55 ROS) for McArthur (#210 ROS, and that’s generous). Why? Because you think he should have played footsie with you instead. That isn’t a legitimate reason to veto a trade.

Ok - that's potentially a fair assessment. But I would still say that Cortes (11 VORP) for McArthur (5 VORP) is not as lop-sided as the current deal (24 VORP to 16 VORP). You think it would be more lop-sided because you think McArthur is "terrible," but as explained I don't think he is "terrible" if you are simply looking for potential saves.

But, IMO, the further down the standings he's going to make that deal where he might be giving up more than he's getting, the more I'm going to be willing to allow it without much question.

If he wants to "mine" ggnoobs for saves by giving up a lop-sided premium to get them, have at it. That, IMO, would be the overwhelmingly obvious thing to do.

I offered a deal to ggnoobs and he rejected without a counter and specifically said he wasn’t dealing Clase. I took him at his word that he’s fine living at the bottom.

I don’t think the trade is lopsided.

[mattmitchl44]

All fair, and why I likely won't consider vetoing the trade even though, from my viewpoint, it is very lop-sided. If QV were getting this lop-sided of a "win," again from my assessment, in a trade with someone at the bottom of the standings, I would have to veto it because I couldn't rationalize it as being in the spirit of equitable competition.

We can only bring our own perspectives when we decide whether a trade is "unfair" unless the parties involved do justify themselves.

Oh FFS your Cortes for McArthur trade hardly would have been in the spirit of equitable competition, and far more unbalanced than the trade currently being processed. I don’t see how you can possibly still be whining about this trade, and then actually suggest the he SHOULD have traded you Cortes (who projects #55 ROS) for McArthur (#210 ROS, and that’s generous). Why? Because you think he should have played footsie with you instead. That isn’t a legitimate reason to veto a trade.

Ok - that's potentially a fair assessment. But I would still say that Cortes (11 VORP) for McArthur (5 VORP) is not as lop-sided as the current deal (24 VORP to 16 VORP). You think it would be more lop-sided because you think McArthur is "terrible," but as explained I don't think he is "terrible" if you are simply looking for potential saves.

But, IMO, the further down the standings he's going to make that deal where he might be giving up more than he's getting, the more I'm going to be willing to allow it without much question.

If he wants to "mine" ggnoobs for saves by giving up a lop-sided premium to get them, have at it. That, IMO, would be the overwhelmingly obvious thing to do.

I offered a deal to ggnoobs and he rejected without a counter and specifically said he wasn’t dealing Clase. I took him at his word that he’s fine living at the bottom.

I don’t think the trade is lopsided.

Understood - and I understand your justification, even if my own assessment does not agree with it. But, like I said, absent that additional understanding/justification, we can only go by our own perspectives of what is "fair" or "unfair." And if we're not going to do that, we might as well not have trade vetoes at all.

[An Old Friend]

Matt, re: the evaluation based on projections... here were Fantasy Pros' full season projections on my roster and their actual results thus far through just under 40% of the season:

Tarik Skubal
projected - 3.40 ERA, 1.11 WHIP, 10 W, 14 QS, 173 K
actual - 1.97 ERA, 0.88 WHIP, 7 W, 9 QS, 86 K

Cole Ragans
projected - 3.93 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, 10 W, 13 QS, 170 K
actual - 3.33 ERA, 1.21 WHIP, 4 W, 8 QS, 89 K

Garrett Crochet
projected - 4.10 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, 6 W, 8 QS, 118 K
actual - 3.49 ERA, 0.93 WHIP, 5 W, 7 QS, 93 K

Nestor Cortes
projected - 4.03 ERA, 1.19 WHIP, 9 W, 11 QS, 140 K
actual - 3.46 ERA, 1.09 WHIP, 3 W, 5 QS, 74 K

Tanner Houck
projected - 4.30 ERA, 1.34 WHIP, 9 W, 10 QS, 129 K
actual - 1.91 ERA, 0.92 WHIP, 6 W, 11 QS, 84 K

Erick Fedde
projected - 4.85 ERA, 1.39 WHIP, 7 W, 10 QS, 120 K
actual - 3.27 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, 4 W, 5 QS, 73 K

Reynaldo Lopez
projected - 4.00 ERA, 1.27 WHIP, 7 W, 6 QS, 112 K
actual - 1.85 ERA, 1.09 WHIP, 3 W, 7 QS, 62 K

To be clear, projections as a guideline are something I find of little value. And if I built my roster or managed it based on projections, I wouldn't be sitting where I am because it's unlikely I would have rostered most of these guys to begin with. Your position would seem to be that I'd be wise to sell high on every one of them.

So I guess my question is, other than the projections you've cited, why do YOU feel it's a lopsided trade? Not that it matters, I'm just curious. Considering that (I think) this is my first trade of the season , I'm not reckless in my thought process.

Cortes was of marginal excess value moving forward for me, I have a gap in saves and am able to get a highly performing reliever that won't hurt me in ERA/WHIP, and I'm making a bet that JD Martinez outhits Riley Greene the rest of the way. But that's all it is... Martinez has the track record and still has elite batted ball quality. Greene is really striking the ball well, too. I chose the guy that I think is more likely to hit over .255 in my opinion.

[mattmitchl44]

Matt, re: the evaluation based on projections... here were Fantasy Pros' full season projections on my roster and their actual results thus far through just under 40% of the season:

Tarik Skubal
projected - 3.40 ERA, 1.11 WHIP, 10 W, 14 QS, 173 K
actual - 1.97 ERA, 0.88 WHIP, 7 W, 9 QS, 86 K

Cole Ragans
projected - 3.93 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, 10 W, 13 QS, 170 K
actual - 3.33 ERA, 1.21 WHIP, 4 W, 8 QS, 89 K

Garrett Crochet
projected - 4.10 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, 6 W, 8 QS, 118 K
actual - 3.49 ERA, 0.93 WHIP, 5 W, 7 QS, 93 K

Nestor Cortes
projected - 4.03 ERA, 1.19 WHIP, 9 W, 11 QS, 140 K
actual - 3.46 ERA, 1.09 WHIP, 3 W, 5 QS, 74 K

Tanner Houck
projected - 4.30 ERA, 1.34 WHIP, 9 W, 10 QS, 129 K
actual - 1.91 ERA, 0.92 WHIP, 6 W, 11 QS, 84 K

Erick Fedde
projected - 4.85 ERA, 1.39 WHIP, 7 W, 10 QS, 120 K
actual - 3.27 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, 4 W, 5 QS, 73 K

Reynaldo Lopez
projected - 4.00 ERA, 1.27 WHIP, 7 W, 6 QS, 112 K
actual - 1.85 ERA, 1.09 WHIP, 3 W, 7 QS, 62 K

To be clear, projections as a guideline are something I find of little value. And if I built my roster or managed it based on projections, I wouldn't be sitting where I am because it's unlikely I would have rostered most of these guys to begin with. Your position would seem to be that I'd be wise to sell high on every one of them.

So I guess my question is, other than the projections you've cited, why do YOU feel it's a lopsided trade? Not that it matters, I'm just curious. Considering that (I think) this is my first trade of the season , I'm not reckless in my thought process.

Cortes was of marginal excess value moving forward for me, I have a gap in saves and am able to get a highly performing reliever that won't hurt me in ERA/WHIP, and I'm making a bet that JD Martinez outhits Riley Greene the rest of the way. But that's all it is... Martinez has the track record and still has elite batted ball quality. Greene is really striking the ball well, too. I chose the guy that I think is more likely to hit over .255 in my opinion.

I am making my assessment based on what I think are the best, objective predictions with which to do so. Any assessment - yours, mine, QV's, etc. - is going to be based on our highly uncertain predictions regarding the future. We choose different ways to predict the future, we come up with significantly different assessments. I just choose to make mine by trying to take my own subjectivity out of it and relying on "consensus projections." Mostly because I typically don't have the time to put more effort into it than that.

And, yes, it was always completely clear why part of your process would have been trading from your SPs. You're way over in projected innings, so at some point you might be pressed to even use all of you SP depth. Hence, trading an "excess" SP makes all the sense in the world.

So if you'd just said Cortes-for-Yates, that would have made as much objective sense to me as Cortes-for-McArthur. In an absolute sense, IMO, Cortes is the more valuable piece, but to you - having an excess of SP depth and a lack of SVs - one can easily see why the value difference between Cortes and Yates is smaller.

And, on top of that, I'm seeing Greene > Martinez. But you explained why you are valuing Martinez, so that's fine.

So I'm seeing Cortes > Yates (in a vacuum) and Greene > Martinez, and then wondering on top of that why you would be handing that package to one of your closest pursuers.

If you were making this trade with ggnoobs, I would have just written it off to ggnoobs having driven an appropriately hard deal and gotten considerable excess value to help him try to climb out of last place while giving you the specific thing (saves) that you need but are difficult to find.

If I were where you are, and if I were working from MY assessment, I might still make this trade with ggnoob, because he's irrelevant in the standings right now, but I'd never consider making it with anyone in the Top 4.

[Quincy Varnish]

If you were making this trade with ggnoobs, I would have just written it off to ggnoobs having driven an appropriately hard deal and gotten considerable excess value to help him try to climb out of last place while giving you the specific thing (saves) that you need but are difficult to find.

Interesting, Matt. If he makes the same deal w/ ggnoobs, you’re fine with it.

Looks like if I made the same deal with ggnoobs, it’s some kind of miscarriage of justice??

All fair, and why I likely won't consider vetoing the trade even though, from my viewpoint, it is very lop-sided. If QV were getting this lop-sided of a "win," again from my assessment, in a trade with someone at the bottom of the standings, I would have to veto it because I couldn't rationalize it as being in the spirit of equitable competition.

The twisted methodology you’re using to determine what trades should and shouldn’t be vetoed is simply off base. Evaluate a trade on the basis of fairness - not the parties involved, or whatever strategy you feel a team should employ.

Argh.

Also - when it’s well-established that the projections you’ve been using border on complete garbage, you shouldn’t be using those as your guide either. Look at Yahoo’s season rankings, pre-rankings and the actual numbers the players are producing. Maybe even listen to the thought process of the teams involved. Try to use your brain and learn something… you said this would be a learning process for everyone, so it could help if you stop letting Fantasy Pros do all the thinking for you.

[An Old Friend]

I'd never consider making it with anyone in the Top 4.

That's fair... kind of like how teams rarely trade within their own division.

Quincy and I talked about starting the league and it's fun to compete. Even more so, now, that we have vastly different strategies but are both competing at the top.

I'm not just trying to beat Quincy... I'm trying to beat everyone. So if it ends up being mutually beneficial to us, even better. If I lose the league because of THIS trade, shame on me, but I don't think the talent that changed hands is going to sway the league in either of our favor. I think the deal helps me stay near 140 points overall which would keep me at/near the top of the table.

If Quincy uses Nestor / Greene to further improve his roster, good for him. Saves are scarce, so even though I feel the deal was pretty equitable, it's going to likely cost a premium to get help in the most scarce category.

[butsir01]

We’re watching CT fantasy baseball right now: “ Nightmare in Red and White.”

[Quincy Varnish]

We’re watching CT fantasy baseball right now: “ Nightmare in Red and White.”

Nice. I think we have the new league name for 2025.

[mattmitchl44]

Interesting, Matt. If he makes the same deal w/ ggnoobs, you’re fine with it.

Looks like if I made the same deal with ggnoobs, it’s some kind of miscarriage of justice??

If you made the same deal from AOF's side - meaning you were the one trading Cortes + Greene to gg for Martinez + Yates, then I would think exactly the same.

The twisted methodology you’re using to determine what trades should and shouldn’t be vetoed is simply off base. Evaluate a trade on the basis of fairness - not the parties involved, or whatever strategy you feel a team should employ.

I AM evaluating it based on my assessment of what is "fair" as objectively as possible.

Also - when it’s well-established that the projections you’ve been using border on complete garbage, you shouldn’t be using those as your guide either. Look at Yahoo’s season rankings, pre-rankings and the actual numbers the players are producing. Maybe even listen to the thought process of the teams involved. Try to use your brain and learn something… you said this would be a learning process for everyone, so it could help if you stop letting Fantasy Pros do all the thinking for you.

And that's exactly what I've done in this case. I hear why AOF thinks this deal is reasonable, based on his view of projecting the future. I've now said that multiple times. But I don't get that perspective without raising the question of its "fairness" to begin with.

And relying on Yahoo isn't likely to be any better that relying on any other statistical source.

[mattmitchl44]

I'd never consider making it with anyone in the Top 4.

That's fair... kind of like how teams rarely trade within their own division.

Exactly. That's why this trade struck me as odd - in particular when I of course knew you had options to get saves without "trading within the division."

Quincy and I talked about starting the league and it's fun to compete. Even more so, now, that we have vastly different strategies but are both competing at the top.

I'm not just trying to beat Quincy... I'm trying to beat everyone. So if it ends up being mutually beneficial to us, even better. If I lose the league because of THIS trade, shame on me, but I don't think the talent that changed hands is going to sway the league in either of our favor. I think the deal helps me stay near 140 points overall which would keep me at/near the top of the table.

If Quincy uses Nestor / Greene to further improve his roster, good for him. Saves are scarce, so even though I feel the deal was pretty equitable, it's going to likely cost a premium to get help in the most scarce category.

I guess that's the thing - you are trying to beat everyone. But, IMO, the part of "everyone" you have to worry about is QV, Whatashame, and Booooyah.

Better than you making a trade which is beneficial to both you and QV would be making a trade that is just beneficial to you (because you traded "outside of the division").

[Quincy Varnish]

Interesting, Matt. If he makes the same deal w/ ggnoobs, you’re fine with it.

Looks like if I made the same deal with ggnoobs, it’s some kind of miscarriage of justice??

If you made the same deal from AOF's side - meaning you were the one trading Cortes + Greene to gg for Martinez + Yates, then I would think exactly the same.

Again, you should be evaluating the players involved - not the teams involved, or your imagined motivations for the trade. You’ve already stated that the trade would have been “fine” if someone lower in the standings were benefiting from it… a fair trade is a fair trade, regardless of the respective standings of the teams involved.

[An Old Friend]

I'd never consider making it with anyone in the Top 4.

That's fair... kind of like how teams rarely trade within their own division.

Exactly. That's why this trade struck me as odd - in particular when I of course knew you had options to get saves without "trading within the division."

Quincy and I talked about starting the league and it's fun to compete. Even more so, now, that we have vastly different strategies but are both competing at the top.

I'm not just trying to beat Quincy... I'm trying to beat everyone. So if it ends up being mutually beneficial to us, even better. If I lose the league because of THIS trade, shame on me, but I don't think the talent that changed hands is going to sway the league in either of our favor. I think the deal helps me stay near 140 points overall which would keep me at/near the top of the table.

If Quincy uses Nestor / Greene to further improve his roster, good for him. Saves are scarce, so even though I feel the deal was pretty equitable, it's going to likely cost a premium to get help in the most scarce category.

I guess that's the thing - you are trying to beat everyone. But, IMO, the part of "everyone" you have to worry about is QV, Whatashame, and Booooyah.

Better than you making a trade which is beneficial to both you and QV would be making a trade that is just beneficial to you (because you traded "outside of the division").

If I thought that this trade would be a massive boon to Quincy, I wouldn't have made it. And I think I got better than he did.

Interestingly, Yahoo projects the two hitters over the rest of the season as:
JD Martinez - .279 AVG / .868 OPS, 17 HR, 48 RBI - 96th overall
Riley Greene - .282 AVG / .799 OPS, 11 HR, 38 RBI - 159th overall

Greene's current xBA is .245 and Martinez's is .272

I paid for saves and a bat that I project to be better.

[mattmitchl44]

I'd never consider making it with anyone in the Top 4.

That's fair... kind of like how teams rarely trade within their own division.

Exactly. That's why this trade struck me as odd - in particular when I of course knew you had options to get saves without "trading within the division."

Quincy and I talked about starting the league and it's fun to compete. Even more so, now, that we have vastly different strategies but are both competing at the top.

I'm not just trying to beat Quincy... I'm trying to beat everyone. So if it ends up being mutually beneficial to us, even better. If I lose the league because of THIS trade, shame on me, but I don't think the talent that changed hands is going to sway the league in either of our favor. I think the deal helps me stay near 140 points overall which would keep me at/near the top of the table.

If Quincy uses Nestor / Greene to further improve his roster, good for him. Saves are scarce, so even though I feel the deal was pretty equitable, it's going to likely cost a premium to get help in the most scarce category.

I guess that's the thing - you are trying to beat everyone. But, IMO, the part of "everyone" you have to worry about is QV, Whatashame, and Booooyah.

Better than you making a trade which is beneficial to both you and QV would be making a trade that is just beneficial to you (because you traded "outside of the division").

If I thought that this trade would be a massive boon to Quincy, I wouldn't have made it. And I think I got better than he did.

Interestingly, Yahoo projects the two hitters over the rest of the season as:
JD Martinez - .279 AVG / .868 OPS, 17 HR, 48 RBI - 96th overall
Riley Greene - .282 AVG / .799 OPS, 11 HR, 38 RBI - 159th overall

Greene's current xBA is .245 and Martinez's is .272

I paid for saves and a bat that I project to be better.

That's fair - different projections lead to different answers. I would probably just put more faith in the models cited by FG than whatever model Yahoo uses.