First, It's important to point out that I'm only addressing DraftKings here. I've heard that on FanDuel as score of 40+ is sufficient, but I have limited knowledge of that site and can't confirm that personally.
Second, the answer, albeit a cop out, is that it depends. Some slates will be high scoring and some will be low scoring and the pivotal number is going to slide up and down accordingly. I've lost a game scoring 146 and unbelieveably won a game scoring 34 points. I could just say a good score is enough to win, which while true, tells you absolutely nothing. The total number of runs scored on any given day can really swing the pendulum one way or another.
I've heard on more than one podcast that 100 points should be your goal. It's a nice round number which appeals to the eye, but I don't think it's correct. I've looked at my head to head games, where I've scored between 100-110, and I've lost more than I've won (46.5-53.5 split). A lot of that comes from high scoring days where I was beat 144-106, but a fair number were typical days where I might have been edged out by a single hit (OK, I'm often talking about an RBI Double for 7 points, but it's just one event).
If you look at tomorrow's slate, and choose the best possible team based solely on averages (not counting players who aren't playing due to IR), the best total average score would be 127.4 points.
Now the salaries would make rostering a team of Clayton Kershaw, Matt Carpenter, Bryce Harper etc, price prohibitive so you might be tempted to run the number down a bit. However, that would be forgetting the nature of an average, where many daily scores must be above those numbers. The highest pitching score this season was Corey Kluber's 18K performance which tallied more than 50 points (2.5x the top pitchers averages), and a three homer performance can easily push a batter's total into the high 40's (or better than 4x the top hitter's average). I don't think it's highly possible to predict something like "I think Bryce Harper is going to hit 3 home runs on Wednesday." But one must acknowledge the possibility exists.
Keeping these things in mind, the goal number is better derived from real expectations from batters and pitchers. Not expectations in the literal sense, but expectations of a good game from your players.
I'm placing the goal number at 120 points:
It's slightly below the average number to account for the salary cap restrictions. Measured against my past performance a number in the 120's or higher resulted in a victory for me almost nearly 2/3 the time (64.8%). And admittedly, it utilizes the nice round numbers we all know and love, but on the individual level. It is less than the average number because a batter will score ZERO more often than we'd like. Or the occasional Pitching catastrophe can result in a negative outing. But it also realizes than a strong pitching outing can top 30 points relatively easy and a single home run from a batter will beat the benchmark by 40%.
It also gives very succinct questions to ask yourself when designing your roster:
Of course, there will be instances where you purposely field a subpar hitter at a position: You desperately want two or three $5,000+ players so you need to roster a $2600 SS or a $2800 catcher. In those cases, you add that to your thought process: You take Paul Goldschmidt at 1B with the expectation of a home run+ outing (say 17 pts), realizing you'd be pretty satisfied with 5 pts out of a $2000 Austin Hedges at Catcher. Together you meet the goals. The higher number also means that you stand a fair chance at winning even on days you fall short. And it's what a good goal should be: difficult to attain, but rewarding even if you miss by a little.
Remembering the first answer, the required score to feel confident in a victory will vary based on the outcomes of the day's games. But this gives you a very useful rule of thumb to guide you while you set your lineups.
Second, the answer, albeit a cop out, is that it depends. Some slates will be high scoring and some will be low scoring and the pivotal number is going to slide up and down accordingly. I've lost a game scoring 146 and unbelieveably won a game scoring 34 points. I could just say a good score is enough to win, which while true, tells you absolutely nothing. The total number of runs scored on any given day can really swing the pendulum one way or another.
I've heard on more than one podcast that 100 points should be your goal. It's a nice round number which appeals to the eye, but I don't think it's correct. I've looked at my head to head games, where I've scored between 100-110, and I've lost more than I've won (46.5-53.5 split). A lot of that comes from high scoring days where I was beat 144-106, but a fair number were typical days where I might have been edged out by a single hit (OK, I'm often talking about an RBI Double for 7 points, but it's just one event).
If you look at tomorrow's slate, and choose the best possible team based solely on averages (not counting players who aren't playing due to IR), the best total average score would be 127.4 points.
Now the salaries would make rostering a team of Clayton Kershaw, Matt Carpenter, Bryce Harper etc, price prohibitive so you might be tempted to run the number down a bit. However, that would be forgetting the nature of an average, where many daily scores must be above those numbers. The highest pitching score this season was Corey Kluber's 18K performance which tallied more than 50 points (2.5x the top pitchers averages), and a three homer performance can easily push a batter's total into the high 40's (or better than 4x the top hitter's average). I don't think it's highly possible to predict something like "I think Bryce Harper is going to hit 3 home runs on Wednesday." But one must acknowledge the possibility exists.
Keeping these things in mind, the goal number is better derived from real expectations from batters and pitchers. Not expectations in the literal sense, but expectations of a good game from your players.
I'm placing the goal number at 120 points:
It's slightly below the average number to account for the salary cap restrictions. Measured against my past performance a number in the 120's or higher resulted in a victory for me almost nearly 2/3 the time (64.8%). And admittedly, it utilizes the nice round numbers we all know and love, but on the individual level. It is less than the average number because a batter will score ZERO more often than we'd like. Or the occasional Pitching catastrophe can result in a negative outing. But it also realizes than a strong pitching outing can top 30 points relatively easy and a single home run from a batter will beat the benchmark by 40%.
It also gives very succinct questions to ask yourself when designing your roster:
- Does my chosen pitcher have a good shot at scoring 20 points?
- Does my chosen hitter have a good shot at scoring 10 points?
Of course, there will be instances where you purposely field a subpar hitter at a position: You desperately want two or three $5,000+ players so you need to roster a $2600 SS or a $2800 catcher. In those cases, you add that to your thought process: You take Paul Goldschmidt at 1B with the expectation of a home run+ outing (say 17 pts), realizing you'd be pretty satisfied with 5 pts out of a $2000 Austin Hedges at Catcher. Together you meet the goals. The higher number also means that you stand a fair chance at winning even on days you fall short. And it's what a good goal should be: difficult to attain, but rewarding even if you miss by a little.
Remembering the first answer, the required score to feel confident in a victory will vary based on the outcomes of the day's games. But this gives you a very useful rule of thumb to guide you while you set your lineups.
No comments:
Post a Comment