There is something special about having the foresight to draft a player before he breaks out. But it's a bummer when the season ends, and he'll cost a whole lot more in next year's draft. Unless, of course, you're in a keeper league and can carry the player over.
It’s time to start thinking about freeze lists in keeper leagues. As noted last week, there is no textbook definition of a keeper league compared to a dynasty league. For this discussion, it is going to be assumed the keeper league has a decent level of player pool turnover where players with expiring or cost-prohibitive contracts will be available, populating the pool with a lush supply of top players at each position.
Anyone who has played in a league of this nature is familiar with the concept of inflation. Those successful in this format likely know the traditional treatment of inflation is flawed. But before getting into that, let’s set the stage with an explanation of player pricing.
Todd here. Well, that was me above, and will be me below, but I want to get a bit informal for a minute. This is the part where I’m supposed to talk about value, but I loathe the term. We don’t know a player’s value. We don’t know if he was a value pick, or whether we acquired him at a value in an auction. OK, maybe I can accept “value relative to the market”, but that’s only if the market (or the drafter) is wrong. I like to talk in terms of potential, earnings, or pricing. It’s not a value pick; it’s a potentially profitable pick. A player can potentially earn more than the cost of acquisition. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. Let’s return to our chat about keeper leagues.
Pricing incorporates zero-sum economy principles. Each team has a fixed budget to spend, and there are a set number of players to be rostered. The sum of each team’s budget exactly equals the projected earning of every player comprising a legal roster. The methodology of assigning the prices is well beyond the scope of this discussion.
As an example, let’s say this is a 12-team league, with each team having a $260 budget to roster 23 players (14 hitters, nine pitchers). This means that there is $3,120 ($260 x 12) to be spent on 276 players (23 x 12). A proper pricing list should have exactly 276 draft-worthy players (minimum $1) to legally populate 12 rosters, adding up to $3,120. There will be 168 batters and 108 pitchers. If it’s a two-catcher leagues, there will be 24 catchers priced at least $1.
Team managers in keeper leagues generally freeze players at a price below their expected earnings. Perhaps Justin Steele's breakout was correctly anticipated last season or maybe the league uses a farm draft and there are young players like Corbin Carroll or Gunner Henderson on cheap contracts. Regardless of the mechanism, teams will go into the auction draft with what they hope is built-in profit. Maybe they’re carrying over eight players for a combined cost of $75, but the players are projected to earn $112. This team has $185 remaining to acquire 15 more players.
Let’s extend this to the entire league. Here, there are 96 keepers, projected to earn $1,344 but they only account for $900 of the total budget. The other way of looking at is there are 180 players available, with projected earnings of $1344, leaving $1776 worth of talent, but there is $2220 available to acquire these players.
One of the cardinal sins of an auction draft is leaving money on the table. Therefore, as a group, if all 12 teams spend their allotted $260, they will collectively “overpay” by $444. This is the notion of inflation. To achieve the above, some players will be acquired at a cost higher than their projected earnings.
Conventionally, inflation is adjusting the cost of every player proportionately, so the new prices equal the aggregate remaining budget. Inflation is calculated as follows:
(Total budget – sum of prices for keepers)/(Total budget – sum of expected earning for keepers)
Using our sample league:
(3120 – 900)/(3120 – 1344) = 1.25
This is considered 25% inflation. Keeper league inflation typically runs between 20% and 40%. Mathematically, the expected earnings of the 180 available players are each multiplied by 1.25. If you’re the type of person who knows “a” is correct on a multiple choice test, but still reads b, c and d…
1776 x 1.25 = 2220
As mentioned, this treatment of inflation is flawed. A $1 player remains a $1 player. Maybe they exist, but I’ve never heard of a league where you can bid $1.25. Not to mention, regardless of the inflation factor, there are always a bunch of $1 players in the end game. Where does this minimum 25 cents per player go?
This season’s Ronald Acuna Jr. aside, the very top players are usually projected to earn between $40 and $45, with a bunch between $30 and $40. Applying the 25% inflation linearly, a $44 player should cost $55, a $40 player is priced at $50, and a $32 player is adjusted to $40.
Anyone who has participated in an auction draft with this level of inflation knows these prices are low. The top end talent always sells for more than their inflation adjusted price. Sometimes the prices are such that the auction enters a deflation stage where players are purchased below their projected earnings. The dynamics of a keeper league auction draft will be covered in a future article. This is focusing on keeper lists.
Some will use the league’s inflation factor to help decide on keepers. Using the above example, keeping a player expected to earn $30 for anything less than $44 is defensible. It isn’t advisable, but there are worse decisions.
Pop quiz: Who is a better keeper?
- Player A, keeper price of $1 projected to earn $5
- Player B, keeper price of $40, projected to earn $40
Let’s do the math.
Keeping Player A leaves $259 to spend. Assuming players cost an extra 25%, you’re adding $207 worth of players, yielding a team projected to earn $212.
Keeping Player B leaves $220 to spend. Accounting for the 25%, you’re acquiring $176 worth of players, with a team projected to earn $216.
Of course, the successful team managers in this format manage their budget such that they acquire some of their players at a price lower than the 25% inflation. Plus, they have other keepers, hopefully providing potential profit. The more a team manager has available to spend, the more likely they are to be forced to pay an inflated price.
Pop quiz #2: Which is a better keeper list?
- List A, freezing eight players projected to earn $100 for $50
- List B freezing eight players projected to earn $210 for $180
Showing my work…
List A leaves $210. Let’s be generous and say this team manager was able to purchase the remainder of their team at only 20% inflation. They added $175, for $275 total, not bad. If they are extremely adept at money management and auction dynamics, they may be able to cut inflation to 15%. Now, they’re assembling a team with projected earnings of $283. Nice.
List B leaves $80 for 15 players. They don’t have the budget to swim in the deep end. To be honest, they may be able to break even and add $80 worth of talent, yielding a squad with $290 worth of projected earnings. Let’s say they had to overspend by 10%, thus only adding $73 worth of players. This roster is still projected for $283 worth of earnings, which (not so) coincidentally is the same as List A with 15% inflation.
Sure, I finagled the numbers to match, but the examples are practical. They do not need to be hyperbolic to make my point.
What is my point? Do not be afraid to freeze high salary players. It’s not just about the projected profit from the keepers. The quality of talent you can add with your remaining budget is just as, if not more important.
Todd Zola is an award-winning fantasy baseball writer and 2020 inductee into the Fantasy Sports Writers Hall of Fame. He's the content provider for the 2024 Fantasy Baseball Index Draft Kit, available now. To purchase, click HERE.
