My Genius/Agnostic Classification
April 16th, 2010 by Derek Carty in General Guidance, Player Discussion, TheoreticalIn continuing to introduce myself around, I figured I'd share my feelings on where I fall on the genius/agnostic spectrum.
Honestly, I find it somewhat difficult to classify myself. Not in the sense that I’m, say, 25% genius/75% agnostic because I always go after certain players and then take whatever values come to me elsewhere, but rather in the sense that I’m partially a genius… but only as a result of being agnostic.
I know that Alex Rodriguez is a good player. He’s terrific. But everyone feels this way, so I’m not going to get him at a bargain price. I also know that Nelson Cruz is a good player, and that he’s similar in value to a guy like Matt Holliday. Not everyone else feels this way, though. So I found myself targeting Cruz in a genius-like way in most drafts, but only because he comes cheaper than I think he's worth. If Holliday were to come at the same “bargain” cost of Cruz, I’d be perfectly happy to take him instead. Conversely, if Cruz were to go for the same price as Holliday usually does, I'd be fine letting him go.
So I suppose you could say that I am a total agnostic, but I’m not so sure it’s as simple as that.
Loading ...
I think it is as simple as that, at least as far as I understand the distinction. I am happy with virtually any player in the pool if I can get them at what I consider a good price. Your Nelson Cruz example is simply a case where you are fairly sure that your valuation is higher than the world, but you are prepared (I assume) to defend that with some numbers and not just your gut. I have Weaver on both my teams and from the price I have seen him go in expert leagues I assume I'd own him in most any AL only league I did. This isn't because I have some strong breakout call on him, but just because for reasons I can't fathom other people just don't seem to like him enough.
By the way, I was very bummed when you bid over us on Cruz. I agree that he went at an attractive price.
I'm mostly agnostic – only I have a very different view of what the market should be for certain players than most. If I were forced to use market numbers, I'd be 35 percent genius 65 agnostic. (More genius than that in a draft where you have less control), But because my view of the players and how they fit into the parameters of the game is different, it's going to look like 70/30 genius. I didn't target ARod, by the way, or Longoria – just thought they were cheap given what I thought I could get late – Pods for $4, Guillen for $6, Callaspo for $3. I didn't know specifically, but I figured if I saved some money, I'd get BOTH the stars and the ABs late. I had to let a lot of my pet players go to make sure I had enough ABs to fill my roster, which is painful but necessary to make the strategy of buying stars work. The only guys I targeted ahead of time were Jeter and Rivera – within reason. Wanted to get cheap, upside pitchers, two closers and a stacked offense with stars. That was my plan, and it was just a question of whether the bargains would be there late as they usually are.
Derek, I also think most people do that, but the question is the extent to which your median for Cruz is higher than the market's – to that extent you've made a genius call on him because you think he'll finish in his 60th percentile range or better given market expectations, even if for you that's just his median. A true agnostic cannot have median expectations that differ from the market's – (though what the market is in this case is more nebulous). He just takes the guys who are below market value in this auction. So if Bill uses CHONE – and we consider that the market, and just takes whoever is a good buy according to it, then he's an agnostic. He has no independent views of the players for himself. He removes himself from the process completely. But to the extent that you do your own projections, and those differ from the the consensus, you're expressing a "genius" style or a preference. I think we all have to be somewhat agnostic relative to our own projections/impressions to draft good teams.
It seems the devil is in the definitions. Let me tell you a story, you tell me whether I was genius or agnostic.
Two years ago, before the 2008 auction, people were high on Josh Hamilton. Great story, big forearms, nice season in Cincy, nice ballpark in Texas. I had him with a bid price of $20 with 10 percent inflation in my AL Only keeper league, and I thought he there was no way I would get him at that price. That means my read of the room was that he would go for more than that.
Alas, things went awry, and I ended up needing power, and Hamilton was one of the last pure power plays to go while everyone still had money. I could give you the blow by blow, but looking at my team and the players left, it was my estimation that Hamilton was the right fit, so I kept bidding, despite my misgivings, up to $26, which won him.
As it turned out, I was agnostic in my belief in the player. I paid the price I had to to get what I needed based on the available pool at that moment, but I was genius in my commitment and in the outcome. He led my team into a money winning position. What do you think?
For bonus points: I kept him at $26 last year, which I also had misgivings about given his lack luster finish in 2008 and his tendency to get hurt. Was keeping him agnostic or genius? If I'd thrown him back I would have almost certainly been in better shape to win the league (I finished second).
It sounds to me like you were an agnostic who spent $6 too much. I don't think you can be a genius as i understand the term, thinking you were buying $20 in value for $26.
Indeed, not genius. I spent more than I hoped to. But what difference does that mean? At this point in the auction the budgeting is different. The pool is different. My teams needs are defined. Overspending on the best available young hitter with upside, if you have the money, is a better play than buying at par a lesser hitter who doesn't match your needs as well.
Yeah, I can see the argument for making the bid. I'm just saying to the extent you were asking genius or agnostic it seems clear you were not genius. I guess you were 'targeting a guy' and just kept bidding both of which feel like genius, but with no particular belief he's going to do anything unusual and motivated more by auction factors I think its clearly agnostic.