The Zen and Art of Fantasy Football: An Untested Player Not Worth the Collection

Zen Time:

“The unexamined life is not worth living.” – Socrates

The quote from Socrates above is so well known, that many people who knew nothing about Socrates other than that he was a Greek philosopher have heard this quote and perhaps even refer to it from time to time.

On a personal level, I love this quote. I’ve always agreed with it and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. At the academic level, the popularity of the statement adds layers of meaning, intended and not so intended to these 7 simple words. You may be interested in some of those layers. Among them:

• It is very fair to say that this quote is attributed to Socrates.

You see, we have no real evidence that Socrates actually said it. Actually we find these words – or at least the original Greek, “ὁ ἀνεξέταστος βίος βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ” (according to various sources I have seen) – from Plato who was reportedly a student of Socrates. An apologywhich was his philosophical (and, to some extent, legal) defense of his teacher when Socrates was accused of rebellion and misleading the youth of Athens. As we understand it, Socrates was executed for this crime.

And we understand this from the largest (if not the only) record we have of this test, which is Plato’s version of it, which he provides in his book. An apology.

Do you see why this might be interesting?

• If we dig deeper, we may also realize that the very reason we believe that Socrates existed at all is because of Plato’s writings.

Plato is not only Socrates’ biographer – he is the only real link we have to the idea that Socrates existed at all. We have no physical evidence that Socrates is a person. And perhaps most notably, none of his writings survive today (assuming he did, in fact, exist and wrote, in fact, wrote).

We “know” what Socrates probably believed because Plato told us what those beliefs were. Apparently, there are other ancient Greeks who report unusual evidence of Socrates’ words or actions, but to be honest, I haven’t seen those anecdotes (if they exist at all). Plato’s version of Socrates is widely accepted as what we “know” about Socrates.

• Oh yes, by the way, Plato often wrote his philosophical writings in the form of dialogues.

In other words, Plato wrote his text as a dialogue, usually between teacher and student. And often the teacher in his work was Socrates. And that’s pretty damn good proof that Socrates was a real man and not just a fictional character in a book (or many books, actually) written by some guy named Plato.

So, a little examination of this simple quote – “An unexamined life is not worth living.” – in fact nothing is easy.

The more I learn about Zen in particular, or Buddhism in general, or philosophy even more, or life in general, the more I’ve learned that exploration often takes everything I thought about and at least changes my understanding of what I thought first, if not completely blows it away. Audition is a frustrating – and, I might add, exciting process. I’ve certainly come to see the process of examination as necessary because, as it turns out, much of what I’ve always assumed to be true can’t stand up to a closer look and a few direct questions. This fact has made me more open to the idea that what I think is true can be – in fact, probably to some extent – it’s just not right. This process is not for the faint of heart, but it has been more valuable to me than I can say enough.

How in the world does this work in fantasy baseball?

One of the cool parts of this writing gig is: people often ask me what I think about actors.

One of the most frustrating parts of this writing gig is: when people ask me what I think about actors, they actually think I should have an answer.

Which you should, of course. But a little experimenting has taught me to reserve judgment. Which is great for having a certain level of humility but perhaps not the best attribute for a fantasy baseball writer. Unless it’s a good quality. I, for one, struggle to read or listen to people who seem to have a quick and honest response to their player. Their confidence makes me think, well, I’m going to keep things nice and decent, so I’ll hold back what I think of their confidence. Let’s just say I don’t share the conviction they seem to be hearing.

Jake Bennett

The latest case in this country is Jake Bennett, a pitcher for the Boston Red Sox. There’s no doubt that he’s off to a great start to his MLB career, as he’s pitched 59.1 innings for a 2.58 ERA and 0.94 WHIP. He also collected 6 wins, which is fantasy gold but also more likely the result of the Red Sox hot streak of late than the stats that give us an idea of ​​what to predict going forward. But when students and friends asked me what I thought of him, I had to shrug my shoulders and say I wasn’t sure.

My Worries

With over-the-top numbers like Bennett’s, it’s easy to get excited, but I’ve been reluctant to jump on his bandwagon. Some of his numbers (especially his 18.3% K% and possibly lucky .250 BABIP) bother me so much that I don’t actually have a single share of him. Maybe that’s a mistake. After a deeper examination, I have to admit that my feelings about Bennett have changed to optimism. Here’s a look at what I see and what I *think* the data tells us:

First of all, my anxiety comes mainly from not being able to hit guys. It’s a simple measure, but Ks = success in MLB pitching, and in Bennett’s 59.1 MLB innings, he has 42 Ks – not great. He’s going to have to rely a lot more on getting balls in play, which is much more reliable than when a striker just gets a guy out. But even in terms of the output of the balls in play, I would be fine with that if the hole had a higher GB. Bennett’s MLB GB% is 45.9%, solid, but not dominant. What this percentage means to me, among other things, is that he needs to induce soft contact on every flyball (his FB% is 35.9%) he gives up to impress me. Admittedly, my first thought was that Bennett didn’t have much control over that. But it turns out I was wrong about that. Although he has allowed a maxEV of 115.8 mph (which isn’t a great mark), his EV is just over 87.4 mph (which puts him in the 76th percentile of all pitchers – not bad at all).

Upon Further Examination

Hmm, solid GB but not overpowering, FB% that would get him in trouble but not at 87.4 mph EV. His IK% is microscopic, but so is his BB%. At this point when I was testing him, I was probably more confused than when I started this program. Looking at his Savant Statcast card, though, makes me think I must be missing something:

There is an awful lot of red on that card (red = good). He doesn’t allow barrels, his extension is top-notch, he creates rushes, he doesn’t give up hard contact, and his xERA suggests computer models buy more in anything he does. So what in the world are you doing?

Items+, Velo, and Location+

My first inclination to explain all the red is that his stuff must be bad, but eh, not so much. Some of his Stuff+ are worse: 4-seam fastball Stuff+ is 87, his cutter is 76, his changeup is 86. Just under 100 is the average, so this is not good at all. However, he has solid Stuff at good+ in his sink (99), slider (101), and his curve (110!!).

Here’s the thing, though: he’s only thrown 48 sliders and 35 curveballs this season (compared to 267 4-seam fastballs and 218 sinkers), so he’s not throwing his best Stuff+ pitches very often.

So is his speed what makes him so successful?

Um, no. His max velo on his 4-seam is just as good (95.6 mph) as his sinker max velo (also 95.6 mph), but his average velo on those pitches (4-seam at 92.9 mph, sinker at 92.4 mph) is less than great (pitchers really need 94+ mph to top it). Some of his slower velos: cutter at 85.1 mph, changeup at 83.4 mph, slider at 79.3 mph, and curveball at 79 mph. There can be an advantage to throwing slightly offspeed pitches (compared to fastballs), so maybe there’s something there.

His position+ tells a lot of story – he puts the ball where he wants it where he wants it. On his weak 4-seam, his Loc+ is 119, and on his equally weak sink, it’s 116. His cutter is an absurd 126, and his changeup is 117. He struggles to get his two best Stuff+ pitches (curveball at 91, slider at 84).

But with all this data, there is a positive story, especially if we add the breakdown of his GB% based on pitch type:

These numbers tell me that each of his pitches has weaknesses, BUT he knows how to use each pitch to his advantage. His Loc+ is very impressive with 4 of his fields even though each of those fields is weak (or weaker) when it comes to Stuff+. His two strongest slots in Stuff+ have relative weaknesses in Loc+. But there is a balance to each gift – it is really strong somewhere or weak somewhere else. And when he needs to get out, he has 3 areas with high GB rates: the sinker, the cutter, and the curveball.

The decision

And that’s why testing is important. I wasn’t into Bennett, but after taking a closer look, I’ve changed my mind. He looks like he has a plan and knows how to use the power of each pitch to get out. The problem for me is that, in most of my leagues, Bennett is no longer on the waiver wire, but he is still widely available in popular leagues (ESPN: 45.8% scheduled, Yahoo: 62% registered). I was going to pick him up. I will definitely be doing so when I can find him.

Until next week. – Hamley