Last week, I analyzed salaries for FanDuel batters and found the loci of value and the nexi of deficiency throughout the pricing scale. In this article I’m going to do the same for DraftKings batters. By the way, if the plural form of ‘locus’ is ‘loci,’ then the plural of ‘nexus’ should definitely be ‘nexi.’ After all, I took Latin 10 years ago and ‘nexuses’ just sounds awful.
This is the 63rd installment of The Labyrinthian, a series dedicated to exploring random fields of knowledge in order to give you unordinary theoretical, philosophical, strategic, and/or often rambling guidance on daily fantasy sports. Consult the introductory piece to the series for further explanation.
The Segue to Spam
In analyzing the DraftKings data for batters, I relied exclusively on our free Trends tool . . . through which you can access our massive database of advanced data and leverage our premium exclusive metrics, such as Bargain Rating, Upside, Consistency, and Plus/Minus.
And that‘s what they call a ‘segue’ — although some people spell it ‘segway.’
Anyway, when looking at the connections between batter salaries, Plus/Minus values, and Consistency ratings, I noticed some macro trends that will definitely help you construct DraftKings MLB lineups in a more optimal fashion.
Before we look at salary trends, though, we should consider the correlation between Plus/Minus and Consistency . . . which are accessible via our free Ratings tool.
#NailedIt
The Relationship Between Plus/Minus and Consistency
On FanDuel, for all batters from 2012 to June 15, 2016, Plus/Minus and Consistency are correlated, with an r-squared value of 0.54. In other words, 54 percent of the variance that we see in Consistency on FanDuel is explained by Plus/Minus.
That degree of correlation might seem fairly insignificant, but when you consider all of the factors that can impact Consistency then it should become clear that, since Plus/Minus explains the majority of all the variance in Consistency, it’s a pretty significant metric.
And it’s even more important on DraftKings, where the r-squared value is 0.62. So what does this mean exactly?
- Plus/Minus and Consistency are more tightly linked on DraftKings than FanDuel.
- Because Plus/Minus is a salary-based metric, MLB salaries in general might be tighter on DraftKings than FanDuel (at least for batters).
On DraftKings, if you are looking for high Consistency then you should probably target players with high Plus/Minus values, since in the aggregate Consistency tends to follow Plus/Minus anyway. Of course, the two metrics don’t always correlate, which is why the analysis that follows is valuable.
The Batter Baselines
For all 98,489 batters priced at DraftKings from 2014 to June 19, 2016, here are the baselines:
- Plus/Minus (pts): +0.05
- Consistency (%): 39.4
All analysis for the rest of the piece will refer to these baselines.
Before we jump into a consideration of the various pricing tiers, first I should point out a couple of features of the data set:
- The DraftKings sample has fewer players than the FanDuel sample.
- The DraftKings sample has more price points than the FanDuel sample.
With more price points and fewer players, the DraftKings sample is not as cleanly distributed as the FanDuel sample. Nevertheless, I believe that the data is still persuasive and that the following tiers are representative of the price points they separately contain.
$500 – $2,100 Batters: Some Objects That Don’t Glitter Actually Are Gold
I can’t believe that I’m writing this — but this tier is probably the best one in the entire pricing scale. It amazingly is that good.
- Plus/Minus (pts): +0.31
- Consistency (%): 44.6
And here are the wondrous differentials when these numbers are compared to the baselines:
- Plus/Minus Differential (pts): +0.26
- Consistency Differential (%): +5.2
Of all the tiers, this grouping of dirt-cheap batters has by far the highest Plus/Minus and almost the highest Consistency.
I probably don’t need to say this, but the production this tier affords clearly suggests that people should heavily employ a stars-and-scrubs approach to lineup construction at DraftKings . . . except it’s blatantly disrespectful for me to call these inexpensive players ‘scrubs.’ It’s more like a stars-and-rockstars approach.
Given the value found in this tier, it’s almost impossible for me to say too much about these batters — but I’ll try. In most situations, when you pay down you are perhaps hoping to benefit from some ownership arbitrage. Or maybe you’re employing game theory. Or possibly you expect that the high-priced batters you can fit into your lineup (because you paid down) will more than compensate for the production you won’t get from your cheap batters.
At DraftKings, though, when you pay down for batters you are simply doing what the data suggests that you should do. You are making the optimal decision. Paying down isn’t a strategy or a sacrifice. It’s a strong tactic that targets the batters who historically have provided the most production on a per-dollar basis.
With this tier, you don’t get just lots of bang for your buck. You got lots of bang for almost no buck. That’s the DFS dream.
$2,200 – $3,000 Batters: Maybe, But Why?
I suppose that you could roster players from this tier . . . but why would you when you can get a better return on your investment with batters from the cheaper tier?
- Plus/Minus (pts): = +0.16
- Consistency (%): 38.2
The differentials reveal what kind of players are in this tier:
- Plus/Minus Differential (pts): +0.11
- Consistency Differential (%): -1.2
These batters look like stereotypical tournament options. At every price point in this tier, the players have both positive Plus/Minus values and sub-baseline Consistency rates. In other words, on average, when a batter in this tier meets his salary-based expectations, he doesn’t just meet them. He exceeds them to such an extent that he compensates for the relative lack of production we see from the other members of the cohort.
In terms of optimization, this tier is inferior to the previous one, which is more productive and consistent. But in terms of game theory, ownership arbitrage, and volatility, this tier has its virtues and can be a strong and regular source of batters for guaranteed prize pools.
In general, if you are spending $3,000 or fewer on a batter at Draftkings, you probably aren’t making a bad investment. When I started this study, I totally was not expecting that.
$3,100 – $3,700 Batters: Not All Meat is Steak
This tier is the meat on the bone of the beast that is MLB DFS at DraftKings . . . and not all meat takes the form of steak. This salary range has the largest cohort within the data set, and a number of batters in this tier end up in lots of lineups — but in general these batters are not good investments.
- Plus/Minus (pts): -0.06
- Consistency (%): 39.0
These baselines are below the baseline for both metrics.
- Plus/Minus Differential (pts): -0.11
- Consistency Differential (%): -0.4
Every price point except for one in this tier has a negative Plus/Minus. All but two price points in the tier have sub-baseline Consistency rates.
It’s not that you can’t find productive players in this tier. You can. It’s just that, if you roster lots of batters in this meaty part of the salary spectrum, you’re basically consuming the funeral meat served at Hamlet’s mother’s second wedding. It’s meat — but you shouldn’t be happy to eat it.
$3,800 – $4,000 Batters: The Smallest of Filets
This tier, though small, is still within the meaty part of the pricing paradigm and can be thought of as the upper cut on the . . .
I know nothing about the different cuts of meat. Moving on . . .
If you’re going to spend anywhere from $3,100 to $4,000 on a batter, you should probably pay up for him. This tier isn’t fantastic, but it at least provides reliable production.
- Plus/Minus (pts): +0.09
- Consistency (%): 40.7
And the differentials:
- Plus/Minus Differential (pts): +0.04
- Consistency Differential (%): +1.3
What you get in this tier isn’t great — but it’s better than what you get from the previous tier. Each of the three price points in the tier provides, at worst, a non-negative Plus/Minus value and a Consistency rate that is above the baseline.
You probably shouldn’t explicitly target this tier, seeking out players merely because they are in this tier. But if you have between $3,100 and $4,000 to spend on a batter, the data suggests that you are probably served best by spending up.
$4,100 – $4,400 Batters: The Fat Surrounding the Meat
Most slates have a number of batters in this tier. Some of these batters are really good. And most of them should probably be avoided.
- Plus/Minus (pts): -0.04
- Consistency (%): 38.2
It’s not great.
- Plus/Minus Differential (pts): -0.09
- Consistency Differential (%): -1.2
Every price point in this tier has a sub-baseline Consistency. And every price point but one has a sub-baseline Plus/Minus. These guys aren’t atrocious, but they don’t provide the value that the guys immediately below or above them provide.
$4,500 – $5,100 Batters: Not Great, But Very Good
This tier contains slightly fewer batters than the two previous tiers, but in every slate you can find plenty of batters in this salary range. They typically prove to be sound investments.
- Plus/Minus (pts): +0.12
- Consistency (%): 40.3
These numbers aren’t great, but they’re at least on the right side.
- Plus/Minus Differential (pts): +0.07
- Consistency Differential (%): +0.9
In a way, this tier is the mirror image of the previous one. Every price point in this tier has a Consistency above the baseline. And every price point but one has a positive Plus/Minus.
These guys don’t provide massive value, but they also tend not to destroy your lineups. They might not offer the Upside you seek when constructing GPP lineups, but they tend to provide the Consistency you seek in cash games.
$5,200 – $5,900 Batters: The Roller Coaster
I hate roller coasters. At best, you get the thrill of thinking that you might die. At worst, you pay to ride . . . and then you die.
Rostering players in this tier is like paying to ride a roller coaster that might kill you.
- Plus/Minus (pts): +0.05
- Consistency (%): 39.8
Fair warning: These are the most boring-looking differentials in the entire data set.
- Plus/Minus Differential (pts): -0.00
- Consistency Differential (%): +0.4
So this tier is ever-so-slightly negative — it’s basically neutral — and it has a slightly positive Consistency.
So there are two ways to think of this tier:
- With a Plus/Minus and Consistency that are close to zero, this tier is relatively neutral.
- With a negative Plus/Minus and positive Consistency, this tier has a lot of downside. Batters hit their salary-based expectations with sufficient frequency — but when they don’t they fall short by more than just a little.
The truth is probably somewhere in between those two perspectives — and there’s another concern: This tier is more volatile than your ex from freshman year of college.
Half of the price points in this tier have negative Plus/Minus values. At $5,300, we see a +0.57 Plus/Minus. At $5,600, -0.49. That’s a monstrous swing. Additionally, even though most of the price points in the tier have Consistency above the baseline, the price point (with at least 100 batters) that has the lowest Consistency in the entire sample also resides in this tier: $5,200, -0.19 Plus/Minus, 35.8 Consistency.
Although this tier might seem about average, the volatility it possesses is anything but average. Especially because these batters are expensive, they should generally be avoided in cash games. In tournaments . . . maybe.
$6,000 – $7,600 Batters: The High Rollers
This tier contains only 136 batters, so we shouldn’t rely on the data or our interpretations too much. Having said that, I should hand it to DraftKings. When they price players up, they know what they’re doing.
- Plus/Minus (pts): +0.19
- Consistency (%): 44.9
Just think of these batters as the rich cousins of the cheap-yet-productive players we saw in the first tier.
- Plus/Minus Differential (pts): +0.14
- Consistency Differential (%): +5.5
Whereas the first tier has the sample’s highest Plus/Minus and second-highest Consistency, this final tier has second-highest Plus/Minus and the highest Consistency.
Truly, in the way that DraftKings prices its batters, the platform is begging for ‘stars-and-rockstars’ lineups.
Should I Take You Down to Paradise City?
OK, I’ll take you home. Here are some guidelines based on the data and trends I’ve highlighted.
- $500 – $2,100: Roster everywhere.
- $2,200 – $3,000: Roster only in GPPs, if ever.
- $3,100 – $3,700: Probably avoid everywhere.
- $3,800 – $4,000: Roster in cash.
- $4,100 – $4,400: Probably avoid everywhere.
- $4,500 – $5,100: Roster in cash, maybe GPPs.
- $5,200 – $5,900: Roster only in GPPs, if ever.
- $6,000 – $7,600: Roster everywhere.
At some point in the future, I’ll do a similar exercise for pitchers on FanDuel and DraftKings.
Till then, remember that not all meat is steak.
———
The Labyrinthian: 2016, 63
Previous installments of The Labyrinthian can be accessed via my author page. If you have suggestions on material I should know about or even write about in a future Labyrinthian, please contact me via email, [email protected], or Twitter @MattFtheOracle.
