Years ago, way before the internet, there were always research books I coveted. When I was in grad school I so wanted an OED, that is The Oxford English Dictionary. For the uninitiated, the OED lists every word used in the English Language, tracing the etymology of each word.
A full set of the OED used to cost a fortune, but in the early 80’s I got the “compact version,” which placed four small pages on one big page and with a magnifying glass allowed for scouring of the language. The compact OED came in two big volumes for around $100 at a used book store as opposed to $800 for a 12-volume set, and I got one for a birthday during my grad school days, alright.
The other such book I got and treasured was the McMillan Baseball Encyclopedia. My last McMillan, which still sits
At the time, however, “The Mac,” as it was called, was the book for the stat head. I remember digging in, often simply wanting to look up a Glen Hobbie‘s ERA in 1963, and that would lead to Jim Davenport‘s average in 1965 which pointed to Paul Foytack‘s won/loss in 1961 and so on. Before I knew it, three hours were gone.
Now both books are gone, replaced by online and CD versions, and since I am a book guy — I like the tactile of pages between my fingers — it is a bit of a shame. Not that I cannot get lost among Baseball-Reference, MILB, Fangraphs and more for hours on end, for these days when I am concocting DFS pieces — which is a few days a week — that is precisely my path.
I do find it funny — and I am sure my mate Lord Zola is bemused — that I do seriously dig into lefty/righty match-ups and strikeout vulnerability, which apparently are relevant, as well as ballpark and history of match-ups, which apparently are not relevant to an actual scientist.
Still, I do like looking at the numbers, and whether they matter in fact, as opposed to the aggregate by which I ultimately make my DFS picks, is irrelevant to me.
I recently wrote a bit in my weekly golf DFS piece that as my game on the links was becoming more sophisticated, so was my DFS game, for as I was learning to approach a 348-yard par four with a 180-yard straight shot, then a dogleg right for the remaining 168 yards.
Since I am not strong enough to cut — or drive over the hazard protecting the dogleg — I must assume it will take me at least two strokes to get to the green; ideally a 180-yard 3-hybrid followed by a 155-yard five-iron to get on the green if everything works as prescribed.
Since very few pros can actually count on driving a ball 348 yards, either, they too must employ a similar approach somehow, even if the player should choose to cut some of the hole and reduce that 155-yard second shot to get on the green.
But, when looking at golfers, should a course be shorter and peppered with tactical holes like the example above, a different basic skill set should be examined when selecting golfers for a DFS roster than courses with longer holes, but less “distractions.”
So as my fantasy golf game has gotten some depth, so has my DFS baseball game, in looking at those left/right match-ups and so on.
And, Todd is probably correct that if Gio Gonzalez is historically good against the Mets, that doesn’t necessarily mean he will be good against them tonight. But, for me, I think having as much of a pallet of information as my brain can handle is what works.
For that is what ultimately points me to a choice, and for me the numbers and the stats create a profile that allows the Zen to make that choice.
I can’t help it. It’s the artist in me.
