Zen And The Art Of Fantasy Baseball: The Unexamined Player Is Not Worth Rostering

The Moment of Zen:

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

The Socrates quote above is well known, to the point that many folks who wouldn’t know anything about Socrates other than he was a Greek philosopher have heard the saying and maybe even refer to it from time to time. 

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

• It is more correct to say the quote is attributed to Socrates. 

You see, we have no real evidence that Socrates actually said it. We actually get these words – or at least the original Greek, “ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ” (according to various sources I’ve seen) – from Plato who was reportedly Socrates’s student. The quote actually comes from Plato’s Apology, which was his philosophical (and, to an extent, legal) defense of his teacher upon Socrates being accused of heresy and for misleading the youth of Athens. As we understand it, Socrates was executed as a result of this trial. 

And we understand this from the main (if not the only) record we have of this trial, which is in fact Plato’s version of it, which he provides in his Apology.

Do you see why this might get interesting?

• If we dig deeper, we might also realize that the very reason we believe Socrates even existed at all was due to the writings of Plato. 

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

We “know” what Socrates presumably believed because Plato told us what those beliefs were. Apparently, there are other ancient Greeks who reported anecdotal evidence of Socrates’s 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 yeah, as a technique, Plato often wrote his philosophical texts in the form of dialogues.

In other words, Plato would write his text as a conversation, usually between a teacher and a student. And often the teacher in his work was Socrates. And that’s pretty much the accepted evidence that Socrates was indeed a man at all and not just a fictional character in a book (or multiple books, actually) written by some guy named Plato.

Thus, a little examination of that simple quote – “The unexamined life is not worth living.” – is in fact anything but simple. 

The more I’ve learned about Zen in particular, or Buddhism more broadly, or philosophy even more broadly, or life most broadly of all, the more I’ve learned that examination often takes everything I assumed and at the very least changes my understanding of what I first assumed, if not completely blowing it up. Examination is a frustrating – and, I would add, a fascinating – process. I’ve certainly come to see the process of examination as a necessary one because, as it turns out, much of what I have always assumed to be true simply cannot stand up to a close look and a few pointed questions. This fact has made me much more open to the idea that what I think is true might be – in fact, probably is at least to some extent – simply wrong. The process is not for the faint of heart, but it’s been more valuable to me than I can adequately articulate.

How in the world does this apply to fantasy baseball?

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

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

Which I, of course, should. But a little examination has taught me to be reserved in judgment. Which is great for having some level of humility but maybe not the best attribute for someone who writes about fantasy baseball. Unless it is actually a good attribute. I, for one, struggle to read or listen to folks who seem to always have an immediate and confident answer in their player takes. Their certainty makes me think, well, I’ll keep things nice and polite, so I’ll hold back what I think of their certainty. Let’s just say that I don’t share the certainty they seem to feel.

Jake Bennett

A recent case in point is Jake Bennett, pitcher for the Boston Red Sox. He is undoubtedly off to a great start to his MLB career, as he’s put together 59.1 innings of a 2.58 ERA and a 0.94 WHIP. He’s also collected 6 wins, which is fantasy gold but also probably more the result of the recent Red Sox hot streak than it is a stat that gives us an idea what to predict moving forward. But when readers and friends have asked me what I’ve thought of him, I’ve had to basically shrug my shoulders and say that I wasn’t sure yet.

My Concerns

With surface numbers like Bennett’s, it’s easy to get excited, but I’ve been hesitant to jump aboard his hype train. Some of his other numbers (particularly his 18.3% K% and presumably lucky .250 BABIP) concern me enough that I actually don’t have a single share of him anywhere. Maybe that’s a mistake. After some deeper examination, I must admit my feelings on Bennett have changed for the positive. Here’s a look at what I’m seeing and what I *think* the data might be telling us:

First, my concerns largely come from an inability to strike guys out. It’s a simplistic measure, but Ks = success in MLB pitching, and in Bennett’s 59.1 MLB innings, he has 42 Ks – which is not great. He’s having to depend a great deal on getting outs on balls in play, which is less dependable than when a pitcher just strikes a guy out. But even with depending on outs on balls in play, I’d be ok with that if the pitcher had a dominant GB%. Bennett’s MLB GB% is 45.9%, which is solid, but not dominant. What this percentage means to me, among other things, is that he needs to induce soft contact on all of the flyballs (his FB% is 35.9%) he’s giving up in order to be interesting to me. Admittedly, my initial assumption was that Bennett likely didn’t have that much control over that. But it turns out I was likely wrong about that. While he has allowed a maxEV of 115.8 mph (which is not a great sign), his over EV allowed is just 87.4 mph (putting him in the 76th percentile of all pitchers – not bad at all).

Upon Further Examination

Hmm, strong GB% but not dominant, a FB% that could get him in trouble but not at 87.4 mph EV. His K% is microscopic, but so is his BB%. At this point in my examination of him, I was maybe more confused than when I started this process. A look at his Savant Statcast card, though, makes me think I must be missing something:

There’s an awful lot of red on that card (red = good). He doesn’t allow barrels, his extension is elite, he creates chase, he doesn’t give up a lot of hard contact, and his xERA suggests that the computer models largely buy into whatever he’s doing. So what in the world is he doing?

Stuff+, Velo, and Location+

My first inclination to explain all of the red is that his stuff must be nasty, but eh, not so much. Some of his Stuff+ is pretty poor: 4-seam fastball Stuff+ is 87, his cutter is 76, his changeup is 86. Just under 100 is average, so this isn’t great at all. He does, however, have solid to good Stuff+ on his sinker (99), slider (101), and his curve (110!!).

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

So is his velocity what’s keeping him so successful? 

Um, no. His max velo on his 4-seam is ok (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 be higher end). His other velos are downright slow: 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 offspeed pitches slowly (to contrast with fastballs), so maybe there’s something there.

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

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

These numbers tell me that each of his pitches has a weakness, BUT he knows how to use each pitch in a way that gets outs. His Loc+ is quite impressive for 4 of his pitches even though each of those pitches is relatively weak (or weaker) when it comes to Stuff+. His two pitches that are strongest in Stuff+ have relative weaknesses with Loc+. But there’s a balance for each pitch – it’s really strong somewhere even if weak somewhere else. And when in need of an out, he has 3 pitches with dominant GB-rates: sinker, cutter, and curveball.

Verdict

And this is why examination matters. I was off Bennett, but after a closer look, I’ve changed my mind. He looks like he has a plan and knows how to use the strength of each pitch to get outs. The problem for me is, in most of my leagues, Bennett is no longer on the waiver wire, but he’s still widely available in popular leagues (ESPN: 45.8% rostered, Yahoo: 62% rostered). I’d go and get him. I definitely will be doing so where I can find him.

Until next week. –ADHamley