MLB Fantasy Baseball: Evaluating "That Guy"

We all have "That Guy". The one you drafted early, maybe even a little too early, for his value. He’s probably killing your team, but you can’t say goodbye and just cut him. You drafted him. You thought about it, and, c’mon, the guy was a fourth-round pick. He’s going to turn it around. 

I’m here to tell you to step back and breathe. It’s going to be ok. Once we’re all objective over the numbers and take the names out of the equation, it’s going to be easier. Just like pulling off a band-aid.

Remember, you want to make the playoffs and win your league. These guys aren’t helping you; it’s only getting more and more painful.

Player A:          .220 AVG        7 HR    26 RBI             45% owned 

Player B:          .285 AVG        3 HR    26 RBI             21% owned 

Player C:          .281 AVG        3 HR    25 RBI             82% owned 

Player D:          .316 AVG        4 HR    33 RBI             81% owned

Who would you want to own of this group? Player D is the obvious choice, and in 20 percent of leagues, that still is an option. But look at the difference between players B and C. Virtually identical. And Player B would seem to have an advantage over Player A in everything but power. Personally, I would go D, B, C, A.

That shakes out to Dioner Navarro, Kurt Suzuki, Ivan Rodriguez, and Jason Varitek.

Varitek is my “That Guy”. I can’t cut him. But I can tell you this, looking at it blind, I know there are better options. One of my leagues is 14 teams, and I’m stuck with Varitek. If this is your case, look for Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Jeff Clement, or Rod Barajas (even Ramon Hernandez) as better options.

The next group:

Player A:          .276 AVG        13 HR              32 RBI             52% owned 

Player B:          .234 AVG        13 HR              44 RBI             100% owned   

Player C:          .299 AVG        6 HR                33 RBI             55% owned 

Player D:          .263 AVG        12 HR              42 RBI             20% owned

The “That Guy” of this group is Player B. Looking at this list, at best you can rank him third. Personally, I’d put him fourth. It then becomes a matter of preference. Player A would be one in my book, followed by Player D and Player C.

Player B is Chris Young of the Diamondbacks. He came into the season with so much promise, but we just aren’t seeing it. He’s killing teams with his inability to hit for average. Yes, he’s providing power numbers, but we’re seeing the same type of ability from other players on waivers.

Player A is Luke Scott, who I’ve been hyping since April. Player C is Skip Schumaker, who has identical numbers to Kosuke Fukudome, but is owned in half the leagues. Player D is Jason Kubel of the Twins. All of these guys should be owned in more leagues than Chris Young at this point.

Young has done nothing to justify the devotion. He’s at .238 in his last seven games, hit only .217 for all of June, and was only at .248 in May. Time to say goodbye. Really.

The next group:

Player A:          8 W     3.79 ERA         1.34 WHIP      102 SO            90% owned 

Player B:          5 W     3.79 ERA         1.30 WHIP      60 SO              100% owned

Player C:          8 W     4.74 ERA         1.48 WHIP      108 SO            100% owned

Player D:          7 W     4.60 ERA         1.38 WHIP      94 SO              100% owned

Player E:           8 W     2.94 ERA         1.32 WHIP      69 SO              90% owned 

Player F:           5 W     3.65 ERA         1.20 WHIP      57 SO              22% owned

So we have six pitchers here. The problem pitcher is Player B. His stats don’t stack up to the rest of the group beyond ERA. In fact, I can get much better production out of Player A. Player A gives me the best all-around numbers of anyone in the group.

Player C is giving me strikeouts, but killing me otherwise. Player D isn’t poor in the strikeout category, and the WHIP is borderline, but the ERA is rough.

Additional note, Player F has had five fewer starts than the next pitcher and seven fewer starts than the one with the most. If I take that into account, I know that the strikeout numbers are actually better on a per-game basis than most of the guys on this list as well.

Player E just isn’t getting the strikeouts, but is getting the job done otherwise.

Player B is Erik Bedard, who people hang on to because he’s got the allure of being a top choice in the draft. Seeing what could be available, I’d look to deal Bedard while he still has most of his value. He could help you out in many other areas because of what he can bring in return.

Player C is A.J. Burnett. I like Burnett and think he’s a solid pitcher. But if Player A, Jonathan Sanchez, were available, he’s a better pitcher at this point. Player D is Roy Oswalt, who people don’t seem to want to let go of for one reason or another. If I could sacrifice strikeouts, or had room on my roster, I’d look to at least add one of the other players.

Player E is Jair Jurrjens and Player F is Scott Baker. Baker is averaging five strikeouts a start, and those numbers have improved each time out. Conservatively, add 30 to his number and suddenly he jumps into this conversation.

------------------

There are plenty of other players that have the allure of being amazing fantasy players but have not fulfilled their promise. There are just as many on waivers that can more than adequately fill their spots.  

The key to all this is to not get hung up on names and to look at the statistics. In the end, that’s what we’re all about in fantasy sports. It’s a game of what have you done for me lately. When players don’t produce, you need to be able to move on to the next one.

I’ve seen many championship teams that don’t look like top-tier squads, but their managers acted on trends and weren’t afraid to take chances. We all need to tell ourselves that once in a while.

Now, keep breathing. The worst is over. Now you just have to make some decisions. The ‘Table is here for you...have a drink.

Note: It was brought up that this is similar to Matthew Berry's article regarding virtually the same topic. It was not my intention, but wanted to give Mr. Berry credit as needed. You can find his article here.