This week’s column discusses the strategy of ‘streaming’ -- extensively using the waiver wire to cycle players through one or more roster spots, thus maximizing games played. The idea for the column came from a reader (thanks, Ben)...if you have any topics you’d like to see in a future column, feel free to send me your ideas.
The first things to note about streaming are that it defies easy analysis, its efficacy will vary from league to league, and it is a polarizing strategy -- some people think it’s unfair or unethical, and some think it’s just a smart way to play the game.
Many fantasy basketball formats effectively ban streaming via limits for add/drops on a weekly basis or a season-long basis. Competitive leagues sometimes charge cash fees for each player added off the waiver wire, using that money to supplement the prize for the eventual winner(s). If your league uses an FAAB (free agent acquisition budget) system, you’ll be hard-pressed to stream worthwhile players without blowing through your budget in the early goings, especially if other owners are streaming. Most roto leagues have 82-game caps for each position, so that streaming at any position simply means you’re chewing through games-played...at the expense of more productive players.
Then there is the practical concern that streaming is labor-intensive. For many owners, targeting the right free agents and remembering to set lineups daily is hard enough -- if you are streaming, you need to be keenly aware of the players on your waiver wire and their respective schedules, piecing that streaming spot together like a jigsaw puzzle. When done right, however, all that effort can be a potent force in many leagues.
Editor’s Note: The NBA Season Pass is up and running. Get weekly projections, rankings, the popular Pickups of the Day column, exclusive columns and customizable stat options. It’s the extra tool that can take your fantasy basketball teams to the next level.
Before delving into more pros and cons, let’s attempt to quickly gauge the value of streaming. A points-league system is easiest to quantify, so we’ll start there. Let’s assume that the average player off the waiver wire will give you 10 fantasy points per game. Furthermore, let’s assume that by holding a superior end-of-bench player you could get 20% more value per game, i.e. 12 fantasy points.
Waiver wire player = 10 fantasy points per game
Superior end-of-bench player = 12 fantasy points per game
In this case, you’re very likely to come out ahead by streaming -- even if the ‘superior’ player had four games in a given week, you could exceed their value by plugging five games into the streaming spot. And if you managed to squeeze six or even seven games into that spot, you’ve soared past the expected production from the one player you cut loose. If, however, you change the projections so that a WW player gives you 10 points but a superior end-of-bench player gives you 15 points, it’s not as clear-cut. In this case, four games would equal 60 fantasy points and you’d need to stream six games just to break even. The quality of this ‘superior’ player is the unknown variable, and it explains why even in a league with unlimited add/drops there is a limit to the efficacy of streaming.
Let’s take another example. You have Kentavious Caldwell-Pope on your bench in a head-to-head league. He plays three times this week, so you can expect a total contribution in this range (last year’s averages x3): 43.5 points, 4.5 threes, 11.1 rebounds, 5.4 assists, 4.2 steals, 0.6 blocks and 4.2 turnovers, with 42% FGs (on 37.8 attempts) and 81% FTs (on 9.0 attempts).
As a comparison, here are the average stats for the 25 most-owned players on the waiver wire in one of my leagues (a competitive league with 12 owners and 13-man rosters...the list includes guys like Courtney Lee, Tony Parker, Tyson Chandler and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist): 7.8 points, 0.66 threes, 3.67 rebounds, 1.97 assists, 0.66 steals, 0.45 blocks and 1.15 turnovers, with 41.6% FGs and 81.2% FTs.
Now let’s assume they played the same three games as KCP. That results in 23.4 points, 2.0 threes, 11.0 rebounds, 5.91 assists, 1.98 steals, 1.35 blocks and 3.45 turnovers, with 41.6% FGs and 81.2% FTs. In this scenario, it’s almost certainly better to have Caldwell-Pope on your roster.
But if we assume that you’ll get five games off the waiver wire, streaming starts to look better: 39 points, 3.3 threes, 18.4 rebounds, 9.8 assists, 3.3 steals, 2.25 blocks and 5.8 turnovers. Here you’re still getting fewer points, 3-pointers and steals than KCP in two fewer games, but you’re also getting more rebounds, assists and blocks. And if you can get more than five waiver-wire games instead of KCP...you get the picture. The ‘superior’ player we’re positing would have to be pretty great to overcome a 2-4 game disadvantage week after week, compared to a rotating cast of WW pickups.
That’s a random example intended to give a rough idea of the point at which streaming becomes a net-gain, but it ignores one key feature of the strategy -- flexibility.
Within the constraints of player’s schedules, you’ll be streaming targeted players who can help you in specific categories. Are you playing a team that’s punting FT% and has both Andre Drummond and Dwight Howard this week? You may want to avoid big men altogether and focus on winning five or six out of nine categories. Is your roster feeling the sting of Ricky Rubio‘s loss? Perhaps you can make up the difference by streaming guards all week long.
Streaming also gives you the flexibility to target promising matchups. If you have a more-or-less stable roster, you’re at the mercy of your team’s schedule each week. But if you’re streaming a spot or two, you can plug in a rotation of guys playing weak defenses, up-tempo games, etc. That said, it’s not all fun and glory. With increased volume of games played comes increased turnovers and more heavily-weighted percentages, creating additional risks in most formats.
One of the biggest risks, in my mind, is hastily cutting a player who goes on to be a terrific season-long value. You might stream Kris Dunn due to Ricky Rubio‘s elbow injury, cut him the day before Rubio is due to return, yet rue the decision when Dunn keeps the starting job and posts top-75 value the rest of the way (it’s just a theoretical example). Patiently scouring the waiver wire to acquire a terrific season-long asset is one of the best parts of managing a team, in my experience, and it’s much more rewarding than the often-tedious, brute-force method of streaming. I’m veering toward well-worn arguments that center on personal preference, however, so I’ll close on this note: streaming can absolutely be an effective strategy. If your league rules allow it, and you have the time to tweak your roster every day, consistent and intelligent streaming can confer a competitive advantage and become the difference between winning and losing. Whether you despise the strategy or embrace it wholeheartedly, I’d be interested in hearing your experiences and opinions via email or Twitter!
