THT Fantasy Focus

Posted by Derek Carty at 4:54pm

One category roar, five category snore

A couple of weeks ago, in the comment section of my Approaching unconscious competence article, a discussion sprang up regarding the way a player’s value against replacement is dispersed across categories and how it affects the perceived and real value of that player and his tradability. I touted the trade value of one-trick ponies while reader, Andrew P. advocated the all-around marginally better-than-average-type of player as being easier to trade.

I decided to try to explore this in a very unscientific way, basically for food for thought purposes. This is not going to be a fully in-depth study with peer-review level mathematical rigor. The most honest reason why I’m omitting the heaviest mathematical lifting is that I’m not great at it, and doing so might just devolve the discussion into an argument over methodology. But, also important is the fact that when discussing things like trade-ability we are talking about perception. And, since you are likely not in a fantasy league with 11 Tom Tangos, the way other owners perceive value of [your] players is important, and not necessarily congruent with their actual values.

My argument is that when it comes to players with overall marginal value (i.e. last roster spot, bench depth, trade bait, etc.) the player whose value is highly concentrated in fewer categories is the more attractive commodity.

Before we get into looking at some players and where their value comes from, let me make two semi-tangential points. First, when it comes to player production throughout the season, studies show that streakier players, that is players whose positive value is packed tighter into a smaller bunch of games, are actually worth more wins over time than those who display consistent, but non-dominating success. This is logical when you think about it, as a player who goes 4-for-4 in a game will likely influence that game much more than his composite influence on four consecutive games in which he goes 1-for-4 in each.

Second, if any of you out there play fantasy basketball, you are probably familiar with the legend of Zach Randolph (and, to a lesser extent, Tony Parker). Every year, one of two things happens to Randolph. Either some naïve owner sees the 20-10 and drafts him a good 40 picks too early, or some astute owner drafts him, and then packages him with a top-40 player and trades the two for a naïve owner’s first-round stud. Randolph is a liability of epic proportions in most categories, but puts up such attractive numbers in the glamor categories, that his perceived value is light years beyond his actual value. Ditto Parker, by the way, a 20-8 point guard who is not worth a top-70 pick.

In different ways, both of these points are illustrative of both the real and perceived value of tightly concentrated production.

With that in mind, let’s get to some fantasy baseball. To start this investigation, I wanted to establish the replacement level in all the five standard categories. I took a standard 12-team mixed league with expanded rosters, totaling 12 starting bats per team. At 12 teams, and 12 roster spots, that makes 144 starting offensive roster spots. So, I simply went down the line and cut off the 144th most productive season in each of the counting stats. For, batting average, I just took the average of the team batting averages that earned six points in all 12-team mixed leagues I played. So, let’s take a look at what a player’s line would be had he produced at the 144-cut-off in all categories.

	R	HR	RBI	SB	AVG
	65	13	59	6	.279

Now, it was difficult to find players who fit this model, but here are some players who were roughly similar across the board, with no large chunk of their value coming from a single category. Their overall Yahoo ranks are in parenthesis.

Player	R	HR	RBI	SB	AVG
David Murphy (269)	61	17	57	9	.269
Gordon Beckham (293)	58	14	63	7	.270
Howie Kendrick (243)	61	10	61	11	.291

Now, let’s take a look at what the marginal five-category contributor might look like. My first inclination was to just bump up each category by 10 percent. But I nixed that idea because runs and stolen bases, for example, are economies of two different scales, and proportions would be misleading. (See, I’m not totally mathematically naïve/illiterate). So, instead, I chose to redo the cut-off to determine what the 10th percentile of the roster-able players looks like, meaning the cut-off now comes at 130 as opposed to 144. So, here’s what the five-category 10 percent above-replacement player looks like. (I just moved up the batting average to the average of the “7”s in my 12-team leagues.)

	R	HR	RBI	SB	AVG
	68	15	63	9	.281

The best comparison I found for this line was Melky Cabrera, who was ranked 230th overall.

	R	HR	RBI	SB	AVG
	66	13	68	10	.274

The first thing that we should notice here is that none of these players played entire seasons. Cabrera logged 485 ABs, while Murphy logged the most ABs of the player on the replacement-level list, with 432. Melky Cabrera was no fantasy world beater, and apparently being slightly better than 12-team fantasy replacement value doesn’t earn you a full season of ABs on the New York Yankees either.

Let’s take a quick break for pro-active disclaimer/friendly reminder. Now, of course Kendrick and Beckham helped fantasy teams because they are both very talented players with high ceilings who produced their value in less than full seasons, and their owners got production from other players in their absences. The seeming irony is that both of these players were more helpful than Cabrera (because of that concentrated production). In reality, we know that when it comes to the last few roster spots, good owners cobble together composite production from a variety of players. But, again, for our purposes here we are just looking at where individual production cut-offs are at certain levels against replacement. So, let’s try to keep in mind that we are looking at seasonal production for the players in question with minimal concern for how many games or ABs it took them to put up those numbers (the obvious exception being batting average, because the “weight” of individuals’ rate stats is important in terms of determining your team’s whole).

Back to the issue at hand, is Cabrera a tradable commodity in a 12-team, mixed league? I don’t think so. Did anybody out there who owned Melky in a similar league receive one-for-one trade offers involving Melky? If you owned him, is there anybody who would have been able to help your team that you think you could have gotten for Cabrera? When it comes to trade returns, to paraphrase John Sterling, the Melk Man doesn’t deliver. If I wanted to trade Melky Cabrera in a 12-team league, here are the situations in which I would think it might be possible.

I might be able to land either an elite set-up man, or a set-up man behind a troubled closer and get some value out of it. If I was Ryan Madson’s owner and was having health issues with my outfield, I could see making a Madson-for-Melky deal. But, more likely, I’d try to take a couple of swings for the fences on the waiver wire.

I could maybe see the Melk Man involved in a two-for-one. If, for example, I was trading a high quality all-around OF, say Nick Markakis, for high level starter or closer, I’d consider asking for Melky as well, as a throw-in, if he would be a better replacement for Markakis than anybody on the wire. Of course, I have to be willing to drop another player (most likely a pitcher) on my roster to make room for Melky. (There really are no such things as two-for-ones, because of roster constraints, which is what makes it difficult to add a marginal player in a two-for-one deal, as the owner receiving that player still has to judge that player against his own marginal players.)

So, Melky Cabrera, who is all-around above replacement value is pretty much worthless on the open market in a 12-team league. This is because of the motivations behind trades. Teams make trades, usually from a surplus, to make up ground in categories. A player who 10 percent better than replacement across the board will have no profound impact on the standings in any individual category, and is therefore unappealing as a potential acquisition by a team looking to trade.

Now, let’s look at a few players whose value in most categories was pretty close to the replacement margin, but who produced particularly well in a single category. Overall rank in parenthesis again, as are deviation for the replacement level in each category.

Player	R	HR	RBI	SB	AVG
Marco Scutaro (112)	100 (+61%)	12 (-8%)	60 (+2%)	14 (+8) SB	.282 (+.003)
Adam Kennedy (166)	65 (+5%)	11(-15%)	63 (+7%)	20 (+14 SB)	.289 (+.012)
>

Kennedy’s production is virtually even in the R, HR and RBI departments, taking into consideration overs and unders, while sporting considerable advantages in batting average and steals. Both of those categories are clear, actual assets that Kennedy offers.

Scutaro’s batting average advantage is negligible, and while he does provide speed that will contribute to your team, his big difference comes from the fact that he is actually elite at one category (runs), even though he is virtually a replacement level in three of them (HR, RBI, AVG.)

Once again, let’s look at our fictitious +10 percent all around player.

	R	HR	RBI	SB	AVG
	68	15	63	9	.281

I know that the absolute values versus the relative rank dynamics of the stolen base category throws things off a bit, and that Scutaro especially has a bit more value than our hypothetical player regardless of how it is distributed, but don’t both Scutaro and Kennedy’s lines look more trade-able?

Before I try to summarize some of the takeaways of this somewhat unfocused and non-scientific column, let’s take a look at one more player, Franklin Gutierrez. Gutierrez had a very good year and turned out to be a surprising source of five-category contribution. Without putting up staggering numbers in any one category, Gutierrez was clearly a valuable asset to fantasy teams last season, and he did so in one of the most under-the-radar ways possible.

R	HR	RBI	SB	AVG
68	15	63	9	.283
+37%	+38%	+19%	+10 SB	+.006

Gutierrez didn’t reach any notable categorical milestones. While he achieved 34 combined homers and steals, he didn’t accumulate as many as 20 of either. He didn’t score 100 runs, or drive in 80 runs. But he did provide meaningful value above replacement in all other counting categories. I don’t think people realize how much marginal value players like Gutierrez provide across the board.

I say this by no means to attack Andrew P., but I think that when he argued for the plus-10 percent across-the-board player, he was thinking of a player like Gutierrez, who was more like plus-30 percent across multiple categories. That’s why five-category studs are so few and far between; they have to be more than just a little better than average at everything to really make their impact. They have to be a lot better at several things. A player who puts up a line of 90-20-90-20 is basically providing approximately 150 percent of replacement value in four categories.

Let’s try to make some sense of what we’ve talked about here and draw some conclusions.

When it comes to trades, the way others perceive the value of your players is even more important than how objectively valuable they actually are. And the way that value is distributed across categories affects the perception.
Other owners target players whose skill sets are likely to affect the standings. This consideration is, to varying degrees, disassociated from the overall marginal value a player offers. In some cases, this is rational, and in some cases it isn’t. A player’s value to my team may be different than it is to your team, because we are not competing against replacement level; we are competing against each other in team-wide category totals.
Milestones are arbitrary and elevate the price of a player more than they actually reflect his value. If Franklin Gutierrez went 20-20 this past year, his ADP would rise some obscene number of spots this year. His 18-16 is certainly helpful, and you can likely grab him for peanuts again next year.
I am no mathematical savant.

Posted by Derek Ambrosino at 5:06am

Clone Wars: John Lackey and Jason Hammel

There is often a bit of hype that comes with players who are big free agent signings, as John Lackey is likely to be. But should you move him up your board when there are better options later? Jason Hammel has a career ERA of 5.18 and pitches in Coors, but has skills and is getting better. Lackey has 85 more career wins, but let's see what they did in 2009.

2009

              W  ERA   K   BB  WHIP  K/9   BB/9 GB%    HR/FB% FIP   BABIP
John Lackey    11 3.83 139  47  1.27  7.09  2.40 44.9%  9.1%   3.73  0.309
Jason Hammel  10 4.33 133  42  1.39  6.78  2.14 46.2%  9.7%   3.71  0.337

So we have a pitcher with a reputation, but also has some questions with his health and is presumably on his way to a new team. I'm sure his name will get a lot of press, and depending on what team he signs with he could move way up in drafts. Right now he is currently going around the 125th pick in MockDraftCentral.com drafts. At the same time Hammel is not getting drafted.

MLB: OCT 11 NLDS - Game 3 - Phillies at Rockies
11 October 2009: Rockies starting pitcher Jason Hammel went 3.2 innings giving up four runs on four hits, striking out five during a National League Division Series game between the Philadelphia Phillies and the Colorado Rockies at Coors Field in Denver, Colorado. The Phillies beat the Rockies 6-5 as the temperature dipped into the 20's.(Icon/SMI)

Both Lackey and Hammel have a four pitch approach with fastballs just a tick above 90 mph, a slider, a curveball and a changeup. However, their pitches are much different in effectiveness. Pitch values may not be the best measure, but you can see Lackey has three solid pitches and a below average changeup. Hammel on the other hand has three below average pitches and what was in 2009 an elite curveball. It only ranked behind Edwin Jackson's with a value of 3.53 runs per 100 pitches.

That might be a concern for Hammel going forward in 2010 as he is counting on the success of one pitch instead of Lackey who can rely on three. This is also the first time that Hammel has maintained a BB/9 under 3.0. If his walk rate climbs in 2010 he will fall behind Lackey in ERA and WHIP. It is likely he does see this climb since his largest gains were in O-swing% and O-contact%.

This shouldn't just be ignored though as their is some evidence in his PITCHf/x that his curve has changed. It is up two mph on average and is moving down only 6.4 when it used to move over eight inches down. This would make his pitches closer to the zone and tougher to lay off. He maintained this movement all year and hence his walk rate was near 2.0 per nine innings almost all season.

BABIP effects contributed to their final ERAs, but some of it was the result of a lesser defense in Colorado. We don't know what Lackey will have behind him in 2010, but that would play a large part in his BABIP and his ERA. Even with a huge split in team defenses I wouldn't recommend one over the other based on that alone.

Lackey hasn't topped 200 innings since 2007 and with his arm's injury history you have to start wondering how healthy he will be each year. He won't be your team ace in fantasy, but losing him for an extended time would still hurt. Hammel has yet to be placed the DL, but has also dealt with tendinitis as recently as 2007.

Lackey and Hammel are very differently valued by fantasy players, but with his first season over 170 innings Hammel showed he could be a surprise in fantasy. Based on the current draft positions I would say you are much better served by passing on Lackey and waiting for Hammel. You could also draft Hammel along with Lackey to ensure you have production regardless of injuries to Lackey.

Posted by Troy Patterson at 3:58am

Friday, November 27, 2009

Waiver Wire Offseason: AL

Before launching into the players for this week, here is a 16-page preview of Graphical Player '10, available in December. Using “team experts” as Heater does, the writers are quite knowledgeable about their specific teams, and – lest you worry about hometown bias – they had better success (measured by RMSE) predicting win-loss totals for 2009 than any expert or “system” (or Vegas betting lines). When you consider that the popular “graphical” format conveys such a high volume of information in a glance, there's really no excuse to enter the 2010 season without arming yourself with this resource!

Robinson Cano | New York | 2B
2009 Final Stats: .320/.352/.520

Robinson Cano reminded us why “body of work” is so important when evaluating ballplayers, despite the strong emotional drive to judge ballplayers based on “what have you done for me lately?” Entering 2009, he had a career batting line (through age 25) of .303/.335/.468, yet few would have given him much chance to hit .320/.352/.520, a somewhat normal expectation for a young ballplayer with such a great career line to that point. The reason, of course, was his disappointing 2008 stat line (.271/.305/.410), and the much higher weight placed on recent seasons by most forecasting systems. THT's projections suggested he'd hit .299/.339/.457, which was wildly optimistic by other standards (for comparison, his 75th-percentile PECOTA was .298/.339/.449, and his 90th-percentile PECOTA wasn't even close to his actual stats).

But here's the thing with Cano's season... it wasn't “lucky” in any easily-definable sense, unless you consider playing his home games in MLB's best home-run park in 2009 as “lucky” (somehow, the stadium managed to suppress run scoring in spite of the taters, which is borderline unbelievable). His BABIP was .326, right in line with his .324 career line. His FB% was 33%, just like in 2008, and up from earlier in his career. His LD% was 19.9%, compared to 19.3% for his career. His FB/HR% was a career-best 12.6%, but that's hardly surprising given the homerific tendencies of the new park, his physical maturation, and the fact that the rate was nearly that high in 2006 as well (12.3%). In fact, his awful 7.6% HR/FB% in 2008 appears to be the outlier on his career ledger. All-in-all, the biggest chance in Cano's stat line was a slight improvement in his already-great contact percentage (up to 90% now!)

We do need to note something Yankees fans are well aware of, and that's the anti-Clutch tendencies of Mr. Cano. Due to his excellent overall stats, compared with his terrible clutch performance in 2009, he managed to earn a clutch score of -23.5 in 2009. While there have been numerous studies showing that “clutch ability” for a population is essentially no more significant than statistical “noise”, there are obviously a few players for whom it's a factor. And Cano had averaged worse than -6 “Clutch” runs per season before 2009, so while the magnitude of the 2009 choke was a surprise, the poor performance certainly was not.

Anyway, onward to 2010, and Cano's age-27 season... If he wasn't expected to decline in the clutch, Cano could be in line for 120+ RBI batting behind the Yankees' core, who all get on base a lot. He doesn't walk much, while averaging over 650 PA the past three seasons. He hits lefties about as well as righties, and his batting average and power gains in 2009 seem completely legit. It's always risky to predict a .320 batting average, since it requires so many things to go right, including suppport for his .324 career BABIP. But Cano is a great bet to bat .300+ with a .500 slugging and 20+ HR. With his low walk totals and great contact percentage, Cano is one of the safest sources of batting average in the league.

Alex Rodriguez | New York | 3B
2009 Final Stats: .286/.402/.532

Game #162 for the Yankees encapsulated the season in a nutshell. The Yankees won easily, A-Rod was spectacular, but didn't play the entire game. Virtually willing himself to the 30/100 threshhold with 2 homers and 7 RBI to end with exactly 30/100, A-Rod has now topped those marks in all but one of his 14 full seasons, and he was just 33 in 2009. Now that he has a ring, and got some timely postseason hits as a Yankee, it has to be assumed that he's now a “lifer”, as the Bronx Bombers have always been loyal to “their own”, one they prove themselves in NY. And that's great news for fantasy owners.

There may not be anything original to write about A-Rod anymore, and – assuming a reasonably moderate view is taken on his defensive skills – he seems clearly poised to go down in history as one of the 5 best players of all time. And – largely due to his agent's ability to negotiate contracts – he'll almost certainly be among the least-appreciated. The days of being a rangy shortstop with a .600 slugging are gone, and the playing time and batting average can be expected to deteriorate with the years, but as infield-mate Derek Jeter showed this year, it should never be surprising for an all-time great player to have an MVP-type season, even into his late 30's.

It's hard to predict how much of A-Rod's fielding ability will return as his hip heals further, but his batting didn't take long to rebound. He struggled through his first week back, hitting .136, with a sub-.300 slugging, before hammering 6 HR and a double in his next 8 games to remind people that he'd led the league in slugging each of the previous 2 years. Expect him to get about 10 days of rest in 2010, more if there are any lingering effects from the hip, and expect him to be in the MVP discussion at the end of the year (unless Mauer runs away and hides again). That should mean 40/120 with 100+ runs for fantasy purposes.

Johnny Damon | New York | OF
2009 Final Stats: .282/.365/.489

Who is Johnny Damon? No, we aren't still wondering where the “Idiot” who helped break Boston's “Curse” has gone, that's almost ancient history now. And his “Royal upbringing” or “rental” season leading the A's to the playoffs may as well have been in a different era. But Damon authored the second-most-surprising season by a 35-year-old Yankee in 2009, posting easily his best career ISO, and topping his career mark, .207 to .150. At age 33 (2007), he was down to a .270/.351/.396 batting line, making his value suspect, as a should-be-corner outfielder with a popgun arm. But he showed he could be a “for-real” corner outfielder in 2008, crushing all his career rate stats at .303/.375/.461. And he added even more power in 2009.

Damon could have been the poster boy for New Yankee Stadium, hammering 17 of his 24 homers at home, and not getting any of his 3 triples there (the park cut down triples a lot, showing a “triples factor” of .500, per ESPN.com's park factor report). And part of his changing stats were due to his new role as a #2 hitter behind Jeter. With Jeter being held on first base so frequently, one would have anticipated more doubles from the lefty-swinging Damon, but the reduced SB total (12, after topping 25 3 straight seasons), and improved power both are consistent with no longer leading off. That Damon was able to draw 71 walks batting in front of Teixeira and A-Rod is testament to his great batting eye and ability to foul off pitches, but getting on base in front of MVP-candidate hitters is hardly new for Damon.

For the most part, projection systems take the following steps:
1.“Neutralize” stats for a player from each season, removing “luck” factors and park effect and opponent strength.
2.Take a weighted average of the previous few seasons, usually something like 3-2-1.
3.Apply an “aging algorithm” of some sort, often dependent upon the type of player. This is combined with #2 in a variety of ways, depending on the system. My MLP system, for example, applies the “aging algorithm” to each season before weighting and combining, but the goal of MLP is to project prospects into their “prime seasons”, though someday I'll have to adapt it to MLB players as well.
4.Un-neutralize the projection for the environment the player will play in, including things such as park factor and opponent strength.

In any system that follows this basic projection methodology, Damon's age is going to be struggling with his recent tendency for improvement, and the unknown park and league and team factors will provide further randomizing factors. We think that either the Yankees or an NL team would provide fantasy value around 90% of Damon's 2009 total, with the boost in offense from the NL being mitigated by losing his teammates in New York, who are a great supply of runs and RBI. So, if he stays in NY, expect him to approach .280/.360 for average/OBP, and exceed .450 slugging. Don't expect any rebound in speed if he's not leading off.

Mariano Rivera | New York | RP
2009 Final Stats: 9.8 K/9, 6.0 K/BB, 1.76 ERA

FIVE MORE YEARS?! Does he figure he'll just be bored with collecting rings at that point, or is he actually human? Anyway, that should be good for another 10-15 blown saves... maybe. And, what with his WHIP going up 36% (.905 from .665 in 2008) and his blown saves doubling (2 from 1 in 2008), and his K:BB ratio dropping to less than HALF (6.00 from 12.83), perhaps the old guy is losing it?

NOT!

Aging curves for pitchers are little more than a suggestion these days, with guys pitching at age 40 like they did when they were 25. But Rivera's lost a little zip off his cutter, as it averaged 91.3 in 2009, down from over 93 in recent years. He's still generating a lot of swings outside the zone (over 36%), and that's the key for him. So, maybe the “suggestion” of an aging curve should be considered, but he has a long way to go down before he'd fall out of the elite closers in baseball, so he really may be able to keep closing for New York until he bores of it. We're not going all the way out on that limb, but expect 2010 to look a lot like 2009, with a slight degradation. We'd call it “regression”, but we're not fully sure that human norms apply in this case.

CC Sabathia | New York | SP
2009 Final Stats: 7.7 K/9, 2.9 K/BB, 3.37 ERA

Just like Roy Oswalt after he pitched 525 innings over two seasons we can see the possible impact of fatigue on CC Sabathia. CC has now racked up an amazing 779.1 IP over the past three seasons (almost 260 IP/yr). Of course, unlike Oswalt, CC moved to a park which inflated his home run totals, and into the league's toughest division (though missing the Yankees as opponents helps a lot). And his “decline” certainly didn't show up in the postseason, where he pitched scintillating ball against his AL opponents before holding his own against the powerful Phillies lineup. So, was there really any fatigue factor at all?

One thing is certain – even if 2009 was “fatigue impacted”, it was still plenty good. He led the league in wins, as one would expect from an effective high-inning pitcher on a team with a great offense. And he was 3rd in win%, so it wasn't just about staying in the game. He was 4th in ERA and WHIP and IP. He was 3rd in hits/9 allowed, and 9th in K/9 (7th in K's).

But there really is reason to be concerned here, despite his seeming invincibility. With the K:BB dropping from 5.7 in 2007 to 4.3 in 2008 to 2.9 in 2009, his xFIP has gone up from 3.63 (in 2007) to 3.94. His BABIP and HR/FB% were both in the “lucky” range in 2009 (.284 BABIP, 7.8% HR/FB). To his credit, though, most of his metrics picked up in the 2nd half, as he went 11-2, 2.74, with 9 K/9, so perhaps it was just acclimation to a new team. Sabathia's usage patter will be interesting to monitor. He's no longer a “young arm”, but pitchers in this era aren't acclimated to going as many innings as he has been the past few years. Perhaps now that he is, there won't be any ill effects, and Girardi is known for pushing his starters, so don't expect much coddling to keep him “fresh” for the playoffs.

Just a reminder about GP10:

In December, Acta Sports will publish the 2010 GRAPHICAL PLAYER. Besides covering a pair of teams apiece, Rob and I are Associate Editors of this edition. If you enjoy Waiver Wire—if you want the edge that you get here at THT Fantasy—then the 2010 GRAPHICAL PLAYER is your book. It'll be like going into your draft with Rob and me looking over your shoulder. (THTF's minor-league maven Matt Hagen is also a contributor.)

Next week, we'll begin incorporating GP profiles into our Waiver Wire columns. Until then, here is a 16-page preview of the book. You can order the book from Acta Sports here.

Posted by Rob McQuown at 4:00am

Waiver Wire Offseason: NL

Mat Gamel | Milwaukee | 3B
2009 Final Stats: .242/.338/.422

Brewers fans have been itching for a long look at Gamel, the team's top hitting prospect, at the major-league level, and they finally got their wishes in 2009. Unfortunately, by the time he got to the bigs, his way was blocked by a guy named Casey McGehee, and hampered by his own performance at the plate.

Gamel was mashing AAA pitching in April, with a .403/.483/.806 line that included 7 HRs and 8 2Bs, and got his first callup in mid-May as interleague play approached and the Crew figured they could use him at DH. Then Rickie Weeks went down for the season, and Milwaukee had the perfect opportunity to give him more PT; Craig Counsell and McGehee could both play 2B or 3B and Gamel could slide into the 3B rotation.

Even though he stayed with the big league club, that's not how things worked out, which speaks volumes about how Milwaukee regards Gamel. His biggest liability at this point is his glove—he has an .883 career fielding percentage in the minors, with 156 errors in 1334 chances. That he booted 7 balls in 61 chances in the majors (with an .885 fielding percentage) shows those struggles are continuing. Milwaukee really doesn't think the merits of his bat overcomes the deficits of his glove.

And his bat wasn't all that meritorious in the majors, either. He started out hot, hitting .308/.438/.692 in his first 13 ABs (mostly as a pinch-hitter) then cooled off dramatically, hitting just .224/.322/.329 over his next 76 ABs through the end of June, with 11 BBs and 30 Ks. After he only started 6 of 14 games through mid-July, the team decided to give him more seasoning in AAA, instead of sporadic PT in the bigs.

Gamel's funk carried over into the minors, where he hit .118/.225/.147 to close out July, then had OPSes of .751 and .669 in August and September. Despite this, the Brewers brought him back up to the big-league club in September, where he continued to collect splinters on the bench, even after Milwaukee was out of the pennant chase entirely. He collected just one start in 24 team games, though he hit .267/.353/533. Why they didn't give him a longer look at this point in the season, with the pennant out of reach and both Counsell and McGehee nursing knee injuries, is a mystery.

In the long run, the extra time in AAA should prove beneficial to Gamel, since he'd only had 21 ABs at that level before this season. He did improve his defense there somewhat, booting just 18 balls in 201 chances for a fielding percentage of .901. But even that may not be enough for him to occupy the 3B position the Brewers have been holding open for him, especially with the emergence of Casey McGehee. And before you suggest a platoon between RH McGehee and LH Gamel (or even Counsell, if he's re-signed), realize that Gamel's platoon splits have been almost even in his minor-league career, and turning this 23-year-old into half a player at this point in his career would be a waste.

The other possible position for him, 1B, is of course blocked by the formidable presence of Prince Fielder. Barring a trade of either Gamel or McGehee (or, even less likely, Fielder), it looks like his best fit will be as a corner outfielder. But there, too, he's blocked by Ryan Braun and Corey Hart. So you should expect a trade of Hart, McGehee or Gamel, in that order, before the 2010 season opens to resolve that logjam and to bolster their starting pitching, worst in the NL in 2009.

The Brewers have already indicated that they won't part with Gamel for anything less than "his equivalent in pitching," something most teams are unlikely to do at this stage of Gamel's career. A trade to an AL team would allow Gamel to slide into what might be his best position, DH, but there's not many teams willing to pay such a steep price for a guy who never wears a glove. So I'd expect to see Gamel in Milwaukee spring training, ready to prove himself at 3B or RF.

How will he perform? No matter where he ends up, he's going to need to improve his batting eye and contact rate. His .50 minor-league BB/K rate has actually dropped as he ascended each level, as has his .77 contact rate. Scouts say he has the skills, with great batspeed and a good batting eye, so these ratios suggest he's pressing, adjusting, or both. That's not quite the trend you want to see from a talent like this, but he's still only 23, so there's plenty of time to turn it around, even if progress might be slow.

Keeper owners will want to keep this in mind—don't expect him to be your 3B of the future, and don't expect him to reach his full potential in 2010. He'll be a very good hitter one day, wherever he ends up fitting into the lineup, though he profiles as an excellent #5 hitter behind Braun and Fielder. But moderate your expectations heading into 2010, particularly if he goes into Spring Training still blocked by both Hart and McGehee.

Corey Hart | Milwaukee | RF
2009 Final Stats: .260/.335/.418

Brewers fans and fantasy owners sat up and took notice when Hart burst onto the scene in 2007 with a .295/.353/.539 in his first full season at the majors. When he followed that up with two straight seasons of decline, the same fans and owners have turned their backs on him. 2008 saw him slip to .268/.300/.459, and 2009 saw that fall even farther, and his HR and RBI totals have also dropped in corresponding fashion.

There's some explanation for these statistics, however. In 2008 it looked like he was pressing to return to his 2007 heights, as his batting eye fell from .36 to .25. Luck was a factor, too—his BABIP also dropped from .321 to .293 and his HR/FB% fell from 13 to 9.8 over the same span. In 2009, he returned his BB/K ratio to .47, and his BABIP rose to a more expected .305. His HR rate dropped again to 8.7%, despite continuing to hit fly balls at the same rate.

An emergency appendectomy cut his 2009 season short, making his one awful month weigh even more heavily against his overall numbers. May 2009, he hit .232/.283/.343, one of his worst months ever, but he'd improved in June (typically a strong month for him) and July, before losing a month to the appendectomy.

He returned in September and finished the season with an eight-game hit streak, but the operation had clearly sapped his power, not surprising, since it sliced open and weakened his trunk muscles. Only 3 of his 14 hits went for extra bases, and he hit .237/.338/.322 in September, another month among his worst ever. So you could argue that 2009 was the Tale of Two Months, while 2008 was a lot of bad luck. He's definitely undervalued going into 2010, and represents a good bounceback candidate.

With Gamel looking for a position and both Braun and Fielder ready to launch the Brewers into the stratosphere, the front office may not wait until 2010 to see if Hart does. In Milwaukee's quest for more pitching, Hart is their best trading chip. Though his value is obviously diminished by his past two seasons, he's still a guy with enough speed to swipe bases (23 each in '07 and '08) with the contact skills (.80 career) to suggest that a rebound is likely, though probably not to the luck-induced levels of 2007. He shouldn't become a free agent until 2012, and his arbitration value should make negotiations with him cheap and easy.

Watch the Brewers' offseason moves; their swap of J.J. Hardy shows they have no sentimental attachments to a slumping farm system product if they need to make room for another one they think is better, and that's precisely the small-market model they should be following. He's not a lock to be traded, since he could still be re-signed cheaply, but I'd put the probability at 80% that he'll be playing with another team in 2010.

As for what you should look for, I'd anticipate a rebound into the .825 OPS range with 20+ SBs, 20+ HRs and RBIs approaching 100, with an average pushing .300. That's not elite level, but that's a really nice corner outfielder for a team willing to gamble that he's going to finally live up to his promise. Fantasy owners should find him a buy-low candidate as well, even if he's not going to see that 900 OPS level again.

Ben Sheets | Milwaukee | SP
2008 Final Stats: 7.2 K/9, 3.4 K/BB, 3.09 ERA

Brewers fans had to see this coming: in his first (supposedly) healthy season since 2004, Ben Sheets ended 2008 early with a tear in his elbow. It didn't seem bad at first, so Sheets declined Milwaukee's offer of arbitration, figuring on greener pastures elsewhere. It didn't quite work out that way, though. A deal with the Rangers was killed after the elbow injury turned out to be a torn flexor tendon, which shut Sheets down for all of 2009.

This isn't a serious injury by baseball standards; it's a severe form of tennis elbow (which is why they didn't think it was so bad at first), and players from Andy Pettitte to Victor Zambrano have gone under the knife for it, with clearly mixed results. Pettite underwent this surgery in 2004, and came back to pitch a 17-9 year in Houston, with a 2.39 ERA and a 1.03 WHIP, one of his best seasons ever. His elbow's been healthy ever since. Zambrano, on the other hand, had the surgery midway through the 2006 season then returned in 2007, his last season in the majors, to post a 10.17 ERA in just 23 IP; he was likely on the downslope of his career at this point anyway, but this surgery didn't help.

That gives you the spectrum of possibilities on this surgery, and makes Sheets so hard to predict—and sign. When he's healthy, Sheets has been awesome. In his best season, 2004, he ended with a 2.70 ERA and 0.98 WHIP , with a 8.25 K/BB rate that led the majors, thanks in part to a 10.0 K/9 that was the best in his career. But he also threw 237 IP, his third straight season of 200+ IP—and the beginning of his injury trouble.

Since then, he's shown occasional brilliance, with excellent control, great strikeout numbers and an ability to keep the ball in the yard. In 2006, his 9.8 K/9 and 0.9 BB/9 gave him a career-best 10.6 K/BB, though his 106.1 IP were his fewest since that 2004 IP spike. In 2009, he threw 198.1 IP, his highest total since 2004, with a 7.2 K/9, 2.1 BB/9 and 0.8 HR/9 that all contributed to a 3.09 ERA, 1.19 WHIP, and a 13-9 record that represented the most wins since 2004.

That injury flag, however, may overshadow all his other accomplishments. Pitching is scarce enough that Sheets will get signed somewhere, probably at a discount because of that injury history. That's the same discount that you should apply to him as a fantasy owner. He could approach 200 IP again, with good strikeout rates, or he could struggle to regain his control and/or get injured again.

Where he pitches will also be a consideration. A shift to the AL will clearly make a difference to a guy who's only pitched in the NL (the Rangers are one of his rumored destinations). He's also a fly ball pitcher, with a career 0.74 GB/FB ratio, one that has been closer to 0.70 of late. Miller Park is fairly forgiving, and a home run park like Great American or Citizen's Bank wouldn't be the best place for him to end up, either. That would make Texas an awful place for him to end up.

So watch Sheets to see where he lands and how he does in Spring Training before deciding how much to bid for him, but he becomes a moderate gamble in any park, with the odds for a good season decreasing, depending on his home team. He's a mid-round pick in a straight draft, and a mid-dollar gamble in an auction draft.

Don't ignore him, but don't chase 2004, or even 2009, numbers, either. Personally, I'd only take him in the late rounds or for a $2-5 bid. The chances of him exceeding those values is much lower than the chances of him imploding entirely, and I'm going to let someone else gloat that they got him for a buck.

That's all for this week--leave me your suggestions in the comments for other players you'd like me to cover. Next week, we'll look at Chris Ianetta, Geovany Soto and Joe Blanton.

ANNOUNCEMENT:
In December, Acta Sports will publish the 2010 GRAPHICAL PLAYER. Besides covering a pair of teams apiece, Rob and I are Associate Editors of this edition. If you enjoy Waiver Wire—if you want the edge that you get here at THT Fantasy—then the 2010 GRAPHICAL PLAYER is your book. It'll be like going into your draft with Rob and me looking over your shoulder. (THTF's minor-league maven Matt Hagen is also a contributor.)

Next week, we'll begin incorporating GP profiles into our Waiver Wire columns. Until then, here is a 16-page preview of the book. You can order the book from Acta Sports here.

Posted by Michael Street at 2:00am

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Top 10 prospects for 2010: Cleveland Indians and Minnesota Twins

Cleveland Indians

1. Carlos Santana: One of the Top 10 prospects in all of baseball, Santana brings solid defense to the catcher position and the type of power bat and middle-of-the-order mentality that could make Cleveland fans quickly forget about Victor Martinez.
2. Hector Rondon: Rondon's electric four-pitch arsenal is the envy of minor league baseball, but his tendency to lose focus and leave pitches up and over the plate will need to be remedied if he is going to succeed against major league hitting. His questionable endurance could be to blame in late innings. He is very good, but not a perfect prospect.
3. Lonnie Chisenhall: Sporting the swing and approach of a true professional hitter, Chisenhall impressed in 2009. He has a developing blend of power, patience, and contact skills that make me think he has a good chance to be an above average major league third baseman. An All-Star, though, may be stretching it.
4. Jason Knapp: Knapp has the ceiling of an ace, and the work ethic and smarts to get to that point. His high-90s fastball is his meal ticket, but the rest of his game lags behind. Watch for his secondary stuff to take a step forward in 2010.
5. Alex White: White is expected to make an immediate farm system impact in 2010. His tremendous repertoire will keep hitters off-balance from the get go, but Cleveland will surely be keeping an eye on his mechanics and control.
6. Michael Brantley: The plate patience, contact skills, and speed equal up to an underrated lead-off prospect. It may take some time for Brantley to produce like a lead-off hitter at the major league level, though, as I think he is destined for an up and down early career. Stay patient.
7. Alexander Perez: As a 20-year-old, Perez made a seamless transition from the Low-A Sally League to the High-A Carolina League. The key to his future success will be how his repertoire and talented right arm react to the added muscle that Cleveland will insist he put on. This is a key off-season, as Double-A competition awaits.
8. Nick Weglarz: Weglarz has his fair share of fans, and I know why they are attracted to him. He is a well-built power hitter with demonstrated plate patience to back it up. But his bat still has plenty of holes in it, and they will be exposed even further as he continues to face better competition. He often looks uneasy when facing top-notch pitching, which is not a good sign headed forward. He still has upside, but I'm more skeptical than most.
9. T.J. House: House is a likable lefty with developing secondary stuff. But, despite his youth, I don't think he has a whole lot of upside. I do like his odds to become a solid mid-rotation starter, though.
10. Carlos Rivero: It's easy to dismiss Rivero at this point, as it seems like he has been on Cleveland's prospect radar screen forever. Yet, he is just 21-years-old and has a clean swing that still has power projection left in it. Cleveland hasn't given up, and neither should you.

Minnesota Twins

1. Aaron Hicks: 2009 brought about a disappointing full season debut from Hicks. But he has a full tool shed to work with and there is every reason to think that he will bounce back in 2010. Perhaps even to the point that he is considered one of the game's best outfield prospects by this time next year.
2. Ben Revere: Hicks gets most of the outfield attention due to his enormous power potential, but Minnesota's plan for Revere is just as prominent. Revere has every tool necessary to become an elite lead-off man. His patience at the plate is still lacking, but he is a hard-worker who realizes the importance of doing whatever is necessary to get on base.
3. Kyle Gibson: Gibson has a tremendous amount of polish, but the injury concern is very real and is the reason why he fell to Minnesota in the 2009 draft. He doesn't have ace-like upside, but if he can put the injury concerns to bed he has a great shot at being a #2 starter.
4. Miguel Sano: Another hyped, raw bat has been plucked from the Dominican Republic. Sano's signing bonus was reportedly in record setting territory, which is notable considering it is the small market Twins that shelled out the bucks. They must see something special. When it comes to a 16-year-old project with a seven-figure signing bonus, as always, I am cautiously optimistic.
5. Adrian Salcedo: Scouting reports are tough to find on Salcedo, but anyone who puts up a nearly 20:1 strikeout to walk ratio over any extended period of time deserves attention. Add in the fact that he is just 18-years-old with an athletic, wiry frame and you have a promising prospect that any team would love to have.
6. Wilson Ramos: Unlike some catchers, who are all offense, Ramos also brings promising defense to the table. But I don't think his bat has as much upside as others do. His swing has obvious holes, his patience hasn't developed, and his power potential seems limited.
7. Angel Morales: Morales is an impressive athlete with enviable power potential. His discipline, plate coverage, and swing mechanics are still raw and inconsistent. Unless his overall bat takes the nest step, he will get exposed badly as he faces tougher competition.
8. Joe Benson: Sporting a bit of that power / speed combination that we all look for, Benson is a likable prospect, but he isn't a star in the making. Yet, with increased plate coverage and a more consistent swing will come better contact skills to go with his impressive patience. He could be a future fixture in the Twins' outfield.
9. David Bromberg: His control and movement are not where they need to be right now, but Bromberg has big league quality stuff. Everyone is waiting to see if his weaknesses will get ironed out or taken advantage of as he makes the move to Double-A. His ceiling is as a #3 starter.
10. B.J. Hermsen: Hermsen has the look of a bulldog, but his game in the early going has been all about the control of his low-90s fastball. His upside isn't ace-like, but I can't help but be impressed by his pinpoint control at this point. We will certainly know more next year when he faces A-ball competition.

Posted by Matt Hagen at 10:06pm (3) Comments

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Guest radio show appearance

I made a last-second guest appearance on the Fantasy Baseball Roundtable radio show earlier this evening. If you're interested, here's the link to the archived show.

Posted by Derek Carty at 11:30pm

Fantasy benchwarmers

When it comes to fantasy leagues, I am a weathered man. I've played in deep leagues, shallow leagues, mixed leagues, keeper leagues, dynasty leagues; leagues with drafts, leagues with auctions, leagues with free agents, waivers, FAABs, and so forth.

With most of these league settings I have a preference on the ones I like and the ones I feel subtract from a league. For example, I have always preferred mixed leagues that are toward the deeper end of the spectrum. There is one league setting, however, that I have always been on the fence about and that is bench depth.

It may seem like a fairly unimportant league setting on the surface, but in fact it is one that can have a large impact on the way you should approach a league. Even in MLB, bench depth plays a big role in the form of the 25 and 40-man rosters. For example Johan Santana might have never been a Twin were it not for the restrictions on bench size that led to the Astros making him Rule 5 eligible.

Impact on fantasy leagues

Generally speaking a league with deeper benches allows for more risky picks to be taken for two reasons. First, since better replacement players are more easily secured, the negative impact of having one of those risky players bust is reduced. And second, since there are more bench spots available, the cost of having one of them occupied by an insurance player is marginalized. It is important to understand that although the replacement level for starting players is unaffected by bench size, the ability to acquire replacement players is impacted.

In a league with deep benches, the players that would replace your starters in the case of injury or ineffectiveness are secured on your bench and can easily step into a starting role at a moment's notice. In a league with shallow benches, on the other hand, not every starting position can be backed by a bench spot, and in the case of certain starters needing replacing, heading to free agency or waivers is the only option. In two identical leagues save for bench size, the same caliber of player will spell starters, except in the league with deeper benches you will have more control over which players will be your replacement players.

What is considered a long or short bench is subjective, but I will say that the number of bench spots should be proportional to the number of roster spots per team. This implies that a league with more starting players than another can have a greater number of bench spots, yet the two leagues can have the same degree of bench depth. In general, though, I would say that one or two bench spots is shallow, three-to-five is medium sized, and six or more is a deep-benched league.

Transitioning from the theoretical discussion on how replacement level is affected and opportunity cost marginalized, let's move to the more concrete and list some specific types of players whose value is increased by an increase in bench size. Remember that the reason the following types of players have increased value in leagues with deeper benches is due to one or both of the bolded reasons above.

First and most obvious are the injury risks, the Rich Hardens and Chipper Joneses of the baseball world. You can count on having to delegate one of your bench spots to keeping a backup for these players, a backup you feel reasonably comfortable giving potentially significant amounts of playing time to.
The next type of player whose value is increased by deeper benches is the phenom rookie not yet in the majors that is prematurely owned in fantasy leagues—the paradigm of which was Matt Wieters in 2009. The annoying thing about these players is that you cannot place them on the DL like you can with injured players, instead they suck up a bench spot without offering up any form of production.
Another type of player is the one with the large handedness split, a good example of which is Jack Cust who has averaged an OPS that is .145 points higher against righties over the past three seasons. The argument of whether platoon splits are worth accounting for is one that can be made another time and another place. All I am saying is that deeper benches give you greater value in platooning two players with complementary splits, say Cust and Jonny Gomes.

The common theme among these players is that they all require you to own two players for one starting spot, something deeper benches allows you to handle more easily.

Conversely, you could say that safer players are given a slight boost in value in leagues with short benches, though I believe the depth of the league itself (as opposed to the benches) dwarfs the impact bench size will have. The players most positively affected by shallower bench leagues are the multi-position eligible players like Mark DeRosa whose positional flexibility counteract the lack of flexibility working with few bench spots offers.

Which do you prefer?

Now that we have covered in-depth the ways bench depth impacts leagues, it is time to ask yourself which one you prefer, and remember, I truly am not sure where I stand.

On one side I like deeper benches because they allow for more roster creativity and flexibility and also seem to strip some of the luck that waiver priority or free agent races contribute to leagues. Instead that luck is replaced with the skill owners need to have in picking the best players to fill out their bench.

On the other side, you could argue that shallower benches force owners to have more roster discipline in selecting the players that can stay and those that can go. Everyone hates making that decision of who to drop when there is no one you feel comfortable allowing to be added by another team for free, but making the correct decision in those instances is certainly a valuable skill in fantasy baseball. You could also make the point that no reasonable amount of bench depth would have led to players such as Ben Zobrist, Garrett Jones, or most of the other great pickups of 2009 being owned on teams before their skills became apparent.

After making cases on both sides of the issue, I suppose my argument for shallow benches is a bit more convincing though I still feel on the fence. Enough of what I have to say though, I am interested to see what others think. What say you?

Posted by Paul Singman at 4:34am

Monday, November 23, 2009

Killing two birds with one stone

Last week’s Cy Young Award apparently sparked some controversy. A number of fans seemed to think that Chris Carpenter was robbed. The archetypal argument even played out on THT, in the comment section of a post on Shyster Ball, which then prompted another post dedicated to the controversy.

Many Carpenter supporters didn’t seem to want to acknowledge the value of the 30 additional innings pitched by Tim Lincecum. Talking heads in the baseball community often like to reference an alleged dichotomy between fantasy baseball and the real thing. But, I think this is actually a great example of the fantasy baseball experience being instructive regarding a debate about the real thing.

I can understand, or at least accept, that when somebody looks at Carpenter’s stats in comparison to Lincecum, they don’t seamlessly interpret that innings gap in terms of value over replacement player. But, if you play fantasy baseball, you know this is exactly what such a disparity means.

When one of your stud players misses time, you must replace that player. You want to make the most of your roster spots and get as much production in as you can. And, the deeper the league, the more questionable the quality of your potential replacements. We all know that when it comes to problems like this, prevention trumps cure, so ideally you would like to draft players who you will not need to replace. Surely, there is a fair share of luck involved in your players avoiding the DL, but you can certainly skew the odds. As Branch Rickey famously said, “luck is the residue of design.”

Traditionally, my pieces preach conservatism and I commonly tout “boring veterans” as often representing solid value picks. But, there is one concomitant benefit to privileging upside that is rarely talked about, and it has to do with durability. By selecting players entering what should be the prime of their careers, based upon career production arcs, you are also selecting players who are generally less injury prone. Once leagues start to get deeper, say 14 teams and up, replacement value really starts to take a hit, and the payoff of successful upside picks become that much more influential on the standings. So, by targeting players between the ages of 24 and 30, you can help to kill two birds with one stone.

Of course, the upside and replacement dynamics can work against you just as hard when they fail. Quality replacements for busted picks are harder to find, therefore taking too much risk will likely lead to teams with too many holes. But, it’s worth making a somewhat fine semantic distinction here. Drafting “upside” is not the same thing as drafting “potential.” When looking for upside, you are looking at guys with reasonably similar projections and choosing the guy who may have slightly less impressive numbers, but a far greater chance to exceed them. Say, James Loney vs. Todd Helton. Gambling highly on Matt Wieters, on the other hand, was —and still is— a "potential" pick. When you are looking for upside, you are playing the trends. When you are looking for potential, you are playing the lottery.

Over on Fantasy 411, Cory Schwartz posted a retrospective on his NFBC (15-team, mixed-league) team, which won his league and finished fifth overall out of 390 teams. Reading Cory’s thoughts, one thing struck me rather profoundly. Two of his top three picks busted, and pretty solidly at that, but he was still able to triumph. One of the main reasons why he was able to do so was that very few of his players spent time on the DL. In a 15-team league, he didn’t have to give too many at-bats to replacement-level players. Not a coincidence, 11 of his 14 starting bats were between 24 and 29 years old.

At this point, I think it’s also worth discussing how ramifications of busts and replacement value play out in shallow versus deep leagues. Cory’s first pick in this league was B.J. Upton at 13th overall, clearly a bust. Among the players over whom he chose Upton were Carlos Beltran and Josh Hamilton, both of whom missed about half the season with injuries (coming into the season, Beltran was 32 and Hamilton was 28, by the way). Cory remarks, and correctly so, that although Upton busted, neither Hamilton's nor Beltran’s seasons justified them as better picks. This is true because of the size of the league.

In a shallow, 10- or 12-team league, it’s arguable that you were better off with an injured Beltran or Hamilton than an under-producing Upton. This is because of replacement value. In a 10-team league, you could have likely found a 20-homer, 80-RBI outfielder on the wire, and cobbled together a half season’s worth of him with half a season of Beltran and still wind up with pretty nice production from that spot, more production than Upton straight up. But, in a deeper league, where replacements are of far inferior quality, you’re likely better off getting the full, but disappointing season out of Upton.

So, what are the takeaways here? First, Tim Lincecum deserved the National League Cy Young Award; Major League Baseball is not a 10-team mixed league and replacement-level starting pitching is pretty brutal. Second, breakout potential and durability often go hand-in-hand. The deeper your league, the more important it is to strategically target both. Third, a league’s depth partially determines the ramifications of busts and injuries.