Order Now The Hardball Times Baseball Annual 2010 is now in development and will ship in mid November! This year's book will feature articles by THT's staff as well as Bill James, Rob Neyer, Tom Tango and Craig Wright. If you use this link to purchase the Annual, you will be in the first group to receive it and you'll be supporting THT.  Derek Ambrosino
John Burnson Derek Carty Marco Fujimoto Eriq Gardner Matt Hagen Jonathan Halket Rob McQuown Troy Patterson Mike Silver Paul Singman Michael Street And here's the full roster. Got a question for our fantasy baseball experts? Email us:
Heater MagazineAdd 10 MPH to your fantasy team — see for yourself
HEATER MAGAZINE Winner, 2008 CBS Sportsline Fantasy League of Experts  Plus our Statistical Definitions Most Recent Comments
Killing two birds with one stone (1)
Top 10 prospects for 2010: Toronto Blue Jays and Kansas City Royals (8) Top 10 prospects for 2010: Chicago White Sox and Detroit Tigers (4) Waiver Wire Offseason: NL (2) Acey-deucey (1) Monthly Archives
November, 2009
October, 2009 September, 2009 August, 2009 July, 2009 June, 2009 May, 2009 April, 2009 March, 2009 February, 2009 January, 2009 December, 2008 November, 2008 October, 2008 September, 2008 August, 2008 July, 2008 June, 2008 May, 2008 April, 2008 March, 2008 February, 2008 January, 2008 December, 2007 November, 2007 October, 2007 September, 2007 August, 2007 July, 2007 June, 2007 May, 2007 Gear up for baseball season with Chicago White Sox tickets and New York Yankees tickets. LA Angels tickets, Houston Astros tickets, and Atlanta Braves tickets are hot sellers! You can get Boston Red Sox tickets, San Diego Padres tickets or Chicago Cubs tickets for your favorite baseball fan. Coast to Coast Tickets has the best MLB tickets like Minnesota Twins tickets, LA Dodgers tickets, Milwaukee Brewers tickets, New York Met tickets and St. Louis Cardinals tickets. Find premium Chicago Cubs tickets and other Chicago tickets at JustGreatTickets.com. Chicago Cubs Tickets Chicago Tickets  All content on this site (including text, graphs, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
Most Recent Posts
Tuesday, February 10, 2009Predicting replacement levelPosted by Paul Singman at 1:01amDuring a draft, many people experience this typical dilemma: Should I take the best player available, or should I take the most valuable player available? Drafting a catcher in the third round is never easy, especially when there is a slugging first baseman available; just as taking that first basemen early is tough, knowing that good first basemen could be available later in the draft and all of the good catchers could be taken by the time you get around to selecting one. There is no right answer here; every situation is unique, but there are certain adjustments we can make to players' stats that can help us make the right decision. One of those is the replacement level adjustment. ReviewBack in November I wrote an article on how replacement level is applied to fantasy baseball. Let's review an except from it to make sure we are on the same page: A replacement player is expected to produce at the replacement player level. The best way I can explain replacement level is by creating the following hypothetical situation: There are 30 teams and only one shortstop per team. (That makes 30 starting shortstops.) No team has a bench shortstop and all non-starting shortstops are placed in a pool from which any team can sign them, but only if a team's starting shortstop cannot play due to injury or some other reason. Then I continued:
In retrospect the part that says, "They are in abundance" is not exactly true. In real baseball it is true that replacement level players are abundant. However, in fantasy leagues, if you are looking to add someone from the free agent pool, there will only be a few free agents worthy of considering. Even though all free agents cost the same, some are much better than others, meaning "good" replacement level players are not so abundant. With that in mind, let me explain how I am predicting position scarcity for 2009. The reasoningWhen a lot of "fantasy baseballers" (props to Razzball for the term) try to incorporate positional scarcity into their rankings, they make one huge mistake; They use last year's numbers. When determining position scarcity for the 2009 season, I would want to use 2009 season numbers. Problem is, the 2009 season has not yet been played. To get around this problem, I use the next best thing, which is projections for all players for 2009. Conveniently, we have our own projection system here at THT, courtesy of David Gassko. While the projections are currently available only to me in an Excel spreadsheet, they can also be available to you if you purchase the 2009 THT Season Preview Book. Calculating replacement levelIn a standard 12-team league, the replacement level player for each position will be on average the 18th catcher (30th in two-catcher leagues), 24th first baseman, 19th second baseman, 21st third baseman, 19th shortstop and 50th outfielder. To find the replacement level for each position, I averaged the projected OPS for the first replacement level player, and then the players projected before and after him. So for the catcher position, I average the 17th, 18th and 19th best catchers to end up with one expected projection for the replacement level catcher. Below is a chart of the results with the 2009 numbers being the projected replacement level for each position, thus the dotted line.  Note: C1 represents a one-catcher league, and C2 represents a multi-catcher league Sure it is a nice looking graph, but what does it mean? The projected drop in replacement level from the outfield, second base and catcher positions means that your replacement level adjustment should be more than it was for these positions last year. Conversely, your shortstop and first base adjustments should lessen because the replacement level first basemen—the guy you can add for nothing—is projected to be better. To make the adjustment you simply subtract the player's OPS from his position's replacement level OPS. For 2009 the projected values are (these are the values in the graph): +-----+-------+ | Pos | OPS | +-----+-------+ | C1 | 0.735 | | C2 | 0.705 | | 1B | 0.791 | | 2B | 0.728 | | 3B | 0.776 | | SS | 0.727 | | OF | 0.778 | +-----+-------+ So, if you have a first baseman with an OPS of 1.000, his value is equal to that of a catcher with a .944 OPS. Hmmm, that does not seem right. Remember that this is just the replacement level adjustment. There is another adjustment for position scarcity and it is the talent distribution adjustment. I will get into that adjustment in another article. Possible discrepanciesDeciding what replacement level exactly is and determining how to calculate it are always sticky subjects, so now I am going to point out of the possible flaws of my system. Using OPS will bother a lot of people. I doubt using using wOBA or another stat of the sort would change the results around a lot, and I could have used wOBA only if I used Marcel instead of the THT projections. Nothing against Marcel—it always holds its own—but I cringe at the projections when it comes to younger players. In the future I might go through the same methodology using Marcel's projected wOBA and then we can compare results. One of the hardest things tro decide was how many players from each position are drafted. The minimum was 12, but then I had to account for batters in the UTIL spot and on the bench. Admittedly there was no real scientific approach to designation of which players are replacement level, but I did get my numbers through some logical reasoning. To be specific, I started by saying 108 batters must be drafted. That is, nine starting batting spots multiplied by 12 teams to get 108 starting batters. Then, I decided that on average eight teams will have three bench players, with the remaining four teams holding four batters on their bench. That is 108 + (8 X 3) + (4 X 4) which equals 148. So, in the average league 148 batters are drafted. If you sum up the totals of replacement level rank for each position minus one (because the last player drafted is the player right before the first replacement level player) you get 17 + 23 + 18 + 20 + 18 + 49 which equals 145. If you account for three DHs being drafted, you get the previously deduced 148. In calculating the replacement level production, I did not want to just take the OPS of the 18th catcher so I used a three-player average. Again, no real scientific reason behind the decision to do that, but I feel it worked out well. Obviously my methodology is not the tightest, so I am open to suggestions to improve the way I went about this. You can leave those in the comments. Paul has been managing fantasy baseball teams for many seasons and writing for THT Fantasy over the past year (and counting). In his first year competing in expert's leagues, he is both surprised and happy to say he finished in the top 30% of his three leagues. He welcomes readers' thoughts at his email here or in the comments below.
Paul Singman said...
Multiple position players are tricky. I would suggest only putting players in for the worse of the two positions they are eligible for. For example Russell Martin, only include him in the catchers list because he is going to be played at catcher in like 98% of leagues. Don’t have him take a spot in the third base rankings. That is an obvious example though, for a 2b/SS player is is harder to exclude him from one of the lists. My suggestion is then to find all of the other 2B/SS players and include them in alternating lists. So, the first one in the shortstop list, the second in the second basemen list and so on. Not sure how much time you have, but if you are willing to do this I think it would improve the accuracy of the results. Posted 02/11 at 11:12 PM
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Next Post: Draft strategy: Injury risks can lead to big rewards (Part 3)>> <<Previous Post: THT Season Preview 2009 is shipping |
You’re right, I hadn’t thought of that.
The reason I used the average of the 11-15 players is that different players have different tendencies, like various amounts of speed, power, etc, and I don’t want my baselines to be skewed by that. I do understand the point about making the 11th spot the midpoint instead of the starting point, though, and I will change my methodology accordingly.
The primary problem I’m running into while running this thing is multiple position players. They tend to make a mess of things. Thanks for the input!