November 20, 2009
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, 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. 
Rich Barbieri
John Barten Brian Borawski Craig Brown Evan Brunell David Gassko Jonathan Hale Brandon Isleib Chris Jaffe Max Marchi Bruce Markusen Harry Pavlidis Jeff Sackmann Dave Studeman Steve Treder Bryan Tsao Tuck! Dan Turkenkopf Colin Wyers Geoff Young John Brattain And here's the full roster.
Or you can search by:
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. |
 Monday, October 01, 2007Looking to 2008: Getting your league togetherThis is one of the best days of the year for fantasy baseball owners. It has a much different feel than draft day, but it's definitely a day I look forward to each year. League standings are now official, and those who have won their leagues are beginning to celebrate. For those who didn't win, the day can be still be a good one. This is because the 2007 season is now in the books, and it is time to look towards 2008. The first step in this process is improving your current league or starting a new one altogether. While this often takes the back seat to things like draft preparation and sleeper projection, it shouldn't. The most successful draft in the world will quickly feel tarnished if there are fundamental flaws in your league setup. Even though I was the champion of one particular league this year, the win didn't mean very much because half of the league stopped paying attention in June. If this sounds similar to your league, now is the time to make sure 2008 goes better for you. I would rather come in third in an ultra-competitive league than first in one with no competition at all. Of course, I'd rather come in first in the ultra-competitive league and would be pretty disappointed with third, but that's besides the point. The point is that we all have a fresh start now and that we can all have successful leagues next year if we put the time in. At this juncture, you are capable of making any number of changes to your league. There are no limits, and that's what is so great about this day. The possibilities are endless. You remember the inactive league I talked about last month? I am actually salivating over how amazing that league is going to be next year. Changes are being made, new members are being recruited, and the competition (and attention paid to the league) should be excellent. Changes to the "inactive league"If you're curious about the direction we're going, here's a quick breakdown of how we're thinking about setting the league up. Oh, and a quick "thank you" to Patrick DiCaprio, whose high stakes league was the model for a lot of our rules. League type: Auction-based keeper league. Keeper rules: Each year, all teams have the option of keeping as many players as they would like. The year after being drafted, players can be signed to extensions of unlimited length. For every year the player is extended, $5 is added to his salary. So if you extend a $20 player for 4 years, he will cost you $40 each year. Once the extension runs out, you can keep him for an additional year if you add $10 to his salary. Players added through free agency are given a salary of $7 at the end of the season in order to determine keeper-eligibility. Minor league system: After the auction and reserve draft, a minor league draft with unlimited rounds will be held and will end only when all owners are satisfied. Teams can own as many minor league players as they wish throughout the season, but at the end of the season can only keep 10 of them. Players can be added after the minor league draft. Once a minor leaguer reaches a certain number of major league plate appearances or innings pitched (numbers to be decided) he must either be called up by his fantasy owner or released. If his big league team sends him back down to the minors, his fantasy owner can do the same but is obligated to recall him or release him if his big league club calls him back up before September 1. Any player who reaches these benchmarks (regardless of whether or not they were sent back down) is given a $7 salary at the end of the season to determine keeper-eligibility. Any who do not meet the benchmarks are eligible to be one of the 10 allotted minor league keepers each year. If a team decides to keep less than 10 players, they will be rewarded with supplemental picks in that year's minor league draft. Of course we're still working the bugs out, but I think we're heading in the right direction. We've also added a bunch of smaller rules that should maximize the need for good strategizing. The extra complexity should add a new level of competition to the league, and adding a flexible keeper system should keep everyone interested throughout the season. Concluding thoughtsHopefully this gets you thinking a little bit about your league next year. Even if there aren't fundamental problems with your league, it still might be a good idea to talk with the other owners and see if there are any smaller changes to be made. I'll be back tomorrow with a player profile or two. If you guys have any particular players you want me to look at, feel free to shoot me an email. I've already gotten a few of these, and I'll do my best to go over everyone you want me to, at the very least sending you an email back with an abridged analysis. I'm looking forward to a fruitful off-season, ultimately leading up to an excellent draft or auction for you guys (and myself, too)! P.S. If you're a Mets fan, like myself, feel free to wait a few days before getting in contact with the rest of your league. Even if you won, I doubt that would stop them from bringing up the second worst collapse in baseball history. I want to say something about the Mets, but I just can't bring myself to do it right now. Still too depressed. Posted by Derek Carty at 3:00pm (0) Comments Fantasy Focus Mailbag: ReflectionI haven't opened up the 'ole mailbag in a while, but I received an email today that I really enjoyed and wanted to share with you. The email came from a reader that I regularly corresponded with throughout the year, letting me know how his league turned out. Mail time!Here's the email: Hey Derek, I just wanted to thank you for all the help you've given me this season through email and your column. I ended up winning my most important league, with a big chunk of the reason being trades you assisted me with or pickups advised in the column. It definitely feels good to know that you achieved your goal for the year... helping people win their leagues. I didn't talk with all of you on a regular basis (although, as you see, I am more than willing to help anyone who asks), but hopefully the posts here helped some of you in your quest for a Fantasy Baseball Championship. Those of you I did help throughout the year, I'd love to hear how your teams finished. Part skill, part luckI sincerely hope you were all able to win your leagues. However, fantasy baseball is a game part skill, part luck. The best constructed team with the best strategy will not always win. It will be the team most likely to win, and over time this owner will win most often, but it is not a certainty that this owner will always win. Patrick DiCaprio holds the sentiment that a fantasy baseball owner must focus on 'process' and not 'results.' I hold this sentiment as well. Fantasy baseball is similar to poker in that you can make the correct play and still lose. If another person at the table pushes you all in before the flop, and you're sitting on pocket aces, you have to call. Your call, though, does not guarantee victory. There will be occasions, though infrequent, that you will lose. This draws a great parallel to fantasy baseball. Focusing on 'process,' we see that Erik Bedard had the best LIPS ERA in baseball (3.13), but his 'result' was finishing just ninth in ERA, behind guys like Fausto Carmona (4.23 LIPS ERA) and Brad Penny (4.42 LIPS ERA). Still, if I had to do it all over again, I would go with Bedard because he is the much better percentage play. Concluding thoughtsAgain, I hope that I have helped you throughout the year. I also hope that even if you didn't win, you understand that focusing on 'process' over 'results' is the right way to go, and I hope this is some consolation to you. Continue to play smartly, and I guarantee you will win yourself a championship in no time. Anyway, I'll be back tomorrow with some player analysis as we prepare for 2008! Posted by Derek Carty at 7:54pm (0) Comments Tuesday, October 02, 2007A keeper smackdown-Ryan Braun vs. Miguel CabreraIn two recent podcasts I have heard someone pose the following question, and one prominent 3B ranking list I have seen answered it differently than I will: assuming you had to pick either Ryan Braun or Miguel Cabrera for 2008, who do you choose? Let's assume all else is equal, so we are just thinking about who will be better in 2008, and forget about value, at least until later in this column. This is about the easiest question to answer and the answer I believe is beyond a reasonable doubt (and yes I am a lawyer in my sad, Sisyphean day job). Miguel Cabrera should be preferred, and it is not even a contest in my opinion. As good as Braun has been, his performance is overwhelmingly likely to be a fluke. He has a mere 75% contact rate, and only walks 6% of the time. His BB/K ratio is a very low 0.26. This implies that he has difficulty controlling the strike zone. It doesn't mean he can't succeed but only that he must do so in spite of a flawed batting eye and a well below All-Star skill combination of contact and BB/K ratio. As a result of these skills his expected batting average is only .289 and his .324 batting average performance this year is buoyed by a fluky .373 BABIP/37% hit rate. As an aside, hit rate for pitchers does not work the same way as for hitters. For pitchers we can expect regression to a mean of .300. For hitters there are often reasons why they will be higher than 30% or a .300 BABIP. Usually these are the most skilled players. The garden variety major leaguer (if there is such a thing) will regress to 30% but the best hitters will routinely put up hit rates higher than that simply because their skills allow them to do so. So it is possible I am wrong about Braun's ability to get hits despite an inferior batting eye. However, among players that produced at least $10 in value this year, Braun is sixth worst in BB/K ratio, and of the ten worst BB/K ratios in this group he was second to last in contact rate. Aside from a huge disappointment most of these are not great players: Matt Kemp, Khalil Greene, Alfonso Soriano, Matt Diaz, Xavier Nady. These are good players mostly, and so is Braun, but there is no reason for anyone to prefer these players to the likes of Miguel Cabrera. More importantly, none of them have an expected batting average greater than .300, and in Kemp's case it is .258, almost 100 points lower than his actual batting average. Miguel Cabrera has posted hit rates in his full seasons of 34%, 36%, 38% and 38%. Braun has one season at 37%. Miguel Cabrera has had the following splits and skills: Year BA OBP SLG H% CT% BB% 2004 294 365 512 34 75 10 2005 323 387 561 36 80 9 2006 339 424 568 38 81 13 2007 321 399 564 38 77 11 Braun has clearly had an unexpected season. But with an expected batting average of .289 and an BB/K ratio of only 0.26 it is tough to see a repeat though not inconceivable. But even if he does repeat, is there any reason to think that Cabrera will be worse next year? Braun's BABIP may be sustainable, but it is very unlikely given his deficient control of the strike zone. Another way to look at it is by dollar values generated. This year Cabrera has been worth $30 and Braun $31 (albeit in less time). So they are roughly equal. Braun next year is more likely to regress, but even if he repeats he will be equal to Cabrera's output for this year. Yet, as can be seen above, this year is probably Cabrera's worst among his full seasons. So his worst full season right now is worth as much as Braun's unexpected breakout. Braun has the speed of course with 15 steals this year and that is something Cabrera will not do. But a more reasonable hit rate or BABIP and a low walk total means that 15 may be the highest he can reasonably achieve. Age? Cabrera is 24, Braun is 23. This is slightly in Braun's favor. But on the other hand Cabrera will be hitting his prime with four excellent years under his belt. Through this point in his career, baseball-reference.com lists Hank Aaron as the most similar player through age 24, with the most similar players overall being Aaron, Cepeda, Frank Robinson, Joe Medwick and Mickey Mantle. This is not the stuff Ryan Braun is made of. How unexpected is Braun's debut? According to Baseball Prospectus' PECOTA, Braun has exceeded his 90th percentile projection. I think that qualifies as "unexpected." There is nothing in his minor league record to suggest that he would be this good as a rookie. In 2006 Braun was 22 starting the year in AA and though he hit well there was nothing to indicate an MVP caliber rookie year. It is all about risk. They are both roughly equal in value. One will likely improve next year as he reaches his prime, and one will likely regress to his expected performance. One is a Hall of Famer in the making approaching his prime and one is not proven to be anywhere near that level. To inject the question of value next year: even if you love Braun and even if you think I am nuts for saying he isn't as good as he appears that doesn't matter. Exploiting misinformation is what matters. If Braun will be overvalued next year based on his stunning debut, and Cabrera may be undervalued compared to his normal production then that is an argument in favor of Cabrera also. So even if you think Braun will repeat Cabrera is still the better fantasy bet. One caveat: if you are in an auction league where players are more likely to be correctly valued because the owners are sharp or you are against lots of tough good owners then Braun may have more value next year since the owners will likely at least go through the analysis I have done here even if they arrive at a different opinion. In that case Braun may be a better value because now they may bid up Cabrera and let Braun slide to a salary that is more in line with his expectations coming into this year. But on pure performance alone, I don't see this as a particularly close decision. It is Cabrera by a mile. Posted by Patrick DiCaprio at 6:55am 2007 LIPS ERA & DIPS WHIP leadersI've gotten several requests to see an updated list of the LIPS ERA and DIPS WHIP leaders, so here you go. I've made a few changes to the table format. First, you'll notice that the text is smaller. It feels like I'm trying to squeeze too much information into these tables, but most of it seems kind of necessary, or at least interesting to have. I'd be curious to know what you guys think. I've added some defensive stats on here. They appear in the four columns furthest to the right. The first of these columns gives THT's Plus/Minus grade for that pitcher's team. The second column gives his team's Plus/Minus rank among his team's league (AL or NL). The third column gives THT's Revised Zone Rating (RZR) for his team, and the fourth is the team's league rank. I think you should be familiar with the other columns, so let's look at the tables. LIPS ERA - Top 15
DIPS WHIP - Top 15
Concluding thoughtsI'm not going to review any particular players because we'll be doing a ton of that over the next couple of months, but with all of the requests for these lists I wanted to give them to you. I'll be back either later tonight or tomorrow with a player profile. I've gotten a few more requests for player profiles, so if you have anyone you'd like to see feel free to send me an email. Posted by Derek Carty at 6:36pm (0) Comments Thursday, October 04, 2007Player highlight: Scott KazmirI'm sure you all know the story behind Scott Kazmir, so I won't bother retelling it (although that's mostly because, as a Mets fan, I've had enough heartache lately). The bottom line is that the Devil Rays got one of the top prospects in baseball for a pitcher who can't even secure himself a 25-man roster spot these days. Kazmir, on the other hand, has shown tremendous promise since the trade and subsequent promotion to the majors, although there are several question marks surrounding him. Question marksThe first of these question marks is his control. In his debut 2004 season (8 games, 7 starts), his BB/9 was a very high 5.40. He followed with a 32-start 2005 and a 4.84 BB/9. It further improved in 2006 to the tune of a 3.24 BB/9, the first time he posted a mark better than league average. This led many people, myself included, to predict big things for Kazmir in 2007. But with three and a half months in the books, Kazmir's owners were very disappointed as he posted a 4.41 ERA and 1.58 WHIP. Many people were claiming Kazmir's "inefficiency" on the mound was the cause for his sub-par numbers. They said that his high strikeout rates caused him to throw too many pitches in the early innings, leading to early exits. Back on July 5, right before the All-Star break, David Gassko tested out this hypothesis in what he called "The Kazmir Conundrum." David found that Kazmir's strikeout rate has — essentially — no effect on his pitch count. He did, however, conclude that his walk rate would cause that pitch count to increase. This makes perfect logical sense, and since Kazmir's first half BB/9 was 4.65, we can easily see why some people were getting scared about his "inefficiency." Something else that might scare some fantasy players off is Kazmir's injury potential. There have always been whispers about how injury-prone Kazmir could become due to his high velocity and relatively small frame. Some will point to the injury to his throwing shoulder he suffered at the end of last year as evidence of this. I'm not a medical expert, so my thoughts on the matter would only be speculative. In the same vein, notice that his workload from 2006 to 2007 increased by 62 innings. Also take note that David Gassko refuted this "Year-After-Effect" last November, so this alone is probably nothing to worry about, especially considering that he threw just 20 more innings this year than he did in 2005. NumbersLet's take a look at Kazmir's numbers since being called up in 2004. I've included all the regular stats in addition to Kazmir's Pitches per Inning. This seemed appropriate to include given the "inefficiency" discussion. Notice how well it matches up with his varying BB/9 rates.
Note: The 2004 and 2005 rows have been updated to include the LIPS ERA numbers now that I have them working. A big thanks goes out to David Gassko for this. -- D.C. 10/10/07 2007 seasonAs you can see, Kazmir has pretty consistently shown elite strikeout rates. As this is the single most important isolated stat for a pitcher, it gives Kazmir a huuuge advantage over every pitcher not named Erik Bedard (and even he has only shown this ability once). The problem with Kazmir, as noted earlier, is his control. On the surface, it seemed to regress this year back above league average. If we look closer, though, we see that it was a very good 2.96 in the second-half. Maybe something clicked for him. His strikeout rate shot up as well in the second half to an astounding 11.83. When you put the two together, you get a league-leading 3.02 LIPS ERA, better even than Josh Beckett, Johan Santana, and (!) Aaron Harang (and their 5.00+ K/BBs). Essentially, Kazmir had an amazing second half. Rays defenseWhat is surprising, though, is how well he did given the (fill in synonym for absolutely and utterly atrocious here) defense behind him. Let's look at the defensive numbers of the Devil Rays. Alongside each stat is how the team ranked among the 14 American League teams.
Absolutely terrible. So how did Kazmir manage an ERA better than his LIPS ERA? Check out his LOB%. The Devil Rays team figure this year was 70%, league average was 74%, and Kazmir's was 79%. He posted an 81% LOB% last year, but I wouldn't consider this a trend. Expect some regression next year. Kazmir's defense did him no favors in the way of WHIP. His WHIP was higher than his DIPS WHIP in both halves of the year. This can be attributed to his poor BABIPs. League average was .306 this year, while the Devil Rays team BABIP was .338. Kazmir fell right in line with his team at .339. His first half numbers show what happens when you combine a poor BABIP with a poor BB/9. His second half numbers show how you can overcome a poor BABIP with good control and lots of strikeouts to post a very solid WHIP (even if it is higher than your DIPS WHIP). 2008 peripheralsWhat we want to know, however, is how Scott Kazmir will perform in 2008. This is no simple question, but I think we have enough information to come up with good answer. With a strikeout rate under 10.00 and a walk rate near 5.00, Kazmir still managed a 4.09 LIPS ERA in the first half of this year. I'd have to think that is the basement for Kazmir in 2008, although I really don't see him doing nearly that poorly. He's shown that he can strike batters out as well as (or possibly better than) anyone in the game. Even when he was having an off first half, he was still 9th in K/9 among guys with more than 7 starts. I see a 2008 K/9 over 10.00 as pretty likely. His expected ground ball rate has been pretty consistent over the past few years, hovering just below league average. I suspect it'll remain in this area. His HR/FB will regress towards 10.00 next year, but it shouldn't be a cause for concern. The hardest peripheral to predict for Kazmir is, obviously, his walks. I would be shocked if it goes over 4.00 like it did in the first half of this year, but would also be surprised if it stays below 3.00 like it did in the second half. I think a BB/9 around league average would be a good guess. Let's put him down for a 3.30 BB/9 for now. With a 10.20 K/9 and a 3.30 BB/9, Kazmir's K/BB would be a very solid 3.09. Those extra strikeouts, however, make him an even better pitcher than his K/BB indicates. 2008 defensive supportThe question now is, do we see the Devil Rays defense performing any better for him next year? Unfortunately, I don't. Carlos Pena and his .763 RZR are here to stay, and the rest of the infield doesn't look to shake out much better Rays are talking about moving Akinori Iwamura and his third base RZR of .624 (eww!) to second base in order to make room for Joel Guzman at third. I don't see the rookie Guzman doing exceptionally well, and Brendan Harris posted a very low .777 RZR at short this year. So, what do you get when you put it all of this together? Quite simply, the worst defensive infield in baseball. The outfield is better than the infield for the Rays, but seriously, doesn't it have to be? I mean, the infield had a combined .762 RZR this year. Carl Crawford posted a decent .872 RZR in left field this year. B.J. Upton topped him with a .869 RZR, and I think there's room for him to improve. Delmon Young's .865 RZR was only alright, but I think there's room for him to improve as well. It'll be interesting to see what they do with Rocco Baldelli, who had a .901 RZR in 2006 and a .903 RZR in 2007 out in center. He looks like their best defensive outfielder, but there doesn't seem to be room for him. Overall, the outfield defense of the Devil Rays look like it could improve, but the infield isn't as promising. I would continue to expect higher-than-average BABIPs for Kazmir and the rest of the Tampa Bay pitchers. Final 2008 outlookScott Kazmir is clearly a very talented pitcher. The biggest knocks against him are his control (which he or may not have figured out in the second half of the year) and the defense behind him. I see him doing pretty well with his control in 2008, but I don't see the defense doing much to help him. Luckily, he'll give up fewer balls in play than just about any other starter in baseball. With the peripherals mentioned earlier (10.20 K/9 | 3.30 BB/9 | 41% xGB%), Kazmir would be capable of putting up a LIPS ERA around 3.40-3.45, but the defense might knock his actual ERA down to around 3.50-3.55. His DIPS WHIP might end up in the 1.25-1.30 range, but — again — that defense will force his actual WHIP down to maybe 1.35. According to Baseball Prospectus, Kazmir's expected win total was 13.2 this year. Since we think his ERA will remain relatively unchanged (though he should get there via a different route), we need to examine the other factors. The Devil Rays bullpen was basically awful this year, and I'd have to think they will do something to improve it — at least a little bit — next year. The Rays were mediocre in scoring runs (15th in baseball), but the potential for them to become a little better is there (letting Jonny Gomes play more, improvements from guys like Delmon Young, etc.), so I don't think it is unreasonable to think Kazmir could get 14 or 15 wins next year. Of course, not to be forgotten, Kazmir's biggest contribution to a fantasy squad will be those strikeouts. He was second in baseball in K/9 this year (behind Bedard, whose K/9 was three points higher than his previous best) and should continue to be one of the best sources of strikeouts for fantasy owners. As long as he's healthy, he should log over 200 innings and would surpass 250 strikeouts with 220 IP and a 10.30 K/9. All that being said, I have a good feeling I'll be including Mr. Kazmir in my Top 15 starting pitchers for the 2008 fantasy baseball season. Posted by Derek Carty at 2:23pm (0) Comments Tuesday, October 09, 2007Which $1 player do you prefer?On their podcast Lenny Melnick and Paul Greco raised an interesting fantasy thought experiment. Lenny asked whether, assuming batting average to be equal, would you rather have a $1 keeper who hits 30 home runs or one who gets 30 steals? Since this issue touches all sorts of fantasy theory I thought it would be perfect for discussion. There are two main considerations and a whole host of minor ones. The primary considerations are the opportunity cost of each and the second is the scarcity issue. Opportunity cost is basically the "cost" you pay for choosing one alternative over another. If I am choosing whether to buy an apple or an orange, the apple costs me not only its price but also the benefit I would have obtained had I chosen a banana. This may be a positive or negative cost by the way. Sometimes there may be equal costs of course. If I wokeup one day to be greeted by Evangeline Lilly and Ali Larter wearing nothing but high heels and a fur coat one would be hard pressed to say that choosing one over the other could bear a high opportunity cost. So let's say we choose the 30 steal player, which as the question was discussed was the Juan Pierre type not the true fantasy stud who goes 30-30. Generally these 30 steal guys are non-power hitters and will have fewer total bases and lower slugging. Since we assume an equal batting average that means we assume an equal number of hits and at-bats, essentially. So by choosing the steals we lose the opportunity cost of the extra bases generated by the power hitter per hit. In a points league or a head to head league the power hitter is clearly preferable because of this. The opportunity cost of passing up these extra points is too high. But if the point structure is such that steals are heavily weighted then it could even out but I don't know of any leagues of this sort that are routinely played. The head to head mixed league I play in awards one point for every base on a hit and one point for steals, pretty standard. That is a hefty opportunity cost. What do we lose if we choose the power hitter? Aside from losing the steals, I don't think there are too many other points that can be lost by choosing the power hitter in the garden variety mixed league. In almost every offensive category the power hitter will likely do better than the 30 steal guy on a per hit basis. We can speculate that perhaps the steals guy might have more walks and a higher OBP or maybe more runs, but there is nothing intrinsic about the steals guy versus the power guy that makes it so. So if you are in a points league or a head to head league that uses points I think the power hitter is preferable. In a traditional roto format, the only way the steals guy can win is if the scarcity of steals is sufficient that it overcomes the additional benefit of the power guy. According to Sean Lahman's database in 2006 there were 2,767 stolen bases, and 5,386 homers. So steals were twice as scarce as homers. This is exactly borne out by the actual data on 30 homer and steal guys. There were 60 guys with 30 HR in 2005 and 2006 but only 30 players with 30 steals. At least in 2005 and 2006 one can argue that in the fantasy world steals were twice as scarce as home runs. 2007 though was a different animal. Who knows why (and I didn't metion the "s" word) but there were 470 fewer homeruns hit in 2007 compared to 2006. There were 26 players with 30 HR (so four less than expected from 2005 and 2006) and 19 with 30 SB (four more than expected from 2005 and 2006). Totals across the two leagues were 4915 HR and 2899 SB for 2007. So the ratio was lower but steals were still far scarcer than homers. Given the scarcity, getting a 30 steal guy in traditional roto is more valuable, though if there is a further decrease in homers it could change. For the purposes of this discussion it is the ratio of the two that matters not the absolute values. In my high stakes league we use SB-CS as a category. Here are the team totals for the AL teams and the NL teams: Place AL NL 1 141 135 2 87 120 3 84 119 4 82 108 5 74 106 6 72 74 7 71 59 8 54 56 9 45 51 10 44 50 11 28 42By himself, the 30 steal guy at $1 could move the tenth place team to fifth in the AL and the fifth place team to first in the NL. Granted this is not conclusive proof. But given that steals are scarcer, the impact of a scarcer commodity is higher and my league's stats bear this out. So in traditional roto formats I would usually prefer the steals guy. I will admit that I am almost always willing to pay top dollar for speedsters with good batting averages, but will rarely do so for top HR guys, for lots of reasons that I will discuss in the off season (not the least of which is how the markets traditionally values these guys). So, one may argue that I am biased. Let's also consider the fact that in an auction league you have $29 to spend after you choose. Can you make better use of the $29 to get a HR guy or a steal guy? If you take the $1 steal guy you have $29 to spend on power. Because there are more 30 homer guys and more homeruns it will be easier to make up the power using the money. So you are spending money to get help in multiple categories based on the ancillary benefits to other categories that typically come with power hitters. If you take the $1 HR guy then you have to buy the steals. Not only is this more difficult since they are scarcer, in spending that money on steals you pass up all of the other offensive benefits that come with the homer guys. So, your money is spent less efficiently buying help in one category. So I think that in a points league you prefer the power hitter and in an auction league or a 4x4 traditional roto format you prefer the steals guy. Your answers may vary, especially if your league has some unique wrinkles. Posted by Patrick DiCaprio at 6:06am Wednesday, October 10, 2007Examining the components of batting average and BABIPI know we've talked about batting average before, but I thought that since we're getting into the off-season now, it would be a good idea to go over some of the concepts behind predicting it and even introduce a few new things concerning BABIP. There are three primary components to batting average, listed below.
You could also consider smaller factors like batting average on bunts, but these are the three biggies. The benchmark for what most people consider a good contact hitter is a .300 batting average (although the number needed to add value to a fantasy team is lower). If you have a .300 hitter on your fantasy team, he is going to provide you some excellent value in that category. The problem is that hitting .300, consistently, is no easy task. In order to truly be a .300 hitter, you either need a solid set of skills in each of the three above categories or amazing skills in at least one of them. For example, a guy with a 95% contact rate and a .316 BABIP would post a .300 batting average without hitting a single home run. But if you drop that contact rate to even 85% (which is still above average), the batting average drops to .269. The BABIP would have to increase to .353 (which is very difficult to do, but again would demonstrate the need to be very strong in at least one category and above average in the second) in order to get the batting average back to .300. Contact rate and home runsContact rate and home runs are the most stable of the three batting average components. When we do a year-to-year correlation test for contact rate, we get a very strong .8305 correlation coefficient. This basically means that you can predict next year's contact rate very well simply by using this year's contact rate. When we do this for home runs (AB/HR to normalize), our correlation coefficient is lower, but still decent, at .6245. Keep in mind that I'm still working on a system for projecting home runs (with infinite thanks to Greg Rybarczyk of HitTracker for his help) that I'm hoping I'll be able to introduce within a week. Please note the following criteria used for the two correlations above: 2004-2007 numbers were used. Players who changed teams mid-year in either Year 1 or Year 2 were excluded. Also, players needed to have at least 250 plate appearances in both Year 1 and Year 2. BABIP testsThat leaves us with BABIP, a critical number for every player in baseball but one that it is highly variable and very difficult to predict. Still, because of how important it is, we need to try and do just this. To do this, we'll use some simple correlations to find which stats are best able to predict BABIP. First, a quick note. For each of these correlations (with the exception of #1), I'm not using straight BABIP. I'm excluding bunts and only including the four outcomes (outfield fly, infield fly, grounder, liner) that can occur when a player is swinging to get a hit to show a clearer picture of a hitter's ability. We'll call this BABIP2 for the sake of easy reference. When we eventually compile our projected batting average, we'll also include bunts separately from BABIP. 1) BABIP correlation from year-to-year Let's see exactly how well BABIP can predict itself. Correlation Coefficient: .3066 Criteria: 2004-2007 numbers were used. Players who changed teams mid-year in either Year 1 or Year 2 were excluded. Also, players needed to have at least 250 plate appearances in both Year 1 and Year 2. Not terrible (considering some of the results we get later), but not very good either considering what we got for contact rate and home runs. This confirms what I said earlier about BABIP being very variable. There is a positive correlation between the two, but it isn't especially strong. Let's see if we can find something better. 2) Walk rate correlation with BABIP2 The logic behind this is that walk rate shows patience and selectivity. Those who wait for good pitches, theoretically, will be more likely to convert the ones they do swing at into hits. Of course, this doesn't take actual hitting ability into consideration. Correlation Coefficient: - .2926 Criteria: 2004-2007 numbers were used. Players needed to have at least 250 plate appearances to be eligible. Wow. Not at all what I was expecting. There's actually a not-all-that-weak negative correlation, meaning the more walks, the lower the batting average. Very surprising. I'd have to think it is because, as I said before, actual hitting ability isn't considered. 3) (Called Strikes + Balls)/(Total Pitches) with BABIP2 Maybe walk rate isn't the best measure of selectivity, so we'll dig a little deeper into the number and use the actual pitch data (a big thank you to Retrosheet for this data). Let's see if the results are any different than they were for walk rate. Correlation Coefficient: 0.0266 Criteria: 2004-2006 numbers were used (Retrosheet doesn't have 2007 numbers up yet). Players needed to have at least 250 plate appearances to be eligible. Well, at least we're in positive territory. The correlation is — for all intents and purposes — non-existent, though. 4) Walks/Strikeouts (BB/K) correlation with BABIP2 I've often heard that walks divided by strikeouts is a good measure of a batter's discipline, or his eye, or his command of the strike zone. Let's see if this has any relationship with BABIP. Correlation Coefficient: - .0196 Criteria: 2004-2007 numbers were used. Players needed to have at least 250 plate appearances to be eligible. Nope. It just doesn't seem like these types of numbers tell us much about BABIP. I definitely think they are useful for different purposes, but for today, they haven't been much help. Let's check out our batted ball data and see if we can do better. 5) Line drive rate correlation with BABIP2 I would expect this one to be much better than walk rate proved to be. Line drives fall for hits, on average, around 71% of the time. Logically, those who hit a lot of them should have higher BABIPs. Let's see if that's the case. Correlation Coefficient: .4169 Criteria: 2004-2007 numbers were used. Players needed to have at least 250 plate appearances to be eligible. Not fantastic, but considering that we're working with BABIP, I definitely think that it is significant. Line drives seem like a good measure to use for projecting BABIP. I just found an interesting post from 2005 by Dave Studeman, in which he produces a general formula for predicting BABIP: LD% + .120. 6) Outfield fly ball BABIP correlation with BABIP2 As David Gassko surmised in his article from a couple of weeks ago, since fly balls have one very stable event (home runs) and lots of easily fielded balls (lazy flies), the guys who have high hit rates on fly balls are probably hitting the ball harder than other players. Let's test this theory on BABIP. Correlation Coefficient: .3061 Criteria: 2004-2007 numbers were used. Players needed to have at least 250 plate appearances to be eligible. Not quite as good as line drive percentage, but it's decent. Let's see how these two can predict themselves. 7) Outfield fly ball BABIP correlation from year-to-year How consistent is outfield fly ball BABIP? Correlation Coefficient: .1635 Criteria: 2004-2007 numbers were used. Players who changed teams mid-year in either Year 1 or Year 2 were excluded. Also, players needed to have at least 250 plate appearances in both Year 1 and Year 2. As you see, while fly ball BABIP is a decent predictor of actual BABIP, it isn't very consistent from year to year. 8) Line drive rate correlation from year-to-year How consistent is a player's line drive rate? Correlation Coefficient: .2653 Criteria: 2004-2007 numbers were used. Players who changed teams mid-year in either Year 1 or Year 2 were excluded. Also, players needed to have at least 250 plate appearances in both Year 1 and Year 2. Not very consistent from year-to-year, but it correlates better than outfield fly BABIP does and is better at predicting BABIP too. Still, it seems like it would be difficult to predict BABIP before the season begins using either of these two. 9) 3 year, unweighted BABIP2 correlation with Year 4 BABIP2 Moving on from batted ball numbers, let's see if several years of a player's BABIP can predict the following year's BABIP with any certainty. Correlation Coefficient: .5843 Criteria: 2004, 2005, and 2006 numbers were combined (but unweighted) to get a player's 3-year BABIP2. This was then compared with that player's 2007 BABIP2. Players needed to have at least 650 plate appearances between 2004 and 2006 and at least 250 plate appearances in 2007 to be eligible. Our best result yet. It seems that, given enough at-bats, a player's true ability to convert balls in play into hits will begin to reveal itself. Keep in mind that I used an unweighted three-year figure and that there were far fewer records than any of our other correlations (just 232 records). I don't have data from other years to work with, but right now this seems like our best bet for predicting BABIP. 10) 2 year, unweighted BABIP2 correlation with Year 3 BABIP2 Since some players haven't yet played 3 years in baseball, I wanted to know if a two-year BABIP would be better than line drive rate and outfield fly BABIP. Correlation Coefficient: .5851 Criteria: 2004 and 2005, and 2005 and 2006 numbers were combined (but unweighted) to get a player's 2-year BABIP2. This was then compared with that player's 2006 and 2007 BABIP2, respectively. Players needed to have at least 450 plate appearances between the first two years and at least 250 plate appearances in the third year to be eligible. Turns out, the correlation coefficient is actually a tiny bit better than the three-year figure. Keep in mind, though, that the three year sample size was somewhat small (if you're curious, there were 487 records in the two-year set). It looks like it should be okay to evaluate guys who have played for two years using this. 11) 3 year, weighted BABIP2 correlation with Year 4 BABIP2 Let's see if the results get any better if we weigh the numbers. Correlation Coefficient: .5812 Criteria: 2004, 2005, and 2006 numbers were combined (and weighted) to get a player's 3-year BABIP2. This was then compared with that player's 2007 BABIP2. Players needed to have at least 650 plate appearances between 2004 and 2006 and at least 250 plate appearances in 2007 to be eligible. Nearly identical results to the unweighted correlation. Very interesting stuff. Closing thoughtsReviewing, the three most important components of a player's batting average are contact rate, home run rate, and BABIP. Contact rate is the most stable, home run rate is second, and BABIP is quite unstable. I think we made some strides, though, in our attempt to find numbers that can predict it with some measure of accuracy. Our best results came from weighted and unweighted multi-year BABIPs, batted ball data gave moderate results, and the stats reflecting patience and selectivity showed almost no effect on BABIP whatsoever. For now, it looks like the best route for predicting BABIP before the season begins will be multi-year BABIP and during the season perhaps a combination of multi-year BABIP and line drive percentage. I'm sure we'll be talking more about and digging deeper into this type of stuff in the future, but I think this is a good start. Also, as I mentioned before, stay on the lookout for a new system for home runs (using HitTracker) in the near future. EDIT: The following corrects for a mistake I made in this article. — D.C. 11/22/07 ErrataIn this article, I had incorrectly calculated BABIP2. This had little affect on most of the correlation coefficients, but a few had significant changes. All of the new correlation coefficients are listed below. 2) Walk rate correlation with BABIP2 — 0.05 3) (Called Strikes + Balls)/(Total Pitches) with BABIP2 — 0.03 4) Walks/Strikeouts (BB/K) correlation with BABIP2 — -0.02 5) Line drive rate correlation with BABIP2 — 0.45 6) Outfield fly ball BABIP correlation with BABIP2 — 0.52 9) 3 year, unweighted BABIP2 correlation with Year 4 BABIP2 — 0.39 10) 2 year, unweighted BABIP2 correlation with Year 3 BABIP2 — 0.37 11) 3 year, weighted BABIP2 correlation with Year 4 BABIP2 — 0.38 Outfield fly ball BABIP gets a big boost, enough to become the top predictor of BABIP2 that we looked at. Unfortunately, as explained in this article, it isn't a very stable event. Line drive rate also got a tick higher, and — as we discussed in the same article — it is somewhat predictable using a three-year figure. 9, 10, and 11 — obviously — are significantly lower than where we had them before. They are still decent, but not great. More work certainly needs to be done in this field. Posted by Derek Carty at 3:00pm (0) Comments Friday, October 12, 2007Player highlight: Fausto CarmonaI'm sure you all know who Fausto Carmona is by now. He probably wracked up some serious pitching points for some of your fantasy baseball teams this year. But now that 2007 is over, we need to look towards 2008. Is Fausto Carmona a guy you should be high on going into your 2008 draft or auction, or is he unlikely to repeat his 2007 season? Let's take a look. Numbers
Note: Minor league stats came from Jeff Sackmann's excellent website MinorLeagueSplits.com. *For minor league numbers, straight ground ball rate is given instead of expected ground ball rate. As you've probably heard, or can see from the above table, Carmona is an extreme ground ball pitcher. The usual knock against extreme ground ball pitchers is that they rarely are able to get a lot of strikeouts, which — I've mentioned before — is the most important isolated stat for a pitcher. The only guys currently playing that are capable of posting a a K/9 above 8.00 and an xGB% above 50% are A.J. Burnett, Felix Hernandez, and Francisco Liriano (who, yes, I will be talking about in the not-too-distant future). As Carmona is left out of that elite group, we can assume he falls in more with the Derek Lowes and Chien-Ming Wangs of the world. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it means that his 3.06 ERA is far from his true skill level. Before we dig too deep into his peripherals, let's just clear up a few things about ground ball pitchers. Extreme ground ball pitchersFirst, let me say that getting ground balls is absolutely, undoubtedly preferable to getting fly balls. This doesn't mean, however, that ground ball pitchers are inherently better at preventing hits on balls in play than fly ball pitchers. Actually, the opposite could be argued. Check out the table below. The first three columns are for ground balls and the second three are for outfield fly balls. The first column of each set gives the MLB-wide BABIP for that batted ball type. The second gives a modified BABIP-type figure for each batted ball type to, rather roughly, account for double and triple plays [(H-DP-TP)/(BIP)]. The third gives the percentage of total outs each batted ball type produces.
As you can see, ground balls become hits more often than fly balls do. So what is the benefit of getting ground balls, then? The primary benefit of ground balls is that a ground ball can never clear the fence for a home run. By keeping the ball in the park, the total number of runs allowed is depressed. An added benefit is that ground balls can easily get you two outs in the form of a double play. This doesn't happen very often with fly balls. Fly balls still produce more outs, but this helps ground balls bridge the gap a little bit. On a side-note, I couldn't write this article without mentioning fellow-THT writer Josh Kalk's "from small ball to long ball" blog. On Carmona's player card, we can see that he throws 65% sinkers. This would strongly lead us to believe that he is a ground ball pitcher even if you didn't have the above ground ball percentages to work with. 2007 seasonTo most fantasy owners, Fausto Carmona came out of nowhere this year. He pitched a little for the Indians last year, but looked wholly unspectacular with a 5.42 ERA, mostly in relief appearances. He had been a pretty highly touted prospect as recently as Spring Training 2006, but it seemed like people forgot about him after he was unimpressive in his rookie campaign. Still, this doesn't answer the question we're really trying to get at: how legitimate was his 2007 season? Well, his ERA was 3.06, but his LIPS ERA was more than a point higher at 4.23. Why was this? Well, we can see that his BABIP was above average at .282 and his LOB% was above average at 80%, which I think explains a great deal of it. Were these numbers based on his skill, though, or was some form of luck involved? Defense and BABIPTo answer this question let's check out the Indians' defense.
Carmona really wasn't aided much by his defense. They clearly look like one of the worst defenses in the American League, and their infield (which he relies upon the most with all those ground balls) is actually the worst. This causes us to look on at his .282 BABIP with either amazement or confusion. League average this year was .306, and Carmona was well below it despite the fact that he is an extreme ground ball pitcher with the worst infield in the American League behind him. This might prompt some to say that Carmona has some sort of control over his BABIP beyond the relatively small effect most pitchers have. I, however, am skeptical. While his BABIP looks good in light of the fact that he is an extreme ground ball pitcher, this is actually a strike against him, in my opinion. He is an extreme ground ball pitcher, and as we noted before, ground balls become hits more often than fly balls do. I have a hard time seeing Carmona overcoming this to the point where his BABIP is actually .024 better than league average, all while having the AL's worst infield behind him. To me, that smells more of luck than it does of skill. If we check out his BABIP on ground balls, we see that it is .218, well below the .239 league average mark and not what we would expect given that infield. That's 9 hits above average, and adding those onto his actual BABIP would bring it up to .296. If we look at his 14% line drive rate, we see that it is well below league average, which was 18% this year and has been 19% over the past 4 years. I think this has a lot to do with that low BABIP. On the surface, it looks like he has the ability to keep his line drive rate that low as it never exceeded 14% in either half of 2007, in 2006, or in AA or AAA in 2005. I, again, I'm skeptical. From 2004 to 2007, pitchers with at least 50 innings pitched and a ground ball rate of 50% or greater had a combined line drive rate of 17%. While extreme ground ball pitchers do seem to have the ability to allow fewer line drives than normal pitchers do, Carmona's line drive rate still looks too low. All of this being said, I just don't think Carmona's BABIP is legit. I think it is due for an increase next year, especially if the defense doesn't improve (which we'll examine a bit later). 2007 season... againOkay. Now it's peripheral time. Carmona posted a 5.73 K/9 this year and really turned it on in the second half with a 6.35 K/9. If we focus simply on his 2005 minor league numbers, we see that there isn't much of a difference between them and his 2007 rate, which might lead us to believe Carmona is in for a small regression. However, in 2006 he put up a 6.99 K/9 in nearly 75 (mostly relief) innings. Looking at that, the drop to the 5.73 K/9 as a full-time starter looks very reasonable. Because he was just 21 when he posted those minor league rates, and because his past two years worth of strikeouts rates seem to mesh well, and because his second half of 2007 was the best of all, and because he is now getting older and nearing his prime, I think it would be safe to say that Carmona's strikeout rate should remain pretty stable, or at least won't drop off. I think there's a decent chance it'll get above 6.00 in 2008, but I wouldn't bank on it going too much higher. In the minors, Carmona posted elite walk rates. He struggled a bit with it in the bullpen last year, but this year it improved to an acceptable level. I don't doubt Carmona's ability to one day get it under 2.00 in the majors, but I don't know if that day will come in 2008. It actually rose into the high 2's in the second half of this year, and it would be difficult to project it coming down nearly 3/4 of a point from there in 2008. Still, a BB/9 under 2.50 seems fairly likely. 2008 outlookI don't see too much of an improvement coming for Carmona's peripherals in 2008. His walk rate should remain relatively the same and the strikeout rate might jump just a little bit. The ground ball rate will be, no doubt, elite. What about his defense, though? 2008 defense The Cleveland infield figures to improve, at least a little, in 2008. If Asdrubal Cabrera gets the full-time second base job, his .850 RZR should be a big improvement over Josh Barfield's .784 RZR. 1B Ryan Garko (.729 RZR) and SS Jhonny Peralta (.763 RZR) on the other hand... not so much. It'll be interesting to see who plays third, but there are a large number of players that would be an improvement upon Casey Blake's .708 RZR. If Blake returns, though, the simple addition of Cabrera won't do the job. In the outfield, Grady Sizemore's .881 RZR in center is unspectacular. He's young and probably has some room to improve, though. Who knows what they'll do with the corners. If they keep Kenny Lofton and his .878 RZR they might be in decent shape, but he won't play everyday, and David Dellucci and his .766 mark are still hanging around. They might wind up platooning Dellucci with someone if Lofton leaves, maybe Jason Michaels (.833 RZR). In right field, hopefully Franklin Gutierrez will get the majority of the playing time. He posted an incredible .908 RZR in 578 innings. It's a shame they can't get that type of defensive production out of a different position. 2008 fantasy numbers Overall, look for a marginally improved defense (if Cabrera and Gutierrez get full-time roles) and a BABIP and LOB% that regress towards league average. It's entirely possible they'll end up a little worse. Then, add in this peripheral line: 5.80 K/9 | 2.40 BB/9 | 60% GB. Combine these factors and you're probably looking at an ERA around 4.00 and a WHIP in the 1.30-1.35 area. While these are serviceable in nearly all leagues, they really aren't fantastic. You could find a number of pitchers valued less than Carmona capable of putting up similar numbers and getting you more strikeouts. While Carmona's strikeout rate is better than those of other ground ball pitchers like Aaron Cook and Chien-Ming Wang, it is still likely to be below league average. In a fantasy league, a 4.00 ERA and 1.30 WHIP won't make up that value. As far as wins go, Carmona figures to be at least moderately helpful. I don't see him getting back to 19 wins in 2008, but he might be good for 13 or 14. The Indians offense was very disconcerting in the second half, placing 10th in the American league in runs (and were just 2 runs ahead of 12th place). With a Travis Hafner (who we will examine in the future) bounce-back and a solid addition or two they look like they could be an average-to-above average offense. I think 13 or 14 wins seems about right. Concluding thoughtsEverything being said, Fausto Carmona doesn't figure to be nearly as valuable to fantasy baseball owners in 2008 as he was in 2007. His ERA is likely to decline nearly a full point, his WHIP is likely to drop at least .10, he'll miss out on five or six wins, and his strikeout rate wasn't very good to begin with. He does figure to throw a lot of innings, which will make up for the below-average strikeout rate a little bit, but I really don't see Carmona having immense value in 2008. Don't get me wrong, I could definitely see him becoming a great pitcher one day in the Brandon Webb mold, but he will need to prove that he can keep his K/9 above 6.00 and his BB/9 under 2.00. That seems like a pretty big stretch for 2008, though. As an initial guess, I'd have to think Carmona will land outside my Top 50 fantasy pitchers for the 2008 season. Because of this, he likely won't be worth targeting because he will surely be on the Top 50 lists of your fellow owners, possibly even as high as the Top 20. CBS has already come out with a set of 2008 rankings, and Carmona is #17 among starting pitchers. I think he'll be long gone in your draft before you should even consider him, and his price tag at auction will likely exceed what you could smartly pay for him. Post script: Question to the readersWhat do you guys think of the player profiles so far? Are they running too long? Just right? I'd be happy to hear your opinions either via e-mail or comment. Posted by Derek Carty at 1:00pm (0) Comments Tuesday, October 16, 2007Who Should I Keep?Fresh off a wire-to-wire victory in my high stakes league, there is no time like the present to begin thinking about next year. One rule we have is called the "Z" rule. Essentially it allows you to sign to a one-time, one year contract any player whose contract expired this year. The primary focus is to allow one more year of a great bargain. The cost is an extra $10 in salary per year, plus a transaction fee that goes into the prize pool ($50). We can resign one and only one player in each of the AL and NL. The players that fit the bill on my AL team are David Ortiz, C.C. Sabathia,Justin Morneau and Bobby Jenks. Justin Morneau I acquired Morneau two years ago in a trade for Alex Gordon. That worked out fairly well since it was early enough last year that I got Morneau's surge. His contract is 12L1, meaning that he was auctioned at $2 a few years ago, then had his contract extended after year two for another two years at $5 per year. So, if I "Z" him he becomes $22 next year. He has a low salary so that is an argument in his favor right off the bat. Sabathia is $16 and Ortiz is $20, so they would become $26 and $30. Morneau was definitely a disappointment. He only produced about $19 or $20 in value this year despite his 31 HR and 111 RBI. He hit only .271 with a .343 OBP. He was beset by a few nagging injuries this year. His K/BB ratio was up a tick or two. Overall it appears that his skills stayed pretty constant, but that he was hit with a bit of regression this year. His second half was disastrous though, with only 11 HR and a .263 BA. August and September were particularly atrocious, with BAs of .221 and .215 with only 3 HR. David Ortiz There isn't much to say about him in this context, the only real question is how much profit can I expect if I sign him for $30. This year he produced about $32 or $33 in value, depending on format. His BA of .332 though is likely due for a fall, as BaseballHQ has his xBA at a more pedestrian .306. Unlike Morneau, Ortiz roared home this year, with an 80% hit rate in the last week and a 40% hit rate in the last month, batting .393 with a .509 OBP. No wonder why Sox fans think he is clutch. Ortiz is 31 years old and still in his prime. It is questionable though how much profit he will turn next year especially if he is due for a correction in the batting average department. This is a very tough call. It may all come down to projections. C.C. Sabathia As much as I love him (and I do love him having made a preseason prediction that he and Lackey would be one-two for the Cy Young this year that may be thwarted by yesterdays Red Sox hero) it is very tough to make him a $26 pitcher. It is a matter of my general philosophy that I do not want to spend $30 on a pitcher unless he is a sure thing. I paid $30 for Peavy this year and he was the first starter I paid $30 for in nine years (if not longer.) So starting with that premise the burden is on me to convince myself otherwise. In his favor there are quite a few factors: 1. He will certainly go for more than $26 in the auction. 2. In many ways the Indians' offense underachieved this year, so it is at least conceivable that he will still get enough run support to rack up wins next year. 3. We have a tough innings requirement, and C.C. is a workhorse. One pitcher like him goes a long way to making the innings requirement. 4. If I do keep him he will definitely have excellent trade value in the event that I cannot retool to make a run at first place again. That is, if he is healthy of course. 5. His xERA is a stellar 3.34, so this year was no fluke. And he was worth exactly $26 in a five by five format. 6. His strand rate and hit rate were unlucky, if you can believe it. He had a 32% hit rate and a 74% strand rate, both above expected norms. So, assuming good health he appears to be a very solid bet to repeat this season again next year. Improvement wouldn't be a surprise either based on those hit and strand rates. On the negative side of the ledger: 1. The opportunity cost of the $26--perhaps I can spend it more efficiently somewhere else. 2. I can only likely gain a few dollars profit if at all. 3. Lets assume that I have a 60% chance of a $5 profit and a 40% chance of a loss. If I have a 60% chance at a $5 profit and a 40% chance at a $10 loss then I should pass. I think the balance of probabilities is that any loss by C.C. at a $26 salary will be in excess of $5. So then the question is how much of a loss? One can do the math and figure out the exact break even point, but since I have a better choice, I have to pass on C.C. Another big negative: 241 IP this year plus playoffs. Prior to this year he had never gone 200 IP, though he was over 190 every year. An increase of 50 innings is generally a red flag for the following year. Bobby Jenks Jenks clearly had a career year. Generally he has had poor control with walk rates of 3.5 and 4.0 in 2005 and 2006. He was successful by having huge strikeout rates of 11.5 and 10.3. This year was a reversal. He only struck out 7.8 batters per nine innings and walked 1.8. His 2.77 ERA and 0.89 WHIP are tasty also. Plus he has a $10 salary, so if I "Z" him he becomes a $20. No matter what one may think of Jenks, this is good value but not tremendous value. He may very well reproduce a $30 season next year, earning me a profit of $10, and he will be a great trade chit no matter what happens. In tough, competitive keeper leagues the prime strategy in dealing with closers is to speculate and try to hit a home run. Plus, you can usually trade for closers during the season. So the issue becomes whether you can spend this money more efficiently in the auction, and often you may be able to. It seems like this should be a "no-brainer" decision, but there are a multitude of factors to consider, not just whether I will turn a profit with Jenks. I haven't made a decision yet of course. There is no sure lock among any of these players. Most owners would likely think that four of the best players in the AL are surely worth $30 and would have no problem with a decision to extend any of them. Yet, down this road lies a fifth place finish in 2008. As always, when making a decision one of the most important considerations is what your co-owners will do. With Sabathia, for example, if I believe he is a bad risk at $26 and will go for $30 then I should throw him back. Fantasy baseball is a zero sum game, and every mistake my opponents make that I do not results in profit/points for me. So if there is a chance for a $10 loss if he goes for $32 (as an example) then this is an easy decision; not only do I avoid the loss myself, an opponent takes a bigger loss and $32 comes out of the available auction money pool. This principle is probably the most important one to fully understand and exploit if you are in auction leagues. It is not easy to goad tougher owners into making mistakes, but the attempt should always be a part of the decision making process. Every year there are players like this that I throw back, and usually at the auction you hear a comment like "you should have kept him" when he is auctioned for more than I could have kept him. That is exactly what I am rooting for with these players. This is no easy decision at all, and the weight of the evidence here is that even though these are all fantasy studs, none may be worth extending. It is essentially a risk/reward calculation revealing marginal profits to be had at much higher risk than needed in all cases, except for maybe Jenks. Posted by Patrick DiCaprio at 7:17am (0) Comments Tuesday, October 23, 2007The fantasy bust of the yearThere were quite a few candidates for the fantasy bust of the year (and am I showing my age when the phrase "fantasy bust" makes me think of Dolly Parton?), and depending on the criteria you can have quite a few legitimate winners. However, when it comes to value, age, performance and non "bad luck" explanations for a drop off and the entire package, there is one player who stands out. Note that I am specifically including the "bad luck" criteria since fantasy baseball is a game of chance. Bad luck is par for the course and to be expected. A player having a bad year due to random chance is not a "bust" in my opinion. This player is 28 years old, in his prime, and had a first-round skill set. He was a nine-win player the last two years, making him a legitimate MVP candidate, if a down ballot one. This player had 14% and 15% walk rates in 2005 and 2006, BB/K ratios above 0.60 and double digit steals. BaseballHQ.com noted that he had 30 SB upside, and had him projected at $30 going into the auction. What is worse is that he well underperformed his projections by large margins. This player had a weighted mean PECOTA (Baseball Prospectus' projection system, which includes a range of projections) of 34 HR 101 RBI .284/.385/.546. Yet he came in well below his 10% projection of 22 HR .252/.351/.466 9 SB. Marcels' similarly projected 29 HR 94 RBI .293/.388/.536. He was below all of these benchmarks. What really sticks out are the following numbers: 21 HR, 4 SB, .247/.322/.418. That SLG mark is almost incomprehensible for a 28 year old guy who had a .546 weighted mean projection. Yet he came in 50 points below his 10% projection. By itself this is a good argument for this fantasy bust. He was also a lusty .200 below his typical OPS. Of course, I am speaking about Jason Bay. This season was no bad luck related fluke, at least not by the typical yardsticks. He just plain stunk. His hit rate was 30%, his BB rate was 10% and his BB/K ratio was 0.42, below his norm but not enough to explain this drop. His contact rate of 74% was also not out of line with his career norm (76% and 73% in 2005 and 2006). He just didn't hit the ball hard when he made contact. Could this have been predicted? Looking at PECOTA again, he had a 36% collapse rate, which is defined as a drop in equivalent runs of greater than 20%. The chances of him improving were only 21%. To put the 36% number in perspective, of the times he gets worse, over 1/3 would be a drop of greater than 20%. For a guy reaching his prime this is a somewhat unexpected profile. It is difficult to find an explanation here. Most of his skill set was in line with his career norms. It appears that he just didn't hit the ball well when he made contact. Is this luck? Normally we think we can measure "luck" in a few ways (e.g. evaluating BABIP) but sometimes you just can't measure it. Bad luck can be in hit rate or strand rate, or injury, but sometimes it could be something as simple (difficult?) as trying to hit a 90 mph thrown sphere and an inability to do so that can't be measured. I am not sure what to make of his season. This isn't an Andruw Jones situation where he had a depressed hit rate. On the surface there is little to explain Bay's terrible season other than a decreased BB/K rate, which is suggestive of his swinging at worse pitches but hardly conclusive proof. His most comparable player list in Baseball Prospectus' PECOTA does include a few guys who had precipitous drop-offs in their career so perhaps that is what is happening here. What to expect in 2008 is a crap shoot, but for now I think he was the biggest bust of 2007 given his age, past performance and lack of a "bad luck" explanation for his failures. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||