|
May 20, 2013
THT Essentials:
Rich Barbieri
John Barten Kyle Boddy Brian Borawski James Gentile Matt Hunter Frank Jackson Chris Jaffe Brad Johnson Jason Linden Dan Lependorf Bruce Markusen Jeff Moore Greg Simons Scott Spratt Dave Studeman Shane Tourtellotte Steve Treder And here's the full roster. Now available
Or you can search by:
THT E-book    All content on this site (including text, graphs, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
 Tuesday, February 10, 2009Predicting replacement levelDuring 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. Posted by Paul Singman at 1:01am (22) Comments Wednesday, February 11, 2009Draft strategy: Injury risks can lead to big rewards (Part 3)Last Wednesday, I discussed why players who are injury risks can be more valuable than most would think. Today, I'd like to discuss a few of the caveats that apply to this approach and then look at some players who we can apply this strategy to in 2009. CaveatsA few of these were discussed in the comment section of part two, but they are points I was planning on making (and are important points to make, so kudos to the readers who pointed them out) and deserve a larger forum.
This isn't an exhaustive list, so if you guys think I missed any other things we need to consider, feel free to comment. Supplementary strategies and other thoughts
PlayersHere is a list — again, a non-exhaustive one — of players whose value you might want to reconsider if you're planning on using this strategy. You may disagree with some of the names (I don't think I really agree with all of them), but they're just some guys to think about and who some number of people consider injury risks. I'll leave the picking and choosing up to you. Posted by Derek Carty at 2:02am (4) Comments Thursday, February 12, 2009Paying for saves?You've probably heard the poker maxim: "If you don't know who the fool at the table is, then you are the fool." Many of the most popular and advised fantasy strategies require "greater fools" in your league. Some of them may even need almost an entire league of fools. In this column, I will argue (without proof) that the "don't pay for saves" (henceforth, DPFS) strategy is either for a league full of fools or for a fool. DPFS comes in two flavors: Weak form DPFS, which states that some of the most popular and successful closers, the Francisco Rodriguez and Jonathan Papelbons, go for a little too much in auctions or a little too early in draft leagues and you'd be better off passing on the very best closers. Strong form DPFS, which states that almost all brand name closers are overvalued and that you'd be better off drafting Tyler Walkers and Joey Devines in the last rounds. Weak form DPFS implies a few overeager players. Strong form DPFS requires a league full of fools. A strong form strategy means your saves will come from closers with little or no track records. These closers generally do not have secure roles; a slow start or an off-month could mean they are out of the job. To successfully operate the strong version, you'll need to be able to pick up at least a few closers in the last rounds of your draft (or for a buck or two in an auction) and then be able to pick up in free agency their likely replacements when a couple of them inevitably falter. The problem is that even teams that are not playing DPFS strategies are likely to use a reserve roster spot or two for likely future closers. Typical leagues have eight or nine pitchers that start and at least several reserve roster spots per team. Strategies vary, but the typical or average team should roster at least three closers or potential future closers. In a 12 team league, that means at least 36 relievers will be on a roster. So not only is every MLB team's "designated closer" (if the team has one) rostered in the fantasy league, but some of the most prominent backups—the Manny Corpas and Fernando Rodneys (from the perspective of last Spring)—are already rostered too. Which means that if you need to go free agency/waivers to replace a "fallen" closer, you're likely to be picking up a pitcher who's not even immediately in-line for a save opportunity. So the likely scenario is: draft some shaky closers and some potential back-up closers. At least one of your starting closers loses his job somehow and you have to drop him from your roster. In a weekly league, you may be stuck with him in your starting lineup for a few days. Suppose you have this closer's back-up, so at least your back-up's opportunity coincides with your fallen closer's rejection (if not, then you may not have an imminent closer to put on your starting roster). Perhaps your back-up is Brad Ziegler, or perhaps instead he is Aaron Heilman (start looking for his replacement, do not pass go, do not collect $200). I don't have the stats to prove it, but my guess is that many, if not most, back-up closers fail or at least make poor fantasy candidates. Sometimes, the truly promising ones never or barely get a regular shot at closing during the season (see Marmol, Carlos). In any decent league, if you have to go to the waiver wire for many of your saves, you're just as likely to waste roster spots on busts as on breakouts, while reserving promising arms that never get a predictable shot at closing. Take the Tampa Bay Rays last year. Even if you had Troy Percival, Dan Wheeler, and Grant Balfour on your team last year, if you were in a weekly league, you would have lost lots of time starting, say, Percival in weeks where he did not end up closing. Closers come and closers go. My guess is that no fantasy position generates as much talk and gossip as closers. There are fantasy columns here at Fantasy Focus and everywhere else that are devoted to closer assessment and speculation. Most of the fantasy front-end websites that run your league for you also write constantly about closers. If you're in a league of fools (or inattentive players) where you consistently have first dibs on promising closers, you'll be fine if you play DPFS. Otherwise, I would say that there's no free lunch and no free saves. Posted by Jonathan Halket at 3:23am (23) Comments Friday, February 13, 2009How to handle double headers in RotohogRotohog Baseball is a fantasy baseball game with free entry, large prizes, and a unique "stock exchange" trading mechanism. Thousands of players compete in a global contest to see who can accumulate the most points. Like some "salary cap" baseball games, Rotohog gives you the opportunity to turn over your entire roster every day, greatly increasing the importance of factors such as opponent and park when determining your lineup. We’ll start our look at how to handle double headers in Rotohog with starting pitchers. In general, this is the position least impacted by double headers. One advantage starting pitchers may have is that opposing hitters will sometimes be given one of the games off. Another advantage is that they may face an inferior starting pitcher if the opposing team doesn’t have any off days near the doubleheader, and is forced to use someone who isn’t normally part of its starting rotation. On the other hand, there are some disadvantages for starting pitchers. Sometimes they will be left in a game even when they clearly don’t have their best stuff, to rest the bullpen. This can lead to some really horrendous game scores. And the odds of seeing the bullpen blow a lead are increased, since it’s more likely than usual that someone other than the best relievers on the team will be used in a critical situation. In any case, all of these effects are relatively subtle, and I generally evaluate a starting pitcher in a double header the same way I would any other day. Relief pitchers are much more heavily impacted by double headers. In general, you’ll want to use the closers from both teams in a double header. I know that some people don’t like the idea of using directly opposing players, because they feel they won’t know who to root for and that only one of the players can have an ideal outcome. That’s not the right way to think about it, though. You need to evaluate the merit of using each player independently. Even if you make the unrealistically pessimistic assumption that no closer will ever pitch in both games of a double header, there’s going to be almost a 50 percent greater than normal chance of each closer getting to pitch. Once you factor in that closers sometimes do pitch in both games, you’re probably looking at something like a 75 or 80 percent increase in value for closers whose teams have double headers. It takes a pretty awful closer to not be worth using in that situation. Most Rotohog experts believe that using hitters in double headers is a losing strategy. Their thinking is that there are two potentially bad things that can happen to you: Your hitter may come out of one of the games early to get a little rest, particularly if the game isn’t close. The second (and worse) is that your hitter might not be in the starting lineup for one game (not so bad) and then be used to pinch hit (really, really bad). The last thing you want is to use one of your precious quota of games on a hitter who gets only one at-bat. While all of that is true, there are some offsetting factors that sometimes may make it worthwhile to use hitters in double headers. The first of these is that “Rotohog $” are always a precious commodity. If you can get two games out of a good hitter for the price of one, that frees up money that can help you acquire better players at other positions that day or another day. The second potential advantage is that if one of the games in a double header isn’t close, managers will often leave a struggling (or just plain bad) pitcher in much longer, allowing opposing hitters to feast on a favorable match-up. There are so many factors to consider that coming up with a definitive answer to when to risk using hitters with double headers is impossible. But I know that I’ve frequently had good success when I’ve done it. Posted by Alex Zelvin at 1:01am (0) Comments THT Fantasy MailbagWelcome to the THT fantasy mailbag. If you'd like your question to be answered in the next mailbag, please send it to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). I'm having difficulty deciding on my last keeper in a very standard 11-team 5x5. So far there's Wright, Hamilton, Soriano and Phillips for certain. I'm torn between Nelson Cruz and Troy Tulowitzki for the last keeper spot. I'm leaning toward Cruz and his "potential," but scarcity at shortstop this season (and the next few?) are giving me pause. Does Cruz stand a chance to live up to the hype, and are three outfielders too many to carry? Is Tulo primed to hop back on track after injuries derailed him last season, and even if he does is he more valuable than Cruz? Jake E Depends on the number of spots in the outfield your league has. If you have three, I'd hate to go into a draft with only a utility slot for an OF that falls until later than he should. If you're in a five-outfielder league, then there's no problem here. Ignoring position for a moment, I think Tulo's talent is just about dead-center between his 2007 and 2008 performance. Looking at 2008, his walks were up and his strikeouts were down. His line drive rate was about the same, which makes me think his batting average should get a bit of a bump. In terms of power, HitTracker says he lost an average of about four feet on his home runs in 2008 versus 2007. Not a huge difference in measurement, but at around 390 feet, where he's been for a couple years, four feet can make a huge difference. Since he had about the same fly ball rate in 2007 and 2008, I think he got a little lucky in 2007 and unlucky in 2008. I'd guess, if he gets a full season in this year, 18 to 20 homers. Bear in mind however, that he's probably not going to be in a premium spot in the lineup until he proves himself, so that's also going to impact his runs and home run numbers. Nelson Cruz is interesting. Certainly when someone slugs in the .380s for a couple years, then jumps to more than .600 in a sample of a mere 133 plate appearances, you've got to think small sample size is a huge factor in his leap last year. Again, I turn to HitTracker to get a sense of whether his power improved. HitTracker shows an average standard home run distance of 400 feet in 2007, and 410 feet in 2008. This is spectacular, because the standard distance metric controls for the small boost he received due to heat and humidity conditions in Texas (and his road games as well, of course). A 400-foot standard distance is well above average, and 410 is spectacular. He also crushed the ball in the minor leagues last year. Add in the fact that he does get the boost from playing in Arlington, and I think you can count on quite a few home runs in 2009. As for the rest of his peripherals, his fly ball rate was down last year, while his line drive rate was up. There's certainly a small sample size issue, as with the rest of his stats, but if even part of the line drive bump was real, it will help his weakest stat—batting average—because he strikes out quite a bit. In summary, I think we agree that you know what you're getting with Tulo. I'd say, however, that Cruz' prospects for 2009 look very high. In fact, Bill James projects him for 28 HR and Chone projects 27—both in less than 140 games. He'll be 28 years old, just about the peak of his skill, and has yet to get to the age at which most hitters see their power peak. If he gets off to a hot start, or even reasonable one, I think he'll break 140 games played and have a real good shot at 30 HR on an already high-powered offense. Even if you're in a three-outfielder league, I'd keep Cruz. - Michael Lerra In my 12-team NL only league we want to have an open auction for FAAB players so that people can bid against each other for players they want to pick up throughout. I envision it functioning just like when you bid on something on ebay. We even talked about using ebay, but that will get pricy. Know of any tools or sites for enabling this type of thing? Sean Sean, while using ebay is a clever idea, I agree that it is not the best way to do this. A really simple solution would be to have your league hosted on CBS Sports. They allow for FAABs (Free Agent Acquisition Budgets) to be used to add/drop players as a league option. If you cannot have your league hosted by CBS, things get a little more complicated. The only other method I can think of is to run the system through the league message board so that owners can post when they want to add a player, and everyone else has 12 hours (or 24 or 48) to place a higher bid on the player. That method is certainly doable, but there are nuances like keeping track manually of how much money is left in each team's budget. If possible, I would go the CBS Sports league route. - Paul Singman My home league tried CBS last year and we weren't big on it. We switched to ESPN a week into the season and we really liked it. We did have to run our own FAAB process, though. The good news is that ESPN now has an in-house auction system set up, and it seemed to work very well for fantasy football this past year. I'm not sure if they'll be doing FAAB, but from my experience, it's not really a big deal to run it on your own. Just make sure you pick someone trustworthy to handle it. - Derek Carty I am in a keeper league in which we can sign players to one, two or three-year contracts. The first year costs the player's' "base year" (what you had him for the year before you signed himto a contract) +$5, the second year costs an additional $3, and the third an additional $1. So if you sign a $1 player to a three-year contract, he will cost $6, $9, and $10 over the next three years. You can just keep signing him to one-year contracts, but then he'll cost $6, $11, $16, etc. I've thought for a couple years that Jonathan Broxton would make an excellent closer, and now he's getting the chance. I essentially have him for $1, so I could not ever hope to get him any more cheaply than I have him now. I have sufficient money to sign him, and there is no restriction on the number of keepers. I'm wondering whether to sign him to a one-year or a three-year contract. On the one hand, locking him in for three years now means he costs less than average until the third year (26 roster spots and a $260 cap, so the average roster spot costs $10, and the average starter costs more if you assume most bench spots will go for about $1). If I sign him to a one-year contract, then decide I want to keep him again, he'll already cost more than that the next year ($11). Furthermore, Broxton has a better skill set than most current closers, and I expect to get more value out of him than just saves. However, closers turn over so quickly that giving a closer a three-year contract strikes me as somewhat foolish. Additionally, closer and setup man speculation can save dollars that I can allocate toward starting pitching and offense, which seem both harder to come by and more critical to my success.* If I can get an elite closer for $6, that seems like a pretty good deal, but I'm not sure an elite closer for $9-10 really is (I've never had the option to test myself on this at auction, as most closers with a reasonably secure job go for more than $10). Finally, although I do think Broxton has a better skill set than most closers, signing him for three years also seems potentially too aggressive given that he hasn't even been a closer for a full season. If he doesn't pan out in his first full year, I'm on the hook for quite a bit of money. Although I'm hoping this question generates general discussion of reasonable auction league salaries for closers and for Broxton in particular, it might help to know what my league settings are. Our categories are W, K, SV, ERA, WHIP on the pitching side, and R, RBI, SB, OBP, SLG on the offensive side, and it's a head-to-head category league. Todd *Last year, my team cleaned up in the regular season with my most expensive closer purchase at auction being Kerry Wood for $1; I was at or near the top in most categories except saves, in which I was middle of the pack. Unfortunately, I lost in the championship round of the playoffs, though lack of saves/poor closer performance was not the problem. Todd, you laid out all of the points quite well; now it's just a matter of putting them on the balance scale and weighing them. I think we can agree that Broxton's skills, combined with a situation in which he can rack up saves, is worth at least an average of (6+9+10) / 3 = $8.33 per season. The conservative approach would end up costing you (6+11+16) / 3 = $11 per season. As you said, there are mainly three parts to this issue: on the down side, he could get hurt. Also, there's a lot of closer role turnover. On the plus side, he's shown as a setup man that he has the skills that should let him keep and hold the job securely. I think it's a wash. I'd say the insurance of being able to decide year-to-year whether to keep him is worth the $2.67 per season premium. I'd say the expected value of both of your options is probably about the same (which is why it's a tough question). When faced with similar options, I go with my gut. My gut tells me Broxton can pitch at a high level, he'll get a decently long leash at the beginning of the season if he struggles (due to having to wait so long as an elite setup man) and he isn't too big an injury risk due to his size and weight. So I'd lock him up for three years. - Michael Lerra Posted by THT Fantasy Mailbag at 1:06am (3) Comments THT Projections and Fantasy Roundtable linkA couple tidbits today: THT ProjectionsIn case you missed it, Dave Studeman announced yesterday that THT's Projections will be on sale for $10. Click here if you'd like to buy them, or for $10 more, you could buy the entire THT 2009 Season Preview. Either way, you'll continue to receive updated projections throughout the off-season. In fact, there was an update just yesterday for those who've already purchased. Fantasy Baseball RoundtableThis week's roundtable was hosted by the guys over at Razzball. Click here to read. This week's question: What sabermetric or alternative statistic (e.g., Ground Ball ratio, Contact Rate, etc.) do you find to be highly over or undervalued for fantasy baseball player valuation purposes? There's some interesting stuff in there, although it would have been nice to see some answers besides "BABIP." That might make a nice question when it comes to be our turn. "What advanced stats are overrated, and you're not allowed to mention BABIP".  I don't agree with everything that was said (I conveyed those feelings in the comments section of the article), but again, it's definitely worth reading.Don't forget today's THT Fantasy articlesAs this will push something off the main page, don't miss Alex Zelvin's article How to handle double-headers in Rotohog and the THT Fantasy Mailbag today. Posted by Derek Carty at 9:38am (5) Comments Monday, February 16, 2009CAPS Profile: Aaron Harang
Aaron Harang was a popular pick in 2008 fantasy baseball drafts, often going as early as round six in 12-team mixed leagues. He had posted three consecutive seasons with 200+ innings and a sub-4.00 ERA and two consecutive seasons with 16 wins and over 200 strikeouts. Naturally, he seemed like a pretty solid pick. As we know, however, things didn't work out as expected. Harang allowed a career high 35 home runs en route to a near-5.00 ERA. His full fantasy line looked like this: +-------+---+------+------+-----+----+ | IP | W | ERA | WHIP | K | SV | +-------+---+------+------+-----+----+ | 184.3 | 6 | 4.78 | 1.38 | 153 | 0 | +-------+---+------+------+-----+----+ That's a very ugly line and meant Harang actually had negative value in many leagues. Flash forward to 2009, and we're seeing Harang regularly being drafted in round 15 and ranked outside the top 35 or 40 starting pitchers. Was he as bad as his 2008 season indicated, though, and if he was, what are the chances of a bounce-back? Let's take a look. CAPS ProfileIf you're unfamiliar with CAPS (Context Adjusted Pitching Statistics), it's a stat I invented and then improved upon earlier this offseason. It's a stat that can't be found anywhere else and can give us a much better picture of a pitcher's true talent than unadjusted number. CAPS adjusts each of a pitcher's component stats based on the following factors:
So what can CAPS tell us about Mr. Harang? Note: In this table, the first line is Harang's actual line for the season. The second line is his CAPS line for the season. +------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------+---------+-----+-------+-------+ | YEAR | AGE | IP | ERA | QERA | K/9 | BB/9 | K/BB RI | GB% | BABIP | HR/FB | +------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------+---------+-----+-------+-------+ | 2006 | 27 | 234.3 | 3.76 | 3.67 | 8.3 | 2.2 | 0.69 | 39 | 0.326 | 12.1 | | 2006 | 27 | 234.3 | 3.76 | 3.47 | 8.5 | 1.9 | 0.73 | 40 | 0.328 | 11.4 | +------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------+---------+-----+-------+-------+ | 2007 | 28 | 231.7 | 3.73 | 3.44 | 8.5 | 2.0 | 0.75 | 40 | 0.292 | 11.2 | | 2007 | 28 | 231.7 | 3.73 | 3.34 | 8.6 | 1.9 | 0.76 | 41 | 0.295 | 10.4 | +------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------+---------+-----+-------+-------+ | 2008 | 29 | 184.3 | 4.78 | 4.22 | 7.5 | 2.4 | 0.36 | 34 | 0.318 | 15.3 | | 2008 | 29 | 184.3 | 4.78 | 4.07 | 7.4 | 2.1 | 0.40 | 36 | 0.315 | 13.9 | +------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------+---------+-----+-------+-------+ As you can see, Harang's 2008 ERA was higher than his QERA would indicate. This is due to a worse-than-average HR/FB and BABIP, but mostly the HR/FB. League average was 11.3 percent, and Harang's was over 15 percent. That's a huge difference and explains most of the discrepancy. If we look at his CAPS HR/FB, though, we see that it should have actually been 13.9 percent. That's just a 2.6 percent difference from league average, and well within the range where we can safely assume that it was simply bad luck and not something more serious. While we can write off the HR/FB rate, Harang's 2008 CAPS QERA of 4.07 was still well above his 3.47 and 3.34 rates from 2006 and 2007. This tells us that while Harang was unlucky, he also experienced a skills decline. His K/9 dropped a full point, his walk rate increased by nearly half a point, and his groundball rate dropped six points. I was hoping that CAPS would explain the strikeout drop, but unfortunately, it looks like it was for real. His CAPS BB/9, however, was in line with previous years (meaning there was nothing wrong with his control), and his groundball rate shouldn't have dropped quite so far. Put this all together and Harang's CAPS QERA is a respectable 4.07. And the good news is that, because of his history, this will likely improve in 2009. Marcels projects a 7.9 K/9, which would easily drop that QERA below 4.00. Other considerationsIf we look a little deeper, we can see why Harang's strikeout rate was down this year. Note: Below, I've listed his CAPS K/9, the percentage of pitches outside the strike zone the batter swung at, and the percentage of those pitches that the batter swung on and missed. The later two were derived from data on Harang's FanGraphs page. +------+----------+------------+-----------+ | YEAR | CAPS K/9 | OOZ-Swing% | OOZ-Miss% | +------+----------+------------+-----------+ | 2006 | 8.5 | 27.7 | 50.8 | | 2007 | 8.6 | 26.5 | 45.4 | | 2008 | 7.4 | 26.0 | 35.2 | +------+----------+------------+-----------+ As you can see, Harang induced just as many out-of-zone swings as he did in 2006 and 2007, but a far fewer number of them were swings and misses. This amounted to losing 88 total strikes and—if we work off the assumption of three strikes per out—29 strikeouts. An extra 29 strikeouts would have increased his K/9 to 8.9. We obviously can't make the assumption that he would have actually gained 29 strikeouts (those 88 strikes wouldn't have been perfectly efficient), but I think it's safe to say this was a big reason for his strikeout drop. Some people like to use this—the ability to make batters swing and miss on pitches they shouldn't be swinging at to begin with—as a measure of "stuff" and I generally tend to agree. In this case, though, I don't believe that's the case. Check out Harang's PITCHf/x movement chart (a big thanks to Josh Kalk for the data).  Harang is primarily a two-pitch pitcher with a 90 MPH fastball and slider that usually sits just under 83 MPH (both are very good-to-great pitches). There's also some change-ups and curves in there, but for simplicity's sake they were classified as either a fastball or slider. As you can see, the movement on his pitches hasn't changed very much at all from 2007 to 2008. There's some wider variability in his 2008 fastball (more good than bad) and his slider dropped to around 81 MPH, but those are about the only differences in "pure stuff" I can tell. So while Harang wasn't able to get as many batters to go fishing in 2008, it doesn't appear to be a matter of "stuff." I'm not about to automatically qualify it as bad luck, but it's certainly possible. Even if it isn't bad luck but rather a matter of approach or something, it will be easier for Harang to correct than if he suddenly had lost some MPH on his fastball or movement on his pitches. Concluding thoughtsWhen all is said and done, a 3.85 ERA, 1.23 WHIP, and 175 K (given 200 IP) would be quite attainable (and likely) for Harang, with his upside as his 2006/2007 numbers. Even if he does nothing more than this (and wins 12 games), though, Harang would still be worth roughly $20 in a 12-team mixed league and well worth the 14th- or 15th-round pick it would cost for him. Posted by Derek Carty at 1:07am (8) Comments Tuesday, February 17, 2009Consistency meter: Carlos Lee
For the past nine seasons, Carlos Lee has been one of the most productive hitters in baseball, and one of the most consistent. The worst line you could make from his stats are a .264 average, 24 home runs, 80 RBI, 75 runs and one stolen base. The best line possible looks like: .314 average, 37 home runs, 119 RBI, 107 runs and 19 steals. +------+-----+---------+-----+-------+----+-----+----+----+ | YEAR | AGE | TEAM | AB | BA | HR | RBI | R | SB | +------+-----+---------+-----+-------+----+-----+----+----+ | 2006 | 29 | Brewers | 388 | 0.286 | 28 | 81 | 60 | 12 | | 2006 | 29 | Rangers | 236 | 0.322 | 9 | 35 | 42 | 7 | | 2007 | 30 | Astros | 627 | 0.303 | 32 | 119 | 93 | 10 | | 2008 | 31 | Astros | 436 | 0.314 | 28 | 100 | 61 | 4 | +------+-----+---------+-----+-------+----+-----+----+----+ For Lee, 2008 was going to be arguably his best season until he was hit on the finger by an up and in heater thrown from the hand of Bronson Arroyo in early August. He was out for the remainder of the season, so Lee's stats would be frozen after five months of play even though they had the appearance of a full season's worth. It was the first DL stint of his career. Entering his 11th MLB season at 32, Lee will look to resume playing at the high level of 2008. Let's see what we can expect of him for the upcoming season, starting with his home runs. Power abilityIf you're new to THT Fantasy Focus and are unfamiliar with True Home Runs (tHR) or any of the other stats I'm using, check out our quick reference guide. These stats provide a much clearer picture of a player's talent, so it's well worth taking a couple of minutes to learn them. +------+-----+---------+-----+----+-----+-------+--------+--------+--------+ | YEAR | AGE | TEAM | AB | HR | tHR | HR/FB | tHR/FB | nHR/FB | OF/FB% | +------+-----+---------+-----+----+-----+-------+--------+--------+--------+ | 2006 | 29 | Brewers | 388 | 28 | 21 | 21 | 16 | 17 | 37 | | 2006 | 29 | Rangers | 236 | 9 | 8 | 13 | 11 | 11 | 33 | | 2007 | 30 | Astros | 627 | 32 | 32 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 40 | | 2008 | 31 | Astros | 436 | 28 | 26 | 18 | 17 | 14 | 40 | +------+-----+---------+-----+----+-----+-------+--------+--------+--------+ If at first glance you are think you are looking at a slight negative trend in his power totals, remember that 2008 was not a full season. His extrapolated home run total to 600 at bats is 39 home runs and 36 tHR. If anything, we are looking at an upward trend in power ability for Lee. While not unheard of, it is surprising to see a player hit his peak power year in his 11th MLB season, and usually these surprise years are followed by regression the next season. For this reason, I expect Lee to hit home runs at a rate of 14 percent per outfield flyball. At that rate, Lee projects to hit 28 to 31 home runs in 2009. So even after some expected regression, Lee still figures to maintain good power totals. Contact ability+------+-----+---------+-----+-------+-------+-----+-------+--------+-----+ | YEAR | AGE | TEAM | AB | BA | tBA | CT% | BABIP | xBABIP | LD% | +------+-----+---------+-----+-------+-------+-----+-------+--------+-----+ | 2006 | 29 | MIL/TEX | 388 | 0.300 | 0.288 | 90 | 0.287 | 0.296 | 20 | | 2007 | 30 | Astros | 627 | 0.303 | 0.297 | 90 | 0.297 | 0.290 | 16 | | 2008 | 31 | Astros | 436 | 0.314 | 0.292 | 89 | 0.304 | 0.282 | 21 | +------+-----+---------+-----+-------+-------+-----+-------+--------+-----+ Earlier in his career Lee would struggle somewhat with his batting average, sometimes hitting .300 and other times hitting around .270. In the past three years, however, Lee has solidified himself as a plus hitter for average, posting batting averages in the .300s all three years. Because of the expected drop in home run total, Lee's batting average is expected to drop as well. I also expect Lee's actual BABIP to start moving in accordance with his xBABIP, meaning it will go down. With those adjustments made, his expected batting average is around .295. Speed ability+------+-----+-----------+-----+----+-----+-------+------+-----+-----------+-------------+ | YEAR | AGE | TEAM | AB | SB | SBA | SBO% | SBA% | SB% | FAN SPEED | FAN_BALLOTS | +------+-----+-----------+-----+----+-----+-------+------+-----+-----------+-------------+ | 2004 | 27 | White Sox | 591 | 11 | 16 | 0.258 | 9 | 69 | 61 | 18 | | 2005 | 28 | Brewers | 618 | 13 | 17 | 0.208 | 12 | 76 | 0 | 0 | | 2006 | 29 | Brewers | 388 | 12 | 14 | 0.232 | 14 | 86 | 26 | 35 | | 2006 | 29 | Rangers | 236 | 7 | 7 | 0.250 | 11 | 100 | 26 | 35 | | 2007 | 30 | Astros | 627 | 10 | 15 | 0.231 | 9 | 67 | 24 | 19 | | 2008 | 31 | Astros | 436 | 4 | 5 | 0.239 | 4 | 80 | 16 | 18 | +------+-----+-----------+-----+----+-----+-------+------+-----+-----------+-------------+ A couple of years ago Lee would add some bonus value with 10 to 15 steals, but it appears those days are over. Whether it is because he has actually lost foot speed as his Fan Speed Score suggests or because the Astros are protecting their $100 million man from possible injury, Lee is simply not attempting to steal much (SBA%). Expect about five steals from Lee again in 2009, although he could plausibly get close to 10. Final thoughtsBased on his current market value, Lee gets selected anywhere from early in the second round to late in the third, but on average toward the middle of the third, at 26th overall. This places him at the end of the top tier of outfielders, right around guys like Ichiro, Carl Crawford, Manny Ramirez and Carlos Beltran. In most drafts, my preference is to avoid these outfielders in the third round, opting to wait to see who falls to me in the fourth. If none do, then I typically select my first outfielder in the fifth round, taking someone like Adam Dunn, Curtis Granderson, Corey Hart or Nate McLouth. So, unless Carlos Lee falls to me in the fourth round of drafts, he probably will not be on my team; but he figures to provide good stats to whoever does select him. Posted by Paul Singman at 1:01am (5) Comments Wednesday, February 18, 2009LIMA Relievers for 2009The LIMA plan was created by Ron Shandler and is one of the best basic risk management strategies out there. Using a standard auction roster and a $260 budget, the LIMA plan allocates $200 to hitters and $60 to pitchers with a maximum of half the pitching budget going to closers. When acquiring pitchers, the goal is to target high skilled players while throwing as few innings as your league rules apply. Because of this setup, middle relievers and setup men are some of the best pitchers to target. The following are a few relievers not slated to close that you'll want to keep in mind if you decide to use this strategy. Keep in mind that relief pitching is a relatively deep position—don't go too high for these guys. Edwar Ramirez, New York (AL): Ramirez doesn't have the most electric fastball, but he does have a filthy change up. His high flyball rate does bring some cause for concern, but he misses enough bats to diminish this somewhat. If Ramirez can improve his control, he could become one of the elite setup men in the game. Regardless, he still makes for an excellent LIMA pitcher. Manny Delcarmen, Boston: Delcarmen has the stuff of a more prototypical late-inning reliever. Like Ramirez, he can struggle with his control at times. However, Delcarmen does have the benefit of being a groundball pitcher. One thing to keep an eye on is how Delcarmen's role may change with John Smoltz being signed. Sergio Romo, San Francisco: Romo has put up dominant numbers throughout his professional career. This continued in the majors last year, though he did get a bit lucky but still displayed a strong skill set. Note that some scouts are concerned that major league hitters will catch up with him since he lacks a plus fastball. Romo is also a sleeper source for saves if Brian Wilson falters this year. Matt Thornton, Chicago (AL): Thornton had solid skills coming into 2008, but he really put things together last year. Armed with a deadly fastball, Thornton made major gains with his control and command last year. Look for some regression but even with it, Thornton still has very good skills. Hong-Chih Kuo, Los Angeles (NL): Kuo has always had good scouting reports, and he was finally able to stay healthy in 2008. That's the one big question with him again for 2009. However, consider that if Kuo stays healthy, you'll get some very effective pitching. If he does end up getting hurt again, you can just drop him and pick someone else up. Rafael Perez, Cleveland: A surprise performer in 2007, Perez's surface stats took a hit last year. However, if you look deeper you'll see that Perez actually had slightly better skills in 2008. In fact, these are closer level skills. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that Perez is the most underrated reliever in baseball. Also, Kerry Wood still remains an injury risk, giving Perez some pretty good save upside. Brandon League, Toronto: League hasn't put up ridiculous strikeout numbers like some other guys on this list. He also doesn't have great control. However, take a look at his ground ball numbers and you'll see they're off the charts. He also has some terrific stuff, including a fastball that Fangraphs shows averaged 96.9 mph last year, suggesting potential gains with his strikeout rate. Jon Rauch, Chad Qualls, Arizona: Both these guys have solid skill sets, though Qualls has been declared the closer going in to spring training. Don't be afraid to take the loser of this closer competition. You never know when a closer will get hurt or get demoted because of some bad luck or skills decline. The winner of this closer competition could very well be overpriced while the loser will likely hold a higher chance of netting you a profit. Posted by Victor Wang at 1:07am (0) Comments Thursday, February 19, 2009Keeper League RoundupIn my last piece on designing the perfect keeper league, I introduced two rules for designing an ideal keeper league. After reading some comments, I've decided that there was one thing I missed. So without further ado, I present the updated Keeper League Rules. An ideal keeper league should:
I also wanted to summarize the five keeper options I presented in my first article, along with all of the great reader ideas and suggestions in the comments. Going with the theme of the first two rules above, I thought it would be best to present these formats as a spectrum. The first league formats below are those which I'd deem conservative keeper rules. Leagues with these rules will allow for the most competitive leagues year after year, and the risks and rewards are both low. One good auction or draft won't set you up for years of dominance, but it also ensures you won't suffer years of wasted entry fees due to a few poor choices. Towards the end of the list are the formats I feel are most liberal. The reward for making good choices is very high, so managers are more likely to take some risks. Picking up a few prospects that pan out can give you a tremendous advantage for years to come; but at the same time, your opponents can just as easily put you on the receiving end of a Royals-esque decade with some wise choices of their own. Of course, my ordering of these formats is simply my own subjective opinion; none of us have tried them all (if you have, please put the mouse down, back away from the monitor, and go spend some time with your family and friends). I hope it serves as a rough guide for those commissioners looking to start up a league; move down the list with your prospective managers, and find the point at which you're satisfied with the amount of risk and reward that a particular option provides. I also want to throw out a proactive apology to those whose formats I simplified here. There's nearly limitless combinations of the rules below, so I wanted to try to break them down as simply as possible so that they could be used as building blocks for those who want a more complex league. Without further ado, the league settings:
And that's it. Best of luck in selecting one (or more) of these if you're starting a league fresh. I'd say my favorite three are the {$1, $4, $7, ...} rule, the average draft rule, and the price guide rule, probably in that order. I think they have a great balance of allowing risk to turn into reward, plus they let players keep sentimental favorites for an extended time without too much of a penalty. We're all looking to win, but being able to keep hometown players or favorites just gives everyone a little more joy when they watch their team on TV or thumb through box scores each day. | ||||||||
