THT Fantasy Focus

Posted by Michael Street at 2:00am (0) Comments

Waiver Wire Offseason: AL

Last week's final comment opened an interesting discussion involving the psychology of fantasy games, and I wanted to address it head-on, albeit only scratching the surface, as we're here to provide player information primarily. The discussion is tangentially related to the “hometown bias” Derek Ambrosino discussed. That is, namely, what should we do with player “reputations” when considering “value”?

This came up with regard to Josh Beckett, who famously and heroically brought down the Yankees in the 2003 World Series, including a five-hit 2-0 clincher in Game Six. And in the recent past, we've seen Jacoby Ellsbury have a torrid September and postseason to rocket to prominence, and previously, we saw K-Rod grab the reins of the closer role down the stretch and into the playoffs, announcing his “arrival.” These all seem like obvious examples of good players improving their stock through very high-profile performances. It seems hard to believe that even among the most jaded fantasy players, any of these players would go for less than “full retail” pricing the following season, either in auction or draft or trade.

But what about other cases, where the “reputation” turns out to be just “hype.” Usually, this is the case with prospects, from Delmon Young to Alex Gordon to Dice-K Matsuzaka ... certainly, nobody got these guys for as little as the value they've provided so far. And it's not just with prospects, either ... remember all the “25 homer” hype around Pedro Feliz when he went to Philly? With that offense, and the shift to that “bandbox,” he was expected to be a major force at 3B after leaving SF. Or Milton Bradley coming to the easier National League after his huge 2008 season [ed - that one hurts to remember as a Cubs fan ... oh, it's not over yet? Grumble.]

The biggest problem with reputation is that it's fickle. As noted in the Beckett writeup last week, players can see their star tarnished very quickly ... and sometimes not fully due to their own situation. Not mentioned with Beckett is that his reputation also took a “hit” by the Dice-K and Lester “stories.” Without them as teammates, it's likely we'd have all been trying to think of new things to say about Josh Beckett with much of the time and energy spent on the other Red Sox pitchers.

Ideally, of course, the “solution” to figuring out the reputation riddle is to a) time the “reputation” so that it's at its peak, and then b) find the league member who has the best combination of desire to own the player and susceptibility to “hype.” This, at the same time being aware when you are paying a “hype surcharge” to acquire a player—presumably to “flip” him to someone even more excited about the player's reputation, but also assuming that you're not overpaying by so much that you'll be disappointed to be “stuck” with the player. Whew, tricky stuff. But that's why we play, right?

Maybe a “for instance” ... in a Strat-O-Matic league where we can keep some minor-leaguers, I traded for Matt Wieters before the 2009 season. I was aware that I was paying for the “Orange Jesus” hype, but the price was good enough that I was happy to have him on my team, and we can keep players for the first six years of their careers (we have salaries and free agency after that). Honestly, I was expecting to get blown away with an offer for him, but it didn't happen, and now I still have him. Yes, I paid a high price, but no, I'm not unhappy to have Wieters for 2009-2014.

So, anyway, “reputation” is a tricky subject. Is Lidge's “reputation” back, now that he had a good postseason following a thoroughly execrable 2009 regular season? Is Ryan Franklin “toast,” despite having a great regular season (before he signed his extension)? Is Carlos Gonzalez great, all the sudden, just because he had a monster playoff series? [He's going much higher in mock drafts than most people thought.] Well, we'll cop out of any strong advice here, since—as always—it comes down to knowing your opposing managers. But we would suggest “price enforcement” on players who have an “up arrow” on reputation, while expecting the typical “discount” on anyone else you roster (since everyone evaluates differently, everyone should end up with “discounts” using their own system, in general). If you don't know your leaguemates that well, watch and learn, but stick close to numbers you trust. We'll give some comments on Curtis Granderson next week—he's already shaping up to be a player with a lot of “hype” in some circles.

Kendry Morales | Los Angeles | 1B
2009 Final Stats: .306/.355/.569

For people who may not follow slugging percentage closely, it may come as a surprise that No. 2 and No. 4 in the AL this year were Kendry Morales and Adam Lind, the two AL batters we're spotlighting this week. They each slugged better than .560, exceeding the March 9 THT projections by about 100 points apiece! I do a daily-move roto post on baseballdailydigest.com and started off with luke-warm suggestions such as, “Kendry is hitting well, and likes RHP, so it’s probably worth the chance if you need a 1B.” [He was facing a not-so-great RHSP.] By June, I had recommended that everyone pick him up, and just use him against RHP, and by July, I more-or-less noted that it would be nuts if he was available in any leagues. Despite owning him in my deep keeper AL roto league, I would have been happy with .293/.333/.473 (the THT projection) for 2009. And I was fully expecting a platoon split. But Kendry grew as a player, right before our eyes. He didn't exactly eliminate his platoon bias, but that was only because he maimed RHP, and was just “OK” in 144 PA against LHP (.296/.318/.481).

Going forward, the loss of Figgins will hurt Morales' numbers in 2010. But that is really the only reason a fantasy player would not want this guy for four categories. He doesn't walk (just 36 unintentional walks!), which hurts his real-life value somewhat, but in fantasy, that just improves his AB:PA ratio, which improves the impact of his (expected) good batting average. He had a .329 BABIP in 2009, an entirely normal figure for a player who hits the ball hard as frequently as he does and isn't as slow as as a Molina. We're not even worried about his expected increase in PT vs LHP dragging down his numbers, and figure those extra ABs will instead help his overall totals. Maybe 2009 was an “up” season for him, but we're still fine with his “normal” year. Since the theme is “reputation,” Kendry is a good guy to evaluate how much of a role that will play in the auction. Nationally, his rep got a HUGE boost this year, and he's going 55th overall in mixed drafts at Mock Draft Central (.com). But if your league is a bunch of friends from Queens, perhaps his season will be seen as something of a fluke, and he'll be a good bargain pick (55th doesn't seem like a “bargain,” given the ease with which 1B can be filled).

Adam Lind | Toronto | LF
2009 Final Stats: .305/.370/.562

Here is a case of talent evaluation and development which certainly did NOT contribute to J.P. Ricciardi's exit from Toronto! What a nice surprise for the Blue Jays, who could use one amidst some disappointing seasons. Much like Morales in many ways, and for fantasy purposes Lind is even better due to positional scarcity (his 41st ranking in mixed mock drafts reflects this). Lind also held his own against LHP (and without turning around to bat right-handed as Morales does), hitting .270/.318/.461 against southpaws. And his BABIP was also very normal at .322. He's actually a slower runner than Morales, but you aren't taking these guys for their foot speed. The strikeout rates are similar between the two sluggers (both very decent for players with such great power), and Lind is a better real-world contributor, as he walks a little more (49 unintentional walks).

We'd like to add more detail about Lind, but there really isn't much more to note. He didn't improve markedly in the second half the way Morales did, but he hit the same in both halves. He slugged .533+ every month except May, when he slugged .453. The one tidbit is that there is talk of him moving to 1B if Overbay is gone, so keep an eye on that situation, but he qualifies in the outfield this year. As with all players who show a “surge” like this, it's somewhat likely that he'll experience “Plexiglass Principle” and show some decline in 2010, but we don't expect much of a drop.

Joe Nathan | Minnesota | RP
2009 Final Stats: 11.7 K/9, 4.1 K/BB, 2.10 ERA

Of course, the only question remaining with Joe Nathan is, “how much longer?” It is sort of nitpicking to try to figure out a “trend” in his numbers at this point. He's still in his relative “prime,” even though his velocity has been down more than 1 mph the past two years, compared to 2005-2007 (93.5 and 93.6 compared to 94.8 for average fastball velocities). His control “slipped” to 2.9 BB/9, but he brought his K/9 over 11 again in the process. He allowed more fly balls, but allowed fewer line drives, suggesting more balls arbitrarily called “fly ball” instead of “liner” by the person tracking it (sort of like “hit” vs “error” by official scorers, it's not exactly consistent). In short, write in your 2.00 ERA, 1.00 WHIP, 80-ish Ks and 35+ saves, and have no worries. He's about as sure of a thing as a reliever can be. At some point soon, we'll start worrying about age, but at age 35, neither batters nor Father Time is catching up to him.

Andrew Bailey | Oakland | RP
2009 Final Stats: 9.8 K/9, 3.9 K/BB, 1.84 ERA

Yeah, that worked! Moderately promising starting pitching prospect Andrew Bailey was shifted to the bullpen full-time in 2009 after a trial in 2008, and won a job in the A's pen despite only having 8 IP of Triple-A experience (in 2007). He, of course, pulled down the American League Rookie of the Year Award after winning the closer job for Oakland. His velocity improved with the shift, and that was just the recipe for the pitcher who'd posted FIPs in the minors of 4.4 at High-A and Double-A (in two separate years). His “hit rate” was a Marmol-ian 49 in 83.1 IP (.167 BAA), without the absurd walk and HBP totals. He walked just 24 batters, in fact, producing a BB/9 much lower than his minor-league rates.

So, what now? Oakland changes closers about as often as calendar pages, from Street to Devine to Ziegler to Bailey ... and most forecasting systems have not yet caught up with Bailey's new role, or don't “believe” that Oakland will stick with one closer. But they will ... at least until Beane can trade Bailey to a contender in need of a great closer. Some things to discuss with Bailey, and the projections he's going to get, and where he's drafted:

Saves on Oakland? But they are bad.
Well, it's a bit of a myth that you want closers only from good teams. The advantage from park effects is more dramatic than the difference due to caliber of team, though at the bottom end, it really is a concern and you should be careful taking closers from 100-loss teams. But the A's have had 38, 33 and 36 team saves the past three seasons ... below AL averages, but still adequate. And when the team was good in 2006, they led the league with 54. Having top-to-bottom pitching (i.e., not one or two great SP and then some dogs) and a home park that suppresses scoring make fertile soil for saves to grow. And the A's might be better in 2010 ... they are expecting their young SP and OF to have improved, and the Giambi and O-Cab experiments are history. At the very least, we expect another season like 2009, where the team garnered 38 saves (40 was league average).

Bailey had a .220 BABIP.
This could be a real worry, as each “point” of BABIP change could be worth 2 “points” of ERA change (or more), so if we assume this will regress to .300, that's +80, or +1.60 onto his ERA. And some of this effect is real, and very likely to surface in 2010. But, the rate is a general rule of thumb, and doesn't apply strictly, and less so at smaller ERAs. More importantly, there is good reason to expect that .300 is not the appropriate BABIP to which to regress Bailey. For example, Joe Nathan's career BABIP is .255. Mariano Rivera's is .266. It would obviously be nuts to regress those players to .300. While facing just 324 batters in 2009 isn't enough of a sample size to draw any strong conclusions, the probability is that Bailey's “mean BABIP” (to which we should regress) is less than .300. So, the ERA regression should be more in the range of 1.00 instead of 1.60.

xFIP is a quick way to accommodate the expected regression of both BABIP and HR/FB, and was designed with a league-average BABIP in mind. Bailey's xFIP was 3.25. But, as Colin Wyers showed in an article this summer, FIP and xFIP don't have enough variance at the extremes (to keep up with empirical data), and this behavior of the xFIP model, combined with its assumption of a league-average BABIP, make for an overly pessimistic indicator. Yes, Bailey was lucky in allowing just 44 non-HR base hits in 83.1 IP, and yes, he's likely to allow more in 2010. But it's more likely he'll allow +10 more non-HR hits instead of +18, and that will keep his ERA down. And that's if he gets 83 IP again, which brings us to...

Isn't 83 IP a lot for a closer?
Yes. On July 21, Bailey threw 2 IP, which was common for him in the first half, being as he'd recently been a starting pitcher, and hadn't fully claimed the role of closer early in the season. But he experienced minor knee issues after that 2 IP outing, and never topped four outs in a game after that. Expect him to be used as most every other closer is used in 2010, and end up with just under 70 IP for the season.

Here is a 16-page preview of Graphical Player 2020. You can order the book from Acta Sports here.

Posted by Rob McQuown at 4:00am (0) Comments

Monday, December 14, 2009

Clone Wars: Joel Pineiro and Brandon Webb

There are some signs that the Dave Duncan effect is real and perhaps that is what happened to Joel Pineiro, but he wasn't just pitching to contact like many others under Duncan. Pineiro added a two-seam fastball to his arsenal and threw it 27.6 percent of the time this year. This led him to the best ground ball rate in baseball this year at 60 percent, which was up from his average near 47 percent. This leads to the comparison with one of the best ground ball pitchers in all of baseball when healthy. Brandon Webb has been working with these great ground ball rates his whole career and maybe this comparison could give us a clue if Pineiro can keep this up.

                    W   L   ERA   K/9   BB/9  K/BB  GB%     HR/FB%  FIP
Joel Pineiro        15  12  3.49  4.42  1.14  3.89  60.50%   6.50%  3.27
Brandon Webb (2008) 22  7   3.30   7.27  2.58  2.82  64.20%   9.60%  3.28

The big thing that will always separate them is strikeouts, where Pineiro falls far behind Webb. Even if he can maintain the K/BB at that level by essentially not walking anyone he will not be able to match Webb's numbers. That isn't a big problem, though, and they would still be close all other things considered.

MLB: AUG 09 Cardinals at Pirates
09 AUG 2009: St. Louis Cardinals starting pitcher Joel Pineiro (35) during the St. Louis Cardinals 7-3 win over the Pittsburgh Pirates at PNC Park in Pittsburgh, Pa. Pineiro would get the win, pitching seven innings while allowing three earned runs. (Icon/SMI)

Pineiro has not only added a two-seamer to his pitches, but his four-seam fastball has also lost some vertical movement. This has led to many more pitches down in the zone with his four-seam fastball and his two-seamer. There is an interesting study over at Fangraphs about how many other pitchers have made a jump like this. Looking at the followup year no pitcher from the study group lost more than 5 percent, and that is encouraging for 2010 Pineiro.

Perhaps the more concerning number is the walk rate. It's lower than any other time in his career, but there is also some encouraging signs with a BB/9 of 1.56 in his 426.1 IP in St. Louis. This could be part of the Duncan Effect as he encourages his pitchers to pitch to contact. All this makes a strong case for Pineiro to maintain his ground ball and walk rates for 2010.

I've ignored Webb here a bit, but we know how great he can be when healthy. He counts on a solid to stellar K/BB and has the best ground ball numbers in baseball. The questions now center around his shoulder and how healthy he can be going forward. His fastball was down 2 mph before going on the DL this year. If that continues once he comes back, he could lose some of the strikeouts, making him less valuable.

The good news for Webb is he can still be a successful pitcher with fewer strikeouts. That isn't good news for fantasy teams, but he wouldn't be suddenly a replacement-level pitcher. There is a lot of risk in his health for 2010, but then again his value this year should discount for that and he could be a huge steal.

Pineiro will never be your team ace, and is one of those pitchers who can be much more valuable in real baseball, but at the back of your staff he will help your win totals, ERA and WHIP. That is displayed in current drafts at MockDraftCentral where Pineiro he is taken, on average, with the 248th pick, where he should be a solid value. Webb, on the other hand, is going almost halfway up the board at 142.

The purpose of these articles is not to find perfect clones, and this is another case of looking at similarities and using this to find hidden value. That may be the case for Brad Penny as well as he joins the St Louis Cardinals. If you trust the Duncan Effect you could see Penny definitely working on his control issues, but if he works on his pitches to add more ground balls he could be a nice surprise in 2010.

Posted by Troy Patterson at 5:23am (0) Comments

Late bloomers or one-hit wonders?

Last week, I got a request from a reader to take a look at some of the older players who had breakout seasons at unlikely ages and offer some insight as to whether they will be able to repeat. Note to readers, every column idea you think of for me is one fewer I must think of for myself. Seriously, I prefer writing about issues regarding league dynamics and fantasy baseball from more of a strategic, “macro” perspective, but from time to time, I’ll offer my thoughts on individual player evaluation.

The set of players posited by the reader was Aaron Hill, Mark Reynolds and Russell Branyan. All three of these players had breakout seasons. On Opening Day 2010, Hill will be 28, Reynolds 26 and Branyan 34. First off, it’s important to mention that Reynolds is a little different than the other two players. Reynolds broke out at 25, which is not odd, but the extent of his breakout and somewhat unfamiliar make-up/skill set still makes him worth exploring. I expect few upper-tier players will experience a wider range of draft position next year than Reynolds; I could imagine him going as high as mid-teens in some leagues and dropping into the late-50s in others.

Before getting into my evaluations, allow me to offer a few words about projecting performance. I figured it would make the most sense to focus on trying to discern whether the batting average and home run totals from last year are repeatable. Only Reynolds had a significant number of steals last year, and runs and RBIs are fundamentally team stats. So, if the batting average and homers hold next year, the runs and rib-eyes should take care of themselves and be similar as well. For what it’s worth, I expect Reynolds to swipe fewer bases next year, maybe somewhere in the 14-18 range, as opposed to the 24 he had this year.

In addition to offering my thoughts on the likelihoods of these players repeating in the batting average and homer categories, I’m also going to make reference to something called the Strong Seasons Leading Index, which I’ll refer to as SSLI. This is a metric developed by Bill James that debuted in the 2010 Hardball Times Annual. If you want all the specifics, you’re going to have to buy the book, but the overall purpose of the metric is to assess the likelihood of a player outperforming his most recent season. The final numbers for last season spanned a range from 8 to 26, with the lower number being the least likely to outperform 2009 in 2010 (Jorge Posada) and 26 being the most likely (Dioner Navarro). These are not the lowest and highest numbers possible by the metric, just the most extreme among those who had 400-plus ABs last season.

Let me also offer two pieces of information to keep in mind about SSLI in relation to the question posed in this article. First, SSLI was not developed for a fantasy purpose, so having a “better” season is defined in terms of OPS, not any of the five default fantasy categories. Second, this metric attempts to predict next season relative to the past season. While this information is useful in the “is player X for real?” vein—as I’m using it here—the questions are not the same. For any of the three players I’m looking into today, anything approximating last season would cement last year’s breakout as real, and likely provide a great return on draft day. I presume none of these players will actually cost the price of the full value they produced last season, due to understandable skepticism and uncertainty. A 10 percent drop in counting numbers across the board, certainly for Hill or Reynolds, would be fine and prospective owners would likely sign up for that production right now.

OK, enough of the preamble, let’s get into my thoughts and hopefully stimulate some discussion.

Russell Branyan

Power Projection: It’s common knowledge that, TTO royalty, Branyan has tons of pop. Whether his power is for real has never been the question with Branyan, the issue has always been whether he can make contact with the ball frequently enough to merit playing time at an offensively focused position.

HitTracker classifies all homers as “no doubt (ND),” “plenty (PL)” or “just enough (JE).” Sparing the specific criteria for each group, the designations should be generally self-explanatory. The average distribution of these the types of home runs is 18%/55%/27%, respectively. Only 10 percent of Branyan’s dingers were of the JE variety, and his average home run traveled some 410 or so feet, one of the longer averages in the sport last year. While Branyan’s 31 homers last season were seven more than he had ever hit before, the rate at which he hit them was not out of line with what know to expect from Branyan. Traditionally having been a part-time player, getting regular ABs last year likely helped some, too.

Batting Average Projection: Last year, Branyan hit .251, as compared to his career average of .234. Last year, Branyan hit ground balls a little more frequently than throughout his career, while his line-drive rate was a little lower than his norm. He hit the ball in the air with similar frequency as he’s done throughout his career. Making things a little trickier, Branyan’s BABIP has been all over the place across his career. Again, though he’s been in the league for a dozen years, he’s only been given as many as 300 ABs three times, so sample size is certainly a problem, especially as we break his career into stages by age. I would not look for a batting average repeat.

SSLI Says: Branyan registered an 11 on this index. Only three players who qualified for the study were determined to be less likely than Branyan to repeat. For perspective, some of those who were deemed equally likely as Branyan to repeat were Scott Podsednik, Jason Bartlett and Derrek Lee.

Overall: I do not believe in Branyan. He will hit 24-30 homers if he is given 400-plus ABs again, but his batting average will most likely be in the low .240s. He doesn’t put the ball in play enough to be a threat to eclipse an RBI total in the low 80s, and he’s not on base often enough to score a lot of runs. (The Seattle line-up doesn’t help either.) Further, if he were to leave Seattle, he would likely become either a part-time player or a seventh-place hitter. In deep leagues, and AL-only leagues any source of 25 homers can’t be ignored, but I can’t see him as being relevant in mixed leagues. I would not draft him with the intent of him being part of my starting line-up.

Aaron Hill

Power Projection: 2008 was a lost season for an injured Aaron Hill, but Hill showed that he was a useful fantasy option in 2007. Last year he came roaring back to put up a season nobody could have expected. What really stuck out about Hill’s 2009 were his 36 homers. Is the power real? One third of Hill’s home runs were JEs, that’s roughly double the average distribution. But in 2007 Hill did hit 17 homers at the age of 26. Somewhat surprisingly, Hill did not hit fly balls at a significantly greater rate in 2009 than in 2007. I’d guess that a good chunk of Hill’s 2009 power output was real. With a similar approach in 2007, Hill hit 47 doubles and 17 homers. In 2009 he hit 37 doubles and 36 homers. It seems like Hill did get a bit lucky last year and that we’ll see some homers turn back to doubles, but I don’t see any reason why Hill couldn’t hit 24-28 homers next year. Generally speaking, I think Hill is for real. Not 36-homer real, but real nonetheless.

Batting Average Projection: Hill’s 2009 batting average was right in line with his career norm and there were no red flags in his BABIP as compared to his career.

SSLI Says: Hill clocks in with a 15 on the SSLI. This means he’s less likely than the average player to repeat, but the odds aren’t nearly as prohibitive as Branyan. For reference, there were many players who registered a 15, including young stars who took the big leaps forward that were expected of them, like Prince Fielder, Ryan Zimmerman and Robinson Cano. On the other hand, there were a number of veterans whose careers are winding down who clocked in at the same number, including Mark DeRosa and Orlando Cabrera.

Overall: Aaron Hill will be a very useful option next season. One thing to keep in mind about Hill is that he led the AL in both PAs and ABs in 2009, which inflated his counting numbers a bit. However, Hill is in the Jimmy Rollins model of players whose real flaws actually enhance his fantasy value. He hardly ever walks, which gives him more chances to knock in runs. And, he’s at least batting average neutral, so piling up the AB does not hurt you there. I think his runs scored decline next year because his mediocre on-base skills make it difficult to score more than 100 runs without hitting 30-plus homers, which I’m unconvinced he’ll do again. Still, I see a season of .280/90/25/90 as totally reasonable and would say a season better than that is not be out of the realm of possibility either. Where would I rank him? I don’t know exactly. Somewhere behind Robinson Cano, but ahead of Dan Uggla is a start.

Mark Reynolds

Power Projection: I’ve already written a bit about Reynolds here. When it comes to power, Reynolds is the real deal. He was an elite power hitter in every level of the minors, and showed his power in 2007 and 2008 at the major league level before breaking out huge last season. According to Hit Tracker, Reynolds boasts the longest average home run of any player throughout the 2009 season. Incredibly, he hit 23 blasts 430 feet or farther last season. In light of that, I was a little surprised to find that he also hit JE homers at 1.5 times the average rate as well. I think it’s fair to expect that Reynolds will hit somewhere in the range of 35–38 homers next year. This may seem like a big drop from last year’s total, but I think that only Ryan Howard and Albert Pujols should be expected to hit more than 40 homers. Such expectations are arguable for Alex Rodriguez and Fielder, I suppose.

It might seem like Reynolds’ 2009 RBI total of 102 is lower than expected, especially given that he knocked in 97 in 2008 while hitting 16 fewer homers. Without doing extensive research, I don’t think that is the case though, at least not to an extreme. Prodigious sluggers with outrageous K-rates and/or notoriously low batting averages, drive in most of their runs with the long ball. Reynolds drove in 68 of his 102 runs in 2009 on his 44 longballs. Adam Dunn drove in 65 of his 105 on his 38 homers. Reynolds hit .260 with 223 Ks, Dunn .267 with 177. Despite cracking 40 homers five times in his career, Dunn has never driven in more than 106. Though Dunn walks considerably more often that Reynolds (decreasing Dunn’s RBI opportunities by comparison), I still think the comparison is of some value. Even if Reynolds hits 40 home runs again, he’s not going to be a good bet to drive in 110 runs unless he can lift his batting average into the .270 range, and I’m not sure that’s in the future for Reynolds.

Batting Average Projection: Reynolds has posted relatively steady GB/FB/LD distribution over his career. His 2009 BABIP looked a bit high, but his 2008 figure seemed a little high too. I think it’s fair to assert that when Reynolds makes contact, he hits the ball very hard. I’d peg Reynolds as a .250-ish hitter barring any evidence that a substantially reduced K-rate is likely in his future.

SSLI Says: Reynolds registered as the most likely of the three to repeat. His score of 17 is smack dab in the middle of the distribution. His score is identical to that of many elite players who are not seen as undependable, including Chase Utley and Brandon Phillips, as well as younger studs who seem to be perceived as more reliable than Reynolds, like Adam Jones and Evan Longoria.

Overall: Reynolds is, after all, only 26 years of age. He was an elite power prospect and is in his physical prime. I wouldn’t be too scared of drafting Reynolds, but I would not expect a full repeat. As a matter of perspective, I’d think of Reynolds as Adam Dunn plus 12 steals with different positional eligibility. Whether Dunn being outfield eligible is more valuable than Reynolds being third base eligible is probably dependent on the structure of your league.

Posted by Derek Ambrosino at 5:18am (6) Comments

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Starting opposing pitchers (Part 1)

By their nature, wins are fickle. Yes, a correlation does exist between wins and ERA, but I've seen great pitchers finish seasons with few wins and mediocre pitchers rack up wins like bad jokes in a Will Ferrell movie. How else could Joe Saunders finish 2009 with 16 wins and a 4.60 ERA while Randy Wolf gets only 11 wins out of his 3.23 ERA?

Pitchers with better ERAs will get more wins per game than pitchers with worse ERAs, though since the r = .48, ERA determines only roughly half of whether a pitcher gets a win (Click to enlarge).

There are other factors besides a pitcher's skill level such as innings pitched per start, bullpen strength, and offensive runs per game that influence how often a pitcher will get a win; however luck still plays a large role in the way wins are distributed. Therefore it is smart to not draft for wins since luck is unpredictable.

There are times, though, in daily Head-to-Head leagues when you need to harness the power of wins to become victorious in a particular week. Such times typically occur on Saturday nights when you are trailing by one in the wins category and are setting your lineup for Sunday. Despite the unpredictability of wins, there is a strategy you can use to increase the chance you will earn at least one win and that is by starting opposing pitchers.

Just to make it clear, opposing pitchers are two starting pitchers who are pitching against each other in the same game. So for example in the first Yankees-Red Sox game of 2010, the opposing pitchers will most likely be C.C. Sabathia and Josh Beckett. The advantage of starting opposing pitchers in getting a win might not reveal itself right away so allow me to dazzle you with some math that will make clear the advantage.

The mathematics

Starting pitchers as a whole could have earned 2,430 wins in 2009 since there are that same 2,430 total games played in a season and one win is awarded per game. Instead of getting 2,430 wins though, starters earned only 1,706 wins, meaning 724 wins were lost to relievers. What this means is that 70 percent of the time, the win will go to one of the starting pitchers while there is a 30 percent chance a reliever gets it. This 70-30 ratio is fairly stable from year to year. With a 70 percent chance of the starters getting the win, each starter then has a 35 percent chance of getting the win assuming each pitcher is league average.

From a fantasy perspective, starting opposing pitchers offers a unique opportunity to garner wins at a higher rate. When starting both starting pitchers, you have a 70 percent chance of earning a win for your fantasy team. When starting two random pitchers however, you only have a 45.5 percent chance*. Why then would you not always start opposing pitchers if it gives you a extra 25 percent chance to get a win compared to starting two random pitchers?

*For the less mathematically savvy among us, I got to 45.5 percent by first finding the chance both pitchers get the win (.35 * .35 = 12.25%) and then finding the chance both pitchers do not get the win (.65 * .65 = 42.25%). The chance then, that one pitcher gets the win is 100 minus the sum of those percents which is 100 - (12.25 + 42.25) = 45.5 percent.

The answer is that your win potential is capped at one win with opposing pitchers, but with random pitchers there is the chance you earn two wins, a 12.25 percent chance to be exact. Therefore the two-win potential reward of random pitchers balances the decreased chance of getting one win and also the increased chance of getting zero wins.

Back to fantasy

It is time to take a step back and understand how opposing pitchers can be utilized in fantasy leagues in a practical sense. It is important to note that, over the long run, starting opposing pitchers will not necessarily result in more wins because of the two-win potential of two random pitchers. Starting opposing pitchers can come in handy though in the scenario I detailed towards the beginning of the article, and that is in a Head-to-Head league with daily roster updates.

If all you need is one win and there is a game in which both pitchers in that game are obtainable, theoretically you would be increasing you odds of getting that win by starting both of those pitchers as opposed to two starters in different games. However what's true in theory is not always true in practice and since all teams, pitchers, offenses, and bullpens are not created equal, the question becomes how much of a decrease in pitcher skill should you accept in order to start two opposing pitchers?

It should be obvious that even if Roy Halladay and Cliff Lee are not opposing each other you would still want to start them since they earn wins at above the average 35 percent rate; however, a point must exist where the difference in pitcher skill is overshadowed by the advantage starting opposing pitchers offers. I understand that this pursuit is limited in its practicality since it can only be used in a certain league type in a somewhat rare situation, but for me, it is pursuits like this that make fantasy baseball so enjoyable.

Posted by Paul Singman at 5:01am (7) Comments

Random thoughts on one-trick ponies, tradeability, and ‘value’

Last month, fellow THT writer Derek Ambrosino wrote a couple of articles that spurred some debate in the comments (Approaching unconscious competence and One category roar, five category snore). I had some of my own thoughts on a few of the concepts and theories discussed and wanted to share them.

As some quick background, most of the discussion centered around the relative value of one-category players and players who are a little above replacement in all five categories but spectacular in none.

Drafting to trade

In the comment section of Derek A.’s first article, there was a little talk about drafting with the intent to trade. As a general rule of thumb, most fantasy analysts will warn against “drafting to trade.” Still, Derek A. argued that “the chances that somebody needs a 40-steal guy regardless of the rest of that player's (lack of) skill set (or at least feels that they need such a player) is probably higher than the likelihood that somebody feels they need a Garrett Anderson.” I think most of us would agree with this statement (I certainly do), so the question then becomes: “Should this be a consideration when we’re initially drafting our players?” My answer to this question is a definite “yes.”

A couple years ago, I discussed one of my favorite mixed-league strategies: that of drafting high-upside players late in the draft. This seems to be a very popular strategy these days, and I think the principles of the strategy are very closely related to our discussion on the trade value of one-category studs.

When we discuss “high-upside” players, we generally think about young, toolsy players who have a higher probability of significantly outperforming their projections than an established, 30-something-year-old veteran does. However, I don’t believe that upside must be constrained to pure production. Why shouldn’t potential future trade value be incorporated in the "upside" bucket? After all, it all leads to the same goal: winning. Whether that win comes as a result of your 20th-round pick hitting like a third-rounder or as a result of you trading your 20th-round speedster for a top-notch SP shouldn’t matter one ounce.

Value is dynamic

Another facet of the comment section discussion dealt with whether or not we should be drafting one-category players in the first place. Reader Andrew P. talked about how he disliked the idea of forgoing "more valuable” players in order to achieve balance by taking a one-trick pony. Not to pick on Andrew, but I’m not so sure it’s as simple as that.

Value is a funny thing, in that it is never static. I think when a lot of people talk about draft-day value, they think of it in a vacuum—as a precise, static number—but this couldn’t be further from the case. Value is dynamic and is unique to every team at every pick.

If you print out a list of players and dollar values and take that to your draft, the truth of the matter is, those dollar values will only truly be accurate until the first pick of the draft is made. After players have been removed from the pool and/or added to your team, the value of the remaining players will change. It will change—even if only slightly—every single time a player is removed from the pool. Over the course of an entire draft, those values can change quite drastically, especially if you’ve overloaded on one category and are short in another.

Here’s an extreme example to ponder: Let’s say the ghost of Ricky Henderson (from his 130-steal season) is resurrected and you draft him. Then you add a 118-SB Lou Brock clone. With your next pick, your pre-draft cheat sheet may say that the 110-SB Vince Coleman impostor is the best player on the board, but in the context of your team (which now sports phantom Ricky and Lou), Vince Coleman is significantly less valuable.

Why? Because you don’t need those steals! You’ve got 250 under your belt already—quite possibly enough to win the category outright. So the value of the remaining steals in the player pool is essentially zero for your team. For some other team participating in the draft, Coleman will be very appealing. But for you, the relative value of steals is extremely low, in turn raising the relative value of all the other categories. And this happens every time a player is selected (just not as drastically)—supply changes, your team needs change, and thus, every player's value changes.

I actually just had a similar situation play out in a mock draft I participated in for USA Today’s preseason magazine. I ended up with Adam Dunn, Russell Branyan and Chris Davis on the power side and Michael Bourn, Nyjer Morgan and Luis Castillo on the average/steals side. Once you take a player who will contribute heavily to HRs and RBIs but little to average and steals, the relative value of HRs and RBIs to your team decreases, and the relative value of average and steals increases.

I ended up doing a lot of "balancing" in this draft. I put balancing in quotes because it’s a word that often gets used without full understanding of what it means or why/when it should be done. I wasn’t just taking these one-trick ponies because I felt I needed "balance" (something I don’t feel is necessary just for the sake of it); I was taking them because their relative value was higher to my team because of its current makeup at that point in the draft.

The tradeability of different players

My last point today deals with the ability to trade a one-trick pony versus a guy who will help out a little bit in each category. Derek A. used Melky Cabrera as an example of the latter, so I’ll continue using him. He posited that Melky would be a lot harder to trade than, say, Elvis Andrus or Scott Podsednik who have much of their value tied up in one category. I absolutely agree, but I have a couple ideas of my own as to why this is the case.

The first is a pretty obvious one (and one Derek A. touched on briefly). Midseason, teams are often looking to trade for categories as opposed to players. If acquiring one player can catapult your team three or four points in the standings, that’s going to be a lot more appealing than acquiring a player who merely helps in acquiring three or four points across several categories. It's a matter of leverage.

One other important consideration, though, is that in our 12-team mixed league example, players like Melky and Garrett Anderson are end-of-the-bench guys. They are the guys drafted in the last few rounds or taken off the waiver wire during the season. While opinions of the top players in the league rarely differ from owner-to-owner (I think we can all agree that Albert Pujols and Mark Teixeira and Jacoby Ellsbury are worthy of a pick in the first few rounds), opinions of the guys taken at the end of draft differ greatly. One owner’s late-round bargain is viewed as should-be-waiver-wire-fodder by another owner.

Feel free to compare rankings between different sites and you’ll see exactly what I mean. Guys appearing in spots Nos. 248, 249 and 250 on one site’s list might not appear at all on another’s. Last year, Baseball HQ loved Mike Jacobs; I hated him. I loved Nyjer Morgan; my own readers hated him

.

Opinions diverge greatly at the end of drafts, so if you’re the guy who owns Melky Cabrera, there’s a very good chance you like him more than anyone else in your league (this is true to an extent for all players you draft, but particularly among late-round selections). And if that’s the case, how are you going to get what you consider equal (or greater) value in a trade? While Melky’s worth is open to interpretation, Andrus’ ability to steal a base is much less so.

Further compounding this reality is something called the endowment effect—the tendency for people to overvalue or grow attached to what they already have. As a result of this, owners are going to be more likely to want to keep their own, unspectacular end-of-bench guys than to acquire yours.

Concluding thoughts

Just some stuff to think about. I realize these ideas weren't completely related, but I think they were all worth putting out there. If anyone has any of their own thoughts or questions, feel free to comment.

Posted by Derek Carty at 5:40am (11) Comments

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Player Profile: Adam Jones

Adam “Not Pac Man” Jones made a big step forward in his big league career in 2009. The 24-year-old put up an excellent season for a center fielder, with a .277/.335/.457 triple-slash line on the year, up from a .270/.311/.400 year in 2008. A great improvement for the young player, and there is both cause for excitement and concern for Jones going forward.

Drafted 37th overall out of Morse High School in 2003 by the Seattle Mariners, Jones got started quickly, registering 123 at-bats that season as a 17-year-old between rookie and A-ball. Young Adam showed well there, with a .284/.368/.349 line in 124 rookie-ball plate appearances, with a .462/.467/.538 nightcap in 14 plate appearances at Low-A Everett.

Jones moved up to the Midwest League for 2004 as an 18-year-old and acquitted himself well. In 548 plate appearances in A-ball, Jones hit 11 home runs to go along with eight stolen bases. His plate discipline was not up to par, however, with 33 walks against 124 strikeouts leading to a .267/.314/.404 line. Still, Jones’ youth and excellent raw tools made him a gem in the Seattle organization, as he was ranked their ninth-best prospect at the end of the season. As a result, he was moved to High-A to begin 2005.

Opening his age-19 season, Jones started the year at Inland Empire of the California League, where he hit .295/.374/.494 in 271 at-bats including eight home runs. Jones’ plate discipline started showing some signs of improvement, as he posted nearly a 1:2 BB:K ratio with 29 walks against 64 strikeouts. His power began to show some real promise as well, as he hit eight home runs before being moved up to Double-A San Antonio. There, he hit seven home runs in 228 at-bats with 22 walks against 48 strikeouts on his way to a .298/.365/.461 line. On the shoulders of burgeoning power potential and improved plate discipline, Jones ranked as the eighth-best prospect in the Seattle system. His star rising, Jones was ticketed for Triple-A for 2006.

As a 20-year-old at Tacoma of the Pacific Coast League, Jones showed all the Seattle faithful what all the fuss was about. In 380 at-bats, the young center fielder hit 16 long balls to go along with 13 stolen bases. His plate discipline was a struggle once again, with just 28 walks against 78 strikeouts. However, his .287/.345/.484 line meant that all was forgiven and he was afforded a 32-game stint in the bigs. He flopped in this initial showing, striking out 22 times in 74 at-bats with just two walks. His .216/.237/.311 confirmed that he was not yet ready for the big time. Still, Jones came a long way over the course of the season and placed as Seattle’s second-best prospect and the 64th-best in MLB.

Repeating Triple-A in 2007, Jones had quite the breakout season. Through 420 at-bats, Jones planted 25 bombs into Tacoma stands on his way to a .314/.382/.586 line. His plate discipline was, again, subpar, with a 36:106 BB:K ratio. However, the raw tools and power proved irresistible and Jones was promoted to the big club again. Again, like in 2006, Jones flopped in his short showing, striking out 21 times in 65 at-bats against just four walks. However, the explosion at Tacoma significantly lifted his stock as Jones placed as Seattle’s best prospect and 28th-best in MLB. Despite the improvements, however, Jones was forced to switch organizations after a trade to Baltimore in February, where he would begin 2008 as the team’s starting center fielder.

In 2008, Jones finally found his form at the major league level. He finally got his strikeout rates under control. After two seasons of K-rates around 30 percent, Jones dropped the rate to 22.6. His overall line was acceptable, though disappointing, at .270/.311/.400. Still, his power did not carry over from 2007, as he hit just nine home runs in 477 at-bats to finish with a paltry 6.9 HR/FB percentage. His plate discipline was again poor, with 23 walks against 108 strikeouts. Still young at 23, but now in his second organization, Jones was beginning to get a whiff of unfulfilled expectations. Still, Baltimore was a great training grounds, as unfulfilled expectations were nothing new there.

Officially on the former prospect clock, Jones needed to deliver on promise in 2009 to reaffirm his prospect star—and deliver he did. For the 2009 season, Jones posted a .277/.335/.457 line with 19 home runs, including a blistering April and May that included 11 home runs in 183 at-bats. But that was about it for Jones, as he only posted one month of a .700+ OPS the rest of the season. Jones’ second-half line was particularly concerning, totaling .222/.290/.405.

Jones’ 2009 season, while showing great improvement over his previous performances, tells the tale of a player with tremendous potential who is still a bit overmatched at the plate.

In the plus column, Jones again cut down his strikeout rate from 22.6 percent in 2008 to 19.7 percent in 2009. Crossing the 20 percent threshold is a nice milestone for Jones, especially given that he struck out in 32.3 percent of his 2007 at-bats. In addition, his walk percentage rose to 7.1 percent, which is another great improvement for a batter who struggled so mightily just two seasons ago.

Despite the good-but-not-great home run totals on 2009, Jones really broke out in a big way with the power numbers, posting a 17.8 HR/FB rate—which is in the neighborhood of such luminaries as Mark Teixeira (17.8 HR/FB rate) and Evan Longoria (17.6 HR/FB rate). It’s hard not to be optimistic about a player who is in that kind of company. Further, his 5.6 IFFB percentage showed that he was making clean contact with the ball and was not overmatched by fastballs. This was confirmed by his vastly improved performance against heaters, rising from a -0.81 wFB/C in 2008 to -0.09 wFB/C in 2009. Overall, it was quite the improvement for Jones.

But there was just as much to be concerned about, especially regarding Jones’ plate discipline indicators. First off, Jones, again, posted a low contact rate of just 74.6 percent, a decline from his 76.9 percent in 2008. Jones also showed no improvement in his free-swinging ways, offering at 53.7 percent of all pitches he saw, hacking at a staggering rate of 35.3 percent of pitches outside the zone—good for eighth-worst in the league among qualified batters. This was compounded by the fact that pitchers caught on to his tendencies, throwing him just 48.4 percent of pitches inside the zone.

Jones’ problems go a bit deeper than just poor plate discipline, however. His injury problems are becoming a significant issue, as he played in just 119 games in 2009, down from 132 in 2008. He missed time for five ailments in 2009, including his hamstring, shin, neck, back, and ankle—which ultimately ended his season in September.

Jones’ swing plane is also a problematic as well. For a player with as much power potential as Jones has, his groundball tendencies are quite troublesome, as he posted the seventh-highest groundball rate last season at 55.4 percent, right around such power threats as Elvis Andrus and Nyjer Morgan. Without an improved flyball rate, Jones will never reach his ultimate power potential. However, for fantasy owners, this does constitute an opportunity as well as a risk, as any improvements in his groundball rate will be a great sign for his power output for the upcoming season.

As he has been cast since 2006, Adam Jones is a player with just as much potential for stardom as he has for disappointment. Jones is really a very interesting player. His power potential and adequate 2009 season mitigate his floor for 2010, while he has so much room for improvement for the rest of his offensive game that, if he figured it out at any time, he could explode as one of the better outfielders in fantasy baseball. It is difficult to say when he will make the breakout—and this is what will be the next phase of his game. For 2010, watch his O-Swing percentage, swing percentage, contact rate, and flyball rate in particular. If his O-Swing percentage drops, the walks will go up and he’ll see better pitches to hit. If his flyball rate improves, the homers will really start leaving the park with good frequency.

Overall, Jones presents excellent potential—just don’t get carried away with it. There haven’t been any signs that he will improve his plate discipline, so until you see them, don’t bank on it. Also, his groundball rate significantly mitigates his power potential, so until that improves, be careful. In the end, Jones projects as a league-average outfielder in 2010, with low- to mid-20s home runs, double-digit steals, and a batting average around .280. Good, not great. Still, he’s worth drafting on potential alone. And, if you don’t get him, watch the indicators to see if you can pull off a big trade during the year.

VOTE ON NEXT WEEK'S PLAYER PROFILE

{exp:freeform:form form_name="player_poll_decnineonine" notify="mike_silver_thehardballtimes@yahoo.com" required="player" prevent_duplicate_on="ip_address"}

Select A Player:
Jorge delaRosa
Jason Bay
Troy Tulowitzki
John Lackey
Phil Hughes

Other Players

{/exp:freeform:form}

*Feel free to also use the text box to nominate players for next week's poll.

Posted by Mike Silver at 1:15am (3) Comments

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Drafting to trade

Are you getting Wood thinking of another player? (Icon/SMI)

Dereks Ambrosino and Carty have written nice articles on the relative merits of a well-rounded player versus a one-category super-stud. Plenty of writers (including myself) are proponents of drafting players with high upsides. Undoubtedly, one thing to consider when drafting/buying your initial fantasy team is a player's eventual trade value. Some players, like some used cars models, are more tradable than others. Trade value is often a key component to strategies with super-studs or high-upside players.

The tempting thing is to take these strategies and use them to speculate for "trade" rather than "use" purposes. For instance: You're sitting in the 20th round of your draft and you already have Evan Longoria at third base, but you see Brandon Wood still out there and you think, "If Wood gets playing time this season, he could easily outproduce some of the replacement-level third basemen in the league or slot in for the owner who has an injured Chipper Jones." Wood is a high-upside guy that you will almost certainly have no room for in your starting lineup. But, if he breaks out, there should be other owners in your league willing to trade for him. You're drafting Wood not because he may have use for you, but because he may have value in a trade later on.

Of course the key question in all of this is: What is Wood's value? Is he worth the 20th pick over, say, Denard Span or not? How much should you consider Wood's potential value to your team by playing on it versus his potential value as a future trade piece?

To make a trade, there must be what economists call a "double coincidence of wants." Your team must not only have something the other owner wants, but you must be willing to give up a player that the other owner values more highly than the player he is giving up. You must have too much pizza and not enough beer and your trade-mate must also have too much beer and not enough pizza. Imagine if you conducted your everyday life like that—every time you wanted to buy milk, you'd have to have something the grocery store wanted in exchange (this is why barter economies and wife-swap parties frequently don't work and why money is so helpful).

The thing with upside players is that if their upside comes to fruition, they are replacing some current starter. If trade markets were "perfect"—with no waiting periods, irrationalities and so forth—then Wood would replace, say, Chipper Jones on some team, but Jones would then be traded from that team's bench to some other team, replacing, say, Mike Lowell, all the way down the line until Casey Blake ultimately is the starter that ends up on the bench.

The problem is that trade markets aren't perfect. If they were, a lot more trades would happen throughout the season. So if you have Wood and Longoria on your team and you've found an owner with Chipper Jones who now wants to trade for Wood, he's going to give up a lot less for Wood in the world where he can't turn around and trade Jones immediately. Of course, you could try to trade Wood to the owner suffering with the previously replacement-level Blake, but he may be out of town (mentally or literally), or unwilling, or Blake's kid nephew or whatever. Finding trading partners is hard, and sometimes you just have to be happy to find someone willing to give you anything for a player who's almost surely going to stay on your bench. What's more, the player you get in return for Wood (say, Geovany Soto, for some reason) would have more value to you if the catcher on your roster that he was replacing was also easily tradable. But he likely won't be—you might even just have to cut him even though he was above replacement level.

So let's say in the beginning of the season, you worked on your projections and you think Wood is a player who, if he breaks out, will be better than Jones but worse than the next best third baseman (say, Michael Young). If by that 20th round you've drafted a replacement-level player like Blake at third, then Wood could have value in use. But if you've drafted someone Wood has no chance to replace (unless there's an injury), then you're drafting Wood to trade him, and his value in that case is, I argue, a lot less.

Posted by Jonathan Halket at 6:20am (8) Comments

Top 10 prospects for 2010: Philadelphia Phillies and Atlanta Braves

With the Roy Halladay trade finalized, Philadelphia's farm system has been shaken up. For those wondering, here is the top 10 I was expecting to publish, before the trade:

1. Kyle Drabek
2. Michael Taylor
3. Domonic Brown
4. Domingo Santana
5. Anthony Gose
6. Trevor May
7. Antonio Bastardo
8. Sebastian Valle
9. Travis D'Arnaud
10. Vance Worley

Now with Drabek, Taylor and D'Arnaud departing and Tyson Gillies, Phillippe Aumont, and J.C. Ramirez being brought over from Seattle, here is how the new top 10 looks, followed by arch-rival Atlanta's (much better) system. It is interesting to note that Seattle's No. 6 and No. 7 prospects, Gillies and Aumont, rank No. 2 and No. 3 respectively in Philadelphia's system. It's more of an indication of Philadelphia's lack of blue-chip prospects rather than Seattle's strong system.

Philadelphia Phillies

1. Domonic Brown: I have been criticized for my low ranking of Brown in the past. And I admit it: If it weren't for the trade of Drabek and Taylor, Brown would be ranked third in the organization. I feel that Brown has a good mix of skills, but nothing he does stands out as elite, leaving me a bit cold.
2. Tyson Gillies: Traded from Seattle. If it weren't for Alex Liddi, everyone would be singing the praises of Gillies. Both starred for the High Desert Mavericks, but Gillies took a different approach. He demonstrated every skill necessary to become a good major league leadoff hitter. As with Liddi, though, I'm hesitating a bit until I see his performance against better competition in a more balanced league.
3. Phillippe Aumont: Traded from Seattle. Everyone loves the stuff that Aumont brings to the ballpark, but, when it comes right down to it, he is now strictly a relief pitcher. While he could become Philadelphia's closer in short order, his bullpen status hurts his stock.
4. Domingo Santana: Call me bullish on Santana's potential, but no one else in the organization really stands out from a skill perspective. The scouting reports are glowing and the initial numbers are promising.
5. Anthony Gose: Gose has terrific speed that shines both on the base paths and in his outfield range. His bat lags way behind at the moment, but Philadelphia has top-of-the-order hopes for this teenager.
6. Trevor May: May sports a low-90s fastball with strong movement and an average curveball that could grow into his out pitch. Just 20 years old with impressive strikeout numbers in the Sally League, the 6-foot-5 May has room to grow but much to learn when it comes to locating his arsenal.
7. Antonio Bastardo: Bastardo has a workable three-pitch mix that adds up to a middle- to back-of-the-rotation future. His inconsistent major league debut offered too little of a sample size to draw conclusions, but his control numbers were solid and spell at least minor success.
8. J.C. Ramirez: Traded from Seattle. Don't let his California League numbers throw you off too much. Ramirez has good upside with his strong fastball and potentially plus slider. His questionable strikeout total in 2009 does raise an eyebrow, but I'm willing to ride it out for another year.
9. Sebastian Valle: There are questions regarding Valle's ultimate ability to stick at catcher, but he is way too young and raw for that question to be answered anytime soon. Philadelphia will let him ride it out at catcher for now, where his immense power potential would be a huge asset.
10. Vance Worley: Worley posted some 2009 numbers that are hard to sugarcoat. But I trusted his strong right arm coming out of the 2008 draft, and I'm not going to fully downgrade him yet. Call me stubborn, but he has the poise to pull it all together in 2010.

Atlanta Braves

1. Jason Heyward: Heyward is the best hitting prospect in baseball. As a 20-year-old, his bat has no weakness and there is more improvement ahead in every facet. A dynamic, middle-of-the-order future is in store.
2. Freddie Freeman: While his bat is advanced for his age, his home run numbers dropped off in his second full season. Will his home run power return? His future value hinges on it. I'm buying into a good 2010 campaign.
3. Julio Teheran: It is amazing that Teheran's 160-pound body is able to generate the type of velocity that has scouts everywhere drooling. His youth and inconsistent delivery have me worried about his long-term health, but his initial stats, promising repertoire and unbridled heat have been turning heads.
4. Mike Minor: Minor's best attribute is his overall repertoire, with his change-up being his best pitch at this time. Minor certainly doesn't blow people away, but he was a safe pick in the first round of the 2009 draft. If either his curveball or slider can take the next step, he could become an under-the-radar No. 2 starter when he hits the majors.
5. Randall Delgado: Atlanta broke character with Delgado in 2009 by aggressively allowing him to pitch a full season in the Sally League at the tender age of 19. He has strong velocity now, and the ability to add more, potentially making his fastball a plus offering. As a project, though, his secondary stuff has a long way to go.
6. Zeke Spruill: Spruill doesn't have the fastball to be an ace, but his curveball has the look of a plus pitch at times. Youth and advanced control are on his side, and a No. 2 starter could be in the works.
7. Craig Kimbrel: A lively mid-90s fastball is Kimbrel's best asset. His control took a step forward in 2009, backing up his closer pedigree. He could immediately become one of Atlanta's top relievers as early as 2010.
8. Christian Bethancourt: Bethancourt has the defensive prowess to be a Gold Glover behind the plate one day. His bat is a long way off of that pace, however. He showed flashes of his power potential in his brief 2009 rookie league performance, but little else bat-wise.
9. Brett DeVall: Devall has No. 2 starter potential in his left arm. His fastball and change-up project as average offerings, but it's his curveball that could become special. Concerns about his injured elbow downgrade him slightly.
10. Cody Johnson: It's hard to find better raw power anywhere in minor league baseball. It's also hard to find a more hole-ridden swing than Johnson's. He's the biggest boom-or-bust player in Atlanta's system.

Posted by Matt Hagen at 6:30am (9) Comments

Friday, December 18, 2009

Waiver Wire Offseason: NL

We continue with the mini-browser from Graphical Player 2010 to give you excellent insight into each of the players below. Rob McQuown (my AL Waiver Wire counterpart) and I are Associate Editors under John Burnson for this year's GP. Check out the end of the column for info on downloading a free sample or ordering the book for yourself.

Alcides Escobar | Milwaukee | SS
2009 Final Stats: .304/.333/.368

The Brewers have been waiting for the right time to bring the speedy Escobar up to the bigs, and they found that opportunity when J.J. Hardy plunged from .283/.343/.478 in 2008 to .229/.302/.357 this past season. Enter Escobar, and exit Hardy, first to Triple-A, then to the Twinkies in the offseason.

This move was coming eventually; Hardy's rapid decline only accelerated the timetable and reduced the potential return on the trade for Milwaukee (though the Crew helped pump up his value by demoting Hardy in time to delay his free agency for another year). Milwaukee's had its eye on Escobar ever since signing the speedy, slick-fielding Venezuelan in 2003. As desperate as the Brewers have been for pitching, they consistently refused to give up Esco in a trade, no matter how sweet the return.

Escobar's not a five-tool player, but he is a solid four-tooler—power's the only missing part of the package, but when the other tools are this good, why quibble? On top of slick defense, he brings blazing speed and excellent contact skills. In the minors, he racked up 176 swipes in six seasons, with both his frequency and selectivity increasing as he rose in the ranks—in the past two seasons at Double-A and Triple-A, he stole 76 bags and was caught just 18 times.

His .84 contact rate in the minors has stayed remarkably steady, while his plate discipline (.34 BB/K overall) has risen as Escobar has—after a .38 BB/K in 2008 Double-A, he logged a .49 in 2009 Triple-A. Both—plus his speed—are excellent indicators that the .300+ BA he logged in 134 PAs this year is for real; the OBP will always be a bit low with his plate judgment, but it should improve from .333 once he adjusts to this level. The .273/.307 BA/OBP you see predicted on his mini-browser seems fair; if anything, he should exceed that.

With Hardy now totally out of the way, the path is clear for Escobar to prove himself. He didn't hit much leadoff this season, but that's clearly where he should be in the lineup, assuming he can boost that OBP into the .350 range. Rickie Weeks has been the leadoff hitter in the past, and he might start at the No. 1 spot in 2010, but he's always lacked the OBP skills to lead off; hitting him second behind Esco will be the most likely solution and will give the Brewers a fantastic 1-2 punch in front of their big boppers.

Once Esco does ascend to leadoff, his speed and those big bats behind him will bring plenty of runs. In the meantime, you can count on those SBs—he didn't run too much this time around, and he may take a while to really cut loose on the basepaths. Speed is a skill that's instantly available, but the knowledge of opposing pitchers' moves and catchers' arms may take a little longer. The 10 SBs you see predicted on his mini-browser seem low, but they reflect these rookie handicaps, as well as his likely position lower in the lineup.

All this makes Escobar an excellent keeper candidate, but other owners may have to be patient. I'm targeting 2011 as the first season that he really comes into his own and starts to show his talent, so don't be surprised to see him struggle a bit at the plate at first. How Ken Macha elects to use him in the batting order and on the basepaths will affect that somewhat, but the kid's for real, and he won't hold him back for long.

As rare a commodity as speed can be, don't be tempted to go the extra dollar on Escobar this year in your redraft league. He's a much better bet to return your investment in 2011.

Ian Stewart | Colorado | 3B
2009 Final Stats: .228/.322/.464

There was some question as to whom the Rockies wanted at the hot corner in 2010, and they answered that this week when they non-tendered Garret Atkins, leaving the door wide open for Ian Stewart, their first-round pick in 2003.

Stewart has been a masher at every level, hitting .293/.374/.524 in the minors, including a 41-double season as a 21-year-old at Double-A Tulsa in 2006 and a .280/.372/.607 line in the rarefied air of Triple-A Colorado Springs in 2008. That shows you the kind of hitter he could become, but it does make some aspects of 2009 a bit of a head-scratcher.

For one thing, Stewart whiffed 138 times, an awful 28.1% of all his PAs, a far cry from the 20% he averaged in the minors. Surprisingly, however, that's an improvement over his last two years of MLB stats; he struck out 37% of the time in 2007 (in just 46 PAs) and 31% in 2008. And while his BB/K ratio of .41 is also distressing, it's also better than 2008's .32 and 2007's .06 (no, that's not a typo—1 BB and 17 Ks in 46 PAs).

Unsurprisingly, this led to a .68 contact rate that was still better than the .65 he put up in 2008. Both are far below the .76 he established in the minors, but even that's a tad low. True to form, his mini-browser shows you shouldn't expect BA from him; .254 feels just about right for Stewart.

This is a guy who's going to swing and miss, but when he makes contact, it should go a long way. And Stewart performs no matter the venue. He hit better away from home than he did at Coors in 2009, though the .237/.301 home/away BABIP split has a bit to do with that.

For the doubters who point to the offensive boost he got from playing at Colorado Springs, his .52 BB/K and .74 contact rate there in 2008 had nothing to do with the thin air at home. In another reversal of expectations, he slugged .573 at Colorado Springs in 2008—and .611 away from it.

So don't listen to those who say that he's a Coors product, or that he's going to keep that breeze going into the Rockpile with even more Ks next year. Stewart's just 24 years old and has shown improvement at each level in the minors and majors. Don't expect him to help your batting average, but he shouldn't continue to hit in the low .200s as he develops; leagues that count OBP will also like how he helps them as his walk rate (another area where he's shown steady improvement) continues to climb. Stewart also hasn't played a full season in the majors, and knowing that the job is his for the taking should help his confidence and consistency.

The mini-browser tells you everything you need to know: third basemen with an. 800+ OPS and the ability to score and knock in nearly 80 runs don't grow on trees. Depending on your league, he might even qualify at 2B in 2010, where his value would really skyrocket. Just remember his BA when you're bidding—he's not the next coming of Chipper Jones, but on a good day, you might mistake him for Vinny Castilla.

Madison Bumgarner | San Francisco | SP
2009 Final Stats: 9.0 K/9, 3.3 K/BB, 1.80 ERA

Before you get too freaky over those freshman MLB stats, realize that they represent just 10 IP of work—but the fact is, Bumgarner is this good and more. The mini-browser shows you his minor-league stats in 2009; he started his career as the Sally League Pitcher of the Year in 2008, with a 10.4 K/9, 7.8 K/BB, and a 1.46 ERA in 141.2 IP.

That's right: he's put up those numbers in only his second year in the league—the kid's just 19, and he's got tools. He's a tall lefty who chucks a fastball in the mid-90s with late movement, complementing it with a sweet changeup in the low 80s and a still-developing slider. I have yet to read a scouting report that says anything bad about him: He's got a great attitude, he's eager to learn, and shows tons of poise on the mound.

The tangibles and intangibles all line up for Bumgarner, but let's not forget that what may be his greatest upside is definitely his greatest downside. The kid's just 19, and has less than 300 professional innings under his belt. The Giants don't want to rush him, and have two guys named Lincecum and Cain who are happily installed at the top of their rotation. If they need anything next year, it's more offense, not young pitching.

That doesn't mean Bumgarner won't be in the bigs, and maybe in the rotation, by the end of 2010. With a great spring training and injuries to guys ahead of him, he might even start the season with the club. I'm betting, however, that he starts the season in the minors so he can work on his craft a bit more. Giants fans would like to see him ASAP, but discretion should prove to be the better part of valor here.

All these explain the pessimistic mini-browser numbers you see for 2010. He's going to rack up Ks at a good rate, but should be expected to struggle and adjust, and shouldn't be pitching a full season with the big boys. He's unlikely to return much value as a result—one of the great things about GP's mini-browser is the reality check it delivers on future talent like Bumgarner: He should be really, really good. Just not yet.

Redraft leagues will want to monitor Bumgarner through spring training and into the season, depending on where he starts the year. Keeper leagues better have him on their radars (if not their rosters) already; depending on your league's depth and keeper rules, as well as your own strategy, however, he might not even be worth a spot in 2010.

This is the guy that should supplant Cain, if not Lincecum, atop the pitching rotation, but that won't happen until 2011 at the earliest. He's an incredible talent, but there's lots that can still go wrong in a guy this young.

Next week, it's an OF fest, with Dexter Fowler, Jordan Schafer and Andrew McCutchen, as well as some of the talent tossed around in the recent trade market.

Want to see someone else? Leave your suggestions in the comments below.

And don't forget you can still download a 16-page sample of Graphical Player 2010 or order the book directly from ACTA Sports.

Posted by Michael Street at 2:00am (9) Comments

This is Page 2 of 3 THT Fantasy Focus pages < 1 2 3 >

Now available

Search THT:

THT E-book

Friday, December 11, 2009

Waiver Wire Offseason: NL

Waiver Wire Offseason: AL

Monday, December 14, 2009

Clone Wars: Joel Pineiro and Brandon Webb

Late bloomers or one-hit wonders?

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Starting opposing pitchers (Part 1)

The mathematics

Back to fantasy

Random thoughts on one-trick ponies, tradeability, and ‘value’

Drafting to trade

Value is dynamic

The tradeability of different players

Concluding thoughts

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Player Profile: Adam Jones

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Drafting to trade

Top 10 prospects for 2010: Philadelphia Phillies and Atlanta Braves

Philadelphia Phillies

Atlanta Braves

Friday, December 18, 2009

Waiver Wire Offseason: NL