Mastersball Fantasy Forum

Can you tell me how you calculate OBP and SLG. Am I missing something with HBP and sacrifices? I cannot get your numbers to match up exactly (like I can with BA).

I tried:
SLG = TB/AB
OBP = (H+BB)/(AB+BB) -- I can see where HBP would affect this calc, but the OBPs I am getting are already higher than what is given in the projection.

These two are only off a little bit from player to player. However, when combining the values to calculate OPS the errors (obviously) compound. I have seen as much as 0.036 in error (Ross Gload is at 0.615, but calculating using the actual projections yields 0.651).

Thanks

Kelly_Leak wrote:Can you tell me how you calculate OBP and SLG. Am I missing something with HBP and sacrifices? I cannot get your numbers to match up exactly (like I can with BA).

I tried:
SLG = TB/AB
OBP = (H+BB)/(AB+BB) -- I can see where HBP would affect this calc, but the OBPs I am getting are already higher than what is given in the projection.

These two are only off a little bit from player to player. However, when combining the values to calculate OPS the errors (obviously) compound. I have seen as much as 0.036 in error (Ross Gload is at 0.615, but calculating using the actual projections yields 0.651).

Thanks

It has to do with rounding, something I should have had the foresight to correct.

We base everything off of Plate Appearances. That is, plate appearances is the WHOLE NUMBER. The player's walk rate then determines that AB so the at bat is really a decimal, as are all the stats. We display them as rounded off whole numbers.

We calculate BA/OBP/SLP in the main projection engine, then I c/p it into the templates we post. You are calculating using the rounded off whole numbers.

What I should do, and will do going forward is set up a template to determine the rate stats from the whole numbers, to eliminate this confusion. We switched to a different engine and somewhat embarrassingly, it never struck me to fix this.

But Kelly does bring up a good point for those in OBP leagues. We use strictly BB in the OBP calculation. There are definitely some batters with a higher penchant of getting hit, increasing their OBP. You can account for this by adding in some extra BB if you want.

Hello all,
First off I'd like to say great site! Loads of information and knowledgeable people here and it has been a pleasure to read through the articles and forums.

Now, at the risk of asking a potentially dumb question with my first post... Will there be projections available for high profile prospects such as Jason Heyward and Aroldis Chapman? I've noticed that to date there hasn't been any projections for these two players in particular and I expect them to definitely get some playing time this season. I apologize if this has been answered somewhere else on the site but I've taken a look around and couldn't find anything.

Thanks.

There is now pretty solid evidence that Heyward will be with the Braves, if not break camp as their starting RF so he will be added to the set for March 4. We can use his minor league numbers as a foundation and do our own translation. We may be a bit conservative on playing time and adjust as the spring progresses, but if one uses the CVRC, they can prorate the numbers anyway they desire and get a value/ranking accordingly.

Chapman is a bit different in that we honestly have no clue as to how he will perform, similar to Strasburg. We will find whatever stats we can, which as some know is difficult for Cuban imports and translate them as best we can, but in reality, we have no idea how the player will perform.

Thanks Todd

Where's Jason Heyward? I thought he was getting added.

An initial glance of the total players projected shows a decrease of about 25 hitters and 25 pitchers. Was much of the discussion over the past weekend about dropping certain players. Chris Shelton initially sticks out as he was always the last valued player when I ran the CVRC.

He should have been, I will check the file.

Almost all of the eliminated players were free agents. We left some on, the ones whose names are still being mentioned.

There were a few players on teams we took off as their team signed other players. Sometimes signing one player leads to dropping of two, depending on the situation.

I don't have the master file with me, I know Heyward was added, I will get the corrected file to JP this evening.

I'm at a loss because JP and I talked about how many AB to give him. My guess is I did not change the team designation to ATL and he got deleted out.

The projection was actually pretty optimistic and our engine usually is conservative with rookies. His MLEs mus thave translated very well.

Todd Zola wrote:I'm at a loss because JP and I talked about how many AB to give him. My guess is I did not change the team designation to ATL and he got deleted out.

The projection was actually pretty optimistic and our engine usually is conservative with rookies. His MLEs mus thave translated very well.

No problem. Looking forward to seeing the projection for Heyward.

Two additional minor fixes.
1. Garret Anderson - signing was probably too late for this update.
2. Chien-Ming Wang's league is still blank. Needs to be updated "N".

Kelly_Leak wrote:
Two additional minor fixes.
1. Garret Anderson - signing was probably too late for this update.
2. Chien-Ming Wang's league is still blank. Needs to be updated "N".

1. Not anymore it's not
2. Gracias

the projections have a MIX15 player value. I assume this was determined using CVRC. What were the parameters used? Specifically the hitting percentage, category weights, BA and number required at various positions. Thanks

Same as we have done since Dec.

2 pools, C and non-C

hitting .69

weights as they are defaulted on the CVRC

Is there an issue with the numbers? If so, can you be specific?

no issues at all. I saw that the eligibility issues were corrected. And that Coste was missing - not being in the majors probably impacts your value.

I'm curious how the defaults batting average was identified. I'm more of a .275 guy but my guess is that it won't sway the results by much if any. Thinking in terms of tiers makes my previous efforts for precision seem like a waste of time.

Knowing how values are determined helps so much.

The default is explained amidst the supporting CVRC primer -- it is a strictly empirical formula used to estimate the last place team. It comes from the data of the player pool for each league. It has no basis in logic other than it gets the number close enough.

Changing to .275 will make a big difference. I have the BA conversion at several baselines and prefer that of the last place team.

I need to check out the BA differences.

How are the default ERA & WHIP determined? Is it last place team or something different?

All are estimates of the last place team

Garret Anderson to the Dodgers. Projected ABs tumble.

One question and one comment on the March 25th projections.

Garrett Atkins lost AB and Ty Wigginton gained AB. Is this based on comments by Orioles management or not?

Alberto Callaspo AB are too low. Rotoworld had a comment from the Royals manager in the last couple of days where he
said that he was going to try to use Callaspo in the #3 spot in the lineup because his was too important to hit sixth or
seventh in the lineup. I don't know where and at whose expense he will get the AB, but whether it's at 3B, DH or 2B, he
will play more than the 273 AB that is in the projection. You don't bat someone third in the lineup this late in ST that you
don't expect to play regularly. I'd be surprised if he doesn't get at least 400 AB and it wouldn't surprise me if it's more.

aburt19 wrote:One question and one comment on the March 25th projections.

Garrett Atkins lost AB and Ty Wigginton gained AB. Is this based on comments by Orioles management or not?

Alberto Callaspo AB are too low. Rotoworld had a comment from the Royals manager in the last couple of days where he
said that he was going to try to use Callaspo in the #3 spot in the lineup because his was too important to hit sixth or
seventh in the lineup. I don't know where and at whose expense he will get the AB, but whether it's at 3B, DH or 2B, he
will play more than the 273 AB that is in the projection. You don't bat someone third in the lineup this late in ST that you
don't expect to play regularly. I'd be surprised if he doesn't get at least 400 AB and it wouldn't surprise me if it's more.

re: Atkins -- this was simply a site decision based on what we see, nothing more

re: Callaspo -- my read is that he is filling in for Gordon and once Gordon is back, he goes back to the bench. Getz is going to play 2B and Gordon is going to play 3B when healthy. It would not surprise me at all if they got rid of Guillen and opened up at bats as DH (maybe putting Butler there and Gordon at 1B), but we cannot "PROJECT" that. So the at bats given to Callaspo reflect what we expect him to get when playing for Gordon plus the added as the fill in sub. I don't happen to agree with the sentiment that because he is being tried in teh 3-hole, he is therefore an automatic starter the rest of the season. I think Hillman is looking at the best set up of the available hitters. It isn't even a guarantee Callaspo opens the season batting 3rd. Though it is likely.

We have said all along we encourage people to season the projections with their own opinion of playing time.

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/24/18 ... oster.html

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd ... Id=rss_mlb

In the pitcher's CVRC, there is a Texas pitcher named #N/A. He appears to be a decnt MR. Is he a rookie or what? He was also in the 3/18 CVRC so I guess he hasn't been sent down yet.

Darren O'Day

thought I fixed that --

I'll cleanup the file(s)

This may have been brought up in another thread. You increased the innings for C.J. Wilson to show that he is a starter,
but left him with 11 saves.

aburt19 wrote:This may have been brought up in another thread. You increased the innings for C.J. Wilson to show that he is a starter,
but left him with 11 saves.

Meant to shift those to Neftali Feliz, thanks

Are you posting an updated Pitcher Projection file or should I just simply subtract the 11 saves from Wilson and give them to Feliz? Just wanted to confirm that all 11 saves were being deducted from Wilson and given all to Feliz.

I don't have FTP until later, but that is the correction, yes.

I have concerns that Francisco can make it full a season healthy.

Where do I access the projections on the site

You need to be logged into the front page with your username and p/w. Then all you need to do is click on the same menu tab you used to subscribe for either the Gold or Platinum Plan. Once you are there, it is evident where everything is.

I was curious about Mike Sweeney not having a projection. He's probably not going to play a ton, so it might not make
much difference. I had heard he was going to make the team.

aburt19 wrote:I was curious about Mike Sweeney not having a projection. He's probably not going to play a ton, so it might not make
much difference. I had heard he was going to make the team.

Dang it, I got so wrapped up in thinking about Garko in Texas I didn't do the associated fix in Seattle. We'll give him 100AB give or take, and considering he likely won't ever have anything more than DH/UT eligibility, he's only relevant in the deepest of leagues.

The Seattle infield is sort of a mess with no real backups to speak of with Hannahan hurt. Josh Wilson, Carp, Tuiasosopo...hard to say who sticks.

In the 4/1 hitters file, the Mix12 and Mix15 columns in the main hitters sheet have identical data (looks like both have Mix12). Guess I can copy/paste from the Mix15 sheet, but probably better to correct it so folks aren't misled.

thanks, will get correct file up in the morning

Just when you think that the projections might be settling down a little, it's being reported that the A's are going to
designate Jack Cust for assignment and keep both T. Buck and J. Fox.

Fortunately, I only have Cust on three of my five teams. Wait, did I say fortunately? I cannot believe he won't get a job but stranger things have happened.

I have him in both my NFBC leagues but I also have players to fill-in so I can wait a bit there. I also have him in a no-bench AL-only league. The good and bad news is that our first FAAB period will be April 11. There I have a week to let things settle.