Mastersball Fantasy Forum

I'm doing the first major scrub of the playing time for the next update. After discussing with JP, I will list the impacted players here. We can also track the new additions in this thread.

I've gone through Todd's list of players. There were 62 of them. Some were bug fixes. Michael Cuddyer was short changed because of 2008 when he was injured. He should play everyday like he did in 2009. Some were role changes caused by new signings. If CoCo Crisp signs with Oakland, the other outfielders need to give up some playing time.

There are three that are interesting questions and publicly discussing them I think will be a useful exercise. While there is science behind figuring the skills portion of the projection, trying to figuring out playing time is an art form.

Normally we talk about plate appearances instead of at-bats, but at-bats are more predominantly featured when you look at a players statistics. We are going to assume that projected walk rates will stay the same for the purposes of this discussion. For the Zen Engine, I designed a series of tools to help determine playing time based upon what we know like spot in the batting order. I will save that for the future. So here we go...

Jacoby Ellsbury (2009: 624, 1st Projection: 640, Scrub: 619)
I am of the opinion that his playing time has not peaked yet. He received 624 at-bats last year, but 102 of them were sixth or lower in the batting order. He has no history of injuries. As a left-handed batter, he shows no sign of a platoon split. He will not sit on the bench when facing a good left-handed pitcher. I believe that he is going to lead-off nearly everyday. If he starts in 153 games like he did last year and leads off all the time, he should get about 20 more at-bats than he did last year. Therefore, I went with 640 at-bats.

Victor Martinez (2009: 588, 1st Projection 524, Scrub: 584)
Martinez is an interesting case. As a catcher, he is not going to start every day. He will need to have the Sunday day game after a Saturday night game off. With the Indians, he would DH or play first base on those days. With Boston, there isn't a spot for him to do that. You have Youkilis, Lowell, Kotchman and Ortiz all wanting playing time. You also have a veteran #2 catcher in Varitek. Because of that, I believe he will take a hit in playing time. Unless Lowell goes on the DL or is traded, I can't say he'll play as often as he has in the past. He'll play most of the time.

Alexei Ramirez (2009: 542, 1st Projection 518, Scrub: 545)
The signing of Vizquel hurts Ramirez. Guillen is a former shortstop and knows the value of defense. I see Vizquel coming in regularly as a defensive replacement and getting some starts. That will cut into Ramirez's playing time.

Comments?

Interesting questions. On Ellsbury, I would tend to agree with you that his AB will trend up slightly in 2010. With Martinez,
I'm on the fence regarding his playing time. Even if Lowell is "healthy", he's going to require more days off than the normal
player. I also think that after he recovers from the thumb surgery (supposedly 6-8 weeks), he might still be traded before
the end of ST. Whether Boston goes out to get a 3B or a 1B via trade or FA signing in case of a Lowell trade is unclear,
as is whether they would then go with Kotchman as their 1B. Right now, I'd go somewhere between the 524 and the 584,
which sounds like a cop-out. I tend to disagree regarding Ramirez. I think that he will be used sometimes to replace
Ramirez, but other times I could see him replacing Beckham late in the game, as well as replacing Teahen, who is not a
great fielding 3B. It might have some effect on Ramirez, but I don't see it as being a major effect.

The one thing that I noticed on the last set of projections is that when Josh Anderson was released by the Royals, there
wasn't a corresponding increase in playing time for other Royals OF, whether it was Maier, Bloomquist, some other player
that at first glance isn't obvious or maybe even Josh Fields being used in the OF. Maybe the thinking is that the Royals are
still going to get another OF via free agency, hopefully a CF type since both Maier and DeJesus aren't really capable CF.

aburt19 wrote: The one thing that I noticed on the last set of projections is that when Josh Anderson was released by the Royals, there
wasn't a corresponding increase in playing time for other Royals OF, whether it was Maier, Bloomquist, some other player
that at first glance isn't obvious or maybe even Josh Fields being used in the OF. Maybe the thinking is that the Royals are
still going to get another OF via free agency, hopefully a CF type since both Maier and DeJesus aren't really capable CF.

This is being looked at but our policy at this point of the season is not to worry as much about global accuracy for each team but do what we think will happen. At some point, we will have to bend if the team does not make a move in that area. The example from last season that sticks in my head is Russell Branyan. All spring, the Mariners were saying the job was his but I was obstinate about giving him full time at bats, even though there was not a viable replacement. So not many MBers enjoyed his stellar first half.

Looking at the Royals, if we give Maier 400 AB, his value may be double digits in an Al only league and someone may make an offseason trade to acquire a $5 or $10 Maier (a typical salary if acquired via FAAB or waivers) based on that projection. Neither JP nor I feel Maier will get 400 AB so we are uncomfortable giving him that many just to make the KC outfield have the requisite 2200 plate appearances.

FWIW, with the next update on or about New Year's Day, there will be a review per team with respect to playing time issues.

I agree with Todd. We don't want to give someone playing we know they are not going to get just so that the team's projections look right. At this point, we want to get individual players correct and the holes will fill themselves in.

JP

And if one needs any reminders about how difficult a task this can be, and how inexact a science it is (coincidentally, it involves the Royals OF) - they signed Brian Anderson to a one year major league deal today. A MAJOR league deal - in Kansas City. Competition for his services on the free agent market was so great the Royals couldn't afford to give him a minor league deal and an invite to spring training? Now - should this affect playing time estimates? In the real world ... no, not really. But, when you do things like this, it's apparent that the Royals don't necessarily adhere to the same beliefs.

da_big_kid_94 wrote:And if one needs any reminders about how difficult a task this can be, and how inexact a science it is (coincidentally, it involves the Royals OF) - they signed Brian Anderson to a one year major league deal today. A MAJOR league deal - in Kansas City. Competition for his services on the free agent market was so great the Royals couldn't afford to give him a minor league deal and an invite to spring training? Now - should this affect playing time estimates? In the real world ... no, not really. But, when you do things like this, it's apparent that the Royals don't necessarily adhere to the same beliefs.

I agree that it wasn't a good idea to sign him. Sadly, there are two other things to consider. First, he probably is as good
as Mitch Maier (not that it's saying much). Second, no player wants to come to Kansas City for market value. If it's a choice
between a minor league contract with the Royals or say the Twins (insert almost any name other than Pittsburgh or some
other team, if any, that is as bad as the Royals) and the Royals lose the player. The only way that most players will come
to Kansas City is if they overpay for them. That's what happens when the team stinks. That is part of reason that the
Royals overpaid for Jose Guillen at 3 years for $12 million a season.

I prefer to stick with fantasy stuff (got into too many flame-wars in my youth, here and elsewhere) but it is not exactly like he is breaking the bank with a $700,000 plus incentive MLB deal.

FWIW, here are the other changes so far (old new)

Atkins, Garrett 278 598
Barmes, Clint 554 532
Bautista, Jose 367 397
Beltre, Adrian 365 502
Blum, Geoff 350 311
Bourn, Michael 623 596
Bowker, John 298 167
Bradley, Milton 331 401
Brantley, Michael 318 456
Braun, Ryan 607 627
Cameron, Mike 367 519
Choo, Shin-Soo 504 581
Church, Ryan 474 333
Coghlan, Chris 638 557
Crawford, Carl 639 570
Crisp, Coco 316 443
Cruz, Nelson 441 476
Cuddyer, Michael 457 595
Cust, Jack 536 312
Davis, Rajai 571 446
Drew, Stephen 558 579
Everett, Adam 493 452
Fox, Jake 507 412
Freese, David 481 318
Garko, Ryan 429 221
Giles, Brian 221 0
Hairston, Scott 514 376
Hermida, Jeremy 175 267
Ibanez, Raul 602 569
Inge, Brandon 479 547
Jacobs, Mike 446 439
Johnson, Nick 242 444
Konerko, Paul 557 531
LaRoche, Adam 406 559
Lowell, Mike 472 331
Ludwick, Ryan 540 498
Matsui, Kazuo 428 471
Maxwell, Justin 228 117
Michaels, Jason 212 131
Molina, Yadier 439 467
Morgan, Nyjer 590 567
Olivo, Miguel 162 376
Patterson, Corey 229 0
Posada, Jorge 365 409
Pujols, Albert 543 571
Rasmus, Colby 607 576
Roberts, Brian 646 623
Rolen, Scott 397 441
Ross, Dave 175 119
Ryan, Brendan 501 343
Salazar, Oscar 235 154
Scutaro, Marco 544 524
Sizemore, Scott 351 467
Stavinoha, Nick 236 119
Sweeney, Ryan 566 468
Thole, Josh 233 102
Upton, Justin 517 551
Young, Chris 476 562
Zobrist, Ben 488 543

Why do you see Crawford losing 70 ab's? Did I miss something?

-W

It's not that he is losing 70 AB as much as it is we gave him 70 too many in the first run, though he may be one of the players we post a poll about as there is some question as to how many at bats he should receive. Last season he had 606, after seasons of 584 and 443. Also keep in mind his patience has improved so his plate appearances might be more than perceived.

Looking at it again, 570 might be low, perhaps 590 might be better as the 443 might be affecting the judgment too much. He's not a no-brainer 600+ guy, but if you pay for 590 or fewer, you very well may earn some profit.

Not a big deal because well, it's January 1st. But it looks like the signing of Mike Gonzalez by the Orioles didn't get in the
projections. I would think that he might take over as closer from Jim Johnson.

I noticed that myself about an hour ago as I was updating a slow draft I am doing using the latest projections.

I KNOW I made the adjustment. I must not have saved it or something.

I am now wrapping up a valuation methodology essay. We still need to roll out the CVRC with the latest projections over the weekend. My plan was to include the Gonzalez fix with that and re-run the standard pitching values at that time, probably Sunday.

If it gets done on the CVRC, I'm fine with that. My league is a ten team AL only so that projected dollar values already out
aren't as meaningful to me, although the projections certainly are.

Thanks.