Leveraging Mastersball Projections

[blue]

To All:

Any advice would be appreciated on how I can use Mastersball projections to my advantage on draft day:

Over time at least 11 members of the 14 owners in our 20 year league (14 TM, NL only, 5 x 5, 10% inflation) now use the projections numbers from BaseballHQ on auction day as well as to construct and judge trades during the season. As one might guess this has had an effect on prices and decisions. This year I expect to use the Mastersball projections as my primary tool. My request to all is generally to tell me where are my opportunities and potential pitfalls lie. Are there classes of players or particular categories where I can obtain value? I've traditionally spent at least $185 to $195 on offense and as one might gather constructing a pitching staff on the cheap has been a challenge.

Steve

[Todd Zola]

This is a topic JP and I have bandied about.

While we cannot come right out, either here in the forum or even in the Platinum content and list the player we differ on, etc., we can do a couple of things.

1. We can suggest ways for non Baseball HQ users, or any other source/site for that matter, to learn a little about how they feel on some players.

2. We can talk in general how to playoff the owners using similar info against each other assuming you also have access to that info.

With respect to the first, by checking out industry mocks, usually in magazines etc, you can often glean how a particular person or site feels about a player or even strategy.

With regards to the second, anticipate some site content forthcoming. We are planning on having a site podcast, this would make for a great topic - how we each go about drafting/auctioning knowing the tendencies of our competitors.

I just did a mock draft for a Fanball magazine where the majority of the participants were on their staff and it was quite apparent early on they all had the same draft list in front of them. Just by the chat comments, I was able to pick up tells, not unlike poker, and use that to my advantage.

So trust me, this is a topic we have already planned on covering.

But please, do not let anyone reading this from commenting. We absolutely encourage it -- it is YOUR forum.

As Gary has mentioned and I agree 100%, the majority of what we research and write about comes from discussions in the forums.

[ivoryjoe1]

I recommend the following strategy:

No starters before Round 7; No relievers before Round 9.
Make sure the starters you select meet three or more of the following criteria:
A strikeout rate of at least .67 per nine innings
A strikeout:walks ratio of at least 2:1
HR's/9 innings of 1 or less
3 or fewer walks allowed per nine innings
Ground ball/Fly ball ratio of 1.2 or higher
Batting average against of .270 or below
It obviously becomes more difficult finding quality arms as you go deeper into your draft, so research and preparation are key. Some late round pitchers worth targeting would include Brett Anderson (although he's rapidly becoming a late middle round choice in most drafts), Jorge de la Rosa, Jonathan Sanchez, Kevin Correia and Randy Wells.

[Todd Zola]

I recommend the following strategy:

No starters before Round 7; No relievers before Round 9.

Personally, I don't agree with this line of thinking. Hang with me, I am guessing we are actually on the same page...

First off, round 7 in a 12-team league and round 7 in a 15-team league are two different entities.

Instead of pre-determining a round, I much prefer to pre-determine a tier I want to take my pitching from and I will take my pitching when that tier appears to be going.

Where we likely agree is "my tier" will generally not be drafted until round 7 or so.

But occasionally, you find yourself in with an odd group of drafters.

If they are all over pitching and the guys you want are beginning to be drafted in round5 or 6, you need to jump in.

On the other hand, sometimes, and actually this is the more likely scenario, there are still BETTER pitchers available in rounds 7 or 8. That is, the majority of your tier is on the board. Why not wait until round 10, continuing to stock hitting while still getting "your guys" to pitch? A common reaction is to say to yourself "cool, it is round 7 and I can get a BETTER pitcher than I expected." It may not be intuitive and it is difficult to verbalize, but this is not the best thinking.

Now, with respect to filters, nothing wrong with doing that. You can use those to help set the tiers. Just remember in a draft, all it takes is one other person to like De La Rosa or whoever. If you have a wheel pick or close to the wheel, you may have to hope 20-something picks are not the guy you want.

[blue]

Thank you for all responses so far-

Todd,

I understand that you can't focus on particular players. I'm just as interested however in categories and methodologies. I've often seen you comment that you believe that other projection systems undervalue speed for instance and I've noted in the past that your values on speedsters are higher than others. I've also noticed in the past that your numbers on the top starters are often less than others. How can I use these "facts" (assuming they are facts) in a league that often sees speedsters as "one category guys" and where the best starters (as well as the famous ones) go for a premium?

Another general question: In the proverbial tussle between stars/scrubs and spread the risk does your system push me one way or another (again knowing that almost everyone is using HQ and it is a very deep league)?

Finally, I note that responses seem to be phrased often in terms of draft rounds. Has the auction gone the way of the dinosaur? Drafts can be fun but I still prefer auctions.

Steve

[rotodog]

Actually, I think the original poster mentioned 10% inflation, so i will assume this an auction league as opposed to straight draft.

I have used both Mastersball and HQ over the years..Some years both at the same time. Sometimes I have used rotolab that have used HQ projections... I am not sure If you are still an HQ subscriber and a current MB subscriber, but here are a couple things I have done to thwart other HQers in my leagues...

I used rotolab in the past for auction drafting. They use HQ projections. One draft, 5-6 guys showed up using rotolab with similar dollar values. But I had mine tweaked. If you are still a HQ reader, then I would run valuations in there valuation engine. Most of the other league mates will be doing the same, so this will give you an idea of what others might be looking at to make there decisions....

I would then use mastersball projections to either run valuations or use the MB valuation tool to spit out valuations specific to your league. I would then compare them. I would highlight any real differences in value or projection between the two and try to figure out why...MB valuations may point you to opportunity to profit if there is a difference..May also point you toward players you might shy away from if HQ is more optimistic..

Every year HQ goes out on a limb for a few players and it shows up in the content and projections...Sometimes they hit, sometimes you're stuck with Mike Jacobs and Brad Fullmer...Just be aware of the players HQ is pimping online or in the little blurbs in the forecaster. Your opponents will all be reading these things and you can push players prices up, etc...

MB will undoubtedly be making there own calls on players and highlighting some opportunities that HQ may not be doing...Again, it presents a chance for profit if the opinion is a bit different than HQ ...

I have used MB valuations and HQ side by side on the same spreadsheet to see quickly when there are differences and bid accordingly on draft day..If inflation is typically around 10% make sure you incorporate this into your valuations because this will further help differentiate between the two dollar values ...

Good luck

[Todd Zola]

Again, we will have a lot of upcoming Platinum content dealing with draft and auction dynamics but in an effort to incite some discussion....

Code: Select all

I've often seen you comment that you believe that other projection systems undervalue speed

Yes they do and even though we have taken measures to soften our speed values, we are still higher than others -- by design because it is more reflective of the player's true value.

The danger is blindly using the value as a red light/green light entity and focusing too much on "value" and not overall team nature and balance.

Not only are we higher on Jacoby Ellsbury and Carl Crawford, we are also higher on Juan Pierre and Nyger Morgan as well as Rajai Davis and Daniel McCutchen.

The point is do not get 5 OF and a UT "under value" because their bidding stopped below what we have as the "value".

Instead, go into the auction knowing you will get your speed undervalue. You don't need all 6 obviously as this example was some hyperbole. But you will get WHAT YOU NEED undervalue. Thing is, so will everyone else.

So how to leverage this?

Avoid the guys like McCutchen and Morgan, the hot new properties. Everyone likes to look like a genius by nailing the rookie or the sleeper. I prefer nailing the championship. For years, everyone felt Crawford was overvalued. Wait until everyone sees where many are valuing Ellsbury -- he is going to be the poster boy of 'overvalued'. There is a target.

Code: Select all

I've also noticed in the past that your numbers on the top starters are often less than others.

This speaks to our projection model and I personally think this is an area Gary has contributed a ton to the site as this is his philosophy and after watching it in action for the past several years, in a global sense, his way has been right more than wrong. For Platinum members, Gary has written about this, but here is a Cliff note's version passing through the Zola filter.

More so than any other position, starting pitcher's numbers need to be regressed according to global tendencies of all pitchers, especially BABIP and HR/FB. I am not talking about K rate, BB rate, etc. The top pitchers have better K and BB rates, the poorer pitchers have poorer K and BB skills. I am talking about that out of the pitchers control. Regressing softens the "luck" effect.

So pitchers with a BABIP and/or HF/FB rate BETTER than league average have their numbers hurt a little. In contrast, those with BABIP and HR/FB below the league average have their projection AIDED by regression. FWIW, we do not regress 100%. We meet halfway between BABIP being total luck and it being in part under control of the pitcher.

Anyway...

Regression flattens the spread. The highs are not so high and the lows are not so low. This is reflected in the dollar values, but since the lowest value is $1 regardless, the effect is to lower the top end. Where this "works" and again really highlights what Gary has brought to the site is it emphasizes the inherent risk with pitching, not only in terms of injury but also in terms of good or bad fortune.

From a practical sense, MB users find the top tier high but the middle tiers consistent with other sources as one reason they are in the middle tier is they have metrics around league average, so regression hardly affects them. And again, the low tier is the same due to the convention of forcing value to be $1.

How to leverage this? Trust me, you'll know (King Felix) which guys (King Felix) at the high end (King Felix) we favor.

Code: Select all

Another general question: In the proverbial tussle between stars/scrubs and spread the risk does your system push me one way or another (again knowing that almost everyone is using HQ and it is a very deep league)?

No, our system plays it straight, but I can offer suggestions how to customize it to generate values to better reflect the way you want to go.

Code: Select all

Finally, I note that responses seem to be phrased often in terms of draft rounds. Has the auction gone the way of the dinosaur? Drafts can be fun but I still prefer auctions.

It's funny. It was not that long ago the request was that "I don't do auctions like everyone else, can you put that in terms of a draft?"

Auctions are alive and kicking. What has happened is the new entrants into the hobby are drafting. We are a growing industry, with the growth in the draft realm. That said, the NFBC has unveiled an auction championship.

And on a personal note, I do my best to talk in terms of both auctions and drafts in posted site content. But yeah, sometimes on the boards I slip too much into "draft mode" because at this time of year, it is all drafting - magazine mocks, site mocks, etc.

[blue]

Excellent information -

Todd,

Following up on the pitching discussion -

For the last two years I've adopted a top starter anchor strategy premised on the fact that a top starter, albeit at full value, was better than a 2nd tier at plus $5, a third tier at plus $8 or fourth tier at plus $10 (in our deep league relative prices seem to go up down the tier chains based upon scarcity). In my case $27 for my star (and $31 the year before) were better in my view than $18 for mere innings eaters. Unfortunately, my last year selected anchor was Brandon Webb and the year before was Jake Peavy. Last year, despite getting real value out of super cheap late buys Rafael Soriano, Latroy Hawkins, Kyle McClellan and Arthur Rhodes (in 14 team, NL only, all these guys get bought) I was toast at the beginning because losing Webb made competing in strikeouts and wins later nearly impossible (I limit the amount of my starter buys at auction generally because there is nothing I fear more than getting stuck with bad ones.)

My question: I'm now questioning the anchor system entirely because of its risk profile as well as noting that based upon your projections the anchors would probably be over priced. What to replace it with then? I still want to spend $65 to $70 and coming out of the auction be potentially strong on at least 3 of the 5 pitching categories.

Todd, how would you spend your $65 to $70 pitching dollars? There is active trading in this league but as you can imagine in a 14 team league not all that much passes through the free agent pool. We all have our own minor league rosters so the top anticipated call ups will be spoken for. (The good news for me is that I will have the rights to Strasbourg.)

Steve

BTW: I was a multi year subscriber to MB in the old days and am glad you are back. I will be rejoining shortly!

[Todd Zola]

The answer somewhat depends on on how many pitchers are rostered and if you have free movement from active to reserve so you can take advantage of bacj end guys from SD and SF that pitch against weak teams at home, stuff like that.

I am going to assume 9 pitchers, giving 126 drafted. The NL only leagues I play in are 13 teams with 10 drafted, 130 total so the staff makeup is similar.

I would set up my auction budget something like

18, 17, 10, 8, 5, 5, 5, 1, 1

That's 70, splitting the difference between 65 and 75. If you need that 5, you take it away from a hitting spot as necessary. If you love what you have on the cheap, you push 5 to hitting.

I would look at the top 2 spots from the angle of "35 on my top starter and a closer".

In a predominantly BBHQ league, closers will go cheap but decent middle relievers will go higher so the way to leverage that is to get yourself a Francisco Cordero, Heath Bell, Brian Wilson, Chad Qualls, etc. A guy with the job that is not top tier like Broxton but not with some type of wart like health with Wagner. You should be able to get one for mid to high teens.

Then your top line starter is someone like Oswalt, Gallardo, Nolasco, Wandy Rodriguez.

I then go with the flow, focusing on pitchers in favorable pitching parks if I have a reserve. I love guys like Correia, Matos, Sanchez, Clayton.

I like having some decent middle relievers, but so do BBHQ users so what I might do instead is draft a ton of starting pitchers in the auction and get a bunch of relievers in reserve with the hope I hit a bullseye on a pitcher or two, but have the coverage on my reserve list to backfill the guys that don't work out.

Can this work?

Think about how much this staff would have cost LAST season...

Vazquez, Jurrjens, Kawakami, Correia, Schmidt, B Wilson, Putz, Corpas, Villanueva, Kinney

In season, I FAABed Troncoso, Mujica, Clippard, Stauffer, Burke and Difilice.

This motley crew won me $8100 in the NL-only NFBC auction league.

[blue]

Good stuff!

Each team has 9 or 10 pitchers on their active roster (by the end of the year after the hitting pool is denuded most have 10). We do not have reserve rosters so if you have a turkey you have to go get a replacement out of the pool which includes only really awful 5th starters on really bad teams or "won't pitch much" relievers. As far as the closers, the league in fact even discounts a little from HQ. Every guy you mentioned clustered around $15. No closer went over $20 for the second year in a row.

For your $5 slots, given a choice between a good set up guy (for instance, last years pre-auction Madsen or Soriano or Putz) or a questionable but potentially skillful starter, which way do you go?

Steve

[Todd Zola]

With no reserve, I go MR all the way.

Which means you will be battling HQ guys for the "names" -- let them fight. There will ALWAYS be guys.

[Todd Zola]

Quick note about NL closer...

Save for Broxton (pardon the pun), there will be many leagues where $20 is the limit.

The AL has Mo, Paps, Nathan, Soria etc. so the limit there is closer to $25-$30.

[JP Kastner]

I was away from the computer yesterday so I missed this conversation until this morning. In many ways this should be pulled out into another thread.

As Todd eluded to, I wanted to write an article on comparing and contrasting our projection system against other popular ones like BBHQ. I wanted to go all out and basically list each one side by side. Todd correctly corrected me and said that probably would get us in trouble with our friends in the industry.

However, for my own draft worksheet that I use for the NFBC and Tout Wars, I have a column where I list dollar values from other sites. I do have the advantage that when I face someone from BBHQ like Doug Dennis, Doug is obligated to use BBHQ projections. In essence, I have Doug's auction list right in front of me when I'm making a decision.

I would recommend looking for those checkpoint players that they over value. If someone drafts one of the checkpoint players when BBHQ says, you now know their plan. Its like reading someone's cards by looking at the reflection in their glasses.

In the mean time, I have to just sit back and enjoy when the two BBHQ guys get into a bidding war over Mike Jacobs like they did in Mixed Tout last year!

Clearly there is an opportunity to take advantage if you know what your opponent is thinking. I would love to be naughty, but it would be the equivalent of Pepsi stealing Coke's formula and that is not a good business practice.

We will be including Mock Draft Central's ADP in a future set of the Platinum projections so that you can compare and contrast us against MDC.

[cwk1963]

Late to this also - migraine yesterday.

A strikeout rate of at least .67 per nine innings

Just a minor point - .67 k per inning; not per nine innings. Personally, I shoot for .78 per inning (>7.0 per 9).

I was toast at the beginning because losing Webb made competing in strikeouts and wins later nearly impossible

Which is why I tend to play more K/9 leagues rather than straight K. If you lose an anchor, you can still compete in the category with your other SP and MR.

Actually, I think the original poster mentioned 10% inflation, so i will assume this an auction league as opposed to straight draft.

It's funny. It was not that long ago the request was that "I don't do auctions like everyone else, can you put that in terms of a draft?"

Auctions are alive and kicking. What has happened is the new entrants into the hobby are drafting. We are a growing industry, with the growth in the draft realm.

I thought it was directed towards auctions as well. I haven't played drafts myself for a while with the exception of the MB Subscribers League last year and actually prefer auctions.

However, for my own draft worksheet that I use for the NFBC and Tout Wars, I have a column where I list dollar values from other sites. I do have the advantage that when I face someone from BBHQ like Doug Dennis, Doug is obligated to use BBHQ projections. In essence, I have Doug's auction list right in front of me when I'm making a decision.

Here is a big key as far as the original poster goes. With 11 of 14 (guessing on the actual numbers) BBHQ subscribers, you're at a big advantage in that you know what they are using and how they should be bidding. Definitely have the BBHQ values alongside your MB values.

In general, the MB valuation system more correctly values speed so you know what you should be paying for it.

[Todd Zola]

Something to keep in mind is there are two primary differences with varying sources of projections -- skills and playing time.

I am willing to bet the majority of differences lie with playing time.

And while I understand why someone would not want to do what it takes to generate a set of skills, most serious fantasy players have an idea how much they think players may play and may want to consider adjusting projections accordingly.

This is probably most relevant with respect to guys like Jose Reyes and Brandon Webb, players coming back from injury.

The the other area sources may differ is with the younger players with fewer than 3 years of MLB data - we all treat minor league numbers differently. This is especially true for pitching.

[Guest]

A few random thoughts in here -

1. Don't get caught up in the concept that the MB.com list is "better" or "worse" than the HQ one. As many have said, what the two lists will do is give you a nice backdrop of players we agree on and disagree on. Might be a good way to spend some time looking at baseball reference or fangraphs at the players who have large variances and see which projection makes more sense to you. Again, both sites have a rigorous method for producing these things with hundreds/thousands of hours of testing and poking and prodding behind them, so I don't think anyone is going to say there's a "right" answer.

2. The biggest difference between what our projection system does with pitching and what others likely do (again, I only know ours) is that we basically treat the inherent risk within as a part of the projection. In fact, in most cases we probably agree with other sites on the underlying skill set of the pitchers. The issue is that pitchers have seasons where due to injury or ineffectiveness they struggle with mechanics or have bad luck or whatever. It happens all the time. If you look at the top pitchers of the last 5-10 years almost all had significant un-expected skill issues in one or more seasons. We think you should take that into account when paying for a pitcher. Other sites probably project the full skill set and tell you to modify your bidding to take the risk into account. We generally do it within the projection. You can argue with the approach and I recommend you do so here, but that's kind of where we stand with it.

[brian]

Good discussion. The idea of having a summary of other projection systems at hand offers a good reality check. Having said that, I wouldn't become too overconfident with it, not that anyone here is suggesting that. After all, using the Mixed Tout auction as an extreme example, there were 17 players last year. Even if two of them were religiously using BBHQ numbers, that left 14 other equally strong competitors who were drafting likely using a wide variety of other systems.

[viper]

I look at both BBHQ and MB projections. I look for players where dollar differences exceed $5 under the concept

that a $5 difference is mostly insignificant. Last year, Jacobs was probably the player with the greatest difference of opinion.

This season I plan to approach the variations a bit differently. I plan to compare ABs and also compare players using each sites skill set but against a consistent AB number. Essentially that should pinpoint players where skill sets are believed different. My guess is that the number of players in question will be very small. My dollar calculation will be using CVRC for both sets of numbers.

I'm honestly not sure what this will yield but it should keep my occupied for the next 30 days. My hope is that ABs will be determined as being the only factor separating these two sets of projections.

I'll do something similar with pitching but I'm inclined to exclusively use MB numbers. But I do want to see where IP differences exist for starters. My auction leagues tend to downplay the value of MRs. This is because 3 of the 4 replace Ks with IP [minimum 1100] and all 4 are old, old school in that there is no bench - you draft and play 23 players. All these leagues are 10 team, AL-only or NL-only leagues.

On a side note, I am curious how many other play in leagues without bench players. I also wonder if auction strategy changes in this type of league.

[Todd Zola]

On a side note, I am curious how many other play in leagues without bench players. I also wonder if auction strategy changes in this type of league.

This has long been a pet-peeve of mine and perhaps deserves a tread of its own <<hint hint>>

[da_big_kid_94]

On a side note, I am curious how many other play in leagues without bench players. I also wonder if auction strategy changes in this type of league.

This has long been a pet-peeve of mine and perhaps deserves a tread of its own <<hint hint>>

Something like this, for instance?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=864