master notes

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:34 am

I am not really an HQ guy. I don't subscribe to the site because I think it is too expensive and doesn't offer me much that I don't already know. I get the book for my dad as a Christmas present and read over it on Christmas Day, but I'm more interested in the articles (insert Playboy joke here). Without getting too critical, I will just say the articles are of uneven quality. Some are very helpful. I use very few of their projections, but I do like what they are doing with stolen bases so I might take a look at those for this year since I don't think I know anything about stolen bases that gives me an edge.

I do subscribe to the HQ newsletter since it is free. There are some interesting thoughts in there--which is really how HQ best serves me in a general way: it gives me ideas.

Anyway, this morning Ron's "Master Notes" had an interesting idea in it. It focused on how small the difference is between the caliber of players you can get in different rounds (particularly after round three or four). It helped to verify what I already knew--a little reach is okay because you're not really reaching into a different group of players. The average guy in this round is essentially the same as the average guy next round and if you think you can get the MVP of both rounds you should just take him now. That wasn't really the point of the "Master Notes" (which was just about how imprecise drafting is) but like I said HQ is best for giving me ideas.

But this little nugget I couldn't let pass:

"By ADP #300 (Round 20), everyone has essentially the same value regardless of round. At that point, it is just a matter of choosing players who fill roster holes and might have conditional upside."

Let me preface this by saying that I have no idea what "conditional upside" is and I almost left is off, but then decided to use the whole quote for fear I would become Michael Savage (or The Daily Show, if you prefer). My guess is that he's saying

the players could help you only under certain circumstances, like you need a closer and there is a good closer-in-waiting flapping in the breeze.

Now, that exception aside, he is literally saying that everyone has the same value. Maybe it is just a poor choice of words, but I think we all know this is profoundly incorrect. Cliff Lee did not have the same value as everyone else in 2008 just as Jose Bautista did not have the same value as everyone else in 2009.

Maybe they all project the same though? I don't think that is true either. As I said, I'm not so much into the HQ projections but there is little doubt in my mind that they favor some late round guys over others.

Those points don't even cover what really bothers me about the quote, though. To me the absolute worst thing you can do in a draft is to not even consider later rounds and just "fill holes." As I mentioned in a different thread and in past articles I've done, the guys you take in the later rounds are the guys who can completely negate the value of you first few rounds. Albert Pujols is going to give you 220 points of value above what you need to win the main event, but your second catcher will be 220 points below.

From that perspective the end game is every bit as important as the first few rounds for which we debate the players endlessly.

Approaching a draft I think about how I can pile on value up through round six or seven. Those are the rounds where players typically give back more than what you need from them. After that, it is a matter of stopping the bleeding. The vast majority of guys detract from that value you've already created. You have to pick the guys who detract the least.

When planning for the end of the draft, it is best to pick positions where you see some handy players waiting to be picked up. Another option is to, yes, pick bad players but you do it within a plan. For example, you see that the late catchers are horrible, but the tenth round catchers weren't a whole lot better. At the same time, you have decent 10th round first basemen and they are much worse than 20th round guys. In that case you plan for a catcher.

There are many ways to skin a cat, but my point is you should have a carcass waiting to be skinned. If you just wait and hope to catch a cat later, you might be chasing him all season.

[ February 04, 2011, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

Hells Satans · Post by **Hells Satans** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:49 am

I have no idea what he means by that sentence, although I guess conditional upside means potential upside if certain conditions are met (i.e., starting in the majors, winning a position battle).

As for his projections...I generally don't have any problems with them. For the most part they are fundamentally sound from a statistics perspective and the majority of player projections won't vary dramatically from PECOTA or CHONE or OLIVER or Masterball or whichever projection system you might use when normalized for plate appearances. I view it as just another data point that has its inherent biases based on which factors you want to weigh more heavily (pretty much like every other projection engine).

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:01 am

Just to clarify, I wasn't knocking their projections. I just don't use them. For the most part I use my own, except when I feel that I need help (like with stolen bases). Occasionally, I will look to see how others might value their favs, but that seems like less of a factor with more people using different sources and with the availability of ADPs these days.

[ February 04, 2011, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:01 am

Projections, proschmections....Almost all projections are based off of the previous year, so no matter where they come from or what formula used, there will be a sameness to all of them.

I know, I know, some will say 'Well my projections are over a longer period than a year'...to which, I say, bah!

Jose Bautista is projected to hit at least 20 home runs this year, even by the 'non believers'.

Before last year, 20 home runs predicted for Bautista would have got you laughed out of the fantasy playing union.

Bautista would have looked very nice in the 28th or 29th round as a 'filler' on the Baseball HQ team, right?

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:59 am

Not to be the contrarion, but Bautista was almost on pace for 20 in a full season in 2009. Your point is well taken to some degree, but if we were only going by last year wouldn't we think he'll hit 40 or 50 at least? The previous years limit almost everyone's expectations.

Still, yeah, weighted years and regression are at the heart of most projection systems. No one is expecting absurd things to happen and last year is usually the biggest factor.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:06 am

Your point is taken as well.

One thing that happens with projections...If a player like Bautista has a amazing season, a career year,some will think he's capable of another, some will think he's not.

In his case, projecting the projection itself (to be not as good as last year, but better than all other years) is easier than projecting numbers for other players.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:53 am

I don't mind 'giving away' some of 'my players'.

I know that each draft is different and some of 'my players' don't fit into a constructed roster in certain drafts.

For instance, I like Jason Varitek this year. I know that few others would 'project' much for him. I don't care. Saltalamacchia, on a trust scale, ranks with Rothliesberger and Mobarek, or maybe it's long names I don't trust, I don't know.

But I do know that Varitek still rips left handers, and while an asverage drag, his few at bats will be ok for that category while still providing decent power for a second catcher.

And, he can be had in round 30.

But, I am sure most hard working scribes have smugly said that Varitek is over the hill and not worthy of a pick. Contrary to my opinion of him being better than the Avila's and Lucroy's of the world.

Projections are only good for the projectionist. Not readers or someone that wants to get a line on a player.

I'd even go as far to say that projections are more important in a theatre or the bedroom, than on paper or baseball site.

Further, a projection in hand is worth a lot more than two of Dave Bush....I only wrote that to see if you were still paying attention or if I had lulled you to sleep with my anti-projection rag.... Carry on

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:01 pm

The fact that you're even thinking this much about Varitek and Salty shows that you are concerned about how the bottom half of your team will round out. Because people really mail it in back there. On-line you can see it in how fast people start drafting past about pick 18. They have less options with regards to what the team needs but it's still clear the concern isn't there. Live, I see people having conversations with others on their break while they haphazardly toss names out. Meanwhile, my heart is breaking over whether the only guy who can add the missing dynamic to my team gets taken. I remember there were a few drafts last year where I didn't have enough speed and had to have Podsednik. That is a good example of a make or break player from late in the draft.

As far as Varitek and Salty go, personally, I feel that Boston's true catcher has not yet shown his face. I just can't see either of those guys with 400 at bats next to their name. I'm not convinced that Varitek can physically handle even a split duty. Salty for an offensive catcher his numbers should be pretty offensive. I'm not sure how you give that many at bats to a player who can neither hit nor field. So there must be someone else, even if it's just a guy they pull off waivers.

[ February 04, 2011, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

Baseball Furies · Post by **Baseball Furies** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:11 pm

Originally posted by bjoak:

The fact that you're even thinking this much about Varitek and Salty shows that you are concerned about how the bottom half of your team will round out. Because people really mail it in back there. On-line you can see it in how fast people start drafting past about pick 18. They have less options with regards to what the team needs but it's still clear the concern isn't there. Live, I see people having conversations with others on their break while they haphazardly toss names out. Meanwhile, my heart is breaking over whether the only guy who can add the missing dynamic to my team gets taken. I remember there were a few drafts last year where I didn't have enough speed and had to have Podsednik. That is a good example of a make or break player from late in the draft.

As far as Varitek and Salty go, personally, I feel that Boston's true catcher has not yet shown his face. I just can't see either of those guys with 400 at bats next to their name. I'm not convinced that Varitek can physically handle even a split duty. Salty for an offensive catcher his numbers should be pretty offensive. I'm not sure how you give that many at bats to a player who can neither hit nor field. So there must be someone else, even if it's just a guy they pull off waivers. Couldn't agree more. There are 30 rounds for a reason. It's to fill a roster with the best 30 players out of the gate that you think will win you a title, and then you adjust from there. I take the approach in the Main as I do in the Slows-draft as though the 30 guys I'm picking at the table are the only ones availble to me all season. This isn't the case, but it keeps my focus and intensity at their highest for the entire draft, and makes my life a lot easier in working the waiver wire each week in season. Also, when others are getting lax or "filling in" their rosters, you are able to snag valuable pieces that can potentially make a huge difference throughout the season. Last year, I scored guys like Furcal, Posey, Huff, and Gio Gonzalez to name a few all after the 18th rd. in the same draft! The old adage is true; "you can't win a title on draft day, but you can certainly lose one." And especially if you start mailing it in from rd. 20 on.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:03 pm

A moral dilemna though...

What if the drafter next to you is a girl who starts flirting with you?

Do you mail it in and start flirting back?

Or do you remain true to the draft?

Scott Boras · Post by **Scott Boras** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:25 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

A moral dilemna though...

What if the drafter next to you is a girl who starts flirting with you?

Do you mail it in and start flirting back?

Or do you remain true to the draft? Beware, Dan. Gekko is a man of many aliases!

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:52 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

A moral dilemna though...

What if the drafter next to you is a girl who starts flirting with you?

Do you mail it in and start flirting back?

Or do you remain true to the draft? We can't you have your cake and eat it to0? How hard can it be to handle both? During the season you can take the laptop into a bar and make your moves while making a move! "I'm trying to figure out who to pick up here, you or a backup catcher, lololol, hi Dan Kenyon here"

[ February 09, 2011, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Quahogs ]

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:32 am

And we are right back to Eva or Evan again

Baseball Furies · Post by **Baseball Furies** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:44 pm

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

A moral dilemna though...

What if the drafter next to you is a girl who starts flirting with you?

Do you mail it in and start flirting back?

Or do you remain true to the draft? Easy: The draft. Some things are sacred

. Happy you're having so much fun at my expense, Doughy.