This article is part of our Pitching 3D series.
When applied thoughtfully, projections can be incredibly useful. On the surface, it appears a perfect harmony: weigh the box stats of the last few years, favoring the most recent performance, throw in some aging curves and BABiP regression, bake at 350 degrees and head into your draft. But this modern simplification of fantasy pitcher value leaves out some key details to the art and science of pitching.
Some projections are more optimistic than others - I used to average the PECOTA projections from Baseball Prospectus with those of the Bill James handbook to balance the optimism of James and the "pessimism" of PECOTA - but they all have the same fundamental flaw: they are based exclusively on box score stats, or as Morpheus says, they are based in a world that is built on rules.
These days everyone has their own spreadsheets that guide fantasy decisions, but those spreadsheets are all dependent on the same system of record keeping in the box score, numbers that are notoriously fickle and which fail to capture the skills that are on display on major league mounds.
It helps to explain why pitchers are typically taken so late in drafts, which is a reflection of the general frustration owners have with the difficulty in predicting pitcher performance. Some have gone so far as to spend nearly all of their auction dollars on bats before diving into the bargain bin for arms, but fact of the matter is that pitchers are responsible for generating
When applied thoughtfully, projections can be incredibly useful. On the surface, it appears a perfect harmony: weigh the box stats of the last few years, favoring the most recent performance, throw in some aging curves and BABiP regression, bake at 350 degrees and head into your draft. But this modern simplification of fantasy pitcher value leaves out some key details to the art and science of pitching.
Some projections are more optimistic than others - I used to average the PECOTA projections from Baseball Prospectus with those of the Bill James handbook to balance the optimism of James and the "pessimism" of PECOTA - but they all have the same fundamental flaw: they are based exclusively on box score stats, or as Morpheus says, they are based in a world that is built on rules.
These days everyone has their own spreadsheets that guide fantasy decisions, but those spreadsheets are all dependent on the same system of record keeping in the box score, numbers that are notoriously fickle and which fail to capture the skills that are on display on major league mounds.
It helps to explain why pitchers are typically taken so late in drafts, which is a reflection of the general frustration owners have with the difficulty in predicting pitcher performance. Some have gone so far as to spend nearly all of their auction dollars on bats before diving into the bargain bin for arms, but fact of the matter is that pitchers are responsible for generating half of the fantasy points for our virtual ballclubs, and those who avoid arms blindly are taking a heavy risk.
Compared to hitting stats, the projections tend to miss the boat on pitching by a wide margin every season, and it's typically just chalked up to the random variation inherent in the pitching craft. This is the natural result of the stats being particularly bad at capturing pitcher skill, especially the standard roto stats. But there is a better way, and I have devised my own rating system for fantasy pitchers that attempts to balance a pitcher's physical skills with his performance.
So here's the strategy: I intentionally place different weights on the various fantasy categories based on reliability and impact on surrounding stat categories, and then I include critical adjustments based on playing time, mechanics and stuff. Under this approach, previous roto stats only account for half of the valuation:
Strikeouts - 10 points
ERA - 6
WHIP - 6
Wins - 3
Innings - 10
Stuff - 8
Mechanics - 7
Total - 50 points
I admit that it looks busy at first glance, but there is a method to this madness. Pitchers are given a score out of the possible points in each category. In the case of Ks, the category is scored based on the pitcher's projected K percentage, putting the subject as a rate stat (volume will be covered in the innings category). Strikeouts are by far the most important fantasy category in my opinion, particularly in the modern age where strikeout totals are expanding like Violet Beauregarde's waistline, and the K category represents the only stat in rotisserie in which there is little noise due to factors outside the pitcher's control.
Projected strikeout rates are scored according to the following table:
K
29%+ = 10 points
27-29% = 9
25-27% = 8
23-25% = 7
21-23% = 6
19-21% = 5
17-19% = 4
15-17% = 3
13-15% = 2
Under 13% = 1
Using Madison Bumgarner as our guinea pig for this experiment, the southpaw struck out 27.5 percent of batters last season, and the prior year he registered 26.9 percent. His strikeouts have been on an upward trend the last four seasons, and even though it might be a bit optimistic, I would give him 9 out of a 10 possible points in the K category.
Both ERA and WHIP can be indicative of genuine skills yet are more vulnerable to the whims of random variation thanks to the influence of defense, among other things, factors that knock those ratios down to six points apiece. Here are the scoring tables for those projected ratios:
ERA
Under 2.75 = 6 points
2.75-3.25 = 5
3.25-3.75 = 4
3.75-4.25 = 3
4.25-4.75 = 2
Above 4.75 = 1
WHIP
Under 1.05 = 6 points
1.05-1.15 = 5
1.15-1.25 = 4
1.25-1.35 = 3
1.35-1.45 = 2
Above 1.45 = 1
Bumgarner's ERA has sat in the 2.75-3.25 range in three of the last four seasons, and the other checked in at 2.74, so he gets a 5 out of 6 in that category. Meanwhile, his WHIP has been less than 1.05 in three of the last four seasons, earning him the maximum of 6 points.
Wins are the most unpredictable of all rotisserie numbers, and though there are some factors that go into posting consistently high win counts, the relative unpredictability and narrow range of outcomes conspire to make that aspect the weakest part of the evaluation. In other words, I don't let expected win counts play much of a role in my rankings. Here's a general breakdown of win-count projections:
W
15+ = 3 points
10-14 = 2
9 or fewer = 1
Mad Bum has won 15 or more games in three straight seasons, and as a staff ace with a clean record of health and a penchant for going deep into games, he earns the maximum in this category as well, tacking on an additional 3 points to his rating.
Those four roto categories cover half of the player's rating (25 of 50 total points), and the other half is comprised of playing time and physical skills. The second section is the real flavor of the rating system, allowing for one to use a different lens to divulge key aspects of pitching that are likely hidden from view from the other managers at the draft table.
It starts with innings, as the projected innings count is tied (with strikeouts) for the largest value at 10 points. The innings category determines how much impact a player's rate stats can have on a fantasy team's bottom line, and the scoring adheres to the following template:
IP
225+ = 10 points
210-225 = 9
195-210 = 8
180-195 = 7
165-180 = 6
150-165 = 5
135-150 = 4
120-135 = 3
100-120 = 2
Under 100 = 1
Bummer has logged more than 200 innings for six straight seasons, including three consecutive campaigns with more than 215 frames. He earns a 9 out of 10 for projected innings count with the upside to crack a perfect 10.
The final two categories are the motivation for this hybrid rating system. A pitcher's stuff and his mechanics make up the physical foundation of who he is as a pitcher, and both elements can tell us a lot about a pitcher's likelihood to sustain success into the future. Both of these marks are subjective, with stuff based on a combination of PITCHf/x data and visual impressions from watching games, while mechanics are rated based on my personal grading system for pitching deliveries. Stuff includes command, while mechanics includes repetition - these aspects typically align closely, but not every time - so there is some natural overlap, as the pitcher who repeats his delivery can generally command the baseball. It also underscores just how important pitch command and mechanical repetition are to fantasy success, at least in my mind.
Bumgarner earns a 6 out of 8 for his stuff, which is impressive, though not elite. His fastball checks in at the low-90s and the cutter is enhanced by his deceptive delivery and deep release point. Bumgarner has a killer curve, but his repertoire is defined by the pitch-mix of three plus offerings that play up thanks to his command and consistency. The delivery is incredible, one of the most efficient motions in the game, and his ability to repeat such honed mechanics earns him the rare "A" on my mechanics report card. He earns the full 7 points for the mechanics category.
Here's Bum's total breakdown:
K - 9/10
ERA - 5/6
WHIP - 6/6
W - 3/3
IP - 9/10
Stuff - 6/8
Mechanics - 7/7
Total - 45/50
That is an incredible score, high enough to put the Giants' southpaw among the top handful of fantasy pitchers this season. Very few pitchers can top 45 points, and nobody in the game receives a perfect score. Later in the series, we will see just how high Bumgarner's score of 45 ranks on the list of MLB pitchers.
Over the next several weeks, I will unfurl the top pitchers in fantasy this season (order based on NFBC ADP), comparing and contrasting their relative skills and taking a step back to see how the whole picture shakes out. By expanding the lens to include weighted stats, by analyzing stuff and appreciating mechanics, we can get a more nuanced view of individual player skills and begin to differentiate our lists from the status quo. Finally, we'll wrap up with a ranked list that contrasts the results of this skills-based system to the habits of NFBC gamers.
It's a new system, one that might require some tweaks over time, and the dynamic nature of player ability means that these snapshots of value could be outdated in short order. That said, the potential for a skills-based system far exceeds one that is selectively blind to the fundamental attributes that make a pitcher unique, and this system will open up avenues of evaluation that were previously out of reach.
Stay tuned.
