The Sherpa’s Crystal Ball - Take 1 (2/19/08)
Today I’m taking my first crack at projecting the 2008 baseball standings based on rosters as of the beginning of Spring Training. For those who are interested, the projected win total for each team is based on the projected difference between the team’s Runs Scored and Runs Allowed.
What does this have to do with fantasy baseball? A realistic set of player projections is the essential first step in assigning fantasy baseball value to each player. A top Starting Pitcher or Closer will be much more valuable from a fantasy standpoint if he’s pitching for the Yankees or the Tigers than he will be if he’s pitching for the Giants. The run support a team’s Hitters give their Pitchers can easily make a difference of 2-3 Wins for a Starting Pitcher and 10 Saves for a Closer. While the run support a team gives a particular Pitcher is subject to some degree of randomness, Pitchers on good teams will generally be more valuable than Pitchers of similar ability on bad teams.
I’ll take a closer look later this week at how to evaluate a set of player projections; then, I’ll put several widely available sets to the test. However, for now, here are my initial projected standings for 2008:
| NL East |
Wins |
Losses |
% |
GB |
| NY Mets |
89 |
73 |
.549 |
— |
| Atlanta |
85 |
77 |
.525 |
4 |
| Philadelphia |
80 |
82 |
.494 |
9 |
| Florida |
70 |
92 |
.432 |
19 |
| Washington |
69 |
93 |
.426 |
20 |
| NL Central |
Wins |
Losses |
% |
GB |
| Chicago Cubs |
83 |
79 |
.512 |
— |
| Milwaukee |
83 |
79 |
.512 |
— |
| Houston |
79 |
83 |
.488 |
4 |
| Cincinnati |
75 |
87 |
.463 |
8 |
| Pittsburgh |
75 |
87 |
.463 |
8 |
| St. Louis |
73 |
89 |
.451 |
10 |
| NL West |
Wins |
Losses |
% |
GB |
| LA Dodgers |
85 |
77 |
.525 |
— |
| Arizona |
83 |
79 |
.512 |
2 |
| San Diego |
80 |
82 |
.494 |
5 |
| Colorado |
78 |
84 |
.481 |
7 |
| San Francisco |
73 |
89 |
.451 |
12 |
| AL East |
Wins |
Losses |
% |
GB |
| NY Yankees |
94 |
68 |
.580 |
— |
| Boston |
89 |
73 |
.549 |
5 |
| Tampa Bay |
82 |
80 |
.506 |
12 |
| Toronto |
82 |
80 |
.506 |
12 |
| Baltimore |
72 |
90 |
.444 |
22 |
| AL Central |
Wins |
Losses |
% |
GB |
| Detroit |
90 |
72 |
.556 |
— |
| Cleveland |
89 |
73 |
.549 |
1 |
| Chicago White Sox |
83 |
79 |
.512 |
7 |
| Minnesota |
81 |
81 |
.500 |
9 |
| Kansas City |
77 |
85 |
.475 |
13 |
| AL West |
Wins |
Losses |
% |
GB |
| LA Angels |
94 |
68 |
.580 |
— |
| Oakland |
81 |
81 |
.500 |
13 |
| Seattle |
80 |
82 |
.494 |
14 |
| Texas |
76 |
86 |
.469 |
18 |
These projections are the basis for the Preseason Player Projections & Rankings currently for sale on my website (www.FantasyBaseballSherpa.com). I’ll update the projections towards the end of Spring Training when we all have a better idea of how the Opening Day rosters will look. In the meantime, let me know what you think of Take 1 - hit me with your best shot - fire away!
Until next time,
The Sherpa
Tags: fantasy baseball, player projections, Preseason Player Projections & Rankings, projected standings for 2008, The Sherpa, www.FantasyBaseballSherpa.com
February 21st, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Hi Sherpa,
I recently found your site (through MDC if our interested) and was instantly turned off by a statement you made regarding run support, “The run support a team’s Hitters give their Pitchers can easily make a difference of 2-3 Wins for a Starting Pitcher and 10 Saves for a Closer.”
I’m not complaining about the 2-3 wins for a starting pitcher as I have not yet analyzed the data. However 10 saves for a closer! That’s rediculous! Might I direct your attention this way: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/fantasy/article/are-saves-predictable/
They make the point for me.
Paul
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Hey Paul, thanks for the link to Derek Carty’s article in The Hardball Times - it’s quite good. I recently did a similar study and came to a similar conclusion - if you look at historical data, there isn’t a strong correlation between the number of games a team wins and the number of save opportunities a team generates. Random variation has something to do with this - in a given season, some teams just happen to play a lot more close games resulting in save opportunities than other teams do. So does the way a manager uses his Closer (i.e. - will he use his Closer 2-3 days in a row in save situations?) So does a manager’s patience with his Closer, which depends on both the Closer’s track record (or lack thereof) and whether the team is currently in the pennant race or not.
However, for the purpose of putting together a series of projections, you have to assume that teams that win more games will generate more save opportunities. I’ll explain my line of thinking in making the statement about differences in Run Support and the impact on the number of saves for a Closer. Over the last 3 seasons (2005-07) saves have been recorded in approximately 50% of all games. The difference in my 2008 projections between the maximum number of team wins (94 for both the Angels and the Yankees) and the minimum number of team wins (69 for the Nationals) is 25.
If I apply the 50% estimate, that would result in a projected 12-13 save difference between the Closers for the Angels and Yankees vs. the Closer for the Nationals, assuming of course that all three stay healthy for the majority of the year. According to my projections there are 15 pairs of teams that will be separated by at least 20 wins this season; thus my statement about the 10-save difference.
Admittedly, this is more art than science, but it’s a valid assumption for the purpose of preparing a set of projections. Chad Cordero would be much higher in my rankings if he were the Closer for the Angels, Yankees, etc, while Francisco Rodriguez and Mariano Rivera would be much lower in my rankings if they were the Closer for the Nationals.