The 2013 keepers are in now, and I've updated their salaries to reflect multi-year keepers and free agents. We only have two multi-year keepers, a record low. Taylor kept Yoenis Cespedes for two years at $11, and Luke kept Mike Trout for three years at $19. Also, we have no dead money this year, as no one on a multiyear deal was cut.
Prince Fielder ($30) was the most expensive keeper, followed closely by Robinson Cano ($29) and the second year of Ellsbury's two year deal from 2011 ($29). Teams on average spent $60, although there is a lot of divergence between different teams. Taylor went with the all value approach, despite opting for a two year deal with Cespedes, and only spent $28 on his five players. Amazingly, those five players include two top 15 outfielders, a top 5 or so closer, and a rock solid starting pitcher, all for less than three individual players went for in the draft.
Also, despite being passed around like our fantasy version of Edwin Jackson, Manny Machado did not end up getting kept by Mark. Nor did Josh Reddick by Kate, who was included in the swap for Edwin Encarnacion along with Ian Kinsler and Jake Peavy. Otherwise, all the players involved in trades were kept, including a last minute deal between Andrew and Taylor that sent Alcides Escobar ($1) and Doug Fister ($4) for Alex Gordon ($6), who is in the second year of a two year deal.
Positionally, first base and outfield lead the way. A total of seven first basemen were kept (including Trumbo, who is also outfield eligible), and Bill kept three players who can only play first (Hosmer, Butler, and Encarnacion), filling both his infield and utility spots. But watch out for that power, Bill's five keepers project to hit 145 home runs, and even top Luke's projected offensive production from his keepers in all categories but steals. Albert Pujols remains available at the top of the first base list, but otherwise,
The situation may be worse at outfield. Of the top 10 per ESPN rankings, eight are kept, leaving only injury question mark Jose Bautista and new AL player Michael Bourn available in the draft. Ellsbury, Hamilton, Jones, and Zobrist are all reasonably close to their ESPN valuations, but there is considerable value from Trout, Gordon, De Aza, Jennings, Jackson, and Cespedes.
Another thin position will be third base, with four starters kept. Beltre is really the only one you could consider a top tier third basemen, and is paid as such, and while middle tier third base options such as Lawrie, Middlebrooks, or Moustakas don't offer massive amounts of value the outfield keepers do, the picking are slim if you don't have a third basemen in the fold. Head and shoulders above everyone else at the position is Miguel Cabrera, but he is coming off of one of his best fantasy seasons of his career and went for a record setting $44 last year. Evan Longoria is also available, but he is coming off of a lost season due to hamstring woes. After that, things get ugly, with out of nowhere player Kyle Seager at #6 and very, very young rookie Manny Machado at #7. At third base, it may be go big or go home.
One week to the draft! Now that keepers are in, it is time to finalize those boards and come up with a plan of attack. Good luck to everyone.
28 comments:
Well I think its safe to say that our contract system has worked as designed to minimize long-term keepers. All but two of these guys will be in the draft next year, and we're going to have to find 38 new keepers somewhere in the next 12 months.
We certainly learned to stay away from keeping pitchers, after debacles like Pineda, Farnsworth, Romero, and Baker in previous years. Only 8 pitcher keepers this year.
Uhoh. Better give Bill the trophy now. He won the projections! :)
Ha. Although I barely beat you in runs, RBI, average, and home runs, you're 40 steals up, so you have to like we're you're at. Plus, these are ESPN projections we're talking about.
Don't forget the biggest pitching mistake of all, Liriano!
Yup. Liriano's the best example of why not to keep pitchers, AND why not to do multi-year deals.
ESPN's projections are pretty harsh on both Trout and Martin, in my opinion. I don't see anything in Trout's numbers that tells me he's going to slow down this year, besides a general sense of conservatism that is appropriate for a guy going into his sophomore year. I will be shocked if Trout hits .285 this year. I will also be shocked if he scores fewer runs than he did last year, considering the 23 games he missed last year, the addition of Hamilton, and the likely bounce-back of Pujols that ought to happen at least to some degree this year. I understand why they're being conservative with him, and maybe he'll have a sophomore slump and the ESPN projections will be correct, but I wouldn't bet on it, myself.
I feel pretty similarly about the ESPN projections for Martin. Yes, they have to err on the conservative side. However, right now the talk out of spring training is that Martin will start the season as the full-time CF. He should get a lot more than 284 ABs.
I guess another knock against Trout's run-scoring potential is the loss of Torii Hunter hitting behind him. Hunter really had a great year last year, and although we don't know who will be taking his spot in the batting order, we can be pretty confident that whoever it is will not bat .313.
The reason for Trout hitting .285 (which is fairly in line with other projection systems like PECOTA and ZIPS) is pretty straight forward - balls in play and balls that left the park. Trout hit 30 HR last year, and he had topped out at 16 in a full season before. He also posted a 21% HR/FB rate, which is high for someone who isn't a prototypical slugger. Second, Trout's BABIP was .383, third highest in the majors. BABIP that high just isn't consistent. If you take away say 5 home runs and bring his BABIP down to a high, but not astronomical .330, he's hitting below .300. Don't get me wrong, Mike Trout is a good bet to finish #1 in the player rater, but expecting him to match his 2012 is nuts.
I don't buy it. He's a unique player. Miguel Cabrera, Derek Jeter, and Ichiro all have career BABIPs greater than .345. Trout has more smack in his bat than Jeter or Ichiro did, and much much more speed than Cabrera. He could certainly be someone who consistently BABIPs .360 throughout his 20s, which is what Jeter did. According to the Delucker, his xBABIP last year was .364.
As for home runs, the Home Run Tracker says he wasn't really all that lucky. He finished with 27% of his home runs Just Enough, 53% Plenty, and 20% No Doubt. Those ratios are better than the league averages from 2006-2012 of 33% Just Enough, 49% Plenty, and 18% No Doubt.
Bottom line: My prediction is that a slight decline in BABIP and HR/FB rates this year is offset by 23 additional games, and that his final fantasy value is exactly the same as 2012. Loses a couple HRs and RBIs, gains some Runs, steals 50+, and bats .310.
I'm allowed to be a bit of a cheerleader in my projection, because after all, he my team.
Austin Jackson is another speedster who has managed to maintain an extremely high BABIP over a fairly large sample size. 3 full seasons now and a career BABIP of .370.
All right, here we go, fair warning, this will be long:
For BABIP,
1. It takes 2.4 years for BABIP to stabilize, so we don't know what Trout's true talent level is there (if there is even one for BABIP).
2. Jackson is the oddest of the odd, and the exception, rather than the rule.
3. I looked at players who had a BABIP over .360 over the last three years (n=24). Only Joey Votto and Michael Bourn did it for two years in a row. It is just really, really unlikely that a player has a BABIP of over .360 consistently.
4. From that group, the average player dropped 40 points off his BABIP and NO ONE had a higher BABIP the following year. For those that had a BABIP over .380? An average drop of 50 points.
Because of all that, I think a .330 BABIP is totally reasonable for Trout.
For HR/FB, again Trout was among the elite.
1. There is more consistency here, but again, out of the 21 seasons where a player had a HR/FB of over 21%, it is spread between 15 different players.
2. Of the repeats, most are huge first basemen (Howard, Fielder, Carlos Pena, Dunn), plus Jose Bautista.
3. Overall, the average player who had a HR/FB over 21% saw a decline of 3.5% the following year, which would put Trout at 18%.
If we take Trout's 2012 numbers and adjust the HR/FB to 18% and the BABIP to .330 we end up with 25 HR and a .282 average.
Finally, Trout hit .287/.383/.500 in the last few months of the season, you can read more here, and several other things changed that might indicate a decline from his spectacular production initially.
If you want to go over, under:
PER in 2012 (how ESPN rates players for fantasy) was 15.32, which is astronomically high, higher than anyone in recent memory - UNDER
Avg - .310 - Under, because of the BABIP and the decline in HR.
R - 120 - This seems about right. The Angels offense should be very good.
SB - 50 - Under. He's bigger this year, and is still growing, so he could slow down a bit. He's never had plus plus speed, but instead great instincts. Finally, you just don't steal 90% of the bases you try on a regular basis.
HR - 25 - Seems about right, again, although a huge amount depends on his batted ball profile and whether it matches the first half or the second where he hit markedly fewer fly balls.
A .290/120/25/80/40 player would likely be the best in fantasy. Not sure why you're taking such offense to this.
Because he my team!!!
A good manager defends his players when they come under fire
I'm not really taking offense. I just said I think the ESPN projection is overly conservative. Interestingly, even with all this arguing, you seem to agree. 290/120/25/80/40 is significantly better, in every category besides steals, than ESPN's projection. It's still lower than my estimate, but much more reasonable.
I think my main beef with a lot of the projections out there is that they seem to be ignoring the 23 extra games Trout is likely to get this year. If you start with his counting stat line last year of 129/30/83/49 and multiply it by 162/139, you get 150/35/97/58. So, if your 120/25/80/40 projection is assuming he plays 162 games, he would have to score runs at a 20% lower rate, hit home runs at a 29% lower rate, drive in runs at a 18% lower rate, and steal bases at a 31% lower rate. That would be a fairly precipitous decline, especially considering that the Angels are probably going to score quite a few more runs than they did last year. His rates could decline by as much as 15%, and he would still match his counting totals from last year.
I think the projections showing huge declines in rates represent the viewpoint that, despite Trout's incredible 2012, he is not a unique player and will lose 50 BABIP points just like most players do after similar seasons. They very well may be correct. We have a small amount of major league data and a large amount of minor league data that all points toward Trout being unique and capable of doing what Jeter did in his 20s. We have an enormous amount of major league data about other players showing that very few players maintain high BABIPs in consecutive years. The former set doesn't have a large sample size, but is at least specific to Trout. The latter has a large sample size, but is not specific to Trout. It's not unreasonable to think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of what either set would predict. That's why I expect Trout's BABIP to be between .350 and .360.
You can't just multiply by the number of games he could have played. It just doesn't work that way, especially rookies. If you don't agree, go ahead and ask Spencer about Desmond Jennings' 26 home run, 50 steal season last year.
And yes, I don't think a 20% decline, generally, is ridiculous. I don't think you realize just how good Trout was last year. His WAR (10) was the best since 2006.
I'm going to throw some more numbers at you. Looking at players who put up a WAR of 8 or above, in the following year they saw a decline of 20% in home runs, 17% in runs, 14% in RBI, and 33% in stolen bases. It is almost impossible to maintain that level of production. In the last 6 years only one player has done it - Albert Pujols.
What? Trout was good last year? Oh jeez, I guess I really wasn't paying any attention.
Just to keep the facts straight, your counting stat numbers would be a 25% decline, not 20%.
And yes, I know you can't just prorate a previous year's season to 162 games and call it a projection. Do you see me projecting .326/150/35/97/58 anywhere? All I am saying is that the extent of the decline projected (remember, we both agree that he should decline) should be considered on a per game basis.
Desmond Jennings isn't really a helpful example, considering that he only played 63 games in 2011.
Are those decline percentages you gave for players with WAR>8 for season totals, or for per game stats? If you apply those percentages after you prorate Trout's 2012 to 162 games, you get 125/28/83/39. That is still slightly better than your projection, and MUCH better than ESPN's.
Enough of the jibber-jabber. Let's gamble. I'll take the over on all 5 of .305/124.5/27.5/80.5/44.5. Whoever gets 3 out of the 5 categories wins. Loser has to write a congratulatory blog post about the winner, detailing in colorful language how awesome the winner's top 3 fantasy baseball decisions of 2013 were. Do you accept?
Make is 85.5 for RBI (I think adding Hamilton to that lineup will up Trout's RBI opportunities), and you've got a deal. Better take notes throughout the season so it'll be well researched!
Hmm, there's a lot on the line here....I'll take those 5 RBIs in exchange for 1 point in AVG, 1 steal, and 1 HR. So .304/124.5/26.5/85.5/43.5. How's that?
It's worth noting that in the last 6 years, the following players have put up single season WARs greater than 8 (not including 2012, which was Trout and Posey):
Pujols (x4), Ellsbury, Bautista, Utley (x2), Wright, Zobrist, A-Rod, Kemp, Hamilton, Ordonez, Sizemore.
Ordonez, Zobrist, Rodriguez all had dropoffs of ~20% or more in their fantasy numbers the following season. Rodriguez was 32. Ordonez was 33. Kemp, Bautista, and Ellsbury all missed substantial time in the following season due to injury, making it hard to include them. Kemp was on track to have a ~20% decline, Bautista was not. Wright saw his SBs drop in the following season but his other fantasy stats improved. Utley had consecutive 8 WAR seasons with no significant difference in production, then fell off of a cliff the following year. Hamilton's fantasy stats regressed by about 20% the following season, and then improved substantially the season after that. Sizemore did not have a 20% decline in the following season. Many of these high WAR seasons (including Trout's) are buoyed by high fielding stats, which don't have a lot of bearing on next year's roto stats. The moral of this overly long story, as I see it, is that I'm not sure how useful this set of numbers is as a projection system. But if I have to choose between lumping Trout with Pujols or lumping him with Zobrist and a bunch of players in their decline, I'm going to choose Pujols.
One thing I find frustrating looking at projections of young players (especially 21 year olds) is that no one ever accounts for development. We look at their peripherals and project what we think will regress or average out, we look at what was and was not sustainable, and project next season as we would have expected last season to look with some of the flukes evened out. But especially with a guy like Trout, shouldn't we be accommodating for the fact that he's getting bigger and stronger and many of his skills are very likely improving as he grows? Maybe it's counteracted by the league's adjustments to them. I really have no idea.
Also, we really shouldn't be using WAR at all, because Bob Ryan doesn't understand how the replacement player is calculated.
Are we arguing for an audience of Bob Ryans here? I didn't realize that. Let me make some more unsupported statements and general arguments against newfangled things that I don't understand.
And Caleb, the projections do account for development. They look for similar players, and how they developed. It isn't just a pure regression. I think it is totally reasonable that Mike Trout's baseline skills will get better with another year in the majors. I don't think that means he'll beat his 2012 numbers.
As for the bet, this is getting silly, quibbling over single runs and homeruns. I'll take it the way you originally offered:
.305/124.5/27.5/80.5/44.5
Okay, that works for me, but I still want the 130 game minimum.
Forget it. Injuries are part of the risk, and part of the declines of a lot of players. And quite frankly, it is kind of ridiculous off to have you bring up "the 130 game minimum" out of the blue, without any prior mention.
Oh, sorry, I thought there was a prior mention. I made a previous comment a couple hours ago after Caleb brought up Ellsbury in which I asked for the minimum games. It looks like that comment didn't go through.
Okay, I'll take the original wager with no games minimum, if you're still willing. After all, I did make the original offer, and Trout hasn't suffered any significant injuries so far in his major and minor league career. I didn't really have general injury risk priced in in my mind when I offered the numbers initially, but that's okay.
Also telling is the fact that we only had 2 free agents kept this season (Rodney and Middlebrooks). I had a few players I felt I could have kept at $10 (Sal Parez, Myers, Machado) but you need them to significantly outplay their valuation for them to pay off for you (more so than, say, Zobrist or Adam Jones). It was the $1 players that really screwed with the balance of the league. I think what we've ended up with is a sort of hybrid keeper league that rewards people for a good draft a bit more than a redraft league and does not have an emphasis on long-term value players.
The other tricky thing about those free agents is that they're young and still have a lot of upside. By keeping them this year, you'd need to either extend more money and years to capture that upside, or risk losing them after one year, like what happened with Chris Sale last year. By letting them go back into the draft pool, you can potentially draft them, which would allow you to keep them next year, if they do break out.
Going back to Caleb's comment about 21 year olds and growth, players do improve, but when you are THAT good, there just isn't much room for improvement. He might get bigger and stronger, but maybe one of the reasons he was so damn good for his age was that he matured earlier? In general, projecting improvement for 21 year old players works really well when looking at a population, but not necessarily for an individual player.
Post a Comment