A Look at 2015 AL-Only Standings Data
As a standings gain point disciple, one of the questions I get asked most is if I know where to get final standings data (and SGP denominators) for AL- and NL-only leagues. You can find reliable mixed-league data if you search hard enough on the web. But you won’t find much, if anything, about the only-league format.
Thanks to a tip from Mike Gianella, I finally got my hands on a nice set of AL- and NL-only standings. Mike suggested I check with the guys that run OnRoto.com. If you’re not familiar with OnRoto, they’re a league hosting and stat service that caters to hard-core and old-school rotisserie leagues… Meaning they host a lot of only leagues.
OnRoto has also historically hosted the various Tout Wars competitions. So this is legit data from a trusted fantasy resource. In this post we’ll be looking only at the AL data (NL coming soon). I was able to obtain the standings for 76 different 12-team AL-only leagues and here’s an analysis of the data…
One Important Caveat
There are keeper leagues among these 76 leagues. I don’t know exactly how many were straight re-draft leagues and how many were keeper.
That does muddy the water some. If you play in a re-draft league, you’d probably only want standings data from those same league-types. Likewise if you are in a keeper.
But this is also a larger sample of better information than I’ve found anywhere else on the web. So we’re better off than we were yesterday! I just want the keeper thing to be known.
What effect would keeper leagues have on this data? I can only theorize that this would serve to stretch the standings further apart than you’d see in a typical redraft league. I presume that years of repeated strong or poor decision making has a compounding effect. We’ve all seen those stacked keeper-league teams. And we’ve also been asked to take over that dead team that had David Dejesus as its star. So outliers may be more of an issue here.
American League Only Standings Averages
Here are the average statistics for each place within a category:
| RANK | POINTS | AVG | R | HR | RBI | SB | ERA | WHIP | W | K | SV |
| 1 | 12 | 0.2701 | 942 | 255 | 907 | 128 | 3.47 | 1.18 | 97 | 1,318 | 83 |
| 2 | 11 | 0.2667 | 899 | 239 | 868 | 116 | 3.61 | 1.21 | 91 | 1,249 | 74 |
| 3 | 10 | 0.2644 | 872 | 229 | 843 | 107 | 3.70 | 1.22 | 87 | 1,202 | 66 |
| 4 | 9 | 0.2619 | 846 | 219 | 818 | 101 | 3.77 | 1.23 | 84 | 1,165 | 60 |
| 5 | 8 | 0.2608 | 825 | 210 | 795 | 96 | 3.84 | 1.25 | 82 | 1,135 | 55 |
| 6 | 7 | 0.2593 | 806 | 203 | 773 | 90 | 3.91 | 1.26 | 79 | 1,111 | 51 |
| 7 | 6 | 0.2574 | 785 | 194 | 748 | 85 | 3.98 | 1.27 | 77 | 1,071 | 46 |
| 8 | 5 | 0.2559 | 764 | 187 | 729 | 80 | 4.04 | 1.28 | 74 | 1,038 | 41 |
| 9 | 4 | 0.2540 | 740 | 180 | 707 | 75 | 4.10 | 1.29 | 71 | 1,000 | 36 |
| 10 | 3 | 0.2518 | 710 | 171 | 678 | 69 | 4.17 | 1.30 | 69 | 959 | 30 |
| 11 | 2 | 0.2489 | 677 | 162 | 653 | 63 | 4.27 | 1.32 | 65 | 916 | 22 |
| 12 | 1 | 0.2442 | 641 | 148 | 606 | 53 | 4.43 | 1.35 | 57 | 842 | 12 |
To be clear, these are NOT the average stats accumulated for each finisher. Achieving 239 home runs was the average number of home runs required to finish second IN THAT CATEGORY. Those 239 home runs may have come from the 7th place overall team.
Setting Your Targets
The process of using your own projections (that likely contain bias) and setting standings targets based on those projections can be dangerous. But we all do it, so allow me to perpetuate the mistake for a moment.
You could set targets to finish first in each category. Obviously finishing first in each category of a 12-team league results in 120 points and a first place finish. But we often hear that a good goal is to aim for finishing third in each category and that doing so should be good enough for a first place finish. Does that really hold true?
Let’s look at the average final standings for these same leagues:

| Place | Roto Points |
| 1st Place | 99.23 |
| 2nd Place | 91.33 |
| 3rd Place | 84.55 |
| 4th Place | 79.22 |
| 5th Place | 72.49 |
| 6th Place | 67.37 |
| 7th Place | 60.74 |
| 8th Place | 56.06 |
| 9th Place | 50.66 |
| 10th Place | 45.41 |
| 11th Place | 38.89 |
| 12th Place | 30.87 |
The third place objective seems to hold water. Finishing third in a category yields 10 points, or a 100 point total. That’s good enough to beat the average first place point total and is quite significantly more than the average second place total (beating second place wins).
In fact, of the 76 leagues looked at, a total of 100 was good enough to win (beat second place) in 67 of them. For comparison, finishing second in each category would yield 110 points in the standings and would have won all 76 of the leagues.
What Does this Mean for Each Hitter?
Again, OnRoto is home to hardcore league set ups. So if we assume traditional 14 hitter lineups, one would need this average stat line from each player:

| Place | BA | R | HR | RBI | SB |
| 1st Place | .270 | 67.3 | 18.2 | 64.8 | 9.1 |
| 2nd Place | .267 | 64.3 | 17.0 | 62.0 | 8.3 |
| 3rd Place | .264 | 62.3 | 16.4 | 60.2 | 7.7 |
What Does this Mean for Each Pitcher?
I’m not sure an “average pitcher” exists, but here are the stats anyway:
| Place | W | K | SV | ERA | WHIP |
| 1st Place | 10.8 | 146.4 | 9.2 | 3.47 | 1.18 |
| 2nd Place | 10.7 | 138.7 | 8.2 | 3.61 | 1.21 |
| 3rd Place | 9.7 | 133.5 | 7.4 | 3.70 | 1.22 |
Standings Gain Points Considerations
For those that use standings gain points (SGP) as a means of valuing players, here are the raw and relative calculations:
| Type | AVG | R | HR | RBI | SB | ERA | WHIP | W | K | SV |
| SGP | 0.00206 | 25.13 | 8.89 | 25.14 | 6.14 | (0.07695) | (0.01328) | 3.12 | 38.72 | 5.83 |
| RELATIVE SGP | 0.00008 | 1.000 | 0.354 | 1.000 | 0.244 | (0.00199) | (0.00034) | 0.080 | 1.000 | 0.151 |
The relative calculation seeks to put all the different SGP denominators onto the same scale. It’s helpful for comparing SGP denominators from different leagues (it can be misleading to just compare your own denominators to those above without converting them first). I won’t go down the rabbit hole now, but you can read more about relative standings gain points here.
NOTE: I did not remove any outliers from the data sets when calculating these. I’m planning some future analysis on how much of an effect the outliers can have. Jeff Zimmerman’s written about how he removes outliers here.
What Else Do You Want to Know?
The raw data is provided below. You are free to comb through and do your own research. But also feel free to ask questions in the comments below. What do want to know (but keep in mind I don’t have player, roster construction, or transaction info)? What questions do you have about the data?
The Raw Data
Here’s a link to download the data in an Excel file. Or here it is as a Google Sheet. Here’s a preview of the various tabs and data, if you want to know what you’re in for.
NOTE: If you find yourself looking in the detailed list of all leagues and all teams, you might find that some of those leagues or teams are then missing when you go to the specific category worksheet (e.g “R” or “RBI”). This is due to some of the leagues having what seemed to be bad data in the source file I was working with. For example, if I noticed that a team was listed as having only 1 R or an AVG of 866, I just threw the whole league out for that scoring category.
How Did I Do This?
Besides being obsessed with fantasy baseball, I have an Excel fetish. I was given the raw standings data from OnRoto.com and then had to translate that into league standings information for each category. Once I had that, I went through this process to determine averages for each category place (that link will take you to various mixed-league NFBC data).
Tanner writes for Fangraphs as well as his own site, Smart Fantasy Baseball . He's the co-auther of The Process with Jeff Zimmerman, and has written two e-books, Using SGP to Rank and Value Fantasy Baseball Players and How to Rank and Value Players for Points Leagues, and worked with Mike Podhorzer developing a spreadsheet to accompany Projecting X 2.0. Much of his writings focus on instructional "how to" topics, Excel, and strategy. Follow him on Twitter @smartfantasybb.
I assume based on your caveat that you don’t know if every league used the same roster size and construction, correct? Some leagues requiring only 1 catcher instead of 2, or a Swingman like Tout Wars further muddies the data. BUT, it’s better than what we had previously…nothing! Thanks for your sustained obsession with Excel ?
Mike, you are correct. I can’t make any assertions about league setup. But these are hosted at a site most likely to use standard roster constructions. I’ll try to look later to see if there are any obvious league outliers that I can pull out (eg. 1st place was 800 R instead of 900).
I looked at the R category, and here’s the distribution I found:
I should say that’s first place within the R category. I’m not sure exactly how to interpret that data. My guess is that there are some leagues not using traditional rosters, but that the majority are.
If anyone can think of a better way to determine the likelihood, please let me know. I’m sure it would require more than just looking at first place teams. But I’m not sure the best approach.
Probably shouldn’t have just done first place team runs. Here’s total runs for the league and it looks a lot better. I think I see the outliers now.
Ran the averages with the high and low outliers removed (leagues with less than 9,300 runs or more than 9,700), and nothing really changes at all. The averages move only one or two (1st place in runs moves from 942.38 to 940.21). The ratios hardly even move at all.
I’m guessing because the outliers on the high and low end are just cancelling each other out. Doesn’t look like there’s anything to gain by removing those leagues.
Using ratios is not only good for comparing data from different leagues but also good for comparkng the different valuation systems–PVM, SGP, and Standard Deviation. Finding the ratios generated by each system might show you which one is best for your league’s settings.
*comparing*
Carl, are you referring to the “relative SGP” calculations I included? Can you tell me a little more about how you would compare that to PVM and Standard Deviations? Have you seen this written about before? I’d love to read it.
Tanner, first off, let me thank you for doing this work. This new data is a great way to prepare for our upcoming drafts and to make sure we are on the right track with our own values.
I followed your link to the article you posted about relative standings gain points and must say I had the same eureka! moment when I came across that passage in Larry Schechter’s book. I realized at that moment that it’s not the denominators we use but the ratios between the denominators that guarantee the accuracy of our valuations. (Yes, when I say “ratios,” I’m referring to relative SGP.) Following my eureka! moment, I did some studies between the three main valuation systems (PVM, SGP, Standard Deviation) that I’ve published in two books you can find at Amazon (both called _Double Play_).
To answer your second question, I’m going to use the first table you presented above, and I’m going to focus on the batters. I realized early in my studies that the PVM, SGP, and Standard Deviation systems are actually quite similar in their basic processes. The main difference between them is how we come up with the denominators we use to divide into the individual player stats. For PVM, we use the SUM of a category; for SGP we use the SLOPE of the category; for Standard Deviation, we use the STDEV of the category.
So, to get back to your first table, here are the sums for the batter’s counting stats:
R 9507
HR 2397
RBI 9125
SB 1063
Following your method of using the highest number to create the relative SGP, we get
R 1.0419
HR 0.2627
RBI 1.0000
SB 0.1165
These ratios would stand in for the values we would get for using the PVM method. PVM does not use AVG to create value. Traditional PVM uses extra hits (xH), which are created for each player by using the following formula: Player AVG – League AVG (or median) x Player AB. I actually prefer using xH to calculate value in the SGP and STDEV methods as well. Not having AB or H data from the leagues you present, I can’t find xH values to do a complete comparison.
I also found that using HR rather than R or RBI gives me a set of relative numbers that look more like our normal denominators. Here are the sums ratios using HR as the denominator:
R 3.9662
HR 1.0000
RBI 3.8068
SB 0.4435
Here are my STDEV numbers (found by using STDEV on your category columns in the table):
AVG 0.00751
R 90.87
HR 32.26
RBI 90.81
SB 22.22
Here are the relative STDEV numbers (again, I’m using HR as my basis of comparison):
AVG 0.0002
R 2.8166
HR 1.0000
RBI 2.8148
SB 0.6887
Here are my SLOPE (SGP) numbers (they are different from yours, I assume, because of rounding errors):
AVG 0.00206
R 25.09
HR 8.91
RBI 25.1
SB 6.12
Here are my relative SGP numbers (again, based on HR):
AVG 0.0002
R 2.8156
HR 1.0000
RBI 2.8164
SB 0.6869
You’ll note that when we convert all of the denominators to relative numbers (or ratios), the STDEV and the SGP numbers are very similar. We can also see that the relative numbers found for PVM are much different. The R/HR and RBI/HR ratios in PVM are higher, and the SB/HR ratio is lower. This finding seems to verify what we’ve known for a while–namely, that PVM tends to value SB and AVG more and R and RBI less in creating its player values.
Sorry for the length of this reply, but I was truly taken by the findings you presented here and hoped my answers would prove more useful with some explanation.
No need to apologize, Carl. I’m glad you went to that level of detail. I’ve been wanting to dive into some of the other valuation methods to better understand the similarities and differences. It’s nice to see they’re not all that disimilar… and perhaps even eerily similar on many levels.
Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for taking the time!
This is great! Thanks for doing the work…very helpful in prepping for my auction.
Thanks, James!