Today, I continue my Pod Projections vs Steamer battle, this time moving along to stolen bases. Similarly to the way I compared our home run forecasts, I’m going to calculate a PA/SB rate first and then extrapolate that projection over 650 plate appearances so we’re only comparing stolen base projections and playing time forecasts don’t factor in.
Yesterday, I compared my Pod Projections to the Steamer projections to identify the hitters with home run upside. I calculated each hitter’s AB/HR rate and then extrapolated it over 600 at-bats. At that point, I compared how many home runs each system is forecasting, given a 600 at-bat projection. Today, I’ll share the names of hitters Pod is projecting for significantly fewer home runs than Steamer.
Every year, I pit my Pod Projections against the Steamer projections in various categories. Today I’m going to continue the annual smackdowns by calculating AB/HR rates and then extrapolating them over 600 at-bats. At that point, I’ll compare how many home runs each system is forecasting, given a 600 at-bat projection. I’ll start by sharing the names of hitters Pod is projecting for significantly more home runs than Steamer. Many of these players figure to be part-timers, so consider them sleepers in deeper leagues.
The Pod Projection process sharing continues! The 2021 forecasts are now available and include nearly 600 player lines. As usual, I’ll dive into my projection methodology (detailed in Projecting X 2.0) by sharing my process on several hitters and pitchers.
2021 Pod Projection Index
Ha-seong Kim
Trent Grisham
Only two months after publishing the first one of this year, it’s time to get forecasting again with another 2021 Pod Projection! The 2021 forecasts are now available and include nearly 600 player lines. As usual, I’ll dive into my projection methodology (detailed in Projecting X 2.0) by sharing my process on several hitters and pitchers.
2021 Pod Projection Index
Ha-seong Kim
Today, I’ll analyze 2020 fantasy breakout, Padres outfielder Trent Grisham. A 2019 minor league performance spike between Double-A and Triple-A put him on fantasy owners’ radars, but his MLB debut that year was a mixed bag. Still, he entered the 2020 season as a trendy sleeper, and he certainly delivered on those hopes by going 10/10 over the short season and easily outearning his cost. Now, fantasy owners aren’t entirely sure how to value him. His NFBC ADP since Feb 1 sits around 71, but he’s gone as early as pick 46 and as late as 119. Clearly, there’s little agreement on his 2021 value, which isn’t too surprising given the limited MLB sample we have to evaluate. So let’s go metric by metric, discussing and projecting each, and ultimately calculating a full projection line, which will be compared to the rest of the forecasts shared on his player page.
Plate Appearances: 631
Grisham spent the majority of his time batting leadoff last season. When he didn’t hit leadoff, he typically batted second. So unless he endures an extended slump, expect him to hit at or near the top of the order. My projected PAs assume he hits leadoff, but I didn’t give him full credit considering the slight risk he takes a seat against some left-handers.
Sadly, the NFBC team building fun comes to a close. To go along with my splendid $14 offense, I attempted to assemble a $246 pitching staff using NFBC average auction values from Feb 1 and on. Although I succeeding in spending all my money when buying a dominant offense to go with my $9 pitching staff, I left two bucks on the table here for my ultimate pitching staff, only spending $244 of the $246 I had available.
Last week I decided to have a bit of fun by building various starting hitter rosters and pitching staffs based on NFBC average auction values (AAVs). One of those exercises was building a $9 pitching staff. It’s something I always wanted to try in my local 12-team mixed league, but have never really come close to executing on. It’s very difficult to do because you’ll likely end up overpaying for your offense just to spend that $251, since the top players’ prices typically get pushed higher than the value they are projected to earn. Sure, your $9 pitching staff is likely to be projected to earn more than $9, but overall, you’re not going to leave the auction with a roster forecasted to earn anywhere near the profit you could if just playing it straight as a value-based auctioner.
Yesterday, I assembled a 14-player offense from the hitters who weren’t bought in NFBC auctions since Feb 1. Today, let’s flip over to the pitching side.
On Monday, I built a $14 offense using only $1 players from the NFBC average auction values starting Feb 1. My player pool to choose from for that exercise was 59 players. But what about those that weren’t purchased at all? Surely they could have been had for a buck, too! That group is now my pool to choose from for this thrilling offense. As a reminder, there were seven auctions run since Feb 1, so this 14-player offense will be solely composed of hitters who failed to be bought in any of them.
Yesterday, I built a $14 NFBC offense using their average auction values and limiting myself to an entire squad of $1 hitters. Today, let’s now build a $9 pitching staff. Unfortunately, I only had 40 pitchers to choose from, but I could guarantee you, my selections would put fear into the minds of all my leaguemates if I finished the auction with this sweet, sweet crew.
