Backed by this study supporting the idea that pitcher strikeout rate over spring training does hold some predictive value, I identified and discussed 12 starting pitchers that had posted significantly higher strikeout rates during the spring than my Pod Projection. Let’s see how many, if any, of these pitchers actually outperformed my forecast.
Today, I finish my comparison of Pod ERA projections vs Steamer with the downside guys. Given that league ERA was at its highest since 2006, this should be an easy win for Pod. But, I only listed and discussed four pitchers, probably because on the whole, Pod was more bullish on ERA than Steamer was (oops), so there were fewer pitchers I was projecting for a significantly worse ERA. Let’s see how the for performed.
Today, I review my ERA upside guys, which included 13 names I was projecting for an ERA significantly better than Steamer. Let’s find out how these pitchers performed and which projection was closer.
Yesterday, I reviewed my pre-season stolen base upside guys, comparing my Pod Projections to Steamer. I didn’t fare too well, coming closer than Steamer on just one out of five. Today, I hope to perform better, as I review my stolen base downside guys, comparing my PA/SB forecast to Steamer’s. Let’s find out how I did.
Since I publish my own projections, I like to compare the completed set to Steamer to see which players and stat categories we disagree on the most. So in mid-March, I compared my stolen base projection over 650 plate appearances, using an implied PA/SB forecast, to Steamer’s and then discussed the five hitters I was most bullish on. Let’s find out how those hitters actually performed and which projection system was closer.
Last week, I reviewed an article I published in the preseason discussing the breakouts from 2018 and whether I felt they would be a 2019 bust or were for real. Today, I will be reviewing the 2018 busts. Like for the breakouts, I discussed seven busts from 2018 and determined whether or not they would remain a bust (meaning earn similar depressed fantasy value) or rebound.
Heading into the season, I published my first piece on previous season breakouts with a verdict on whether I believe the hitter is for real and will repeat or come close, or will be a bust in the following season. I discussed seven hitters in the inaugural edition, all of whom earned at least $13.90 more than in 2017. Let’s find out how my calls did.
Today, I move along to reviewing the six hitters whose 2018 xBABIP marks fell significantly short of their actual BABIP marks, suggesting serious downside in 2019. Let’s see how they ended up performing.
Today, I move onto reviewing my preseason BABIP calls, starting with the surgers. In late February, I used my xBABIP equation to identify eight hitters whose actual BABIP marks were significantly below their xBABIP marks, suggesting a potentially dramatic BABIP jump in 2019. Let’s find out if that did indeed occur for these hitters.
In mid-February, I compared the xHR/FB rate my equation spit out to the batter’s actual mark in 2018 to share a list of six batters the formula would suggest possessed significant HR/FB rate downside in 2019. The record home run rate this year is going to probably make the picks look bad, but let’s take a gander at the names and the results anyway to find out if that was indeed the case.
