Back when we launched FG+ earlier this year, I included a table that put dollar values on players for year one and future year ottoneu leagues. Since then, I have mentioned a few times that I wanted to refresh those values with new projections.
Well, I have auctions coming up the next two weekends and finally got my act together to get my spreadsheets in shape; today, I release them into the wild!
Last week was all about the consensus ranks. This week, you’ll see some tiered ranks as we also try to finish up the depth chart discussion. But before we move on too quickly, I thought it would be interesting and informative for me to pick out the players that I liked and disliked more than the other analysts involved in the consensus ranks. Hopefully I’ll have a short, concise reason for my rankings in each case. Hopefully.
This week, I will be identifying the players at each position in which my rankings differ most from the consensus that was unveiled last week. The funny thing about comparing my rankings to the other three RotoGraphers is how many times I am surprised at who I value much more or less than them. Most of the time, I could guess who I am more or less bullish on even before I see everyone else’s rankings as it simply comes down to a difference in projections. However, that’s not always the case. Sometimes I am bewildered as to why my rankings differ so drastically because my projections seems right in line with general expectations. So I will attempt to figure out and explain why I am higher or lower on each player.
Since I don’t know what the other RotoGraphers’ projections are, I will be referencing the projections systems frequently and using those as a proxy. To make this more useful, the bullish section will only include players who I project to earn positive value in a 12-team mixed league, while the bearish one will only include players the consensus expects to earn positive value.
Relievers! Are they the kickers of fantasy baseball? It might be even worse: kickers at least give you straight points. There is no ‘field goal’ category. There is a ‘saves’ category, however, and only relievers can get you anywhere in that category. So hold your nose and jump in.
I’m a big fan of picking at the end of tiers — and your bullpen reporters will get you tiered rankings soon, and then give you daily updates about bullpens around the league — so there are some names that jump out at me. Joe Nathan looks like the last guy we all agree belongs in the top tier. Then somewhere around Rafael Soriano and Tom Wilhelmsen there seems to be a second tier. Then I’d usually take a break and take two fliers. Let’s say two of Ryan Madson, Steve Cishek and Bobby Parnell. Then again, my “closers” in AL-LABR were Jose Veras, Joaquin Benoit, and Andrew Bailey.
I don’t like to pay much for saves, in other words.
The pitcher rankings! My favorite. There are just so many of them, and so many different ways to project and predict. Do you focus on injuries and their likelihood? Do you focus on performance? Are you risk-averse and like veterans, or do you go for broke and get the young guys?
As usual, the best approach is probably to mix it up. Get an older, undervalued guy — could be Jered Weaver or Roy Halladay, depending on which ranker you ask. Get a hot young prospect — Jeff Samardzija, Marco Estrada or Matt Harvey perhaps? Get an injury risk — maybe Jake Peavy or or Brandon Morrow? And throw in a ground-ball dude with lower upside like Trevor Cahill or Tim Hudson for good measure. Hey, I don’t mind this mythical staff we’ve just created, and it wouldn’t be impossible to draft it.
The outfield is always a bear. So many dang players. We’ve got 114 ranked, and another 16 mentioned, which should get you all the way through your five-outfield twenty-team league and then one or two.
But a word first about our rankers and our rankings. One of the reasons we’re using four rankers is, as I said, to do a mini crowd-source. (I do like the idea of opening it up to our fans, so we’ll see about that as a long-term plan, by the way.) Something was made of a certain ranking of Chase Headley in the third basemen — but that ranking dragged the Padres’ hot corner man up one spot in the consensus. Seems like folly to make such a big deal about one spot, and, in a way, it represents the fact that some drafters out there will believe in Chase Headley too. Heck, our own xHR/FB analysis believes in Chase Headley.
But that’s enough about third basemen. Here, no doubt some of you will be upset about a certain ranking of Giancarlo Stanton. Well guess what. That ranking might have cost the powerful Stanton two spots in the rankings at most. And! Stanton doesn’t steal bases, has a high strikeout rate that could lead to a bad batting average, and is coming off a year in which he saw knee surgery. You could tell the story of Justin Upton, who has power, speed, and the ability to hit .300 — is it crazy to put him ahead of a possible one-category guy on a bad team?
Over the last few days, my compatriots four of my compatriots have begun presenting you with an extremely valuable draft tool: consensus positional rankings. But for those of you who play ottoneu, things differ a bit, especially if you are in a 4×4 or Points League.
Starting today, I am going to take a look at those rankings and let you know where ottoneu players should take a different stance.
It’s time to finish up the infield. Surprisingly perhaps only to me, third base ended up being the deepest position more years than it wasn’t in my FanGraphs+ auction strategy analysis.
There’s probably more agreement at the top of this position than most, at least more than the shortstops. Once you get past the top three or four, the agreement stops, but then you also have a scrum that looks like it could be one single tier, all the way down past twelve. This could be a position you wait on if you miss the top guys in a mixed league. But don’t wait too long in deep league. It gets dicey again in the late twenties.
You know what? I don’t think I have to link back to the positions we’ve done before. Because David Appelman was kind of enough to revamp the RotoGraphs landing page, and now you can easily access all your draft tools — including our consensus ranks, and later our tiered positional ranks — just by scrolling your eyeballs to the right an inch-plus. Scroll those eyeballs! Enjoy one-touch draft tools! Applaud the dark overlord!
Okay, back to shortstops. Given the health and bust/regress concerns of the other shortstops in the top five, maybe it’s not surprising that we have a new number one shortstop this season. Starlin Castro won’t wow you in the speed or power stats, but he is on the right side of his peak, and he has been slowly building his skillset, so it seems that his risk of regression is low, and he should be healthy, too. It’s in interesting that we agreed by not agreeing — only one analyst had Castro first, and yet it seems fine that he is first. It’s not like we can just wipe away those lost Jose Reyes seasons.
We know y’all are starting to draft, so we’re going to pump the rankings out two at a time. We even started over the weekend, you might have noticed. The first baseman were first, the catchers were second, and now we get to the second basemen.
I’m partial to these guys — as a bad glove, no-bat youngster, I usually ended up at second base when I played. And it’s one of those positions that teams seem to find. There, among the failed shortstops and slightly athletic former tweener third basemen, they find a guy that works for them. And no, Matt Carpenter is not ranked here yet, (I might put him around 22nd), because you can’t play a guy in a position where he’s not eligible.
No matter where you find your second baseman, though, you need to find one. On to the ranks.