Steamer and I: Michael Conforto – A Review

At last, we come to our final outfielder Steamer and I review. Today, I’ll recap my Steamer and I battle over Michael Conforto, which pit my Pod Projection against the Steamer projection system. I was surprised to learn that I was significantly more bullish on Conforto than Steamer was, as I felt he was actually overvalued in fantasy leagues, though mostly due to his expected lineup slot toward the bottom of the Mets order. Let’s see what we expected versus what actually transpired.

For the projection comparison, all 2015 and Steamer counting stats have been extrapolated to the same number of plate appearances I forecasted. I also decided to add a line for his 2016 counting stats extrapolated over the plate appearance projection, given that he spent a chunk of time in the minors.

Welp, that was a pretty disastrous performance and quite a disappointment for those who tabbed Conforto as a fantasy sleeper. He showed quite a bit of promise during his 2015 debut, but his power output was well above his minor league performance, raising the question of whether it was sustainable. The answer turned out to be no, but it wasn’t the power that ruined his year.

Let’s look at the extrapolated line so we could better compare his rate of extra-base hits and how the two projection systems did. I nearly nailed the doubles projection, even with some regression built in from his 2015 rate (remember, that 2015 line isn’t actually what he did, but extrapolated to the numbers of plate appearances I forecasted in 2016). I was baffled by the low doubles projection by Steamer and it did indeed turn out far too low. We could ignore the triples projection as that was just a random guess for a non-speedster.

Steamer and I were nearly identical with our home run projection, both of us expecting a decline from his 2015 extrapolated mark. I noted in my original writeup that Conforto vastly outperformed his xHR/FB rate of 11.3% by posting an actual mark of 17%. That led to a projected 13.5% HR/FB rate and he finished at an even lower 12.2%. He would have fallen well short of our home run projections had he not boosted his fly ball rate to well above 40%. Not surprisingly, both his fly ball exit velocity and Barrels/Batted Ball Event declined from 2015 to 2016. Both still remained above average though.

Moving along to walk and strikeout rates, look at the gap in walk rate projections between Steamer and I! I was bullish on his walk rate given his low O-Swing% and Swing% marks, two metrics I don’t believe Steamer uses in its projections. I ended up being correct directionally, but still underestimated Conforto’s patience! Oddly, Conforto both swung at pitches outside the zone and overall more often this year, yet his walk rate jumped. That’s not normal, but I would actually suggest that his 2015 was the fluke, whereas his 2016 mark better matches with the Plate Discipline metrics.

The strikeout rate was the heart of the problem for Conforto this year. A better than league average SwStk% and mid-to-high teen strikeout rate marks in the minors failed to hint at any such trouble in the future. And while his SwStk% did increase this season, it was only by a minor amount, and certainly doesn’t seem like enough to lead to such a jump in strikeout rate. The early Steamer projection has the right idea in almost completely ignoring the jump, projecting sharp improvement back toward his 2015 mark. My 2016 strikeout rate projection proved closer, but only because both systems were way off.

We touched on the power earlier and you could see the difference in ISO projections. The gap was entirely due to the difference in doubles, and since I was nearly on the nose, my ISO projection ended up nearly perfect.

Last, we head to the BABIP projection, which is another metric Steamer and I disagreed on. Conforto’s BABIP marks jumped around in the minors, so it was hard to get a good read on his true talent level. Unfortunately, he became an extreme fly ball hitter, which hampered his BABIP, and it ended up falling well below the league average and both of our projections. There was probably some bad luck baked into that .267 BABIP too and because we could expect some sort of rebound, his entire offensive game will improve as a result.

On the whole, Steamer fared much better from a wOBA perspective, thanks to a suppressed BABIP and spike in strikeout rate, despite the system missing on the walk rate and power. As happens often with these projections, better result, but no better a process. I think there’s good rebound potential here, but high risk for a platoon situation and a spot toward the bottom of the order. As such, Conforto makes for a better NL-Only acquisition where there will be more profit potential than a shallow mixed league buy where he still may not be that much better than replacement level.