The Process: Thinking One Layer Deeper
Now that we’ve hit the holidays and fantasy owners may be staring at a couple of four-day weekends so it might be time to cozy up with your favorite e-reader and bang out the 200+ pages of The Process. As memorable and life-altering as bowl games sponsored by credit unions, auto parts stores, and baked cheese crackers can be, this is a great time of year to take on such a project.
Here’s a nice peek under the covers of the book, but if you take the time to read the book, the biggest skill or improvement we hope owners take away is to elevate their level of thinking. Thinking about players, projections, valuations, and strategies one layer deeper than previously done.
Start Small, Start with Valuations
Perhaps the biggest example of this is the inclination of most owners to spend time heavily investing in projections and then leaping directly to some form of subjective ranking or “feelings” about players. Instead, The Process preaches (repeatedly) adding a layer between the projections-to-rankings approach. The use of a valuation system like Z-scores or standings gain points creates a more objective basis for making decisions.
Many different judgments about risk and playing time are explored in the book. There’s still plenty of need to layer in these subjective feelings into a player’s ranking, but that layer of judgment should be applied to the projection and not the final ranking.
Add Theory to Valuations
In formulating player values isn’t new to owners, exploring the theories and concepts underlying these valuations may be. The book includes sections on replacement level, the myths behind position scarcity, the hitter-pitcher split, the value of multi-position eligibility, and even deep thoughts on the proper valuation of closers.
It’s a Work in Process
One of the big challenges we faced in publishing the book was deciding when it was done. The Process will likely never be “done”. It will continue to be a living and breathing guide into the process we use to prepare for a draft, handle in-season management, review last season, and start it all over again.
The area we feel most uncertain about and want to explore more deeply in next year’s book is how to properly value closers in the preseason given what we know transpires during the season. There are a solid 10 pages in the book discussing projecting closers, valuing closers, alternate ways of valuing closers, drafting closers, FAABing closers, and more, yet it doesn’t seem like enough. Here’s an example of the type of work we’re already kicking around to be included in next year’s book and why it’ll never be done…
The Saves Landscape is Changing
It’s going to look like the data below is made up. It’s not. The fantasy industry needs to reevaluate a lot of the preconceived notions we have about closers and the Saves category. Regardless of whether an owner is from the “pay for saves” crowd or from the “saves are a terrible investment” group, it’s time wipe the slate clean and admit the beliefs formulated five years ago may no longer be applicable today.
| Year | MLB Saves | Saves Captured in Average NFBC ME League | % Captured |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 1264 | 897 | 71.0% |
| 2017 | 1179 | 911 | 77.0% |
| 2016 | 1276 | 994 | 78.0% |
| 2015 | 1292 | 1015 | 79.0% |
| 2014 | 1264 | 1009 | 80.0% |
| 2013 | 1266 | 1026 | 81.0% |
The amount of Saves occurring in the major leagues hasn’t changed much over this time period. Yet fantasy owners’ abilities to capture Saves continues to decline.
| Year | Pitchers w/ 5 or More Saves | Pitchers w/ 10 or More Saves | Pitchers w/ 20 or More Saves | Pitchers w/ 30 or More Saves |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 59 | 43 | 20 | 11 |
| 2017 | 52 | 40 | 23 | 11 |
| 2016 | 53 | 42 | 22 | 16 |
| 2015 | 47 | 37 | 28 | 21 |
| 2014 | 49 | 39 | 25 | 17 |
| 2013 | 42 | 37 | 28 | 19 |
Fewer and fewer set closers exist. Instead, teams are being more flexible with their bullpens with more pitchers getting Save chances. Here a look at next year’s projected Save totals.
| Year | Pitchers w/ 5 or More Saves | Pitchers w/ 10 or More Saves | Pitchers w/ 20 or More Saves | Pitchers w/ 30 or More Saves |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 Steamer | 52 | 41 | 26 | 13 |
A few top-end closers (20+ Saves) will likely not make their projected totals but these projections, along with our process, will need to adapt as the game changes. No longer are there 30 set closers to spread around.
Conclusion
Overall, The Process provides a detailed roadmap on successfully running a fantasy team. Owners can pick and choose which steps they want to implement when building their teams. As the football season winds down, it’s a great time to get a head start on the competition with The Process. It’s less than 60 days until spring training starts.
Jeff, one of the authors of the fantasy baseball guide,The Process, writes for RotoGraphs, The Hardball Times, Rotowire, Baseball America, and BaseballHQ. He has been nominated for two SABR Analytics Research Award for Contemporary Analysis and won it in 2013 in tandem with Bill Petti. He has won four FSWA Awards including on for his Mining the News series. He's won Tout Wars three times, LABR twice, and got his first NFBC Main Event win in 2021. Follow him on Twitter @jeffwzimmerman.
What happened with total MLB saves in 2017? I mean relative to total games played it’s a pretty small blip but it does stand out next to the other season totals on the table.
Don’t know the reason for it, but it’s only a 7% difference from the average of 2018 and 2016. That’s not a huge difference, and could be simple variance in the number of blowout games that occurred in 2017, just as one example.
It is an outlier.
Been saying this for a couple years now but the diminishing capture rate saves makes elite 30-save closers all the more valuable. Making sure you’ve rostered 2 or 3 “established” closers allows you more roster flexibility to chase other counting categories week-to-week.
How do you think it changes the risk profile? They’re more valuable, and that’s fairly obvious for even semi-competitive leagues, so they’re much more expensive. However, even 30+ saves guys are super risky to get hurt/lose their job, and with the increased risk, you’re now paying more for a player who is increasingly likely to lose their job.
OTOH, if a stud goes down, there are (generally) more options on the wire to backfill some saves.
For me, personally, I’m going to try and take advantage of the increased flexibility in getting saves from more sources. I’m planning to stream a RP this year, similar to starters, based on some very simple heuristics (RP is on the wire, the main closer has pitched 2+ days in a row [or threw >1IP last night], and the team has a game). We’ll see how well it works, but if I can stream 20 saves with reasonable rate stats, I’ll consider that a good use of my last roster spot.
If you have the time that seems a reasonable strategy. However, it does make sense to have a list of who to avoid and who to target and when to target them. For example, if Jansen or Chapman slip be ready to jump, and don’t be afraid to load up on mid tier guys like Giles or Dominguez or others if available mid rounds. Better to strike early.
I don’t think that is a good strategy at all. There won’t be many guys that fit your criteria available on most days and they won’t be on waivers if they are good relievers who are clearly second in line.
The best strategy I’ve found is to speculate on saves a week or two before the trade deadline. It’s the new trend, there’s a few closers who get traded every deadline and they’re usually pretty easy to guess. By then there’s always a few people who’ve given up, a few who don’t need saves and a few running low on FAAB so it’s a cheap way to pick up 5-10 saves from a couple of different guys.
Just to add to this. Last year there are 10 players (total 103 saves) who had 4 or fewer saves in the first half of the year and then had 7+ saves in the 2nd half. Pretty much all of these guys were available in July so with a little speculation you can pickup 20+ cheap saves late in the year
Jose Leclerc 12
Trevor Hildenberger 7
Mychal Givens 8
Wily Peralta 12
Pedro Strop 11
Kirby Yates 10
Jeremy Jeffress 12
Will Smith 11
A.J. Minter 11
Robert Gsellman 9
Total 103
So you pick up the unproven guys on the non-contenders for the stretch tank? I am not sure those situations are as predictable as you think they are. The guys you are picking up are also the subject of trade rumors and if they blow the first save opp, they are probably out of the job. I think this only works well retroactively. Personally, I just pick up RP off of the non-contenders – no speculation necessary!
When is the process available in book form, old school here…
Hi Broken Bat, unfortunately we don’t have any official plans to have it available in book form for this 2019 version. Perhaps for next season.
I bought The Process. Looking at Appendix A – Steamer 600. Where do stats come from?
They are not final 2018 and not Steamer projections for 2019. I would have emailed you if I could have found your address.
Thanks
Hi Robert, Appendix A is an official Steamer 600 projection we obtained from Jared Cross and Steamer earlier in the fall. It’s worth noting that it is a “600 projection”, meaning all stats there assume exactly 600 plate appearances. This is because it would be impossible to accurately predict playing time for players when the book was released (and arguably even now, as we see trades and signings happening nearly every day).
If you compare Appendix A to the Fangraphs version of Steamer 600, you may also see very subtle rounding differences, but they should be very much the same information. For example, I think Appendix A shows Mookie Betts for 101 R but the Fangraphs report shows 102 R. I’m pretty certain this has to do with the decimal point the per PA numbers were rounded to before extrapolating to 600 PAs.
Regarding re-calibrating save values, I am not sure that the game has changed much at the back of the bullpen. It seems like every year there is a Hader, Andrew Miller, Devenski, etc, but that is just one or two guys per year in the MLB. Those guys always pitch in front of a guy with a bunch of saves, so its not like teams don’t trust/want guys in that traditional role. Several teams without elite back-end options are more likely to use a platoon situation, and many bad teams don’t even try to accumulate talent which pools them up on contenders but fundamentally I am not sure how different things are outside of talent distribution. I would be wary of drawing too many conclusions from the tanky landscape of MLB. Conclusions are fine, but assuming that is it some sort of evolution is where it goes wrong. Half the league doesn’t try to compete and their rotations/bullpens reflect it. Perhaps the re-calibration is that you don’t want any part of those bullpens on a mediocre/bad team. In the event that they do have a closer, he will be a setup guy for a contender by the all-star break. The thing that is changing the most about the game is how we actively embrace teams that are not trying to compete.