What changes a projection?

[JonE]

I noticed that a veteran pitcher (more than 500 career IP) on my team who had a $3 projection on March 25 saw his projection fall to $-5 last week and $-14 today. I know that projections change with changes in playing time, but that hasn't happened in this case. And I know that current-season performance gradually becomes more and more important to projections as the season goes on, but I didn't think it happened this early or with such a strong weight (although he has been really bad in his first three starts). Could this just be the result of his poor 2022, and so his projection might bounce back up if he pitches well this week? Or are you actively intervening if you see something?

[RAY@HQ]

It's pretty rare that I actively intervene, especially this early in the season. And the automated blending of in-season results with pre-season baselines is barely having an impact right now. But give me the name and I'm happy to take a look/play back what changed as best I can. You've got me curious.

[JonE]

Okay. It's Nick Pivetta, who in his third start improved his ERA to 10.03 and WHIP to 2.14. Depending on how you look at it, he is either the second-worst or third-worst SP in 2022, so if anyone can get dragged down by in-season stats, he's the one. (I know, I know, his Dom and SwK% are still good... )

[RAY@HQ]

Interesting. I went back to 3/25, and checked Opening Day projections as well, his rate stats were 4.61 ERA/1.32 WHIP at both of those times. He's now projected 4.81/1.42, which is I guess what happens when even a minimal weighting of a 10-something ERA/2-something WHIP come into play.

There's another dynamic likely in play with the dollar values... it seems like his value moved a couple of bucks between 3/25 and Opening Day, which likely was the result of the rest of the player pool getting tightened around him, as we culled projections back to 100% PT per team. Most of the reduced pitchers were bad ones, so basically Pivetta's position on the valuation bell curve fell relatively speaking. I saw more of this in March 22 than previously (or at least noticed it more), probably because we were fairly steep in making those changes in the abbreviated post-lockout period, where that process is more gradual in "normal" years.

[JonE]

That certainly would explain it. In a more typical offseason those changes wouldn't have been telescoped like that. Thanks, Ray!