Hitting/Pitching split in the projections

[Steve S]

What is it? I think last year it was heavier on the pitching than I expected (35% or 40%); in any event, would like to know what it is this year.

I don't know, but ..

I don't know, but I'd guess it's something like 80:180 in a $260 league. LIMA strategy of course requires spending less money on pitching, but the R$s are not based on that approach.

[RotoMaster]

I've always had an issue with hitting/pitching splits in general.

HQ's projections assume a 70/30 split (or whatever it is).

Now let's say in my league it's a 50/50 split.

So in my league all the pitchers would seem like bad bargains compared to their HQ projections, and all the batters would seem like good bargains.

This would not be very useful at the draft so I would end up "decreasing" my HQ hitting projections by a 5/7 ratio and "increasing" my HQ pitching projections by a 5/3 ratio. This would accurately relate HQ's projections to the spending habits of my league.

So my question is this:

Would it not be more "correct" for HQ to supply projections based on a 50/50 split, and then let the individual user modify these to suit the spending habits of his particular league?

I understand HQ may use a 70/30 ratio to save the end user trouble and to make their projections as "generic" as possible by using industry standard splits. This is fine with me, but in theory would a 50/50 split be more "accurate"? After all pitching does account for 50% of the total points.

Thanks.

[RotoMaster]

also...

After the draft is over, projections are provided and they still use a 70/30 split. Why? There is no more money to be "spent". Hitting represents 50% of the points and so does pitching.

For example, let's say after the draft HQ projects Bonds at $40 and RJohnson at $40 (using a 70/30 split). Therefore a Bonds for RJ trade would seem fair. But in reality isn't RJ more valuable to me than Bonds? In other words isn't it wrong to compare hitting and pitching $ projections on a 1-1 basis?

Thanks.

I really don't know

Rotomaster,

I really don't know what "split" the projections are based on. I probably should have said that, and stopped right there.

But I do know something about strategy, and it's clear that spending 50% of one's budget on pitching is usually poor strategy. Volumes have been written on this subject, on this site and others. It's true that actual standings gain points are split evenly between pitching and defense. But it is much harder to accurately project Roto pitching stats than hitting stats, so we pay more for consistency. Even without an injury, Derek Lowe's ERA goes from 2.59 to 4.48, a 73% drop. Which top ten hitters saw their HR total drop by a similar 73% last year without an injury? (To diverge for a moment, Ks are easier to project than most other pitching categories, so it makes sense to tilt slightly more toward pitching in 5x5 than in 4x4. If you are in a league that counts more projectible categories, such as IP, the optimum split may be closer to 50-50.)

If your league mates split 50-50 in 4x4, it seems to me that you will do quite well by spending according to a more traditional split (you won't even need to use a more extreme LIMA budget to draft hitting stars if the rest of the league is spending their cash on pitchers). You can win all the offensive categories, or come darn close to it. Buying a solid closer, with some luck you can finish in the upper division in saves. Using LIMA principles, you will likely finish near the middle of the pack in the rest of the pitching 4x4 categories (except perhaps wins). Once June or July rolls around, your opponents are going to be scrambling for hitting, and you can trade your offensive surplus for what you need.

You ask:
"let's say after the draft HQ projects Bonds at $40 and RJohnson at $40 (using a 70/30 split). Therefore a Bonds for RJ trade would seem fair. But in reality isn't RJ more valuable to me than Bonds?"

If by mid-year you determine that you need what Johnson provides and don't need Bonds as much, then of course you are going to make that trade. It's never a good idea to be a slave to the numbers. Just be aware that pitchers in general are less consistent. (Again, I do NOT know whether either draft or midseason $ projections are based on any particular split, sorry. It's a good question.)

[Steve S]

I assume Ron knows what the split is.

[hqforums]

It varies by update, based on the pool of talent at the time, but generally runs about 68-22. We will be debuting a new custom valuator next month that will allow you to set your own splits.

[Steve S]

I assume you mean 68/32

[RAY@HQ]

Yes, 68/32. I asked Ron last week after seeing the beginning of this thread. Of course, I forgot to come here and post the answer. Sorry about that!

[RotoMaster]

Thanks for the reply Noto.

In reality my league's split is about 67/33 not anywhere near 50/50. I also agree that if my league did have a 50/50 split then the LIMA strategy would be even more inviting.

It's just the theory behind it that bugs me.

The problem is most evident in mid-season projections. If a hitter and pitcher are projected to help me the exact same (same SGPs), then I should value them the same. But since the 70/30 split is factored in during the conversion from SGP to R$, their projected R$'s will not be the same.

I think a "truer" system would be to use SGP (or some other point system) instead of R$, with a 50/50 split. You could still use R$, which would take into account the traditional 70/30 auction split. On draft day I would use R$ to value players, but once the season started I would revert to SGP.

Hopefully some of this makes sense.