No announcement yet.

Analysis used based on Projections

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Analysis used based on Projections

    By reading the post around here, I see a lot of you have intricate models built into excel which use the projections files to drive them. I'm new around here. Can some of you provide me with how you use the projections files weekly, and what kind of stuff you can do with them?

  • #2
    I'm sure there are others with more complex models, but here's what I do...

    Copy the projection files into a single worksheet, then use VLOOKUP to pull specific player's stats into a custom sheet for players I'm evaluating for trades or other roster moves.

    Dump MACK output (or RotoLab) into a spreadsheet, manipulate that data to add to the current stats from my league's stat site, then analyze year-end projections/standings (current + BHQ projections). Use above projection analyzer to target specific moves and impact to year-end projections.
    "A republic if you can keep it."


    • #3
      At the bottom of this page are some links to a whole series Patrick Davitt wrote on using Excel.


      • #4
        Using tips read right here in the message boards, I use a series of filters to separate the players I want from the players I don't want. That way I can see which free agents to pursue and which ones not to. Some good guys don't have the ABs yet, but if they ever get a shot they are the ones I want. So my spreadsheet lists all players with three different fonts: Bold for the guys I want; normal for the guys I can accept since they just miss a criteria or two but are otherwise decent; and light for the guys I don't want under almost any circumstance. My eye is thus drawn toward my target players, and when new projections shoot one of my bold players up the list, I pounce.

        For the record, and giving credit to GE for the pitcher filters, here are the formula I use:

        Sort pitchers by CMD and eliminate anyone under 1.9
        Sort by hr/9 and elminate anyone over 1.3
        Sort by k/9 and eliminate anyone under 5.6
        Sort by WHIP and eliminate anyone over 1.38
        Sort by ERA and eliminate anyone over 4.35
        Sort by xERA and eliminate anyone over 4.20
        Sort by BF/G to separate the starters from the relievers
        Sort pitchers by CMD. Eliminate anyone under 2.0. Any starter over 2.5 is Bold. Any starter under 2.5 is regular. Not on the list is Light

        Sort batters by PTs/AB and eliminate anyone under 0.68 *
        Sort by Eye and eliminate anyone under 0.30
        Sort by CT% and eliminate anyone under 75%
        Sort by BPV and eliminate anyone under 35
        Sort by bb% and eliminate anyone under 6%
        Sort by OBP and eliminate anyone under 330
        Sort by OPS and eliminate anyone under 700
        Sort by RC/G. Anyone over 5.50 is Bold. Anyone under 5.50 is regular. Not on the list is Light.

        * The Points filter is specific to my points-based league and thus isn't something you can apply to other leagues directly. I've noticed over the years that there are enough batters who get 0.70 points per AB that you never need to go below that level even for your bench. So in this league, if someone projects to get under 0.68 pts/AB or less, I don't want him.

        You get the idea. By taking the projections into Excel, I can sort to my heart's content to find the players worth targeting.
        Last edited by NICK@HQ; 04-18-2006, 02:08 PM. / @NickRichardsHQ


        • #5
          I use the projections to create year-to-date SGP's and projected-balance-of-year SGP's for each player. I also have a vlookup function to place each player on a team in my league. It's much handier using this home-made free agent list instead of my league web site's FA list. Though of course it does require more maintenance.

          And then, as Nick points out, you can sort until your heart's content.


          • #6
            How is your FA list handier than the web based one?


            • #7
              Well, I should first mention that I have to get into the groove of the new HQ projections files.

              But anyway, my league web site FA list doesn't have all the stats, etc., that my HQ list has. And while I generally have a good idea of the top few free agents available, it's ranking the 5th-15th guys where it's tougher. So instead of taking my league web site file, looking up the names, and cross-checking it vs. the HQ file, I can just use my HQ file to check on my league free agents.


              • #8
                Same here. I totally ignore the Sportsline rankings. I go off my spreadsheet to see who is worth bidding on.
       / @NickRichardsHQ


                • #9
                  Why use CT% <75% as a filter

                  I've gotten some good ideas on how to use the projections from this thread. Nick, thank you for your specifics. One question: why use 75% CT as a filter. I understand that it all comes down to personal preferences. If I use this to weed players out, I'd be eliminating Jim Thome, Jason Bay, Pat Burrell, Richie Sexson, Geoff Jenkins, Johnny Gomes, Jim Edmonds etc., not that any of those guys would be available on the wire in my leagues.
                  "The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." - Casey Stengel


                  • #10
                    Adjust the 75% to your taste and league parameters. If you go below 70% you're asking for trouble. I sometimes use 72%.
                    "As often is the case, GE is right." -- Davitt@HQ


                    • #11
                      Yes, 75% is subjective. I'm looking for the cream of the crop in every category, even if it means a few big names slide down. Keep in mind that after I do these filters, at the end I sort by R$ to see the most valuable names first. That includes Thome and Edmonds and the like. But now they are not in bold, and that gives me a hint that there was something in their projections that wasn't perfect. It makes me look again, just to make sure that I'm not overlooking something.

                      I might still do a deal for such a player. I just traded for Raul Ibanez to shore up my #5 OF slot in my points-based league. He just missed being a bold-faced player, in only one category. And it was a near miss. So I didn't mind and traded for him.

                      Don't use the numbers above as gospel. I just included it as an example of what you can do. You should adapt things to your league, your circumstances, and your tastes.
             / @NickRichardsHQ


                      • #12

                        Mind if I pick your brain? If you're in a points-based league, why not just use Pts/AB, or total Pts, as your sole criterion? Is it just because you want to make sure the Pts/AB are backed up with sufficient skills? Would you pass over a clearly best Pts/AB player if they failed one or more of the criteria?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Dish

                          Mind if I pick your brain? If you're in a points-based league, why not just use Pts/AB, or total Pts, as your sole criterion? Is it just because you want to make sure the Pts/AB are backed up with sufficient skills? Would you pass over a clearly best Pts/AB player if they failed one or more of the criteria?

                          That is exactly how I used to do it, and Pts/AB is still a very good metric to use as a quick and dirty method. This year, however, inspired by what GE wrote about using other metrics, I decided to track the underlying skills as well. As you supposed, I want to make sure the good results are being achieved honestly, as it were. If a batter has the marginal PTs/AB ration I like to see, but the underlying skills provide a warning sign, it might mean he is playing over his head and a fall is coming. For example, in my league 0.70 PTs/AB is the basic cutoff point for batters. Under that level and he's not worth having. So what do you do with a batter who has a 0.71, but his Eye is bad, his walk rate is 3%, and so on? You think twice, that's what.

                          As for your last question, I would not necessarily pass on a high PTs/AB player, but he would not be my first choice if I could find someone else with a similar rate but whose underlying skills are better.

                          For example, my current MI is Ronnie Belliard. He's in my middle category, someone with some skills, but not top-notch in every category. He basically misses in RC/G where he is close, but not quite bold-faced material. OK, in balance of the year R$ value, Belliard gets $11. Now what if the owner of Ryan Freel wants to swap him for Belliard? I look at Freel's R$ value and it's $23. Hey, good deal for me! So I look closer at Pts/AB and I see Freel with 0.86 for Belliard's 0.77. Wow, great deal for me! But if I look at point projections I find 417 for Freel and 411 for Belliard. Huh? Naturally Freel is projected to get fewer ABs (485 vs 535), and that helps explain it.

                          But there are underlying issues with Freel compared to Belliard. His RC/G is lower, his RAR is way lower, his BPV is considerably lower. His BAVG and OPS are lower. Those SBs are nice, but this isn't roto so I don't have categories to fill. Just points. So while the R$ value tells me to swap Belliard for Freel, and the Pts/AB also tells me to make the swap, the underlying skill set tells me not to bother. These are basically equivalent players in my league.

                          I'm experimenting this year with these new metrics to try to find the players who have the key skills that will put them in a position to succeed. Time will tell how this will impact my trading and drafting, but for now it will steer me away from the Freels and toward the Belliards, just to give a very minor example.

                          In general, the top players at each position are still the top players at each position, and they are there for a reason. The skills are there. But there are a few names at the top of each position that these metrics tell me to be cautious about. Vlad is the best OFer, no questions asked. Jason Bay? Great guy to get. Carl Crawford is the next highest point-rated player. But his RC/G is considerably lower than the other top OFers, as is his Pts/AB. His Eye is bad, his walk rate is bad, and thus is OBP is bad. OK, he will still get the points, but I'll go the extra dollar for Manny or Sheff instead of Crawford. Let someone else get the inevitable slumps that Crawford will have from those skills. Crawford may get the same yearly point totals as Manny (in my league), but there are going to be weeks when he gets nothing, and I don't want that up and down scoring on my team. Give me a steady point producer, and I won't find myself stuck one week with a negative point value from one of my top players.
                 / @NickRichardsHQ


                          • #14
                            Thanks, Nick, that's great. I really like the Belliard/Freel analysis. In a nutshell, it seems that you're creating your own 'reliability index' to help sort between players of potentially equivalent value. Total Control Free Agency? And I could see where a last place team might make the Freel trade, looking for upside, while a contender would be more likely to sit with "old reliable".


                            • #15
                              Yes, that's a good way to put it. I'm looking to create a more reliable team.

                              It's also useful to find up-and-coming players who do not yet have the playing time, but who have the skills to succeed if they get the playing time. Andy Green in Arizona is someone who was buried in the list when I sort by Points. But sure enough he does well in every metric. You name it, he shows the skill. It's a playing time issue with him. If he got the playing time, he could conceivably put up Cantu or Cano numbers. So I grabbed him for my deep bench. Ya never know. By doing these sorts, he wound up as a bold player, and that really stood out when I sorted again by points. In a sea of light grey, here was a bold player. Made me wonder why, I checked the numbers, read his HQ writeup, and got him for a buck as speculation.
                     / @NickRichardsHQ