Tagged: ERA

Update of 2013 MORPS Projections

Updates have  been posted for both batting and pitching projections.  These updates include all players that are currently projected to make each team’s 25 man roster according to MLBDEPTHCHARTS.  A large number of non-roster players have also been included.  However, non-roster players have not been “modeled” for MORPS projections.  This means that their projection is based only on historical and mean data.  All active players are assigned a rotorank prior to non-roster players.  Thus, all non-roster players are at the end of the MORPS projections.  This includes free agents.  If some of these players actually win a roster position, compare their roto column to those of active players to decide where they should be slotted.  For simulation leagues, you would use the RC column for batters and OERV for pitchers.

2013 MORPS Batting Projections

2013 MORPS Pitching Projections

As players are signed and spring training position battles are settled, I will plan on updating the projections.  This will occur periodically until the season starts.

Advertisements

Projecting Pitchers – FIP versus ERA

I read some research late last year that altered the way that I drafted pitchers in 2011. Steamer Projections evaluated 2009 projection systems and determined that Marcel beat most other ERA projections by using Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP) in lieu of standard ERA projections (see article). Since my formulas were originally based on the Marcel system, I decided to use FIP in lieu of ERA on draft day. The results were mixed which motivated me to conduct my own research after the 2011 season was over.

The two tables below capture the cumulative number of individual MORPS projections in two categories. One category is projected ERA versus actual ERA. The other category is projected FIP versus actual ERA. One table is for relief pitchers. The other table is for starting pitchers. The top 175 used relief pitchers were evaluated (batters faced). The top 150 used starting pitchers were evaluated.

Relievers

ERA to ERA

FIP to ERA

Within 5%

19

20

Within 10%

38

43

Within 15%

59

63

Within 20%

79

84

Within 25%

96

101

Within 30%

111

112

Starters

ERA to ERA

FIP to ERA

Within 5%

23

26

Within 10%

64

56

Within 15%

79

71

Within 20%

96

90

Within 25%

107

103

Within 30%

122

117

As you can see, MORPS projected 81.3% of starter ERAs within 30% of actuals. Projected starter FIPs were lower at 78%. MORPS projected 63.4% of reliever ERAs within 30% of actuals. The FIP reliever projections were a little better at 64%. Although it seems that FIP may be just as good of a predictor of ERA for relievers as my standard projection formulas, it did not seem to be the case with the starters. Because the numbers were so close, I decided to perform the same analysis with ZiPS and Marcel.

Zips Relievers

ERA to ERA

FIP to ERA

Within 5%

20

17

Within 10%

40

41

Within 15%

62

60

Within 20%

74

73

Within 25%

87

85

Within 30%

96

97

Zips Starters

ERA to ERA

FIP to ERA

Within 5%

29

28

Within 10%

50

54

Within 15%

79

71

Within 20%

91

89

Within 25%

111

106

Within 30%

123

122

Marcel Relievers

ERA to ERA

FIP to ERA

Within 5%

21

21

Within 10%

40

45

Within 15%

58

65

Within 20%

81

85

Within 25%

92

100

Within 30%

107

112

Marcel Starters

ERA to ERA

FIP to ERA

Within 5%

26

27

Within 10%

53

48

Within 15%

78

77

Within 20%

98

92

Within 25%

113

112

Within 30%

117

123

ZiPS projections and conclusions were very similar to those outlined above for MORPS. Marcel starter and reliever projections were definitely better with calculated FIP in lieu of their projected ERAs. I have to conclude that FIP is a better projection than standard ERA formulas with less data since the major difference between MORPS and Marcel is the number of years that are used within the projection formulas. In order to test this hypothesis, I decided to alter my 2011 ERA projections to use FIP for those players that had less data available (i.e. reliability) and standard ERA formulas for those with more data.

Relievers

ERA

65%

75%

85%

Within 5%

19

19

18

20

Within 10%

38

39

39

41

Within 15%

59

62

63

63

Within 20%

79

82

83

83

Within 25%

96

98

101

100

Within 30%

111

111

114

112

Starters

ERA

65%

75%

85%

Within 5%

23

22

24

25

Within 10%

64

62

63

57

Within 15%

79

79

80

74

Within 20%

96

93

95

92

Within 25%

107

107

110

106

Within 30%

122

120

122

121

As you can see by the results, using FIP to project ERA for relievers with less than 85% reliability increased the accuracy of MORPS projections. This was not the case with starters. The best way to project starter ERAs is to use standard ERA projection formulas in lieu of FIP. The same thing holds true with relievers that have a substantial track record over the course of multiple years.