## The Ideal Hitter/Pitching Mix in Auction Values

There’s been some talk about the ideal auction budget mix on twitter recently. Perhaps, if you click this link, you can see some of the conversation between Chris Liss, Mike Gianella, Steve Gardner, Peter Kreutzer, and Jeff Erickson upon which I was snooping. It’s a fairly complicated conversation, and far-reaching. Let’s jump in.

The crux of the argument was that your split between pitcher and hitter values matters a lot to your auction values. The aggregate split is around 70/30 right now, but that’s just established market truth — that does not mean that the market is using the most ideal split right now.

You can look backwards and try to derive it empirically. For example, our retro-active auction values that we are going through (you can look backwards position by position by using the positional rankings links on your right). If you sum up the above-replacement hitters, you get $1677.40, and the pitchers give you $1164.60. That’s a 59/41 split! That’s almost definitely because our calculations assumed 13 hitter lineup spots to nine pitcher ones, or a 59/41 split on the roster.

But if you think that pitchers are more volatile than hitters, then you’ll want to push that 59/41 split further towards the hitters. You’d rather draft safer hitters. We know, for example, that pitchers get hurt more often than hitters (by decimal points) and stay hurt longer (by many days). That sort of volatility is easily handled by projections — just project your pitchers for fewer innings to reflect the idea that any starting pitcher that pitched last year is 40% likely to hit the disabled list this year. So that’s a way to handle volatility.

We can try to look at the year-to-year volatility in the position. For example, how many top-100 pre-season hitters showed up in the end-of-season top 100? 33/68 (48.5%) if you use ADP and our end-of-season values. 16/31 (51.6%) pitchers. 14/25 (56%) starting pitchers. Hold on now. Perhaps the top pitchers aren’t as volatile as we assume.

But what if pitching stats themselves are less reliable? We know they are — Dan Szymborski confirmed today — but how much more volatile are they? Much more. Look at this post evaluating the projection systems in 2011 — the correlation on hitters projections to their results was on the order of .62, and not a single projection system did better than .46 for pitchers. So clearly there’s a reason to distrust pitching projections a bit more than hitter projections, as many advancements as we have made.

Perhaps if you think the projections for the best pitchers are more stable from year to year, you can do something more like a 60/40 split at the top of your pitcher values. There’s some evidence for that — part of the problem with projecting pitchers is that innings-pitched numbers are more volatile year to year than plate appearances. The top pitchers may have more stable year-to-year IP totals, perhaps because they can move down the pecking order at their position and still pitch — the second-best second baseman on a team gets a huge hit in PA, but the second-best starting pitcher pitches almost as much as the first-best (provided both are healthy).

But if you look at pitchers as a whole, it does seem to make sense to push the needle towards 70/30, as we have all done. How far, exactly, might take a little more research.

Print This Post

I’ve been working on a WAR valuation model for a mixed H2H league I play in (5×5 with a few different cats), using win-probability-added calculations for each player in each category. My math could be wrong, but so far I’m seeing that pitchers produced 54% of the value in 2013. The top 20 pitchers added more than 20% more value than the top 20 hitters. I’ll have to look at your retroactive auction values as you are seeing the opposite….

very interesting….I have written several pieces saying that more ace starters should be drafted in the early rounds now that pitching is becoming more dominant. Would love to see the results of your research.

Where would be a good place to write up my methodology?

Community research on this very site?

Monty-click on my name.

Did you use the same lineup split? What positions did you use?

Wouldn’t that mean you want to not draft pitchers high up? In terms of Auction Values.

The reason being if there are more dominant pitchers, and specifically in the 2-3 spots on a baseball team. Wouldn’t it be better to let players to let players overbid for elite pitchers, and the snap up the next tier in pitching. Just because then if they do get injured you are not out of that value. If they develop into an elite pitcher, you are gaining more value.

But the difficulty is predicting those top 20 pitchers, or even pitchers 20-40. Projecting either hitters or pitchers accurately is a challenge, but the return on the value of hitters is higher because you are more likely to correctly identify the top ones (i.e. as a group they perform closer to their projections than pitchers do). So when you say “the top 20 pitchers added more than 20% more value” I assume you are saying the top 20 as identified after the season. If you are saying the consensus preseason top 20 produced that value, then that is surprising. I would want to know if that’s true of the preseason 20-40 as well, and then would want to know if that’s true of seasons other than 2013.

Agreed on the projection challenge and injury risk, but my point is that my actual retroactive values place a little more weight on pitching (46/54). In the article above the opposite is observed (59/41).

I have only one H2H league, but I find over and over and over again that pitchers aren’t just worth more than hitters, they are worth way more.

Part of the reason is that the league uses a shallow roster for position players but has no innings pitched per week cap and 10 weekly moves. Many teams will use 9-11 position players and 15-20 pitchers in a given week.

I suspect H2H leagues in general usually have a different hitter/pitcher split than roto leagues.