This article is part of our The Z Files series.
The topic on the table is how much 2020 should factor into 2021 player expectations. It's a subject I discussed in this space earlier this month in So Much to Think About and Adjusting 2021 Projections for the Regional Schedule, and which came up again over the weekend:
I'm writing about this but in brief, my fear is so much attention will be paid to "the system" that it will be overly trusted when the opposite should be true. It's still about roster construction and for some, that may get lost in the extra effort of the 2021 projection.
— Todd Zola (@ToddZola) October 23, 2020
Every offseason, I spend a few weeks in early October fine-tuning my algorithms, based on any newly available data and research studies. This year was no different. However, in addition, I needed to decide how to deal with all the nuances specific to 2020 such as geographical schedules, too few games to compute reliable park factors, an imbalance in divisional quality, no minor leagues in which to rehab, etc.
The result was a lot more work than normal, and it's not over yet. Even though I've generated the foundation of my 2021 player projections and have preliminary rankings, they need a substantial amount of massaging, more so than usual.
Here's my concern. My assumption is regardless of how one derives player expectations, more effort will be put forth than normal. As such, it will be human nature to have more faith in the
The topic on the table is how much 2020 should factor into 2021 player expectations. It's a subject I discussed in this space earlier this month in So Much to Think About and Adjusting 2021 Projections for the Regional Schedule, and which came up again over the weekend:
I'm writing about this but in brief, my fear is so much attention will be paid to "the system" that it will be overly trusted when the opposite should be true. It's still about roster construction and for some, that may get lost in the extra effort of the 2021 projection.
— Todd Zola (@ToddZola) October 23, 2020
Every offseason, I spend a few weeks in early October fine-tuning my algorithms, based on any newly available data and research studies. This year was no different. However, in addition, I needed to decide how to deal with all the nuances specific to 2020 such as geographical schedules, too few games to compute reliable park factors, an imbalance in divisional quality, no minor leagues in which to rehab, etc.
The result was a lot more work than normal, and it's not over yet. Even though I've generated the foundation of my 2021 player projections and have preliminary rankings, they need a substantial amount of massaging, more so than usual.
Here's my concern. My assumption is regardless of how one derives player expectations, more effort will be put forth than normal. As such, it will be human nature to have more faith in the outcome. After all, why do so much work if you aren't going to trust it? The problem is, the opposite should be true. The need for the extra attention is actually cause for less certainty in the end product, in this case draft rankings. It seems counterintuitive, but if you think things through, it makes sense.
Hopefully it's understood drafting entails a lot more than picking the top ranked players or not straying from buying players at the predetermined prices. As was shown in the Winning Tendencies series I presented here during the 2020 season delay, roster construction is paramount. An optimal build requires eschewing rankings and selecting players that best fit into the overall scheme.
It's already hard enough to overcome biases (at least for me) and overrule rankings/bid prices. The attachment felt to 2021 rankings could be even stronger, hence more difficult to override. There will be confirmation bias, and the desire to validate the manner in which I handled 2020's quirks. There will be fear of missing out on the players I favor more than the market due to the way I accounted for the 2020 abnormalities.
The mindset should be to view rankings with a skeptical eye, as they're rife with even more uncertainty than normal. The added blood, sweat and tears expended on their genesis did not reduce their inaccuracy, at least not when looking at the big picture. Maybe they're a little more refined than those produced by someone who employed another means of adjustment, but they're still more a rough guideline than color-by-numbers instructions.
To truly appreciate this warning, it's necessary to understand roster construction. Unfortunately, this isn't the easiest concept to elucidate since it calls for as much art as science. Some of the science can be explained; the art takes a sixth sense nurtured via experience. I've never been confused with an artist, but I know a little something about science.
Before embarking on a draft, be it snake or bidding, most people have a finished product in mind. Some aim to meet statistical targets, other have a more abstract vision. Regardless, everyone has a feel for what their team will look like.
Each pick or purchase is a piece of the puzzle. The key in roster construction is to avoid blocking the addition of another useful component. Each piece should complement the others, not serve as a deterrent.
Here is an example of a common draft conundrum. Let's say you start your team with Juan Soto and you're on the clock for your next pick. It's not as simple as taking the highest ranked player on your draft list. Whoever you take has repercussions.
This could be an oversimplification, but let's say there's a pure power hitter, a stolen base specialist and a stud starter all at or near the top of the available inventory. Who you take helps illuminate your road map for the rest of the draft.
Several factors influence the decision. They're all equally important and hence interwoven. Here are a couple.
What are your personal strong suits with respect to player evaluation?
If you're skilled at identifying profitable pitchers, then passing on an arm could be prudent since you're adept at constructing a competitive staff with later picks. Maybe you're a prospect guru and expect a couple of youngsters capable of stealing bases to be solid fantasy contributors. In this instance, perhaps it's unwise to invest early draft capital on speed.
How do you view the player pool in terms of positional quality and quantity?
Perhaps you've decided on a power hitter, but there's an outfielder, shortstop and third baseman all ranked very close. Taking the top one may not lead to the superior final roster. Let's say in your prep, you've identified several slugging third baseman who should all be available later in the draft. Taking someone at the position now could block selecting one later. Always lean to the player or statistical contribution you sense will be harder to find as the draft progresses.
These may seem obvious, and to experienced players, they are. What we all need to look out for is the urge to overstock our teams with players that rank highly due to specific factors related to the 60-game season. This doesn't mean to avoid them entirely. Of course we're all looking for ways to increase our return on investment, and those players we're more bullish on should be targets. Just don't hinder your roster construction by forcing someone on your team just because they've floated to the top of your rankings.
I know this wasn't as meaty as most of my postings, but I'm rushing to get rankings finalized by November 1. Though, I do feel the above will be key to 2021 success. Next time I'll begin an extended series on the 2021 player pool.
