Fantasy Baseball Cafe Forums

by **Steve-o** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:03 am

Executive Summary (because it's that long): When taking chances in your draft, gamble on Hitters age 29 and under, and pitchers age 32 and under.

In another thread, I was trying to figure out why certain players where being drafted so much later this year than last year. I was looking for common factors as to why certain players may "bust" by looking at players who were being drafted about 75 spots lower this year than last year, and seeing what they had in common. My conclusion was (1) that hitters over 30 were more likely to "bust" and (2) players who had not repeated their success were more likely to "bust". Seems fairly obvious, but I wanted to look a little further into it so I did a little more research, focusing on age.

First, I refined my definition of bust from being drafted 75 spots lower (ie ADP of 175 in 2008 and an ADP of 100 in 2007), to players who were being drafted more than 20% lower in 2008. This means that both Freddie Sanchez (2008 ADP of 217, 2007 ADP of 160) and Aramis Ramirez (2008 ADP of 45, 2007 ADP of 33) would be considered "busts". I figure that if guys you draft in the third round in 2007 perform like late 4th rounders, it should still be considered a bust. I also looked at players who are exceeding their ADP from 2007 by more than 20%. I call these players "achievers". Players who fell within either end of 20% spectrum I labeled as "even".

I decided to look at age because that is what my preliminary research pointed my focus at. Plus it was pretty easy for me to do that analysis with the spread sheets I already have. I grouped the ages into multiple categories and then divided the data between pitchers and hitters. My age categories were 21-23, 24-26, 27-29, 30-32, 33-35, and 36+. Ages reflect for the current 2008 season. So I list Jason Giambi as 37, even though he turns 37 in January 2008 and was therefore 36 entering the 2007 season. This means that you should subtract one from my conclusions when considering players for this year.

On to the results:

Players Age 21-23
11% of P were busts
44% of P were achievers
44% of P were even
5% of Hitters were busts
23% of Hitters were achievers
73% of Hitters were even
9% of all players this age were busts
45% of all players this age were archivers

Players Age 24-26
25% of P were busts
25% of P were Achievers
50% of P were even
9% of Hitters were busts
38% of Hitters were achievers
53% of Hitters were even
19% of all players this age were busts
36% of all players this age were archivers

Players Age 27-29
17% of P were busts
31% of P were achievers
52% of P were even
28% of Hitter were busts
22% of Hitter were achievers
50% of Hitters were even
26% of all players this age were busts
26% of all players this age were archivers

Players Age 30-32
21% of P were busts
21% of P were achievers
58% of P were even
47% of Hitter were busts
20% of Hitter were Achievers
33% of Hitters were even
33% of all players this age were busts
23% of all players this age were archivers

Players Age 33-35
31% of P were busts
15% of P were achievers
54% of P were even
44% of Hitter were Busts
16% of Hitter were achievers
40% of Hitters were even
39% of all players this age were busts
16% of all players this age were archivers

Players Age 36+
45% of P were busts
24% of P were achievers
30% of P were even
44% of Hitter were busts
11% of Hitter were achievers
45% of Hitters were even
43% of all players this age were busts
21% of all players this age were archivers

****

Conclusions: Generally, players age 27-29 are just as likely to bust as to achieve. Generally, players under age 27 are more likely to overachieve and players over 30 are more likely to bust. Hitters tend to peak earlier than pitchers. While there is a high risk of bust with pitchers who are over age 35, you'd be surprised how often the occasional superstar achieves. However, when taking chances in your draft, gamble on Hitters age 29 and under, and pitchers age 32 and under. Nothing earth shattering here, but it is certainly a clear illustration of of who you should take chances on. It's even more clear when you graph the numbers above. (keep in mind my age issue above, so subtract one from every age in this paragraph to apply it to your 2008 draft)

*****

Problems: I am using my own ADP data. Every year I compile ADP from various mock drafts I find around the web. I include some mock drafts from sites I trust and avoid certain other mock drafts (like the infamous one man mock on Yahoo!). This could certainly skew my data.

Another problem is that it's freakin' early for 2008 ADPs. Most of my info is from NFBC mock drafts, which are 15 team leagues.

Yet another issue is how I am defining busts. Albert Pujols' 2007 ADP was 1. For the info in 2008 it's 3.8, and therefore a drop of 73%, which puts Pujols near the lead in the bust category. That seems wrong to me.

PS - Can you guess which players lead the bust and achiever categories? The achiever moved up an outstanding 1949% from 2007 to 2008, while the bust dropped 90%.

by **CheeseBeger** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:36 am

Steve-o wrote:PS - Can you guess which players lead the bust and achiever categories? The achiever moved up an outstanding 1949% from 2007 to 2008, while the bust dropped 90%.

Braun and Carpenter?

by **dannahann** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:40 am

CheeseBeger wrote:
Steve-o wrote:PS - Can you guess which players lead the bust and achiever categories? The achiever moved up an outstanding 1949% from 2007 to 2008, while the bust dropped 90%.

Braun and Carpenter?

My guess is Pena and Carpenter

by **hot4tx** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:23 am

Yet another issue is how I am defining busts. Albert Pujols' 2007 ADP was 1. For the info in 2008 it's 3.8, and therefore a drop of 73%, which puts Pujols near the lead in the bust category. That seems wrong to me.

Maybe instead of your % change method you should use total +/- change. Hmm... but I guess if someone drops from 3rd pick to 13th pick it's a much bigger drop than someone dropping 103 to 113.

Perhaps instead of using a straight ratio you should use some other factor. After all the guy taken 3rd isn't worth 37% of the guy you take 1st. Maybe use something like (+/- change)/((old ADP+15) x 2.)? That way if Pujols goes from 1 to 3.8 it's a drop of 8.8%, which is significant but not like he fell off the face of the Earth. A guy like Hafner going from #14 to ~#40 would be a 44.8% drop.

I'm just pulling constants out of the air to try to find some % change that's more reasonable.

by **Steve-o** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:40 am

CheeseBeger wrote:
Steve-o wrote:PS - Can you guess which players lead the bust and achiever categories? The achiever moved up an outstanding 1949% from 2007 to 2008, while the bust dropped 90%.

Braun and Carpenter?

Right on.

hot4tx wrote:Maybe instead of your % change method you should use total +/- change. Hmm... but I guess if someone drops from 3rd pick to 13th pick it's a much bigger drop than someone dropping 103 to 113.

Perhaps instead of using a straight ratio you should use some other factor. After all the guy taken 3rd isn't worth 37% of the guy you take 1st. Maybe use something like (+/- change)/((old ADP+15) x 2.)? That way if Pujols goes from 1 to 3.8 it's a drop of 8.8%, which is significant but not like he fell off the face of the Earth. A guy like Hafner going from #14 to ~#40 would be a 44.8% drop.

I'm just pulling constants out of the air to try to find some % change that's more reasonable.

Hmmm... That seems like a good idea. I'll go home and play with the numbers tonight.

by **sublime8414** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:33 am

It seems to me you would have to set up a normal distrubution and use either a standard deviation or a regression. But this is still helpful. PM me if you're interested in learning about either.

by **Yoda** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:45 am

I also think you need to use more than 1 year's worth of data. It's only 1 sample size that you are working with. I'm not sure if ESPN has a historical ADP/Ranking posted on their website. I might have them at home in Excel and if I can find it, I'll let you know.