Fantasy Baseball Cafe Forums

by **jake_twothousandfive** » Thu Dec 02, 2010 4:57 pm

This is kind of a spinoff of Fenway Punks threads.

If you calculate a player's career production on a per game basis and compare this to his prior season totals you can get a decent idea of which direction a player is trending and how they are likely to be viewed in fantasy. I'm going to label a player that produced below his career averages in the prior season as a value play and those that produced above it as a growth play for the next season (considering age/injuries in each instance).

For example.

Value:

Using this approach you're essentially arguing that the immediate past is not a good predictor of the longer term future and that version to the mean can be expected. Hanley and Braun produced below expectations and will likely come at a relative discount in 2011 drafts.

Growth:

This is the opposite approach. You're using the immediate past as a predictor of the future. It's a growth play because you're trying to capture players on the rise with the idea that they will either continue to rise or stay at this recent level.

(It was easiest to post these as pictures because that's the only way I know how to make it look decent without much effort. Also, the focus isn't meant to be on these players in particular. They are simply 4 players who fit the mold and could be used as an example. I could have just as easily picked different players.)

I'll wait for some responses before I share my opinion.

by **markj11** » Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:19 pm

I'm not sure what the question is, I'll say yes.

shuggoth · by **shuggoth** » Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:32 am

Obviously it depends on if you view the regression/growth as part of a larger trend or not. Were Hanley/Braun's problems last year a one-year fluke or part of a larger trend. Same with the growth shown by Miggy/Crawford. For each set of players, someone will likely bite early. The question is which would you be more likely to bite early on. I generally tend to bite more on value, especially when you are talking about first/second round value.

by **buffalobillsrul2002** » Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:00 pm

Shuggoth's got it exactly right. It's a combination thing. You have to take individuals on a case-by-case basis. Figure out WHY you think they have better/worse numbers, and go from there. I'll say that usually with younger guys I go "growth", and older guys I go "value". I think power guys I also go "value" and speed guys I'm more likely to go "growth". But those are just some factors, and really it's all a case-by-case basis.