English
Mike Podhorzer
3.8K posts
Mike Podhorzer
@MikePodhorzer
Founder @ProjectingXIQ 2015 @FSWA Baseball Writer of the Year, 3x @ToutWars champion, @rotographs contributor, author of Projecting X 2.0.
New York, NY Katılım Aralık 2012
58 Takip Edilen4.6K Takipçiler
@Roto_Frank @ToutWars Safe to say you don’t align with @CBSScottWhite statistical differentiator approach in h2h cats. Podhorzer did that to perfection this draft
English
Here's my @ToutWars champions league team. Again, it's 12-team H2H categories with daily lineups. Leaned into punt batting average with the exception of a few bats. Royce Lewis (last pick) will be my starting 3B until Bo Bichette gains eligibility. Pretty happy with it!
English
@stray_mutt Those glasses are definitely worth going the extra buck for!
English
@MikePodhorzer I'll take Max Muncy and his glasses or Kozuma Okamoto after pick 180 and wonder why everyone is overthinking 3b
English
3B is a great example of a position with multiple cliffs this year.
It. Is. Ugly.
So are you targeting one of the elite pair, sticking in the middle, or fishing in the bargain bin with serious profit potential hoping for a breakout?
ProjectingX IQ@ProjectingXIQ
The gap between tiers isn’t linear, it’s positional. Some positions have cliffs. Others have plateaus. If you’re not measuring that, you’re guessing.
English
@RobSilver @claywlink Happy to welcome you aboard the McGonigle train!
English
There have been 14 Mains so far. His average is 219, Min 184.
JP Crawford last year was player 182 - 69-12-58-8 .265
McGonigle blows that away.
Player 135 was Gleyber - 79-12-74-4 .256
He beats that easily too.
He is WAY too cheap. Should be top-100
It doesn’t make sense
Rob Silver@RobSilver
I guess I’m no longer the Konnor Griffin guy
English
@TheTinDoor Also to be clear, I didn’t target McGonigle, nor do I ever target any player. I just shared how I ended up buying him. If he had been nominated earlier and got bid up above my value, he would have joined a competitor’s team.
English
@MikePodhorzer Your 450-->600 tweet was phrased as if a "playing time guess" is a BAD thing. But you bumped up McGonigle to 500PA and then targeted him. Is that different, or are you saying the playing time guesses are a positive, or...?
English
If a player’s projection jumps just because you moved him from 450 PA to 600 PA…
you don’t have a projection.
You have a playing time guess disguised as analysis.
English
@TheTinDoor Fair, that tweet was too absolute.
Playing time assumptions aren’t the problem, blindly accepting them is.
The edge is identifying when they’re wrong and adjusting, like I did with McGonigle.
English
@FreezeStats Yup, totals always rely on playing time.
The distinction is how much is driven by PA vs skill.
Two players can project the same in totals but be very different bets depending on what’s driving it.
English
@MikePodhorzer Aren’t all projections based on a playing time guess? At least the cumulative stats are
English
@Smada_PLive Agree, that’s a big edge in DCs.
There’s a difference between “600 PA from role” and “600 PA after risk is baked in.”
That’s why not all 600 PA projections are actually equal.
English
@MikePodhorzer I think the biggest edge, at least in DCs, is identifying PAs and accurately understanding risk PT/injury. So to me 600 based on projected roster spot isn't the same as projected PA as that's adjusted from the risks
English
@zackwaxx Fair, that tweet was a bit too absolute.
Playing time is part of the projection.
The distinction is understanding how much is coming from PA vs skill, instead of just taking the output at face value.
English
@MikePodhorzer Didn’t we just circle back to the original statement and agree that playing time is a projection
English
@zackwaxx It is, that’s part of it.
The bigger point is understanding why projections differ:
PA, skill, or both.
That’s where you can make better decisions than just taking one projection at face value.
English
@MikePodhorzer So understanding if projections have inconsistent playing time is an important aspect?
English
@zackwaxx That’s the point, you don’t know which one is right.
The disagreement itself is the signal.
Sometimes it’s playing time. Sometimes it’s skill.
Understanding why projections differ is where the edge comes from, not just taking one at face value.
English
@MikePodhorzer Sure, skill vs. volume sounds smart until you realize projections can’t even agree on skill. Nolan Schanuel in 600 PAs: 8 HRs or 17? Tell me what one is right or make your own. Until then, actual value is still being made or lost in playing time
English
@Smada_PLive Yup, that’s the idea.
Not all 600 PA projections are equal.
Some are stable, others are carrying real playing time risk.
Understanding both the skill and the confidence in the PA is where the edge comes from.
English
@MikePodhorzer w/o PA you have nothing of value…
600 with playing time risk shouldn’t be 600, is that what you are trying to say?
English
@zackwaxx Furthermore, the projection systems often disagree on skill.
Take Nolan Schanuel as an example. Assuming 600 PAs, is he an 8 homer guy or 17? It depends which system you consult.
English
@MikePodhorzer Skill is already baked into projections.
The edge isn’t there - it’s in playing time.
That’s what actually moves value if you want to use projections
English
@zackwaxx Playing time definitely drives value.
The edge is understanding how much of a projection is skill vs volume.
Two players can project the same in totals but be very different bets depending on what’s driving it.
English
@zackwaxx Not anti-multiplication🙂
The point is separating skill from playing time first, then applying realistic PA.
Otherwise you risk overvaluing volume and missing what’s actually driving the projection.
English
@MikePodhorzer Now that you’ve discovered multiplication and decided you don’t like it, go run Steamer 600s and hop in a Main Event.
Let me know how those “projections” work out when you’re taking David Hamilton in Round 2 for 50 bags 🚀
English
@TheTinDoor Yup, that’s the point.
The disagreement wasn’t about skill, it was playing time assumptions.
That’s exactly the type of spot where projections can misprice a player.
English
@RobSilver Of course, value will always move with PA.
The distinction is what’s driving it.
For elite players, it’s skill (Judge would still produce value in 400 PA).
For others, it can be mostly volume (Steven Kwan, nope).
That’s what you want to separate when making draft decisions.
English
@MikePodhorzer That doesn’t make sense - if you take the best player in baseball and reduce their projected PAs by 35%, their projected value will drop massively.
English
@RobSilver Two players can project similarly in totals but look very different once you normalize opportunity.
That’s where a lot of draft edges come from.
English
@MikePodhorzer Wouldn’t every projection jump if you move a player from 450 to 600 plate appearances?
English