KG, was Ben Wells close to making the list? Does he project as a major league player?

Good article. Where do you think Theo will look to build the stats part his front office? Guys currently employed by other teams? Internet writers/Sabermetricians? Ivy League universities?

The link to KG's "has a full roster analysis for the Cubs" is wonky. It's says I "don't have the credentials required to access this resource."

"The Cubs also have no plans to rebuild and are instead looking to trade for veterans who are signed beyond this season" barf

KG, do you think the shoulder tightness is related to Hayden Simpson's inability to throw over 90 MPH?

Ugh, I just don't get it. BP people have responded to other customers' questions since I posted my initial question, so they are clearly ignoring it. I am addressing the wrong people? Is it is dumb question? Top secret? What? Other customers have indicated they too would like to know your update schedule. If you'll recall there was a new update, like, everyday last year because of wonky data. Once that was fixed there was a weekly update. Should we expect the same, or something different this year?

Ok, I asked this on the PFM update thread, but got no reply. What's the planned update schedule for the PFM/Depth Carts? Seems like last off-season they were updated once a week. Btw, you guys guys have done a great job addressing customers' idiosyncratic requests since the launch. And since the working out the obvious kinks you've have really exceeding my expectations. Thank you.

How frequently will you be updating the PFM/Depth Charts? News is starting to stream in that will impact playing time (e.g., Wainwright).

Thanks for the clarification. I agree, I don't understand the Home/Road splits argument as a knock against him either, it seems like you'd be happy knowing that he gets to play half his games there. The arguments I can't entirely shake are the unsustainably high BABIP, HR/FB ratio and poor plate discipline. I do find it encouraging that most projections see a drop in his numbers, but still rate him as a first rounder.

Marc, I am surprised to see Cargo ahead of the more established Braun & Crawford. I am sure you know Cargo is taking a lot of flack as a major regression candidate from other fantasy experts. Care to comment on what to expect in terms of regression/performance to justify the top ranking?

Marc (or someone else), can somebody comment on the QS situation. There's been a number of comments left here so I assume you guys are working on it, but no one your end has responded to any of the comments here. At the moment it's no longer available as an option. I assume not forever. Any idea on when we might expect it to return (with stats)? Minutes, hours or days?

This seems to work for players under "Other Teams", but not players under "Your Team"...

More generally, I am wondering if any or all rate stats (AVG., OBP, ERA, ect.) are weighted to playing time?

Also, I am curious about k/9 as a category is it weighted to IP? I prefer to use it rather than SO since my league has an innings cap, which makes strikeout efficiency a better measure of value rather than total strikeouts.

Any idea on when QS will be up?

Do you have straight draft or auction selected?

Thank you.

Thanks for the prompt response.

So I don't have to keep hitting refresh, are we talking minutes, hours or days?

Since I am sitting on a trade, I have to ask. Is there any reason to think the PFM won't be up and running tomorrow? A little heads up might soften the blow.

Jason, I have long been looking for an article like this. Hopefully you will keep digging into splits with veterans like Thome and J.D. Drew (who is basically Nick Markakis or better against righties). Most fantasy players play in leagues where you can change your lineup daily. It might be worthwhile to take advantage of splits if you play Jim Thome only against right handed starters and then factor in average fantasy replacement level stats for the games against left handed starters.

Brian, Oliver was available Dec. 20th (at half the price), Last Player Picked (free) had CAIRO up in Jan. and Marcel up Feb. 3rd. I think it's fair to start getting antsy when every other forecast tool has had there stuff out for weeks, months... Many subscribers have to declare keepers or respond to trades around this time of year and they have strict deadlines... the kind that can't be pushed back... so it baffles me when paying customers get mad that things are delayed that they are met with smarmy comments and their posts get negative feedback from the BP Defenders.

BPro is lucky to have such fiercely loyal fan boys, who not only stand by, but defend them against the paying customer who calls them out when they miss deadlines. Without that loyalty they might be forced to respond to economic intensives to make deadlines, or else risk giving away a lot of product for free and/or have customers switch to one of the other sites with a cheaper product that's available earlier and preforms better against Marcel. Just to clarify, I am not as annoyed with BPro missing the deadline as I am with those of you flaming the people who are annoyed.

Any chance we get an early present tomorrow or Sunday and the PFM is up and running this weekend?

Maybe a dumb question, but does "PECOTA spreadsheets" also mean PFM will be up and running on Monday?

Not that I want to create even more work for you... it's just something that nobody really does that I've long wished for. A few year back I wondered how Upton, Wieters, Bruce, ect. stacked up, but since some had graduated they weren't directly compared. I know this kind of thing comes up in chats all the time and I bet it would result in a lot of interesting conversation... especially for comparing a prospect class. Like how does 2010 class compare up against the 2009 & 2011 classes...

Kevin, I love the top 10 talents under 25 at the end of your lists. It really helps to provide context for the prospects. Any thoughts to putting together a combined top 100 talents under the age of 25 list like you do with the top 100 prospects?

Despite this idea's poor presentation, it is really growing on me. I like the idea of a fixed library in the archive of general fantasy advice and research. I like the topics Richie threw out there. Moreover, the fixed library could also serve as a good introduction to BP as it widens it appeal to a larger audience. For example, I'm sure the BP archive is loaded with articles dispelling much of the lazy, clichéd fantasy advice available on other sites (e.g., age 27 breakouts, enhanced contract year performance, ect.).

I like the idea, but fantasy subscribers do not get access to the Transaction Analysis articles.

Of course. One idea I had in mind when I suggested platoon splits analysis was an article written by Derek Carty at the THT last year. He wrote a piece on the relative value of Rickie Weeks plus replacement level 2B (for when Weeks goes on the DL)versus the other 2B likely to be around when Weeks gets drafted. The conclusion was Weeks plus replacement level 2B is extremely valuable. Something like his analysis could be applied to platoon splits as well. Here's an imperfect example. J.D. Drew murders RHP, he's pretty much Nick Markakis or better versus RHP. Most people don't value him like Markakis. So perhaps there could be some analysis on Drew v. RHP plus waiver fodder with good platoon splits (to fill in when Drew faces a LH starter) relative to other outfielders valued around J.D. Drew.

I guess this is somewhat covered by the weekly matchups column...

I've never seen an article devoted to fantasy relevant players' platoon splits. I think this is a relatively untapped area hardcore fantasy players could exploit to get a leg up on the competition. It would be cool to see a semi-frequent blog highlighting stars who should sit against certain match ups, waivers fodder who put up great platoon numbers, or highlight certain platoon stat players who have favorable match-ups for the upcoming week. I don't know if this would appeal to others, but I wanted to throw it out there.

Long term projections: 1) Have been fixed? I am still not seeing the power numbers I would expect from the Uptons or Adam Jones. 2) How reliable are they once you get like 2, 3... 8 years out? Has there are ever been are article or study done? Are these mainly for fun?

Since I am sure more than one person will come here expecting an update on 2010 PECOTA, I’ll post this again here. Over at Tom Tango's site, Inside The Book, there’s a discussion regarding this year's PECOTA projections. You can find the discussion in the comments section of the March 3rd "Weiters II" blog post. (I won't provide the link, but it should be easy enough to find). Colin has reported some of his unpublished findings regarding this year's PECOTA compared to MARCEL. To summarize, 2010 PECOTA is fine for the upcoming season and compares closely to MARCEL. Clay also comments on last year’s DT "Weiters" bug. --------------------------------------------------------- Unrelated, in a separate post today I noted that the Unfiltered Archive does not show posts after March 3rd for some reason. This means the 3/12 Unfiltered PECOTA update is buried.

Oh, and I don't know if this is by design, but this post no longer shows up in the Unfiltered Archives. For some reason the most recent posts that appear are from March 3rd and earlier.

There is a pretty interesting discussion regarding this year's PECOTA's over at Tom Tango's site, Inside The Book. The discussion can be found in the comments section of the March 3rd, "Weiters II" blog post. (I won't provide the link, but it should be easy enough to find). Colin has reported some of his unpublished findings regarding this year's PECOTA.

Baseball Monster has something similar. Not sure I'd trust it, but it's free.

"Thanks for writing and for your support of Baseball Prospectus. Our crew has posted an updated about some of the recent changes to PECOTA. You can find it at http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=10226. We hope this is helpful and we're sorry for the delay in communicating with you. Thank you for your continued support of BP." Seriously?! This is the response I get from your customer service when I complain that I paid for access to "just the numbers", but find most of those numbers are not available for my draft tomorrow. It mid March and there's no long term projections, no pitcher weighted mean, no pitcher cards, the hitter cards are "beta", the PFM is using different stats this year because the proper ones are not available. This is a giant problem for fantasy subscribers. Sorry but a link to this post is not good enough, and does not address the problem.

Not to be snarky, but any idea when? My draft is tomorrow and I'd like to know more about the numbers I'm looking at.

Any update on when we’ll get Collin’s findings, the 10 year projections and/or the pitcher PECOTA cards?

I am stumped why people want this post hidden, or do not feel it’s up BP’s standards. I am merely calling attention to the historical precedent for BP’s customer service dealing with PECOTA problems. I realize last year’s response was unpopular with some premium subscribers, but I suspect many fantasy subscribers felt better about the money they handed over for content to aid their draft prep only to find that content unavailable come prep and draft time. Anyway, I think last year’s response was top notch customer service. It would be great to see BP do something like this again if the bugs are not corrected in a timely fashion (I’ll note that last year they seemed to think 2/26 was too late in game for PECOTA issues). That said, fixing the broken parts of PECOTA and restoring customers’ confidence remains priority number one. And to that end I think the BP staff has done a commendable job over the past week of addressing its customers’ concerns, which I feel has gone a long way in restoring customer confidence.

This was a nice touch: To make up for it, all fantasy customers who signed up on or before February 26th (when the issues occured) have had their fantasy subscriptions bumped up to full subscriptions, giving them access to all of the premium features that come with it. Let's hope they do it again.

Just so I am clear, is the main issue with the 10 year forecasts or PECOTA as a whole? If the problem is greater than the forecasts what other problems areas are people finding?

Many compliments on what appears to be a new site layout and look too.

I'm not entirely clear on how to factor in bench slots either. At the moment I've been dividing the number in two and assigning half to utility slots and the other half to pitcher slots. Is this a mistake?

Thanks for the suggestions. None are perfect, but your second suggestion is the best solution at this time. However, I'm pretty sure it will result in unwanted inflation. My main concern is being able to ignore or hide a player in order to sort through the players and data easier. My suspicion is other users might find this useful too. Most users likely have a master list of players they are likely to draft, or whom are likely to be drafted in their league. The PFM is helpful in pointing out players you or your league-mates might overlook, but only to certain extent (nobody in my league is drafting Jeff Keppinger no matter what his projected value). As such, I would like to sort through the PFM only using the players on my master list. I can do this easily on excel, but not on the web application. Anyway, I realize that in some cases I may not be forward thinking enough to fully accept what the PFM is telling me (as might be the case with middle relievers). But I think there are other cases where I might want to ignore a player. Most users would agree that they don't take the PFM as gospel. And with good reason, as the Annual is filled with warnings that PECOTA might not provide an ideal projection for a specific player. As such, users might find it helpful to ignore players who projections are just clutter before a Rick Porcello, or whose projections they don't completely buy (Colby Lewis, anyone?).

One thing I think would be great for the PFM would be if we could hide or remove players without having it impact inflation. E.g., there are a lot middle reliever projected to have value in my league, but there's no way they'll get drafted. As such, it would be easier for me to sort through all the players if they weren't visible.

Thank you for the update and for specifically addressing some of the questions in other threads.

I want to give BP the benefit of the doubt here, but there are some serious customer service issues going on. The credibility and worth of 2010 PECOTA (and by extension the PFM and Annual) have been seriously called in question by BP users and prominent baseball writers (such as Neyer and Cameron). As such, the paying customers have been posting some pretty serious questions about the value and quality of the content for which they're paying and the BP staff have not made a sincere effort to address these concerns in a clear and meaningful way. While I appreciated the initial transparency regarding the PECOTA and PFM bugs, that transparency appears to have raised further questions that demand further transparency. If there is a major quality issue with what has been put out hitherto my hope is it will be admitted to and addressed. However, if BP stands by what has been put out I wish they would make a greater effort to alleviate the concerns of their customers and detractors.

Will there be a post explaining today's update to the PFM?

Doubtful, given that it's post office holiday.

I suspect a lot has to do with which distribution center your copy is shipping from. Some centers may have gotten shipments quicker or might be faster at getting the books out to customers. My copy shipped Saturday from Whitestown, IN. I'm sure this has nothing to do with when I pre-ordered my copy.

Does Lilly really have a shot at 179 innings?