Am I reading that right?

Great blog post!

In addition, most systems like Steamer, ZIPS, and BP convert minor league stats into MLE (major league equivalents).

So, as long as you use the right projection sources, the 2012 stats have already been factored into your results.

Based on this test (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/testing-projections-for-2011/), I think Steamer and CAIRO’s pitching performance is no fluke. I can only guess that Fantistics’ success isn’t a fluke. BP/PECOTA’s performance in hitting/pitching in 2012 vs. 2011 seems fairly close as well (as in, I’d consider it for hitting in 2013, not for pitching).

As for hitting performance (Test #2), the results are so close that I could imagine the order being very different for 2011. My decision on sources for 2012 will likely come down to other factors like: 1) delivery time (Feb vs. March) and 2) completeness (FG Projections barely good enough for 12-team).

AVG/OBP are already rates so no reason to touch those. The easiest way to treat the other stats like rates might be to do the averaging of totals and then multiply those #s based on the PLAYING TIME SOURCED AB/IP / AVERAGED AB/IP. So if your average ends up with 30 HRs in 600 ABs and the better playing time sources say 500 ABS, you multiply 30 * 500/600 and it’s converted to 25 HRs. The only stat I wouldn’t treat as a rate stat is Saves.

My formulas are a combination. I avg to get rates for pitchers (H/9, BB/9, K/9), but most stats are straight averages (W,Sv, IP/ERA and AB, R, HR, RBI, SB, Avg, OBP). Should I be utilizing that method on more of those stats?

As for the composite method (2 performance/2 playing time), I’ve always given equal weighting. Recommend a couple of each?

First question, are you just averaging the totals (e.g., 20 HRs + 25 HRs + etc. / # of sources) or are you converting them into rates and applying vs a playing time projection (e.g., 0.05 HR/PA * 500 PAs)?

Assuming you are just averaging the projections, I’d suggest re-channeling your efforts towards finding 2 performance sources and 2 playing time sources that you like/trust. Given the minor lift in correlation from averaging 2 sources, I think any more than that is overkill (and more likely to hurt than help). I think a straight averages vs. weighting each source is the easiest way to go – I’d only use weights if it was early in the pre-season and you’re forced to use a less accurate projection source.

I think the best proxy for your crowdsourced method is the FantasyPros projections which performed quite well in Test #1. While I think a composite method (2 performance/2 playing time) should beat it (it did in pitching in 2012 but FantasyPro’s hitting projections were the best), I’d probably just use FantasyPros if the alternative was averaging 14 separate sources.

One other note – I’d also differentiate the efforts behind hitting and pitching. I think crowdsourcing fares better for hitting (where the performance between systems was close) vs. pitching (where Steamer and, to a lesser extent, Fantistics, had a clear advantage).

Hope that helps…