Hitters v. Pitchers

67.86%. That's our projected allocation to hitters on the sheet. This reflects a total of $2280, or $190 per team in hitting and $90 per team in pitching.

It's the highest allocation to hitting I see out there. The LABR draft was $2178 to hitting, or 64.84%. Hunt is at $2066, or 60.34%. Patton bid prices 65.18%, Patton values 57.42% (absurd), and Rotoworld 63.08%.

Even the small percentage difference from the LABR draft results in $100 extra allocation to pitchers and away from hitters. That's a big deal. So, are we wrong?

We are showing much more inflation toward the pitchers (30.40%) than the hitters (18.10%), which would suggest the opposite. If we allocate an extra $100 in PECK value to the pitchers, that means there will be more keeper profits in the pitchers and less in the hitters than we currently show. There can't possibly be that much disparity.

This year we've got to do a post draft analysis which factors in BABI's hitter/pitcher allocation. I have no idea what it is. But I bet we're more right than the other guys. And if we're not, it means pitchers are going to go for more than we think, particularly during the first 2/3 of the auction. That could cause a problem with our stud pitcher, but we'll get one of those guys because we're not going to see a bunch of $30+ starters. And it could cause a problem with the Lowry spot, but we'll get someone in that vicinity. And the rest of our guys should be near the end, so overall it shouldn't cause us a big problem. Meanwhile, it means we've slightly overpriced the hitters we want, which means we'll get a few of them at prices less than we're expecting.

That result would be OK with me.