Of course we are all about the debate here, so in the interests of full disclosure here is a response from the analyst that wrote about the projections issue raised by me and Mike. These were posted as comments, but I wanted to give him full exposure so that everyone can read his response.

This is from Jeff, who wrote the articles. I didn’t want his responses to be buried as comments where no one may see them since he raises some good points. The first was posted in response to Mike’s article:

I think you make some valid arguments against my work and it forces me to consider that I did a poor job of explaining myself. That said, I think you guys are kind of missing the point.

“All this cheatsheet will be telling you is how everyone else is drafting and valuing players! Sure, this could certainly help so you don’t take a player too early, but how could this possibly help you to draft your own team? ”

The entire point of my system is to give an indication of where everyone is getting drafted! The end result is a simple list of players ranked in order of their perceived value in the fantasy community. How could that not be of service in a draft? It would be like basing your investments on which companies are in the Fortune 500 — not a great idea overall, but a reasonable return on investment could be expected in the long term. But shrewd investors dig a little deeper, which is exactly what I advocated earlier in the article.

I think that a particular passage in my article has been taken out of context. Earlier in the piece, I exhorted readers to immerse themselves in every available piece of fantasy baseball info known to man before heading into a draft. Whether you walk into a draft with the best projections in the world or with that day’s newspaper, failing to have a base of knowledge is a recipe for disaster on draft day.

Taken in full, the point of my article was to condition readers to the reality that successful fantasy baseball play is complex and has many roads to success. Ultimately, my strategy does exactly what Mike endorses in his latest comment - get your own values and filter them through your own body of knowledge.

I realize that I did a poor job of explaining myself and I will correct the deficit in the near future.

The second one is posted in response to my article, which started it all:

I am the author of the piece you are slamming unmercifully and I have a couple of issues with your characterization of my work.

First, although I may have failed to say so, the entire point of my system is to determine where the world values every fantasy-worthy player. As you have indicated, fantasy championships are won by identifying outliers and picking them accordingly. But it does you no good to pick them two rounds too soon - my system is intended to give a reasonable projection of where everyone will be picked so you can jump on them just a little early or get them late.

Quibble if you like, but I am not really that interested in what each individual projection system has to say. Earlier in my piece, I advocated reading every possible bit of information available on every fantasy-worthy player known to man so that you can go into every draft with a set of ideas about every player. The idea is to combine the multiple projections with your inner instinct. I know that some stat-heads might dislike that approach, but it has worked exceptionally well for me.

Pat - you say yourself that projections aren’t that important. I agree. That is why my system gauges where most players will or should be chosen. If you have a decent idea of where everyone will go and you come into the draft with targets of your own (based on your aggregate projections, knowledge, and instinct), then you can be well-prepared to maximize the value you get from every pick.

Besides, a regular Joe who walks into a draft with the best projections is still going to get outplayed by the guy who understands on a gut level how, why, and where every player gets chosen. I understand fully why you have a problem with my system, but in reality it is more intended for the average fantasy baseball player than it is for “experts”.

So there you have it.  We really do appreciate the response, so thanks Jeff for writing in. I think Jeff makes a very good point about what is mean for the average player versus what is meant for the “expert,” though I will quibble a bit at the term “expert” and merely say that against against higher stakes players or tough competition the scenario is different.

I will also disagree on the contention about picking players two rounds too soon. I may be a lone voice on this, with the exception of maybe Tim Dierkes at RotoAuthority, but I readily jettison this “value” consideration when warranted, for reasons I have explained previously.