Our team of fantasy experts goes through their biggest takeaways from the 2020 MLB season, from the rule changes and surprises to the stars who took a step backwards.
Here are Eric Karabell, Tristan H. Cockcroft, AJ Mass, Kyle Soppe, Todd Zola and Mike Sheets to break down what it all means as we head into Spring Training and a new season.
Mass:
There are a few general takeaways I have regarding the rules changes that were made in what I was hoping would be 2020's unique format. The three-batter minimum for relievers didn't feel like it had any significant fantasy impact, but from a purely baseball fan standpoint, I have to admit that not worrying about sitting through four pitching changes every half-inning at the end of games only increased my enjoyment of the final product. And, to my NL-loyalist chagrin, the universal DH didn't bother me as much as I thought it would. Since retaining it would certainly add counting stats into the fantasy universe, I'm still in favor for the future, even if it won't happen this time around. Sadly, as much as I wish they would jettison the "runner on second to start the inning" rule into the Phantom Zone, it's back for at least 2021. Sigh.
As for statistics, what do we take away from all these small sample sizes? I mean, we're all going to consider Christian Yelich to still be an MVP candidate, right? In nearly every case where injury or some obvious change in approach didn't play into very different numbers than expected, it will be hard to put too much weight on anything that happened in 2020. However, there's one player on whom I'm incredibly torn -- Randy Arozarena. You shouldn't extrapolate from his insanely prodigious post-season numbers that we're looking at a 50-HR guy for 2021, but at the same time, I can't dismiss the potential here either. After all, David Freese's only All-Star appearance (and arguably best-ever season) occurred in 2012, the year after his unexpected playoff breakout and World Series MVP. Again, call me Natalie Imbruglia on this guy.
Soppe: The storyline I'm most interested in for this upcoming season is the need for speed. "Fantasy managers dig the long ball" has never been more true and I get it. You're seemingly losing ground on your competition every time you draft a hitter that doesn't have a 30 home run season on his resume, but do your homework and the few stolen bases available might be worth it. Last season, 75.2% of stolen base attempts were success, a rate that was up from 73.3% in 2019, which was up from 72.1% in 2018. Steals are tough to find, but if the quality of attempt is truly on the rise, the predictive nature of steals could be easier in 2021 than in past seasons.
Karabell: I find myself giving most players that struggled in the brief 2020 season a pass, leaning more on what we know they are capable of statistically or what they have already achieved. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but it feels like overreacting to even analyze what Yelich did and did not do. He hit baseballs hard and he was a top-10 fellow entering 2020. I cling to that. As a result, I guess my takeaway from the 2020 season is to ignore most of what I saw, especially when it comes to Philadelphia's bullpen. Honestly, they could not do that again if they tried.
Sheets: How we navigate the starting pitcher minefield is going to be crucial. Because of the abbreviated 2020 campaign, no pitcher in baseball made more than 13 starts or threw more than 84 innings last season. Fewer innings obviously means less stress on hurlers' arms, but the fallout for 2021 is that many organizations are going to be extra cautious with how they handle their starters' workloads, particularly young pitchers who didn't get to pitch in the minors last year and haven't logged many big-league innings. This makes me a little gun-shy about relying too heavily on young arms that don't have a track record of substantial workloads. Take the Braves' Ian Anderson, for instance. While there's plenty of hype surrounding the 22-year-old after he posted a 1.59 ERA and 11.5 K/9 over 10 starts between the regular season and postseason in 2020, he managed only 51 total innings. Can we really expect the Braves to push him much beyond the 130-140 range this season? The same question can be asked of guys like Jesus Luzardo, Sixto Sanchez, and Julio Urias, all of whom are being drafted as top 30-40 starters. This season more than ever, there's value to be had in drafting stable veterans who can be counted on to deliver 180-plus innings.
Cockcroft: I dove more deeply into some of the league trends in Inning 7 of my Playbook, but as far as 2020 and baseball during the pandemic was concerned, pitching workloads, the schedule itself and the universal designated hitter were three key factors that could also impact 2021. It's my belief that the fantasy baseball community is overstating the effect of teams limiting pitching workloads -- the Gerrit Coles and Jacob deGroms of the game will probably still make their 30-plus starts and pitch 200-plus innings -- but youngers and those coming off injuries (Julio Urias and Jameson Taillon are two examples who come immediately to mind) will probably be more scrutinized. Paying for an ace might be a more relevant strategy than ever.
With the schedule, seven-inning doubleheaders impact seasonal volume, and they also influence relief pitching usage -- fewer innings in which for them to appear, and decreased likelihood of rested relievers pitching as frequently. If the 2021 season, even the opening couple of months, progresses anything like 2020 did, the prospect of further team outbreaks also creates a planning problem for leagues with weekly lineups. I'd be more apt to spread my roster across more teams, avoiding the "stacking" strategy for this year. I've raised the example on the podcast, but I had an NL-only, weekly-transactions team with multiple St. Louis Cardinals on it in 2020, and that team was in a major hole in the standings by the first week of August and never recovered. That might mitigate over a 162- rather than 60-game schedule, but you're often pressed into transactions you wouldn't when playing significantly from behind. A final thought: I do think the regional play in 2020 had an impact on the final stats, and I'm most curious to see whether a traditional schedule might mean some funky things in the Central divisions, where a lot of teams appear to be budget-conscious entering 2021.
As for the DH, assuming the final call is "no" for the National League, as it appears to be now, pitchers will have it a bit easier (except for the East, where teams are loaded). Dominic Smith has been one of the most difficult players for me to rank as we awaited that decision, and I'm admittedly more hesitant to draft him now, knowing he's not an ideal fit for left field and is blocked by Pete Alonso at first base.
Zola: My colleagues discussed some great points. There are two I'd like to add. Tristan alluded to it, but the strength of the Central region last season paled in comparison to the East and West. This was the case more so for batters than pitchers, so the biggest effect was on starting pitching. Many starters faced much weaker competition compared to their East and West brethren. A 3.50 ERA from a Central starter isn't as impressive as the same mark from an East or West starter. A 25% strikeout rate from the Central isn't as dominant as the same level from the others. Be it eyeballing 2020 pitching numbers when generating rankings, or mathematically quantifying it, the various skills and metrics need to be adjusted to account for the weaker opposition. In some cases, this effect needs to be handled on a case by case basis. For instance, Zach Plesac's break out needs to be tempered based on the competition. Plus, of his eight starts, only three were on four days rest as three were on five and the other two with more than five days between starts, and he pitched progressively better with more rest. Jose Urquidy didn't reside in the Central, but he was influenced by the schedule. His strikeouts dropped, but he only faced four teams, three of which were among the toughest to fan.
The other trend is the continuing pattern of distributing saves among more relievers. It's mostly economics as teams have learned it's not efficient to pay good money for a closer on a second division team, with the offshoot being the upper-tier clubs can buy uber-bullpens. This dovetails the recent drop in the percentage of games that are saved. Fewer overall saves divided among more relievers alters how drafters need to approach the category. Perhaps "never pay for saves" is now outdated advice. Maybe that mantra should be taken to an even greater extreme. Some leagues have even changed their rules, scoring holds as well as saves. The bottom line is how to handle the category is contextual and league dependent, but the paradigm in how they're dispersed and the lesser supply requires some updated draft planning.