Dynasty Disagreements, August 5

10 players we rank far above the dynasty consensus, 10 far below.

Our dynasty board against the dynasty consensus, across the 129 players both rank. Read this one carefully, because the two are not trying to produce the same number: our dynasty rank is a three-year production forecast, while a consensus dynasty rank is a market price that also carries contract situation, prospect romance and name value. A gap is often the two answering different questions rather than either being wrong.

We are higher

Our three-year forecast likes these more than the market does.

We are lower

The market is paying more than our forecast supports. Worth knowing that our dynasty board runs colder than the consensus overall, the median player here is ranked 40 places higher by the market, so this side of the list is longer by construction, not by conviction.

What this means

Sal Stewart at seventh overall is the number in this table that should make you stop. Consensus has him 127th, which is roughly where the market puts a corner infielder it likes but has not committed to. Ours is a top-ten dynasty asset. Those cannot both be describing the same player, and unlike most of the gaps below, this one is not explained away by contract length or prospect distance. A three-year production forecast that ranks Stewart seventh is saying he hits, immediately and at a star level, at 1B/3B/DH with no defensive escape hatch to complicate the playing time. The strongest case against is simple and it is good: the market has seen more corner bats projected to hit and not hit than any other archetype, and 127 is the price of the doubt. If Stewart opens in a platoon or on the wrong side of a veteran, the forecast never gets the plate appearances it assumes. Watch the lineup slot, not the batting average. Everyday at-bats against right-handers by midseason and our number is defensible. A share of first base is enough to kill it.

The lower half of this table mostly is not a disagreement at all. Max Clark at 61st on the market and 646th with us is the clearest example of two different questions being asked. Consensus is pricing an outfield prospect's whole career, the surplus years, the trade value. Our number is asking what he produces over the next three seasons, and for a bat that far from the majors the honest answer is close to nothing. Ryan Waldschmidt and Colt Emerson sit in the same bucket, as do Andrew Painter and Bubba Chandler on the pitching side. Do not read 549 as a knock on Waldschmidt. Read it as a forecast that does not try to measure the thing the market is buying.

Spencer Strider is where the excuse runs out. He has major league innings, he has a strikeout profile the whole industry can see, and the market's 62 reflects it. We have him 478th, which is not a distance-to-the-majors artifact. Something in the forecast is discounting his innings hard, and the driver is not visible in this table. Cole Ragans at 54 against our 368 and Spencer Schwellenbach at 69 against our 492 form the same pattern: established starters the market pays for on peak rate and we apparently do not. If you believe the market, all three are buys at anything near our price. If you believe our engine, you are selling into the strongest bid you will ever get. I lean toward the market on Ragans and Strider, because a three-year window is long enough for arms with real track records to earn back a discount, and short enough that the discount hurts if they do.

Jesús Luzardo is the one I would actually act on. Thirteenth for us against 116th on the market is a starter the industry treats as a health lottery ticket and the forecast treats as a mid-rotation lock. That is a mechanism, not a mystery: the market is pricing injury risk and we are pricing the innings when he throws them. Buy him at the consensus price, because the cost of being wrong is a fourth or fifth starter, and the payoff is a top-fifteen dynasty arm.

Drake Baldwin at 21 and Ben Rice at 27 lean the same direction, catchers whose forecast production outruns their price. Same trade: pay for the bat, accept that the position eats games.

How to read this

Our dynasty rank forecasts three years of production. It does not price a contract, a service-time clock, or how much fun a prospect is to own, all of which move a market rank and none of which are production.

The cutoffs are percentiles of the gap spread rather than a fixed number of places. The whole spread is shifted, because our board runs colder than the consensus; a symmetric cutoff would have produced a long list one way and almost nothing the other, which would describe the shift rather than the disagreements.

A gap is not evidence. Our own research is explicit that disagreeing with the market does not by itself make a model right, and this piece reports the direction and size of the disagreement without claiming the market is wrong.

All articles · Redraft rankings · Dynasty rankings