How much do you weigh external factors when evaluating pitchers for roto?

[TS Garp]

By external factors, I mean the strength of the defense behind them (and whether that's changed from the year before), the catcher they have and that catcher's skill at pitch framing and generally handling pitchers, and the coaching staff. There's endless data to dig in to on the actual pitcher, but I'm wondering how much these other factors come into play for people in their valuations. Maybe KS will be willing to share a little of his take on how much they matter.

[TranaGreg]

eight percent.

That's not an entirely flippant answer. I was thinking about this earlier today when I saw that Marco Estrada signed with the A's. It's a great place for him - for the type of pitcher he is he needs a good defense and a big outfield, and the large foul area won't hurt ... but overall I'm not going to mark him up significantly. At the core, my evaluation of him is based on what his skills are at this point in his career. (for what it's worth, I was going to say 10% based on external factors, but I think it's less than that)

[Ken]

For me, less than random variance.

I'll use it to my advantage when *other* people put too much stock into it, in trade negotiations for example. But I could never count on it really mattering more than random variance matters, so for me it's just noise.

[Redbirds Fan]

I sometimes let it tip the balance if I am choosing between two pitchers that I evaluate equally otherwise. In other words, not much and as a secondary consideration.

[Sour Masher]

I'm surprised folks don't weigh this stuff more. I agree, in many cases, it can be overblown, but there seems to me to be some examples of extraordinary coaches out there that make a big impact. When the Astros bring in a new arm, I pay attention. The fact that Glasnow is in Tampa now gets my notice. Sure, tools and history tell us a lot, but coaches and cultures can matter a lot too.

[cavebird]

For me, I factor it in for extremes. It is like parks. If a pitcher goes from a slightly pitcher's park to a slightly hitter's park, the adjustment is more or less negligible. If they go from Safeco to Coors or GABP, it is important. I care about defense in the same way as parks. On the other hand, I generally do not factor in coaching because it is too random. For example, Sour Masher's example was Glasnow going to Tampa. Is that a plus or a minus? Some people thought Searage was a savant previously and would give a boost to Chris Archer (who shows that the Rays don't always work magic with talented arms) to the Pirates. I will also give a slight adjustment in changing leagues/divisions if it is helpful or harmful from a runs/K's standpoint.

[The Dane]

When I'm making my tiers, my initial evaluations, it factors very little to none at all.

But, within tiers, I use it to pick targets. So, I may have Jameson Taillon and Jonathan Gray in the same grouping, but Gray's home park makes him a much later target within that tier.

[Sharky]

When I'm making my tiers, my initial evaluations, it factors very little to none at all.

But, within tiers, I use it to pick targets. So, I may have Jameson Taillon and Jonathan Gray in the same grouping, but Gray's home park makes him a much later target within that tier.

That’s fair. I also consider contract status and likelihood of a trade (particularly given that I play only-leagues).

[nullnor]

i only have played H2H but it's the same thing sometimes.

i get caught up in all the external factors. i look at teams first. like STL, they are good evaluators of talent. and they have a good park and weak opponent sometimes. i go for national league SP when i can because of the DH. i cry when i have too many SP from the AL East. but i always seem to do.

outside of the top 3 or 4 pitchers external factors take over for me and i am completely blind to individual talent except for stray promises.