In my last post, I used the Steamer projections, run through my formula, to create an overall list for the NFBC format and compared it to NFBC ADP. Here I want examine the players about which there's the most disagreement on the two lists:

At the top, the positive numbers are the players Steamer likes most relative to ADP. At the bottom, the ones NFBC likes far more than Steamer. You can ignore players with huge negative Steamer values like Brett Lawrie - those assume you left him in your lineup all year, while he wasn't playing. Moreover, for the NFBC dollar values, everyone beyond No. 276 (last player drafted for a starting roster spot), I made everyone $0. So Lawrie is hugely negative in NFBC too, and it just doesn't show up.

Here's a smaller slice of the real outliers on both sides:

Is there an edge in knowing where the two systems differ the most? While Steamer is the most accurate of the automated projections systems, it struggled most with players in their first seasons in the league. By contrast, ZIPS, which Steamer defeated soundly by most measures the last two years, did better on the rookies. Perhaps the NFBC drafters (the humans) are better when there's less data to evaluate and more uncertainty.

Of course, projections systems might suffer in high-volatility situations because they're not updated as frequently as ADP, and when Yoan Moncada starts raking in springer training, Steamer doesn't boost his plate-appearance projection of 278. Finally, I didn't price steals as a scarce category the way I did saves, but the NFBC drafters apparently do. That's why Billy Hamilton, Paul Goldschmidt, Jonathan Villar, A.J. Pollock, Starling Marte, Dee Gordon, Jose Altuve, Jose Peraza, Eduardo Nunez, Hernan Perez, Carlos Correa and Mookie Betts, among others, show up as NFBC favorites vs. Steamer.

Whether I should have given a steals scarcity bump - and what the rankings would look like if I did -  is probably the subject for another post, but steals differ from saves in that there's never a set number (30) of players who can help you in the category, and they can come from any position on the diamond (though it's outfield and middle infield for the most part.) If I were to separate steals out, I'd have to imagine the MI spot and one of the outfield spots was required to have a 25-steal player, and another OF spot had to have a 30-steal player and find a baselines for each small group.  But instead, I'll set them aside here, and focus on the non-speed players who the NFBC prefers.

Trevor Story, Kris Bryant, Edwin Encarnacion, Corey Seager, Jake Arrieta, Josh Donaldson and Aaron Sanchez jump out at me. One thing some have in common is a recent and shorter track record of being great (Sanchez, Story and Seager, for example, fit that profile.) Also Sanchez and Arrieta did well last year with modest peripherals - too many walks, not enough Ks to support their ERAs. With Encarnacion, it's probably the increased strike outs and advancing age. Donaldson and Bryant are simply victims of regression as their levels from the last two years (and prices) will be harder to maintain.

This analysis can cut both ways. On the one hand, Arrieta probably isn't going to remain an ace if he walks 76 more batters in 197.3 IP, and Steamer is wary. On the other, if Sanchez can win the AL ERA title with 161 Ks and 63 walks in 192 IP, what happens if his peripherals catch up to his stuff a la Justin Verlander in 2009? Steamer is telling you which way it goes with pitchers generally, but not every player averages 95 mph on his fastball, and the NFBC crew is well aware of Sanchez's stuff.

On the Steamer side, Eric Thames is off the charts, based on his absurd KBO numbers. If Mike Trout spent 2015 in the KBO, you'd have to take the under on .381/.497/.790 with 40 HR and 47 steals. I'd imagine Steamer has more trouble trying to make conversions from different leagues, something on which there's far less data than forecasting what a long-time major league veteran for the same team might do at age 32. Steamer tends to like veterans entrusted with playing time who have long track records of being reasonably productive: Victor Martinez, Melky Cabrera, Adam Jones, Eric Hosmer, Carlos Santana, Shin Soo Choo, Albert Pujols and Kendrys Morales all show up near the top of its list.

Of course, DH-only players like Morales and Martinez get a downgrade in most leagues as they clog your utility spot and cost you flexibility. And none of these players run much, so some of the steals scarcity has robbed them of NFBC value. Other names near the top are Shawn Kelley and Andrew Miller, but Steamer gives Kelley 37 saves for some odd reason and Miller 20. Michael Pineda is there for his top notch peripherals, but he's the anti-Aaron Sanchez - someone who gets crushed year after year despite that advantage. Robby Ray was the NL version of Pineda, only in a worse park and with more walks. Matt Shoemaker is also in the Pineda boat to an extent - excellent peripherals, modest results, to date.

The most interesting Steamer-friendly names, besides Thames, are Lance McCullers, Maikel Franco, James Paxton and Jamison Taillon. Steamer is typically conservative with younger, unproven players and doesn't project breakouts, so that it likes their age/production profiles is noteworthy. Paxton's ADP (179 on March 1 when I used his ranking to generate a dollar value) has since climbed to 159, making him a dollar more expensive in NFBC draft terms, but still far cheaper than Steamer has him.

The bottom line here is most of the biggest outliers can be explained away by playing time projections, positional/categorical scarcity and the fact I fudged the top-20 overall players' prices on the NFBC list, using their auction values as an imperfect baseline. But there are a few interesting players on each list for whom the disparity is worth noting.

Finally, here are the players within a dollar of one another, i.e., the ones on whom both sides seem to agree completely:

If any of these players slips too far below ADP, you'll know you have the blessing of both sides to grab him. Of course, that doesn't mean he'll pan out.