Fonzie couldn't say it but I can. I was wrrrrr. I was wrrrrroooo.

I was wrong, OK?

Here's the deal. Be it seasonal fantasy or DFS, I care much more about the process than the outcome. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. There's no getting around that. But what matters to me is why I was wrong. If the process was correct, I'll get it right next time. However, if I don't constantly review my process and alter it when there are faults, I'm not doing my job.

What follows are a few players I missed on in the spring - at least in terms of outcomes. As you'll see, in some cases the process was just fine. But there are certainly take-home lessons which should help me fine-tune my process going forward. 

Kole Calhoun, OF, Los Angeles Angels (projected $24, earned $13): The perceived miss with Calhoun is power. To be honest, I didn't expect a bump, simply for the 27-year old outfielder to do what he did the past two seasons, except do it for 155 or so games. My projection called for 23 homers in 689 plate appearances (PA). So far, he's knocked just ten out of the yard in 365 PA. Prorate that to 689 and that's 19 dingers. Ending up with 19 homers when 23 was projected isn't a big deal.

Some may question the aggressive playing time expectation. Calhoun is on a pace for 671 PA - so 689 is high but it's not unreasonable. My expectation was for Calhoun to serve as lead-off all season and he's hit lower in the order at times. To be honest, this is the part I'm closer to than most of my brethren.

The aspect I really missed was runs scored. Looking back at my projection spreadsheet, the only cell I overrode was the runs factor, increasing it more than the engine's number. I felt it was a just alteration based on his spot at lead-off in front of Mike Trout and Albert Pujols. What's odd is even though Pujols and Trout lead the league in home runs by a duo on the same team, Calhoun isn't piggybacking on that with runs. Some is a lower OBP, some is dumb luck with respect to timing.

WHAT I DID WRONG: Honestly, not as much as some will suggest. I was prepared to say I was too aggressive with playing time but at least to this point, it's not egregiously so. I made the same runs adjustment on other players (like A.J. Pollock) and it was warranted. What we have is a player whose power isn't what it was last season, that's really it. well, he's whiffing more but it's within expected variance. Take the other industry projections and prorate them to my playing time and we're pretty much the same. My mistake wasn't in the actual projection, but instead not recognizing the downside potential of Calhoun's power. His HR/FB is a bit above average while his FB% is pretty low. Add in Angels Stadium squashes power and I should have been more aware of the possibility Calhoun's power took a dip, let alone grew. Again, I didn't factor in any growth other than playing time. The take home lesson is this is a great reminder distinguishing a projection in a vacuum and a draft ranking. I shouldn't have gone all-in with a player with the potential downside that Calhoun's power had a reasonable chance to dip. And, I should have done a better job warning those that used my projection.

Brandon Moss, OF, Cleveland Indians (projected $16, earned $5): Park factors are my personal El Guapo. No, not Rich Garces, the one from the Three Amigos. To channel Lucky Day,"if the people of Santa Poco can conquer their own personal El Guapo,, who also happens to be the actual El Guapo" I can conquer park factors. Long story short is Brandon Moss was moving from a park that depressed left-handed power to one that embellishes it so the projection engine expected an increase of about 20 percent with respect to homers. Add in the extra production associated with the improved power and my projection for Moss was more glowing than those that derived projections more intuitively.

WHAT I DID WRONG: Moss is another reason I need to do some research on park factors and how they affect players changing venues. Is it best to blindly apply the factors? Anecdotally, Adam LaRoche is not enjoying the power spike predicted by the move to U.S. Cellular Field from Nationals Park. On the other hand, Russell Martin's move from PNC Park to Rogers Centre seems to be agreeing with him. Cherry-picking examples isn't proper analysis. I need to look back at players that have switched teams over the years to see how well park factors predicted a change in power.

Unfortunately, that's only part of the problem with Moss. His splits are the wackiest I have ever seen. Or at least close to it. Home/away, right/left -- they're goofy silly. This isn't the time or place to discuss the science behind splits and when they're real. Back in the spring, what I should have done was look more closely at Moss' splits and more than likely changed some regression. This is especially true since Moss was similar to Calhoun in that he was a player many recognized as being higher on my ranking lists. Just for that reason I should have taken the time to really look at his numbers. I profile every player but for whatever reason, I missed the screwy nature of Moss' splits and for that I'm sssooo. I'm ssssoooorrrrrr. I'm sorry.

Rusney Castillo, OF, Boston Red Sox (projected $15, earned -$15), Dalton Pompey, OF, Toronto Blue Jays (projected $12, earned -$14) and Jose Peraza, 2B, Atlanta Braves (projected $3, earned N/A): Lumping these three together pretty much tells the story. They are all unproven players for which I projected very solid contributions. They each have their own reason for failing to meet the projection.

Castillo was part of a crowded situation and got hurt twice – once when he was competing for playing time in the spring and then again when Shane Victorino got hurt in April. He’s spent much of the first half either hurt or playing at less than full strength.

Pompey was given a very fair shot to claim the center field job north of the border but just couldn’t get it done. He’s since been sent first to Triple-A then further demoted to Double-A where he’s finally getting his act back together. In the meantime Kevin Pillar is doing what many of us hoped Pompey would do – play great defense and chip in on offense.

With Peraza, it’s not so much what he didn’t do as much as what Jace Peterson did. Peterson was supposed to be the place-holder for Peraza but instead he took the job and ran with it – literally. Funny thing about first impressions, they tend to linger. His decimals are down to .252/.328/.348 for an underwhelming .676 OPS. What’s worse is he’s been caught stealing nine times with only eight successes. Still, the hot start kept Peraza in the minors longer then the Atlanta Braves originally suggested.

WHAT I DID WRONG: Other than being too bullish in Castillo’s playing time, I’d do everything exactly the same. As opposed to Calhoun, whom I drafted everywhere, I didn’t draft these projections but was able to get them all very late, in either the fungible portion of the draft/auction or in reserve. The cost of replacement was minimal and they’re by no means the reason some of my teams are struggling, even if they were on the roster I originally drafted. This is not a part of the game I like, but this hobby has changed and sometimes decisions have to be made in case they’re right as opposed to because you think they’ll be right. I can’t back down from aggressively projecting potentially impact players with a limited track record. I just need to make sure everyone is aware that they shouldn’t draft the projection but rather wait until the replacement won’t cost them anything.

Granted, we’re looking at an exceptional rookie class but that’s really a double entendre as the quantity of the quality is an exception. The number of impact rookies is greater than normal but something we have learned is more teams are willing to promote a prospect if they’re ready and their team is likely to be in contention for a playoff spot come October. There’s no more chastising the Tampa Bay Rays for leaving Wil Myers down too long, possibly costing the team a playoff spot. Welcome to the Show, Kris Bryant. Step up to the plate, Carlos Correa. It’s a brave new world and we need to be willing to take some risks – albeit of the calculated variety.