Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CDG Question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CDG Question

    I was setting up the CDG earlier this week for my custom league. We use standard 5x5 adding losses and OPS so I needed a custom list. Unfortunately, it appears the only way to get a list (that I can find) separates hitters from pitchers and I think relievers are even separate.

    Is there any way to generate a composite master ranking without separating the hitters and pitchers? I realize the stats won't work out on that list but that's ok. I'm trying to rank my players for a Yahoo draft and it's a pain trying to jump around between the lists on my computer.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    John

    "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means!"--Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride"

  • #2
    The output always separates hitters and pitchers. It doesn’t separate sp and RP though.

    If you want a merged list, go with the grid view or dump the full CSV list to Excel. You can merge the lists there.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by RAY@HQ View Post
      The output always separates hitters and pitchers. It doesn’t separate sp and RP though.

      If you want a merged list, go with the grid view or dump the full CSV list to Excel. You can merge the lists there.
      I thought of a CSV dump late last night but haven't tried it yet. Thanks!
      John

      "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means!"--Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride"

      Comment


      • #4
        Ray - any chance of splitting SP & RP in the future (ottoneu scoring)? Thanks.

        Comment


        • #5
          Definitely on the enhancement list, yes.

          Comment


          • #6
            Now I'm trying to make sure I'm inputting parameters correctly as I'm getting some screwy results using CDG the best I can figure. Our league is head-to-head with twelve categories; best total in each category gets a "win." So we can be anywhere from 12-0 to 0-12 each week. Categories are HR-RBI-SB-Avg.-OPS for hitting and W-fewest Losses-K-SV-WHIP-ERA for hitting. The bugaboo is getting the fewest losses category accounted for; the best I could figure was net wins (W-L) counted twice.

            I'm also having issues optimizing some of the other settings. It's a straight draft. We roster 11 hitters (4 OF, C, 1b, 2b, ss, 3b, IF, UT) and nine pitchers (3 SP, 3RP, 3 flexible). How should I set offensive budget %? Should I set 10 bench spots or 15 or something else? Since we only have 21 roster spots at what should I set the team budget? I assume ranking via dollars is the best way to go. I did a couple of trial runs and got some really screwy results between pitchers and hitters, i.e. one way I had no starter higher than around 25 or 30 and changed the offensive budget and got something like 10 of the top 15 being starting pitchers.
            John

            "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means!"--Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride"

            Comment


            • #7
              OK, key here is to walk before you run:

              - keep the Net Wins out of the calcs at first, until you're sure everything else is right.
              - keep bench spots at zero at first, same reasoning. You definitely don't want 10-15 bench spots. And if you're a straight draft, bench spots and budget won't really matter anyway.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by RAY@HQ View Post
                OK, key here is to walk before you run:

                - keep the Net Wins out of the calcs at first, until you're sure everything else is right.
                - keep bench spots at zero at first, same reasoning. You definitely don't want 10-15 bench spots. And if you're a straight draft, bench spots and budget won't really matter anyway.
                Is ranking by $ the way to go in using CDG for a straight draft?


                Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
                John

                "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means!"--Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yes.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RAY@HQ View Post
                    OK, key here is to walk before you run:

                    - keep the Net Wins out of the calcs at first, until you're sure everything else is right.
                    - keep bench spots at zero at first, same reasoning. You definitely don't want 10-15 bench spots. And if you're a straight draft, bench spots and budget won't really matter anyway.
                    How can I ever be sure if things are "right" or even "wrong?" Weird results in the CDG could just be from our categories.
                    John

                    "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means!"--Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well, the tool does what you tell it to do. But in the end, esp. if your league is long-standing, you're the ultimate arbiter of whether the values look "right" to you. There are always more levers to pull until you get to that point.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It's a new league, so I don't have anything to go on. Sorry! The thing that really seems to much things up is the LOSSES catefory, which can't be selected if $ is the currency, and there's too many rate stats to fudge things with points. Would middle relievers be more valuable in this context since they're less likely to absorb a loss (or are they??) and should do well in rate stats? The old LIMA strategy?
                        John

                        "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means!"--Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yes, I think I'd be more interested in relievers in that format. Wins are devalued too, so the weight swings away from the big-IP guys a bit.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by RAY@HQ View Post
                            Yes, I think I'd be more interested in relievers in that format. Wins are devalued too, so the weight swings away from the big-IP guys a bit.
                            I seem to have a pretty good list except the closers (and middle relievers, too) seem whompered; to wit, Jansen is #49 ($15), Kimbrel 55 ($14), Chapman 94($9), Iglesias 116 ($8) and the next four coming in at $7 then five at $6. I can't see this format lowering their value that much (if at all), can you? Devenski is a non-closer valued at $7 (projected for 5 sv) as are Robertson and Givens. Andrew Miller is $9. ADP on those four are all 205 or higher.

                            FYI top ten are:

                            Trout
                            Altuve
                            Blackmon
                            Stanton
                            JDMartinez
                            Arenado
                            Keyshawn
                            Votto
                            Freeman
                            Kluber


                            Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
                            John

                            "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means!"--Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Rankings sound reasonable to me.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X