Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CDG Question

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

  • RAY@HQ
    replied
    No, can’t do that right now. That’s probably our most common enhancement request. Hope to get that one done this summer.

    Leave a comment:


  • rando54reds
    replied
    CDG Question

    H2H, Mixed, 5 x 5, Yahoo. When I set up my CDG to fit our league settings I always have to cut and paste a "whole bunch" of players who are multi-position eligible in the Yahoo format. The Yahoo format is 5 games started or 10 games played at a position. I create a CDG and paste output into a excel spreadsheet. Is there a way to adjust the output of the CDG for my league settings so I can see players who meet the Yahoo filters for position eligibility?
    Last edited by rando54reds; 03-26-2018, 02:20 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • RAY@HQ
    replied
    Rankings sound reasonable to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Astros34
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • RAY@HQ
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Astros34
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • RAY@HQ
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Astros34
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • RAY@HQ
    replied
    Yes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Astros34
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • RAY@HQ
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Astros34
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • RAY@HQ
    replied
    Definitely on the enhancement list, yes.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Astros34
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X