Problem with value calculator?

[derossi]

When I run the value calculator, I notice the values "jump" from $0.01 to $-7.xx in the middle of the player list. I don't think this is supposed to happen. Is it?

My input parameters:

NL only
12 teams
14 hitters
9 pitchers
$260
Standard 4x4 roto categories
180/80 split

[Rob]

Problem with Value Calculators

The program isn't working correctly. I plugged in a 12 team BL league and it didn't list 24 draftable catchers.

[hqforums]

Re: Problem with Value Calculators

Originally posted by Rob
The program isn't working correctly. I plugged in a 12 team BL league and it didn't list 24 draftable catchers.

That's by design. Please read the FAQ. http://www.baseballhq.com/subscribe/custval.shtml

[Rob]

The Valuator returns fewer positive value players than I need for my league at certain scarce positions. For instance, there are not enough catchers but too many at OF.

You are correct, but this is by design. Typically, other services "force" the values for the players at the bottom of those scarce positions to $1, but that does you a disservice. It leads you to believe that those players are worth $1, when in fact their projections generate negative value. You know how many players you need to draft at each position, and the Valuator provides more than enough players to fill all rosters, but by providing true projected value, it forces you to make sure you are drafting players that will have a positive impact on your team.

Further up the FAQ, it mentions the custom valuator uses the scarcity method. If so, wouldn't it account for the replacement level catcher in its valuations? The seems like a bizarre design decision to me.

Sure, catchers blow, but shouldn't the valuator at least LIST a total of 24 catchers. No one WANTS to roster those lower tier catchers, but they have to, and they have to find the ones that "suck less," so it seems they should have realistic values (i.e., $1+ for the best 24 catchers), no?

This seems to go beyond the actual vs. market value argument. Since the 20th best catcher will have a positive value (compared to the poor schmuck with the 21st or worse catcher), it seems the valuator should reflect that.

[hqforums]

Unless there is a bug somewhere, the valuator should list your 24 catchers, though a good deal of them will have negative value. Forcing those sub-$0 valued players to $1 is deceptive. When I've gotten too far down the catchers list, I want to know which of the remaining bodies are going to provide me with -$5 of value versus -$15. Making them all $1 prevents that insight.