No announcement yet.

Custom Value FAQ Confusion

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Custom Value FAQ Confusion

    I've seen the following CV FAQ mentioned a lot:
    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.
    But when I run my league it always has the exact number of hitters with positive values, then a big jump negative. The usual parameters I use are:

    NL only
    10 teams
    12 hitters
    9 pitchers
    67/33 split

    R, RBI, OBP, SLG
    K, SV, WHIP, ERA

    I interpret this as the assumption that the the (in my case) top 120 hitters regardless of position will be worth positive value. How does this reconcile with the above?

    Related, when I run with the above parameters, I get the last 32 guys w/ positive value at $0.01, then the next guy following is -$5.86. It doesn't seem like a natural distribution of true projected value.

    Finally, I look more at this FAQ:
    But these players would never go for those amounts in my league.
    There is fair amount of confusion about what values you need to take with you to the draft table. For every player, you need to take two values -- a projected value and a market value.
    When I run with the parameters above, the tails seem overly extreme. Projected value of the best hitters is over $38. That's projecting the value of a Pujols / Helton is worth 1/2 my hitting budget. That seems to say that Helton / Pujols alone will deliver half my hitting value. Am I misinterpretting the scarcity method?
    While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty.
    --Sherlock Holmes

  • #2

    Several different issues to consider here:

    - yes, the tool is returning (in your case) top 120 hitters regardless of position. That pool doesn't exactly match with the pool of players who will get rostered. That distinction is important to you, what we're conveying there is that you'll get better overall roster value by rostering as many of those top 120 players as possible, so that you don't need to fish in the pool of negative-valued players, even though they will get rostered for $1 or more.

    That said, you are running into a few of the known bugs in the tool (see the 'note to all subscribers' on the HQ home page for more detail):

    - the $0.01 players should be valued at $1 to symbolize minimum bid guys. This has minimal impact, but is annoying.

    - there is a flaw in the weighting of the OBP category that is causing high-OBP guys like Helton, etc, to be rather heavily overvalued.

    - the negative valuations appear to be wrong... not a big deal as the biggest thing you want to know is that the player IS negatively valued, the order of magnitude isn't as important. But it is a bug.

    We're aware of these things and are still working on them. Again, check out the note on the subscriber home page for more detail.


    • #3
      Thanks for the reply Ray.

      I had read that note if you're talking about Ron's "IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR BASEBALL HQ SUBSCRIBERS" link. It doesn't give any known issues, it just generally says there are problems and is lacking details. Is it possible to get a list of known issues?
      While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty.
      --Sherlock Holmes


      • #4
        The three I gave above are the biggest ones I'm aware of. The negative values an d the $0.01 are really pretty minor as far as affecting the validity of the results, but the OBP issue does have a real impact.


        • #5
          Thanks for the help. The jump from $0.01 to negative values is a bit of an issue. I can't always be sure to avoid drafting the negative guys. With position requirements, somebody has to wind up with them and sometimes it's me. Can you give me any idea of how far off they are? It's very useful to know 1) how much value difference there really is between the positive and negative guys and 2) how much of a loss I'm taking on one of them.
          While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty.
          --Sherlock Holmes


          • #6
            Sorry, Rosen, I don't have a good answer for you. Best I can tell you is that the "order" of guys is correct... the -$1.90 guy is a better choice than the -$2.00 guy, even though those values aren't right. So, if you must fish in the negative pool, stay as close to zero as you can.