Tweet
I've seen the following CV FAQ mentioned a lot:
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment