Tweet
I'm trying to set up a custom valuation with rankings for my 14-team 5x5 mixed league. Everything about the league is pretty standard, including 2x/week waivers with $100 FAAB. Is there a strong argument to be made for using one valuation method over another? I'd describe myself as mildly risk averse so I'm leaning toward the Balanced method.
-
-
Just based on anecdotal evidence, if you're not using top players mode in a league of your size, you'll probably find the $30+ player population going for more than the chart suggests. That may or may not be acceptable to you. -
I'm okay with the $30+ players appearing overvalued on my rankings which is exactly what I've noticed when comparing Top vs. Balanced.
You mentioned "in a league (my) size" in your response. Is it an accurate statement that price is correlated with league size, such that the same player would cost more, on average, in a 14 team league than in a 12 player league? I did a couple of CDG pulls with different league sizes and this appeared to be the trend. Is there conventional wisdom on the relationship between avg price and # of teams?
This is my first year in fantasy baseball so I'm still trying to get my head around some of the basics.
Thanks for taking the time to help me out.Comment
-
I think the pricing engine does follow that general trendline, strickz, but often you'll find that the marketplace does not. That's one reason for the "top players" setting.
In leagues with fewer owners, it's a common strategy to go with a "stars and scrubs" approach... buy a bunch of top players, ignore the middle of the player pool, and fill in with end-game guys. The fewer the # of teams in league, the better those end-game players generally are.Comment
Comment