Another Custom Draft Guide Question

[RDeschain]

Trying to figure out the most optimal CDG setting for my league parameters. I've used the CDG many times in the past but this year after having pulled the report I saw some strange things (i.e: Zobrist valued at $9, ranked overall at #136, good for 12th round value?????? He seems way undervalued. In a hitters only list he's at #94??) and wondered if it was because of the settings I'm using. So I'm hoping for some clarification/advice here.

It's for a mixed 5x5 redraft....snake draft.

1. For the "Budget Per Team" Field the default is $260. I guess that should be left untouched right? I've always left that alone in previous years.
2. For "Valuation Method" Field it's currently at BALANCED. Should I leave that be as well? I've never touched that either.
3. For "Select MACK League". Can someone explain why that matters if the selected STAT POOL is for 2013?
4. For the "Minimum Bid" Field: Does this matter that the default is set to "1"? Again, never touched this before.
5. For the "Offensive Budget" Field, it's currently set at "66%". Should this be modified as well? I've never touched this in the past.

Finally...how would YOU run the CDG based on the following:
Snake Draft
12 Team
AL and NL (mixed)
9 P
5 OF
1 C
1 1B
1 2B
1 3B
1 SS
1 MI
1 CI
1 Util

[RAY@HQ]

None of those settings are going to impact individual values. Just the overall dollar allocations.

[RDeschain]

None of those settings are going to impact individual values. Just the overall dollar allocations.

Yes, but I then use the dollar allocations to then assign a rank to each player. So for players ranked 1-12 they are "first round value" guys. Guys ranked 13-24 are 2nd round value guys and so on and so forth until I have 30 rounds of picks/players. As such, I would want my dollar allocations to fit my league parameters. Would leaving the options noted in the OP at default be the best way to go about this given my parameters?

I also do a separate sort by MM scores and have a separate chart for that.

[RAY@HQ]

That totally makes sense. And that was what I was trying to answer... nothing you change in those parameters should change the relative ranking of the players in the output. It might change whether the list starts at 29-28-27 or 27-26-25, but it should be the same guys in the same order regardless of those parameters.

[NICK@HQ]

1. Yes, leave it at $260 if that is the budget your league uses (as most do). That's there in case you use $300 or something else.
2. I use Balanced myself. I would only use Top Players if my league habitually overpays for the top guys, and I want valuations that reflect that reality for me.
3. You Select MACK League if you have a saved league setting that is different from the standard. For example, when I want custom projections for my points-based H2H leagues, I simply select that MACK league and it automatically changes my settings accordingly.
4. I leave Minimum Bid at 1, and wouldn't bother unless you are in a league that does .10 minimums or the like.
5. I leave Offensive Budget at 66% as that more or less works fine. If you like to pay more for pitchers, you can adjust that down.

So for your league example, put in 12 teams, check both AL and NL, change it to only 1 C and run it. That should get you good results that lend themselves to noting the top 12 guys, the next 12 guys, etc.

The only caution I would add is that the values in February won't be quite the same as they will be in late March when all playing time questions have been answered. They are close now, but will be more precise a month from now.

[RDeschain]

awesome thanks guys. Looks like I've done things right and I'll definitely do the same exercise again with the updated numbers in early March.

[NICK@HQ]

awesome thanks guys. Looks like I've done things right and I'll definitely do the same exercise again with the updated numbers in early March.

That's how I do it. I get an early read on values now and act accordingly. But then I run it again right before my draft to get the most accurate results possible.

[RDeschain]

That's how I do it. I get an early read on values now and act accordingly. But then I run it again right before my draft to get the most accurate results possible.

yes, I've actually done this the past several years with great success but looking over my list I saw that I had Zobrist at 12th round value (pitchers were also mixed in) and on a hitters only list I saw him at #94 overall. This threw me off as I would value him much higher on both lists but then I realized the valuations between players that immediately preceded him were off by only dollar incremements and that I was subconsciously also valuing him higher based on his scarce and multi-positional eligibilities as opposed to just raw stats....which is what my method basically ranks...an aggregate of raw stats not taking into account scarcity or multi-positional eligibility.

[NICK@HQ]

Exactly, you need to apply common sense to your league's parameters. The biggest mistake I've made with ranking systems was to be too locked into positioning. If #113 is higher than #114, then I would blindly take #113.

Now I realize that there are general groupings of talent, but the players within each level are more or less the same, so take the one that fits your needs best even if you are taking #127 instead of #113.


You know what I've been doing recently? I get my rankings into Excel, and then I find the general levels of talent and put in a blank row wherever there is a drop off that is significant. That gives me groups of players who are generally at the same value, whether it's in terms of $ value or points values (I play in points leagues). Now within each group, I resort just that group by something else of value. Maybe it's Pts/AB for my leagues, or BPV, or MM score. Pick what works for you, but the idea is to have the gems of that group rise to the top.

Now you go along in your draft and you are indeed still picking the most valuable first. But within each grouping of players you are targeting first the most skilled. And maybe when most of that group is gone, but a few names remain, you might decide to skip them and jump down to the next group and take the most skilled of that next group instead. It might mean giving up a buck or two, but you are always focusing on skills while still more or less dropping down in value in an orderly fashion.

[RAY@HQ]

Also, a raw CDG output isn't accounting for positional scarcity or flexibility, both of which would bump Zobrist up any rankings list.

You'll probably be interested in the Straight Draft Guide, which I'll have posted in early March.

[RDeschain]

Also, a raw CDG output isn't accounting for positional scarcity or flexibility, both of which would bump Zobrist up any rankings list.

You'll probably be interested in the Straight Draft Guide, which I'll have posted in early March.

So much to look forward to in March!!

Thanks Ray.