CDG: Negative category for K's

[watshock]

I'm seeing some very odd results when using the K's as a negative category for hitters (Rotisserie league).

When I have it selected as a category, Adam Dunn is a $28 player (second ranked 1B) and Pujols is $17.

When I don't have it selected, Adam Dunn is a $6 player and Pujols is $31.

Pujols is projected for 72 K's while Dunn is projected for 204 K's. Shouldn't these results be the opposite? How does adding K's as a negative category make the player with more strikeouts more valuable?

At this point, the rankings/values look more accurate with it deselected.

[NICK@HQ]

I might be wrong, but it sounds as if you put a negative number next to the strikeouts category for batters. This is what the instructions say:

A negative weight will reverse the "standard" sorting of a category.
For example, -1 for Hitting Strikeouts will place the most value in the players with the most strikeouts

That would explain why Dunn's value would go up while Pujols's value would fall. I tried it that way and got your results.

Then I tried with with a positive 1 for strikeouts, and this time Pujols became very valuable indeed, while Dunn was abysmally negative in value.

[RAY@HQ]

And anytime you use strikeouts as a category for hitters, it's going to push a lot of value to low-PT guys. I recommend cutting the category weight to 0.5 or below for this reason.

[watshock]

Oh, duh. Thanks Nick, didn't see that or maybe misinterpreted it. ERA should be positive 1 too then, right?

[NICK@HQ]

Oh, duh. Thanks Nick, didn't see that or maybe misinterpreted it. ERA should be positive 1 too then, right?

Yes, assuming your other categories get a 1, ERA should too. You are simply weighting them equally.