CDG Question and QS not working

[RAY@HQ]

Latest: I didn't connect today with the tech guy working on CDG. I'll post an update when I get it.

[RAY@HQ]

OK, it's fixed now. OPS category, Net Saves category, and Net Relief categories all work properly.

A special note about OPS: the programmers suspect the weighting of the category may be a little lighter relative to other categories. So as you evaluate the new results, you may want to consider weighting the category a little heavier (ie more than 1) to get the dollar values where you think they "should be". The values are correct now (you can see this if you run the CDG with OPS as the only hitting category), but playing with the weightings is kind of a "season to your own taste" option.

Anyway, glad to have this fixed, sorry it took so long.

[Snider]

Thanks Ray - I will try it later today. Should we double weight OPS? What weighting would you use if you played in a league that used OPS over BA? Thanks again.

[RAY@HQ]

Thanks Ray - I will try it later today. Should we double weight OPS? What weighting would you use if you played in a league that used OPS over BA? Thanks again.

I haven't played with it enough to be able to answer. Doubling seems like a lot, though. I would do something like this as a process:
- run the CDG for just your other 4 hitting categories, save the CSV.
- run it again with OPS included as one of your five categories, save that CSV.
- compare some values. The outliers are likely the high-OPS/no SB guys (Matt Olson/Yordan Alvarez types), and the low-OPS speedsters on the other side. See how their values differ between the two sheets.
- based on what you see there, change the weighting on OPS (maybe to 1.5), save that file, see how the values change for the same guys you checked in the step above.
- adjust weighting further as needed.

[Snider]

Ray - This looks great!! For the first time since February, I am getting dollar values based on projections that make sense to me. Thank you very much.

[RAY@HQ]

Glad to hear it!

[The Brave Bull]

The CDG used to be my Bible when it came to evaluating players for trade purposes but I still have to say that for whatever reason it's been out of whack this year. I've been using it for countless years and never had a complaint. Unfortunately, I'm still seeing issues to the point that I've mostly stopped using it because I don't trust it. Latest example: We use QS, and in trying to understand why Paul Skenes isn't worth much ROS I discovered that although he has 7/9 QS YTD the projection has him having 12 more starts and 0.0 QS. I know these are hard to project, but that can't be reasonable at all. Just to double check, I randomly noticed that Ober is projected to have 5 more QS.

This is one of a few different things that I've seen at various times.

[RAY@HQ]

Not to split hairs, but that's not a CDG issue. That's a projections issue. There's a hole in the QS projections process for rookie pitchers. Thanks for reminding me about that one, I need to get it prioritized and cleaned up.

[Lentini]

Not sure if this is the right place or if I should open a new thread, but I noticed today that Imanaga's and Yamamoto's QS totals have not changed in the CDG in quite some time. They were set as 11 and 16 originally several months ago and despite being 60% through the season, they're still at 11 and 16. I seem to recall in the preseason that they were at zero and there might have been some manual intervention made for the Japanese pitchers with no minor-league history to build from, but whatever was done then, it appears these numbers aren't automatically decrementing as time goes by. Yamamoto in particular is projected for 16 QS despite being projected for only 8 GS! Thanks in advance for looking at this.

[RAY@HQ]

Yes, that's exactly right. There's a flaw in QS projections for newcomers like those two, and we did hard-code them in preseason. I'm not surprised they're not decrementing properly during the season. We need a better fix to the root problem, which I will raise again with the techies. Thanks for the bump.

[RAY@HQ]

Yes, that's exactly right. There's a flaw in QS projections for newcomers like those two, and we did hard-code them in preseason. I'm not surprised they're not decrementing properly during the season. We need a better fix to the root problem, which I will raise again with the techies. Thanks for the bump.

The root problem is now fixed. One more thing off the list.