CDG Valuing Lower Point Players Higher Than Higher Point Players- WTF?!

[jdwexler]

I just ran the CDG for the second time and noticed that certain players were assigned a higher dollar value than players who are projected to have more points than them (within the same position). For example, the CDG projects Nolan Reimold to garner 469 points, and says that makes him worth $12. But Cuddyer, McClouth, DeJesus, Wells all have about 30 more points, but a lower dollar value. BJ Upton has more points than Reimhold and is only worth $7.

Can someone clear this up for me? I need to settle on a dollar valuation method ASAP and am about ready to abandon the CDG.

[RobR]

If your league CDG settings are saved in the system (from your other thread it sounds like they're not), please PM me the username you use to login to the website (not the forums, if different) and the league name in question.

If your settings aren't saved, please post them here in detail.

[jdwexler]

If your league CDG settings are saved in the system (from your other thread it sounds like they're not), please PM me the username you use to login to the website (not the forums, if different) and the league name in question.

If your settings aren't saved, please post them here in detail.

Rob,

I still can't get the Save Settings button to appear, so here's what I'm putting into the input form:

both leagues, 260, 14 teams, top players, force positions, 6 bench players, 75% offense, change OF to 3, MI to 0, CI to 0

hitting:
AB -.5
BB 2
1B 3
2B 4.5
3B 6
HR 6.5
SB .5
RBI .5

Pitching:
IP 3
Win 3
Save 3
L -1.5
BS -1.5
ER -2
H -1
BB -1
K .5

Thanks for taking the time.
Run .5

[RAY@HQ]

Did you create a MACK league?

[RobR]

Rob,

I still can't get the Save Settings button to appear, so here's what I'm putting into the input form:

both leagues, 260, 14 teams, top players, force positions, 6 bench players, 75% offense, change OF to 3, MI to 0, CI to 0

You are using force positions, which shifts the relative value of players. So, say you require 28 catchers in your league and without force positions the bottom 12 catchers would have negative value. Then all catchers will have their value increased until the last catcher is above replacement value. That could easily leave a catcher with 20 points worth more than a 1B with 50 points. This happens in roto scoring, too, but points makes it very obvious.

Are all the discrepancies you're seeing happening between players at different positions? If you have an example where two players from the same position are valued out of order, that would be helpful to see.

[jdwexler]

You are using force positions, which shifts the relative value of players. So, say you require 28 catchers in your league and without force positions the bottom 12 catchers would have negative value. Then all catchers will have their value increased until the last catcher is above replacement value. That could easily leave a catcher with 20 points worth more than a 1B with 50 points. This happens in roto scoring, too, but points makes it very obvious.

Are all the discrepancies you're seeing happening between players at different positions? If you have an example where two players from the same position are valued out of order, that would be helpful to see.

See original post. The discrepancy is within positions.

[jdwexler]

Now, I've got another issue. I want to go with more of a stars and scrubs team, so I tried using the Top Players method. But that gives me lower $values for the top players than when I use the Balanced method.

[jdwexler]

Did you create a MACK league?

Okay, I just created a MACK league (though I don't even understand what that means, and hadn't done so before when I still had the Save Settings buttons). That brought the buttons back. Thanks, Ray.

[jdwexler]

Ack! And another issue. Whenever I load my settings or return to the input form, it's showing 1 MI and 1 CI even though I inputted 0 for both. I can't get it to run my values with the correct positions. And CDG still is loving Reimhold and a couple other players whom it gives a higher $value to despite their habing less points.

[jdwexler]

Alright, I'm calling off the dogs. Thanks for all your help, guys- but I just paid $20 at BPro and am going to go with their Player Forecast Manager. The PFM options match up better with my league and, for whatever reason, it just seems to work smoother with my computer. BP's fantasy coverage is a joke compared to HQ, so I'll probably stick around here anyhow. I really appreciate you sticking with me through my prep attempts and taking the time to try to help me out. -Josh

[RAY@HQ]

Ack! And another issue. Whenever I load my settings or return to the input form, it's showing 1 MI and 1 CI even though I inputted 0 for both. I can't get it to run my values with the correct positions. And CDG still is loving Reimhold and a couple other players whom it gives a higher $value to despite their habing less points.

This one's already on Rob's list to fix, should be knocked off soon.

By the way, I'm sure you had your reasons for trying to do this, but using AB as a negative scoring category was almost certainly a contributing factor to the screwy results you were getting.

[jdwexler]

This one's already on Rob's list to fix, should be knocked off soon.

By the way, I'm sure you had your reasons for trying to do this, but using AB as a negative scoring category was almost certainly a contributing factor to the screwy results you were getting.

We have AB as negative points (-.5) in our scoring system because it serves to mimic the effect (on runs created) of a player making an out. So, let's say a player gets a single- he'll get you 2.5pts (3 points for the single minus the AB). A double nets you 4 points (4.5 minus the AB). A walk gets you 2 points (2pts for a walk, no AB). But, if the player makes an out, he will just get you the -.5pts. These points are all based on linear weighted run values, and these final point totals reflect each player's actual MLB contribution with amazing accuracy. This was our goal, and I'm really proud of our system for that reason.

If having negative points for ABs is causing these problems, that seems like a major defect with the CDG. The point totals are easily enough calculated (by plugging the projections into our scoring system formula) and they seem to pass the smell test. Once you have the point totals, they need to be converted into dollar values. I don't see why the original inputs should have anything to do with this process, no less make players with higher point totals have lower dollar value.

[RobR]

You should be able to enter zero ci and mi now. Also keepers and points work together now. Working on the players out of order. That only appears to happen with force positions.