Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CDG: Negative $values for players that have to be drafted

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CDG: Negative $values for players that have to be drafted

    I'm getting Negative $values for players that have to be drafted in my league. eg the bottom few catchers. Also, sometimes the last player at a position is worth $7 or so. Shouldn't the 14th player in a 14 team league be valued at $1 (unless they are above replacement at the UT slot)?
    some of my music here

  • #2
    Are you forcing positions? Need to see the full configuration you're using to try and reproduce, or pass on to tech.

    There is a known issue addressing your second point (last player at a position > $1 in some cases) which is on tech's list to address in an upcoming release.

    Comment


    • #3
      The last player at each position should not be $1. Only the first player not drafted (and any others with equivalent value) should be $1 (the canonical replacement player). I'd expect the last 1B needed by the league (not counting CI, DH, UT, etc.) to be worth a lot more than the last C needed.
      While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty.
      --Sherlock Holmes

      Comment


      • #4
        To my mind, the worst player drafted at a position should indeed be $1 (assuming that's the minimum bid). However, in many league set-ups where there is a utility spot, there in essence become just two batting positions - catchers and everyone else -- because the utility often handles the overflow and evens up the replacement level at the other batting positions.

        The first player not drafted should be less than $1 (other with rounding it may still look like $1).
        "It was grand, to be in control. I felt like I was the baddest lion in the valley." -- J.R. Richard

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by RAY@HQ View Post
          Are you forcing positions? Need to see the full configuration you're using to try and reproduce, or pass on to tech.

          There is a known issue addressing your second point (last player at a position > $1 in some cases) which is on tech's list to address in an upcoming release.
          Yes, forcing positions.

          14 team mixed pts
          $254, 73%
          top players
          min bid $1
          0 bench, 7 P, 1 C 1B 2B 3B SS UT, 3 OF


          Scoring System
          Batting Categories
          1B - Singles 3 points
          2B - Doubles 4.5 points
          3B - Triples 6 points
          AB - At Bats -.5 points
          BB - Walks (Batters) 2 points
          CS - Caught Stealing -2 points
          GDP - Ground Into Double Plays -.5 points
          HP - Hit by Pitch 2 points
          HR - Home Runs 6.5 points
          R - Runs .5 points
          RBI - Runs Batted In .5 points
          SB - Stolen Bases 1 point

          Pitching Categories
          BBI - Walks Issued (Pitchers) -1 point
          BS - Blown Saves -1.5 points
          ER - Earned Runs -1 point
          HA - Hits Allowed -1 point
          HB - Hit Batsmen -1 point
          HD - Holds 1 point
          INN - Innings 3 points
          K - Strikeouts (Pitcher) .5 points
          L - Losses -1.5 points
          QS - Quality Starts 1 point
          RA - Runs Allowed -1 point
          S - Saves 3 points
          W - Wins 3 points
          some of my music here

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by RobR@HQ View Post
            The last player at each position should not be $1. Only the first player not drafted (and any others with equivalent value) should be $1 (the canonical replacement player). I'd expect the last 1B needed by the league (not counting CI, DH, UT, etc.) to be worth a lot more than the last C needed.
            Can you explain? Let's presume there is no UT, CI, DH, etc and no bench. The last (14th) catcher drafted is 40 points higher than the replacement-level first catcher not drafted (15th) in my projections. The last (14th) 1B drafted is only 5 points better than the 15th 1B. So in that scenario it seems your thinking would peg the last catcher as a lot more valuable.

            But I still don't understand why the last guy drafted isn't worth exactly the $1 that you have to spend on him. Every team is going to have a player at least as good as that 14th guy at each position, so it seems to me #14 is worth just that $1 and everyone else is worth however much they oustcore him by.
            some of my music here

            Comment


            • #7
              Michael and jdwexler, my post describes Force Positions off. If you feel in that configuration that the last player at every position should be $1, then let's discuss further, because that's not my opinion.

              With Force Positions on (to be updated soon for 2011), I can see that as a reasonable point of view, although my own preference would be that only the last player at positions where Force Positions had to promote players from undrafted to drafted should be $1.

              As far as who the $1 player is, I don't think it's a material difference to valuations (common league configurations have 10-20 players assigned a salary of $1), but the current code requests a minimum salary (replacement value) and assigns that value to the most desirable player available after rosters are full. All other players are priced based on the incremental value they deliver over that player. If this makes a difference to any particular leagues, we can consider it for the development list.
              While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty.
              --Sherlock Holmes

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by RobR@HQ View Post
                Michael and jdwexler, my post describes Force Positions off. If you feel in that configuration that the last player at every position should be $1, then let's discuss further, because that's not my opinion.

                With Force Positions on (to be updated soon for 2011), I can see that as a reasonable point of view, although my own preference would be that only the last player at positions where Force Positions had to promote players from undrafted to drafted should be $1.

                As far as who the $1 player is, I don't think it's a material difference to valuations (common league configurations have 10-20 players assigned a salary of $1), but the current code requests a minimum salary (replacement value) and assigns that value to the most desirable player available after rosters are full. All other players are priced based on the incremental value they deliver over that player. If this makes a difference to any particular leagues, we can consider it for the development list.
                Gotcha, thanks.
                some of my music here

                Comment


                • #9
                  Another thing that looks odd to me is how much the $values go down relative to points at each position. eg, The #1 2B is Cano ($47, 626pts) and the #5 2B is Weeks ($16, 523). So a $31 upgrade buys me 103 extra points. The #1 C is Mauer ($48, 619) and the #5 C ($17, 456.5). There the same $31 buys me a 162.5 point upgrade. I can't think of an explanation as to how this could be right.
                  some of my music here

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Also, Mauer is about 300pts above the replacement level (ie, 15th) catcher. Cano is only 187pts above the 15th 2B and he's valued only a buck less. That seems totally effed, no?

                    EDIT: FYI, none of the players at these positions should have any spillover into my UT slot.
                    some of my music here

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      M Prado is listed among the OFs in my positional report and isn't in with the 2B or 3B (tho the "qualifies" column correctly puts him at 45)
                      some of my music here

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by RobR@HQ View Post
                        Michael and jdwexler, my post describes Force Positions off.
                        I misunderstood then.
                        Originally posted by RobR@HQ View Post
                        With Force Positions on (to be updated soon for 2011), I can see that as a reasonable point of view, although my own preference would be that only the last player at positions where Force Positions had to promote players from undrafted to drafted should be $1.
                        In a typical set up with a MI, CI, and UT, the talent in the noncatcher positions will often level off so that there is one catcher and one catcher who should be drafted for $1 exactly (if everyone was working from the same projections hypothetically). I agree that the last player at every single position should not be at $1.
                        "It was grand, to be in control. I felt like I was the baddest lion in the valley." -- J.R. Richard

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Guys - where you do set "force positions" in RotoLab?

                          Thanks and to throw in a thought - it seems logical that the last player drafted should have a $1 value unless their ratio stat(s) (BA/ERA/WHIP) is so bad that its negative influence outweighs the positive influence of the player's counting stats. Currently, my Rotolab leagues all reduce the catcher values to below 0 after 10-12 catchers - even though we require 24 in all of the involved leagues. Confused in the Great White North.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Bump. Can anyone help out with these issues (particularly posts 9 & 10)? Is there something I'm missing or is it a bug in the CDG?
                            some of my music here

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Because in force positions, the worst performing positions values are increased. #5 C isn't really worth $17, but you've asked the system to make sure [14] catchers have positive value. Turn off force positions and look at Mauer and #5's value there. Unless I'm forgetting something, in a points league there should be a constant dollar to point ratio when force positions is off, scarcity is off and valuation is balanced.
                              While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty.
                              --Sherlock Holmes

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X