Originally posted by PD@HQ
View Post
Let's assume to make the illustrations clear cut that we're in a world where all fantasy owners share the same projections. That is a common unstated assumption of assigning dollar values to projections.
One problem is that we are buying roster slots, not the actual player's statistics. If the last catcher to be drafted is projected for 0-12-0-.190 (250) and will (as is likely without doing any math) have value worse than having an open roster slot, then the fantasy owner who purchases this stinky catcher for $1 will immediately after the draft reserve him and work with an open batting spot if the rules let him do so. The dollar value of that last catcher should have been based on the value of the option of MAX(stinky catcher, open roster slot, better catcher that might appear in the pool during the season). In practice, we seldom value those options (the Custom Draft Guide doesn't, RotoLab doesn't), but an extreme example like our stinky catcher, it's throwing off the values substantially.
My point here is if you are saying that how can someone worse than a vacant roster slot be valued for a dollar, then I would answer the problem is not "forced positions is wrong" but the problem is that we shouldn't value stinky catcher based on his own production but rather based on the expected production from the roster slot as a whole.
Originally posted by usualsuspects
View Post
1B - $5
1B - $3
1B - $1
C - $1
C - ($4)
C - ($5)
Your opponent, with the same projections and same software, turns on the forced positions option and his dollar values are reallocated as follows:
1B - $2.71
1B - $1
1B - ($0.71)
C - $5.29
C - $1
C - $0.14
So let's return to the issues as you framed them. Whose dollar values seem nuts? Is it the case that all catchers will simply sell for a buck, maybe two? Is this a game theory problem or a marginal return problem?
Leave a comment: