CDG (Custom Draft Guide) and Relief Pitchers (RP)

[mtaveira]

Why do all RPs have negative values in my CDG? I suspect it has to do with the CDG only allowing you to enter a total number of pitchers (SP + RP).

Our league (10 teams) allows 5 SPs, 2 RPs, and 2 SP/RPs, for a total of 9 pitchers (as entered in the CDG). The league tendency is to have as many closers (4 per team) as possible. (Some teams will boot it altogether, thus allowing 7 or 8 teams to grab 4 closers.) No one drafts 9 SPs. With a max innings per year, there is little reason to start, and thus draft, more than 6 SPs.

I realize RP values are all relative, but it makes it hard to guess how much to spend on whom.

[RAY@HQ]

This is not a normal behavior, so I suspect it has to do with the way you have the CDG configured. Can you share your configuration?

[mtaveira]

Here are all my settings:

6x6 Rotisserie (HR, AVG, RBI, R, SB, OPS; W, SV, WHIP, ERA, SO, QS) - each is weighted to a value of "1"

Positions:
25 Total
C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, 4x OF, 2x UTIL
5x SP, 2x RP, 2x P (SP or RP)
5 Bench Spots

Keepers: Yes (I have entered keeper values for each of the teams in the leagues; Problem occurs whether I use keepers or not.)
Stat Pool: Proj. 2011
Teams: 10
Leagues: AL and NL
Budget per team: $285
Offensive Budget: 70% (I get similar results for RPs - i.e., RPs all have negative values - with 65% or less also)
Fractional: Yes
Force Positions: Yes (similar results when not forced)
Valuation Method: Top Players (similar results with 'Balanced' and 'Middle Players'; did not try 'Scarcity' because there is no option to make Pitchers "scarce" (in my league, RPs are ALWAYS scarce, however))
Min. Bid.: 1
Scarcity: not selected for any position

Some examples (R$):
Heath Bell: -0.12
Bailey: -0.43
Papelbon: -0.51


Theories/Findings:
-When I change it to a 5x5 league and remove QS, the RP values increase to positive values. This makes sense since a save is 1/5th of the points instead of 1/6th. However, the values are still too low. The best closers are only a few dollars ($3-4 each), which is less than many pitchers that may go undrafted. Some are still negative.
-Perhaps I could weight saves to a higher value than the default of 1? 2? Hard to say what's appropriate. Any ideas.
-I don't even know what values I should find. I suppose the top 5 closers should be $10-15 each? (Those in the top 5 that weren't kept will likely go for $15-20)
-I suppose closers always have a low R$ compared to other players because R$ is a dollar amount that represents the player's ability to improve your Rotisserie standings. Because most RPs only help in one category (SV), their ability to help you in the standings is diminished relative to a batter (4-6 categories) or a SP (all other categories). [I can argue, however, that some "ace" closers can anchor your WHIP/ERA and add to K totals (e.g., Marmol in 2010). Some argue that 70 or so innings from a RP barely makes a difference over 1200-1500 IP. I disagree. In it's most basic form, you can see how badly a poor closer impacts your team when you get to watch him implode (relatively frequently). Or consider this. Heath Bell is projected for roughly a 2.7 era and Francisco Cordero for a 4.0 era. Assume the rest of your team pitched 1400 IP and obtained a 3.3 ERA. If you had Heath Bell (70 IP), in addition, he would help your ERA to about 3.27. If you had Cordero (70 IP), your ERA would rise to 3.50. That's a big difference. Comparing this to years' past, an ERA of 3.27 is usually 2nd or 3rd best (9 or 8 pts out of 10); a 3.5 ERA is middle at best (i.e., 5 pts or less). That is a big difference. This is repeated with respect to WHIP. I haven't even looked at Saves either (although Cordero is currently projected to get more saves than Bell, but he's also more likely to lose his job). So, in sum, I do think that RPs do add to other categories. And/Or, put another way, they can hurt you in other categories.
-if I can't get the CDG to value the RPs appropriately, what other "quick" metric(s) should I use in the chart to evaluate relative projections amongst RPs? BPV?

[mtaveira]

I wanted to include some more examples for comparison:
Francisco Cordero (as used in my example above): -$4.68 (ranked 220th P by R$)

Some other positions for comparison purposes (positive values unless indicated otherwise):
Kyle Drabek: $2.47 (ranked 84th by R$) [won't be drafted]
Mark Buerhle: $1.01 (ranked 100th)
Barry Zito: $0.55 (115th)
Luke Hochevar: -$0.57 (129th) [about same as Heath Bell (ranked 123rd)!]

So those players will contribute more value (or hurt less) than just about every RP? Does not make sense to me.

[RAY@HQ]

I have replicated your settings and see the same results. I don't think this is an error, though. If the CDG had the capability to force you to roster different classifications of pitchers between SP and RP as your league requires, the values of RPs would get propped up. But as you noted above, when you have a 6x6 format that forces extra value to SP via the QS category, and the value of saves is diminished in a shallow league, this is the result you're going to get.

Now, the central question here, as always, is whether you want the tool to reflect your league's bidding patterns, or the players' true value.

I'd probably go with the option of adding to the weighting of saves, maybe to 1.5 or so. You'll want to play with that value to find the one that "looks" right, though.

[mtaveira]

I'm going to try and weight the saves to see what looks right to me.

It would definitely be nice if future iterations of the CDG generator allowed you to designate SP vs RP vs P (i.e., SP or RP - equivalent to a UTIL for pitchers). Maybe we over value the significance of RPs and/or Saves, but the mere fact that we can't customize for RPs/Saves (a very common aspect of fantasy baseball - rotisserie or otherwise), certainly detracts from the value of the CDG.

[RAY@HQ]

Yes, that's on our enhancement list (SP vs RP).

[mtaveira]

That's great to hear!

Is this enhancement something you're aiming for this season or next? The enhancement will obviously still be useful even after the season starts.

Keep up the good work!

[RAY@HQ]

Don't have a firm schedule yet. Hopefully in-season this year, sometime.