CDG question

[PhillyPB]

Throwing myself into CDG for 1st time and have a question

I've set up a 10tm NL-only keeper league in MACK, and then modeling in CDG. Made a lot of keeper assumptions for other teams

My question regards the valuation of the few closers expected to be available in our upcoming draft

These are some of the metrics I used:

• standard 5x5 format (incl Svs)
• offense budget: 66%
• valuation method: Top Players

What looks a little funny is how these few available-at-draft closers appear to be fairly undervalued, at least to me: Papelbon ($17) and Bell ($11), for instance

Bell went for $29 in the same league LY, and I suspect he'll go for at least $25 this yr, in spite of fact his skills are in some decline

While I realize price and true value are different, I would have thought both pitchers would have had inflation-adjusted values of $20+

What could i be doing wrong?

[blazsey]

Not privy to the inner workings of the CDG, but if your MACK keeper are reflected in the CDG, sounds like you're using it correctly. My CDG always values closers less than the rest of my league as well. To adjust the output, I would suggest increasing the weight of the saves category. Hopefully that will get you values that are closer to what you are looking for.

[PhillyPB]

Thanks Blazsy

But what's the lesson in doing that?

That the majority of owners out there who pay $20-$30 for a closer are actually overpaying for saves...and should maybe consider punting the category?

[blazsey]

Not really a "tech issue any more, feel free to move to roto forum.
__________________________________________________ _________
Apologies if some of this isn't new, but I always feel better giving a complete explanation.
Value depends on context. Scarcity, player pool and your needs all affect value in significant ways.
You asked why would anyone want to artificially adjust closer values to bring them more in line with league norms.
Some players feel that it is better to work from a value paradigm based on the league consensus. If closers are spendy in your league, that usually means there is less money for starters. With that assumption built in, an owner can, in theory, avoid "overpaying" for a player that could have been had more cheaply.
Personally, I don't agree. I go into the draft pretty confident in my valuations (as much as you can) and I stick to them. Again, this is just in my league, but I've had good luck grabbing people who get the closer role midseason via FAAB.
Point is, there are lots of people who feel each way. As long as you have a method that works for you, that's all that matters. 35% of the time the predicted values will be more than $5 off anyway.
Hope this helps

Thanks Blazsy

But what's the lesson in doing that?

That the majority of owners out there who pay $20-$30 for a closer are actually overpaying for saves...and should maybe consider punting the category?

[PhillyPB]

Actually, my question wasn't asking why a user would want to amend part of the model artificially in order to match their league's tendencies, if you felt the model wasn't accurate (ie input/output didn't reflect the league's reality). Instead, I was sort of asking whether a) there was an issue with the model such that you needed to adjust it, or b) the input/output was spot on, such that the message was missed by most folks...that is, to basically not pay for saves, because it's more valuable to spend $$ elsewhere). And I can't imagine the latter being the case.

Have to remember that Im a newbie w/ CDG, so Im just trying to catch up on use & interpretation of said.

What I ended up figuring out on my own about CDG was that the higher offense % of total $260 spend (ie above 50%) is the reason why pitching values overall go down. (I used 66%). Makes sense in retrospect. But as I mentioned, the closer portion of pitching in real life seems to always be immune to this general pitching knock-down annually.

Bottom line is that I bumped up the SV weighting from 1 to 6. Now it looks normal.

Thanks for the advice

[RAY@HQ]

6? That's a pretty significant adjustment. "Looking normal" is obviously subjective, but the alternative might be that if you now have values that reflect what guys go for in your league, maybe there's an inefficiency there... just because what everyone else in your league is willing to pay for closers is that high, doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea for you to do so as well. Food for thought....

[PhillyPB]

Re the question of inefficiency, that's what I wondered in post #5, where I asked myself whether if I should be punting saves because of inefficiencies elsewhere.

But a "6" (actually a 5 now) only gets the 1-2 remaining closers to $30, which doesn't seem crazy to me. Standard 5x5 league, with most closers retained as keepers.

Feels like im doing something wrong, though, when a very good Papelbon, as one of few remainng closers, has to be boosted up this high. Ptretty standard league....ALonly keeper league, with standard 5x5 categories/ most closers retained as keepers.