Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

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

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    2,893

    Default 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. #2
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Westwood, MA
    Posts
    47,537

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,423

    Default

    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    26,310

    Default

    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).
    ďAdvertising bans, plain packaging, bans on smoking in public spaces, deterrent messages on cigarette packages, medical advice, education -- all have had some effect especially in Western countries. But still a billion people in the world are addicted to lighting little bonfires of plant material between their lips." -- Matt Ridley

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    2,893

    Default

    Quote 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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    2,893

    Default

    Quote 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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,423

    Default

    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    2,893

    Default

    Quote 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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    2,893

    Default

    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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    2,893

    Default

    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

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    2,893

    Default

    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

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    26,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RobR@HQ View Post
    Michael and jdwexler, my post describes Force Positions off.
    I misunderstood then.
    Quote 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.
    ďAdvertising bans, plain packaging, bans on smoking in public spaces, deterrent messages on cigarette packages, medical advice, education -- all have had some effect especially in Western countries. But still a billion people in the world are addicted to lighting little bonfires of plant material between their lips." -- Matt Ridley

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    98

    Default

    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    2,893

    Default

    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

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,423

    Default

    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

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,423

    Default

    14th C wouldn't likely make the team without force positions. Depends on scoring, but All your UT players are likely to produce more points than the last catcher. I'd guess the last few guys to make it on to rosters with force positions are catchers.
    While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty.
    --Sherlock Holmes

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    2,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RobR@HQ View Post
    14th C wouldn't likely make the team without force positions. Depends on scoring, but All your UT players are likely to produce more points than the last catcher. I'd guess the last few guys to make it on to rosters with force positions are catchers.
    Thanks for the replies, Rob. This is true of my league.
    some of my music here

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    2,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RobR@HQ View Post
    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.
    This doesnt sound right to me. To my mind the #5 catcher really is worth $17(ish) because my league rules force everybody to draft a catcher. If i take force positions off i get clearly incorrect dollar values. Eg, the #5 C is at only $4, #5 is worth 0, & everyone after is negative. Obb those guys should have positive values since youd gain points at catcher over other teams if u drafted those players.
    some of my music here

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdwexler View Post
    This doesnt sound right to me. To my mind the #5 catcher really is worth $17(ish) because my league rules force everybody to draft a catcher. If i take force positions off i get clearly incorrect dollar values. Eg, the #5 C is at only $4, #5 is worth 0, & everyone after is negative. Obb those guys should have positive values since youd gain points at catcher over other teams if u drafted those players.
    When you don't force positions, you can indeed have negative-valued players. The values are generated by points above replacement. In a 14-team league, that should be the 197th-best player. If he has, say, 150 points, then all the players are value based on their point values minus 150. If you have catchers (the most likely suspects) that have to be drafted, but are less than 150 points, they will have negative value.
    "Never make predictions, especially about the future." -- Casey Stengel

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    2,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MattC@HQ View Post
    When you don't force positions, you can indeed have negative-valued players. The values are generated by points above replacement. In a 14-team league, that should be the 197th-best player. If he has, say, 150 points, then all the players are value based on their point values minus 150. If you have catchers (the most likely suspects) that have to be drafted, but are less than 150 points, they will have negative value.
    Yes I understand why those values are generated when force positions are off. But they are useless to me. Rob said that the #5 catcher's value wasn't really $17 (the value I get for Montero when I force positions) and he suggested I uncheck force positions. Unfortunately, I can't uncheck the rules of my league so having the #6-13 catchers at negative values is just plain wrong. Yet the CDG appears to be giving faulty values when I do force positions.
    some of my music here

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,423

    Default

    jdwexler, your question as I read it was "why am I seeing different dollars per point for two different players". I told you that's because you selected force positions and suggested that if you temporarily disabled it, you'd see their unadjusted values. In the end, the answer to your question is that your are seeing different dollar values per point because of force positions. That's the only way your last catcher can have value above replacement in your league . . . if you give him more dollars per point or give him more points. I don't believe they are faulty values. If you have an alternate algorithm in mind, feel free to lay it out. User feedback goes a long way to improving CDG.
    While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty.
    --Sherlock Holmes

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    526

    Default

    The point is here is that those catchers really do have negative value; they are below replacement level for your league. Of course, they will all go for at least $1 in your draft because they have to be drafted to fill out the rosters. There are two ways to deal with this: 1) Leave them as negative values and make sure you get one of the catchers that has positive value; 2) Use "force positions", which will bump up the value of all catchers, leading to the situation where a $17 catcher projects for far fewer points than a $17 1B or OF. I generally prefer the former.
    "Never make predictions, especially about the future." -- Casey Stengel

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    26,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MattC@HQ View Post
    The point is here is that those catchers really do have negative value; they are below replacement level for your league.
    I disagree, although the nature of our argument is pretty existential.

    No player has any fantasy baseball value independent of context. In a league where the minimum bid is $1 and 24 catchers will be drafted, the 24th best catcher really has a value of $1 and top 23 catchers have a value higher than $1 based on the SGP or the sum of their Z-scores above the level of the 24th best catcher. "Really, really" as Shrek says. I prefer to use "force positions" although there is a bug in the Custom Draft Guide for that option right now.

    It baffles me why others want to work with draft day tools that call for negative value catchers to be drafted, but that's why one can turn the "forced positions" option on or off, because a substantial number of users agree with your viewpoint.
    ďAdvertising bans, plain packaging, bans on smoking in public spaces, deterrent messages on cigarette packages, medical advice, education -- all have had some effect especially in Western countries. But still a billion people in the world are addicted to lighting little bonfires of plant material between their lips." -- Matt Ridley

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    2,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael@HQ View Post
    I disagree, although the nature of our argument is pretty existential.

    No player has any fantasy baseball value independent of context. In a league where the minimum bid is $1 and 24 catchers will be drafted, the 24th best catcher really has a value of $1 and top 23 catchers have a value higher than $1 based on the SGP or the sum of their Z-scores above the level of the 24th best catcher. "Really, really" as Shrek says. I prefer to use "force positions" although there is a bug in the Custom Draft Guide for that option right now.

    It baffles me why others want to work with draft day tools that call for negative value catchers to be drafted, but that's why one can turn the "forced positions" option on or off, because a substantial number of users agree with your viewpoint.
    This.
    some of my music here

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    2,893

    Default

    Matt, the replacement level of which you speak is a mirage. A one-size-fits-all league-wide replacement level in a fantasy league that requires you to draft a player at each position is a mostly useless concept. You need to value players with respect to the replacement level at each position (ie, the best player not drafted at that position, or thereabouts). It's the same reason that when you calculate the WAR for a player in real life you need a wOBA replacement level for each position- you wouldn't declare a catcher with a .295wOBA to be worthless just because he is x number of runs below league average or because you can find a bunch of LFs in the minors who can hit better than that. You need a guy who can catch, and a .295wOBA is probably better than what you pick up off the scrap heap of catchers. Said catcher has positive value.

    It seems obvious to me that the #5-14 catchers do not (and cannot) have negative value. By drafting the #5 catcher I will gain points over all the teams who have #6-14 catchers.
    some of my music here

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •