Is this veto-able?

[DMT]

That is the problem with posting something like this---it turns into the veto debate, inevitably. I think the idea is, assuming that you have a league where there are vetoes for "competitive balance of the league" reasons (i.e. you veto lopsided trades because otherwise, the lopsided trades can determine the winner and the league devolves into a see who can rip off a rube the worst type situation), should this trade be vetoed. For me, unless there is something else going on that is not mentioned in the first post (i.e. keeper, dynasty, whatever) this trade is nowhere near something that could be considered for a veto. Seems fair-ish, if a little in the advantage of the Correa/Senzel side.

Bingo

[onejayhawk]

This statement looks incorrect to me.

If you look at NFBC drafts held in the last month (gives us a big sample size while still using recent data) we have 381 drafts to look at. In those drafts Correa went on average at pick 50.54 and Puig went at 58.74.

In the 38 main event drafts they averaged pick 52.42 and 52.74.

For our purposes that is basically even ADP.

So suggesting that one of them is significantly better perceived value based on the ADP data is not good analysis of the data IMO.

I just checked. NFBC, Draft Champions, 1 March to 1 April its 49.85 to 62.92. That's enough of a difference to call significant. If you go back a month from the relevant date, there are significantly fewer drafts but the gap widens about a point. I find it interesting that Main Event picks are that different, but I will stand by the statement that there is a significant perceived difference in value, just not a large difference.

We seem to have something of a consensus that the trade is clearly uneven but not veto worthy. A couple of people think is only slightly tilted and one said a veto was not excessive.

J

[Ken]

I just checked. NFBC, Draft Champions, 1 March to 1 April its 49.85 to 62.92. That's enough of a difference to call significant.

I posted some clear indication that they are very similar in ADP in the macro sense across the larger data set of 381 drafts, and I included a note about the main event, which is generally a more respected data source as another data point.

How does narrowing it down to the 71 drafts specifically in draft champions, and across an older data set suggest better data? Why go back the extra 10 days? Why limit your data to Draft Champions? If you are going to cite a source as a counter, and it has less data points and an older sample that may no longer be as relevant, you need to at least back that up with WHY your data source is a better source.

Aside from the bad data analysis, less than 1 round of difference in ADP in the 4-5th round range is not significant enough to consider as an appreciably different asset class in fantasy. You're getting players from the same tier even at both the spots you mentioned (50/63). At just 13 picks different in that range we're talking about personal preference, not significantly different valuations.

[Sour Masher]

Yeah, to reiterate a point 1jay himself has noted in the past--the different of 13 spots at the top of a draft is vast. The different 50-60 picks in is not, and in fact the difference is small enough as to be a matter of team needs and personal preferences.

[onejayhawk]

I posted some clear indication that they are very similar in ADP in the macro sense across the larger data set of 381 drafts, and I included a note about the main event, which is generally a more respected data source as another data point.

How does narrowing it down to the 71 drafts specifically in draft champions, and across an older data set suggest better data? Why go back the extra 10 days? Why limit your data to Draft Champions? If you are going to cite a source as a counter, and it has less data points and an older sample that may no longer be as relevant, you need to at least back that up with WHY your data source is a better source.

Aside from the bad data analysis, less than 1 round of difference in ADP in the 4-5th round range is not significant enough to consider as an appreciably different asset class in fantasy. You're getting players from the same tier even at both the spots you mentioned (50/63). At just 13 picks different in that range we're talking about personal preference, not significantly different valuations.

It's the setting Paul Sporer uses for his articles. I can speculate on his reasons but only speculate.

Yeah, to reiterate a point 1jay himself has noted in the past--the different of 13 spots at the top of a draft is vast. The different 50-60 picks in is not, and in fact the difference is small enough as to be a matter of team needs and personal preferences.

Agreed that this not like the difference between #7 and #20 or even #17 and #30. However, it is still a difference of more than 25% of the picks made. It's like a difference between #16 and #21.

J

[The Feral Slasher]

It's the setting Paul Sporer uses for his articles. I can speculate on his reasons but only speculate.



Agreed that this not like the difference between #7 and #20 or even #17 and #30. However, it is still a difference of more than 25% of the picks made. It's like a difference between #16 and #21.

J

Or 2 and 2.5. Or 1000 and 1250

[Ken]

It's the setting Paul Sporer uses for his articles. I can speculate on his reasons but only speculate.

Lets not cite sources as rebuttals unless we know why we are citing them and can back it up. I think that's a pretty good rule in general on any topic actually.

It's like a difference between #16 and #21.

Right, which are also within error bars and basically personal preference too. If you pick a random NFBC draft and look at the players picked at 16 and 21, and then pick other drafts to analyze, there's a decent chance that the player picked at 21 in your sample draft was picked above the one that was picked at 16 in your sample draft.

I think you are analyzing ADP completely wrong - there's not a statistically significant perceived difference in values in players that are that close together. Fantasy players are looked at in tiers.

[Ken]

Or 2 and 2.5. Or 1000 and 1250

I disagree.

[The Feral Slasher]

I disagree.

Yeah, me too

[Fresno Bob]

It's the setting Paul Sporer uses for his articles. I can speculate on his reasons but only speculate.

J

yea, but Sporer is an idiot............I keed, I keed!

[onejayhawk]

Lets not cite sources as rebuttals unless we know why we are citing them and can back it up. I think that's a pretty good rule in general on any topic actually.

Right, which are also within error bars and basically personal preference too. If you pick a random NFBC draft and look at the players picked at 16 and 21, and then pick other drafts to analyze, there's a decent chance that the player picked at 21 in your sample draft was picked above the one that was picked at 16 in your sample draft.

I think you are analyzing ADP completely wrong - there's not a statistically significant perceived difference in values in players that are that close together. Fantasy players are looked at in tiers.

That's not a rebuttal. You asked me why I use that setting. That's why.

You keep saying, "that close together" when they are not very close together. It is exactly, "statistically significant" in the rigorous meaning of that phrase. In your terms, they are on different tiers.

J

[Gregg]

I posted some clear indication that they are very similar in ADP in the macro sense across the larger data set of 381 drafts, and I included a note about the main event, which is generally a more respected data source as another data point.

How does narrowing it down to the 71 drafts specifically in draft champions, and across an older data set suggest better data? Why go back the extra 10 days? Why limit your data to Draft Champions? If you are going to cite a source as a counter, and it has less data points and an older sample that may no longer be as relevant, you need to at least back that up with WHY your data source is a better source.

Aside from the bad data analysis, less than 1 round of difference in ADP in the 4-5th round range is not significant enough to consider as an appreciably different asset class in fantasy. You're getting players from the same tier even at both the spots you mentioned (50/63). At just 13 picks different in that range we're talking about personal preference, not significantly different valuations.

Because if you pay attention to what you wrote, onejayhawk will not have a case for veto.

Onejay, brother, bubbla, there is no case here for veto. If you open that door than you might as well vote on every trade and that will not be fun.

I did not weigh in on what side I like better because it is a moo point (Joey Tribbiani). I do have a side that I prefer but that is nothing new. I can pick a side I like best in 98% of the trades that happen in my leagues and about the same for all that are listed in here. It has nothing to do with veto.

[Ken]

That's not a rebuttal. You asked me why I use that setting. That's why.

I asked you why you used that setting when replying to my suggestion that they have very close ADPs, which was based on a larger, more recent data set. Look, forget it. If you want to use worse data as a reason to backup a flawed argument, even when faced with better data, it's certainly your right to do so!

You keep saying, "that close together" when they are not very close together.

Literally less than a round of picks in a 15 team mixed league even in the worst case. If you are using ADP and thinking that it is that precise, you're confused on how to use ADP.

It is exactly, "statistically significant" in the rigorous meaning of that phrase.

Is it? What p value are you coming up with?

In your terms, they are on different tiers.

Really? How wide have you set each tier such that you are confident that pick 50 and 63 are on different tiers, and it's not simply based on an arbitrary endpoint?

[Hornsby]

Not that anyone would know this, but several years back OJ and one other league member vetoed a deal in a baskeball dynasty league. I believe that it was Giannis for AD...AD was the obvious better player for that season, but he was virtually unkeepable. The league ended up folding from that veto, so when OJ mentions veto, the hairs on the back of my neck go up.

No matter, this deal is in no way vetoable...

[onejayhawk]

Not that anyone would know this, but several years back OJ and one other league member vetoed a deal in a baskeball dynasty league. I believe that it was Giannis for AD...AD was the obvious better player for that season, but he was virtually unkeepable. The league ended up folding from that veto, so when OJ mentions veto, the hairs on the back of my neck go up.

No matter, this deal is in no way vetoable...

What you left out was the league rule that designed to prevent exactly that sort of dump deal. I see you are still taking the dump over enforcing the rules. IIRC at least three people left the league over the issue.

J