Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47

Thread: Is this veto-able?

  1. #11
    Big Leaguer
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    3,367
    Quote Originally Posted by minnehan View Post
    I totally agree... Correa>>Puig. To me, it's not even close.
    Weird, what is this based on? Like Revo noted, I'd say they are close with some significant chance that Puig is the better asset.

  2. #12
    Big Leaguer swampdragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    northern new jersey
    Posts
    3,142
    yes - this seems ridiculous as a veto question

    speaking of Puig
    no keepers involved
    Puig or Paxton - which side do you want to be on?

  3. #13
    Big Leaguer
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    3,367
    Quote Originally Posted by onejayhawk View Post
    I was expecting Correa>>Puig. The ADP certainly says so and performance to date more so.
    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.

  4. #14
    All Star Sour Masher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Binghamton, NY
    Posts
    5,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Gregg View Post
    There is a difference between a perceived lopsided trade and one that should be vetoed. Is collusion involved or future considerations? Outside incentives? If not no veto.
    This is my stance too. I like the Correa side much better if this is a keeper league. If it is a redraft, it makes more sense. Either way, to me, vetoes are for collusion, not bad trades.

  5. #15
    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.

  6. #16
    All Star DMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    9,311
    Quote Originally Posted by cavebird View Post
    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
    If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
    - Terence McKenna

    Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)

    How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken View Post
    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
    Last edited by onejayhawk; 04-12-2019 at 02:57 PM.
    Ad Astra per Aspera

    Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy

    GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler

    Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues

    I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude

  8. #18
    Big Leaguer
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    3,367
    Quote Originally Posted by onejayhawk View Post
    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.

  9. #19
    All Star Sour Masher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Binghamton, NY
    Posts
    5,244
    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.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sour Masher View Post
    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
    Ad Astra per Aspera

    Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy

    GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler

    Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues

    I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude

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
  •