Mike Trout question/exercise

[swampdragon]

It also depends on how much you value players who fit into slots 2-5. Does not having him change your strategy completely? or are you OK with a 2-5 guy as a an anchor?

I would make sure that he is thrown out first to see what chaos ensues

[chancellor]

Mike Trout is the first player to be bid on. How much will you pay for him?

Wow...tough question, IMO. For me, it'd depend on whether I'd want to be the first name on the trophy, or if I'd want to try and build an early dynasty. I'm probably going to shoot for the latter, so I'd be bowing out in the low to mid 40s.

[Ken]

Ok...but it might be Situational Inflation...or not.

All kidding aside. If I understand what you are saying in this new league example no matter what the players go for there will be zero inflation at the end of the auction.

At the beginning of the auction.

If Mike Trout is the first player named and he goes for $1, that's exactly the same as someone having a $1 Mike Trout keeper. No difference.

Obviously this is not common and not something I'd worry about in a startup.

All players would be at the fair market value as dictated by the league universe.

To be clear I'm not saying that their prices will all be fair, rather that at the start of the auction there should be no inflation applied to your prices on what you should be willing to pay.

Lets take a step back for a second.

What is the correct price for a player?

Well, it's an allocation that I'm giving to a particular asset with the expectation that that asset will move my total stats up in the standings and provide additional standings points.

So if there are 100 standings points to be gained and the total discretionary budget for all teams is $100 then each standings point is worth $1.

And if each HR gets you a standings point (unlikely), then each HR is worth $1. (although there's a minimum threshold in reality, for our purposes we'll assume the last place team had 0 HR).

And if Joe-Blow Smith hit 2 HR and all of his other stats were replacement value (i.e. enough on average to get you to the last place standings point) then he's "worth" $3 to me ($1 for a base replacement + $2 for those extra HR that move me up in the standings).

But if I'm pre-allocating a bunch of players to teams such that there are only 25 standings points left to be gained based on the stats taken and available, and the league has $50 left in extra dollars to spend, then our prices double and I should be willing to pay twice as much of my discretionary spending for Joe-Blow Smith.

It doesn't mean I necessarily even expect him to go for that. It means that's what he's WORTH based on the funds available to the league and the difference each player is projected to make in the end standings.

I don't pretend to be able to tell you what a random person in your league will bid, but I can tell you what I think a player is "worth" based on a particular league setup, and inflation is a part of that.

When I spend $2 at auction it is because I expect that extra dollar I spent over a $1 player to move me up in the standings. When I spend $11 (10 more than the minimum) it's because I expect it to have 10x the net change in my team's ranking in the standings as the $2 player.

Maybe that $2 player moved me up 1/5 of the way to the next spot in the HR rankings. Then that $11, assuming all else equal, should actually move me up 2 spots.

That's my goal in allocating my auction dollars. To use them to win the league. Each dollar spent should be allocated to do that.

Inflation is simply changing the price it takes to move up the standings. It's the same as if I'm comparing a league that has a $100 budget with a $200 budget. I'm simply having to spend twice as much in the $200 budget league to move up.

[cavebird]

eh, I hate the idea of mixing the concepts. Inflation due to abundance of funds is literally the only "cause" that is meant by the term in fantasy baseball context. I know other people incorrectly use the term to mean "hey this price seems high". But that's not what it is. Just like if my local gas station owner is short on funds this month and raises his prices, that doesn't mean the US is experiencing inflation. It's just someone's price point. That's not inflation.

Now it is just semantics on the definition of "inflation." Inflation can be based on many factors economically, not just abundance of funds--anything that increases overall prices. Your example is flawed because you are using a micro-economic example to prove a point about a term generally used in macro-economics. Inflation goes up when the supply of a widely used product in the economy goes up---inflation has increased (modestly recently, by a lot previously) when the price of oil spikes, for example. And, as you are finding out on a board of long-time fantasy baseball players, that is not the only thing the term means to fantasy baseball players.

And as for the mixing on concepts, well, that's the funny thing about auctions. After everyone arrives and the shooting the shit end, players are actually put up for auction and teams bid on them. Once the bidding starts, the concepts are mixed, and there isn't anything anyone can do about that.

[Ken]

Ack. No, just no.

Inflation is a known fantasy term specifically referring to the increase in prices due to the decrease in talent relative to the amount of auction dollars available.

People misusing that term does not make it acceptable to misunderstand it.

It's a basic fundamental topic for keeper leagues (and, again even redrafts if you have enough mispricing early).

It's not about how much people are willing to pay. It's about the increase in actual value of a player because we are using a different budget.

If you mix up the topics you will completely miss that a player is actually WORTH more. Not that they cost more because random schmo is a cubs fan, but that they are worth more in a specific environment.


I don't understand why you would want to mix these topics or why it is not clear that they are different. And just using the fact that people are misusing them because they don't understand the math is not a basis for you misusing them.

C'mon!

[Ken]

Please show me an article on any of the countless fantasy websites that an intelligent fantasy writer is using the term "inflation" to mean "my friend paid too much because he's a cubs fan" rather than "increased value due to keepers being underpriced".

There's no excuse to just make up your own definition of a term just because you don't understand it!

[Ken]

And as for the mixing on concepts, well, that's the funny thing about auctions. After everyone arrives and the shooting the shit end, players are actually put up for auction and teams bid on them. Once the bidding starts, the concepts are mixed, and there isn't anything anyone can do about that.

Absolutely, 100% wrong.

If you think this way you are missing it.

If your friend is paying more $s than players are worth (after inflation), it doesn't mean you should change your strategy and pay more. Just the opposite, it means that inflation is decreasing and the inflated value of a player in this environment is decreasing.

What they are willing to pay because they are a homer, and the fact that there's actually a different ratio of $s available relative to talent, aren't "mixed". They are two data points that you separately look at and decide how to bid.

If you think inflation is just mixed in with everything else, then your analysis is simply wrong.

You may still be successful (depending on how dumb your friend is), but the analysis that got you there is wrong.

[cavebird]

Absolutely, 100% wrong.

If you think this way you are missing it.

If your friend is paying more $s than players are worth (after inflation), it doesn't mean you should change your strategy and pay more. Just the opposite, it means that inflation is decreasing and the inflated value of a player in this environment is decreasing.

What they are willing to pay because they are a homer, and the fact that there's actually a different ratio of $s available relative to talent, aren't "mixed". They are two data points that you separately look at and decide how to bid.

If you think inflation is just mixed in with everything else, then your analysis is simply wrong.

You may still be successful (depending on how dumb your friend is), but the analysis that got you there is wrong.

You must be a hay-fanatic because your ability to build straw men is impressive. First, to address the definition of inflation argument; that is fine, maybe generically the term inflation in the fantasy context refers to what you say, but this was a discussion of inflation versus pitching/hitting inflation, and those are more or less different beasts. At least you have abandoned the poor economic argument.

Second, and more pertinently, my point had nothing to do with a friend paying more for a Cubs player or for a few random players. It had to do with the auction phenomenon that often happens when there is systemic over-payment for players from a certain asset class. My example was good starting pitching. It is smart not to overpay because someone randomly overpays for a certain player. But when every player in a certain asset class is being overpaid for, that is a completely different situation. Your choices are to overpay or not get someone from that asset class. When that asset class is starting pitching you have a problem.

And this can happen from purely logical behavior, and a small amount of illogical behavior (and that happens at auctions, lol). The idea of hitting/pitching inflation separate is different than you suggested---almost the exact opposite. If the top keeper teams have a bunch of good, cheap hitting kept, it causes more pitching inflation. In our league, the top keeper lists are mostly full of hitters. Those teams have the most relative money to spend relative to auction spots. They also don't need that much hitting. Guess what logically happens to the price of the top pitchers available at auction---it goes way up. And since the top teams want them, the teams who want to make dump trades for keepers that year want them as well, further driving up the price. Sure, you can hope that they get what they need before all the good pitchers run out, so you can get bargains, but this is where illogical behavior comes in. Say one of the non-top teams has a pitcher they really want---they go illogically and outbid the top teams on that guy. That's one more good pitcher down, and the top teams will still be happy to overspend on them. Then, if by the time those teams are done there are only one or two good pitchers left, they go for a big premium, too. Then you have a bunch of $15 and under guys who go cheap because everything spiraled out of control.

[cavebird]

And note that I am not saying that knowing inflation values of players isn't important. It is just that you cannot be a slave to them at auction. Other factors do apply. If you stick religiously to them, this will come back to bite you sooner or later.

[Ken]

You must be a hay-fanatic because your ability to build straw men is impressive.

No straw men involved.

First, to address the definition of inflation argument; that is fine, maybe generically the term inflation in the fantasy context refers to what you say

If you want to talk about a different topic, then use a different term. It's a well defined concept.

And I started the inflation discussion we are having here, so telling me that the context is different is... odd.

but this was a discussion of inflation versus pitching/hitting inflation, and those are more or less different beasts.

IMO pitching/hitting inflation doesn't exist.

At least you have abandoned the poor economic argument.

I haven't abandoned any argument, and that was in no way poor. It was very pertinent. One individual's pricing is not the same as a market inflation.

Second, and more pertinently, my point had nothing to do with a friend paying more for a Cubs player or for a few random players. It had to do with the auction phenomenon that often happens when there is systemic over-payment for players from a certain asset class.

If they like cubs, or they like wins, it's not necessarily different when it comes to the idea of someone overpaying for an asset relative to its true value

My example was good starting pitching. It is smart not to overpay because someone randomly overpays for a certain player. But when every player in a certain asset class is being overpaid for, that is a completely different situation. Your choices are to overpay or not get someone from that asset class. When that asset class is starting pitching you have a problem.

You are talking about concepts that aren't related to inflation though. That could happen starting with the very first bid of an initial redraft. That's not because of inflation, it's because of the tendencies of a particular league. When you combine them like you have been doing you lose the context and the ability to weigh different aspects of your choices.

And this can happen from purely logical behavior, and a small amount of illogical behavior (and that happens at auctions, lol). The idea of hitting/pitching inflation separate is different than you suggested---almost the exact opposite. If the top keeper teams have a bunch of good, cheap hitting kept, it causes more pitching inflation. In our league, the top keeper lists are mostly full of hitters. Those teams have the most relative money to spend relative to auction spots. They also don't need that much hitting. Guess what logically happens to the price of the top pitchers available at auction---it goes way up. And since the top teams want them, the teams who want to make dump trades for keepers that year want them as well, further driving up the price. Sure, you can hope that they get what they need before all the good pitchers run out, so you can get bargains, but this is where illogical behavior comes in. Say one of the non-top teams has a pitcher they really want---they go illogically and outbid the top teams on that guy. That's one more good pitcher down, and the top teams will still be happy to overspend on them. Then, if by the time those teams are done there are only one or two good pitchers left, they go for a big premium, too. Then you have a bunch of $15 and under guys who go cheap because everything spiraled out of control.

Good points, let me think this example through!

[Ken]

And note that I am not saying that knowing inflation values of players isn't important. It is just that you cannot be a slave to them at auction.

Wow, talk about a straw man!

Please show me where I said you should be a slave to anything???

[cavebird]

Wow, talk about a straw man!

Please show me where I said you should be a slave to anything???

It was not a direct quote. The gist of all of your posts seems to be that the key to having a good auction is to have the best formula, with the express caveat that everyone has about projections (I don't think we have any particular disagreement on the importance of having projections that are as accurate as possible) and sticking to it to achieve the most value. You specifically said that the goal was to get the most value. I disagree---I think the goal is to get the most production, which involves having a balanced team. I am fine with inflation numbers and formulas that are "close enough" because while that is an important factor, being exact on it doesn't worry me too much since other factors are more important on price and value. I would think that you disagree. You want to break things down into keeper caused inflation and other factors that affect prices. I think the key is simply what the players will go for and what production they will have.

As to your other post, your economic example was poor because inflation is not solely caused by an overabundance of money as you stated; supply disruptions can cause it just as easily. But it is consistent what I consider your other straw man argument---the random "friend" in the auction who overpays for Cubs or other certain players. None of that was what I was talking about---it was the systemic overpays that affect an entire asset class. That's much more like the curtailing of worldwide oil supply than it is a random guy raising his prices for personal reasons.

[cavebird]

And apologies to Gregg, we have hijacked the hell out of this thread.

[Ken]

And apologies to Gregg, we have hijacked the hell out of this thread.

Not really - his thread was for inflation.

[Ken]

It was not a direct quote. The gist of all of your posts seems to be that the key to having a good auction is to have the best formula

You misread completely - it is one of many. It doesn't trump all. Not for me, and not for anything I recommend. I think it's important to focus on the details of one item so that you completely understand it so that you can utilize that tool. Just because I focus on the details doesn't mean that it's the only tool I have.