Prioritized FAAB Bids #2

[OaklandA's]

OK. And one more scenario. Again, each team can only fill one spot.

Team A
Harris $1
Smith $2
Jones $3

Team B
Smith $1
Jones $2
Harris $3

Team C
Jones $1
Harris $2
Smith $3

So is the consensus that all three teams should get one player at $3, rather than each team just getting their first pick at $1 ? It kind of sucks that each team would have better off not making any additional conditional bids, but I guess that's the way it is. Thanks.

[Lucky]

I think what they are saying is that in the system you have described, your priorities are indicated by the amount of money you bid on them. Consider:

Team A
Lewis $1
Smith $1

Team B
Smith $25
Lewis $35

Team C
Smith $30
Lewis $30

Do you think Team A should get Lewis simply because he listed him first? That reasoning would apply if you were doing waiver claims, not free agent auctions. Free agent auctions are just that...auctions. The guy who bids the most gets the player.

[OaklandA's]

We have one owner who has argued that FAAB should be processed by looking at each owner's highest priority first. So in this example, since all three teams wanted a different player as their highest priority, they all should get them. I don't agree with that view, but wanted to make sure that were was general agreement on how to process FAAB. Thanks for the replies.

[BuckyBuckner]

We have one owner who has argued that FAAB should be processed by looking at each owner's highest priority first. So in this example, since all three teams wanted a different player as their highest priority, they all should get them. I don't agree with that view, but wanted to make sure that were was general agreement on how to process FAAB. Thanks for the replies.

Tell him he's wrong, and ugly too. That'll confuse him enough to end the conversation.

[TopChuckie]

OK. And one more scenario. Again, each team can only fill one spot.

Team A
Harris $1
Smith $2
Jones $3

Team B
Smith $1
Jones $2
Harris $3

Team C
Jones $1
Harris $2
Smith $3

So is the consensus that all three teams should get one player at $3, rather than each team just getting their first pick at $1 ? It kind of sucks that each team would have better off not making any additional conditional bids, but I guess that's the way it is. Thanks.

On CBS, yes, each team will get the player they bid $3 for, but in my league each owner will get the guy they bid $1 for because that is what they are asking for first, and this is exactly why CBS is not set up right.

Team A will get Harris. Team B would only get Harris if he didn't win the bid for either Smith or Jones, but he will. Team C would only get Harris if he didn't win the bid for Jones, but he will. So Team A gets Harris.

[TopChuckie]

And just so you don't think I'm saying Team A gets Harris over Team B and Team C because Team A has Harris as a higher priority, let's look at the scenario below, black text is Oakland A's priority order and bid amounts, red text I added:

Team A
Johnson $1
Miller $1
Lewis $1
Harris $1
Smith $2
Jones $3

Team B
Smith $1
Jones $2
Harris $3

Team C
Jones $1
Harris $2
Smith $3

Team D
Johnson $2
Miller $2

Team E
Johnson $3

Team F
Lewis $2

Team A will still get Harris, even though Team A now has Harris as a lower priority (4th) and lower bid than Team B (3rd) and Team C (2nd). As I said in the other thread, one team's priority doesn't trump another team's priority, it only impacts who he gets on his list

Results:
Team A - Harris $1
Team B - Smith $1
Team C - Jones $1
Team D - Miller $2
Team E - Johnson $3
Team F - Lewis $2

[willgladst]

And just so you don't think I'm saying Team A gets Harris over Team B and Team C because Team A has Harris as a higher priority, let's look at the scenario below, black text is Oakland A's priority order and bid amounts, red text I added:

Team A
Johnson $1
Miller $1
Lewis $1
Harris $1
Smith $2
Jones $3

Team B
Smith $1
Jones $2
Harris $3

Team C
Jones $1
Harris $2
Smith $3

Team D
Johnson $2
Miller $2

Team E
Johnson $3

Team F
Lewis $2

Team A will still get Harris, even though Team A now has Harris as a lower priority (4th) and lower bid than Team B (3rd) and Team C (2nd). As I said in the other thread, one team's priority doesn't trump another team's priority, it only impacts who he gets on his list

Results:
Team A - Harris $1
Team B - Smith $1
Team C - Jones $1
Team D - Miller $2
Team E - Johnson $3
Team F - Lewis $2

So this approach still includes a waiver priority with Team A driving who gets called out first, no?

[OaklandA's]

So this approach still includes a waiver priority with Team A driving who gets called out first, no?

No, I don't think you even have to assume that to get these results. But TopChuckie's method is not one that most leagues use (even if their stat service permitted it).

[TopChuckie]

No, I don't think you even have to assume that to get these results. But TopChuckie's method is not one that most leagues use (even if their stat service permitted it).

Correct, the order of teams is irrelevant unless there is a tie in relevant bids, in which case we go to the lowest team in the standings. In my scenario above the results would be the same regardless which team is "Team A". I don't know if most leagues use this method, but the only reason not to is because your stat service doesn't handle it. Why else would you not want to award your owners the players they want? As in your first example, CBS would give each owner his third preferred choice, my league would give each owner his first choice.

[joncarlos]

From a programming perspective, what is the driving force behind the bids?

CBS uses dollar values. So it looks at all $3 bids, then all $2 bids, etc.

Most people want the list to be driven by players. Look at all the bids on Harris. Then look at all the bids on Jones. But how does the list get started? That's the question. Look at the example:

Team A
Harris $1
Smith $2
Jones $3

Team B
Smith $1
Jones $2
Harris $3

Team C
Jones $1
Harris $2
Smith $3

Harris gets auctioned first because, well, he's the first player listed by team A. Doing that, everyone gets their $3 player. But why did team A start the bidding? In this case it doesn't matter but I think there are scenarios where it would.

=======

As an aside, who bids $1 on their first choice and $3 on their 3rd choice?

[OaklandA's]

Harris gets auctioned first because, well, he's the first player listed by team A. Doing that, everyone gets their $3 player. But why did team A start the bidding? In this case it doesn't matter but I think there are scenarios where it would.

In TopChuckie's example, even with 6 teams, the order is driven by trying to give people their highest choices, if possible. It is not a straightforward thing to program at all, because it basically requires looking at all of the bids simultaneously to select the processing order. It's pretty confusing, which is why I think most leagues don't do it that way.

The end result, with all three teams getting their first choice (in my 3 team example) does seem preferable, but it's also harder to explain and to implement.

[TopChuckie]

In TopChuckie's example, even with 6 teams, the order is driven by trying to give people their highest choices, if possible. It is not a straightforward thing to program at all, because it basically requires looking at all of the bids simultaneously to select the processing order. It's pretty confusing, which is why I think most leagues don't do it that way.

The end result, with all three teams getting their first choice (in my 3 team example) does seem preferable, but it's also harder to explain and to implement.

Again, I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me this whole thing is just an if-then-elseif sort of thing and that is what computers are all about. It's all about running through a series of conditions and determining which are valid and which are not.

In processing your original scenario the series of questions would go as follows (and it's irrelevant which team we start with):

Team A
Harris $1
Smith $2
Jones $3

Team B
Smith $1
Jones $2
Harris $3

Team C
Jones $1
Harris $2
Smith $3

1. Team C's #1 priority is Jones $1.
2. Is Team C's #1 priority voided by Team A's #1 priority? No.
3. Does Team C's #1 priority void Team A's? No.
4. Is Team C's #1 priority voided by Team B's #1 priority? No.
5. Does Team C's #1 priority void Team B's? No.
6. Is Team B's #1 priority voided by Team A's #1 priority? No.
7. Does Team B's #1 priority void Team A's? No.

So Team C's #1 priority is "True", Team C gets Jones $1.

8. Does Team C's #1 priority void Team C's #2 and #3 priority (i.e. all remaining requests)? Yes.

Team C is no longer relevant to the process.

And the whole thing repeats with Teams A & B.

Result:
Team A - Harris $1
Team B - Smith $1
Team C - Jones $1

Now to create a similar scenario but with a "Yes" involved, I simply switched the priority of Team A's Smith and Harris:

Team A
Smith $2
Harris $1
Jones $3

Team B
Smith $1
Jones $2
Harris $3

Team C
Jones $1
Harris $2
Smith $3

1. Team C's #1 priority is Jones $1.
2. Is Team C's #1 priority voided by Team A's #1 priority? No.
3. Does Team C's #1 priority void Team A's? No.
4. Is Team C's #1 priority voided by Team B's #1 priority? No.
5. Does Team C's #1 priority void Team B's? No.
6. Is Team B's #1 priority voided by Team A's #1 priority? YES.

Team A's #1 priority is not voided by Team C in Step 3 and it does void Team B's #1 priority in Step 6. So Team A gets Smith $2.

7. Does Team A's #1 priority void Team A's #2 and #3 priority (i.e. all remaining requests)? Yes.

Team A is no longer relevant to the process.

8. Does Team B's #2 priority (it's new #1 priority) void Team C's #1 priority? YES

So Team B gets Jones $2.

9. Does Team B's #2 priority void Team B's #3 priority (i.e. all remaining requests)? Yes.

Team B is no longer relevant to the process.

There are no other criteria to test Team C's #2 priority (it's new #1 priority) against, so Team C gets Harris $2.

Result:
Team A - Smith $2
Team B - Jones $2
Team C - Harris $2

So simply swapping the priority of Smith and Harris on Team A changes who everyone got, but it's only because Smith became a higher priority to Team A and not because he was a higher priority to Team A than Team B or C.

With more teams it's just more conditions to check, but again, it's all about running iterations until they all come back "True" or "False" and that's what computers do.

[TopChuckie]

And I guess some are wondering "Why does any of this matter, bid the most for who you want the most." But that eliminates this scenario:

For example's sake, let's say you're in a reasonably shallow league and a week or so ago J. Motte, M. Boggs, and E. Sanchez are all free agents. You already have three legit closers, so you're not desperate for saves, but you also want to take a shot at taking advantage of the opportunity in STL.

Since you aren't desperate, you'd like to burn as little FAAB as possible, you only have one open slot, and in your mind E. Sanchez is the guy with the most upside in the long run, he is the guy you would like to acquire the most, he is your #1 priority. #2 is Boggs to you because he appears to be the guy who is going to get the first shot, and then Motte is 3rd most desirable in your mind.

Obviously you expect the herd to follow Rotoworld and go after Boggs the hardest, so he will most likely require the highest bid to win. Let's say you think it will take $16 to win boggs. Motte will probably require the 2nd highest bid to win because he's long been rumored to be the closer-in-waiting. Let's say you think it will take $12 to win Motte. Then Sanchez should come the cheapest because some of your owners never even heard of him. Let's say you think $8 will get it done.

So it turns out the guy you want the most will probably require the lowest bid. So your best case scenario is you get Sanchez cheaper than you would Boggs or Motte, also providing you with what you think will be the best keeper value.

Your FAAB submission that week would be:

E. Sanchez $8
M. Boggs $16
J. Motte $12

Assuming all your bids were high enough to win, CBS would give this owner Boggs first, even if no other owner even submitted a bid for Sanchez.

If you insist owners bid the most for who they want the most, this owner would then be forced to bid $16 for Sanchez, thus wasting FAAB and ruining most of his potential as a keeper.

To me, that's not acceptable and that's why I'm still forced to process our FAAB by hand every week.

ETA: What makes things even more frustrating is that if this owner did also bid $16 for Sanchez, he would get Sanchez because CBS knows that, even though they are equal bids, he wants Sanchez more than Boggs because Sanchez is listed first. So CSB's software is right on the cusp of being able to do it correctly, but they just won't.

[BC...]

Correct, the order of teams is irrelevant unless there is a tie in relevant bids, in which case we go to the lowest team in the standings. In my scenario above the results would be the same regardless which team is "Team A". I don't know if most leagues use this method, but the only reason not to is because your stat service doesn't handle it. Why else would you not want to award your owners the players they want? As in your first example, CBS would give each owner his third preferred choice, my league would give each owner his first choice.

My league's FAAB process works this way too.