value calculators

[The Feral Slasher]

Some approach? Yes.

Reasonable approach? No.

Honestly, projection and valuation methodology are so flawed, it's better to spend the time learning the player pool, devising a strategy, finding the best players for that strategy and adjusting to the room/market.

For example, James Paxton will not be in my lineup every week. Jokes about health aside, if Seattle uses a six-man rotation, that's 26 starts. Say 10 of 13 are favorable home affairs and maybe 6 of 13 road starts are nice (such as at LAA, at TEX - both good pitching parks and lesser lineups). So we're at 16 times I'd use Paxton. I'd need to adjust my projection for just those 16 starts - and do that for EVERY pitcher - and even then the whole "active for the entire season" thing skews the number.

Or, I can see my flawed price is $12 in AL only, try to get him under that, but I'd rather pay full boat on Paxton if needed than someone in a less advantageous scenario at a similar rank.

You're buying Paxton, but paying for a roster spot, of which Paxton will occupy maybe 16 times with someone else the other 10 weeks.

One way to get fool valuation is project him for 26 starts, which assumes the guy in that spot the other 10 weeks is similar, but when you do that for everyone, replacement is goofy.

This is why I say no to the reasonable part.

I disagree.....ha ha.


to an extent. The tool is what it is. But if there are simple changes that make it more useful and practical for the league a person is in I think that is worth talking about and putting into the calculator.

[Ken]

I disagree.....ha ha.


to an extent. The tool is what it is. But if there are simple changes that make it more useful and practical for the league a person is in I think that is worth talking about and putting into the calculator.

It's fine to disagree but how?

As someone who builds these type tools it's important to start with the algorithm. What algorithm are you proposing to use in order to price pitchers better in a 2x or daily lineup? And don't say you're just going to leave it for someone else, because that's the point - one of the reasons it doesn't exist is because it's a non-trivial question you are asking. Unless you have a better method in mind, asking why there isn't one doesn't get us anywhere.

[The Feral Slasher]

It's fine to disagree but how?

As someone who builds these type tools it's important to start with the algorithm. What algorithm are you proposing to use in order to price pitchers better in a 2x or daily lineup? And don't say you're just going to leave it for someone else, because that's the point - one of the reasons it doesn't exist is because it's a non-trivial question you are asking. Unless you have a better method in mind, asking why there isn't one doesn't get us anywhere.

you have to be kidding me. I ask a question about a topic for discussion and you tell me it is my responsibility to provide all the answers? I could tell you what I think, but the whole point of my post was to get other peoples input because I don't claim to be an expert.

[Ken]

you have to be kidding me. I ask a question about a topic for discussion and you tell me it is my responsibility to provide all the answers? I could tell you what I think, but the whole point of my post was to get other peoples input because I don't claim to be an expert.

You don't have to be an expert to suggest a methodology? It doesn't have to be detailed, but if you are suggesting something should exist it's reasonable to ask why you think that's the case.

I *think* the answer was given several times in this thread that it doesn't exist. You pushed back above "surely there should be some reasonable approach to adjusting calculator inputs if you have a daily or weekly league"


What was the impetus behind "surely" - what is it that makes you sure?

[The Feral Slasher]

You don't have to be an expert to suggest a methodology? It doesn't have to be detailed, but if you are suggesting something should exist it's reasonable to ask why you think that's the case.

I *think* the answer was given several times in this thread that it doesn't exist. You pushed back above "surely there should be some reasonable approach to adjusting calculator inputs if you have a daily or weekly league"


What was the impetus behind "surely" - what is it that makes you sure?

well if it doesn't exist, I'm not sure why anyone would look to the Feral Slasher to invent it. but my thoughts would be that for weekly leagues inputting 9 pitcher slots in the standard fangraphs calculator is appropriate. if you have daily leagues you might want to consider upping that number to reflect the reality of your league. Honestly people shouldn't be looking at me for answers when I'm the one asking questions.

[The Feral Slasher]

You don't have to be an expert to suggest a methodology? It doesn't have to be detailed, but if you are suggesting something should exist it's reasonable to ask why you think that's the case.

I *think* the answer was given several times in this thread that it doesn't exist. You pushed back above "surely there should be some reasonable approach to adjusting calculator inputs if you have a daily or weekly league"


What was the impetus behind "surely" - what is it that makes you sure?

because I think it is obvious that leagues with daily lineups use a different amount of pitchers than those with weekly lineups. And this affects values. If you think this is a wrong conclusion, just say so

[Todd Zola]

because I think it is obvious that leagues with daily lineups use a different amount of pitchers than those with weekly lineups. And this affects values. If you think this is a wrong conclusion, just say so

It's the proper conclusion, but there is no manner to account for it. This is the sticking point. With so much of the industry playing daily leagues, trust me, if it were practical, I'd be all over it. I have some stuff on Mastersball detailing projection methodology. Having a deeper understanding of the process could help demonstrate why there isn't a practical solution.

[The Feral Slasher]

It's the proper conclusion, but there is no manner to account for it. This is the sticking point. With so much of the industry playing daily leagues, trust me, if it were practical, I'd be all over it. I have some stuff on Mastersball detailing projection methodology. Having a deeper understanding of the process could help demonstrate why there isn't a practical solution.

and I accept that answer. But at the same time I have access to the fangraphs calculator and I'm going to adjust it to account for my league settings, because that makes more sense than pretending that a twice weekly league doesn't impact values.

[Gregg]

and I accept that answer. But at the same time I have access to the fangraphs calculator and I'm going to adjust it to account for my league settings, because that makes more sense than pretending that a twice weekly league doesn't impact values.

I only get 9 auction pitchers to play daily. This usually is 5 starters, 2 Closers and two MR's. I use my reserve roster of 13 to grab the best 7 or 8 pitchers not purchased. 4 or 5 will be relievers. I stream those in when my starters have off days or my two MR's have just pitched.

I can use fangraphs to help me determine which of those "free" reserve players are rated higher to help me at reserve draft time. My assumption is that I am going to play all of my pitchers as much as I can. So my reserve pitchers are getting as many innings as if I bought them at auction. Even if I play match ups that is something that needs to be done daily, twice a week or weekly (whatever your league is) at the time. It would not be considered at time of auction or draft. Setting fangraphs to 16 or 17 pitchers will not help me with the be more accurate. In fact I think it would be less.

[The Feral Slasher]

I only get 9 auction pitchers to play daily. This usually is 5 starters, 2 Closers and two MR's. I use my reserve roster of 13 to grab the best 7 or 8 pitchers not purchased. 4 or 5 will be relievers. I stream those in when my starters have off days or my two MR's have just pitched.

I can use fangraphs to help me determine which of those "free" reserve players are rated higher to help me at reserve draft time. My assumption is that I am going to play all of my pitchers as much as I can. So my reserve pitchers are getting as many innings as if I bought them at auction. Even if I play match ups that is something that needs to be done daily, twice a week or weekly (whatever your league is) at the time. It would not be considered at time of auction or draft. Setting fangraphs to 16 or 17 pitchers will not help me with the be more accurate. In fact I think it would be less.

Ok, if u use more than 9 pitchers u are using pitchers with negative value according to the calculator. Not sure why you would use pitchers with negative value. But to each his own i suppose

[The Feral Slasher]

Ok, if u use more than 9 pitchers u are using pitchers with negative value according to the calculator. Not sure why you would use pitchers with negative value. But to each his own i suppose

Or perhaps the pitchers u use dont really have negative value and u might consider adjusting calculator inputs to reflect this. I am ok whatever you decide

[Todd Zola]

Ok, if u use more than 9 pitchers u are using pitchers with negative value according to the calculator. Not sure why you would use pitchers with negative value. But to each his own i suppose

The negative earnings include starts where the pitcher won't be used. Prudent streaming can render a positive ROI.

[The Feral Slasher]

The negative earnings include starts where the pitcher won't be used. Prudent streaming can render a positive ROI.

I agree. But you haven't addressed the fact that there are different values for daily and weekly lineups and how we should account for that. I have not seen anything that is actually helpful.

[Todd Zola]

I just thought I would bring up a topic for discussion , didn't expect to be told I am just stupid. I guess I will think about it by myself

I missed the part where you were called stupid. You're asking a tool designed for one thing to do another. Further, there isn't a practical workaround.

[The Feral Slasher]

I missed the part where you were called stupid. You're asking a tool designed for one thing to do another. Further, there isn't a practical workaround.

Ha, I deleted the stupid comment. and it appears people don't think there is a workaround so I am fine with that