value calculators

[The Feral Slasher]

I'm not sure if its possible for this conversation to be useful but I'll try anyway, I'm a glutton for punishment.

You are correct I'm not accounting for reserves. By definition. That's how auction $ calculators work. They are telling you how much $ you should spend so that you do not have to be stuck with a replacment level player (i.e. one you can get in the reserves or FAAB).

The concept is predicated on some assumptions, that while not perfect, are close. Conceptually the "talent" curve is asymptotic. It's steep on the high $ end and flat on the low $ end. For the purposes of illustration we can call the BEST player that isn't picked in the auction our replacement level player, and assume that every replacement level player is the same. While this is a slightly flawed argument, we can reconcile it with an understanding that if every team grabs replacement level players and those players on average perform around the same, the actual stats of the replacement level players don't matter since they net out. For valuation purposes they are ubiquitous.

Let me provide an example. Lets say we start with a weekly league that starts 9 pitchers. And for the purposes of illustration lets say we have established that Spencer Turnbull is the best pitcher who would not get drafted.

When we switch to daily or 2x transactions, lets say that every team basically adds a bunch of "Spencer Turnbull" starts, over and over. Heck lets take it to the extreme and go ahead and GIVE 10 Spencer Turnbulls to every team. So we can turn this back into a weekly lineup with our normal 9 starters and then 10 Spencer Turnbulls on every team.

The standings are exactly the same at the end of the year with the 19 pitchers (10 of which are Spencer Turnbull) as they are with our normal 9. The Spencer Turnbull stats all net out.

So Jacob Degrom's value isn't relative to the total stats that are accumulated, his value is relative to the total stats MINUS all those replacement level starts that every team is getting.

If you are placing positive $ values on players that are "reserves" in your own valuations, then IMO you are incorrectly anchoring your replacement value.

So I'll provide an example. If you own DeGrom in a weekly league he is active 7 days a week, all season barring injury. In a daily league he is active 1 or 2 days a week and another starter or perhaps middle reliever is active in the same lineup spot for 5 or 6 days. How do you decide who is "active" and who is a "reserve" ? The whole point of what I'm trying to do is to include the stats for all the players who are actually active.

I don't believe that treating daily and weekly leagues the same yields the correct results, and I gave examples of how the method I proposed actually provides a step in the right direction. I think it might be helpful if you look at how a daily league operates, then look at the outputs I provided and see if one of the methods better matches the values and reality of how a daily league operates. In other words, why are so many daily leagues continually starting pitchers who have negative value ? Are they stupid or are the players they starting not actually providing negative value ?

[The Feral Slasher]

So I'll provide an example. If you own DeGrom in a weekly league he is active 7 days a week, all season barring injury. In a daily league he is active 1 or 2 days a week and another starter or perhaps middle reliever is active in the same lineup spot for 5 or 6 days. How do you decide who is "active" and who is a "reserve" ? The whole point of what I'm trying to do is to include the stats for all the players who are actually active.

I don't believe that treating daily and weekly leagues the same yields the correct results, and I gave examples of how the method I proposed actually provides a step in the right direction. I think it might be helpful if you look at how a daily league operates, then look at the outputs I provided and see if one of the methods better matches the values and reality of how a daily league operates. In other words, why are so many daily leagues continually starting pitchers who have negative value ? Are they stupid or are the players they starting not actually providing negative value ?

So to summarize, what I'm trying to do is to account for the fact that labeling people as reserves or active, either or, isn't very helpful when trying to figure out values using a calculator. It is not obvious who is really active and who is a reserve since these vary every single day in daily leagues. What I've proposed isn't perfect, and as Todd Zola noted perhaps the I'm asking the calculator to do something it can't, but I do think what I've done with very limited thought or effort yields much more accurate results than simply using the same calculator inputs for weekly leagues in a daily one.

[Ken]

So I'll provide an example. If you own DeGrom in a weekly league he is active 7 days a week, all season barring injury. In a daily league he is active 1 or 2 days a week and another starter or perhaps middle reliever is active in the same lineup spot for 5 or 6 days. How do you decide who is "active" and who is a "reserve" ? The whole point of what I'm trying to do is to include the stats for all the players who are actually active.

IMO you are confusing the concept of "is this guy 'valuable' to have on my team because I should play him and accumulate his stats" with "is this guy worth more than replacement value and therefore I should be willing to bid him up in an auction". Those are two completely different concepts.

The 1st one is true, because he's your free Spencer Turnbull in my example above. If given the choice of getting the Spencer Turnbull stats you should take them because your opponents are. So in order to net out all the Spencer Turnbulls, you have to do so as well. But again, that doesn't make DeGrom less valuable in an auction setting.

I don't believe that treating daily and weekly leagues the same yields the correct results, and I gave examples of how the method I proposed actually provides a step in the right direction.

I think your numbers are flawed. Lets take a specific example. You are valuing pitchers like Brubaker with a positive value because you are including more than the # of pitchers who will be auctioned. By doing so you are saying (at least how I'm reading it) that you would be willing to pay that $ amount in your league. I think you had him at $4 in one of them? So if someone brought him up for $1 you'd at least go $2 right? But the problem is you can have a better pitcher than Brubaker on your own list for $1. You can literally wait until the end when everyone else has all their pitchers and you can pay $1 instead. So why would you pay $4?

I think it might be helpful if you look at how a daily league operates, then look at the outputs I provided and see if one of the methods better matches the values and reality of how a daily league operates. In other words, why are so many daily leagues continually starting pitchers who have negative value ? Are they stupid or are the players they starting not actually providing negative value ?

I've played in a daily league for over 20 years, I'm very very familiar with it.

I fear you are conflating "negative auction value" with "should not start this player". Those are not equivalent. One is a valuation relative to the $1 player in the auction. Another is a valuation relative to either *not starting* the player or using a different pitcher. In a daily league, "negative auction value" does not mean "don't start him".

[The Feral Slasher]

IMO you are confusing the concept of "is this guy 'valuable' to have on my team because I should play him and accumulate his stats" with "is this guy worth more than replacement value and therefore I should be willing to bid him up in an auction". Those are two completely different concepts.

The 1st one is true, because he's your free Spencer Turnbull in my example above. If given the choice of getting the Spencer Turnbull stats you should take them because your opponents are. So in order to net out all the Spencer Turnbulls, you have to do so as well. But again, that doesn't make DeGrom less valuable in an auction setting.



I think your numbers are flawed. Lets take a specific example. You are valuing pitchers like Brubaker with a positive value because you are including more than the # of pitchers who will be auctioned. By doing so you are saying (at least how I'm reading it) that you would be willing to pay that $ amount in your league. I think you had him at $4 in one of them? So if someone brought him up for $1 you'd at least go $2 right? But the problem is you can have a better pitcher than Brubaker on your own list for $1. You can literally wait until the end when everyone else has all their pitchers and you can pay $1 instead. So why would you pay $4?



I've played in a daily league for over 20 years, I'm very very familiar with it.

I fear you are conflating "negative auction value" with "should not start this player". Those are not equivalent. One is a valuation relative to the $1 player in the auction what player X is worth. Another is a valuation relative to either *not starting* the player or using a different pitcher. In a daily league, "negative auction value" does not mean "don't start him".

Well I'm apparently not as much as a glutton for punishment as you. You reject my method and think using the same calculator for daily and weekly leagues is better. I'm happy to just disagree.

[Ken]

Well I'm apparently not as much as a glutton for punishment as you. You reject my method and think using the same calculator for daily and weekly leagues is better. I'm happy to just disagree.

Why though? I'm interested. Why is what I wrote above incorrect? If you are going to say it's wrong, tell me why?

Why would you pay $4 for a guy you can pay $1 for instead?

And why do you assume that a negative pricing in an auction setting is equivalent to the idea that you should not start a player? What equated those two?

[Todd Zola]

So to summarize, what I'm trying to do is to account for the fact that labeling people as reserves or active, either or, isn't very helpful when trying to figure out values using a calculator. It is not obvious who is really active and who is a reserve since these vary every single day in daily leagues. What I've proposed isn't perfect, and as Todd Zola noted perhaps the I'm asking the calculator to do something it can't, but I do think what I've done with very limited thought or effort yields much more accurate results than simply using the same calculator inputs for weekly leagues in a daily one.

If I may...

1. Feral - what you are doing is more suited to end of season earnings. As Ken pointed out, on draft day, you can only acquire the first 9 pitchers so by distributing the available budget over more than those rostered on draft day, you are diluting their bid price relative to the field. For example, Jacob deGrom may be priced at $45 using conventional valuation, but because the pool of stats at season's end is greater in daily leagues, his earnings may be $40 (or whatever). However, if you are only willing to pay $40 (or the respective final earnings for every pitcher), you will never roster anyone. In daily leagues, you are accepting a negative return on investment for a few top end players, expecting to make it up with prudent roster management elsewhere.

2. There is nothing to suggest these tweaks are representative of how a player's earnings are truly affected. You're adjusting to a point they are aesthetically more pleasing, not necessarily reflective of their percentage of contributions to the stat pool.

3. So long as your inputs include projected stats you know are not going to be part of the final stat pool, you are not projecting the draft-worthy earnings of the player.

4. When purchasing a player, you are not acquiring that player, you are setting an expected earning for that roster spot. Say you pay $7 for James Paxton. You're expecting that roster spot to return $7 (hopefully more) with Paxton being the initial hurler to occupy the spot. The amount you pay isn't how much Paxton is worth, but how much you need to pay for Paxton relative to the room, with the expectation Paxton is the chief, but not sole occupant of that spot throughout the season.

5. Strategically, if the plan is streaming starting pitching, it's optimal to decide how many and acquire your Week 1 streamers in the draft, based on their Week 1 matchups, since that's how you will manage the roster spot in season. There could be some consideration to targeting arms with a solid Week 1 matchup along with likelihood of not dropping and using again, but if the plan is frequent use of free agents/waivers, why not start Week 1?

[The Feral Slasher]

If I may...

1. Feral - what you are doing is more suited to end of season earnings. As Ken pointed out, on draft day, you can only acquire the first 9 pitchers so by distributing the available budget over more than those rostered on draft day, you are diluting their bid price relative to the field. For example, Jacob deGrom may be priced at $45 using conventional valuation, but because the pool of stats at season's end is greater in daily leagues, his earnings may be $40 (or whatever). However, if you are only willing to pay $40 (or the respective final earnings for every pitcher), you will never roster anyone. In daily leagues, you are accepting a negative return on investment for a few top end players, expecting to make it up with prudent roster management elsewhere.

2. There is nothing to suggest these tweaks are representative of how a player's earnings are truly affected. You're adjusting to a point they are aesthetically more pleasing, not necessarily reflective of their percentage of contributions to the stat pool.

3. So long as your inputs include projected stats you know are not going to be part of the final stat pool, you are not projecting the draft-worthy earnings of the player.

4. When purchasing a player, you are not acquiring that player, you are setting an expected earning for that roster spot. Say you pay $7 for James Paxton. You're expecting that roster spot to return $7 (hopefully more) with Paxton being the initial hurler to occupy the spot. The amount you pay isn't how much Paxton is worth, but how much you need to pay for Paxton relative to the room, with the expectation Paxton is the chief, but not sole occupant of that spot throughout the season.

5. Strategically, if the plan is streaming starting pitching, it's optimal to decide how many and acquire your Week 1 streamers in the draft, based on their Week 1 matchups, since that's how you will manage the roster spot in season. There could be some consideration to targeting arms with a solid Week 1 matchup along with likelihood of not dropping and using again, but if the plan is frequent use of free agents/waivers, why not start Week 1?

Thank you for your thoughts. I'll just say that my intent was not to use this as a bible or a guide for bidding, but rather to understand how daily transactions might affect the value of players, or value of a theoretical player with certain stats. To understand how daily leagues impact the value of ace pitchers relative to middle relievers or closers or to hitters. I found it useful and informative in that regard. I'm sure Ken didn't and you probably won't either. Perhaps no one else will. anyway it was a somewhat interestng problem without a perfect answer. I apologize for letting my frustrations get the better of me and being so sassy. You did provide good input.

EDIT: it seems like one disconnect is that you and Ken perhaps think I am running this calculator and then somehow using it as a rigid guideline in a draft. That is not at all my intention. My intention is to understand how daily leagues affect the values of the stats that particular players generate. By understanding and quantifying that I would be able to make better decisions in bidding on players and assembling my roster. I'm not suggesting that people throw common sense out the window.

[The Feral Slasher]

Why though? I'm interested. Why is what I wrote above incorrect? If you are going to say it's wrong, tell me why?

Why would you pay $4 for a guy you can pay $1 for instead?

And why do you assume that a negative pricing in an auction setting is equivalent to the idea that you should not start a player? What equated those two?

maybe later, I don't think I'd provide you with a helpful answer right now.

[The Feral Slasher]

If I may...

1. Feral - what you are doing is more suited to end of season earnings. As Ken pointed out, on draft day, you can only acquire the first 9 pitchers so by distributing the available budget over more than those rostered on draft day, you are diluting their bid price relative to the field. For example, Jacob deGrom may be priced at $45 using conventional valuation, but because the pool of stats at season's end is greater in daily leagues, his earnings may be $40 (or whatever). However, if you are only willing to pay $40 (or the respective final earnings for every pitcher), you will never roster anyone. In daily leagues, you are accepting a negative return on investment for a few top end players, expecting to make it up with prudent roster management elsewhere.

2. There is nothing to suggest these tweaks are representative of how a player's earnings are truly affected. You're adjusting to a point they are aesthetically more pleasing, not necessarily reflective of their percentage of contributions to the stat pool.

3. So long as your inputs include projected stats you know are not going to be part of the final stat pool, you are not projecting the draft-worthy earnings of the player.

4. When purchasing a player, you are not acquiring that player, you are setting an expected earning for that roster spot. Say you pay $7 for James Paxton. You're expecting that roster spot to return $7 (hopefully more) with Paxton being the initial hurler to occupy the spot. The amount you pay isn't how much Paxton is worth, but how much you need to pay for Paxton relative to the room, with the expectation Paxton is the chief, but not sole occupant of that spot throughout the season.

5. Strategically, if the plan is streaming starting pitching, it's optimal to decide how many and acquire your Week 1 streamers in the draft, based on their Week 1 matchups, since that's how you will manage the roster spot in season. There could be some consideration to targeting arms with a solid Week 1 matchup along with likelihood of not dropping and using again, but if the plan is frequent use of free agents/waivers, why not start Week 1?

regarding point 2, one of the conclusions from the examples I ran was that the value of ace pitchers is reduced in daily leagues. Do you agree or disagree with that conclusion ?

EDIT: My question has nothing to do with how people will bid, it has to do with how much value an ace pitcher will provide in a daily vs. a weekly league.

[Gregg]

First let me say thank you to all who are participating in this discussion. It is very interesting even if do not agree with some of the points. It is making me think.

We have 12 teams and use 9 pitching slots. That means only 108 pitchers have auction value. But that does not mean the players who are rostered in reserve have no value.

We have the reserve round draft where each player is free but each round has a dollar value. Does the first pick in draft have value...of course. If I pick Spencer Turnbull with the first res. pick I intend to use him. By me picking him first I would say I value him more than all the other Turnbulls. Yet he has no real auction value or maybe I could argue his auction value is $1.

[The Feral Slasher]

If I may...

1. Feral - what you are doing is more suited to end of season earnings. As Ken pointed out, on draft day, you can only acquire the first 9 pitchers so by distributing the available budget over more than those rostered on draft day, you are diluting their bid price relative to the field. For example, Jacob deGrom may be priced at $45 using conventional valuation, but because the pool of stats at season's end is greater in daily leagues, his earnings may be $40 (or whatever). However, if you are only willing to pay $40 (or the respective final earnings for every pitcher), you will never roster anyone. In daily leagues, you are accepting a negative return on investment for a few top end players, expecting to make it up with prudent roster management elsewhere.

2. There is nothing to suggest these tweaks are representative of how a player's earnings are truly affected. You're adjusting to a point they are aesthetically more pleasing, not necessarily reflective of their percentage of contributions to the stat pool.

3. So long as your inputs include projected stats you know are not going to be part of the final stat pool, you are not projecting the draft-worthy earnings of the player.

4. When purchasing a player, you are not acquiring that player, you are setting an expected earning for that roster spot. Say you pay $7 for James Paxton. You're expecting that roster spot to return $7 (hopefully more) with Paxton being the initial hurler to occupy the spot. The amount you pay isn't how much Paxton is worth, but how much you need to pay for Paxton relative to the room, with the expectation Paxton is the chief, but not sole occupant of that spot throughout the season.

5. Strategically, if the plan is streaming starting pitching, it's optimal to decide how many and acquire your Week 1 streamers in the draft, based on their Week 1 matchups, since that's how you will manage the roster spot in season. There could be some consideration to targeting arms with a solid Week 1 matchup along with likelihood of not dropping and using again, but if the plan is frequent use of free agents/waivers, why not start Week 1?

Regarding point 3 i already noted that would need to be addressed. What would be helpful for me is for you to explain how using calculator inputs from a daily league provides better valuation and information for someone to use in a draft.

[Todd Zola]

regarding point 2, one of the conclusions from the examples I ran was that the value of ace pitchers is reduced in daily leagues. Do you agree or disagree with that conclusion ?

EDIT: My question has nothing to do with how people will bid, it has to do with how much value an ace pitcher will provide in a daily vs. a weekly league.

Yes, I do. In fact, my personal approach in such leagues is not paying for the elite and instead focusing on the elite bats. My general plan is having a plethora of dominant middle relievers active all the time, then playing the matchup game. I'll usually start rostering starters in the SP3 range, be it snake draft or salary cap draft. I'll grab maybe three who I expect to be active just about every time they pitch. This replaces the normal array of SP1-SP3 I usually roster. I'll add a couple in the SP4 range -- those I plan on using most, but not all of the time. The rest are streamers. The exact split depends on league rules (innings/starts/games min and max), but I'll build up a solid ratio base with high-K reliever, then float in starters when appropriate.

[Ken]

We have 12 teams and use 9 pitching slots. That means only 108 pitchers have auction value. But that does not mean the players who are rostered in reserve have no value.

We have the reserve round draft where each player is free but each round has a dollar value. Does the first pick in draft have value...of course. If I pick Spencer Turnbull with the first res. pick I intend to use him. By me picking him first I would say I value him more than all the other Turnbulls. Yet he has no real auction value or maybe I could argue his auction value is $1.

I agree with you Gregg. Part of the issue is semantics, we are talking about "value" in several different contexts.

[The Feral Slasher]

First let me say thank you to all who are participating in this discussion. It is very interesting even if do not agree with some of the points. It is making me think.

We have 12 teams and use 9 pitching slots. That means only 108 pitchers have auction value. But that does not mean the players who are rostered in reserve have no value.

We have the reserve round draft where each player is free but each round has a dollar value. Does the first pick in draft have value...of course. If I pick Spencer Turnbull with the first res. pick I intend to use him. By me picking him first I would say I value him more than all the other Turnbulls. Yet he has no real auction value or maybe I could argue his auction value is $1.

agreed. And I didn't address how some leagues allow people to bid on reserves and some don't. If your league does not allow bidding on reserve I think u would need to make some adjustments because I assumed reserves could be bid on. I could probably come up with a way to do this if u are interested

[Ken]

agreed. And I didn't address how some leagues allow people to bid on reserves and some don't. If your league does not allow bidding on reserve I think u would need to make some adjustments because I assumed reserves could be bid on. I could probably come up with a way to do this if u are interested

Wait, that changes a lot. The default setup is that reserves cannot be bid on. If you are bidding on reserves then yes your reserves should be counted. But that's true regardless of weekly or daily. It's an abnormal approach, but it does change the analysis.