So, I suddenly had an epiphany regarding a fair way to value keepers for this season (and I wasn't even on an epiphany toilet . . . anyone out there who watches Scrubs will know what I'm talking about). If you go into your personal yahoo fantasy sports profile, you can look at all your past teams and leagues. If you go into our league from last year, you can look at the draft results from last year's draft. My proposal is this. All players drafted in the 1st round last year should be valued at $30, all who were drafted in the 2nd round are valued at $25, all from the 3rd round valued at $20 and all from the 4th round or later valued at $15.
I think this is the best way to do it as, going forward, the way we're going to value keepers is based on what they were last year, plus inflation. This way, we get a better approximation of what was "paid" for the player in the straight draft last year by using rounds as a proxy for value. This method is also completely objective, avoiding some of the inherent messiness of any other method.
I think we can debate what price level each round should be set at, but by my reckoning the values I provided above are about as good as we're going to get. Anyway, does anybody object to this system for setting keeper values this year or can we put this issue behind us and move onto debating other issues?
Pantheon of Champions
2006, 2010 Champion's Manager: Dave, PECOTA Monkeys
2009 Champion's Manager: Matt, TINSTAAPP
2008, 2007 Champion's Manager: Rich, Replacement Levelers
Eternal Champion: Billy Beane, Oakland A's
Eternal Champion: Jek Porkins, Rebel Alliance
Eternal Champion: Charlie Pace, Driveshaft
Pantheon of Bizzaro Champions
2010 Loser's Manager: Brandon, Maniacal Mets
2009 Loser's Manager: Dave, PECOTA Monkeys
2007, 2008 Loser's Manager: Mike, Norcal Peaceniks
2006 Loser's Manager: James, LeetSauce II
Eternal Loser: Steve Phillips, New York Mets
Eternal Loser: Neil "Frogurt", Random Survivor
Eternal Loser: TK-421. Not at his post, didn't find the droids he was looking for.
8 comments:
This sounds pretty fair.
Works for me.
At first I thought this would be a perfect solution. But as I thought about it, I realized a couple of issues.
First, we drafted based on different criteria last year. That means that certain guys might have gone earlier or later than they would have in this year's draft (e.g. Adam Dunn, or any top closer). Closers are a particular issue since they were drafted based on inflated value that no longer exists. So we'd be valuing guys based on a draft that involved strategy and rules that no longer apply.
Additionally, this system assumes that people draft based purely on value. But let's say, for example, that everyone passed on a guy like Jason Bay in the second round because they needed pitching. Let's assume Bay was actually one of the best guys left. All of a sudden, Bay becomes a third-rounder and is cheaper to keep because the draft forced decisions not directly related to a player's objective value.
My final point is that because of the nature of the draft generally, and because it is a snake draft specifically, the line between rounds is somewhat hazy. If I have two picks (last of the second round and first of the third) is my keeper's value to be determined by the order in which I made my back-to-back picks? If so I would have flipped the better guy to the lower slot (and will do so in the future if possible). Or more generally, is a guy picked 21st really to be substantially cheaper than a guy picked 20th (while the guy at 19th is the same value as the 20th)?
I think this was a great idea overall and will help us figure this out, and I'm not necessarily opposed to using this method, but there are things to be concerned about. I think perhaps we should use this as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule.
we could fiddle at the margins, but i don't think it will make that big a difference. at least it's objective this way. by the way, don't keep any closers.
Yeah, I considered all the things you said Matt, and I agree with them, and yet, I think that any system we use to value keepers is going to be flawed at the margins and, as Rich said, this system at least has the benefit of objectivity. Specifically, I agree with Rich that it's not going to make any sense to keep closers anyway as I find it unlikely that any reliever is going to go for more than $15 under our new system, so I think that issue falls away. As for the arbitrariness of rounds deal, I actually stand to suffer from that as much or more than almost anyone as I had the 2nd pick last year and therefore it's particularly arbitrary regarding where I picked my 2nd and 3rd round players, but again, I think that's just an unfortunate consequence of this objective system.
In the end, I think that this system is better than any other one we're likely to come up with. Unlike most of these other ideas we've all debated back and forth, I feel pretty strongly about this being the "right" way to do this. Anyway, I'd like to hear back from more people than just the four of us who tend to respond here, but in the absence of that, I think we should decide this particular issue one way or the other within the next few days and move onto other issues that need to be resolved.
First of all, I never thought that keeping closers was an issue or a possibility, it was just mentioned to illustrate the point.
Anyhoo, I agree with what you guys are saying. As I said, I'm not opposed to this system; I think it's the best of our choice of imperfect solutions. I just wanted to play devil's advocate (the argument, not the pinball game).
I would suggest we use this as a base, but reserve the right to review a given player if the value assignment seems out of whack. Sort of like an objection process. For instance, if we agree that a draft slot last year is not reflective of actual value then we can object and review.
I think we need to agree to use this system and move forward. I have keepers for 6 teams so far, and over the next couple of days I'll try to put together all the info in one place. We need to get the last four teams to send in their keepers via comment.
Yup, I think that in the hypothetical situation that someone thinks the system as described unfairly values a player, we can talk about doing so using an avoidance of "gross injustice" standard or something, though I think that should be sparingly applied. I think we should give another day or two for anyone else to comment, and then there are some other issues to discuss including "inflation," and the possibility of allowing players to keep young developing keepers for more than one year at the $15 floor salary.
FYI, the values thrown around have been lowered. Also, some additional complications to follow.
Post a Comment