Fantasy Baseball Cafe Forums

by **wrveres** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 6:24 am

Arlo wrote:
wrveres wrote:Well I have used many, many rating systems. This is what I am thinking with this..

100= League Average
150= Best
50 = League Worst

This system can be applied to as many categories as possible.
Runs, Obp, k/9, you name it. Just ensure that what ever categories you run, you divide the total by the same number of categories. So Instaed of having 500 total points for a league average, 100 would be the "average" if he was a League average 5 category guy.

The trouble with this form of scaling is that not all categories are equal. In stolen bases, for instance, the gap between 'best' and 'average' is a lot greater than it is in, say, runs scored. By assigning a value of 150 to all category leaders, you'd be undervaluing speedsters like Juan Pierre.

Actually, because the league average would be around 8-12 SB's, he would come through with shining colors...A coule of mistakes people make when looking at league average is that they include all the players. Well you don't use all the players when you play, You use a roster pool some where around 100-125 offensive players. Figure the league average somewhere around there. Make the cut off say, the top 150. Another mistake, IMO. is to skew the numbers towards HR's and RBI's. If you play 5 categories, all 5 categories should be given equal weight. 6 categories, then all 6. IMO.

by DK » Sat Oct 04, 2003 9:15 am

i'm in strong agreeance with his last statement...Avg., R, and SB guys are around everywhere, and those are categories too. i make those mainly in the mid-rounds while i get guys with good power and RBI around the front 2-4 rounds, then fill up with the Avg/R/SB.

by **Arlo** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 8:24 pm

wrveres wrote:Actually, because the league average would be around 8-12 SB's, he would come through with shining colors...A coule of mistakes people make when looking at league average is that they include all the players. Well you don't use all the players when you play, You use a roster pool some where around 100-125 offensive players. Figure the league average somewhere around there. Make the cut off say, the top 150. Another mistake, IMO. is to skew the numbers towards HR's and RBI's. If you play 5 categories, all 5 categories should be given equal weight. 6 categories, then all 6. IMO.

Even if you use the correct player pool, I think that assigning a score of 150 to the league leader is a bit misleading. By giving the top basestealer the same 150 points as the top run-scorer, both contributions would have equal weight in the rankings when in fact the basestealer's is more significant.

by **wrveres** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:55 am

Arlo wrote:
wrveres wrote:Actually, because the league average would be around 8-12 SB's, he would come through with shining colors...A coule of mistakes people make when looking at league average is that they include all the players. Well you don't use all the players when you play, You use a roster pool some where around 100-125 offensive players. Figure the league average somewhere around there. Make the cut off say, the top 150. Another mistake, IMO. is to skew the numbers towards HR's and RBI's. If you play 5 categories, all 5 categories should be given equal weight. 6 categories, then all 6. IMO.

Even if you use the correct player pool, I think that assigning a score of 150 to the league leader is a bit misleading. By giving the top basestealer the same 150 points as the top run-scorer, both contributions would have equal weight in the rankings when in fact the basestealer's is more significant.

Agreed the basestealer is more significant, but generally this will show in the over all number's. I like what was suggested before

used to rate each player by position. So let's say the average 1st basemen hit 30 HRs this year (I have no idea how accurate that is). Then someone like Derek Lee, who hit 31 HRs this year, would score 103 points in the HR category. (31/30 * 100)

this seemed to be a good standard. Instead of topping out at 150 automatically. but stiil using 100 as the base.. Once we have a solid number ... (Around 100 pts' =/-) Then we can add up by team, and then factor in strength of scedule by month.

I am going to start downloading last seasons stats and start playing around. See if I can come up with something outside of the norm by ussibg the 100 point scale.. I would really like to factor in the "Ballpark" rankings..

by DK » Sun Oct 05, 2003 7:34 am

i actually did something like that last season, it was something like:

30 HR=90 R=100 RBI=15 SB=.300 AVG=15 W=8 L=25 Sv=170 K=3.50 ERA=1.10 WHIP

some numbers like that. i ranked players like that, for instance a player with 30 HR is equal to a player with 15 wins, all other stats aside.

by **wrveres** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:56 am

interesting first run ... Actually I worked them twice..

But basically I used this formula...

League Avg/Player Total*100 as was mentioned in here earlier. This actually skews SB's heavily. Or it put them into perspective, depending upon how you look at it ..

Ok first sample .. 200 Ab's or more Both Leagues...
League Average's
Hr's .. 14.7
RBI's .. 60
SB's .. 7.13
Runs .. 62.28
BA .. .274
(exp. HR's Soriano ... (14.7/39*100)
The Top 100 Results ... Remeber this treats all categories evenly ..

Second sample .. Top 250 Players based upon Abs. Both Leagues...
League Average's
Hr's .. 17.12
RBI's .. 68.45
SB's .. 8.23
Runs .. 71.02
BA .. ..277
(exp. HR's Soriano ... (17.12/39*100)
The Top 100 Results ... Remeber this treats all categories evenly ..

I think what I am going to try and do is break it down by AB before I Build it up and Multilpy by 100.. But that will still skew SB's. Thoughts????

by DK » Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:44 am

you should grade SB's on a curve instead of on a point system. top 10% get some-odd points, next 10%, and so on.

by **wrveres** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 10:39 am

DK wrote:you should grade SB's on a curve instead of on a point system. top 10% get some-odd points, next 10%, and so on.

I generally do something like that. Not on a curve though. I use the Top 10 % then the next 10% and so on and so on ..

But I do think it is interesting how much "We" as players disregard the SB ..yes it is one category and a Home run scores in three but it is still interesting. If anything this shows the overal value of the top notch SB's guys. A true 5 tool player like Beltran and Soriano are gonna find there way to the top, no matter how you score your numbers.

by **Arlo** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:28 am

wrveres wrote:But basically I used this formula...

League Avg/Player Total*100 as was mentioned in here earlier. This actually skews SB's heavily. Or it put them into perspective, depending upon how you look at it ..

Ok first sample .. 200 Ab's or more Both Leagues...
League Average's
Hr's .. 14.7
RBI's .. 60
SB's .. 7.13
Runs .. 62.28
BA .. .274
(exp. HR's Soriano ... (14.7/39*100)

I'm confused... the more home runs a player has, the lower his score? Sorry if I'm missing something...

by DK » Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:05 pm

i was a little lost on that too... :-?

Fantasy Baseball Cafe Forums

Ok , so where are the "Excell Guys/Girls?"

Who is online