TheRock wrote:Are you penalizing strikeouts (for hitters)? That's one thing I would add.
Not currently, brought some hitters noticeably further down..my latest inker involved pts earned for wins,saves, qs...im rerunning the stats now but am hoping this closes the gap enough
Mike_nyc wrote:but in terms of production the hitters are more valuable
How do you figure?
their are countless examples but for starters - tell me why santana is the only pitcher who you can justify taking in the first round
if the pitcher production is equal to that of the hitters why is their such an imbalance at the beginning of a draft?
I'm not purposefully skewing anything, my current system values the hitters more than it should, but yours devalues them...to say their end of season production should equal that of the pitchers goes against every ranking system out there. Based on top rankings, mock drafts, the upper echelon pitchers (top 10-12 say) are amongst the top 50 or 60 players drafted. thats a 1 to 5 1 to 6 ratio...your format values it at 1 to 1
Because almost all of those rankings and mocks are based on category style games. Your points league isn't confined to be a mimic of those setups unless you really want it to be.
by The Loveable Losers » Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:47 am
Tavish wrote:
Mike_nyc wrote:
StlSluggers wrote:
Mike_nyc wrote:but in terms of production the hitters are more valuable
How do you figure?
their are countless examples but for starters - tell me why santana is the only pitcher who you can justify taking in the first round
if the pitcher production is equal to that of the hitters why is their such an imbalance at the beginning of a draft?
I'm not purposefully skewing anything, my current system values the hitters more than it should, but yours devalues them...to say their end of season production should equal that of the pitchers goes against every ranking system out there. Based on top rankings, mock drafts, the upper echelon pitchers (top 10-12 say) are amongst the top 50 or 60 players drafted. thats a 1 to 5 1 to 6 ratio...your format values it at 1 to 1
Because almost all of those rankings and mocks are based on category style games. Your points league isn't confined to be a mimic of those setups unless you really want it to be.
Exactly. If you're talking 5x5 roto then the top 50-60 players drafted will certainly include almost all hitters. If you want to mimic that same valuation in your points league then you would definitely want to 'undervalue' the pitchers. It's not just the risk with pitchers that make them less valuable in 5x5 roto. Starting pitchers only contribute in 4 categories whereas certain hitters can contribute in 5. Wins to a large extent and era/whip to a smaller extent are somewhat unpredictable whereas only batting average on the hitting side shows that type of external noise in the data. Saves are very role-driven which can lead to closers being a risky proposition.
If you want to mirror the 5x5 roto valuation then you certainly can do that - it's your league and your choice. But you don't have to do that. You could make pitchers twice as valuable as hitters for example. Heck, you could build a system that's completely context-neutral as well...something that doesn't reward for runs or rbi's on the hitting side nor wins and saves on the pitching side. I've always been intrigued about the possibility of creating a points league based off of some of the runs estimation methods out there. But enough of that...here's the link if you want to discuss that idea. The point is that you can do whatever you want with a points league - don't be a slave to the categories or the valuations of 5x5 roto unless you want it that way.
I think a common mistake when setting up points leagues is that people want the scoring system to "feel" right when look at it in isolation, instead of focusing on "testing" it with real stats and analyzing the results.
For instance, I like points league where batters and pitchers have the same value. So, I arrived to the conclusion that my favorite system would be the following:
Of course, when you take a look at it you think it's terrible. Holds 10 points? Wins just 3 points? But when you test the system with 2006 stats it turns out to be pretty good (as long as you want to strike a balance between batters and pitchers, including middle relievers).
I forgot to add that my system also tries to balance speed and power.
I guess the main point I'm trying to make is this:
Before creating a point system you have to set your goals (balancing batters and pitchers, making power batters more valuable, whatever). Then, you have to design a system and test it with real stats. This way you can see how it works and you can start tweaking it until you find the perfect system for you.
If you achieve your goal, who cares if it doesn't "feel" right that a hold is worth 10 and a win 3?
It's almost impossible to take a look at a system and be able to tell if it overvalues a skill or position. You need to test it with real stats.
I choose to balance the value of power, speed, starting pitching, closers and middle relievers because it allows for different strategies.
In roto, most drafts look the same, all good batters go early, very few pitchers are taken in the first rounds, middle relievers aren't drafted until the very end.
punturere wrote:I choose to balance the value of power, speed, starting pitching, closers and middle relievers because it allows for different strategies.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Mike_nyc » Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:42 am 
