Hey guys. I'm trying to properly allocate auction value in my points league in preparation to the auction. I've found that pitchers, in a given fantasy season, make up about 40% of the total points where as hitters make up 60%. This is based on starting positions, not bench, of course. So in theory, one would allocate 40% of their budget on pitching.
However in recent years I found our league pays out a 70/30 hitter-pitcher split rather than the 60/40. Surely you can say pitchers should be devalued due to their lack of predictability but the numbers don't lie, pitchers contribute 40% of the leagues total scoring. Placing the lack of pitcher reliability aside, what is everyone's philosophy here? Do you allocate your budget based on league tendencies or actual point distribution?
JT, sometimes the simple approach is all you need, right. I agree but there's a complication I'm trying to address here. You're saying to be patient and seek out bargains but depending on how you allocate your budget, "bargains" can vary. For example in my $100 league if use a 70/30 split a guy like Han Ram would have a value of $23 where as if I use a 60/40 split his value is more like $20. So depending on what split I use, getting Hanley Ramirez at $21 may or may not be considered a good deal. Which brings me back to my original question, do I hold my line at a 60/40 split? Or do I spend based on league tendencies which lends itself towards the 70/30 split?
I think the way to approach bargains is the to look at projected prices at the league tendency and then compare that price to each player based on the actual scoring split. By doing so, you essentially get a projected ROI (positive and negative) for each player, correct? What I'm sure you'll find is that at the high level, the ROI substantially negative compared to their actual value, and vice versa as you move down.
If this were me doing this, I would pick the level at which I can "save" money by buying some players below their ROI.
I would then take my savings and apply it to higher level guys, even if that means overpaying based on ROI.
Let me see if I can come up with an example (totally making up numbers here)...
So your analysis reveals that you should be able to get a guy like Abreu, Ibanez, and/or Dukes at ROIs of 9% ($2), 25% ($4), and 50% ($5) respectively. You, me, and everyone else know that you're limited in starter spots, so just loading up on cheap players won't win you a championship. You have to grab some big guns at some point, which means spending. Looking at the top of the chart, you see that a guy like Upton will go for an ROI of -14% (-$5). If you acquired Abreu, Lee, & Upton, your combined ROI would be -1% ($1). Then you have to ask yourself: Is that team better than a top guy, like Sizemore, and some lower-level guys.
In the end, what you're doing is not so much purchasing based solely on price. Instead, you're determining where your savings will come later so as to give you a leg up early in your bidding. By projecting how much increased savings you'll have later in the auction, you'll be able to know how much of a loss you can take early on without hurting your team. Hopefully, you end up doing a better job than someone else who's simply doing that on the fly.
Matthias wrote:Spend based on the values that you think are right.
If your league consistently undervalues an asset, such as pitchers, then exploit that to win.
This is especially true in a points league.
In a roto league, you have to have balance across categories. In a points league, you just need the most points. Depending on your league's scoring, you could win with a whole lot of one type of player.
I'd find a set of projections you like, apply your league's scoring system to them and see where the value is relative to what people are paying.