There was a thread on here over the last couple days discussing position scarcity. One thing that was discussed was looking at how far over the average for a single position the player is that you are drafting. What is the difference between looking at how that player performs vs. other players at his position and overall against everyone? In other words, regardless of position how does he look statistically against the rest of the league? I hope this is clear. If not, please let me know.
I agree with you entirely I just think that it would be better to see how they compare against everyone else. As you list them on your list you could put the position next to them and then if you wanted to you could even organize it by position. It seems that if you did that you could see how they perform against players from all positions as well as their own.
This is what I did with my rankings. I used a standard deviation-based formula (taking the avg and stdev from the number of players I though would be drafted at each position) on each position to give me an index number for that position. Basically, an index of 4 told me that that player was 4 standard deviations above the average. The shallower positions had guys with large numbers at the top of the rankings, even though their stats were only average or below at the deeper positions. This simulated positions scarcity. When I combined all the positions, I had many OFs behind all the Cs, so I decided to do an overall index and average it with the positional one. This gave me some pretty good rankings which gave me two things:
1) Value by position scarcity, and
2) Value by stats.
Combined, they show a pretty good list of how I should value players.
Music2004Man wrote:I agree with you entirely I just think that it would be better to see how they compare against everyone else. As you list them on your list you could put the position next to them and then if you wanted to you could even organize it by position. It seems that if you did that you could see how they perform against players from all positions as well as their own.
You can make all the lists you want... but the one that counts in my books is value above the replacement level. You can make lists to sort without taking positions into account, you can make lists that sort by color of uniform but the one that helps you the most if the one earlier mentioned.
Obviously, you want to draft players who score points. The standard idea is that you need points to win. However, there is a slightly skewed way to look at FBB competition. Instead of looking at total points, you can argue that if you simply beat your opponent at each position, you can garner a victory that way, too. And that's where position-mean analysis comes in handy.
If you take that opinion, then guys who score drastically above the average for their position take on a new value. The theory is that you don't need a terribly high-scoring outfielder, for instance, because there are so many people who score very well in the outfield. In the course of a season, you might only miss out on 60 or 80 points with the 20th-ranked outfielder.
However, with catchers, shortstops, and second basemen, this is not so true. You can gain a massive advantage by having the top scoring player at those positions because even the 5th and 6th-best players will be over 100 points behind the leader. Your gaining points through lack of positional depth.
While the theory is sound on paper, practical application still tells you that you need real points to win, so you have to draft accordingly. I like to use position-mean analysis for the middle rounds of the draft. In early rounds, just take the best player that you need because you cannot win without points - a lot of them.
Where and when you use the analysis is a personal prerogative. It's not like it's a flawless system. You have to be able to predict who will be the top scorers at each position, and then you have to make sure you draft as many of them as you can. It's no better, but it's no worse, than any other system, imo. Go with what you're comfortable with.