xeifrank wrote:The way I'd do it (using this formula) is to calculate the values for all players. Break the players into groups, based on what position they play. Next determine how many players at each position will be drafted. In a 5 OFer league of 12 teams, with no bench there would be 5*12=60 outfielders in the OF draft pool, and the 61st player would be the replacement level. Let's say the replacement level player had a value of 500 using the formula. You would then subtract 500 from all the outfielders and this would be their replacement level value. Do the same for all positions. If you have bench slots, you may have to do a little guess work on how many players at each position would be drafted, but this should give you a rough idea of how to do it. This method will let you compare replacement values of players at different positions, to get an idea on who ranks higher or lower due to position scarcity.
I don't know; I've got a couple of issues with this way of assessing position scarcity. Suppose I'm in a 12-team league, and I've determined that Phil Nevin is the 13th-best 1B. Thus, assuming that my leaguemates agree with me on Nevin and there are no CI or UT positions to fill or a bench, Nevin is not a player that will be drafted in our league. However I will be determining the value of my top 12 first basemen based on how good they are relative to Phil Nevin, a player who isn't part of our limited draft universe.
Now suppose Nevin and almost all of the 1B ranked below him are suspended for some odd reason, leaving Ken Harvey as the 13th best 1B. Our player universe (for the purposes of our league), hasn't changed at all. It seems clear that I shouldn't value any of these players any differently, however using this system the values of the top 12 1B have gone up tremendously. It stands to reason that they've been valued against an irrelevant benchmark.
I think the broader problem is that alot of information is being ignored. Suppose instead that I value my players relative to the 12th best player at their respective position (i.e. a player whose value should have some relevance in my league). It's been determined that the top 12 1B have raw values of:
The top 12 2B have raw values of:
According to this new evaluation system the best 1B is deemed to be as valuable as the best 2B (each having a value of 11). However a glance at the values shows that this new system isn't doing much better at evaluating position scarcity.
I think the issue is that position scarcity is a composite of how a player rates relative to all players at his position. In other words, how a 1B compares to the 5th best 1B is perhaps as relevant as how he compares to the 12th best. So I simply don't think these are the sort of benchmarks that should be used.