Page 2 of 2

Re: LastPlayerPicked.com values: A Question

PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:45 am
by Matthias
jake_twothousandfive wrote:I haven't looked at this very closely at all. But I find it strange that it gives out negative values to the worst players.

If you're in a 10-man league with 26 roster spots then the 260th best guy in your format is worth exactly $1 (or whatever your minimum bid is). If you ask LPP to give you the best 300 or best 400 guys then everyone under #260 will be worth less than $1 because you're replacing someone with better stats with them. Therefore, they have negative (and negative dollar) value.

If you drafted Kyle Blanks last year, and kept him on your squad the whole year, for example, then you would've been much much better off not having him and taking someone who produced like the 260th best player under your format.

Re: LastPlayerPicked.com values: A Question

PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:54 am
by jake_twothousandfive
Matthias wrote:
jake_twothousandfive wrote:I haven't looked at this very closely at all. But I find it strange that it gives out negative values to the worst players.

If you're in a 10-man league with 26 roster spots then the 260th best guy in your format is worth exactly $1 (or whatever your minimum bid is). If you ask LPP to give you the best 300 or best 400 guys then everyone under #260 will be worth less than $1 because you're replacing someone with better stats with them. Therefore, they have negative (and negative dollar) value.

If you drafted Kyle Blanks last year, and kept him on your squad the whole year, for example, then you would've been much much better off not having him and taking someone who produced like the 260th best player under your format.

So it's just projecting them to be below replacement level players. Makes sense.

Re: LastPlayerPicked.com values: A Question

PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:54 am
by Matthias
jake_twothousandfive wrote:
Matthias wrote:
jake_twothousandfive wrote:I haven't looked at this very closely at all. But I find it strange that it gives out negative values to the worst players.

If you're in a 10-man league with 26 roster spots then the 260th best guy in your format is worth exactly $1 (or whatever your minimum bid is). If you ask LPP to give you the best 300 or best 400 guys then everyone under #260 will be worth less than $1 because you're replacing someone with better stats with them. Therefore, they have negative (and negative dollar) value.

If you drafted Kyle Blanks last year, and kept him on your squad the whole year, for example, then you would've been much much better off not having him and taking someone who produced like the 260th best player under your format.

So it's just projecting them to be below replacement level players. Makes sense.

In short and sweet, yah.

Re: LastPlayerPicked.com values: A Question

PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 12:00 pm
by CBMGreatOne
60 dollars for Albert Pujols is absolutely not overvalued.

If I could spend 60 dollars on 3 players and know for sure that they would all be top 10 overall players, I could field a winning team by finding just enough bargains with my remaining 120.

Last year if I drafted Albert, MCab, and Halladay, I probably could have fielded a winning team, and certainly would have fielded a top 3 team, with just about anybody else.

Some people go into drafts thinking "I really don't want to have any holes in my lineup." They divide their budget, spend conservatively, and end up with a roster that doesn't have any stars. It's happened to me before.

I don't care about having holes in my starting lineup. My feeling is that in all but the deepest of leagues, I'll find a way to fill any given hole. I strongly believe in stars and scrubs, because when you consider how close a lot of the players in the 75-150 positions on the player rater are to replacement level when you really get down to it, a lot of people undervalue those guys that represent true outliers.

Re: LastPlayerPicked.com values: A Question

PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 12:49 pm
by kaiser
CBMGreatOne wrote:60 dollars for Albert Pujols is absolutely not overvalued.

If I could spend 60 dollars on 3 players and know for sure that they would all be top 10 overall players, I could field a winning team by finding just enough bargains with my remaining 120.

Last year if I drafted Albert, MCab, and Halladay, I probably could have fielded a winning team, and certainly would have fielded a top 3 team, with just about anybody else..


It all seems so easy. Why do we even bother discussing it?

Seriously, though, I am a believer in stars and scrubs, too. Maybe I am undervaluing Pujols, but as I said before, the point is moot for me, since he belo gs to someone else in my keeper.

Re: LastPlayerPicked.com values: A Question

PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:04 pm
by justinA
jake_twothousandfive wrote:I haven't looked at this very closely at all. But I find it strange that it gives out negative values to the worst players.

Why? There are players out there that are technically worth negative money. If a player contributes so little to the team, yet takes up a roster spot then he has a negative value. On my spreadsheet in which I calculate my own values, I just add an IF function to show $0 if the formula spits out a negative number, but that is just for aesthetics. There has to be a way to differentiate between $1 players and negative numbers is the only way to go.

Re: LastPlayerPicked.com values: A Question

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:53 pm
by footballisbetter.com
wrveres wrote:in a 10 team league. Sure why not?
the wire will be full of valuable 1 dollar pitchers and outfielders. Heck you could do a pitching staff of one ace, two closers, and some quality 1.00 pitchers for around 50 bucks and keep your staff in the top three. easy peasey. ;-)


I agree with this 100% In small leagues like this, the stars and scrubs is by far the best way to go. Their will be plenty of solid $1 players and WW options.