Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5212
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 05 Oct 2011, 9:15 am

Response from Ryan via email regarding expansion (posted with his approval - he's maintaining his Redscape boycott):

I just want to point out that there are 254 "starting" position players across all 30 major league teams. That doesn't account for platoons and such, but if all 30 teams are playing on a day, there are 254 starting position players that day. In our league, there are 168 starting position players. That means 2/3 of all major league starters are starting in our fantasy league. Adding 2 more teams would bring those numbers to 192 and 3/4.

Now, look at the players that were on rosters at the end of the season: Tsuyoshi Nishioka, Pedro Alvarez, Alex Rios, Gordon Beckham, Brent Morel...

Look at the players that were on a roster at some point during the season: Nate McLouth, Chris Denorfia, Chris Carter...

At some point, the quality of players available as free agents degrades to such a point that your team loses nothing by leaving starting positions empty (because the runs / RBI / SB available are negligible) and would be hurt by putting in a .650 OPS player (average team OPS in the league is .750, anyone below .700 better bring a ton of another stat to justify starting). The same principle applies for pitching, especially starting pitching (since all 30 closers are rostered anyway). This already happened to me for quite a bit of time this season and could have applied for a couple of positions in the last month (C and SS were drains on my roster for September), but I was out of the running anyway, so I started players.

It almost makes it a viable strategy to start just a couple of great offensive players to win OBP and SLG every week, then flood your team with closers and setup men to win ERA, WHIP, and saves every week. With a $260 budget, you could spend $175 on closers ($25 x 7 for top-quality closers) and have $85 to pick up 3 excellent hitters and a couple SB threats. That's taking it to an extreme and is unlikely, but I feel like the more extremely awful the FA wire gets, the more extreme the strategies in roster composition may get. You don't need to win 8-2 every week like Todd if you can win 6-4 or 5-4-1 no matter the opponent.

I'm not saying I'm opposed to expansion, but I do want to bring up the point that from a fantasy baseball perspective, starting 1/2 of the San Diego Padres' starting lineup isn't exactly fun.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5212
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 05 Oct 2011, 9:17 am

And a follow up:

Ryan wrote:I think there's a careful balance to maintain between having the challenge of building a roster and forcing teams to play players that don't belong on a major league roster, much less a fantasy roster.

I think that the challenge for our league inherently comes from the quality of the managers. I had to make the decision to punt my season very, very early because I knew that if I waited on prospects, they'd be snapped up (i.e. Trout, Goldschmidt). I'm not sure that I want the challenge to come from choosing to pick up Cesar Izturis or Maicer Izturis (not exactly the Upton brothers).

Our average team OPS for the season was .762. This means that our average league offense was about St. Louis caliber (i.e. Top 6 in MLB). The range of OPS in our league was .829 by Todd (Boston led MLB with .810) to .711 by Brad (which would rank 19th in MLB, right after the Indians) (If we were to add two more teams, this average OPS would likely drop into the .725 - .730 range... which would put us around 12-14 in MLB. Something about that just strikes me as... painful. And that's coming from a manager with a career .757 OPS.

I also think that the deeper the league gets, the more keepers you'll see and the more difficult it will be for lower-level teams to improve. Instead of me punting the season in May with 2 more starting to punt in July, you'll see 3 teams punting in May and 6 by July.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3101
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 05 Oct 2011, 1:29 pm

Sorry if this was said, but if the league expanded would the playoffs expand (e.g. 8 instead of 6 teams)?
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5212
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 05 Oct 2011, 2:30 pm

:no:

It would remain at 6.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 06 Oct 2011, 9:09 am

Ryan is boycotting Redscape? Any reason?

Anyway, he brings up some good points. A sufficient amount of expansion would require evaluation of the balance of our stats and their balance. I know there are solutions to these problems (other people certainly run larger leagues then ours), but I do tend to agree with his intuition that significant devaluation of average roster quality will make the league less fun.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 06 Oct 2011, 9:25 am

I don't know if I agree. I have always enjoyed finding that diamond in the rough. Having to do more research and delve deeper would be a pleasure. The closer the stats, the more challenging and closer finishes. The Vall Bangers did a wonderful job, but I would love to see less of a runaway. If two extra teams bring that, I would be for it.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 07 Oct 2011, 8:07 am

At the risk of dismissing my own efforts, I do think my season was something of an aberration. I haven't the foggiest idea how I'd go about replicating it. I do think that some of my research, strategy, etc., contributed positively, but I'm pretty sure there was a sizable amount of luck (mostly in the auction?) as well. In general I don't think we should expect to see runaway winners in that fashion often.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3101
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 11 Oct 2011, 7:57 am

Sharur wrote:Ryan is boycotting Redscape? Any reason?


Ryan used to participate in the political forums, and was on the left of most discussions. There was some argument that got out of hand and he walked away, deleting his user account.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5212
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 29 Dec 2011, 10:52 am

Voting for the expansion amendment is underway. Check your emails if you haven't already done so.

If you're reading this Steve and/or Ozy, you're welcome to chime in - you have a stake in the outcome and have a good understanding of the issues (at least Steve does, I'm unsure about Ozy).
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 05 Jan 2012, 12:59 am

Just read an article on the issue of auto drafting/auctioning, which got me thinking.

The author of the article expresses his irritation with having teams that auto-draft, and proposes penalties for them. I'm not sure his complaints are really that big of a deal or come up that often, such that people who miss a draft or auction (or have tech problems) should be penalized. However, it did get me thinking about ways the league could mitigate those problems that do emerge as a result of bot picks.

A simple example of this would be to place an artificial ceiling on individual player salaries for bot picks. This might actually be more impactful in a football league, but the idea being that the auction bot is perfectly happy sinking a huge chunk of its budget into a few players in ways that completely hamstring the bot's team. And the teams that are competing in the bid are penalized for this after a fashion as well. Assuming that the players that command such a high salary are rare commodities, having one team that's willing to bid itself to death for them means that a team that happens to have a roster construction that really needs such a player must either give up or pay significantly above market (due to the presence of the arguably irrational actor, the bot).

A commenter on the article suggested that for auction leagues, you could impose a $10 tax on teams that don't attend the auction. The amount is somewhat arbitrary, but obviously a tax would reduce the bot's economic impact, and the larger the tax, the larger the reduction.

Anyway, these are just examples, I'm not proposing anything in particular. As long as we're at rule change time, though, this seems like the perfect opportunity to discuss this sort of thing. Does anyone else think that the auction bots are problematic, and that we might benefit from imposing certain limitations, restrictions, defaults, whatever, on their use? Or is everyone totally satisfied with their "contribution"? I'm not sure myself, which is why I'm curious what others think.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5212
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 05 Jan 2012, 10:23 am

I don't really think it's an issue in our league. I would not wish to penalize any team for not making the auction - I think the penalty of having a less than desirable team make-up is plenty.

If an owner cannot make the auction there are still two choices that may mitigate the damage to both the missing owner's team and the auction itself:

1) Find a proxy. I'm always willing to help find one if needed. Someone used a proxy in last years RFL auction and I think I remember a proxy in last years RBL auction as well.

2) Pre-set max values for available players. This could be time-consuming but you should have that info through your research. If you have not researched player values prior to the auction you'll probably lose anyway.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 06 Jan 2012, 4:11 pm

SLOTerp wrote:If you have not researched player values prior to the auction you'll probably lose anyway.


I don't really agree with this. I think you need to do research, yes, but figuring out player values in our league is dependent on so many things specific to our league- the categories, the other contracts, the contract structures, etc.- that I think you can only really get a sense of relative player values from expert advice or whatever. I think in terms of figuring out a player's actual dollar value, you can really only do that yourself. Which is not to say that you couldn't do that in advance of the auction and have a pre-set list, but when you combine that with the need to adjust your prices based on roster needs and the ebb and flow of the auction (or in other words, unexpected shifts in supply or demand)... well, I can't imagine actually sitting down and doing that and having any expectation of it being half decent.

Anyway, I do agree that this doesn't seem like a huge issue in our league, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be beneficial for us to consider some tweaks.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5212
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 07 Jan 2012, 8:28 pm

Really? You don't think estimating player values has significance to an owners chance of winning the league? I do understand part of what you're saying - the auction adds unpredictable variation to player values. When I come up with my values, I do so with the understanding that I may have to overbid in certain situations. You certainly can't do that if you or an agent are not present and no, you are not likely to have a very good auction even with quality research backing pre-set bids.

However, I assumed determining relative player value in the context of our rules (it does require a bit more than pulling a crib sheet out of a magazine) is SOP for successful teams in this league. Matt, George, Nick, the champions that have won under the existing rules set, what of it? Did you go into your auctions armed with research on player values? Todd, I won't ask since I realize you and data/statistics/math are like oil and water. :laugh:
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 08 Jan 2012, 4:56 am

Mike, I was trying to say 2 different things, and I think I failed to distinguish them clearly.

First, I took "research" to mean looking up, rather then calculating or evaluating. And so far as expert opinions and such are concerned, I think you can't get meaningful dollar values out of them for our league.

Second, so far as determining player values for yourself is concerned, I actually fly by the seat of my pants a lot more then you'd probably expect. Part of that is for the reasons I mentioned earlier - the need to be flexible in one's evaluations due to league setup, keepers, roster construction, changes in the market, etc. Part of it also is that I think I keep myself sufficiently informed that I have a good intuitive sense of relative player values, and thus reasonable price brackets given what others are going for. And it's not as if I have a formula for converting projections into dollar values, either, something made all the more difficult by H2H. As a result, I don't spend much time trying to attach a specific number to each player in advance.

I think I learn a lot about appropriate prices as the auction progresses, and I'd hate to have to do hundreds of preset values without being able to update on that data. And when you add the complication of needing to adjust for the way the bot behaves... *shudder*. I'd certainly rather find a reasonably knowledgeable baseball person and just inform them of my roster needs and general strategy, if it came to that.

Anyway... I do recall a bot blowing someone's budget (they had something like #roster spots + 10 dollars left) on 3 of the first 5 or 10 players nominated. I don't doubt that I "fed" the bot, too - it's sound strategy if you don't have a need at a particular position. This may have been in the RFL, though. I'd bring it up there, but first things first - gotta get FAAB back!
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5212
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 08 Jan 2012, 10:23 am

If anyone does have to use pre-set values (admittedly, only a slight improvement over doing nothing), I would think setting them for the top 30 or so players would be sufficient. I think that's where you would find the greatest variations between ESPN's implicit values and those created for ourselves. It would help to prevent the missing owner from blowing an entire budget on stars in the first round.

I agree wholeheartedly on FAAB - maybe there will be a change of heart in the RFL.