Thread: Stage Four

It doesn’t exist. But we keep hoping.

Welcome! You are invited to wander around and read all of the comments that have been posted here at Patton & Co., but as soon as you register you can see the bid limits that Alex, Peter and Mike propose for each player, and you can post your own comments. Registering is free, so please join us!
Peter ... you won Tom Tango's Forecasters Challenge!!!  Got a link?  That's almost better than winning TOUT :-)
Howard Lynch LynchMob
Mar 18 '15
I love reading this kind of stuff, thanks for posting, Peter. Soon Luci will do postings here....possibly????
carter carter GypsySoul
Mar 18 '15

Mike Podhorzer of Fangraphs and Rudy Gamble of Razzball are two of the younger cohort of fantasy analysts who love the wonky longball of player projection and pricing. The year my projections won the main event in Tom Tango's Forecasters Challenge, Podhorzer's won one of the side events.

This year they tested a variety of roto pricing systems by applying, um, well, I'm not exactly sure. But what they were going for was to see which pricing system most correlated with actual standings.

The link is to the first of three parts, which describes what they did and why. 

http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/the-great-valuation-system-test-the-process/

If you don't want to read it, I can tell you that all the systems got very close, but the systems that incorporated position scarcity did the worst.

Peter Kreutzer Rotoman
Mar 18 '15

Of course Mike's limits are subjective. And so are the market's. But the averages are math and what the math shows is that there's a steady decline in how good we think these players are in each succeeding round through the first six rounds. In Round 7 both Mike and the market think there's a small uptick in the players who were nominated, on average. In Round 8 the steady decline resumes.

Everyone agrees about two things.

1) The best players are the best players

2) The best players are the easiest to identify

Without even knowing who they are, I'm almost certain I would have bought two players in the first round of AL LABR. And then, sadly, I would have had to stop.

I probably would have had to stay out of Round 2 and that would have saddened me further.

In the next four rounds, which I also would have stayed out of -- I definitely would have stayed out of --  my spirits would have lifted. A long way to go. Bargains bound to start coming. And I had two of the best players.

Alex Patton Alex
Mar 18 '15

At last weekend's First Pitch in SF, Todd Zola made an interesting observation: that for the good players, there's pretty much a value consensus. Which is the point that you all and Mike Gianella are making in slightly different words. The corollary is, there seems to be more variance near and through the endgame. Which makes sense; endgame guys' risk of injury or trade, playing time, etc. are more individual that those factors applied to guys with full-time gigs. The practical advice Todd gave was, especially for outfielders, that you should save a spot or two for endgame OFs, because there's a good chance you can get someone you like at least a little, because other owners will have their eyes on a different set of guys.


mike fenger mike
Mar 17 '15
The limit to how many expensive players you can buy is the weakness of the deep salary cap auction game. Everybody is spending the same amount of budget on players everyone agrees to be equally valuable, once risk is factored in. Once all the buys go according to slot, the effect is increasingly more like a draft than an auction. Only the order the players come out is different.
Peter Kreutzer Rotoman
Mar 17 '15

OTOH, we're not dealing with actual values here - we're dealing with Mike's bid limits.  Which immediately makes the exercise subjective.

This analysis may simply reflect that the variance between Mike's bid limits and everyone else's at the table are lowest in the first round ... and as the player pool expands into the next few rounds, the variance between everyone's bid limits for players keeps expanding.  Everyone agrees it's worth it to spend a lot of money to get Mike Stanton ... how much money Starlin Castro or Gregory Polanco or Carlos Gonzalez are worth becomes open to a lot more debate.  And still it only takes 2 or 3 on the "more money" side of the debate to drive those prices perhaps well above Mike's bid limit if he's more conservative on one player or another.

The problem, of course, is that there's a limit of how many of those first rounders you can invest in and still be able to play after round 8, when the effects of that $122 in deflation starts to set in, particularly while positional scarcity still ends up driving some players right up to (or even above) their projected bid limit.

Phil Ponebshek Texpope
Mar 17 '15

In MikeG's estimation at Baseball Prospectus, the LABRites spent $340 in the first round of the AL auction last weekend on players whose bid limits (Mike's bid limits) add up to a collective $335.

So, once again, the smart play was to stay out of the first round. Right?

Uh. Maybe not. (Scroll down, please; I can't seem to fix this.)


























































Round



Cost



MG Bid



+/-



1



340



335



-5



2



287



279



-8



3



273



258



-15



4



243



218



-25



5



237



205



-32



6



182



155



-27



7



195



186



-9



8



148



147



-1



Totals



1905



1783



-122

The smart play, without even looking at Mike's bids -- because his bids are bids; they aren't round-dependent -- was to stay out of Round 3.

Stay out of Round 4.

Stay out of Round 5.

Stay out of Round 6.

In fact, which of the first eight rounds should you be in?

Round one, I say. Easily. The best players -- because, hey, they're the best players -- were the best bargains.

Alex Patton Alex
Mar 17 '15
Threads have their own place now in menu of Comments.
Alex Patton Alex
Mar 13 '15
I have a hard enough time figuring out how to search for Tommy La Stella
Phil Ponebshek Texpope
Mar 12 '15