It doesnâ€™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!

After four contests, it's now official: the way to go is the Rotoman Regimen. Punt wins and Ks. Here are the results last night.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-SM1p4zw9A1p7fSiztFNP21it9so81pvEjPQLX4WTSo/edit#gid=0

The year was again 1999 with mostly new participants.

Here's what happened a week ago.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qKKORTfmXmmx6AEwTUJ6Kn9yZ1G6xBWATq65oSx8_E0/edit?ts=5eb8a24c#gid=0

Even if you have no interest in these retro drafts, you shoulld explore Todd Zola's ingenious Google doc. I can see where it would be very powerful in a real draft -- or auction -- using projections.

May 21

There have been positional problems. The simple answer, he did not.

May 21

Chuck Knoblauch played OF in 1999?

May 20

Doug led in ERA and was second in WHIP. I was second in ERA and third in WHIP. Dean was third in ERA and first in WHIP. Fred was first in strikeouts and fifth in ERA and WHIP. And the three of us are way ahead of the other nine teams, with Fred finishing just ahead of them.

I think this shows not a problem with my pricing, but a problem with pricing in general. The dollar values work, but they then have to be applied to the right stats when you're constructing your team. In other words, it's not the meat it's the motion.

But one issue to be aware of is that pitcher value very much depends on which 108 pitchers you value. The math will tell you one group, but as we can see, for a team in a particular position, a player like David Cone or Pedro Astacio will have real value and supplant one of the 70 inning relievers with a low ERA and Ratio that usually reside in the $1-$5 range.

So, if you go and reprice the actual pool, so that the worst pitcher is worth $1 and the 108 add up to $1092, the value of Pedro Martinez drops from $55 to $25.

In the prospective leagues we usually price for, this phenomenon drives up the value of the best pitchers, but when we know what the stats are we're going to add up to it seems to do the opposite. Here's how the Retro earnings looks with the pitching pool repriced.

This doesn't really make sense to me logically but eyeballing the Dollar totals in this chart makes more sense to me than the earlier one.

UPDATE: About 20 minutes after the original post I realized that the hitters need to be adjusted too, for the same reason. Here we see the much tighter results we'd expect from a tight race. I will post updated net numbers if get a chance, and I'm definitely going to repeat this analysis on tonight's results.

May 20

Peter ... going back to this "Doug, who bought the third most, finished ninth."

Did Doug lead in any categories? (i.e. did he blow money in those categories that didn't help him gain points?).

If not then it might call into question your assumptions on pricing.

May 20

That's interesting. The tiers in ERA are a few teams battling around 3.00 and many more teams at 3.75 to more than 4.00. Fred taking Astacio has a ton of impact in K and Wins and maybe cost him one ERA point. I made a similar calculation when I took David Cone earlier, but I needed Astacio, too.

I swapped my Steve Karsay for Fred's Pedro Astacio and gained a half point. Not a big difference. But managing how ERA and RATIO points are swapped for quantatives is clearly a big part of the game.

May 20

My first observation is ... the team that drafted the most hitting$ won ... so perhaps everyone else undervalued hitters, to some extent?

Peter has Pedro Astacio as worth -$20 ... Alex's spreadsheet says +$15 ... that seems a difference to explore ... given that he was on the team that won (Fred) ... Fred got value from Astacio's 17 Wins and 210 Ks despite his 5.04 ERA and 1.44 WHIP.

May 19

Okay, one more. I added a NET column. This show the total profits and losses based on their spot in the auction. I'm not sure if this adds anything, but it does help show one pertinent fact. Players bought 35 negative valued players for -$226, which definitely changes the equation.

If you want to look at this data you can download the excel file here.

May 19

Here is the same chart, sorted by standings order, with the points for pitching and hitting included.

May 19

So, I mapped my player prices to the players each team drafted in the 1999 retro draft. The winner, Fred, bought the second most value, and I bought the fourth most (I finished third), but Dean, who bought the most finished sixth, and Doug, who bought the third most, finished ninth. And Jeff, who finished second, bought more talent than only three teams.

Not sure what that means.

May 19