Comments on: Adjusting the Hitter/Pitcher Split (Part III) http://www.lastplayerpicked.com/adjusting-the-hitterpitcher-split-part-iii/ Fantasy Baseball Dollar Values, Rankings, and Discussion Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:33:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mays http://www.lastplayerpicked.com/adjusting-the-hitterpitcher-split-part-iii/#comment-6181 Mays Sat, 23 Jan 2010 01:56:31 +0000 http://www.lastplayerpicked.com/?p=927#comment-6181 @tyler: That Sabathia/Haren example is the exact kind of thing I had in mind; well explained. @tyler: That Sabathia/Haren example is the exact kind of thing I had in mind; well explained.

]]> By: tyler http://www.lastplayerpicked.com/adjusting-the-hitterpitcher-split-part-iii/#comment-6178 tyler Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:56:24 +0000 http://www.lastplayerpicked.com/?p=927#comment-6178 It doesn't seem quite right to say "[a] player is only worth what the league is willing to pay for him." It seems more accurate to say that "a player's price is only what the league is willing to pay for him." Players will return an objective value relative to other players over the year; the Price Guide is designed to project (as best as possible) the differences in those values. It's sort of like a stock market where the only "value" a stock produces is in dividends.* *This excludes the trade value of players - e.g., the rest of my league prices relievers much lower than their objective value; accordingly, I can't flip them for as much value as, say, a 1B of comparable value later in the season. All that said (and it may just be semantics), what you described is almost exactly how I approach my drafts. I think it's helpful to run two sets of rankings: one that has "objective" values and one that's tells me how much the league I'm in will spend. We can then examine the divergences between the two, and go $1-2 above the "subjective" rankings for pitchers (or any players) that the objective/subjective comparison says will be undervalued by market price. If you stick to that, you'll amass the most value at the lowest price. To use your example, you'll lose out on some "good" deals (e.g., a Sabathia that the objective PG values at $40, that the subjective PG prices at $30 and that actually goes for $37), but you'll be able to get better deals (e.g., a Haren that the objective PG values at $40, that the subjective PG prices at $30, and that you buy for $31). Despite giving up a "good" deal, you'll have bought a player of equivalent value, and have an extra $7 to spend elsewhere. It doesn’t seem quite right to say “[a] player is only worth what the league is willing to pay for him.” It seems more accurate to say that “a player’s price is only what the league is willing to pay for him.” Players will return an objective value relative to other players over the year; the Price Guide is designed to project (as best as possible) the differences in those values. It’s sort of like a stock market where the only “value” a stock produces is in dividends.*

*This excludes the trade value of players – e.g., the rest of my league prices relievers much lower than their objective value; accordingly, I can’t flip them for as much value as, say, a 1B of comparable value later in the season.

All that said (and it may just be semantics), what you described is almost exactly how I approach my drafts. I think it’s helpful to run two sets of rankings: one that has “objective” values and one that’s tells me how much the league I’m in will spend. We can then examine the divergences between the two, and go $1-2 above the “subjective” rankings for pitchers (or any players) that the objective/subjective comparison says will be undervalued by market price.

If you stick to that, you’ll amass the most value at the lowest price. To use your example, you’ll lose out on some “good” deals (e.g., a Sabathia that the objective PG values at $40, that the subjective PG prices at $30 and that actually goes for $37), but you’ll be able to get better deals (e.g., a Haren that the objective PG values at $40, that the subjective PG prices at $30, and that you buy for $31). Despite giving up a “good” deal, you’ll have bought a player of equivalent value, and have an extra $7 to spend elsewhere.

]]>