Wrong for the Right Reasons

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:57 pm

Well, that's why I said if it doesn't hurt you in another way. KJ's post was essentially saying you can't get too hung up on minute variances in value because there are bigger fish to fry, and I completely agree but at the same time, the whole purpose of a fantasy baseball draft is to find value. I mean that's what the game is. Whoever finds the most value wins. So if it doesn't do something else to affect your team negatively finding small value can add up. Theoretically I said 12 bucks. In practice, some small bargains might neet you 3 RBI's (for example) here, 4 there and if you end up with 30 more than you would have had, it is getting to the point where the players you chose are more likely to net you a positive amount of RBI's than taking the other guys who had very similar values and as many people here know, a difference of one RBI can win you a league.

The decimal place argument is a little different. Look, my values can have a guy worth + or - as much as 200 points. Not only don't the decimal places matter, the ones place hardly matters, but that doesn't mean I'm going to round everything to the nearest ten just to do it. Whatever the computer spits out I set it there because I like to look at it that way. I seem to do okay even though I'm looking at numbers that are horribly inaccurate because of how accurate they are.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:35 pm

Mathematically speaking, the result of a mathematical operation cannot be more accurate than the least accurate part of the equation. This is just the rule of significant figures.

A dollar value of $23.14 has four significant figures. My point was the elements of a projection system are not accurate to 4 decimal places, so TECHNICALLY, expressing the players value is mathematically wrong.

Sometimes it is not what you say, but the way you say it, and I choose my words poorly earlier.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:39 pm

Originally posted by ToddZ:

A dollar value of $23.14 I can see it now, Perry's going to go from messing everyone up with his stupid minor leaguers to bidding $23.15 on players to steal Bjoaks 3 rbi. :rolleyes:

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:59 am

After reading this thread, I think it's pretty clear that we need to adjust the Grand Prize to $100,000.03

Dak · Post by **Dak** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:26 am

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

I find this thread really kind interesting. Todd put his thoughts out there about being wrong for the right reasons. I think he will find a year where the right reasons will give him the results if he can tie enough of those right players together.

I see John is defending Shandler. I know he has to be a fan of him, but I also know he belongs to fantasybaseball.com. My best guess would be that he get usefull information from both areas.

I also belong to fantasybaseball.com. I signed up last year when Perry came on board. I have a lot of respect for him as a player. We have played against each other in the AL auction in Vegas. He has finished second twice in three year. I beat him out the first year by a hit or an out. I'm not sure which, but I know I was lucky to win. I consider him a threat each year. As for his other results, I'm sure when it is all said and done he will have his share of victories.

Both Todd and Perry have a lot of passion for baseball. I have enjoyed their work. I will continue to listen to their views. I think Todd has done a great job on his post here. I ditto Shawn's feelings to the umteenth place! How have the $100,000 winners come up with their projections? Also, Bjoak never did answer Todd's question concerning +/- variables. e.g. Randy Johnson $16.2478 (+ or - $4 due to risk adversion) or Brad Penny $16.1367 (+ or - $2)? Who does one draft and why? Johnson is worth more, right??? Answer: Depends on dynamics of draft, if I need wins, I may decide on Penny, if I need k's I may decide on Johnson and accept the risk. We all have our "little" comfort zone, including players.

That is what makes the NFBC boards the best. Alot of various opinions and none of us right, because "lady luck" comes into play at the draft and during the season.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:13 am

Also, Bjoak never did answer Todd's question concerning +/- variables. I answered it as well as I could given the information. I don't have a number I put on risk. I don't draft players with 'unhealthy' outlooks until they are irresisible. In terms of projection risk, imo, it is not that big of a deal if you know how to evaluate past performance properly. Let's call it volatility since risk sounds more negative. Granted some guys have more than others, but as I said, if you have mean projections, that volatility should even out over the sample of a whole team. Again, we are talking about *plus* or minus 5, not even or minus 5.

Basically, there are too many variables to evaluate the players without knowing their names or why they are supposed to have risk. If a player has a $20 value with a + or - 5 or a $19 value with a + or - 3, I'd take the $20 guy if I could get him in the same round, assuming we know everything we need to and said risk has nothing to do with health. In a snake draft, you probably can get the $20 guy at least a round later. Maybe he'll be worth $15 but the next guy will be worth $25, and I still get the same $40 of value you get playing it safe.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:21 am

For the record, the +/- does not have to represent risk. Different stats have different variance associated with their projectability. So two $25 players can have different error bars depending on the makeup of their production.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:40 am

Yeah, Rockwell will remember the year I didn't try very hard on batting average because it is more difficult to project.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:35 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

For the record, the +/- does not have to represent risk. Different stats have different variance associated with their projectability. So two $25 players can have different error bars depending on the makeup of their production. I actually do have two variables that can be considered +/- when looking at two very similarly valued players.

One is the Standard Deviation of the values I calculate for each publication I use. The second is + number if the player's AB's or IP's are below the average (ie they are not projected to play a full season for whatever reason). It basically takes into consideration the possibility of playing a full season. I usually only refer to it for healthy players (ie their playign time may be in question). I know the small sample size of the former (7) doesn't give it much significance, but it still provides me some level of risk relative to other players.

They both came in handy a couple of times in the middle rounds last year when I had to decide on Overbay or Shelton, whereby Shelton had a slightly higher value, and C.Young or Escobar, where they were pretty much even. I took Overbay and Young and I was happy with how that worked out. I am sure at the time some qualitative reasons also came to mind when making those choices.

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:29 am

"Capt Hook, Go ahead and join us in that league again and see if you can beat either one of us."

Perry Game on. I just shifted my signups for this. Should be fun.