Rating the NFBC drafts

Puffins · Post by **Puffins** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:01 am

Who had the best draft? What were the best (and worst) draft picks? What is the best draft position? I attempted to answer these questions using player values from the mixed auctions to rate the NFBC teams. You can see my analysis at: http://www.playingthepercentages.com/baseball/nfbc/

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:00 am

Originally posted by Puffins:

Who had the best draft? What were the best (and worst) draft picks? What is the best draft position? I attempted to answer these questions using player values from the mixed auctions to rate the NFBC teams. You can see my analysis at: http://www.playingthepercentages.com/baseball/nfbc/ What a fantastic series of data ... thank you for taking the time to do that!

I'm only on your bottom 1000 picks one time, so I guess I'm alright

You have me lurking in the money for main event and Ultimate, so I like your numbers. They must be right, lol.

Dave

Bobby J · Post by **Bobby J** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:53 am

The site is awesome, I hope your predictions are right on. You have me winning my league in Las Vegas 9 and finishing 14th overall. I will take that in a heartbeat with the way my pitching is right now. I too fell that Khalil Greene was a bad pick at this point, it is the only one of my picks you have in the bottom 1000

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:45 am

Wow! That is some awesome work! Will you update somehow at the end to show actual value vs this projected value?

In any event, according to your analysis, I was in the easiest league and still had the 296th worst draft! I only had two (Matsui and Lowe) in the top 1000 and a whopping 8 in the bottom!

I hope you are wrong or I may just have to hang up my reading glasses and excel spreadsheets to go crawl back under my rock (or take my $1250 and spend it on my wife...WHIMPER)!

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:07 am

According to this data, I had the best draft of 300 teams.

Nevertheless, the 4/21/05 standings have me in 142nd place.

Nice work on the number crunching. Hope it's a harbinger of good things to come.

hughes · Post by **hughes** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:08 am

Wow. Impressive analysis. My draft is listed at 8th and I'm presently 9th. I'll probably end up 142nd KoQ. Like the bottom 1000 picks link much. Great bc both top and bottom 1000 picks both searchable. Only Mark Prior from my team listed in bottom 1000 picks, apropos as I've named my team "Mark Prior's Elbow."

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:39 am

Well, keep in mind the data is hardly any prediction of finish... it's raw 'value' but we all know that when you can't trade that value has a way to skew itself easily. You may have no pitchers of any kind and have good 'value' on this chart. Doesn't mean you're going to win your league

Also can't possibly account for team-building, which is the true art to fantasy baseball. Projections are a dime-a-dozen (or $20-50 subscription...)

Still, I did enjoy all the various breakdowns.

Very cool.

Dave

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:59 pm

Someone's gotta do it so I'll play the role of the bad cop.

The primary flaw with the analysis is everyone is compared to the aggregate of how everyone thinks each player will do. One way to seperate yourself from your opponents is to identify and roster players you think will do better than the general populace.

For example, you rate Player A as a 4th rounder, but from research, studying mocks etc. you determine he is likely to be drafted in round 7 or 8 so you pick him in round 6. You get 2 rounds of profit, but this analysis says you made a bad pick because you picked the guy a round or two prematurely.

For those dejected by the results, realize this. The "best" draft has $299 of value. The winner of your league will have about $377 of value by the time all is said and done.

116 points wins

1200 total available points

15 x $260= $3900

116/1200 x $3900 = $377

This conversion is not exact, as it assumes there is a direct correlation between a unit of value and a roto-point which is not 100% true (for the reasons DYV mentions), but is close enough to state the eventual amount of value earned per winner will be significantly more than $299.

hughes · Post by **hughes** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:21 pm

Todd, you're right re much and your math is impressive, but there is something to be said for the underlying math that goes into this and the predictive value it will likely end up having. If you assume most of the people who ponied up over a grand to enter this knew at some level what they were doing ( i.e. , they were picking players higher who were more likely to succeed), it stands to reason that teams that stacked up more of these players would have a greater chance of doing better. If you were to bet money on it, you'd bet the overall winner would come out of the top 150 here, and that more of the individual league winners would come out of the top 150 slots. One way to look at is it that the teams wo "picked better" according to this probably have a greater margin for error. None of this is anything you (and others) don't know.

All that said, it's still at least 50 percent a crapshoot.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:53 pm

If you were to bet money on it, you'd bet the overall winner would come out of the top 150 here, and that more of the individual league winners would come out of the top 150 slots. No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't bet they come from the bottom 150 either as I think the winners have an equal shot at coming from both.

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:02 pm

This is as stupid as it gets. Rating drafts based on two weeks. :rolleyes:

hughes · Post by **hughes** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:03 pm

I retract what I said re everyone understanding the basis for the numbers and the conversation.

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:11 pm

I was wrong. Basing player values based on mixed auction leagues for a draft league is even worse.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:15 pm

For kicks, I just compared my dollar values versus those used in this study and there is a huge difference. Ok, they're my values which are worth as much as the paper I printed them out on, but that said, they are vastly different. The high end players went for MUCH more than my values while the mid to low end players went for less--which makes perfect sense. Auctions are a sum-zero economy, so if the stud players went for inflated prices, that means mid to lower tier players went for deflated prices (as comparison to my values suggest). As an aside, it looks like many people went "stars and scrubs" during the auction, a strategy not available in a draft.

Although I still think this sort of comparison does not account for the individual correcting valuing "sleepers" (I loathe that term, but it connotes the point). Perhaps a better study would be comparing each team to the Average Draft Position of the players based on the 20 main event draft. At least there, apples are being compared to apples. Honestly, the difference in dynamics between an auction and a draft make the auction values oranges.

[ April 21, 2005, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]

Puffins · Post by **Puffins** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:23 pm

ToddZ:

I appreciate the criticisms as I acknowledge that there are numerous flaws with using mixed league auction values as the player values. The system is dependent on the quality of owners in the auction leagues. If there were too many poor owners in the auctions, the values will be off. But I do have rebuttals to some of your points.

“For example, you rate Player A as a 4th rounder, but from research, studying mocks etc. you determine he is likely to be drafted in round 7 or 8 so you pick him in round 6. You get 2 rounds of profit, but this analysis says you made a bad pick because you picked the guy a round or two prematurely.”

This would be the case if you were using average draft position as your values. And I thank you for demonstrating exactly why you can’t use average draft positions. In drafts, people try to slip their sleepers by later than they should go. If Player A is truly worth a 4th rounder and there are quality owners in the auction, they will bid him up to the value of a 4th rounder. If you draft him in the NFBC in the 6th round, you will then be assigned 2 rounds worth of profit like you should be.

“No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't bet they come from the bottom 150 either as I think the winners have an equal shot at coming from both.”

There may be flaws with the analysis, but it’s naive to think there will be 0 correlation. There are owners in the bottom half of the rankings who would be higher if we were using the “true” rankings, which are unknown. For example, if somebody had inside info that Eric Gagne was done for the year and drafted Brazoban in the 25th round, the true quality of their draft would be higher than I listed for them. Since we don’t know the “true” values, I used the auction values. I could’ve used my personal values, but do you have any more reason to trust my values? I trust my values, but I would expect the public to be more accepting of using collaborated rankings from 60 NFBC competitors.

“For kicks, I just compared my dollar values versus those used in this study and there is a huge difference.”

I compared them to my dollar values and there was not a huge difference. Certain players I had rated very differently, but overall it was fairly close. If your dollar values happen to be the correct ones, then my study has no validity.

“Honestly, the difference in dynamics between an auction and a draft make the auction values oranges.”

I really don’t think there is that great a difference. The goal in both is to maximize your statistics. Auctions (with strong owners) demonstrate the value of players better than drafts. Unfortunately, only having 4 auctions worth of data is a small sample size and the results would be a lot more reliable if there had been more auctions.

I will compare the results at the end of the year to these rankings, and it’s quite possible the winner will come from the bottom half. I believe that injuries and FAAB acquisitions play a bigger role than the draft.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:15 pm

Aren't auction values based solely on the order of the names called?

Pujols is called first name in auction a...and goes for 40 bucks...he's called 240th in auction b...and due to the amount of money left to spend...goes for 17 bucks.

~Lance

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:23 pm

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Aren't auction values based solely on the order of the names called?

Pujols is called first name in auction a...and goes for 40 bucks...he's called 240th in auction b...and due to the amount of money left to spend...goes for 17 bucks.

~Lance Lance... to simplify: No.

99% of the superstars come off the board right away. Everyone wants to spend their money or help others spend their money quickly. In many auction drafts 50% of the available cash will be used up in the first 30-40 players.

That doesn't mean it's a 'true and good' measurement either... there are occasional flukes (i.e. I need one player and I have $13 left. I bid $13 on Bobby Higginson, going, going ... sold).

Puffins' analysis is for amusement only - it can't account for the 'truth' and it can't account for how players perform, injuries, FAAB, how teams were built, etc., etc., etc.

Still - as an amusement only - it's interesting to scroll through the stats.

Dave

Puffins · Post by **Puffins** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:41 pm

Lance,

There are some players at the very end of the auction who go for unusual values. But because I used the median values from the 4 auctions, the outlier values are ignored. Jacque Jones went for just $2 in one auction but that outlier did not affect the dollar value I used for him--7.5.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:53 pm

This would be the case if you were using average draft position as your values. And I thank you for demonstrating exactly why you can’t use average draft positions. In drafts, people try to slip their sleepers by later than they should go. If Player A is truly worth a 4th rounder and there are quality owners in the auction, they will bid him up to the value of a 4th rounder. If you draft him in the NFBC in the 6th round, you will then be assigned 2 rounds worth of profit like you should be.

No--my contention is you feel he is a better player than everyone else so his auction value is low and his ADP is low. He will not be bid up to 4th round value because you are theonly one who feels he is worth 4th round value.

There are several examples of players I felt this way about, off the top of my head Sean Casey and Shawn Green. I lost Casey to someone who read some analysis I did pimping him but did end up with Green.

“Honestly, the difference in dynamics between an auction and a draft make the auction values oranges.”

I really don’t think there is that great a difference. The goal in both is to maximize your statistics. Auctions (with strong owners) demonstrate the value of players better than drafts. Unfortunately, only having 4 auctions worth of data is a small sample size and the results would be a lot more reliable if there had been more auctions. This is where we will have to agree to disagree, because the high end players went for WAY more than valued. Again, this is predictable as stars and scrubs prevails in auctions.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:46 am

I think the study is great work, a very good conversation piece, and is only half done. To have any rating (or predictive) value, dollar value based on 2005 performance would have to be done at the end of the year. Once the two lists are compared, methodolgy would be validated within a relevant range allowing for alteration to narrow the range.

Alot of work has already gone into the analysis (thanks!). I hope the second half will occur. I would love to see and discuss it. After all, I need something to talk about from October to February besides the junior league (fantasy football)!

viper · Post by **viper** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:00 am

I think I need to make an opinion here. I hate rating drafts by dollar values, especially those taken from actual auction drafts. I am under the opinion that category scarcity (saves & steals) are overpaid for and the scarce position (C & 2B) are also bought at a premium. Even a site's projected dollar values typically are subject to the preferences of the sites personnel and are influenced by both types of scarcity.

I think a better analysis would be to use the actual 2005 NFBC draft average draft position and compare that to where each player was drafted. I would use 451 for any player not drafted in a league to determine the average draft position for players not drafted in all of the 20 leagues. The average draft position from 20 league can be wrong in individual leagues but it probably tends towards a player's true value in the aggrigate.

I do like the layout of the site and it was very easy to navigate. It was a site well done.

[ April 22, 2005, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: viper ]

Puffins · Post by **Puffins** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:26 am

Viper,

I agree that category and position scarcity are overpaid for, but it’s the same way in the drafts. Additionally, there are a couple problems with using average draft position. First, the difference in value in consecutive picks decreases as the pick number increases. For example, the difference between picks 19 and 20 is greater than the difference between picks 200 and 201. One of the most valuable picks of the draft was Vladimir Guerrero at pick #6, but using average draft position would only assign that pick 2.7 spots of value while taking Jeromy Burnitz in round 18 would be worth 35 spots of value. Second, as I mentioned earlier I believe auctions are more representative of people’s player preferences because they bid all the way up to how much they think the player is worth while in drafts they try to draft their sleepers later than their true value.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:31 am

I have a buddy who when he refers to masterball.com he does not ever say Todd Zola he says you know that site with the know it all Todd Zola.

After reading this thread, why in the heck would he ever feel that way.

As a finance guy what I want in any statistical analysis is consistent logic and full and up front disclosure of that logic. Puffins does both.

Puffins · Post by **Puffins** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:39 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

No--my contention is you feel he is a better player than everyone else so his auction value is low and his ADP is low. He will not be bid up to 4th round value because you are theonly one who feels he is worth 4th round value.

There are several examples of players I felt this way about, off the top of my head Sean Casey and Shawn Green. I lost Casey to someone who read some analysis I did pimping him but did end up with Green.If you are truly the only one who rates the player that high and you are correct that he should be rated that high, the score I assigned you will be lower than the true value. Everybody would have a higher score if we used their personal ratings as the dollar values.

The numbers I presented demonstrate if you were able to get value relative to the ratings of the other drafters. Value obtained from possessing superior knowledge to everyone is not included.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:32 am

I have a buddy who when he refers to masterball.com he does not ever say Todd Zola he says you know that site with the know it all Todd Zola.

After reading this thread, why in the heck would he ever feel that way.

I'm not sure if this is a dig or a compliment...

As a finance guy what I want in any statistical analysis is consistent logic and full and up front disclosure of that logic. Puffins does both. But what if that logic is flawed? You can put the prettiest wrapping on a box, attach a real nice bow, but if the box is empty, it's empty.

The numbers I presented demonstrate if you were able to get value relative to the ratings of the other drafters. Value obtained from possessing superior knowledge to everyone is not included.

Great--therefore you can't assume the winners will emanate from the top-150 as it is the value obtained from superior knowledge that separates the winners from the losers. Your superior knowledge will be reflected by having worse results by this means of evaluation, hence my contention that I would not bet the eventual winners come from the top-150.