Rating the NFBC drafts

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:36 am

Originally posted by Malloy's Truth Seekers:

That data is weak and off base

The baseline data is invalid. It's not based on anything worthy of a unit of measurement, thus invalidating the entire presentation, relegating it to what it in fact is, a bunch of meaningless numbers

I'm in Chicago 2 and I drafted in Vegas last year ( in a league sprinkled with top teams ). This years Chicago 2 draft was much tougher than last years Vegas....without a question

Am I right Kings ? We drafted in both

Pedro Martinez is one of the worst picks at the end of the 1st round ? I knew he'd be back this year, and pitch well in pitcher friendly home park....and he'd have a 4-0 record if the Mets had a bullpen, but it was a bad pick because your data says so ?

Mark Loretta was a bad 6th rounder ? Because I knew he was going to add 30 steals to his already solid game and your data didn't, makes it a bad pick ? Come on man

And you give big marks to people who took Barry Bonds in round 6 ? What a joke, he can't take roids anymore, he's 55 years old, he's hurt and walks don't mean **** . He was a lousy pick in the top 10. What's he done ? When he's back ? And it was already there ( roids, health ) to be seen before the draft.

Love to play against the data guru who put these bad, invalid statistics together, love to have one patsy in the league I didn't see any stats projections at all. Did you read this thread?

(I think it's funny that you talk about how Pedro would be 4-0 if the Mets had a bullpen. How come you didn't know they didn't ? Enjoy the $100k when you win the overall - you deserve it

Dyv

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:57 am

Excellent poing DYV, Pedro is doing in April what a lot of people expected. Great numbers, bullpen costing him some wins. It is is Mid May through the fall that makes Pedro an absolutely horrible 1st round pick, 1) Having to pitch with only 4 days rest so much more 2) The pressure of New York beginning to boil over 3) The annual trip or 2 to the DL 4) How he responds when they are out of the race 5) Any injury to an offense that already has trouble scoring runs.

I hope you are joking about being able to predict 30 steals for Loretta, be happy for what you have gotten out him steal wise now and he looks like a solid pick but come on 30.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:57 am

sorry should have checked my spelling a little closer it is still early in the morning for me.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:00 am

Originally posted by UFS:

Worst pick #33

33 William Hoffman Brian Roberts 6 6 NY Lg 7 18.2 10.0 -8.2

Just something I saw that cracked me up. It is a horrible pick,I will give the guy the assumption that he saw something in B Roberts that no one else did 99% chance he would have been there at 63. But it has been 3 weeks, it will take a really solid rest of the way for Brian Roberts to merit a 33rd pick.

Joe Sambito · Post by **Joe Sambito** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:37 am

I was surprised to see Loretta in the bad pick list. I did not project 30 sb's out of him, but I would certainly take it. I grabbed him in the 7th round and I actually thought I might see him on the top pick list. I had him rated as the third best second baseman behind, Soriano and Giles. Keep running Mark, you da' man.

Jackstraw · Post by **Jackstraw** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:03 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

I suspect the correlation will improve a bit as the year moves on, but no where near that of an aggregate list of projections (which itself won't be as good as some may think).

I can compile the industry average list and assign values customized to the NFBC league values if we want to revisit this at season's end.

At the end of each month, I will be calculating year to date values as well, so month to month correlation on value earned thus far can be run.

Give me a holler and I can supply those numbers. I think it can only improve from what I have seen so far

Revisiting this at the season's end is the only way to truly judge whether he was correct or not. And we can even put a number on it, give him a score so to speak. Personally, I would like to see your numbers to see how he fares. My e-mail is listed in the owner's list in the $1250 AL Auction League for Las Vegas.

Jackstraw · Post by **Jackstraw** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:10 am

Originally posted by nydownunder:

I think the best coorelation analysis, which would be a lot of work, is use the average projections of several publications, stack the stats, and comapre points to last year's standings (adjusted for 300 maangers this year).....and then adjust for player injuries (ie out of a manager's control and assumes the player would obtain their projection). You would adjust by using a % of stats and include a replacement (this number could be standard condiering what little is out there). I would bet the correlation could get up in the .80 range.I think that if we followed the idea of using an aggregate list of industry standards made up by the "professionals" then we would get the same results that we would see from your analysis. I would suppose that they are doing the same thing (or close to it) in developing their projections. I would like to see an average of the industry standards and see how they compare.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:04 am

Jackstraw,

In my pre-draft player rankings, I not only used an average of 4-6 publications, but I also quantified the projections into player values (ie Johan Santana 19.9). Basically, this means that based on his projections he would give you 17.9 points towards your goal of 75 Pitching points. And because all the publications have different projections, I can also determine his range, which is +(-) another 1.7 points. I know the obvious question is what gives you the 17.9 and 1.7 points, but that's not for me to divulge...and yes, its pretty darn accurate (ie it places me in the standings almost exactly where it states I should be at this stage based on actual stats). Anyway, back to my point. Also keep in mind, that these projections were not changed due to emotional feelings or attachments to players - Moneyball 101. Now why would a player projections vary from one publication to another? Well some of the biggest factors are injury risk, age, track record, expected playing time, etc. etc. So its already built in, well relatively! Now it doesn't mean Larry Walker can't play 140 games this year and exceed his projections. But there is a risk. He may get you 2.5 batting points, but he may also get 1.5 more points or less. Less would make him border line FAAB feed. Why use this exmaple? Because if done correctly, you can draft a team which has a lower volitility in projections. Not in terms of individual players, but the team overall. (For all those about to be critical - I said the TEAM stats overall.) And why would this be important? The less +(-) component of the players analysis, the more reliable your projections will be - less dispersion of actual stats. One reason is because there is a more likley chance that one players stats (overperformaing) will compensate another players stats (underperforming). Obviously the players with more variability can score more points than what most people have predicted, but can you imagine drafting half of your players with such risks? It's just not as likely that one player can compensate for another under such a scenario. Sure you could kick everyone's a*se if they all turn out to be correct...but really, what are the chances of someone being right on every breakout player. And just as a true breakout could do wonders to your team, so could someone whom you also projected to break out, actually flops...in a major way (ie Woods). Also keep in mind all this analysis ignores, beyond the orginal projections, an actually injury taking place - thus impacting your team projections. But if one does occur, you just plug in the next player and the appropriate number of games (AB's or IP's) and see where that's going to lead you (ie project you). Managing such a team is also a lot easier to tweak throughout the season - especially Pithcing.

So what's this all mean? You can either take gambles on players you project to do better than the concensus view, but that are less likley to actually exceed (or just as likley to underperfrom by that margin), or you can take the middle ground of less risk, with a more likely chance of attaining your overall team projections. Can the former path win over the latter? Absolutely! But the chances are a lot less!

And with this, I can confidently say the correlation of such a team's projections relative to its actual results are much higher as compared with the other strategy of trying to pick multiple breakouts.

Head 2 Head · Post by **Head 2 Head** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:48 am

Need to fire the manager.

The analysis is in: I drafted a top 50 team in talent - and have managed it into 299th place.

Management is key, ask all the guys that just FAABed a MI to fill Nomars spot.

It is nice to see any analysis that is NFBC.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:50 am

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by UFS:

Worst pick #33

33 William Hoffman Brian Roberts 6 6 NY Lg 7 18.2 10.0 -8.2

Just something I saw that cracked me up. It is a horrible pick,I will give the guy the assumption that he saw something in B Roberts that no one else did 99% chance he would have been there at 63. But it has been 3 weeks, it will take a really solid rest of the way for Brian Roberts to merit a 33rd pick. [/QUOTE]uhhh.. He was not the #33 pick in the draft. This guy has it ranked as the #33 worst pick.

Round 6, pick 6, is #86.

29sbs, 107 runs, and 50 doubles last year.

Buster · Post by **Buster** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:17 am

Am I missing something here? Is there any reason that anyone even cares about a "rating the draft" piece, now that we are three weeks into the season?

The only real rating will be done after the season, and then only those who cashed will be the ones that really care.

Does it matter in mid to late April how your draft looked on paper, to one individual, using one set of criteria? I am willing to bet that those who drafted Nomar ahead of Michael Young would rather have a lower 'Puffins' rating and a healthy Michael Young, then the alternative.

Come October, you can all rate everyone's draft based upon performance, the only thing that really matters here in this competition.

Do you go to the movies for the previews or the feature? Other than gamblers, does anyone care who wins in the NFL's exibition season? Does it really matter which college football team is ranked in the top ten prior to the Kickoff Classic? (OK, that one actually may matter with the poor method that college football's "championship" is decided.)

My point is that the site was very extensive, very elaborate, and very enjoyable, but that is it. It isn't a whole lot more, and it isn't worth getting worked up about.

Of course, the site has Brian Walton of CREATiVESPORTS.com ranked ahead of me, so you must know what I think of the rankings. Unfortunately, I'm too math illiterate to explain why the rankings are wrong, but they must be.

Enjoy the season.

Buster

CREATiVESPORTS.COM

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:52 am

Buster,

The answer lies somewhere within the following famous quotes (some appropriately altered):

"We are all near last place, but some of us are looking forward to tomorrow."

"When you come to the edge of all that you know in fantasy baseball, you must believe one of two things: There will always be next year, or your wife will permanently ban you from ever playing again."

"Worry does not empty fluid from Barry's knee; it empties your season of any hope of winning."

"A free agent pickup ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of an Albert Pujols."

"Hope, like faith, is nothing if it is not courageous enough to believe your team is actually better than it really is."

"What oxygen is to the lungs, such is hope to the meaning of life: winning the NFBC."

"Optimism is the faith of getting out of last place. Unfortunately, nothing can be done to change that."

"In the long run, men hit only what they aim at. Therefore, they had better aim at something as high as winning one category of the NFBC."

"A good manager can see more from the bottom of a free agent pool than a poor manager can from sitting in first place after 3 weeks."

"To those who can dream there is no such place as finishing behind Gekko."

"Never let yesterday's box scores overshadow the possibility of a worse performance today."

[ April 25, 2005, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

SoxFan · Post by **SoxFan** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:33 am

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell It is is Mid May through the fall that makes Pedro an absolutely horrible 1st round pick, 1) Having to pitch with only 4 days rest so much more 2) The pressure of New York beginning to boil over 3) The annual trip or 2 to the DL 4) How he responds when they are out of the race 5) Any injury to an offense that already has trouble scoring runs.

It is a horrible pick,I will give the guy the assumption that he saw something in B Roberts that no one else did 99% chance he would have been there at 63. But it has been 3 weeks, it will take a really solid rest of the way for Brian Roberts to merit a 33rd pick. Glad to see that your clairvoyance enables you to see the future re: Pedro, and know that 99% of the NFBC population were going to pass on Brian Roberts until pick 63 or so.

Amazing...cause I thought that Pedro's strong start was some kind of validation that he was on his way to a strong year, but I didn't know that the pressure in NY would affect him so much (after all, what's pitching in Boston compared to NY?), and that his annual trip or 2 to the DL would cost him so much time (even though he's thrown at least 186 IP and started at least 29 games for each of the last 11 years except for 2001). I also didn't realize that he had no pride and would give up "when" the Mets are out of the race, and that the offense would continue to struggle scoring runs after some more injuries.

I wish I had a couple of these "horrible" picks on my team....

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:04 am

Read the Roberts thing wrong, my bad that explains that.

So at best Pedro performs like a first round pick, if all things go well. While the 1st round is harder to find a strategic advantage then later rounds, I will say all day long that it is a bad pick.

mulberry · Post by **mulberry** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:25 am

head to head : funny post!

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:26 pm

NY,

Your systyem of point valuation sounds almost identical to mine (of course my player evaluation tools are much different). I was surprised; see, you should wish me better luck!

Jackstraw · Post by **Jackstraw** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:35 pm

Originally posted by nydownunder:

Buster,

The answer lies somewhere within the following famous quotes (some appropriately altered):

"We are all near last place, but some of us are looking forward to tomorrow."

"When you come to the edge of all that you know in fantasy baseball, you must believe one of two things: There will always be next year, or your wife will permanently ban you from ever playing again."

"Worry does not empty fluid from Barry's knee; it empties your season of any hope of winning."

"A free agent pickup ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of an Albert Pujols."

"Hope, like faith, is nothing if it is not courageous enough to believe your team is actually better than it really is."

"What oxygen is to the lungs, such is hope to the meaning of life: winning the NFBC."

"Optimism is the faith of getting out of last place. Unfortunately, nothing can be done to change that."

"In the long run, men hit only what they aim at. Therefore, they had better aim at something as high as winning one category of the NFBC."

"A good manager can see more from the bottom of a free agent pool than a poor manager can from sitting in first place after 3 weeks."

"To those who can dream there is no such place as finishing behind Gekko."

"Never let yesterday's box scores overshadow the possibility of a worse performance today." God bless you, man!

Jackstraw · Post by **Jackstraw** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:46 pm

Originally posted by bjoak:

NY,

Your systyem of point valuation sounds almost identical to mine (of course my player evaluation tools are much different). I was surprised; see, you should wish me better luck! I didn't go with the same player evaluation tools either. As a matter of fact, I didn't do a point evaluation system at all. But I like the idea. It may be something I try to implement next year. I stuck with the typical historical data analysis with a twist of correlation regression to the overall standings from last year. I looked for the most important categories (i.e., higher correlation coefficients) and then created weighted values for each of the categories. I used all of these numbers to develop a score for each player. I felt like I was pretty much on track with my ranking system because it seemed everyone was drafting right along my list. Who knows though, we may have all been idiots... Probably so, since I think LV 4 is still at the bottom of the list of league rankings

Puffins · Post by **Puffins** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:01 pm

Originally posted by Jackstraw:

I felt like I was pretty much on track with my ranking system because it seemed everyone was drafting right along my list. Who knows though, we may have all been idiots... Probably so, since I think LV 4 is still at the bottom of the list of league rankings The list of league rankings is sorted from easiest to hardest. So being at the bottom of the list, LV 4 was the toughest and "best" drafted league.

Puffins · Post by **Puffins** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:37 pm

Originally posted by mulberry:

Funny I just looked at the same thing. How can the top 2 overall finishers last year rank 248th and 208th coming out of the draft and all the league winners be that far down as well. Plus the straight draft guru for hq is 245th? One would think these guys come prepared to the draft and knew what they were doing enough to make this data flawed. Interesting read though, Puffins. I just reviewed Ray Murphy's draft (baseballhq) to see where he lost points. His picks of S.Green in round 3, A.Jones in 5, K.Matsui in 6 and Jenkins in 9 were all the earliest that those players went in any draft. He may have gotten the players he valued but he valued those players more than everyone else did. In addition, his picks of Rollins in 2, Foulke in 4, Iguchi in 10 and Lieberthal in 11 were all among the earliest those players went in any NFBC draft. The rankings I posted value your team based on how the population values the players so if you take players ahead of everyone else, you will receive a low score.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:44 am

Malloy's Truth Seekers...yes, I whole-heartedly agree. Chicago #2 as a whole was much better prepared with many more very sound drafts than LV #4 last year...and that is saying something since last year we had CC's Desparados in our league who pretty much cleaned our clocks.

I believe I understand and appreciate the analysis that was prepared and I still like it (even though it totally jammed me). But I will say again that the analysis should be prepared with actual 2005 stats on those players drafted at the end of the season. Then comparing the relative "pre" and "post" season rankings of the draft will give merit to the "pre" season analysis within a relevant range.

Royal Pain · Post by **Royal Pain** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:01 am

There is already one year in the books, although with fewer teams to draw figures from. Can the analysis be performed using NFBC 2004 pre and post numbers?

Jackstraw · Post by **Jackstraw** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:42 am

Originally posted by Puffins:

quote:Originally posted by Jackstraw:

I felt like I was pretty much on track with my ranking system because it seemed everyone was drafting right along my list. Who knows though, we may have all been idiots... Probably so, since I think LV 4 is still at the bottom of the list of league rankings The list of league rankings is sorted from easiest to hardest. So being at the bottom of the list, LV 4 was the toughest and "best" drafted league. [/QUOTE]With one post, we all turned from idiots into geniuses

Thanks, Puffins!

Jackstraw · Post by **Jackstraw** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:56 am

Originally posted by Royal Pain:

There is already one year in the books, although with fewer teams to draw figures from. Can the analysis be performed using NFBC 2004 pre and post numbers? I don't believe there was a mixed league from last year, and I know there wasn't an Ultimate league. That means there probably isn't any dollar values from 2004 to associate with the draft rankings. You would have to come up with another way to give the player's a baseline value. Easiest thing to do, if Puffins doesn't mind since he has the website, is to track the correlation between his rankings and the weekly overall standings. As it stands now, there is no way to predict anything for the rankings. It is just a ranking based on his assumption that the mixed and Ultimate league dollar values were true player values. But as has been argued over and over again in this thread, the only true player value is performance at the end of the season. Everything else is a projection, and no one is going to admit that someone else's projections are correct.

BUT, I'll say this: I think that the industry average ought to be a pretty good marker 'cause it's those guys' jobs to be making projections.

Get Todd or somebody who has access to the industry average and then work the data over again to see how it stands up.

Puffins · Post by **Puffins** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:56 am

Originally posted by Edwards Kings:

I believe I understand and appreciate the analysis that was prepared and I still like it (even though it totally jammed me). But I will say again that the analysis should be prepared with actual 2005 stats on those players drafted at the end of the season. Then comparing the relative "pre" and "post" season rankings of the draft will give merit to the "pre" season analysis within a relevant range. Here's the question--is Brian Roberts a good pick in round 6 if you could have had him in round 7 or 8? Just based on the stats he has produced so far and will produce by the end of the year, he is a huge value in round 6. But part of the skill in drafting is knowing when players will be drafted and getting the players you want as late as possible.