Originally posted by sportsbettingman:
Gotta love all this LV3 blood feud! I hope no one gets too riled about my jawing. I just enjoy a good debate. LV3 is really heating up! Who would have thought three teams would be nearly tied at the top a few weeks ago?
Seth Smith
Seth Smith
Originally posted by bjoak:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by bjoak:
There you have it. You should have drafted him in the 6th. I see you took Byrnes in the 2nd round. He was worth minus $3 BEFORE he got injured. Guess you should've taken Weeks instead in the 2nd.
You should be thanking me for your good season right now anyway, I know you wanted Tulo at the 2/3 turn which is why I had to reach for him in the 2nd. [/QUOTE]Well, first off you are forgetting that I took Byrnes instead of Tulo. Not much difference there. But you could ponder what didn't happen all day. I most wanted Berkman there (yes, more than Tulo). Judging by ADP, I had a good shot. What happens then?
But also, you assume I agree with your system. I am not going to run these guys through mine, but I'm pretty sure Euclid thinks you are underestimating the value of BA. Even still, Euclid loved Chris Young to the tune of an early 2nd rounder despite a .255 BA projection, but you have to know when to take a pass on your valuations. I wasn't going to do that or I'm going to spend the next 8 rounds chasing BA at the expense of my other stats. And Euclid thinks that Weeks is a worse BA (and health) risk than that anyway.
I was really only half joking about Napoli. Your BA was so cooked after Weeks, it would have served you well to boot it and beef up your other stats. [/QUOTE]I thought Weeks was about a 260 hitter, and expected BABIP support that. I thought he was worth the injury risk, ya gotta pick your spots and that was one I was willing to take in round 5. I would've taken McCann but thought Soto could come close to him 5-6 rounds later, he went faster than expected in this league so I ended up with Towles in the middle rds after who was obviously a complete disaster.
P.S., Euclid can think what it wants, my system is modified for historical NFBC competition and variances, I think its as good as any. That said, I wouldn't expect you trust any system over your own.
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by bjoak:
There you have it. You should have drafted him in the 6th. I see you took Byrnes in the 2nd round. He was worth minus $3 BEFORE he got injured. Guess you should've taken Weeks instead in the 2nd.
You should be thanking me for your good season right now anyway, I know you wanted Tulo at the 2/3 turn which is why I had to reach for him in the 2nd. [/QUOTE]Well, first off you are forgetting that I took Byrnes instead of Tulo. Not much difference there. But you could ponder what didn't happen all day. I most wanted Berkman there (yes, more than Tulo). Judging by ADP, I had a good shot. What happens then?
But also, you assume I agree with your system. I am not going to run these guys through mine, but I'm pretty sure Euclid thinks you are underestimating the value of BA. Even still, Euclid loved Chris Young to the tune of an early 2nd rounder despite a .255 BA projection, but you have to know when to take a pass on your valuations. I wasn't going to do that or I'm going to spend the next 8 rounds chasing BA at the expense of my other stats. And Euclid thinks that Weeks is a worse BA (and health) risk than that anyway.
I was really only half joking about Napoli. Your BA was so cooked after Weeks, it would have served you well to boot it and beef up your other stats. [/QUOTE]I thought Weeks was about a 260 hitter, and expected BABIP support that. I thought he was worth the injury risk, ya gotta pick your spots and that was one I was willing to take in round 5. I would've taken McCann but thought Soto could come close to him 5-6 rounds later, he went faster than expected in this league so I ended up with Towles in the middle rds after who was obviously a complete disaster.
P.S., Euclid can think what it wants, my system is modified for historical NFBC competition and variances, I think its as good as any. That said, I wouldn't expect you trust any system over your own.
Seth Smith
P.S., Euclid can think what it wants, my system is modified for historical NFBC competition and variances, I think its as good as any. That said, I wouldn't expect you trust any system over your own.Euclid is modified for NFBC numbers as well, but gives it's values in points over ideal in the overall competition rather than arbitrary dollar values. Anyway, it thinks one of your players with a .210 BA is going to probably land your team at the bottom of the BA category.
You've got me though. I ran him and found that he loses 66 points more than an ideal player--meaning that 14 of him would net you almost 1000 points less than the NFBC overall leader, and that is assuming your pitching is on par with the leader's. First off, that is negative value and second off, you can multiply his numbers by 14 and see where it would get you in each hitting category and without having done it myself, I'd bet you that Euclid is pretty much spot on here.
You've got me though. I ran him and found that he loses 66 points more than an ideal player--meaning that 14 of him would net you almost 1000 points less than the NFBC overall leader, and that is assuming your pitching is on par with the leader's. First off, that is negative value and second off, you can multiply his numbers by 14 and see where it would get you in each hitting category and without having done it myself, I'd bet you that Euclid is pretty much spot on here.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Seth Smith
Originally posted by bjoak:
quote:P.S., Euclid can think what it wants, my system is modified for historical NFBC competition and variances, I think its as good as any. That said, I wouldn't expect you trust any system over your own.Euclid is modified for NFBC numbers as well, but gives it's values in points over ideal in the overall competition rather than arbitrary dollar values. Anyway, it thinks one of your players with a .210 BA is going to probably land your team at the bottom of the BA category.
You've got me though. I ran him and found that he loses 66 points more than an ideal player--meaning that 14 of him would net you almost 1000 points less than the NFBC overall leader, and that is assuming your pitching is on par with the leader's. First off, that is negative value and second off, you can multiply his numbers by 14 and see where it would get you in each hitting category and without having done it myself, I'd bet you that Euclid is pretty much spot on here. [/QUOTE]My system translates points into dollar values and relates it value over replacement in an auction budget within an NFBC framework. You wouldn't own 14 of him, so I don't see the relevance there - I look at his positive contributions less what is costs me to make up his negative contributions. He rates very high in 3 categories, probably close to neutral in RBI and negative in BA. Overall, still positive.
quote:P.S., Euclid can think what it wants, my system is modified for historical NFBC competition and variances, I think its as good as any. That said, I wouldn't expect you trust any system over your own.Euclid is modified for NFBC numbers as well, but gives it's values in points over ideal in the overall competition rather than arbitrary dollar values. Anyway, it thinks one of your players with a .210 BA is going to probably land your team at the bottom of the BA category.
You've got me though. I ran him and found that he loses 66 points more than an ideal player--meaning that 14 of him would net you almost 1000 points less than the NFBC overall leader, and that is assuming your pitching is on par with the leader's. First off, that is negative value and second off, you can multiply his numbers by 14 and see where it would get you in each hitting category and without having done it myself, I'd bet you that Euclid is pretty much spot on here. [/QUOTE]My system translates points into dollar values and relates it value over replacement in an auction budget within an NFBC framework. You wouldn't own 14 of him, so I don't see the relevance there - I look at his positive contributions less what is costs me to make up his negative contributions. He rates very high in 3 categories, probably close to neutral in RBI and negative in BA. Overall, still positive.
Seth Smith
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by bjoak:
quote:P.S., Euclid can think what it wants, my system is modified for historical NFBC competition and variances, I think its as good as any. That said, I wouldn't expect you trust any system over your own.Euclid is modified for NFBC numbers as well, but gives it's values in points over ideal in the overall competition rather than arbitrary dollar values. Anyway, it thinks one of your players with a .210 BA is going to probably land your team at the bottom of the BA category.
You've got me though. I ran him and found that he loses 66 points more than an ideal player--meaning that 14 of him would net you almost 1000 points less than the NFBC overall leader, and that is assuming your pitching is on par with the leader's. First off, that is negative value and second off, you can multiply his numbers by 14 and see where it would get you in each hitting category and without having done it myself, I'd bet you that Euclid is pretty much spot on here. [/QUOTE]My system translates points into dollar values and relates it value over replacement in an auction budget within an NFBC framework. You wouldn't own 14 of him, so I don't see the relevance there - I look at his positive contributions less what is costs me to make up his negative contributions. He rates very high in 3 categories, probably close to neutral in RBI and negative in BA. Overall, still positive. [/QUOTE]I look at ideal rather than replacement because my goal is to have 14 guys who will net me a championship rather than 14 replacement level guys. Of course he has positive value over a replacement player but that's not positive value in terms of winning. No, you wouldn't own 14 of him or want to, but it is a quick and dirty way to check Euclid's math. There is no way to check $6.
quote:Originally posted by bjoak:
quote:P.S., Euclid can think what it wants, my system is modified for historical NFBC competition and variances, I think its as good as any. That said, I wouldn't expect you trust any system over your own.Euclid is modified for NFBC numbers as well, but gives it's values in points over ideal in the overall competition rather than arbitrary dollar values. Anyway, it thinks one of your players with a .210 BA is going to probably land your team at the bottom of the BA category.
You've got me though. I ran him and found that he loses 66 points more than an ideal player--meaning that 14 of him would net you almost 1000 points less than the NFBC overall leader, and that is assuming your pitching is on par with the leader's. First off, that is negative value and second off, you can multiply his numbers by 14 and see where it would get you in each hitting category and without having done it myself, I'd bet you that Euclid is pretty much spot on here. [/QUOTE]My system translates points into dollar values and relates it value over replacement in an auction budget within an NFBC framework. You wouldn't own 14 of him, so I don't see the relevance there - I look at his positive contributions less what is costs me to make up his negative contributions. He rates very high in 3 categories, probably close to neutral in RBI and negative in BA. Overall, still positive. [/QUOTE]I look at ideal rather than replacement because my goal is to have 14 guys who will net me a championship rather than 14 replacement level guys. Of course he has positive value over a replacement player but that's not positive value in terms of winning. No, you wouldn't own 14 of him or want to, but it is a quick and dirty way to check Euclid's math. There is no way to check $6.
Chance favors the prepared mind.