The 'How Much do I like that Piece of Crap' Test

[DOUGHBOYS]

We all have different things we do before drafts. Some of us will know every player. Their numbers last year, over a three year span, over a career.
I have a friend who likes to find out if a players 'significant other' is pregnant and knock him down in his rankings for paternity leave.
Some will put a certain stat above all other stats and work through that angle. Some make projections. Some feed their computer numbers. Some just study all the possibilities.
In short, we try to cover all bases.

I do a few quirky things. I don't want to mention some, because they're mine. I don't have them copyrighted, but at the same time, I don't want others using the same thing I'm doing to beat me.
But, there is one method that I'll share here, since you guys are savvy enough to check out this part of the Boards
I call it my 'How much do I really like that piece of crap' test.
First, I disregard the first 300 players on the adp list. We are left with round 21 to infinity.
I draft the best team I can with those remaining players. This is not the best adp team, this a team to my personal liking.
Closers are not considered here unless I am really hot on a closer in waiting. This is because every closer is drafted by the 20th round. So draft your favorite nine pitchers, be it starter or reliever.
After assembling this team, Do it again only this time allowing numbers 200-300 in adp to be involved. Pick the best team again.
Then allow 100-200. repeat. Then allow 0-100.
In the end, you will end up with an all star team.
We're not concerned with that. The finished product means nothing. What we are concerned with are the players that survived each cut. Those players that survived the cuts are players that we consciously or unconsciously want on our teams.
If a player goes from the 300 to 100 test, I'll move him up and make him a 'must draft' and draft him well before adp. For me, it has only happened twice since doing this test.
Then, I'll earmark others who have moved up from the 300 to 200 or the 200 to 100 tests too as 'very draftable'.

I call it the 'How much do I like this piece of crap' test because players in the 21st round and beyond are viewed as, well, not very good players. But, for some reason, we like these players more than some of the players on our very own lists above them. In effect, it's a great way to 'check my homework'.
Maybe this'll help you. Its opened my eyes to players that I've liked, but wasn't even true to myself in the level that I liked that particular player.
Think of this as a new Doritos flavor. If you don't like it, don't buy it again.
If you do like it, use it again next year and you have a new flavor to go with your 'go to' Doritos.
If you win with it, you owe me a bag of Doritos.

[bjoak]

If a player goes from the 300 to 100 test, I'll move him up and make him a 'must draft' and draft him well before adp. For me, it has only happened twice since doing this test.

Who were they? Did they turn out pieces of crap or did they earn that spot on your team?

[DOUGHBOYS]

One worked out great....the other not so much

In 2005, the NFBC didn't really have an adp. We used Mockdraftcentral (we were such neanderthal's) for an adp.
I really liked Brady Clark and in joining the NFBC, it was the first time I used this method.
Brady Clark turned out to be an integral part of that team and it was really the only good year of his career.
I give luck half the credit on that one.

The other was Ian Stewart. I don't remember the year.
But if I knew what I know now about Ian Stewart, I would have never have done it.
In fact, everybody reading this can check my teams when the season begins, not one will have Ian Stewart.
He is an undraftable player for me this year and unless I hear of something changing, he will be an undraftable every year of his probable short career.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I got a couple of PM's asking about Ian Stewart.
I'll post tomorrow on why he won't be any of my teams.
I've gotta go to a 'thing' tonight.

[OaktownSteve]

I like your test. Finding the guys you want from the bargin bin is really important. I have two things I do when I start getting ready.
I had a son born in October. Just after he was delivered, the nurse gave us his Apgar score. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apgar_score. During those first few months when we never slept and when taking care of a baby is about as tiring as anything, my wife and I liked to joke with each other, “hey, what’s your Apgar? Hoo boy am I low Apgar today.”
The Apgar score is a very simple measure of five indicators of the baby’s health, each given a numeric score. Low score, the baby gets further evaluation. High score, baby is ok. The idea behind the Apgar score is covered very nicely by my hero, Daniel Kahneman. He says, “Whenever we can replace human judgement by a formula, we should at least consider it.” Kahneman, drawing on the work of many other social scientists and providing lots of experimentally sound examples, demonstrates that algorithmic and statistical based predictions are generally more accurate than subjective or intuitive expert predictions. The Apgar score is a much better system for determining whether a baby needs special attention than are the subjective evaluations of the doctors and nurses.
Ron Shandler is famous for the LIMA system, but I think most people don’t acutally get the genius of the LIMA system. They think that the genius is having figured out that you shouldn’t spend a lot on pitching. But how much genius does it take to figure out that if you can pay less and get the same production, you’re ahead of the game? Not much. The real genius of LIMA is that it’s like an Apgar for pitching. You look at K/9, BB/K, and HR/9. No subjectivity required. By so doing, I think Shandler-philes were able to find some real gems. Of course, the days of being able to get those guys at a deep discount are long gone. Everybody has all the information. Still, I like to start my analysis by looking at those simple scores and filitering out my own biases.
The other thing I do is look at Tom Tango’s Marcel forcasting system. There’s a real nice, simple introduction to how Marcel works here: http://triplesalley.wordpress.com/2010/ ... g-systems/.
Kahneman actually argues that an Apgar-like simple scoring is often superior to multiple regression systems like Marcel, but Marcel is still a very simple algorithm. What I like is that it takes 3 years worth of performance, if available, so it helps filter out recency bias. Like the LIMA plan, Marcel tries to look at players through a very simple and consistent lens. There’s not a lot of tweaking to try and get the numbers to come out right. As a result, it gives me the feel of raw, unbiased data that helps me start to look at the players as objectively as possible before I start adding my own evaluations into the mix.
For some reason, I prefer Shandler for pitching and Tango for hitting. Sadly, it doesn’t look like there will be a 2012 Marcel out there, but I found a guy who used the method and published the results on the internet. Man you can find anything on the internet, can’t you?

[rockitsauce]

Oaktown Steve, I was w/ ya til u said the formula was called "Marcel"

Doughy, the Ian Stewart info pls......after all I spent $50 of my FAAB (in a hotly contested battle w/ CHINKA) to get that kid. Glad to hear I shoulda left him to the sharks

[DOUGHBOYS]

Oaktown Steve, I was w/ ya til u said the formula was called "Marcel"

Doughy, the Ian Stewart info pls......after all I spent $50 of my FAAB (in a hotly contested battle w/ CHINKA) to get that kid. Glad to hear I shoulda left him to the sharks

I've told this story to a few, maybe even posted it, I don't remember....
Last year I went to a Colorado Springs Sky Sox game.
Behind me were two Sky Sox pitchers charting pitches.
We talked off and on during the whole game.
One thing I found out from them is that minor leaguers are 'discouraged' from playing fantasy baseball. I didn't know that.

Getting back to Stewart though...
Stewart and Jason Giambi were at Colorado Springs at that time. I asked the players if Giambi was as nice as advertised.
They said that Giambi was a prince. He bought dinners for everybody. Provided stuff for the locker room that they hadn't had before. Doing things that other minor leaguers could never afford.
Before asking them about Stewart, I had already heard that Stewart was a turd from a couple of Rockies stringers that I knew, but wanted to hear it from teammates.
So I asked.
They squirmed and mumbled.
I asked if Giambi is nearer to the '10' side of the scale and Stewart was closer to the 'one' side of the scale, how good of a teammate is Jason Giambi?
'Giambi is a 10! One of the greatest teammates we could have!'
The message was clear. These guys thought that Stewart was really a prick.
I asked if Stewart had bought any dinners. Both shook their heads.
Mental note to myself, stay away from Ian Stewart.

Now, Stewart may go on to have a great year. Some asses do.
But, the problem with taking a 'hanger on'er' like Stewart is that asses don't get many second chances.
If failing, they are sent away, either to another team or to the minors so that coaches and players are rid of him.
For a fantasy team, I won't take that chance.

In a way, it's a little like Shawn and his 'relationship' with Kevin Youkilis.
He knows that Youkilis is an ass. And he knows that he'll probably continue being an ass.
And there's some solace taken in that he'll be an ass on a competitors fantasy team.

[OaktownSteve]

Consider this a correlary to the piece of crap test. Call it the Faulkner Test. William Faulkner, cribbing from somebody else I believe, is quoted as having said "kill all of your darlings."

I thought you might find this interesting Mr. Doughboys as the person I've run across that like to write and likes roto baseball seemingly as much as I do.

What Faulkner meant when he said, "kill all your darlings" is that sometimes when you write, you latch on to an idea that you think is brilliant. You really want to say something, but as many times as you write it, somehow deep down, you know it's not working. Maybe you're too close to it to be objective. So you kill it and move on. And maybe the thing you had on the back burner turns out to be the piece you really wanted to write about all along.

I say this because I am suddenly feeling less confident about my player evaluations than I did two weeks ago. Over the winter there were guys I pinpointed that I was sure I would own this year. But now all of a sudden, doubt is creeping in. New information is out there. But still I cling. These are the guys I want to want. Just like this is the piece I want to write.

So with the draft just around the corner, with spring here, it's time to go back and kill those darlings. For me maybe that means so long Ian Desmond and Bryan LaHair and so long Chris Sale and so forth. You guys were going to make me look like a genius and make me a winner. But now you're looking like winter darlings and nothing more.

[rockitsauce]

But now all of a sudden, doubt is creeping in.

glad to know I'm not the only guy feeling that way