Killing a Myth

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:57 am

Ok, last night I ran an analysis of the 2005 draft that was meant to prove that those whom draft on the tail ends of the draft (ie #1 slot and/or #15 slot) tend to reach more so than those in the middle (ie #6, #7, and #8). All 20 Main Event Leagues were used in the analysis. I also used my original projections on where players would be drafted based on something like 30+ draft samples from March '05.

My analysis broke them down into groups of 5 rounds (ie 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20), but the total of all 20 are below. (Rounds 21+ are not as reliable, thus not used.)

Slot Total Avg

1 (12)

2 (13)

3 (14)

4 (9)

5 (7)

6 (13)

7 (14)

8 (16)

9 (15)

10 (12)

11 (10)

12 (11)

13 (13)

14 (16)

15 (13)

So, so much for the myth (which I believed) that managers on the tail ends reach more so than other....at least when compared to the 'Consensus' of where players are to be drafted.

What was also interesting is that rounds 16-20 were more predictive than rounds 6-10 and 11-15. Rounds 11-15 were far and away the most unpredictable.

....next, I will try the same analysis realtive where the Pros (Publications) projected stats should have placed the players in the draft. It's possible that that may be more inclined to prove the myth correct.

[ October 07, 2005, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:41 am

These numbers are relative to the Publications projections (which are converted into numerical values and ranked). Basically the analysis is a comparison of where the experts expect players to go (based on their valkue to our league) and where we actually drafted them.

The results are a bit more mixed - one could argue that on avg the tail ends do reach a bit more than the middle (when excluding the #1 and #8 slots). I am sure one or two drafts could have scewed the results for those spots.

Slot Total Avg

1 (9)

2 (24)

3 (22)

4 (21)

5 (12)

6 (16)

7 (18)

8 (20)

9 (27)

10 (19)

11 (18)

12 (12)

13 (18)

14 (18)

15 (24)

One positive conslusion when comparing both analysis is that a majority of players do not seem to be doing their homework: as in they drafting players well ahead experts opinions and/or whom add more value to league dynamics (ie value of 1 SB, of one HR, of one Win, etc. etc).

[ October 07, 2005, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:56 am

I used to love the band Styxx back in the day, my favorite song by them was I got too much time on my hands.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:11 am

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

I used to love the band Styxx back in the day, my favorite song by them was I got too much time on my hands. Chest,

Perhaps, it's a slow day. What team were you? My analysis can tell me what managers were more prepared than others.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:31 am

Originally posted by nydownunder:

quote:Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

I used to love the band Styxx back in the day, my favorite song by them was I got too much time on my hands. Chest,

Perhaps, it's a slow day. What team were you? My analysis can tell me what managers were more prepared than others. [/QUOTE]I was just giving you a hard time I actually appreciate the work you put in.

I would love to see your analysis of me though, Ambrosious's Mustache- picked 8th in Vegas 5.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:36 am

I love all the data. Keep it coming.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:47 am

Chest

The numbers tell me that you relied more on the consensus view of where players would be selected (which also implies their value). That you didn't give much attention to Projected stats (Publications) and how that plays into this league in respect to value (basically you didn't crunch numbers over and above the minimu needed). Perhaps most glaring is that you decided to go with best available player strategy(not necessarily for each selection, but overall). And that you should have finished in the middle 3rd of your league based on the draft (alone).

Obviosuly you didn't so I would be interested to know what your preparation was for the draft (in general) and how well you think you did in the FAAB.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:58 am

Actually the numbers lied to you there. I am probably not as big of a best available player guy as I should be and that caused me the biggest mistakes in my draft. 2 of my biggest mistakes was going Carlos Guillen and Phil Nevin because I needed a SS and 1b. I am very big on knowing what the projected stats would be to get a 12 in each category. The only category I did not have as projecting well in was k's and we did better than expected there mainly because of Chris Carpenter. My biggest overall draft mistake was drafting a number one starter who did not get k's in Hudson. Even if Hudson would have turned in 18-20 wins and had better ERA/Whip numbers he would not have dictated that high of a pick.

What did we do so well to win our league and finish top 15 overall? We were right on guys we liked a lot in Ensberg and Carpenter. We did not sh!t the bed in the first 2 rounds, and did real well in pitching free agency Felix, Garland, Turnbow. Oh yeah we got a little lucky to with Jorge Cantu and the fact that Cliff Floyd played more than 120 games.

See you all in Tampa next year...

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:18 am

You brought something to mind, that I hadn't originally thought of, and that is the possibility that the rest of your draft did not value someone as high as you did, thus certain players, which you liked, were available at your picks (and closer to consensus/projections). This would certainly help explain away some of the numbers I came up with. One thing my numbers certainly show is whether someone reached on a consistent basis. That is definitely one thing you guys didn't do (overall). You let the draft come to you.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:31 am

Originally posted by nydownunder:

You brought something to mind, that I hadn't originally thought of, and that is the possibility that the rest of your draft did not value someone as high as you did, thus certain players, which you liked, were available at your picks (and closer to consensus/projections). This would certainly help explain away some of the numbers I came up with. One thing my numbers certainly show is whether someone reached on a consistent basis. That is definitely one thing you guys didn't do (overall). You let the draft come to you. Excellent point- there was 3 guys we had not planned on getting that we did because they fell lower than we projected they would. Chavez in the 4th, Kent in the 6th, and Cliff Floyd. In using your draft as a comparison you drafted Chavez a little higher than where we had him on our board- but we were not going to let him get past us in the middle of the 4th although ironically we probably did not get mid 4th value from him. I also think you missed a huge opportunity to take advantage of a guy falling in your lap at 30/31 with Michael Young- he was 25th on our board and one of our last decisions was in what order we would rank Young, Jeter and Nomar 24th through 26th. Obviously the smallest things can have a huge impact at this level of competition.

I know this sounds stupid but I write the following reminders on a sheet of paper before every draft.

1) Do not draft OF's early who cannot run.

2) Do not draft unproven closers early.

3) Balance

4) No avg killers

5) Do not pay for career years on guys with track records of longer than 3 years.

A lot of that is already put in to my draft list, but it helps resist the urge.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:45 am

Chavez: consensus was 23, my projection was 38.

M. Young: consensus was 40, my projection was 48.

I remember thinking I would squeeze 3B (ARod, Huff, Chavez). The other batters in that area I did not trust or thought was an injury risk. I think Blalock was a consideration over Chavez, but I obviously wouldn 't have faired better.

Love your rules.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:47 am

One thing that my numbers do comfirn to a certain extent is that there is an advantage in picking earlier rather than later (from pre-season projected stats point of view). The total is the point or value attributed to the stats.

Slot Rounds 1-20

1 84

2 79

3 79

4 80

5 84

6 79

7 78

8 80

9 75

10 79

11 78

12 81

13 78

14 77

15 74

viper · Post by **viper** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:15 am

I'm not sure which round I would use but I think that looking beyond something like round 15 reduces validity. For 10-15 rounds, we draft based on a variety of things but we are typiclaly following some type of draft strategy. After, say, round 15, we are filling in open offensive slots, shoring up our pitching staffs and drafting sleepers. These events likely skew any results. The first 10-15 rounds are the basis of our draft and are where reaching would be meaningful.

Having drafted in the 14th & 13th slots, I know you must reach a little there. In year one, I reached far too often. This year, I formulated a draft strategy that limited reaching. This year I got a league 3rd. The closer the middle of the draft you are, the less you need to consider reaching.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 am

Viper,

Rounds 16-20 only make up between 3-7 points (of value) from the list just provided. 8 slots had either 5 or 6 points, with 1 having 7 points(slot 1) and 2 having 3 points (slot 9 & 15).

The other interesting thing about rounds 16-20 is that they are actually more predictable than the 6-10 and the 11-15 groups. When I say more predictable, I mean their reach number (like the negative numbers further above) are actually lower on average. Rounds 11-15 are actually the most unpredictable. That doesn't mean sleepers are necessarily grabbed here, it just means everyones opinions of the players in and around that range, vary even greater than anywhere else in the draft. For example, Austin Kearns average pick was 191, yet he went as early as 134 and as late as 248. That's over 6 rounds difference. These variations were greatest for player in this group (Rounds 11-15).

[ October 07, 2005, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:13 pm

nydownunder:

The numbers tell me that you relied more on the consensus view of where players would be selected (which also implies their value). That you didn't give much attention to Projected stats (Publications) Do you really find that publications are projecting players far more differently than we (NFBC players) are? I tend to think that the drafts kind of go accoring to projections here but I don't have numerical evidence.

Of course, it depeds on what publications you are using, but the phrase and context seem to imply the pop publications that are in print.

[ October 08, 2005, 04:21 AM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:51 am

In the end, the numbers analysis, the draft rounds and draft picks, and publication (sorry, Greg) picks will mean very little, although interesting. What really matters is if your core of 25 players had limited injuries and played up to or beyond expectations. How about focusing on the players themselves? Can one of you number guys formulate a list for best hitters and pitchers from 2005? Maybe giving one point for the leader of a category, with the lowest total across the five categories being your best hitters and pitchers. Could be surprising.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 5:58 am

Bjoak,

The numbers were the average of 5-6 publications. I prefer the objectiveness of these numbers rather than the subjectiveness of our beliefs or personal feelings for players. I don't think either will be more accurate than the other because we all know it's impossible to predict accurately across the board. It's just a guide.

Doughboys

I believe Bjoak and I are the only ones that have come public (on the board) with a fairly accurate value system for players. For example, Arod was suppose to add something like 15 points of your team's possible 75 points of offense based on projections. He actually came through with 19 points this year. Anyway, I have the numbers for batters but am still in the process of doing it for Pitchers. I will post the top 10 or 20 in terms of performance and the bottom 10 or 20 in terms of initial expectations vs actual.

I may even post the most disappointing rounds based on these values and the avg of each players pick from all 20 leagues.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 6:05 am

Bjoak

I reread your question, and the answer is 'No'. We don't seem to be drafting based on Publications/Projections. Most seem to be following the pack. But at the same time, some people have certain strategies for the draft that do not take into consideration either.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 10:25 am

I believe Bjoak and I are the only ones that have come public (on the board) with a fairly accurate value system for players. And all my systems are under construction as I'm not finding myself anywhere close to $100,000 richer than I was last year at this time.

[ October 08, 2005, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 11:19 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote: I believe Bjoak and I are the only ones that have come public (on the board) with a fairly accurate value system for players. And all my systems are under construction as I'm not finding myself anywhere close to $100,000 richer than I was last year at this time.

[/QUOTE]Sorry if I confused anyone. I was just referring to our quantification methods in valuing the projected stats of each player, which have to do with how much a singular unit of a stat is worth in our league. It doesn't actually predict who will actually fulfill those projections. The inputs (ie projections) are obviously another story for both of us.

[ October 08, 2005, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:42 pm

I knew exactly what you meant. Nevertheless, the way I value specific quantities is going to affect the team I pick and the eventual results. I feel that I can still refine things, particularly in light of another year of results.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 6:08 pm

Originally posted by bjoak:

I knew exactly what you meant. Nevertheless, the way I value specific quantities is going to affect the team I pick and the eventual results. I feel that I can still refine things, particularly in light of another year of results. Yes Bjoak, this year's results have changed things (ie lower HR expectations) realtive to last year's. HR's are just one example. I am confident that this years numbers are what we can expect going forward. I took the average finishes of all leagues this year and have refined the "floor" for our statistical interpretations.