Ron Shandler Will Be Chatting Here At 2 ET Today

Top Dawg · Post by **Top Dawg** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:14 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

Pete L -- for the record, that was one of the biggest cop-outs of all time. Agreed? kING - Agreed. I subscribe to the site, like what he offers as daily info goes, but have never understood his dollar values. I would not draft Kemp or Figgins ahead of Fielder or Ortiz...

See ya in NYC-

Pete

Sebadiah23 · Post by **Sebadiah23** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:40 am

I don't agree with every single Shandler principle, but if he wants to have a sack and predict a breakout year for Kemp instead of a scaredy-cat hedge, more power to him.

-Mace and Bailey.

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:37 am

He skipped my question , skipped Pete , and WALLA three different times.He must like Lance as he answered his 37 question's.Im sorry but not happy with not even acknowledging Walla's 1300 dollar offer.How rude , unless they have a thing i dont know about. Sorry but thats how i feel, maybe shwan will answer my question.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:41 am

Originally posted by Sebadiah23:

I don't agree with every single Shandler principle, but if he wants to have a sack and predict a breakout year for Kemp instead of a scaredy-cat hedge, more power to him.

-Mace and Bailey. now to me that is a good point

sometimes I read his blurbs and think why say that and then predict those stats.

I also get a kick out of the this guy will suck but his upside is his 2005 30/30 season.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:18 pm

Originally posted by eddiejag:

He skipped my question , skipped Pete , and WALLA three different times.He must like Lance as he answered his 37 question's.Im sorry but not happy with not even acknowledging Walla's 1300 dollar offer.How rude , unless they have a thing i dont know about. Sorry but thats how i feel, maybe shwan will answer my question. fyi.... Ron has addressed this issue at least the last two years right here on the MB. Being sick, I doubted he wanted to again. Even if he wasn't sick, why beat a dead horse?

Top Dawg · Post by **Top Dawg** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:13 pm

Originally posted by eddiejag:

He skipped my question , skipped Pete , and WALLA three different times.He must like Lance as he answered his 37 question's.Im sorry but not happy with not even acknowledging Walla's 1300 dollar offer.How rude , unless they have a thing i dont know about. Sorry but thats how i feel, maybe shwan will answer my question. Eddie - He probably just missed your question. I did not see any reason for him to avoid it, so that was probably just an oversight. I also understand why he may not want to compete in the auction or main event here and he probably has addressed taht a couple of times in the past. Out of respect he could have at least said he was not going to answer that again and it would have been nice if he did.

But the answer to my question is odd... He does not have an answer off the top of his head and needs to check with the stats guys? Interesting to say the least. Not sure he does not know why his value on Figgins is higher than Ortiz or Fielder. Either we are all nuts and should be grabbing Figgins in rounds one or two or his dollar value is off because of the weight he places on sb's.

Oh well..

Pete

Top Dawg · Post by **Top Dawg** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:15 pm

[ February 21, 2008, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: Top Dawg ]

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:32 pm

Originally posted by Top Dawg:

But the answer to my question is odd... He does not have an answer off the top of his head and needs to check with the stats guys? Interesting to say the least. Not sure he does not know why his value on Figgins is higher than Ortiz or Fielder. Either we are all nuts and should be grabbing Figgins in rounds one or two or his dollar value is off because of the weight he places on sb's. It was a cop-out answer, but to be at least partially fair to Ron, he was ill today and it was one of his final responses.

Still, I'd love to get the answer!

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:12 pm

I'll give my take on the values question -- I'm not speaking for Ron, this is my personal take.

We're dealing with two separate issues.

First, you have to realize what the dollar values represent. While BBHQ and my system are not exactly the same, the theory backing the math is similar.

Value is awarded in proportion to the player's contribution to that category. This is done for each category and summed for a total value. There are adjustments made for replacement (positional scarcity), but that is the basis, each player gets value in direct proportion to how much they contribute to that category.

SB is a unique category in that a small percentage of players account for a large percentage of the stats. So players at the high end of steals (Figgins) get a ton of value as the percentage of the total they contribute is high. Thirty steals is worth more than thirty homers because thirty steals is a larger percentage of the total steals pool than 30 HR is to the total HR pool.

That said, it is not wise to generate a draft ranking list simply from dollar values, highest to lowest. Valuation of this nature tells you that aside from the early shortstops (Reyes, HanRam, Rollins), speed generally gets drafted AFTER dictated by ranking. So the drafter should cherry pick where they get their steals, for if they just take one off the top, they'll get 250 SB and 150 HR.

Drafting is strategic. Values are PART of that strategy, not the driving force.

If you want, you can soften the value given to SB by allocating less money to the category and shunting that to something else, like HR.

Top Dawg · Post by **Top Dawg** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:30 pm

Todd - Thanks for your response. I understand why sb's are valued higher than HR, but I sure wish you guys who place dollar values on players would factor in all the real world drafts that take place. By that I mean, if SS's like the big-3 taht steal bases are worth a ton of $$, cool, give them those values. In the real world we all understand that and those guys are gone by pick seven. But why not "water down" the value of other speedsters that are less important than the big SS's? To me, placing a $30 value on Figgins and a $28 value on Prince Fielder does not represent where or when they should be drafted.

We should not have to "cherry pick" when to draft a guy like Figgins, Bourn or others. Their values should somehow point us toward the right direction. Most of us do this automatically anyway. It just seems the values get in the way at drafting time.

Thanks again for you insight.

Pete

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:47 pm

We should not have to "cherry pick" when to draft a guy like Figgins, Bourn or others. Their values should somehow point us toward the right direction. Most of us do this automatically anyway. It just seems the values get in the way at drafting time. 1. As I suggested, you can soften the SB contribution and I have a method that does just that, but more importantly

2. Is it YOUR team if WE come up with an algorithm that tells you when to draft each player? (not saying YOU in particular)

The drafter HAS to do it on their own and NOT rely blindly on values. Each draft has its own personality, its own ebb and flo. The trick is reading your opponents and jumping in on Bourn or whoever at the right time.

I feel the same way with pitching. I contend saying "I won't draft a pitcher in the first six rounds" is bad strategy. Instead say "I want to take my first starting pitcher after about 12-15 are off the board, regardless of the round."

The difference is subtle, but important. If pitching is sliding, and we go in saying "first SP in round 6" and there is a guy we "valued" in round 4, we are ELATED because we are getting a much better pitcher than expected in round 6. But this is a fallacy. We wait until round 6 to get a great start on hitting while others are drafting pitching in the first 5 rounds. But the thing is pitching WAS NOT drafted, you don't have the relative hitting start you thought. The proper play is to wait until round 7 or 8 and take the guy you PLANNED on taking in round 6.

The point is here again, values do not dictate your picks, the ebb and flo of this draft does.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:06 pm

Pete - Todd doesn't need someone to reply, but sometimes it is better if someone else does. He was NOT trying to justify Shandler's dollar values, just explaining the process.

In fact, Todd's ratings do take these things into consideration and on our last set of projections for a 15 team mixed league, have

Fielder valued at $23; and

Figgins valued at $17 ($15+ of which is in SB)

[ February 21, 2008, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Captain Hook ]

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:10 pm

Where you been hiding, Todd!

I thought you'd have your weekly post going by now!

~Lance

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:29 pm

Tough going lately at the day job (well, former day job, we shut down the business) and i wasn't feeling very creative the past month. But this makes me baseball full time so maybe I can finish in the top half of the Main for a change.

Are you going Saturday?

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:44 pm

Originally posted by ToddZ:

Tough going lately at the day job (well, former day job, we shut down the business) and i wasn't feeling very creative the past month. But this makes me baseball full time so maybe I can finish in the top half of the Main for a change.

Are you going Saturday? I'll be there Thursday "noonish", thru Saturday midnight.

Hope to stay sober for the 4 hours that really matter, so I can squeak into the top half as well!

Cannot wait to get on that plane!

~Lance

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:50 pm

Sorry, meant the First pitch in Oak.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:53 pm

Originally posted by ToddZ:

Sorry, meant the First pitch in Oak. That dawned on me that THAT could be what you meant after I posted.

Not this time, Todd.

Cya in Vegas!

~Lance

Top Dawg · Post by **Top Dawg** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:42 am

Originally posted by Captain Hook:

Pete - Todd doesn't need someone to reply, but sometimes it is better if someone else does. He was NOT trying to justify Shandler's dollar values, just explaining the process.

In fact, Todd's ratings do take these things into consideration and on our last set of projections for a 15 team mixed league, have

Fielder valued at $23; and

Figgins valued at $17 ($15+ of which is in SB) Perry - Thanks for the response. I'm glad to see you guys have done a little tweaking on your values. Now I have to go back there and revisit the site.

Good luck in Vegas this year.

Pete

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:38 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

Tough going lately at the day job (well, former day job, we shut down the business) Todd very sorry to hear that- something tells me with your skill sets something better will be there very, very soon.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:04 am

Originally posted by Captain Hook:

Pete - Todd doesn't need someone to reply, but sometimes it is better if someone else does. He was NOT trying to justify Shandler's dollar values, just explaining the process.

In fact, Todd's ratings do take these things into consideration and on our last set of projections for a 15 team mixed league, have

Fielder valued at $23; and

Figgins valued at $17 ($15+ of which is in SB) Fantasy Sports Magazine has Fielder at $36 and Figgins at $28. In a 15-team league format, Perry, I'll be surprised if you don't see top sluggers and top stolen base guys going for full value, equal to if not higher than NL or AL only values. But I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:07 am

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by ToddZ:

Tough going lately at the day job (well, former day job, we shut down the business) Todd very sorry to hear that- something tells me with your skill sets something better will be there very, very soon. [/QUOTE]Todd's too talented to be on the sideline too long. Those chemists are always in need.

Now it's just a matter of whether we outsource him to work in India or China, rather than the U.S.

As Todd said, now is a good time to take a break from the 9-to-5 so he can concentrate on First Pitch Forums, industry drafts, NFBC and his baseball columns. I trust that shortly after Opening Day he will be back in the daily grind that we all have to deal with. Enjoy the sabbatical my friend.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:29 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Captain Hook:

Pete - Todd doesn't need someone to reply, but sometimes it is better if someone else does. He was NOT trying to justify Shandler's dollar values, just explaining the process.

In fact, Todd's ratings do take these things into consideration and on our last set of projections for a 15 team mixed league, have

Fielder valued at $23; and

Figgins valued at $17 ($15+ of which is in SB) Fantasy Sports Magazine has Fielder at $36 and Figgins at $28. In a 15-team league format, Perry, I'll be surprised if you don't see top sluggers and top stolen base guys going for full value, equal to if not higher than NL or AL only values. But I guess we'll find out soon enough. [/QUOTE]BIG difference between "what people go for" ie their auction price, and "what value their projected stats have" - yes people will bid more for all the top players.

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:54 am

Nothing better then watching a 20 dollar player go 28 in a auction. Or getting a 37 dollar player like Ortiz for 31.Cant wait to crush.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:04 am

BAM !

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:53 am

Thanks for the kind words everyone. At least now I'll be able to rule out "not enough time" as a reason for my Main Event finishes.