SGPs
-
Dodger Blues
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:00 pm
SGPs
Brand new to the NFBC, guys... Was wondering if NFBC posts initial SGPs based on its various contests?
There are only two seasons: baseball season and The Void. - Jonathan Yardley
-
freddiezee
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:00 pm
- Contact:
SGPs
As far as I know they don't. You would have to create that spreadsheet on your own unless you could find a site selling 2010 SGP's as part of their 2011 projections package.
-
CC's Desperados
- Posts: 2558
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:00 pm
SGPs
Originally posted by Rainiers:
Pardon my ignorance, but I'm curious. What is a SGP? The new STD..
Pardon my ignorance, but I'm curious. What is a SGP? The new STD..
-
Ronald Esq
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:00 pm
- Contact:
SGPs
SGP = Standings Gain Points
It's a method of Value Based Ranking where you give each player points based on the amount of the theoretical "Gain" from the addition of the players stats to your team.
For example, to gain one RBI point in the average NFBC Main league last year, it took about 16 RBI's. So a player with 80 RBI's on the season would receive +5 SGPs in RBI's.
[ January 30, 2011, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Ronald Esq ]
It's a method of Value Based Ranking where you give each player points based on the amount of the theoretical "Gain" from the addition of the players stats to your team.
For example, to gain one RBI point in the average NFBC Main league last year, it took about 16 RBI's. So a player with 80 RBI's on the season would receive +5 SGPs in RBI's.
[ January 30, 2011, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Ronald Esq ]
SGPs
Originally posted by Ronald Esq:
SGP = Standings Gain Points
It's a method of Value Based Ranking where you give each player points based on the amount of the theoretical "Gain" from the addition of the players stats to your team.
For example, to gain one RBI point in the average NFBC Main league last year, it took about 16 RBI's. So a player with 80 RBI's on the season would receive +5 SGPs in RBI's. So I suppose the goal is to equalize the metrics across the the five, actually ten, point categories.
I can see how it might be useful in the counting categories like Rbis, Runs HR, SB, but what about the averaging categories, such as BA, Whip and ERA. Must be a different formula for that.
Anyways, thanks for the reply, now If I stumble on SGP on the net, at least I'll know that they are talking about..
[ January 30, 2011, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Rainiers ]
SGP = Standings Gain Points
It's a method of Value Based Ranking where you give each player points based on the amount of the theoretical "Gain" from the addition of the players stats to your team.
For example, to gain one RBI point in the average NFBC Main league last year, it took about 16 RBI's. So a player with 80 RBI's on the season would receive +5 SGPs in RBI's. So I suppose the goal is to equalize the metrics across the the five, actually ten, point categories.
I can see how it might be useful in the counting categories like Rbis, Runs HR, SB, but what about the averaging categories, such as BA, Whip and ERA. Must be a different formula for that.
Anyways, thanks for the reply, now If I stumble on SGP on the net, at least I'll know that they are talking about..
[ January 30, 2011, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Rainiers ]
- Robert
-
Ronald Esq
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:00 pm
- Contact:
SGPs
I had never heard of it until I saw this guys post, I just went and looked it up the other day. But it caught my interest and I threw it on my spreadsheet to see how it compared to my previous rankings. All-in-all they were similar to the metrics I had put together myself.
I did use it for AVG, ERA & WHIP, it works the same, except you need to divide the SGPs by 14 for AVG and divide by 9 for ERA & WHIP -- or to be more accurate, divide the AVG by the player's AB vs the average AB's for a full 14 hitter lineup; or the pitchers IP vs the average IP's for a full 9 pitcher lineup (6-7 starters + 2-3 relievers).
Like most metrics though, it does weigh Stolen Bases a little high for my liking.
[ January 30, 2011, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Ronald Esq ]
I did use it for AVG, ERA & WHIP, it works the same, except you need to divide the SGPs by 14 for AVG and divide by 9 for ERA & WHIP -- or to be more accurate, divide the AVG by the player's AB vs the average AB's for a full 14 hitter lineup; or the pitchers IP vs the average IP's for a full 9 pitcher lineup (6-7 starters + 2-3 relievers).
Like most metrics though, it does weigh Stolen Bases a little high for my liking.
[ January 30, 2011, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Ronald Esq ]
SGPs
Originally posted by Ronald Esq:
Like most metrics though, it does weigh Stolen Bases a little high for my liking. [/QB]Ronald,
You could take away the overweighting of steals by improving the SGP stat...that is by using the average score for any given category as its zero baseline instead of the zero total as the standard baseline.
Here is an example on how to to change it: in the first example you gave about RBIs, if the average hitter in the NFBC gets 70 RBIs (or whatever the average actually is) give him an SGP for every 16 RBIs above 70...or conversely a negative SGP for every 16 RBIs below 70.
If you did that for every category, then the average NFBC hitter would have an average value of zero across all categories and a zero sum total. Above-average players would have a positive SGP sum total, below-average players would have a negative one.
This would correct the problems with the variable deviation-to-average ratio of the different categories. All of the categories are either overweight or underweight without the correction described above. You just notice the problem with steals the most because of its extreme-categorically-high deviation-to-average ratio.
There is at least one other flaw as well, a smaller one, but I'm not sure how to fix it. That is the variability in the points gained depending where you are on the stat curve. For example if you are in the middle of the pack 16 RBI's might get you 1.5 points, but if you are shooting for the top 80% it might only get you 3/4 of a point. The differential is really not that high, but it is significant. Earlier this week I looked at this top-end-shift differential from mean in all categories and the steepness of the top end curve varies in a small but significant way from category to category.
Anyways, there seems to me a lot of to work to do to create a system to make the SGP stat useful to me. No doubt Dodger Blue and others already have done that. I, like you, are pretty well down a different path. I always like to look at what is out there, though. It can be interesting and you always end up learning something. Thanks for sharing the work you've done, it has really helped me understand this better.
[ January 31, 2011, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Rainiers ]
Like most metrics though, it does weigh Stolen Bases a little high for my liking. [/QB]Ronald,
You could take away the overweighting of steals by improving the SGP stat...that is by using the average score for any given category as its zero baseline instead of the zero total as the standard baseline.
Here is an example on how to to change it: in the first example you gave about RBIs, if the average hitter in the NFBC gets 70 RBIs (or whatever the average actually is) give him an SGP for every 16 RBIs above 70...or conversely a negative SGP for every 16 RBIs below 70.
If you did that for every category, then the average NFBC hitter would have an average value of zero across all categories and a zero sum total. Above-average players would have a positive SGP sum total, below-average players would have a negative one.
This would correct the problems with the variable deviation-to-average ratio of the different categories. All of the categories are either overweight or underweight without the correction described above. You just notice the problem with steals the most because of its extreme-categorically-high deviation-to-average ratio.
There is at least one other flaw as well, a smaller one, but I'm not sure how to fix it. That is the variability in the points gained depending where you are on the stat curve. For example if you are in the middle of the pack 16 RBI's might get you 1.5 points, but if you are shooting for the top 80% it might only get you 3/4 of a point. The differential is really not that high, but it is significant. Earlier this week I looked at this top-end-shift differential from mean in all categories and the steepness of the top end curve varies in a small but significant way from category to category.
Anyways, there seems to me a lot of to work to do to create a system to make the SGP stat useful to me. No doubt Dodger Blue and others already have done that. I, like you, are pretty well down a different path. I always like to look at what is out there, though. It can be interesting and you always end up learning something. Thanks for sharing the work you've done, it has really helped me understand this better.
[ January 31, 2011, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Rainiers ]
- Robert
-
Ronald Esq
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:00 pm
- Contact:
SGPs
I had already done that, but didn't want to go that far into detail, because it honestly doesn't matter much which way you do it.
Just to let you know what I mean, the top overall guy (Pujols) has SGPs of 3.45, 2.74, 2.45, 2.31, & 0.20 for a total of 11.16 in my rankings. Where Crawford gets 6.65 in SB, plus 2.20, 2.19, 1.12 & -0.17 in HR for a total of 11.98.
Taking out the average stats doesn't really change anything, it just makes the numbers a different magnitude. You have to change the SB category formula or live with the skewed nature of it.
Just to let you know what I mean, the top overall guy (Pujols) has SGPs of 3.45, 2.74, 2.45, 2.31, & 0.20 for a total of 11.16 in my rankings. Where Crawford gets 6.65 in SB, plus 2.20, 2.19, 1.12 & -0.17 in HR for a total of 11.98.
Taking out the average stats doesn't really change anything, it just makes the numbers a different magnitude. You have to change the SB category formula or live with the skewed nature of it.
-
CC's Desperados
- Posts: 2558
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:00 pm
SGPs
Rainer...I started working on this in the off season. I used the top 15 players at each position to give me a baseline of a skill set at each position. Once you have the average player at each position, you can compare edges for players at different positions.
It gets tricking in the outfield. I broke it up into five groups, but the overall total of the five outfielders makes more sense. You can break it up any way you want to build your team.
For batting average, I thought it made the most sense to use hits for a score. If I did every players score, I would use 550 at bats with a .280 average or 154 hits. So if a player hit .270 with 550 at bats, he had a score of minus 5.5. I would have to come up with a formula to see the impact of a player with more or less at bats.
It gets tricking in the outfield. I broke it up into five groups, but the overall total of the five outfielders makes more sense. You can break it up any way you want to build your team.
For batting average, I thought it made the most sense to use hits for a score. If I did every players score, I would use 550 at bats with a .280 average or 154 hits. So if a player hit .270 with 550 at bats, he had a score of minus 5.5. I would have to come up with a formula to see the impact of a player with more or less at bats.
SGPs
Ronald Esq,
Well then, good work.
It means 1) that if you put Crawford in your lineup over Pujols you will end up with more points. or 2) the formula is bad.
Since it is not 1) it must be 2).
Looking at last year's stats, we know that the median value for Hrs, runs rbis,avg. and Sbs were: 16.5, 71..3, 68.2, 0.2677 and 10.4.
To look at the gain points, I think we should throw out the teams that are real outliers as they tend to skew the data. The way I did this is to look at one standard deviation around the median value, or the 68% of the teams around each middle team. Another words, when I looked at the 435 teams that played in the Classic last year, I looked at the 72nd team in each category, subtracted the value from the 363rd team in each category and divided by 9.33, the number of teams within the 68% for each league. When I do that I come up with one SGP for every 4.40 HRS, 14.1 runs, 15.0 rbis, .0014 of BAVG influence, and every 6.0 SBs.
Its easy to take a look at an average team from last year, substitute out one of the average players from an average team and substitute in either Pujols or Crawford. When I did that I came up with SGPs of 4.40+3.10+3.32+3.36+0.60= 14.78 SGPs for Pujols in a Classic League. For Crawford, I get 0.43+2.74+0.68+3.0+6.1=12.95 SGPs. These stats seem plausible to me, especially since Pujols was a little off last year.
I haven't run any other players, but I'm thinking about it. On the other hand, I'm kind of hoping/wondering, Ronald, if you will look at this, and if you think it might have value, if you could plug these unit values (one SGP for every 4.40 HRS, 14.1 runs, 15.0 rbis, .0014 of BAVG influence, and every 6.0 SBs) for SGP into your spreadsheet and let me know if the resulting data passes the smell test.. if you did this, that would be great, because it and save me the trouble of building a spreadsheet to do the same thing myself....
If you think it is a waste of time, thats OK too..
CC,
Does this mean that SGPs are not the newest STD? I was just glad it wasn't the newest device we'd have to buy to play movies on! lol.
Back to the general subject; I saw, read and enjoyed your blog on another site regarding the top 15 players at each position. I have actually used your insights already, thank you. It seems like it would be a good way to get a feel for the fringe players on the edge, and am building them into my own system.
This is my second year in the NFBC. I am actually cocky enough to feel like my valuation methods are getting good. But I think the thing I struggled with the most last year was not my valuation system, or even trying to find value in fringe players, but it was trying to figure out how other NFBC owners valued the different types of players available in the draft and the FAAB. I'm not so much talking individual players or ADP here, but more speed guys vs. power guys, who the league thinks has more value, the Stubbs or the Kendricks of the world
Thats why this SGP stat interests me, because it ties directly into how the NFBC league players values the ballplayers and not how I or you value the ballplayers. This could help in several ways. For example, if I could validate that the SGP numbers for players accurately reflects NFBC player valuations, then I could compare it to my valuations and change my draft strategy if certain categories/type of players are over- or under-weighted by the league as a whole.
That is just one thing I'm trying to figure out. it never seems to end, but it is all fun to look at.
Well then, good work.
It means 1) that if you put Crawford in your lineup over Pujols you will end up with more points. or 2) the formula is bad.
Since it is not 1) it must be 2).
Looking at last year's stats, we know that the median value for Hrs, runs rbis,avg. and Sbs were: 16.5, 71..3, 68.2, 0.2677 and 10.4.
To look at the gain points, I think we should throw out the teams that are real outliers as they tend to skew the data. The way I did this is to look at one standard deviation around the median value, or the 68% of the teams around each middle team. Another words, when I looked at the 435 teams that played in the Classic last year, I looked at the 72nd team in each category, subtracted the value from the 363rd team in each category and divided by 9.33, the number of teams within the 68% for each league. When I do that I come up with one SGP for every 4.40 HRS, 14.1 runs, 15.0 rbis, .0014 of BAVG influence, and every 6.0 SBs.
Its easy to take a look at an average team from last year, substitute out one of the average players from an average team and substitute in either Pujols or Crawford. When I did that I came up with SGPs of 4.40+3.10+3.32+3.36+0.60= 14.78 SGPs for Pujols in a Classic League. For Crawford, I get 0.43+2.74+0.68+3.0+6.1=12.95 SGPs. These stats seem plausible to me, especially since Pujols was a little off last year.
I haven't run any other players, but I'm thinking about it. On the other hand, I'm kind of hoping/wondering, Ronald, if you will look at this, and if you think it might have value, if you could plug these unit values (one SGP for every 4.40 HRS, 14.1 runs, 15.0 rbis, .0014 of BAVG influence, and every 6.0 SBs) for SGP into your spreadsheet and let me know if the resulting data passes the smell test.. if you did this, that would be great, because it and save me the trouble of building a spreadsheet to do the same thing myself....
If you think it is a waste of time, thats OK too..
CC,
Does this mean that SGPs are not the newest STD? I was just glad it wasn't the newest device we'd have to buy to play movies on! lol.
Back to the general subject; I saw, read and enjoyed your blog on another site regarding the top 15 players at each position. I have actually used your insights already, thank you. It seems like it would be a good way to get a feel for the fringe players on the edge, and am building them into my own system.
This is my second year in the NFBC. I am actually cocky enough to feel like my valuation methods are getting good. But I think the thing I struggled with the most last year was not my valuation system, or even trying to find value in fringe players, but it was trying to figure out how other NFBC owners valued the different types of players available in the draft and the FAAB. I'm not so much talking individual players or ADP here, but more speed guys vs. power guys, who the league thinks has more value, the Stubbs or the Kendricks of the world
Thats why this SGP stat interests me, because it ties directly into how the NFBC league players values the ballplayers and not how I or you value the ballplayers. This could help in several ways. For example, if I could validate that the SGP numbers for players accurately reflects NFBC player valuations, then I could compare it to my valuations and change my draft strategy if certain categories/type of players are over- or under-weighted by the league as a whole.
That is just one thing I'm trying to figure out. it never seems to end, but it is all fun to look at.
- Robert
-
Ronald Esq
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:00 pm
- Contact:
SGPs
I took an average and standard deviation of the 2nd-14th place team in each category, across a random 10 Main Leagues from last year, so my numbers are a little different than what you came up with. I eliminated the high/low value from each category in each league.
I used: .268, 74.1, 17.1, 70.8 & 10.7 for the averages and .00137, 16.4, 6.4, 17.2 & 6.1 for the SGP steps.
My R/HR/RBI numbers are way higher than yours, which obviously in turn makes Pujols worth less in my calcs.
But if I plug in your step values, Pujols comes out at +13.47, where Crawford is 2nd at +12.65. Of course all these numbers are subjective to the projections you've based them off of, someone out there could have Hanley, CarGo or Braun at +15 or whatever, lol.
[ January 31, 2011, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Ronald Esq ]
I used: .268, 74.1, 17.1, 70.8 & 10.7 for the averages and .00137, 16.4, 6.4, 17.2 & 6.1 for the SGP steps.
My R/HR/RBI numbers are way higher than yours, which obviously in turn makes Pujols worth less in my calcs.
But if I plug in your step values, Pujols comes out at +13.47, where Crawford is 2nd at +12.65. Of course all these numbers are subjective to the projections you've based them off of, someone out there could have Hanley, CarGo or Braun at +15 or whatever, lol.
[ January 31, 2011, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Ronald Esq ]
-
CC's Desperados
- Posts: 2558
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:00 pm
SGPs
Rainers...just curious how did you end up on that site?
SGPs
To the original question, here is my estimate for SGP for hitters in 2011. Obviously, you tweak the denominators to your own expectations of the player pool output. Right or wrong, I feel comfortable with using it as a prelim ranking tool to compare my apples with my oranges.
=((((HR/10)+(RBI/30))+(SB/11))+(R/30))+((((1525+H)/(5550+AB))-0.275)/0.0022)= SGP
Drop me a PM, if you want the pitching formula.
[ February 01, 2011, 04:47 AM: Message edited by: Asumijet ]
=((((HR/10)+(RBI/30))+(SB/11))+(R/30))+((((1525+H)/(5550+AB))-0.275)/0.0022)= SGP
Drop me a PM, if you want the pitching formula.
[ February 01, 2011, 04:47 AM: Message edited by: Asumijet ]
Neal Moses
SGPs
Originally posted by Ronald Esq:
I took an average and standard deviation of the 2nd-14th place team in each category, across a random 10 Main Leagues from last year, so my numbers are a little different than what you came up with. I eliminated the high/low value from each category in each league.
I used: .268, 74.1, 17.1, 70.8 & 10.7 for the averages and .00137, 16.4, 6.4, 17.2 & 6.1 for the SGP steps.
My R/HR/RBI numbers are way higher than yours, which obviously in turn makes Pujols worth less in my calcs.
You are very thorough. Thanks for correcting my addition
FYI, I just used Albert's and Crawford's 2010 stats, not projections.
Given your method and large sample size, I would have thought your system would have worked fine. The results don't bear that out. I haven't run enough of my numbers to get a feel...The main differences between us are I used median values, not averages, and I threw out more teams at the high and low end. I doubt that made all that much difference and am still scratching my head on why this doesn't work better.
I'm going to crank more numbers when I get time, look harder at yours, Amijets and mine before I give up on this...
the difference between our Hr, Rbi, and runs
But if I plug in your step values, Pujols comes out at +13.47, where Crawford is 2nd at +12.65. Of course all these numbers are subjective to the projections you've based them off of, someone out there could have Hanley, CarGo or Braun at +15 or whatever, lol.
I took an average and standard deviation of the 2nd-14th place team in each category, across a random 10 Main Leagues from last year, so my numbers are a little different than what you came up with. I eliminated the high/low value from each category in each league.
I used: .268, 74.1, 17.1, 70.8 & 10.7 for the averages and .00137, 16.4, 6.4, 17.2 & 6.1 for the SGP steps.
My R/HR/RBI numbers are way higher than yours, which obviously in turn makes Pujols worth less in my calcs.
You are very thorough. Thanks for correcting my addition
FYI, I just used Albert's and Crawford's 2010 stats, not projections.
Given your method and large sample size, I would have thought your system would have worked fine. The results don't bear that out. I haven't run enough of my numbers to get a feel...The main differences between us are I used median values, not averages, and I threw out more teams at the high and low end. I doubt that made all that much difference and am still scratching my head on why this doesn't work better.
I'm going to crank more numbers when I get time, look harder at yours, Amijets and mine before I give up on this...
the difference between our Hr, Rbi, and runs
But if I plug in your step values, Pujols comes out at +13.47, where Crawford is 2nd at +12.65. Of course all these numbers are subjective to the projections you've based them off of, someone out there could have Hanley, CarGo or Braun at +15 or whatever, lol.
- Robert
SGPs
Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
Rainers...just curious how did you end up on that site? I really don't remember for sure, but I like your posts and once I googled either Cc desperado or Shawn Childs and maybe that is when I saw it...
[ February 01, 2011, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: Rainiers ]
Rainers...just curious how did you end up on that site? I really don't remember for sure, but I like your posts and once I googled either Cc desperado or Shawn Childs and maybe that is when I saw it...
[ February 01, 2011, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: Rainiers ]
- Robert
-
Schwartzstops
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:00 pm
SGPs
A big challenge when calculating SGP's is with outliers: if a team punts saves in favor of drafting all starting pitchers, they may end up last with with 0 saves and, say, lead the league with 25 more wins than the second place team. Both of these rankings would skew the value of saves and wins, so I drop the top and bottom "x" percent of teams when calculating SGP's.
Anyway, in case anyone is interested, here's a series of blog posts I wrote last year about SGP's and how they fit into my overall offseason draft prep:
http://fantasy411.mlblogs.com/archives/ ... arcit.html
(This link is to the last of four posts, so you can work backwards to the other three.)
Anyway, in case anyone is interested, here's a series of blog posts I wrote last year about SGP's and how they fit into my overall offseason draft prep:
http://fantasy411.mlblogs.com/archives/ ... arcit.html
(This link is to the last of four posts, so you can work backwards to the other three.)
-
CC's Desperados
- Posts: 2558
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:00 pm
SGPs
Originally posted by Rainiers:
quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
Rainers...just curious how did you end up on that site? I really don't remember for sure, but I like your posts and once I googled either Cc desperado or Shawn Childs and maybe that is when I saw it... [/QUOTE]Sorry it hasn't been update since January 15. I've been working of stuff and I'm hoping it gets pushed out soon where it was supposed to land.
quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
Rainers...just curious how did you end up on that site? I really don't remember for sure, but I like your posts and once I googled either Cc desperado or Shawn Childs and maybe that is when I saw it... [/QUOTE]Sorry it hasn't been update since January 15. I've been working of stuff and I'm hoping it gets pushed out soon where it was supposed to land.
-
High Octane Baseball
- Posts: 193
- Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:00 pm
- Contact:
SGPs
totally new to SGP's...but love me some spreadsheets.
Anyone willing to help a new guy out and hook me up with the sheets?
I am sure im not in your league!! lol
Anyone willing to help a new guy out and hook me up with the sheets?
I am sure im not in your league!! lol
-
Cocktails and Dreams
- Posts: 681
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:00 pm
SGPs
I am hoping instincts and cocktails outweigh all this number crunching or I have no shot.
SGPs
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cocktails and Dreams:
I am hoping instincts and cocktails outweigh all this number crunching or I have no shot. [
"In fact, noted sabermetrician Tom Tango conducted a season-long experiment this past season (http://tangotiger.net/forecast) which concluded what many have thought to be true: the "wisdom of the crowds" approach ultimately generates results just as good as any other system."
--I'm quoting Schwartzstops from his third article cited above...
[ February 02, 2011, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: Rainiers ]
I am hoping instincts and cocktails outweigh all this number crunching or I have no shot. [
"In fact, noted sabermetrician Tom Tango conducted a season-long experiment this past season (http://tangotiger.net/forecast) which concluded what many have thought to be true: the "wisdom of the crowds" approach ultimately generates results just as good as any other system."
--I'm quoting Schwartzstops from his third article cited above...
[ February 02, 2011, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: Rainiers ]
- Robert
SGPs
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cocktails and Dreams:
I am hoping instincts and cocktails outweigh all this number crunching or I have no shot.
I'm with you Chad...I cant even figure some of these formulas and methods out, never mind implement them into my drafting strategy.
I am hoping instincts and cocktails outweigh all this number crunching or I have no shot.
I'm with you Chad...I cant even figure some of these formulas and methods out, never mind implement them into my drafting strategy.
SGPs
For batting average, I thought it made the most sense to use hits for a score. If I did every players score, I would use 550 at bats with a .280 average or 154 hits. So if a player hit .270 with 550 at bats, he had a score of minus 5.5. I would have to come up with a formula to see the impact of a player with more or less at bats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To weight batting average for number of at bats, you need a baseline number of at bats you expect an average player to get--let's say 500. Then you divide the number of at bats you expect a player to get by that number, in this case 500. That will basically give you a percentage you can multiply your SGP's by.
For example if you expect Derek Jeter to get 600 at bats and his batting average SGP is 2, here would be the formula:
600/500=1.2 (which is like 120%)
1.2*2=2.4
So the weighted SGP would be 2.4
[ February 02, 2011, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To weight batting average for number of at bats, you need a baseline number of at bats you expect an average player to get--let's say 500. Then you divide the number of at bats you expect a player to get by that number, in this case 500. That will basically give you a percentage you can multiply your SGP's by.
For example if you expect Derek Jeter to get 600 at bats and his batting average SGP is 2, here would be the formula:
600/500=1.2 (which is like 120%)
1.2*2=2.4
So the weighted SGP would be 2.4
[ February 02, 2011, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]
Chance favors the prepared mind.
-
CC's Desperados
- Posts: 2558
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:00 pm
SGPs
Originally posted by bjoak:
quote: For batting average, I thought it made the most sense to use hits for a score. If I did every players score, I would use 550 at bats with a .280 average or 154 hits. So if a player hit .270 with 550 at bats, he had a score of minus 5.5. I would have to come up with a formula to see the impact of a player with more or less at bats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To weight batting average for number of at bats, you need a baseline number of at bats you expect an average player to get--let's say 500. Then you divide the number of at bats you expect a player to get by that number, in this case 500. That will basically give you a percentage you can multiply your SGP's by.
For example if you expect Derek Jeter to get 600 at bats and his batting average SGP is 2, here would be the formula:
600/500=1.2 (which is like 120%)
1.2*2=2.4
So the weighted SGP would be 2.4 [/QUOTE]Thanks, but I think hits will work better than BA.
quote: For batting average, I thought it made the most sense to use hits for a score. If I did every players score, I would use 550 at bats with a .280 average or 154 hits. So if a player hit .270 with 550 at bats, he had a score of minus 5.5. I would have to come up with a formula to see the impact of a player with more or less at bats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To weight batting average for number of at bats, you need a baseline number of at bats you expect an average player to get--let's say 500. Then you divide the number of at bats you expect a player to get by that number, in this case 500. That will basically give you a percentage you can multiply your SGP's by.
For example if you expect Derek Jeter to get 600 at bats and his batting average SGP is 2, here would be the formula:
600/500=1.2 (which is like 120%)
1.2*2=2.4
So the weighted SGP would be 2.4 [/QUOTE]Thanks, but I think hits will work better than BA.
SGPs
Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
quote:Originally posted by bjoak:
quote: For batting average, I thought it made the most sense to use hits for a score. If I did every players score, I would use 550 at bats with a .280 average or 154 hits. So if a player hit .270 with 550 at bats, he had a score of minus 5.5. I would have to come up with a formula to see the impact of a player with more or less at bats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To weight batting average for number of at bats, you need a baseline number of at bats you expect an average player to get--let's say 500. Then you divide the number of at bats you expect a player to get by that number, in this case 500. That will basically give you a percentage you can multiply your SGP's by.
For example if you expect Derek Jeter to get 600 at bats and his batting average SGP is 2, here would be the formula:
600/500=1.2 (which is like 120%)
1.2*2=2.4
So the weighted SGP would be 2.4 [/QUOTE]Thanks, but I think hits will work better than BA. [/QUOTE]Depends on how good your kung fu is.
quote:Originally posted by bjoak:
quote: For batting average, I thought it made the most sense to use hits for a score. If I did every players score, I would use 550 at bats with a .280 average or 154 hits. So if a player hit .270 with 550 at bats, he had a score of minus 5.5. I would have to come up with a formula to see the impact of a player with more or less at bats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To weight batting average for number of at bats, you need a baseline number of at bats you expect an average player to get--let's say 500. Then you divide the number of at bats you expect a player to get by that number, in this case 500. That will basically give you a percentage you can multiply your SGP's by.
For example if you expect Derek Jeter to get 600 at bats and his batting average SGP is 2, here would be the formula:
600/500=1.2 (which is like 120%)
1.2*2=2.4
So the weighted SGP would be 2.4 [/QUOTE]Thanks, but I think hits will work better than BA. [/QUOTE]Depends on how good your kung fu is.
Chance favors the prepared mind.