CVRC Help

Ask questions or post comments concerning the CVRC, START or the Team and Player Tracker
Post Reply
Message
Author
david_hume

CVRC Help

#1 Post by david_hume »

I tried to set the CVRC up for a league of mine tonight and I'm not getting appropriate results. Here's what I did:

- downloaded 3/11 CVRC
- on the player tab, set all non C PPOS to OF
- changed BA to OBP
- changed standard to customize
- entered 12 under C and 156 under OF
- set pool size factor to -1.1
- used the mac shortcut to paste the player values into the values tab (=League_Set_up!HU2)

Using these steps, I only get six catchers with positive value. I also replicated this on my PC machine using the macros. What am I doing wrong?

User avatar
Todd Zola
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8261
Joined: December 25th, 2008, 12:45 pm

Re: CVRC Help

#2 Post by Todd Zola »

It's a quirk with the calculation. I was going to fix it but we are melding the tools from CS and MB into one next season and we will do it then. There will be sufficient catchers around $0/-$1 to get by.

A "trick" is to set catchers a bit higher and adjust down the OF to make it work.
Catchers are like prostate exams -- comes a time where you can't put if off any longer, so you may as well get it over with and take it up the butt - The Forum Funklord

I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons than right for the wrong reasons - The Forum Funklord

Always remember, never forget, never say always or never. - The Forum Funklord

You know you have to seek therapy when you see one of your pitchers had a bad night and it takes you 15 minutes to find the team you have him on. - The Forum Funklord

User avatar
viper
Hall of Famer
Posts: 1464
Joined: December 31st, 2008, 11:32 pm
Preferred Style: Currently in an AL-only league with the Bill James Technical RCA as the single hitting category and ERA as the single pitching category.
Contact:

Re: CVRC Help

#3 Post by viper »

The same thing occurs for NFBC setups. There are 20 catchers instead of 30 with positive values.

If you remove the 10 lowest valued non-catchers, you still have enough players for every position, with a few extras. My take is that it doesn't actually make any difference in the overall scheme of things.

Even in an auction, it really isn't significant. The sum value for those 10 extra catchers is about $20 which is very small. You can make up the entire $20 [in my case] by reducing by about 10 cents every non-catcher. Net effect nothing.

I would bet, your situation is very similar.
The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -- Ambassador Kosh

Mike Ladd
Buffy, the Umpire Slayer

david_hume

Re: CVRC Help

#4 Post by david_hume »

Todd Zola wrote:There will be sufficient catchers around $0/-$1 to get by.
The 12th best C in the pool is John Baker, worth -$6.6. I don't fully understand this tool, but doesn't that mean that the top catchers are valued much too low? Mauer is a $20 player vs. Pujols $48 and Hanley $39. This doesn't seem right to me.
Last edited by david_hume on March 14th, 2010, 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Guest

Re: CVRC Help

#5 Post by Guest »

Well, by your settings it's a one catcher league and maybe 2 UT? This would certainly drive catcher values down.

User avatar
Todd Zola
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8261
Joined: December 25th, 2008, 12:45 pm

Re: CVRC Help

#6 Post by Todd Zola »

Your league only starts 1 catcher which skews perception a bit. Replacement for catchers is now against the 12 best catcher while non-catchers against the 156th best hitter. The levels are almost the same. You could even run the numbers using 1 pool.

Also realize the only form of 'scarcity' the system deals with is VORP. Things like gaps between players is something you need to deal with strategically.

Setting the catchers to 20 and the non-C to 148 gives 11 catchers in the pool with Baker at $0. Here are the top prices...

Pujols, Albert $49
Ramirez, Hanley $39
Fielder, Prince $37
Howard, Ryan $35
Braun, Ryan $35
Rodriguez, Alex $33
Teixeira, Mark $31
Wright, David $31
Longoria, Evan $30
Cabrera, Miguel $30
Utley, Chase $28
Dunn, Adam $28
Mauer, Joe $28
Werth, Jayson $28
Kemp, Matt $28

Due to OBP, Pujols is other-worldly. Then you have the Hanley down to ARod tier. Then Mauer is firmly planted in that next tier. Makes intuitive sense to me.

An argument can be made that with only 12 catchers active, it may be a better play to take a $1 guy and keep moving guys in until you find one that exceeds expectations. I can pretty much guarantee that there will be multiple guys out of the top-12 that end up in the top-12 by season's end.

So again, the number of catchers issue is more a matter of a quirk in the marginal pricing element than the system itself. Your particular situation is due to an odd player pool set-up with 1 catcher and 2 UT in a shallow league. In such a league, you should honestly be thinking extreme stars and scrubs, which means you toss the prices out the window anyways.
Catchers are like prostate exams -- comes a time where you can't put if off any longer, so you may as well get it over with and take it up the butt - The Forum Funklord

I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons than right for the wrong reasons - The Forum Funklord

Always remember, never forget, never say always or never. - The Forum Funklord

You know you have to seek therapy when you see one of your pitchers had a bad night and it takes you 15 minutes to find the team you have him on. - The Forum Funklord

david_hume

Re: CVRC Help

#7 Post by david_hume »

Todd Zola wrote:Your league only starts 1 catcher which skews perception a bit. Replacement for catchers is now against the 12 best catcher while non-catchers against the 156th best hitter. The levels are almost the same. You could even run the numbers using 1 pool.
I ran the numbers using one pool. There are more catchers in the draftable pool using that method than there are when I use the customized setting that is supposed to increase the value of catchers (due to a lower replacement level). I understand that this is a quirk of the software that will be fixed next year and that the way to fix it now is to artificially increase the number of catchers in the pool. But it doesn't sense to me, and I am a skeptical guy who does not like to use tools that I can't understand completely.
Todd Zola wrote: Setting the catchers to 20 and the non-C to 148 gives 11 catchers in the pool with Baker at $0
...
Mauer is firmly planted in that next tier. Makes intuitive sense to me.
This makes intuitive sense to me too. I am trying to convince myself to set aside my skepticism and use this tweak.
Todd Zola wrote: An argument can be made that with only 12 catchers active, it may be a better play to take a $1 guy and keep moving guys in until you find one that exceeds expectations. I can pretty much guarantee that there will be multiple guys out of the top-12 that end up in the top-12 by season's end.
I like this strategy. Unfortunately it's a draft league, not an auction. But if I don't get Mauer, my guess would be that I get a guy in the last round.
Todd Zola wrote: Your particular situation is due to an odd player pool set-up with 1 catcher and 2 UT in a shallow league. In such a league, you should honestly be thinking extreme stars and scrubs, which means you toss the prices out the window anyways.
The actual setup is 1 C, 2 1B, and 1 UT. Not my invention, for sure. There are 27 1B and 20 3B in the draftable pool, which leaves it short one CI. It seems to me that I don't need to account for this by dividing up the pools. Please correct me if you think this is wrong.

User avatar
Todd Zola
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8261
Joined: December 25th, 2008, 12:45 pm

Re: CVRC Help

#8 Post by Todd Zola »

david_hume wrote:
Todd Zola wrote:Your league only starts 1 catcher which skews perception a bit. Replacement for catchers is now against the 12 best catcher while non-catchers against the 156th best hitter. The levels are almost the same. You could even run the numbers using 1 pool.
I ran the numbers using one pool. There are more catchers in the draftable pool using that method than there are when I use the customized setting that is supposed to increase the value of catchers (due to a lower replacement level).

I understand that this is a quirk of the software that will be fixed next year and that the way to fix it now is to artificially increase the number of catchers in the pool. But it doesn't sense to me, and I am a skeptical guy who does not like to use tools that I can't understand completely.
It only increases value if the replacement is lower. In your set-up, replacement is not lower for catchers, it may even be higher.

That said, coming from a fellow skeptic. I understand where your mindset is. Though please keep in mind that we are about as open-source as it gets with this stuff, which unto itself should provide some level of comfort. We describe our method in detail. The "best" way would be to follow the 22-page excel tutorial and do it "by hand". If that is what it will take to temper your skepticism, say the word and I can get you the tutorial. We need to set up a free archive section to post it.

david_hume wrote:
Todd Zola wrote:Setting the catchers to 20 and the non-C to 148 gives 11 catchers in the pool with Baker at $0
...
Mauer is firmly planted in that next tier. Makes intuitive sense to me.
This makes intuitive sense to me too. I am trying to convince myself to set aside my skepticism and use this tweak.
They key here is not just putting aside your skepticism, but even more relying on your understanding the differences between raw value, market value and intrinsic value and concluding that these numbers do indeed provide a suitable base.
david_hume wrote:
Todd Zola wrote: An argument can be made that with only 12 catchers active, it may be a better play to take a $1 guy and keep moving guys in until you find one that exceeds expectations. I can pretty much guarantee that there will be multiple guys out of the top-12 that end up in the top-12 by season's end.
I like this strategy. Unfortunately it's a draft league, not an auction. But if I don't get Mauer, my guess would be that I get a guy in the last round.
Yup, same idea :)

david_hume wrote:
Todd Zola wrote:Your particular situation is due to an odd player pool set-up with 1 catcher and 2 UT in a shallow league. In such a league, you should honestly be thinking extreme stars and scrubs, which means you toss the prices out the window anyways.
The actual setup is 1 C, 2 1B, and 1 UT. Not my invention, for sure. There are 27 1B and 20 3B in the draftable pool, which leaves it short one CI. It seems to me that I don't need to account for this by dividing up the pools. Please correct me if you think this is wrong.
You'll be fine. Though there are guys like Garrett Jones, Adam Dunn and Nick Swisher that may be put in the OF. It all evens out though as this pushes a better OF to you as your last OF.
Catchers are like prostate exams -- comes a time where you can't put if off any longer, so you may as well get it over with and take it up the butt - The Forum Funklord

I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons than right for the wrong reasons - The Forum Funklord

Always remember, never forget, never say always or never. - The Forum Funklord

You know you have to seek therapy when you see one of your pitchers had a bad night and it takes you 15 minutes to find the team you have him on. - The Forum Funklord

david_hume

Re: CVRC Help

#9 Post by david_hume »

Todd Zola wrote:It only increases value if the replacement is lower. In your set-up, replacement is not lower for catchers, it may even be higher.
...
That said, coming from a fellow skeptic. I understand where your mindset is. Though please keep in mind that we are about as open-source as it gets with this stuff, which unto itself should provide some level of comfort. We describe our method in detail.
...
They key here is not just putting aside your skepticism, but even more relying on your understanding the differences between raw value, market value and intrinsic value and concluding that these numbers do indeed provide a suitable base.
can you expand your first statement a little? when you say "if the replacement is lower..." what are you comparing my pool to?

you guys get credit for being transparent with your methods. that's an important thing for a skeptical reader. kudos for that. my criticism is that you say, "here is a tool that will give you customized values for your league," and then i use it correctly and only get half the catchers i need in the draftable pool. but i believe you when you say you will fix it and i believe that the tweak you provide does not diminish the accuracy or usability of the results.

the most important nugget i have taken away from reading the material on this site is to stop obsessing about the little numbers with dollar signs next to them and focus more intently on things like the fluidity of playing time projections, the composition of the player pool (tiers, positional scarcity, categorical scarcity, etc.), and the difference between your values and those of the market.

i think i will go work on those things now.

User avatar
Todd Zola
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8261
Joined: December 25th, 2008, 12:45 pm

Re: CVRC Help

#10 Post by Todd Zola »

Turns out that the catcher replacement is still appreciably lower than regular replacement with only 12 catchers.

Maybe this is more clear, using actual numbers.

With 12 catchers, the last one is Baker. With 24, the last one is Zaun.

When 12 catchers are drafted, the last position player is in the range of Atkins/Raburn/Tejada.

With 24, it is Maicer/Hideki/Huff.

If you run the numbers with just 1 pool, so positions are moot and you are just comparing stats, Zaun is -11, Baker is -4, Atkins/Raburn/Tejada are 2 and Maicer/Hideki/Huff are 3.

Since Baker is lower, catchers will still get a bump due to scarcity, about a $5 bump. If you used 24 catchers, they would get an $12 bump.

I mistakenly suggested Baker's "1-pool" value might be close to that of Atkins/Raburn/Tejada.

It is obviously still different.
Catchers are like prostate exams -- comes a time where you can't put if off any longer, so you may as well get it over with and take it up the butt - The Forum Funklord

I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons than right for the wrong reasons - The Forum Funklord

Always remember, never forget, never say always or never. - The Forum Funklord

You know you have to seek therapy when you see one of your pitchers had a bad night and it takes you 15 minutes to find the team you have him on. - The Forum Funklord

david_hume

Re: CVRC Help

#11 Post by david_hume »

yes, very clear. thanks todd.

Post Reply