March 26th version of Zen Projection Engine not working?

[da_big_kid_94]

DBK- once keepers are involved, the 67/33 split goes out the window. The value split of the whole pool might be 67/33 but depending on what is avilable after keepers and what is paid for them, 50/50 isn't some sort of bizarro world.

Not getting into this back and forth, as JP understands the Zen system better than I, but it's precisely a mathematical exercise. Once keepers are in play, you have to tune the splits to get everything to make sense.

Based on that, Gary - how will one know when one "gets it right?" When the numbers "seem" like they fit to you? If that's the case, what's the purpose of this?

[Todd Zola]

In a keeper league there is no right. There is no algorithm or visual basis process that can account for how everyone is going to spend. This was the focus of a recent piece I did on SI.com so I won't belabor it (too much) here.

You can come up with a means to make the math work out.

You can come up with a means to make the math work out and somewhat emulate how things might go.

But as my sister would say -- big whoop.

The static inflation-corrected value generated means nothing, at least to me. If I need saves, I pay as much for Mo as I believe I can afford to leave me ample money to buy what else I need. It may reach a point of diminishing returns where my net points with Mo is less than without him, so I elect not to spend that amount. My contention is that is is impossible to objectively determine this exact point using the CVRC, the Zen Engine or HAL. People don't want to hear this, but it is the way I feel.

They want to hear how you figure out how much money is frozen on hitting and compare that to the standard 70% or so that is normally spent on hitting and then do the same with pitching. It is likely that the amount frozen on hitting is more or less than pitching, so you need to make an adjustment in the split by which you spend your remaining money to make it 70/30 at the end, which is all that Gary and JP have been saying. This makes the math work out so there is a logical basis, but for me not a practical one.

[da_big_kid_94]

so you need to make an adjustment in the split by which you spend your remaining money to make it 70/30 at the end, which is all that Gary and JP have been saying. This makes the math work out so there is a logical basis, but for me not a practical one.

And my point is how do you know the "adjustments" you are making are correct? Because the amounts now seem to coincide with what you think they should be? There's no guideline as to what the splits are or how they should be adjusted ...so you just fly bind? JP changed it to 50. Fine. Why? Because it gave better results? The answers should not be driving the parameters. Thank you all for your responses ...I'll pass on using this tool.

[JP Kastner]

In theory, you'll need to do some simple math. If you know your final ratio is usually 69% and that you have committed $991 to hitters and $619 to pitchers (a 62/38 ratio) then the remaining salary should be $1162 for hitters and $348 for pitchers (a 77/23 ratio for even more aggressive for hitters.) Using that ratio even further reduces Rivera's value because you need to spend at least $1 on a player.

The reality is that your league probably doesn't use a 69% ratio if Papelbon goes for $41 and Fuentes goes for $37 like they do on your sheet.

No system is going to do a good job when there is high inflation. Like Todd said, you just have to know what it is going to take to get someone and have that available to spend.

[Todd Zola]

And my point is how do you know the "adjustments" you are making are correct?

And my point is there is no such thing as correct.

Because the amounts now seem to coincide with what you think they should be? There's no guideline as to what the splits are or how they should be adjusted ...so you just fly bind? JP changed it to 50. Fine. Why? Because it gave better results? The answers should not be driving the parameters. Thank you all for your responses ...I'll pass on using this tool.

With the caveat that I believe there is no such thing as correct, therefore there are no correct answers to correctly drive the parameters, here is an example of a mathematical treatment of a keeper scenario.

12 team keeper league with a $260 budget that routinely ends up at 70/30 post auction incorporating the prices of the keepers into the final split.

OVERVIEW

12 x 260 x .7 = $2184 for hitting
12 x 260 x .3 = $936 for pitching

KEEPERS

HITTERS (6 catchers, 79 non-catchers) --- $1360 worth of talent being frozen for $1105
PITCHERS (35) -- $490 worth of talent being frozen for $245
OVERALL --- $1770 worth of talent being frozen for $1270

INFLATION RATES

HITTERS -- 31%
PITCHERS -- 55%
OVERALL -- 39%

I am not completely familiar with the Zen Engine, but the manner to handle this on the CVRC is to

1. blank out the keepers
2. adjust team budget to account for keepers
3. Adjust total number of players drafted to know where to set replacement
4. Adjust the split so at the end, the total of the keepers and the inflation adjusted prices show a 70/30 split

MATH FOR #2

($3120-$1270)/12 = $154.17 left per team to spend on the average

MATH FOR #3

Need to value...

18 catchers
65 non catchers
73 pitchers

MATH FOR #4

TOTAL LEFT TO SPEND

$3120 - $1105 - $245 = $1770

HITTING

$2184 - $1105 = $1079

1079/1770 = .61

PITCHING

(should just do 1-.61, but here is the work)

$936 - $245 = $691

691/1770 = .39
___________

So the adjustment is not arbitrary, in this example, it is 61:39