Difference Between Zen Engine and CVRC?

[tamburgy]

Sorry if this has been addressed, but I couldn't find an answer anywhere, but what is the difference between the Zen Projection Engine and the CVRC?

I ran them for my first NFBC satellite league that I'm participating in on Thursday, and saw that the values differ. As an example, Zen has David Wright as the 6th overall hitter, while CVRC has David Wright as the 14th overall hitter.

I couldn't find out what the difference between the two excel worksheets was.

Thanks.

[Todd Zola]

I'll let JP speak to the Zen Engine. The CVRC is solely an automated means of calculating values based on the method the site has developed over the years. I purposely will not call it "my method" or "our method" as it really is a hybrid of a bunch of different principles I have picked up over the years, so I guess an argument can be made that it is ours in that I have put them together in a unique manner, but I digress.

The Zen Engine is more than that as it also involved a drafting program amongst other features.

To address your question about differences in values, the Zen Engine uses the process described by John Benson in his book Playing for Blood, and is in fact a contributing principle to the method we champion, though there are obviously differences.

The long term goal is to take the best features of the Zen Engine and Rob's draft worksheet and make that into a really souped up draft software application, that is fueled by the value principles that fuel the CVCR (after I correct the manner it sizes the player pool and takes catchers out.)

The plan is sooner than later.

[tamburgy]

Thanks Todd. One follow-up question, you mentioned that "there are obviously differences" in the method of valuation between the two principles (CVRC and Zen), could you briefly explain what some of those differences are? (I.e., does one value SBs more than the other, etc.) I'm trying to figure out which system I plan to use Thursday, and like to keep things simple with one projection system/valuation (but also keeping in mind obvious differences and variations to note while drafting).

Thanks for taking the time.

[Todd Zola]

My comment emanated from the fact that since the values were different, there are obviously differences in the systems.

Granted, that is some pretty basic circular reason so I can see how one may read more into it, but that's all I was really trying to say, not actually speak towards the differences because I quite frankly don't know what they are and how the numbers will be impacted.

IIRC, the Benson model did not handle replacement in the manner I do nor does it handle ratio categories in the same manner.

But again, I cannot speak towards how that affects the final numbers.

But as we have been saying all spring, try not to get to married to the final numbers anyway, use them as a relative means to compare players to tier them and focus on the stats contribution as well as their raw value.

[Guest]

Reading the essays on the site re:SGP will help...I don't know if the Benson method is exactly SGP but I know he trended that way.

Either way, as Todd says, go with either, your auction will lead you where it wants to go.

[Todd Zola]

Benson was actually percentage of stats contributions like we do.

And actually, we may have a few different options with respect to value systems for the roided up project as if nothing else, you can see how those that use other systems might value players.

[tamburgy]

Thanks, appreciate the insight.

[JP Kastner]

As Lawr was an editor for John Benson, it only seemed logical to build a tool based on Benson's principles. When CS and MB merged, we took a look at the two systems and concluded that the CVRC is the official site solution. Our values are based upon the CVRC.

I decided to support the ZPE this year because CS people used it and it was easier to use. In all, the next generation CRVC will look amazing similar to the ZPE in that you'll adjust some settings and press a button to get cheat sheets and the like.

[tamburgy]

Thanks everyone for the explanations. Can't wait for the "steroid" engine next year