Theoretical Poll #1 of 2010

[Guest]

Curious of your thoughts. Please provide commentary after voting.

[drapes]

I'm sure there's a formula that proves me wrong or something... but I voted no. To me, you target total accumulated stats... no matter how they're spread. NOW I'd LOVE a catcher that netted me 50 bags, but I wouldn't change my strategy to target him for that reason. If he was available in a place where I needed speed and C, I'd take him.

[50 Desert Eagles]

I voted yes....sorry drapes...simply based on value and scarcity, I mean OF getting 50 steals isn't new and usually they all have the same value.....but a Catcher that could do it means he would have more runs for sure, great OBP at the least...It's like Mccann, he has more value then most Catchers because of his consistant power. Most catchers are .250-260 hitters at best, 10-12 hr's 50 rbi 50 runs.....It also gives more chances to draft say an OF with power or high hit totals and not worry about his SB's since ur getting them from a Catcher....atleast its my thoughts.

[Black Sox]

The stolen bases don't know where they come from Everyone know's on the surface that those stats coming from a catcher are very rare, whether you get them from a catcher or an OF does not matter at the end of the day, they all count the same.

[viper]

I guess it is all in how you look at the question. I voted "no" because 50 is 50 no matter how you get there.

When you draft a 50 steal player, you add 50 to your target total. Getting it from a catcher means you don't need it from a middle infielder. Now a 50 SB catcher will cost more than a 50 SB outfielder under normal circumstances. We all know the replacement value for catchers is typically lower. But what if you played in a league where all positions on an active roster were UT. Or what if your league required just 1 catcher but double the normal at the other positions.

Practically, this speedy catcher would be valued very high but he just adds 50 to your totals.

[da_big_kid_94]

I voted no because I believe you will pay an appropriate price for those 50 bags, whether it be at auction or in an early round of a draft. The position that generates those bags won't be relevant. It's akin to going into your draft/auction saying "There are ten players who will steal 50 bases this year - I have to get ONE of them." Won't matter which one you get as long as you get one.

EDIT: and upon further pondering, because the 50 bag catcher is so rare, you may have to pay a premium above and beyond his worth just to get him (Lets say $30 or a third round pick, for sake of discussion) - and you may get those same 50 bags later (depending, of course on the flow of the auction/draft) for a much cheaper price from a MI or an OF. Now, were the scope limited to catchers who can steal 50, obviously, he's the man to get. But, if you can get those 50 bags somewhere else? He's not as valuable because his production can be obtained elsewhere. And the converse holds true - if he's the only guy left in your auction/draft who can swipe 50 - doesn't really matter what position he plays, does it? If you need the steals, you have to have him.

[Mickey4081]

I voted yes. Who would you rather have on your team? Kurt Suzuki's 50 steals or Juan Pierre's 50 steals? I would think Suzuki's steals are much more valuable coming from a catcher that an outfielder. You'll have an easier time finding stolen bases from outfielders than from a catcher. Isn't this why Russel Martin was so friggan special because he could give you 20 steals?

[rotodog]

This is a trick question..There isn't a right answer...

50 bags is 50 bags...the standings do not care where they came from..But

If you are the only guy with 50 bags coming from your catcher they are more valuable to my team because no other catcher will come close and you can now slowly add on the cheapie steals an many other OFer's give you..

So I vote Yes

[Todd Zola]

In a vacuum, I vote catcher.

In the context of a draft/auction, I reserve the right to change my mind.

[rotodog]

In a vacuum, I vote catcher.

In the context of a draft/auction, I reserve the right to change my mind.

Yeah, what he said! That's what I meant, but Todd said it in fewer words....

[viper]

A catcher who gets 50 SBs will typically have a higher value than a Shortstop who gets 50 steals. This is almost a lock. But that was not how the question was worded.

[rotodog]

A catcher who gets 50 SBs will typically have a higher value than a Shortstop who gets 50 steals. This is almost a lock. But that was not how the question was worded.

Well, Then I simply say yes...With no qualifiers..

Ok i lied..As long as you are using some sort of replacement level value system, then it most certainly is a YES...

[Todd Zola]

A catcher who gets 50 SBs will typically have a higher value than a Shortstop who gets 50 steals. This is almost a lock. But that was not how the question was worded.

No, not a lock at all. It depends completely on how you answer the question.

[AllstonRockCity]

I voted yes.

I break the player pool down into 2 positions when I use the CVRC, Ca and non-CA. So right away, I thought, yes they are worth more.

Now that I've thought about it more, the wording of the question has me wondering if I might have voted no.

But my reasoning is that catcher has the highest difference in replacement level player. If your OF gets hurt, well you can find another OF, maybe even one that'll swipe a bag or 2 a week on average. But a WW catcher that'll steal you more than 1 base?!?!?! Ha! Good Luck!. So I'm gonna stick to my guns and feel good about my yes vote.

[viper]

of course if that catcher goes down you have frittered away a very high round offensive player. To be honest, a 50 steal catcher would scare me. You know there are a lot of position scarcity drafters and that guy would go early 1st round. I mean do you want Ryan Howard or a 50 Sb catcher? That 50 SB catcher would be drafted before Howard more than likely. Under any valuation system, catchers get a bump in value because of position.

[AllstonRockCity]

the wording though; "steals from a catcher"

of course the catcher would cost you more, of course he'd be riskier, I don't think we are being asked to consider that though.

[Guest]

Its not a trick question nor does it have a correct answer. I'll be back later to weigh in.

[ayebatter]

I voted "no", because there's not enough information in the question. Now if you had stated that said catcher was Joe Mauer plus he stole 50 bases, you may have something to talk about.

[joshua]

I vote yes. Position scarcity.

[cwk1963]

I voted yes. I would love to know what Jason Kendall's value was in 1998 when his line was 12/75/95/26/.327.

[Hambowen]

I voted yes. Any other position is probably a No but catcher is a yes.

[kjduke]

A catcher gets a premium value added on to the value of his stats over any other position. However, that premium is 100% independent of the actual production he generates, therefore the correct answer (and I do mean correct, not just my opinion on the subject ) is no. Easily proven with a simple logical equation.

[Guest]

I can't and won't argue with kjduke. There probably is a formula as he suggests.

I would look at it another way. Lets create a new formula for determining player value:

Player value = Resources available & # of combinations of players/position slots available to reach all category targets.

Note I'm not actually creating an equation there. I just mean a player's value is tied to what you have left to spend and how getting that player moves you towards your category goals based on what you need to acquire going forward. Very qualitative but I think very accurate. More of an opportunity cost look at it than an accounting look.

From that standpoint I would guess that 50 SB from a catcher are SLIGHTLY more valuable than an OF only because I would guess than in a vacuum it gets you towards your goals more easily. However, one inefficient draft selection would wipe that out.

Not saying this is the answer, but it is mine.

[Mickey4081]

Wouldn't this be the same thing as.....50 hrs from a shortstop is worth MORE than 50 hrs from a first baseman?

[Mickey4081]

I voted yes. Any other position is probably a No but catcher is a yes.

Really? You dont' think 50 steals from 1st or 3rd baseman would be worth more than an outfielder?

[Guest]

Wouldn't this be the same thing as.....50 hrs from a shortstop is worth MORE than 50 hrs from a first baseman?

If you look at this year's pool (a ton of power from the corners), you could argue that.

Again, the difference in value is subtle in my opinion but given that 20-25 projected HR from a 1B is almost a given in mixed leagues, yeah, theres a case to be made here.

But again, very, very subtle and easily wiped out in one pick's time.

[viper]

Maybe it was the intention but this seems to be evolving into a position scarcity debate. My guess is that the "No" voters do not believe in position scarcity and the "yes" voter believe in it.

A major tenet for the MB projection valuation is using the replacement player. In large leagues, when you work your way to the final selections, the players available for that last position, likely UT, are all the same guy. Excluding catcher, that final Corner, Middle and Outfielder have the same value. This is why in the NFBC style league, you should run your calculations with 30 catchers and 180 others. When you do that, you will find that the last 5-6 $1 players represent those three basic positions.

One of the biggest kudos I can give MB is that they fully explain their methodology in converting projections to dollar. Try to find out this information from other sites. You answer will pretty much come back as "trust me". Now whether you agree with the replacement player concept is another matter. I guess I believe.

[Todd Zola]

Actually, I think the "obvious" answer is related to position scarcity, but like most whodunits, you find out the obvious answer is innocent and something not so obvious until it is explained is the guilty party. A few of us have danced around that answer, I will come back later and provide a detailed post explaining exactly what I mean when I can.

[Black Sox]

Oh by the way your mythical 50 SB C also is a leadoff hitter who bats .150 with 700 + PA , and makes A.Dunn look like a high BA guy Now how valuable are those 50 SB?

At the end of the day the standings are what they are, it doesn't matter where or how you obtain your stats, it's where you finish!

[Todd Zola]

Okay, fasten your seatbelts...

The way I see it, there are two "canned" or expected answers to the hypothetical with a third possible. Then there's teh way I will answer it

The first likely response is the scarcity/replacement/useful stats/2-person league argument suggesting the 50 SB from a catcher are worth more because the replacement level of the catcher is poor, so more of those SB are useful.

The second anticipated response is if I get 170 SB, OnRoto or Yahoo or All-Star Stats or CBS could give a fig where they come from, at the end of the day all that matters is how many, it doesn't matter where they come from.

A response we have not seen yet, though I think a couple may have implied it in their response is in a way, the 50 steals from a catcher may in fact hurt me, as now I don't need as many steals so I am eliminating a significant portion of the player pool as an asset. Of course, the same statement can be made if those 50 SB came from an OF, but at least they came from a pool where you might expect it to come from. But the larger point is in some way, the opportunity cost to get 50 SB from a catcher needs to be factored in. If that opportunity cost helps you, maybe you can conclude they are worth more from a catcher. If it hurts you, perhaps they are worth less.

Which segues to how I feel the question should be broached. FWIW, the abbreviated response I already offered was more to continue to have the conversation grow, as I answered what I figured most would expect me to answer. But anyway...

I want to look at it from the economic principle of supply and demand. I would also like to apologize to those more versed in the subject, and to be more versed, all you needed was to get better than a B in ECON 101 when you were an undergrad. I may bastardize some terms.

Value, or more specifically market value is controlled by the supply and demand dynamic. In a previous roto-life, I may have argued I don't care about "market value" per say, I want to know actual value and will bid accordingly. But now I feel there is no such thing as actual value and the value is closer to market value. As will be explained, the real value is how valuable they are TO YOUR TEAM.

Back to supply and demand, the nature the site assigns a static dollar value solely considers the supply of the stats. We dole out value based on the percentage of the supply each player contributes. There is no demand consideration.

The way SGP or percentage of a category target assigns value is more demand. What is the demand to get a standings point or chip away at your desired category goal? Here, there is no supply consideration, at least not via the conventional means of doing this.

Now I am sure there are some out there that have developed a system that uses elements of both supply and demand and kudos to them.

But here is my point. The supply and demand dynamic is fluid. After each player is rostered, both the supply and demand are changed, hence the value is changed. And sure, advanced programmers can likely write some code to have their PCs automatically recalculate values on the fly. But some assumptions have to be made which may or may not turn out to be true. The supply should be viewed via position. But what if I use Victor Martinez at catcher and put a shortstop at my utility? I am guessing your algorithm did not anticipate that. What about demand? As soon as I acquire some number of a stat, my demand for that stat has just changed. Or what if 2 owners are going ape for steals. If you are targeting 3rd place and 2 guys are going nuts with SB, the target to reach 3rd place will be lower than you originally thought. Not to mention of owners opt to punt saves, wins, power, ratios, average or any category. No algorithm can account for the changing demand based on the evolving strategies.

So one way to look at it is if the values are constantly changing, then there is no way to tell which static stat is worth more.

So maybe we need to wait until the end to determine which was worth more. Problem here is depending on the constitution of your team, the values vary. For some teams, the catcher steals may be more valuable, for others, the outfielders may be worth more.

It is this fluid nature of "value" that has spurred a different approach for me and why I now only want a relative ranking of each player, admittedly in a vacuum, then I let my experience and intuition take over.

So my answer to the question is

it depends.

[rotodog]

The sooner a player understands the above concept, the better of he will be. But the reason some are better than others is because everyone has not realized Todds basic concept of value to ones own team as opposed to value in a vacuum .
Either you just know it, or you don't... I can usually spot the guys at the draft table that Get it in about 15minutes...

[kjduke]

Okay, fasten your seatbelts...

The way I see it, there are two "canned" or expected answers to the hypothetical with a third possible. Then there's teh way I will answer it

The first likely response is the scarcity/replacement/useful stats/2-person league argument suggesting the 50 SB from a catcher are worth more because the replacement level of the catcher is poor, so more of those SB are useful.

The second anticipated response is if I get 170 SB, OnRoto or Yahoo or All-Star Stats or CBS could give a fig where they come from, at the end of the day all that matters is how many, it doesn't matter where they come from.

Todd, with respect to the 2 canned answers, scarcity is relevant - it just isn't relevant to a particular statistic.

So your second canned answer it logically correct while the first is incorrect. Setting aside what is actually/ technically right or wrong and approaching the issue of scarcity, it absolutely comes into play and thus equal stats from the C position is no doubt worth more than from any other position on the basis of opportunity for replacement value.

So while those answering the poll "yes" are in fact wrong, they more likely are voting in favor of their belief in scarcity and thus are in that sense correct.

As for your supply/demand discussion, all good topics but again logically irrelevant to the discussion of whether a stat is worth more coming from a C than another position. Assuming both the C in question and the other posistion in question will start in your lineup, there is no diference in value.

[Mickey4081]

Oh by the way your mythical 50 SB C also is a leadoff hitter who bats .150 with 700 + PA , and makes A.Dunn look like a high BA guy Now how valuable are those 50 SB?

At the end of the day the standings are what they are, it doesn't matter where or how you obtain your stats, it's where you finish!

So assuming both players are projected to steal 50 bases for 2010, you wouldn't rank Suzuki's 50 steals over Pierre's 50 steals? You wouldn't want the advantage of a catchers steals over an outfielders steals? Why was Russell Martin/Jason Kendall so highly ranked in previous years? Neither provided massive power numbers but both had the unique, uncommon ability to steal bases from a catchers position that set them far ahead of others. A steal is a steal yes but doesn't an owner have many more choices to find outfielders who steal over catchers who steal?

Why is David Wright so unique? He doesn't supply huge power numbers but he does do something rare that a 3rd baseman does, he has the uncommon ability to steal 30 bases a year. Doesn't having David Wright on your team give you an advantage in the steals cat. over the other owners? You're still very likely going to get outfielders who supply stolen bases but your team has the advantage of a catcher/3rd baseman who ALSO has the ability too steal bases.

[kjduke]

So assuming both players are projected to steal 50 bases for 2010, you wouldn't rank Suzuki's 50 steals over Pierre's 50 steals? no

You wouldn't want the advantage of a catchers steals over an outfielders steals? no, no matter what valuation tool you use, and whether it is static or dynamic while a draft in progress, one unit of a stat (SB in this case) has a fixed value that is 100% indepedent of position so long as that position fills an open starting slot

Why was Russell Martin/Jason Kendall so highly ranked in previous years? because they put up better overall numbers than most catchers - no different than the value of Pujols compared to most 1Bs.

A steal is a steal yes but doesn't an owner have many more choices to find outfielders who steal over catchers who steal? yes, and to get better stats from a C you will have to draft him sooner, but it still makes no difference where those stats come from

Doesn't having David Wright on your team give you an advantage in the steals cat. over the other owners? pairing Wright with a slugging OF is no different than pairing Bourn with a slugging 3B, his uniqueness has zero inherent value.

[Todd Zola]

kj -- I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you are talking about what I called opportunity cost, if that is the correct term. I missed that in chemistry school.

For years, people have asked if there is a way to quantify the opportunity cost, and there likely is. Maybe because I have been doing this for so long, and I know this not the thing the paying folk want to hear, but dealing with the opportunity cost has become rather intuitive, similar to dealing with inflation in keeper leagues. People want the CVRC to spit out properly adjusted inflated values in their keeper league and I am sure there is no such thing.

The opportunity cost for someone rebuilding to get Pujols for 65 units is different than someone that wants to compete.

And FWIW, knowing Gary a little, and knowing how careful he is when we talk about this sort of thing, I suspect the question was purposely worded in a vague manner so that it could be interpreted differently and spark conversation.

But I could be wrong.

[Guest]

no, no matter what valuation tool you use, and whether it is static or dynamic while a draft in progress, one unit of a stat (SB in this case) has a fixed value that is 100% indepedent of position so long as that position fills an open starting slot

I agree. But why?

pairing Wright with a slugging OF is no different than pairing Bourn with a slugging 3B, his uniqueness has zero inherent value.

Agreed - but does having Wright create more pairing options than Bourn? Could it? Would that change relative value?

And FWIW, knowing Gary a little, and knowing how careful he is when we talk about this sort of thing, I suspect the question was purposely worded in a vague manner so that it could be interpreted differently and spark conversation.

Truthfully it came from watching a mock draft in which position scarcity was prevalent. And deciding to actually ask if people believed what they were strategically doing. Plus wanting to see what people would say. I've been pleased so far. Hope it doesn't stop.

[Mickey4081]

So assuming both players are projected to steal 50 bases for 2010, you wouldn't rank Suzuki's 50 steals over Pierre's 50 steals? no

You wouldn't want the advantage of a catchers steals over an outfielders steals? no, no matter what valuation tool you use, and whether it is static or dynamic while a draft in progress, one unit of a stat (SB in this case) has a fixed value that is 100% indepedent of position so long as that position fills an open starting slot

Why was Russell Martin/Jason Kendall so highly ranked in previous years? because they put up better overall numbers than most catchers - no different than the value of Pujols compared to most 1Bs.

A steal is a steal yes but doesn't an owner have many more choices to find outfielders who steal over catchers who steal? yes, and to get better stats from a C you will have to draft him sooner, but it still makes no difference where those stats come from

Doesn't having David Wright on your team give you an advantage in the steals cat. over the other owners? pairing Wright with a slugging OF is no different than pairing Bourn with a slugging 3B, his uniqueness has zero inherent value.

"because they put up better overall numbers"
AND because they had the unique, uncommon ability to steal bases.

You draft Bourne, I draft Wright.....My choices to find stolen bases amongst outfielders is much greater than your choices of 3rd baseman who steal bases.

I disgree, I think it is different with regards to Pujols and other first baseman. There is much more separation from a catcher who steals bases than from a slugging first baseman.

[kjduke]

Todd, opportunity cost is a different subject.

Consider this - you are deciding between drafting one C-OF combo and another C-OF combo, it makes no difference whatsoever where the SBs come from (see below) if both players will be in your starting lineup. The value of the SB, while it is itself dynamic, the value of who generates that stats is in fact 100% fixed.

option 1) R Martin 10 Hr 50 Sb, R Ibanez 25 Hr 5 Sb
option 2) J Mauer 25 Hr 5 Sb, M Bourn 10 Hr 50 Sb

The value differential is in the position itself, not in the stats. Suppose a HR is worth $0.50 in auction value and a SB is worth $0.50 in auction value, both combos above are worth $45. The same stats in a C is worth more than that of an OF, but that value is a position premium, not a premium value attached to a particular stat.

Thus, in terms of value, we could say that R Martin is worth $30 plus a C premium (call it $10), so he's worth $40, whereas Bourn is worth $30 (no premium). But notice that the premium is attached to the position, not the stat. The question was suggesting something like a SB from a C is worth $0.75 but only $0.50 from an OF. Let's run the math ...

Option 1 above has 45 more SBs from the C, thus would be worth $11.25 more than option 2 - even though both player combos generate EXACTLY the same stats. If anyone doesn't think that disproves the theory that a SB from a C is worth more than from another player ....

[kjduke]

pairing Wright with a slugging OF is no different than pairing Bourn with a slugging 3B, his uniqueness has zero inherent value.

Agreed - but does having Wright create more pairing options than Bourn? Could it? Would that change relative value?

You are correctly arguing what the catcher premium should be, not a premium in the value of a SB that happens to come from a C. See above equation.

[Todd Zola]

The value differential is in the position itself, not in the stats.

But it is the replacement level of stats that drive the value differential.

I'm still convinced the manner to value the stats in a vacuum is considering the useful stats.

I'll run my numbers.

option 1)

R Martin 10 Hr 50 Sb
R Ibanez 25 Hr 5 Sb

option 2)

J Mauer 25 Hr 5 Sb
M Bourn 10 Hr 50 Sb

I'll set replacement at 3 HR and 3 SB for catchers
I'll set replacement at 5 HR and 5 SB for OF

Adjusted stats:

option 1)

R Martin 7 Hr 47 Sb
R Ibanez 20 Hr 0 Sb

option 2)

J Mauer 22 Hr 2 Sb
M Bourn 5 Hr 45 Sb

For the purpose of this example, a useful HR and a useful SB is worth .50

option 1)

R Martin $27
R Ibanez $10

option 2)

J Mauer $12
M Bourn $25

The # of HR and the # of SB are the same from each option and the total value is the same as well.

You can plug in any replacement and any $ per HR and $ per SB and the total value per option is the same, as the total stats are the same.

[kjduke]

The value differential is in the position itself, not in the stats.

But it is the replacement level of stats that drive the value differential.

Agreed.

[kjduke]

pairing Wright with a slugging OF is no different than pairing Bourn with a slugging 3B, his uniqueness has zero inherent value.

Agreed - but does having Wright create more pairing options than Bourn? Could it? Would that change relative value?

Yes, getting Wright could create more pairing options than Bourn. But if you "pay" more for Wright with a higher draft choice than you otherwise would based on this scarcity, you'll now have to make up for that lost value by waiting longer to draft an OF to pair with him, which of course means less pairing opportunities than if you didn't overpay for him. Opportunity cost.

What it comes down to is where you believe you can get the stats you need. If you think you can get SBs late, that reduces the value of a SB during the draft (however, the value remains constant across all positions). Likewise, if you believe you can get power late, power is devalued and SBs have greater value. Herein lies the critical distinction between intrinsic value and market value, and to address some of Todd's earlier comments on value ...

The intrinsic value of a SB or HR is not reduced because of the draft dynamic --- the intrinsic value is that value which is contributed toward achieving a goal (points in league standings). The market value, however, can and often will be reduced based on the draft dynamic (i.e., if you can get SBs late, their market value is lower). As a professional portfolio manager, I am trying to acquire the greatest intrinsic value that I can when buying stocks while paying the lowest possible price in market value; same thing we're all trying to do in fantasy baseball. But if you are referring to both intrinsic value and market value as just "value", you'll confuse the hell out of yourself and everyone else.

[Todd Zola]

As a professional portfolio manager, I am trying to acquire the greatest intrinsic value that I can when buying stocks while paying the lowest possible price in market value; same thing we're all trying to do in fantasy baseball. But if you are referring to both intrinsic value and market value as just "value", you'll confuse the hell out of yourself and everyone else.

Gold, just gold. kj crystallized in one sentence what I have been trying to do for years.

[Black Sox]

As a professional portfolio manager, I am trying to acquire the greatest intrinsic value that I can when buying stocks while paying the lowest possible price in market value; same thing we're all trying to do in fantasy baseball. But if you are referring to both intrinsic value and market value as just "value", you'll confuse the hell out of yourself and everyone else.

Gold, just gold. kj crystallized in one sentence what I have been trying to do for years.

I agree very well put. It's why I belive the correct answer can't EVER be yes. Here's two examples why.....

1. If those 50 SB help you to acheive last place in the SB catagory then they had NO value to you, you could have finished in last without them

2. Another example goes to my long standing argument with other MLB fans. I don't belive you should win an MVP award if your team finishes in last place. How can you be the most valuable player ( or how can those 50 SB be worth more from a C ) if your team finishes in last place. They can easily do that without you

[Guest]

Thank you KJ for your contributions. I am delighted that this poll took us here. This is why hopefully MB will be around a long time doing what it does and you'll all be here with us.

The real followup question to this is: So what does that mean for position scarcity? The marketplace as a whole believes in paying a premium for those stats. I believe in efficient markets. While likely not as accomplished in the world of finance as KJ I know a decent amount about it, and generally believe in a market with as much free trading as fantasy baseball does, that it's likely the equilibrium where scarce positions do get bumps in value/ADP likely is "correct". Yet obviously intrinsically we agree that it doesnt deserve that bump.

So how do we zig when everyone zags?

[rotodog]

To add something to this debate, i will give you a situation that actually happened to me about 4 years ago.

In a 12 team 4x4 AL only auction, I bought Danny baez as my closer for like 19 bucks. I only bought one closer and had a couple closer in waiting types.... Closers were almost never traded in this league... Well none of the closers in waiting came through..

Danny had 40+ saves that year and provided value with those saves...His saves had a real value at the end of the year...
But not to me.... I came in second to last in saves that year with the 40+ saves of Baez. The guy that came in last punted saves on draft day . So he spent Zero on saves and got 1 point. I spent 19 dollars and got 42 ish saves and that 19 dollars only netted me one extra point. That was 19 dollars wasted! I only needed 1 or 2 saves to achieve the same 2 points in that category.

So he did have great value and In the AL had the most or second most saves that season....But he had almost zero value to my team...

[Guest]

The argument about last place teams is a valid one, but not really related to this conversation per se.

For example I am one who believes once you've reached a category amount comfortably (say 10%+ above your target) you should basically reallocate your auction dollars towards the categories you still require (people do this in their head, but I mean actually recalculate the values on the fly).

But we have to look at value in a vacuum, even though obviously different players are worth different amounts to different teams.

I am wondering how those who have read this now feel about position scarcity.

[viper]

depending on how the auction goes, five additional saves could be worth five additional points. It can be hard to see where this value lies during the auction. At the same time, those 40 saves were worth ½ additonal point, assuming you two tied with zero saves. In a category like saves, you can track pretty well who has what. The number of projected saves is iffy but the total number of drafted closers isn't. In an AL-only league, there are only 14 closers. In a 12-team league, every team can get one and two teams get a pair. Before job changes, two teams will fight for one point [winner gets 12, loser gets 11] and 10 teams will get between a 10 and a 1 with 5½ the expected value.

Of course we all know this but it was fun typing.

For the other counting categories, there are too many sources. Plus if Ellsbury goes go, his missing steals are not spread about to others on his team.

[deansdaddy]

Good stuff guys - but why does my head hurt???

[david_hume]

i am late to the party here, but my initial response to the question was that they are WORTH the same, but they don't COST the same to acquire. and yes, this is what kj said more eloquently with intrinsic value vs. market value.