Interesting but unclear why

[viper]

Sometimes when you play with numbers, interesting facts pop up but you don't really know what they mean. I think I stumbled across one of them last evening.

I was looking at tendencies in my NL auction league over the past two years . I went in wanting to confirm the hit/pitch dollar break down. I also wanted to see which owners went high and low with pitching or, if in fact, any owner had a trend. I was looking for players a single owner brought in each of the last two seasons. Finally, I wondered how the hitting dollar were spent by four generalized positions. These were catchers, corners, middles and OF/UT. I always felt my league spend a lesser amount on catchers than CVRC would come up with. In this area, I got my odd statistic.

As background, this is a 10 team NL-only league with normal rostering of 14 hitters which includes two catchers. We only draft 23 players as there is no bench.

You cannot do nice tables in here but below in order are the four positions followed by 2012 CVRC dollars, 2011 actual spent and 2010 actual spent. It is broken down into per team numbers.

Catchers: $19.5, 11.0, 9.8
Corners: $43.6, 45.8, 51.1
Middles:$42.3, 37.9, 37.9
OF/UT: $75.0, 74.5, 82.2

TOTAL: $180.4, 169.2, 181.0

The catching dollar spent is the shocker. It is a new definition for catcher's indifference [OK, it's really defensive indifference but give a new to Social Security recipient a break]. It is actually making me think of way to manipulate CVRC to account for the rather large drop in catchers' dollars. I am thinking of telling the program that I only need 10 total catchers in the league along with 120 others. I also am reducing my dollar available by $2 per team, making for a smaller pool of dollars. The extra $20 will be allocated to purchase the additional 10 catchers.

My question is what meaning does this have, if any? I've considered budgeting based on these four groupings with the thought of getting one $20+ player in both MI and CO and two in OF.

[AllstonRockCity]

Rather than 'lying' to the poor CVRC maybe the better way to to aacount for this indifference would be to just analyze things as 1 pool thereby taking the scarcity $ bump out of the equation. Just a thought

[viper]

if I didn't have to do a copy and paste on every PPOS number, I would do what you suggested. In fact I did that. The thing is I don't want to save the results as I need CVRC in it's normal state for other leagues. I do change the MVPOS values to create the optimal positions for my 10-team leagues. Some have other than 20-game 2011 eligibility parameters. It turns out that my "lying" creates numbers close enough.

[AllstonRockCity]

I see.

But couldn't you just save the altered CVRC under a different name and then download a virgin copy for your other leagues??

[viper]

that's what I figured I would do although lying pretty much yields the same results. For the most part, $1 or $2 differences are meaningless in an auction.

Right now, I am waiting for projections to begin to adjust based on who actually will be starting. The Braun playing time dilemma has been resolved. His issue is now one of how you factor the lost protection with Fielder gone. Heck, it was always there but now it has come to the forefront.

[Todd Zola]

Right now, I am waiting for projections to begin to adjust based on who actually will be starting. The Braun playing time dilemma has been resolved. His issue is now one of how you factor the lost protection with Fielder gone. Heck, it was always there but now it has come to the forefront.

Depends on what you mean by protection.

If you mean that his skills (reflected in his slash line) will decline, I am not a believer in that theory as all the studies I have seen show it to be a myth.

If you mean a weaker lineup so fewer opportunities to score runs and to knock in runs, then there is a very, very small adjustment to either r or RBI, I forget which, as I see Aramis Ramirez plus Mat Gamel close enough to Prince plus McGehee not to worry about it.