Mastersball Fantasy Forum

WillRoy wrote:I wonder if an Excel spreadsheet can handle that sort of position based max-bids and adjustments if I were to input my max bid for each position.. Maybe that's what the CVRC is for...?

Sorry, missed this.

This is the sort of thinking I aim to get people to avoid -- I don't think you should have a preset MAX BID. You should have an idea of what in a vacuum the player is worth. The CVRC or our dollar value sheets will do that. You should have an idea how the player's value compared to other players, both at the same position and other positions. You have that. You should have an idea of the specific contributions a player provides (MM?). Again, ding ding, you have that.

The rest is based on draft and/or auction dynamics.

Obviously, I am not paying $45 for Alex Cora.

But to pre-designate a max bid keeps me too focused on trying to make sure I acquire as many players below my "max bid", which on the surface seems like what you want to do but in fact is not nearly as important as the overall construction and balance of your team.

Here is a practical example of how one may not see the forest through the trees if they are too focused on values, max bid, etc.

AL only league,

Jacoby Ellsbury is on the table. Based on our projections, his max bid is $35 (making it up).

if you rely too much on max bids, etc, when he gets to $31, you are going to bid him up because he is below your max bid.

Maybe you get him for $33 or $34.

But you know what?

You are going to be pissed off when Rajai Davis or Juan Pierre or another Sb specialist goes for $5 or $6 under value in the $20 range. You look after the draft and say I could have had Miguel Cabrera and Juan Pierre and instead I have Jacoby Ellsbury and Billy Butler, something like that.

The less values become a red light/green light device and more a suggestion, the better off you are.

Setting a max bid is setting a red light.

Instead, pick out a speedster. If you think you want Ellsbury, use Carl Crawford - or vice versa. Put their name out for auction. Gauge what people are playing for speedsters. If the price stops well below your raw value, get him. But if it is close figure you can get other speed at or below raw value. Of course, don't get caught chasing the last SB guy or you will get caught paying an inflated price.

I do this with closers all the time.

Say I want to pay $20 for my closer. I'll throw out Joe Nathan or Mo, figuring they go for over $20 -- but how much? If they stop at $24, I am going to likely throw out another top one next time and get him for $22 or $23. That's only $2 more and I can adjust another line as described earlier. If they go for $32, I know I better grab the first real closer that comes out and stops near $20.

I did this 2 years ago in the NFBC - throwing Billy Wagner out in the NL only league figuring he would go for well more than $20. I bid it up to $20 and crickets -- he was mine.

In the name of full disclosure, I failed to account for the fact he got hurt at the end of the previous season so some were concerned and downgraded him.

And to complete the story, he did indeed get hurt again at the end of 2008. But I won anyway

Do you mean max bids for specific players? I meant max bids for certain positions. Within the draft, these are of course adjustable.

For example: One strategy I used that I will likely improve based on what has been said about positional /favorites tiers is setting up max bids for each position. I don't mean that I can only bid up to 30 for Justin upton. But I do mean that if I put in: 40 for OF1, 25 OF2 20 OF3, etc... that I should aim to spend within those limits.

Here's the other thing, In my eleven or 12 years doing fantasy baseball, though you and I (and based on your job, emphasis on you) may have an exemplary grasp of the player pool, I feel that it helps someone such as myself to establish stricter strategies to stay organized and meet whatever goals that auction involves, be they categorical/value oriented/names of players. Indeed, I know the pool well but may not be able to think of every one of those factors (as well as and especially the budget) within the auction without some strict preparation.

I guess that's the human element at work. Honestly, I don't think in ten more years I would be comfortable with my results at an auction without setting up somewhat rigid guidelines for it. Maybe it's the Hunter/Farmer ADD thing.

There have been times where I've adjusted the strategy mid-draft and especially the max-bids for certain positions. Honestly, though the more someone like myself tends to switch gears, the more focus I lose. I guess it's a matter for me of cost/benefit. Especially if the strategy has some overarching post-auction element (as many do in-season).

Salary-caps or slow-auctions where people can pick up and have ample time to dissect opponents and firmly adjust their strategies may be a separate case.

WillRoy wrote:Do you mean max bids for specific players? I meant max bids for certain positions. Within the draft, these are of course adjustable.

We may be juxtaposing a few thoughts at this point.

The CVRC takes our projections and produces dollar values and rankings employing our valuation methodology using your league parameters. You can customize the number of teams, the categories (to a certain extent), AL or NL only, and the number and type of positions. You can't tell it "give me values if my max bid for an OF is 40." It gives you values and you have to decide who you can reasonably get for $40.

I described earlier that I use the same bid line method of organizing my auction. I won't repeat it.

We'll have the CVRC available in less than 24 hours. Please feel free to open a thread in the site tools forum for any questions you have about its use. There are some primers we include with it to help use it.

Whoops. May have misread something here or there...Counted 2 posts where you may have answered one of my earlier questions (Thus the max bid confusion and restatement...).

I'll check out the CVRC. I think part of the brainfart may have to do with lacking the actual tool that has been brought up.