| 0 |
Subject: Gravity
Posted by: Taxman
- Leader [182403023] Mon, May 05, 2003, 05:04
I don't get how some players are allergic to gravity, and other players have found a cure and their price is immune from it's impact. Case in question is the $660 man, Ken Griffey RotoGuru Individual Stats who has not lost any value since April 15th. Why no gravity. Certainly, there have been no buys and most probably, no sales. Compare to Aaron Rowrand RotoGuru Individual Stats also surely without buys and sells, who received playing time for the entire month of April and succumbed to daily gravity on April 11.
The only logical explanation I can come up with is that there is a manual override which removes a player from gravity. What am I missing (besides sleep)? |
| 1 | Jesse
Donor
ID: 152472014
Mon, May 05, 2003, 07:42
|
perhaps there is a 30 day override part of the algorithem? something like x # of buys/sells in a certain time frame prevent gravity?
certainly Griffey has the #.
anyhow i love the question, can Eric answer this?
jesse
|
| 2 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Mon, May 05, 2003, 08:06
|
There were probably enough original drafters of Griffey who quit playing by the time he was injured (or mailed it in after they saw the -$660K) that he actually has ownership even now. If enough people own him, he would not be in gravity. Whereas Aaron Rowand hasn't given anyone any reason to own him at all, not even the most diehard White Sox fan.
Perhaps one of the wundersamplers could analyze there data determine the cutoff point in ownership that determines gravity.
|
| 3 | Taxman
Leader
ID: 1316217
Mon, May 05, 2003, 09:37
|
Ender, besides yours truly, I don't think many Ultimate players threw in the towel during the second week of the season. All 3 of my Ultimate teams held Griffey for the 660 dump (I was out of town that weekend w/o computer access). I kept management of 1 team, and the others are now managed by other Gurupies. The point being that Ultimate teams are rarely dropped in the first few days of the season. As to basic teams, I agree with your supposition.
|
| 4 | wiggs
Donor
ID: 1842658
Mon, May 05, 2003, 09:45
|
Taxman, i am still running your one team to the best of my ability. I have made a bunch of moves and you are steadily moving up the ladder. I believe Farn is still playing your other team too, so none of your teams have officially thrown in the towel.
|
| 5 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, May 05, 2003, 12:25
|
I just did a quick, unscientific sampling.
I have teams in four different auto-divisions. Among those 80 teams, 7 have never made a trade. Most of those teams did draft a roster - although some not a complete roster. Two of the 7 teams drafted Griffey - and still have him.
There are also a handful of teams that appear to have gone dormant after a week or two, as they have between 12-18 hitter trades remaining. None of them happens to currently own Griffey.
So, in my small sample, Griffey is on at least 2 out of 80 rosters. That may be a high enough ratio to avoid gravity - I don't know.
|
| 6 | Taxman
Leader
ID: 1316217
Mon, May 05, 2003, 14:17
|
If I am reading between the lines correctly, ownership at or above ?X? ( an unknown %) will prevent gravity from eroding a players price and ownership beneath that % (down to zero ownership)will cause gravity to kick in and ....? to continue...?.... (down to $500 or untill ownership % increases to the majic level). This logic works for me.
I second Ender's request of our super samplers to add credence to The Guru's informal sampling yielding 2.5% ownership. However, if you add zero Griffey owners from my public league of 20 teams, the % falls to 2%. With 17,320 teams, 2% would be just shy of 350 teams still owning Junior. A possible, but improbable number.
|
| 7 | Jazz Dreamers
Sustainer
ID: 47143610
Mon, May 05, 2003, 15:20
|
FWIW, 1 out of the 20 teams in my division still has Griffey on his roster (and 18 HTs and 18 PTs).
|
| 8 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Mon, May 05, 2003, 15:25
|
In my only auto-division, there are no Griffey owners among 20 teams, including 4 apparently abandoned ones.
|
| 9 | Chestergreat
Sustainer
ID: 73462720
Mon, May 05, 2003, 16:06
|
No one with Griffey in my Auto Divn.
|
| 10 | Pi314159
ID: 21311112
Mon, May 05, 2003, 16:08
|
Ender's hypothesis makes perfect sense. No position player was more widely held than Griffey at the beginning of the year, and there are plenty of "who cares" managers who made their initial teams and haven't touched them since. Do the math, and it's no wonder Griffey hasn't reached the low ownership level to bring in gravity.
BTW Jesse, I hear you're a big fantasy nerd. Is that true?
-Omeros
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|