| 0 |
Subject: Player Rater Calculations
Posted by: Trip@ Home
- [2210302613] Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 19:41
I found this article very useful:
Player Rater Calculation
Player Rater Equations:
AVG points = (AVG - .281) * AB * 0.061
HR points = HR * 0.088 - 1.94
SB points = SB * 0.088 – 0.94
R points = R * 0.036 – 3.05
RBI points = RBI * 0.033 – 2.74
Add them all up to find the total fantasy value of a player.
Survey Says........
Looking at the numbers we can see that each HR is worth the same as a SB and every 2 HR’s or SB’s are worth the same as 5 RBI’s or R’s. A little more math reveals that over a full season (600 AB) each point in BA is worth about the same as an run. In other words a .260 hitter with 100 runs is worth the same as a .280 hitter with 80 runs. Plugging in the ZiPS projections for our OFers we get the following values: Vernon Wells 3.50 points, Juan Pierre 3.00 points, Preston Wilson 2.24 points. Vernon Wells’ projection places him 7th among all OFers behind Pujols, Beltran, Vlad, Ichiro!, Sheffield and Ordonez in that order.
If you want a quick and dirty equation to judge fantasy value you can use: 5x5 points = 2 x (AVG over 280 + R +RBI) + 5 x (HR + SB).
|
| 1 | Mike D
Sustainer
ID: 41831612
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 20:30
|
Wow, behind the Iron Player Rater curtain. Love that as a resource, and never knew the ingredients. Thanks for sharing.
Wonder what Yahoo's formula is? (I think it has to do with darts, not sure)
|
| 2 | allhair allstars
ID: 41082722
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 20:44
|
More like grenades...
|
| 3 | Khahan
ID: 31201711
Thu, Feb 19, 2004, 14:37
|
I"m not sure how the player rater can be accurately applied to both accrued and average stats. Bear with me here, I know what I want to say, but I'm not sure how best to say it:
For example:
A .260 player with 80 RBI's vs a .280 player with 60 rbi's.
Most teams have an aggregate BA between .270 and .280.
When you add that .260 player into the mix, his 80 rbi's are helping, but his .260 ba is actually hurting the team (basically he contributes a negative value because he brings the average down).
The .280 player in most cases helps your team, at the least does not hurt your team. And while his 60 rbi's don't help as much as the 80 rbi's of the other player, since it is purely a cumulative stat, they are helping your team.
I think the player rater is pretty good for comparing HR to SB to RBi to Runs. But BA is a different kind of stat and a differnt calculation. It affects your team in a different way and therefore should be ranked in a different way.
Make sense?
|
| 4 | Trip
Donor
ID: 13961611
Thu, Feb 19, 2004, 17:54
|
I am not going to throw any average RBI #'s out here, but a player who contributes less than this average would be hurting his team as well.
Anyway, this is definitely not an exact formula, but it does appear to be a fairly accurate predictor.
|
| 5 | Mike D
Sustainer
ID: 41831612
Thu, Feb 19, 2004, 19:02
|
I love the Player Rater, and have used it for several years, and for several sports. The concept is sound, IMHO.
Khahan, I "think" you are saying you would weight the BA higher than ESPN does in their player rater. Every system of rating has to weight different categories. Yahoo is different than Rotoworld, which is different than ESPN, etc.. No one formula is "right." It is certainly useful to find a system you like "the best" and then tailor it to your specific feelings, as you seem to be. Makes sense to me, as that's why you, as GM, get the big bucks. ;)
|
| 6 | Trip
ID: 2210302613
Wed, Feb 25, 2004, 18:07
|
And now for the pitchers:
WIN POINTS = .27*(W-2.68
SAVE POINTS = 0.07*S-0.71
ERA POINTS = (3.88-ERA)*IP*0.0065
WHIP POINTS = (1.28- whip)*IP*0.0382
K POINTS = K*0.0203 - 2.52.
|
| 7 | Khahan
ID: 27147121
Wed, Feb 25, 2004, 22:34
|
Mike D.
No, I'm not saying I would rate BA higher than espn does. I simply would not use the player rater as a method of evaluating BA.
Its not a matter of 1 sites game vs another site's game. Its a matter of how each stat is evaluated w/in a single game.
Look at it this way:
Player A: 15 HR 75 rbi 85 runs 20 SB .300 ba
Sound and solid across the board and helps/contributes to every category
Player B: 20 HR 80 rbi 90 runs 20 sb .250 ba.
Player C: 8 HR 80 rbi 90 runs 20 sb .300 ba
...
I would chose player C last.
Why? His 8 HR may not amount to much, but they simply get added into the total of the rest of your team. You do not lose any ground on that.
Player B may give 12 more HR, but that .250 BA will make you lose ground as it will drag your team BA down.
|
| 8 | Da Bomb
ID: 339511119
Wed, Feb 25, 2004, 23:39
|
I think I disagree with your thinking Khahan. Say that the mean average for the league was .275. Also say that the average number of homeruns hit per player is 14. So, according to this rough example, player B and C would offset their weaknesses. What I am basically saying is that when looking at cumulative stats like HR and RBIs, a player is hurting your team if his HR or RBI are below normal. If Juan Pierre hits 1 HR in a season, that is defineatly hurting your HR category. To sum it up, a player with a poor AVG compared to one with a poor HR total both hurt your team the same (without using exact numbers or averages).
|
| 9 | Khahan
ID: 31201711
Thu, Feb 26, 2004, 08:27
|
Da Bomb, that is certainly true for players you pick up who contribute to all 5 categories.
But what about a guy like Adam Dunn who is projected to his 40 HR?
You'd pick him up for the sole reason of padding your HR total. Any SB, Rbi's or runs he gets in addition the 40 HR is gravy, whether he is at or below league average.
But that batting average of his at (probably) .250 at the best? Is that icing on the cake or is that hurting you?
|
| 10 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Feb 26, 2004, 09:57
|
I think you're looking at this very naively, Khahan.
Any player who is below average in a category hurts that category. How can you say that a player with a .250 average hurts the average category, but a player with only 2 HR's is gravy? You can't simply compare the resulting numbers before and after. You have to compare your numbers vs. the numbers of the other teams. And if the average team is getting 15 HR per hitter, and you add a hitter with only 2 HR, then you are hurting your HR category. You may have enough HR's elsewhere to compensate, but that doesn't change the marginal rating of the player in question. It only means that your marginal utility of his weak stat is lower than average.
I think the ESPN rater is an excellent tool which does a very proper job of integrating the value of a mixture of cumulative stats and average stats. In fact, I think that is one of its biggest virtues. While the cumulative stats are more intuitive to evaluate, the average stats can be more difficult to grasp. And this approach does a good job of bringing all factors together.
|
| 11 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 1629107
Thu, Feb 26, 2004, 10:49
|
It seems kind of simplistic to me. The value of individual players is relative to the size and particularities (# of positions, etc) of a league, no?
Further, they only offer it in standard 5X5 format. Obviously, the value of many players changes as you substitute categories. Still helpful, but I think there are other sources on the web that are more universally helpful. I'm really sold on Rotowire. After only a few weeks of subscribing, (and before the season has even started) I don't know how I got by without it before.
|
| 12 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Feb 26, 2004, 11:49
|
Obviously, if you are in a league with other than the same categories as the ESPN rater, then the value is correspondingly limited.
But the concept is still valid. You'd just need to substitute other factors for the alternate categories.
The other thing that the ESPN rater fails to accommodate is position/category scarcity. For example, if steals are a scarce commodity, then you might want to assign a higher value to that category. Or if decent catchers are hard to find, you might elevate the absolute value of an above average catcher. That's where subjective judgment and roster context comes into play.
|
| 13 | Trip
Donor
ID: 13961611
Thu, Feb 26, 2004, 12:03
|
I created my own calculations for the RIBC using 2004 predicted stats. I did have to modify the formulas for all of the categories because of the large player pool and create formulas for SLG and OBP. Then I grouped the players into individual positions into tiers (A-G). From there I began to create a ranked list from 1-400. Some players were ranked much higher than they were likely to be drafted and I then moved them down accordingly. I also had to upgrade the SB and save leaders. Finally I made adjustments for position scarcity. Maybe I have too much time on my hands but in the end it may save time by keeping me from spending too much time scouring the waver wire later in the season. Anyways it will be interesting to see how my rankings play out.
|
| 14 | Xeifrank
ID: 2625030
Wed, Mar 03, 2004, 01:55
|
Any fantasy baseball player valuation formula that DOES NOT take into account replacement level is flawed.
vr,
Xeifrank
http://fantasyinfocentral.com/mlbdraftsoftware/index.php
(2004 Draft Software and player rater)
|
| 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?)
|
|