• Announcements

    • tonycpsu

      Comments on New Forum Design (UPDATED with workarounds)   02/12/2019

      We are aware that the current layout of the Rotoworld forums is not going over well, and we feel your pain.  Please direct any comments about the new look of the forums to help@rotoworld.com, or to this thread. For those who are able to install user styles, (e.g. with the Stylish addon for Firefox or Chrome), you may wish to try a couple of user-created alternative styles. RW Forums Tweaks by tonycpsu Rotoworld Forums Dark Mode by sngehl01  


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kenag122002

  1. Gauging keeper value

    But that's the whole point. Good keeper decisions ARE based on value relative to contract. So gaslighting the idea of value is ridiculous. The Scherzer example was there as just that, an extreme example for demonstration (although I'm in leagues where stars are kept at similar prices due to inflation). But if the concepts apply there, the same concepts also apply on the more micro levels. And if you have a large keeper list, adding up those micro "value wins", is effectively giving yourself more money during the auction (or higher draft picks), which leads to better player which.... magically I guess... leads to winning championships.
  2. Gauging keeper value

    *Sigh* So many people have reading comprehension failures in one thread. I was replying to @The Big Bat Theory, not the OP's Bregman scenario. Geez.
  3. Gauging keeper value

    I really don't want to replay this thread for you - just read the thread. The OP asked for some assistance, I provided some. @The Big Bat Theory disagreed and said that "value" doesn't matter. I refuted his points and you thought I was replying to the OP. This isn't complicated guys, read the thread.
  4. Gauging keeper value

    I read it. Quote "Just keep your best players and forget the "I got this guy in the 8th round and he is now 5th round material therefore I win" stuff" He doesn't think that value relative to cost is crucial in fantasy keeper leagues. And it is.
  5. Gauging keeper value

    Thank goodness my post that you quoted was a reply to the guy who said "who cares about value just keep your best players", and not a reply to Ry34Nno then! Because they are completely different topics.
  6. Agree, fantrax provides a great interface, great content, and it is free (outside of some premium features for keeper leagues for example, but those aren't free on most other sites either). Hard to beat.
  7. Gauging keeper value

    I could not disagree more. I have several people in my keeper leagues that play this way and it never works out for them. Auction based keeper leagues are as much of an economics game as they are a baseball game. Obviously, as I noted above, the stars have more value than it may seem, but that only applies to an extent. Value relative to contract is critical in keeper analysis. If you just keep all the best players regardless of contract you are going to lose. For example, if you have a $70 Scherzer, and I have a $5 Snell (which is a scenario in one of my keeper leagues), I'm going to take my extra $65 and buy Gerrit Cole and Aaron Nola and my rotation is going to be better than yours. You kept the player who was too expensive but you followed your motto of "Just keep your best players". And that would cause you to lose. I've seen it many times over the years.
  8. Gauging keeper value

    Agree, and in fact I think there's an advantage there by playing that way. As long as you are a good owner, and if you are on this site in January you likely are, you can replinish your roster every year. So selling off those "dynasty" pieces each year and replacing them with short term assets can allow you to stay at the top each year.
  9. Gauging keeper value

    I played that way when I first started into auction leagues many years ago (a couple decades in fact -- I guess that ages me) and got beat badly by teams who kept better players at expensive prices. It may be more "fun", but IMO it is not as effective. From a mathematical perspective, lets say you kepth Morton for $1 instead of Bregman. You have $27 more to spent at auction, but since your league has heavy inflation you only get around a $18 player for that extra money. In the end, from my experience, you find that you accumulated less value than you would have by keeping Bregman. YMMV.
  10. Gauging keeper value

    My thoughts after having dealt with this question many times over the years (and yes it's a good one). 1) Like you said it is league dependent, but there are some factors that are universal 2) It is important to actually know what your inflation will be, at least in a general sense. Is it going to be 10% or 30%? The answer to that will change the answer to your question. 3) From (2), one of the first steps is just applying inflation and comparing. If you add 10% to Bogaerts' value he's up to ~$34, so marginally not a keeper. But if you add 30%, he's up to $40 and you'd definitely want to keep him at just $35 4) It's not an exact science, don't get TOO hung up on a dollar or two (just like you wouldn't for the upper tier players during the auction). 5) In your auction, inflation will flip during the auction. Which means that the early players (typically more expensive players) absorb much of the inflation, leaving the cheaper players priced around their actual value (or lower). 6) One thing that is counter intiutive that many people forget is that keeping expensive players helps you avoid inflation. If you have your stars before the auction starts, you aren't spending money at inflated prices. So, while it seems strange, sometimes it is best to go into an auction with less $ if you are spending your money on good values. (Although this is all relative, obviously you'd rather have a $1 Bogaerts than a $35 Bogaerts). 7) Related to (5), there are a lot more $1 - $5 players than there are $35 - $40 players. And they come with more risk in general. So while it is good to have a $5 Soler if you think he's worth $10, it's better to have a $35 Bogaerts if you think he's worth $40. Because you can find the $5 discount at the end of the auction a lot easier than you can at the start. 8) Don't keep a player who doesn't give you profit. If the contract you are paying is more than value + inflation, then if you absolutely must have the player plan on buying him back in the auction, don't keep him! (Obviously there's no guarantee you'll get him at your projected price, have a backup plan) All that's to say, there's a lot of variables -- but in general as long as you are getting a reasonable profit for both, the higher end player tends to be worth keeping in the majority of cases where it is reasonably close.
  11. 2019 Sleepers

    It would be hard for this to be more wrong. There's a subset of players that has the talent to be a top 10 player. Which of that subset ends up top 10 is difficult to project, but there are many, many players who simply do not have the talent to reach that level. That's why we talk about ceilings for players.
  12. 2019 Sleepers

    You are still very, very confused. If I said "It's never going to happen, but if Barry Bonds came back and got 600 AB next year he still might hit 20 HR at the age of 54", that in no way predicting that Barry Bonds is going to come out of retirement and hit 20 HR this year. In fact, it's the opposite since I would have qualified it with "it's never going to happen". Hopefully you can comprehend these basic conversational concepts. They really aren't that hard to grasp. Look, you got confused and thought I posted something that someone else posted. That's fine. Just admit you screwed up and move on. You are just arguing in order to argue at this point. It's okay to admit when you make a mistake. Your ego will survive I promise!
  13. 2019 Sleepers

    Uhhh, no I didn't? I said *IF* he could come close to replicating what Pujols did on the rebound he'd be valuable. Then I said that was not likely. Reading comprehension lacking?
  14. 2019 Sleepers

    Seems just a *bit* disenginuous to quote me, specifically and only leaving off the part where I referenced the health concerns, and reply that I'm counting on a guy with back problems. *eye roll* Yes, I agree with you, and in fact I stated previously that he was likely going to be drafted at full price with no discount. How that is me banking on counting stats from a guy with chronic back issues, I'll never know!
  15. 2019 Sleepers

    Its interesting to compare the careers of Pujols and Miggy. Pujols' 2013 season at 33 years old where he hit .258 with just 17 HR in 99 games was a sign of a downturn in his career, but he still had a couple years left in the power department, putting up 40 HR/95 RBI followed by 31 HR/119 RBI in his 35/36 year old seasons. If Miggy can do something *close* to that as far as rebounding, he's easily worth being drafted several rounds ahead of his current ADP. As noted above though, the question is whether he can stay healthy and get the PAs to have a shot at doing something like that.
  16. Not sure why you are still pages behind though? I posted several pages back and I've reiterated it over and over that I'd respect y'alls request. That was never in question. Why does this keep getting restated? Haven't you guys had enough of this conversation? Why do you feel the need to keep bringing it up like a broken record? It's so strange.
  17. 2019 Sleepers

    His ADP is 157 in NFBC which is creeping up towards full price in my opinion.
  18. 2019 Sleepers

    In the abstract I'd agree, but his Steamer projections are still pretty high. I suspect he'll still be bought at full price.
  19. Why are you still talking about this - the discussion already ended? Good lord. Show some respect for fellow posters or show yourself out. I have just as much right to be here and post here as you. Enough with the condescending garbage. And the irony of bringing up a topic that already died just to say "I don't know why this is still being discussed". Hypocrisy rears its ugly head!
  20. Exactly right. Would be interesting to know more in depth what that leads to. Are pitchers who come up and succeed right away more likely to continue improving, or is it just as good to take some lumps early if you end up with an elite season afterwards? Which one predicts success? I could see both ways. Obviously early success is an indicator of elite talent. But at the same time the "sophomore slump" seems to come up often and with the younger inexperienced pitcher we're vulnerable to that situation where hitters adjust prior to year two.
  21. Last I'll say of it and I'll move on. This presumes that the one person on the clock is better at determining the best player to pick for the integrity of the mock than the collective is. I think a scenario where 1 person picks, but players and picks can be discussed prior leads to a better mock. It allows intelligent conversation between people to help identify the best pick at each spot (if the person who is choosing wants to consider it). And with the goal being identifying where each player typically should/could go in a draft, discussion would only help, it has no opportunity to hurt. I think it's pretty simple actually. As far as the last paragraph, you are arguing against something that was established pages ago when I said I would not bring up players, so, sorry, but that is a completely different discussion.
  22. you're just arguing for sake of arguing.
  23. 7.06 Jack Flaherty 10.07 Mike Foltynewicz Surprises me that there are 3 rounds between these guys. I could see them being very, very similar pitchers in 2019. Folty was better in 2018, but obviously he has 3 previous years where he was not a fantasy contributor. Interesting to see how it's better from a draftor's perspective to have very little prior experience than *bad* years.
  24. And yet no one has actually addressed the question, but sure. Stick with it for no reason! (I think the honest truth is that there's pride on the line here and people are taking ownership of their *teams*. Which makes sense but in all honesty that puts the team above the mock, which is counterproductive for the sake of the true purpose of a mock. I get it, but it's funny that no one would admit it)
  25. That's a circular argument. I was questioning *why* table talk would be a negative in a mock. Replying that it is a negative because 12 people think it is a negative doesn't actually address the question at all. My suggestion is that "table talk" improves mocks. Obviously I'm not going to bring up names since that was requested, and you can see that I'm respecting those wishes - but that wasn't the topic.