Sign in to follow this  
The Big Bat Theory

Ownership Percentage: How useful is it?

Recommended Posts

[ Ed. note: Several members had a discussion about the usefulness of ownership percentage as a metric over in the Seranthony Dominguez thread.  Since it's come up across a number of player threads and was derailing the thread, I've broken it out as a separate topic.  We now join the discussion already in progress. ]

 

 

On 6/29/2018 at 9:42 AM, StevieStats said:

48% owned in Y!, 32% owned in ESPN.

 

What are these people thinking??

 

I agree.  What are people thinking ... bringing up percent owned which is bogus after the first week of the season.  Again, it means nada.  (Like the 20th time I've said this this year in player's threads). 

 

Public leagues take up the lion's share on both platforms (maybe as much as 95% of all leagues) and half their owners are no shows after opening day and only about 10% of the remaining owners actually do any homework at all if that many.  And they probably already own Kimbrell and Chapman and Jansen anyway and are running away with their team in their leagues.

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

I agree.  What are people thinking ... bringing up percent owned which is bogus after the first week of the season.  Again, it means nada.  (Like the 20th time I've said this this year in player's threads). 

 

In the interest of saving you the trouble in the future and having the same discussion pop up in other player threads, let me explain why you're wrong. [ This is veering off topic from Seranthony, but I feel like this is coming up frequently enough that it demands a response. ]

 

At the very least, we know that ESPN attempts to exclude inactive leagues from it's percent owned calculations.  References to this here and here, with ESPN's Matthew Berry making an oblique reference to it here.  Obviously this isn't going to be 100% accurate, but whatever their heuristic is for excluding inactive leagues, the numbers for players that were probably undrafted in ESPN standard leagues but are must-own now (and thus wouldn't be on a roster in most dead leagues) mostly make sense: Markakis (ADP 260) is at 95%, Newcomb (ADP 260) is at 92%, Hader (ADP 260) is at 87%, etc.  You can argue that all of those should be closer to 100%, but clearly they're doing *something* to remove inactive leagues in ESPN, even if it's not perfect.

 

I can't find any official info about whether Yahoo does the same (if anyone does Twitter and would like to hit up the @YahooFantasy account and ask them, that'd be great) but I'm seeing similar trends in their data.  Yahoo's standard format runs a bit deeper with 12 teams to ESPN's 10, so it makes sense to look a little deeper in the ADP.  How about Jed Lowrie?  Drafted in about 3% of Yahoo leagues, now owned in 79% of them.  Eduardo Escobar, drafted in 6% of Yahoo leagues, now owned in 84%.  Max Muncy?  Not drafted in Yahoo at all -- they don't even have an ADP for him -- owned in 67% of leagues.  Again, he should be owned in more than 67%, but clearly there is signal in the noise.

 

Or we can look at the inverse -- guys who were drafted but should be dropped in competitive leagues (redraft-wise, anyway).  Corey Seager is at 36% owned on Yahoo -- factor in keeper and dynasty formats and leagues where people have enough DL slots to not bother dropping him and that I think you have a pretty low number of dead leagues counted in there -- certainly nowhere near the number that would make percent owned a meaningless metric.

 

So maybe the ceiling on a mid-season breakout becomes 90% or 80%, but this idea that there's no merit at all in bringing up percent owned is simply not true.  There is some value in it.  Dead leagues need to be considered, but simply saying "dead leagues, LOL" in every thread where someone cites an ownership percentage is reductive and overly dismissive of people who may in fact have a valid argument.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

 

I agree.  What are people thinking ... bringing up percent owned which is bogus after the first week of the season.  Again, it means nada.  (Like the 20th time I've said this this year in player's threads). 

 

Public leagues take up the lion's share on both platforms (maybe as much as 95% of all leagues) and half their owners are no shows after opening day and only about 10% of the remaining owners actually do any homework at all if that many.  And they probably already own Kimbrell and Chapman and Jansen anyway and are running away with their team in their leagues.

That's a cop out. Juan Soto came up mid May and is 75% owned in Y! and 85% owned in ESPN.

 

Seranthony is under owned.

Edited by StevieStats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, StevieStats said:

That's a cop out. Juan Soto came up mid May and is 75% owned in Y! and 85% owned in ESPN.

 

Seranthony is under owned.

 

Seranthony and Soto 100% owned at NFBC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, StevieStats said:

That's a cop out. Juan Soto came up mid May and is 75% owned in Y! and 85% owned in ESPN.

 

Seranthony is under owned.

But doesn't prove the point about dead teams or leagues? Have a hard time imagining any active league where some manager wouldn't have taken a flier on Soto. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Low and Away said:

But doesn't prove the point about dead teams or leagues? Have a hard time imagining any active league where some manager wouldn't have taken a flier on Soto. 

I'm not saying there isn't dead leagues, the point is Seranthony is 32% owned isn't due to dead leagues because a mid year call up in Soto is 85% owned... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, StevieStats said:

I'm not saying there isn't dead leagues, the point is Seranthony is 32% owned isn't due to dead leagues because a mid year call up in Soto is 85% owned... 

 

A lot of people owned Soto before the season started and he was a number one prospect so even casual leagues were aware of him right off the bat. 

 

And to an earlier post, no Yahoo doesn't NOT weed out public leagues when they do their percent owned.  They can't even figure how to keep prospects in NA slots year to year let alone figure out "weeding" leagues.  And I'm sure their new overlords, Oath, are busy doing some "weeding" themselves to shrink the personnel including coders to save on costs.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

And to an earlier post, no Yahoo doesn't NOT weed out public leagues when they do their percent owned.

 

Your argument wasn't about public leagues, it was about public leagues that are inactive.  I cited ownership percentages of players who were almost entirely undrafted in Yahoo leagues and showed that their ownership is within a range where the ceiling on inactive leagues counted in Yahoo's ownership percentage is about 10-15%.  So go ahead and peg the max ownership in Yahoo for a must-own player at 85% if you must, but there's no reason to throw it out entirely as a metric is discounting a legitimate source of information on the basis that it's not perfect.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

 

A lot of people owned Soto before the season started and he was a number one prospect so even casual leagues were aware of him right off the bat. 

 

And to an earlier post, no Yahoo doesn't NOT weed out public leagues when they do their percent owned.  They can't even figure how to keep prospects in NA slots year to year let alone figure out "weeding" leagues.  And I'm sure their new overlords, Oath, are busy doing some "weeding" themselves to shrink the personnel including coders to save on costs.

No, lots of people didn't stash Soto, his ownership was around 1-2% at the time he got called. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, StevieStats said:

No, lots of people didn't stash Soto, his ownership was around 1-2% at the time he got called. 

 

To be precise: 3% on 5/19, the day before he was called up, 66% five days later.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the value of looking at ownership numbers anyway? Just to say “LOL why is this guy only 32% owned? Noobs!”

I weigh my needs in my league, see who’s available, and add accordingly. I would NEVER wait on a guy in my league because he’s still available in another league. That makes zero sense.

So...what’s the value of discussing this at all? Or is it just for fun?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s more than dead leagues.  There’s still AL and NL only.  There’s no transaction leagues, 4x4, points leagues and other formats where Dominguez wouldn’t hold as much value or wouldn’t be drafted.  Those factors teamed with his relative late surgence means his ownership will be lower than what you expect.  In all of my leagues that have transactions (which is 8 unfortunately), he was added long ago.  

 

Hes not 100% in all nfbc leagues.  

 

He’s 57% on Fantrax 

33% on ESPN 

62% on cbs

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as this topic goes, I like using it when looking for prospects.  It helps me see who is available quicker than any other method I’ve seen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Even if the ownership rates were 100% accurate and accounted for every single dead, inactive, and worst ball league.... who cares?

 

Its not a useful number in any league where members are serious enough to open up the rotoworld boards. Unless you play in like 50 or more YPro leagues on Yahoo, there is really nothing to be gained by knowing the ownership %

Edited by cs3
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kidtwentytwo said:

It’s more than dead leagues.  There’s still AL and NL only.  There’s no transaction leagues, 4x4, points leagues and other formats where Dominguez wouldn’t hold as much value or wouldn’t be drafted.  Those factors teamed with his relative late surgence means his ownership will be lower than what you expect.  In all of my leagues that have transactions (which is 8 unfortunately), he was added long ago.  

 

Hes not 100% in all nfbc leagues.  

 

He’s 57% on Fantrax 

33% on ESPN 

62% on cbs

 

 

It shows 100% for me but I'm in the online championship, would assume same goes for main event. Obviously in draft champions he's probably very low and maybe cutline too based on when there faab periods are.

 

For yahoo and espn too many small leagues/dead leagues/mistake leagues etc... to consider ownership % very useful but it's not useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even players paying money can give up/become dead teams by June Corey Seager is still 10% owned 3 % started so what I thought was the site to actually use ownership % it still isn't perfect.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

What is the value of looking at ownership numbers anyway? Just to say “LOL why is this guy only 32% owned? Noobs!”

I weigh my needs in my league, see who’s available, and add accordingly. I would NEVER wait on a guy in my league because he’s still available in another league. That makes zero sense.

So...what’s the value of discussing this at all? Or is it just for fun?

[Personal attack removed.] I do, however, keep an eye on it since it can help sway trades in your favor if you handle it correctly. 

 

I think for many it’s a reaffirmation that they’re playing correctly— after all this is just a game. 

Edited by tonycpsu
Personal attack removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tool in your tool belt.

 

Sometimes if I need to add a player I'll sort the FAs by ownership percentage to see who "the market" is most bullish on...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, cs3 said:

Even if the ownership rates were 100% accurate and accounted for every single dead, inactive, and worst ball league.... who cares?

 

I look at it the way I look at the price of any other good in a marketplace.  Let's take real estate.  As an investor, you have your own idea of what something is worth, but you're foolish if you're not looking at signals from others on how much they're paying.  Even if you think someone was crazy to plunk down $100k for a house you only think is worth $60k, the fact that someone else believes otherwise is important.

 

Likewise, if "the masses" are out on a player you're in on, that's useful information when putting together trade offers -- you can come in with a low offer on them, even if you personally believe in the player, and even if you think the other owner might, because that other owner has to sell in a market where the player they own isn't getting a lot of love.

 

Nobody's saying it's the first or second or fifth thing you look at -- but when someone says "Seranthony is under-owned at 48%", they are citing an actual data point that's calculated on a scale where other must-own players have high ownership percentages.  That matters!  We all think we play in some of the most competitive leagues, and as people who spend some of our free time posting here, that's probably the case.  But just because a measurement of the market conditions is calculated across a wider pool doesn't make it useless, any more than ADP data is useless because it includes so-called "casuals."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Backdoor Slider said:

What is the value of looking at ownership numbers anyway? Just to say “LOL why is this guy only 32% owned? Noobs!”

I weigh my needs in my league, see who’s available, and add accordingly. I would NEVER wait on a guy in my league because he’s still available in another league. That makes zero sense.

So...what’s the value of discussing this at all? Or is it just for fun?

The value in that is he's potentially available for pickup in leagues and has been pitching extremely well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tonycpsu said:

 

I look at it the way I look at the price of any other good in a marketplace.  Let's take real estate.  As an investor, you have your own idea of what something is worth, but you're foolish if you're not looking at signals from others on how much they're paying.  Even if you think someone was crazy to plunk down $100k for a house you only think is worth $60k, the fact that someone else believes otherwise is important.

 

Likewise, if "the masses" are out on a player you're in on, that's useful information when putting together trade offers -- you can come in with a low offer on them, even if you personally believe in the player, and even if you think the other owner might, because that other owner has to sell in a market where the player they own isn't getting a lot of love.

 

Nobody's saying it's the first or second or fifth thing you look at -- but when someone says "Seranthony is under-owned at 48%", they are citing an actual data point that's calculated on a scale where other must-own players have high ownership percentages.  That matters!  We all think we play in some of the most competitive leagues, and as people who spend some of our free time posting here, that's probably the case.  But just because a measurement of the market conditions is calculated across a wider pool doesn't make it useless, any more than ADP data is useless because it includes so-called "casuals."

If you can gain an edge on a league member by citing ownership percentage during trade talks, then there are certainly much better ways to exploit that owner..

 

Its not remotely the same as ADP data imo. ADP data is useful because every online draft basically defaults to some version of ADP. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, StevieStats said:

The value in that is he's potentially available for pickup in leagues and has been pitching extremely well. 

So if you see a guy who’s 35% owned you’d go check your waiver wire, but if he’s 80% owned you wouldn’t check? 

This really doesn’t provide any value to it. Ownership on yahoo or ESPN has nothing to do with who is available in my league.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Backdoor Slider said:

What is the value of looking at ownership numbers anyway? Just to say “LOL why is this guy only 32% owned? Noobs!”

I weigh my needs in my league, see who’s available, and add accordingly. I would NEVER wait on a guy in my league because he’s still available in another league. That makes zero sense.

So...what’s the value of discussing this at all? Or is it just for fun?

 

I was the first one to bring this up in the Seranthony Thomas thread. 

 

I brought up the percentage because his ownership seemed incredibly low for what he was doing. I didn't say “LOL why is this guy only 32% owned? Noobs!” I was simply pointing out that his ownership is way too low for the way he has been playing. And this is regardless of whether or not there are a certain amount of active leagues left in ESPN come midseason, he's still criminally under-owned in ESPN leagues. Unless they have problems recognizing how many leagues actually are picking him up, he should be owned in every league that's active and I think that's more than 32% of the leagues. 

 

I was simply pointing him out to the Rotoworld forum and for those of you who read this to go and get him in your leagues if you need saves. That was the only reason I posted in his thread. 

Edited by thecomebackkid907

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could care less. I base my decision on quantifiable statistics. Guy could be 3% owned, if his numbers are right its all good. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, thecomebackkid907 said:

 

I was the first one to bring this up in the Seranthony Thomas thread. 

 

I brought up the percentage because his ownership seemed incredibly low for what he was doing. I didn't say “LOL why is this guy only 32% owned? Noobs!” I was simply pointing out that his ownership is way too low for the way he has been playing. And this is regardless of whether or not there are a certain amount of active leagues left in ESPN come midseason, he's still criminally under-owned in ESPN leagues. Unless they have problems recognizing how many leagues actually are picking him up, he should be owned in every league that's active and I think that's more than 32% of the leagues. 

 

I was simply pointing him out to the Rotoworld forum and for those of you who read this to go and get him in your leagues if you need saves. That was the only reason I posted in his thread. 

Yeah that’s fair, as a passing comment. I guess my point was more toward this thread, “How useful is it?”

Worth a mention? Sure. But of no use.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this