What do you do for pitchers brotha?

]]>Also, instead of adjusting pitcher values down by 20% as suggested by Zach, I think I am getting more realistic/helpful values by looking at the hitter/pitcher budget split that managers in my ligue will use. In general, that will be around 65/35 (but I set up my spreadsheets so that I can slide it up and down). Otherwise, I will go into my auction putting much greater value on pitchers than everyone else. Maybe that is warranted based on only the proj. numbers, but I think there is sound logic for spending more on hitters: pitchers are just more unpredictable and more prone to injury (if there is any research on this I would be very interested to see it). So, for example, my conversion to $$$ for hitters becomes:

[(Team Budget*0.65 – (1*no. of players per team/2)) / number of players per team/2] * (z-score above replacement / average z-score for above-replacement players) +1 = Dollar Value

Notice that I weight hitters budget by 0.65 and divide the number of players by 2 based on assumption that each team will draft equal numbers of hitters/pitchers.

I’m kinda new to FanGraphs but I LOVE what you guys are doing.

]]>or you could simply do the CORRECT and SIMPLE solution of using the same deviations as the denominator for all positions, as Tango and many others on these comments have pointed out.

you cannot slice it any other way: when you are constructing a system that is, by definition, one of MARGINAL value, you have to value an extra (marginal) 10 HR the same regardless of which position you get it from. Period.

]]>Its still just a theory, but I think it may work.

Take the league wide projected/historic totals for each category and find what percentage each position is expected to represent from that total. So, if the league total is 900 SB and 1B represents 50 SB, you have a ratio of .06. Do the same for the rest of the categories and then divide each category to find it’s portion of the positions contribution to the full pool across all categories and times that number by the number of categories so it doesn’t change the scale.

Example: If the contribution numbers were as follows:

.139 H, .150 HR, .141 RBI, .128 R, .056 SB

You’d divide those numbers by their sum

H = .150/.614 = .244 X 5 = 1.222

1.222 would be the number you’d times your z-score for HR by to correct its number for scarcity.

You can use these adjustment numbers then to either increase or decrease the value of each category. So, if 1B is plentiful in HR, their HRs will be more important to their overall score since its more difficult to replace a HR at other positions. The same goes for if you are looking at SB, it will decrease the value of a 1B with 12 steals because you can find players at other positions to replace those steals more easily.

It also balances out nicely because it won’t effect the players overall rankings or for positions that are well balanced in their contribution across all categories.

What do you guys think? I haven’t tested it yet with real numbers/players.

]]>