Author Archives: Mike MacGregor

Copy League Settings Feature and Problem with Keepers in Draft Buddy

A couple more tech support questions and answers for fantasy baseball Draft Buddy that the rest of our members may find useful.

Copy League Settings

Q: What happened to the option to import settings from a previous version of Draft Buddy? ~ dosete

A: Since the baseball version has gone through so many changes since last year, I removed it until things were more settled. I will likely put it back next year.

It is still there for football (action tab, lower left). I don’t think I had it in baseball last year either. Remember last year we were still in split files between the Cheatsheet Compiler and Draft Buddy, the first version for 2014, and then I combined them for version 2.0.

Problem With Keepers

Q: I just entered my keepers and hit Compile Cheatsheets, but the keepers didn’t show up on the draft report tab and they didn’t grey out on any of the cheatsheet tabs. I changed the reset keepers options on the action tab reset to No, but that didn’t change anything. Please help! ~ emoney28

A: Do keepers cost a draft pick? If so, then the keepers might have been removed from the draft report tab when you hit Compile. Once you have keepers input on the keepers tab (and they cost a draft pick) then change both reset options on the action tab to no.

If you lost the keepers on the draft report tab, but they are still on keepers, then simply change the draft pick drop down to blank, and then back to the right pick. Player should then appear beside that pick on draft report, and update the other tabs.

Follow-up reply: Thanks Mike. I set “reset draft order and picks” to no then re-entered the rounds the keepers were taken in and it worked.

Figuring Out Why My Draft Buddy Settings Result in Undervalued Hitters and Overvalued Pitchers

The tech support questions keep rolling in for the fantasy baseball version of Draft Buddy as we enter the final weekends before Major League Baseball’s regular season kicks off, and fantasy drafts are running rampant.

Q: I’m having a little trouble with the software. When I first download the program and review the projections and rankings, the first four or five players are hitters (which I agree with). Once I enter in my league settings and Compile Cheatsheets, the first five or six overall ranked players are pitchers.

My league settings are…

24 active players, 5 bench for total of 29 rounds
14 hitters (C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, MI, CI, OF, OF, OF, OF, DH, DH, DH)
10 Pitchers (6 SP, 3 RP, 1 P)
3 keepers, cost a draft pick
Roto, mixed League
5 x 5 (Runs, BA, SB, HR, RBI, WHIP, ERA, W, S, K)

I leave all of the other settings as-is.

I’m trying to figure out why the rankings are changing so dramatically after I compile. I would expect Mike Trout to be the #1 ranked player on everyone’s draft board, followed by Stanton, Abreu, Cabrera in some order. After I compile the first three players are Clayton Kershaw, Chris Sale and Max Scherzer.

Any insight would be great, really looking forward to using the software, you do a great job. ~ mgfarb

A: Thanks Matt! How many teams? Also I assume DH is really UT (any hitter) and not a true DH. Make sure you have it set to UT. Here are some thoughts from what you’ve sent me:

I’m surprised pitchers would be that high too. I’d still strongly prefer hitters first, but in terms of results, 6 starting pitchers is quite a bit relative to the other positions. I think due to position scarcity it might be pushing those pitchers up thinking you’ve got a lot of positions to fill.

Remember the results are pure numbers based. If we hit projections exactly, you probably are better off with pitchers. But, since they are more risky than hitters, and more unexpected pitchers emerge, that is why hitters get drafted higher.

That is why the hitters/pitchers cap allocation is split the way it is by default. What you could do is reduce the cap allocation to pitchers (increase hitters) even more, and that should shuffle more dollars to hitters overall, to get the cheatsheets more to your liking.

Follow-up reply: Thanks for the response, I changed the DH to UT and the projections and rankings look good now. Your point about position scaracity makes sense too. Appreciate the response and look forward to using the software.

Mike Trout More or Less Valuable with 5 OF or 3 OF Starters in Last Player Picked

The window on the left is output from Last Player Picked for a league with 3 OF and 3 UT starters. The window on the right is with 5 OF and 1 UT. Mike Trout's value is the same in both, as are the rest of the outfielders.

The window on the left is output from Last Player Picked for a league with 3 OF and 3 UT starters. The window on the right is with 5 OF and 1 UT. Mike Trout’s value is the same in both, as are the rest of the outfielders.

Received an email from member Steve from his using Last Player Picked, and it is something that has stumped him since before LPP was available at this website. Maybe our fellow members can chime in with their own thoughts on this question.

First, thanks so much for continuing the Last Player Picked model; it’s by far the best I’ve ever seen. This question has bugged me since Mays Copeland developed the methodology, but now I’m desperate to find out the answer since I’m joining a league with 3 OF instead of 5. Hopefully it’s not an error in the model and just something basic that I’m missing, but it doesn’t make intuitive sense:

If you reduce the number of starting catchers in your standard league from 2 to 1, their value will decrease considerably. Makes perfect sense, in a 12 team league with one catcher you only need 12 catchers with positive value vs. 24, and the difference between Buster Posey and the 24th catcher is much greater than the difference between Posey and the 12th best catcher.

So why does this same logic not work for outfielders? Cut the number of outfielders from 5 to 3, and Mike Trout is worth MORE, not less. At first I thought it might have something to do with the relative player pool size and depth; there are obviously a lot more OF with positive value than catchers. But that should be irrelevant – by definition in a 12 team league with 60 OF vs. a 12 team league with 36 OF, the 36th OF is worth $1 and the 60th OF is still worth $1. So shouldn’t the difference between Mike Trout and the 60th OF be greater, not less, than the difference between Trout and the 36th OF? ~ Steve

Hi Steve. Thanks for the email. My immediate thought is because there are 24 more OF in the draftable player pool (2 extra OF x 12 teams) so the money has to be spread around more than with the 3 OF league – all else being equal.

I wonder if we did a test comparing a league with 3 OF and 2 UT vs. a league with 5 OF and 0 UT if Trout would indeed be more valuable in the 5 OF format. Of course many of those UT players are likely OF, but perhaps worth a check. I am unfortunately traveling right now and not able to check. I will give this some more thought, but that is one idea for the apparent discrepancy. What do you think?

Continued … I am burning up my roaming internet package, but I had to know. I ran two different scenarios on LPP similar as described above. One, the default settings, uses 5 OF and 1 UT position. The second, I changed to 3 OF and 3 UT, so the total number of starters in each league is identical. All other settings stayed the same. The results were … drum roll please … identical values for OF in both leagues.

So, while Trout’s value did not increase in the 5 OF format vs. the 3 OF format, at least it didn’t go down. I think that lends some credence to my initial thought that the reason someone might see the unexpected result of his value going down with more starters, is because there just aren’t enough dollars to go around.

If anyone has further thoughts on the Last Player Picked valuation methodology – and I really should reblog that as a series here sometime – then please feel free to comment below.