SkyKing162's Baseblog

A fan of the Yankees, Red Sox, and large sample sizes.


Perhaps you all realize this already, and I'm just behind the eight ball, but I've been thinking a lot about the $1 minimum bid and how it affects valuation. You have to spend at least $1 on everyone you buy. Thus, that $1 doesn't really represent $1 worth of value, just the cost of aquiring a player. We've all noticed this phenomenon at the end of an auction. If you've got $6 left for four positions, you can't bid all $6 on one player. You can bid up to $3 on one player, leaving you with exactly $1 for the last three.

If we gave every team $23 less dollars to spend on 23 players and allowed minimum bids of $0, the auctions would run exactly the same. Players would be nominated at $0 instead of $1, and we'd decide whether to up the bidding or drop out. Every team is spending $23 of their $260 the same way - in order to get 23 players. It's really the money spent above the minimum that has any value.

So in reality, we should ignore $23 of each team's budget when assigning value to players. Go through the whole valuation process - find replacement, add up stats above replacement, compute $$/stat, and assign value - but only use $237 of each team's budget to value players. Then, add $1 back into everyone's price to represent the $1 minimum bid. The draftable pool will still add up to the actual total budgets, but value will be assigneed correctly - as value above $1 instead of value above $0.

I just adjusted my dollar values using this approach and it bumps down the top players about $3. Nothing extremely significant, but the fewer irregularities in values and projections, the better off you are. It can all add up and cause some prices to be way off.

Comments: Post a Comment