Run-Down Forums

[Dan]

I'm at the point of setting up purchase prices for this year's athletes. I'm trying to decide if last year's formula should be tweaked for accuracy, and if so, how much.

The system I used last year was to subtract 1000 off the IAAF ranking (~1400 for a top ranked athlete), then multiply by 10. Since the IAAF rankings are bunched pretty tightly together, the 10x multiplier helped to disperse the relative values.

Looking through some of the final point tallies in several events last year, it looks like the Score/Cost Ratio was reasonably good in most cases, with maybe a slight edge to the top performers. A good example is the women's 400m. A not so good example is the men's 1500m...

http://run-down.com/fantasy/

If I were to tweak the formula, I'm thinking a minor change along the lines of an 11x multiplier. Of course, raising the multiplier would make selecting top athletes more risky, which might make for more interesting roster selections.

If anyone has any brilliant suggestions on how to adjust the pricing system -- either along the lines of what I've done thus far or completely different -- please feel free to chime in.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

[Conway]

I don't see a problem with an 11x multiplier other than the obvious - top picks take more of your momney and if they don't pan out cost you in more ways than one ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

[Dan]

A little stress is good for the soul.

With an increased multiplier, the amount of cash available will need to be adjusted (actually, we've got 10 events instead of 14, so that needs to be taken into account, too). That means top picks will cost more relatively, but not that you'll have less to choose overall. Just have to be more careful how you spread out your cash...

The thing I'm hoping to avoid is what happened last year where about a dozen athletes did pretty much all the scoring. I think getting a Score/Cost Ratio of about 0.20 for the top athletes would be desirable, given last year's final results.

http://www.run-down.com/fantasy/index.php?go=top_athletes

An 11x multiplier would have yielded 0.29 for ElG and 0.28 for Marion instead of the 0.32 and 0.31 they ended with. Going a bit more toward the extreme, a 15x multiplier gets us to 0.21 (rounded off) for each of the two, which is getting close to what strikes me as a good number. How's that for scientific proof?

Down at the other end of the scale, a "bargain" pick like Anthony Whiteman in the 1500 gets a 0.07 instead of the 0.10 he finished at. That means his Score/Cost Ratio goes down a third with the new multiplier instead of the 50% the top picks lose. In other words, everyone's ratio goes down, but higher caliber athletes moreso than others. I'd probably need a log scale or something to actually balance out the ratios...

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])