Per Player Inflation Revisited

Anonymous asks:

when I determine inflation, is it exclusive to the first pick of the draft, the first round?

Neither. Inflation is a flat number, based on the amount of money left to spend versus the amount of talent (value) left in the player pool.

I've already touched upon this subject here. To summarize two of the main points from that article, the amount of money left in the auction and the amount of value fluctuate with every player purchased. But this does not change the impact of the total amount of money spent versus the total amount of talent obtained in your auction.

If you do try to track inflation on a per player basis through a software program, the software will typically tell you to spend less money as the auction goes along, since inflation is lower or even "negative", as there sometimes is more value than there are dollars. To say the least, this is problematic.

Round 10, BABG

NOM	#	Player	Cost	True Inf.	Flat Inf.	+/- True	+/- Flat
JSC	109	Tony Pena Jr.	$1	$1	$1	0	0
GLA	110	Doug Mirabelli	$1	$1	$1	0	0
COP	111	Rondell White	$3	$3	$6	0	+3
DEW	112	Jason Michaels	$2	$3	$6	+1	+3
DOZ	113	Jorge de la Rosa	$1	$1	$1	0	0
BEN	114	Juan Rivera	$4	$5	$9	+1	+5
QUI	115	Doug Mientkiewicz	$3	$3	$5	0	+2
TOW	116	Joaquin Arias	$1	$1	$1	0	0
BAT	117	Josh Phelps	$1	$2	$4	+1	+3
JIH	118	Chad Gaudin	$1	$1	$1	0	0
JAB	119	Melky Cabrera	$3	$3	$6	0	+3
JSC	120	Kameron Loe	$1	$1	$1	0	0
		Average	$2	$2	$4	-0	+2

This is a snapshot of a late round from my money A.L. league last year. The flat inflation rate is the actual inflation rate of 17%, which applies inflation across the board to the entire auction. The "true" rate is if you apply a rate every time a player is taken off the board. To see the dynamics of the "true" rate in greater detail, go back to that article I linked to above. "True" inflation at this point is a negative 47.9% entering Round 10 of my A.L. auction. In total, there is $94 left to spend on players estimated to earn $139. Another way of expressing this is that for every $1 you spend, you'll get back $1.48.

The problems with this philosophy are two-fold:

1) If Melky Cabrera was projected to earn $5 before the auction, you've still added $5 worth of value to your team. You haven't added less value to your team because there is less money for the room to spend.
2) If you drop your bid limit to $3 based on the "true" inflation rate, you may not get Melky. Someone might beat you to $3, and if you're using "true" inflation, you won't say $4. If you have the money and the slot (both real issues in an auction with only $94 left on the table), you should have said $4.

This is the more significant dilemma with tracking inflation player by player. Every time you drop your bids toward the end of your auction, you decrease your odds of buying a player. And make no mistake, your goal at the end of the auction is to fill your roster with the best players available. These players are real bargains, and figuring out a player-by-player inflation rate creates the illusion that there are no bargains left.

In an auction where too much money was spent at the beginning, though, there are bargains. If too much was spent at the beginning, too little will be spent at the end. Cutting down the inflation rate as you go along will decrease your odds of getting some of these bargains in the endgame, and increase your odds of getting cute and leaving money on the table.