kslight (999 posts)  8/24/2012 12:05 PM

We'll be adding Active Roster spots to the League Settings, and the Projections will show Value and ScarceV which shows the player's value due to the scarcity of their position.  For instance, Centers would likely gain more scarcity value.  You can see a sample of this on the baseball website.

redhopeful (89 posts)  8/27/2012 12:12 AM

Although I understand the premise of scarity, I've found that it doesn't factor much in basketball as say baseball. Instead, for instance, a player's versatility (multi-position eligibility) is a more valued characteristic. Any good way to assign value to this?

kslight (999 posts)  8/27/2012 6:46 AM

The position scarcity will assign the highest value to a player based on which position of his is more scarce, but there is no separate value reward for qualifying at multiple positions.  There's obviously value in that, but I'm not sure how to quantify it.  Maybe better highlighting and a way to filter on those players?

Da Ruhl (173 posts)  8/27/2012 9:50 PM

I'm not sure how the scarcity calculation is done, but perhaps the sum of the scarcity values for the player at all their different eligbile positions would work to value flexiblity?

kslight (999 posts)  8/28/2012 7:27 AM

@Da Ruhl - The scarcity value is like other values, but it's determined by comparing players of specific positions together rather than against all positions.  Adding the multiple scarcity values would likely overvalue a player.

ak murthy (196 posts)  9/21/2012 6:31 PM

Value and ScarceV which shows the player's value due to the scarcity of their position

The position scarcity will assign the highest value to a player based on which position of his is more scarce

Sorry for being dense, but could somebody explain this concept in simpler terms? Im still trying to get an idea of what the values mean. A PF with a low ScarceV is considered easily replaced while a PF with a high ScarceV is more rare? Something like that? What is the practical application?

kslight (999 posts)  9/21/2012 6:36 PM

It's intended to show which positions are more valuable in your league.  For instance, centers can be harder to find in some leagues, and therefore their scarcity value is higher.  It's calculated by comparing all centers together to determine their value, all pgs together to determine theirs, etc.  It's the kind of value that may not matter based on your settings but can make a big difference in some cases.

ak murthy (196 posts)  9/21/2012 6:38 PM

Thanks Ken, I think I get it. In a league that only distinguishes G, F, C, these values mean less, right? 

kslight (999 posts)  9/21/2012 7:29 PM

It still depends on the league. In a standard CBS league where they require 2 starting centers and there are not many good players designated as center, they would have high scarcity values.

bruin99 (201 posts)  9/21/2012 9:34 PM

On the scarcity rankings you have PG listed twice, and no PF listed.  Seems not only to be a typo but the calculation is using it to, for example Nowtzki's ranking is 0.31 last year, but scarcity is 0.15 when I put in the requirements of 1 G, 1 F, 2 C, 1 PG, 1 SG, 1 SF, 1 PG <--- PF should be here but listed as PG and 2 UTIL.

Also no players have higher scarcity rankings than non-scarcity rankings, seems odd.  And most PFs have a lot lower scarcity rankings than regular rankings.

Also there's no way to sort by scarcity ranking.

kslight (999 posts)  9/21/2012 10:47 PM

I've fixed the PG listed twice issue so there's now a PF.  I'll check the results too since it does seem odd to have all scarcity values lower than the total values.

kslight (999 posts)  9/22/2012 12:21 PM

I've adjusted the scarcity values based on the PG to PF change so they should be correct now.

Da Ruhl (173 posts)  9/23/2012 1:52 AM

Sorting by scarcity value doesn't seem to work?

Thanks!

-DR

kslight (999 posts)  9/23/2012 7:31 AM

The sorting by Scarcity Value will be included in the website update later today (likely early afternoon). Thanks for pointing this out.

Da Ruhl (173 posts)  9/23/2012 6:51 PM

Thanks!

powefull (6 posts)  9/30/2012 1:34 AM

Question about scarcity: what if the position listed on BBM doesn't match the eligibility at my Fantasy site?  Doesn't that mean scarcity will be incorrect?

Example:  Ryan Anderson is only eligible at Forward on CBS but is listed as a C on BBM.   

Looking forward to the answer.

ak murthy (196 posts)  9/30/2012 1:36 AM

You can go to custom > positions and edit Anderson's position.

kslight (999 posts)  9/30/2012 6:26 AM

@powefull - Yes, scarcity values will be affected by custom positions.  What fantasy site are you using?

powefull (6 posts)  9/30/2012 1:49 PM

I'm using CBS.  

Good to know I can adjust the position using custom.

I see that as of today Ryan Anderson's default position has changed to Forward.

Thanks!

kslight (999 posts)  9/30/2012 2:15 PM

I updated the CBS positions this morning.  If you see any that are off, please let me know.

nms24 (17 posts)  10/10/2012 3:28 PM

I'm still not getting this.  So you sum up all the players at a position, take the average and then what?  

For instance, in my league Goran Dragic has a high scarcity value.   Is that because his value is high relative to the remaining point guards?  Relative to all point guards?  

Or is that just point guard stats are harder to get than pf stats in my league for instance?

kslight (999 posts)  10/10/2012 8:34 PM

The Scarcity Value shows you which positions are harder to find in your league.  If Dragic has a bump due to his PG position, all PGs would have a similar bump.  Does that help?

Thanks

nms24 (17 posts)  10/11/2012 10:16 AM

Yes thank you.  I think it would be extremely helpful to update it based on who has been drafted so far as well.  

kslight (999 posts)  10/11/2012 10:36 AM

Yes, others have requested that, but I haven't been able to get it working correctly yet.

bandrewg (7 posts)  10/16/2012 3:23 AM

I'm new to BBM and love all the features. I'm starting to understand scarcity value, but just have one gripe with it.

It seems that the PF position's scarcity values are negatively affected by most Cs having PF eligibility. For instance, projected #12-14 are Horford, Millsap, and Gasol. But since Millsap is only eligible as a PF, his scarcity value is 0.20 lower than Horford and Gasol even though they put up similar "big man" stats.

Another example would be the scarcity value of #37 Anthony Davis (PF) being 0.20 lower than #38 Noah (PF/C). Also, PF Faried's being signficantly lower than PF/C  Duncan, PF/C Boozer, C Bogut, and C Hibbert.

I guess this is more of an issue of how certain players are categorized  than with scarcity value (I think Davis is a PF/C and Boozer is just a PF, for instance). But wouldn't lumping all PFs, Cs, and PF/Cs as "bigs" make scarcity value more accurate in regards to the big man?

kslight (999 posts)  10/16/2012 7:13 AM

@bandrewg

It's intended to show which specific positions are harder to find so it does separate the PF for the C.  It's all a function of how your active league rosters are set, since many leagues require 2 C, but don't give the C-eligibility as often as PF.

The feature probably needs some adjusting to make it more useful, but for, now it gives a pretty idea of which positions are going to be easier to find for the remainder of your draft.

Thanks

dishnivels (10 posts)  10/22/2012 10:11 PM

ScarceV doesn't appear to be working on points-based projections/draft trackers.

(Nothing quite like the week before opening night, eh?)

kslight (999 posts)  10/22/2012 10:36 PM

Yes, I noticed they looked a little odd, and I'll take a look. Thanks

kslight (999 posts)  10/23/2012 8:25 AM

@dishnivels - I've updated the test site with new scarcity values for points-based leagues.  I'm not sure if this is ideal, but it shows the total per-game value remaining for each position.  I think it's useful, but I'll get a better feel for it during a draft tonight.  You're free to try it on the test site.

Sensei (3 posts)  10/24/2012 6:38 PM

@kslight:

In my CBS points league we use C,F,G. The scarcity ranking in my projections are: C = 936.10; F = 1511.48; G = 1823.90.

Does this mean C, the lower value, is the scarcest position and G is the most plentiful? It's not clear to me from this thread whether a lower number reflects greater or lesser scarcity.

Just from real-play experience in this and other CBS leagues, C is definitely the position with the most limited number of top point producers.

kslight (999 posts)  10/24/2012 7:01 PM

It needs to be clearer for points-per-stats, but here's a brief description.

The scarcity value is the sum of each position's players points-per-stat value, So yes, the lower the value the less points available for that postion.  For example, if there are two centers left in the top players (values 20.5 and 18.0), the center scarcity would be 38.5.

Hopefully that helps,