Draft after draft, I knew what was good — the player, the stack, the build. I just couldn’t tell whether my book was. So I set out to prove it — and built the answer for everyone.
Fifty teams into a season, a hundred, and I still couldn’t answer the one question that decides it: what are my odds of winning this thing? Every tool out there grades a single lineup. None of them could tell me if my book — the thing I was actually entering — was any good, or what to draft next to make it better.
I pulled every piece of research the best-ball world had produced — five seasons of Best Ball Mania results, the winning roster shapes, the advance-rate data, the correlation and draft-capital studies — and treated it as one body of evidence for what actually wins. Not opinions. Research. Every study that shaped these scores lives in our Research Library.
A fund manager doesn’t fall in love with one position — they measure the whole portfolio against evidence. So I borrowed the same discipline: portfolio theory and statistics, pointed at a book of best-ball teams. I built the math to score my portfolio against the research — construction, exposure, ceiling, correlation, and real title odds.
Not a hot take — a measurement. My book, graded against proven research, with the exact changes that would move my odds. It’s become the tool I open before every draft. Everything reduces to three scores and the outcome they protect:
Milly Metrics evaluates your portfolio, statistically, against the research that wins in best ball — then tells you exactly what to change to win more. It stopped my guessing. I hope it stops yours.