Search engines and recommendation systems attempt to continually improve the quality of the experience they afford to their users. Refining the ranker that produces the lists displayed in response to user requests is an important component of this process. A common practice is for the service providers to make changes (e.g. new ranking features, different ranking models) and A/B test them on a fraction of their users to establish the value of the change. An alternative approach estimates the effectiveness of the proposed changes offline, utilising previously collected clickthrough data on the old ranker to posit what the user behaviour on ranked lists produced by the new ranker would have been. A majority of offline evaluation approaches invoke the well studied inverse propensity weighting to adjust for biases inherent in logged data. In this paper, we propose the use of parametric estimates for these propensities. Specifically, by leveraging well known learning-to-rank methods as subroutines, we show how accurate offline evaluation can be achieved when the new rankings to be evaluated differ from the logged ones.