How to prevent tanking in Dynasty League? (1 Viewer)

[Don Quixote]

People don't tank good rosters. There's even little reason to tank borderline rosters (those 6-7 teams that clog up the middle of the standings). Tanking is almost always when there are 2 terrible teams (say 3-10) and one guy doesn't start starters to get the number 1 pick. Or a team is winless after 7 weeks and doesn't set a lineup anymore. Stuff like that.People are always jealous of the number 1 pick. Going back a few years the number 1s have been Watkins, Lacy, Luck, Julio. You get a number 1 pick, you get a stud or someone capable of being a stud.

My first question would have to be answered. If you can kick someone for tanking, yet they have the worst roster, what happens to the pick? What if it's close between him and the second worst? Why does the team that didn't tank get punished for something someone else did to make the league worse? How do you determine that the tanker has a worse roster, or better? If he's kicked out before the end of the season, who makes his roster? Who decides what the right players to start are? What if that guy makes bad decisions and that team loses in close matchups?

Sure having a code of conduct can get rid of most obvious cases, but not all of them. Is it tanking to throw in Charles Sims this week instead of Crowell who is on the injury report? What about Stephan Taylor over Ellington if he plays? You can make a case that Manzel will get the starting gig in the second half for the Browns and have that not pan out too. Or start Ben Tate and leave Doug Martin out.

Best ball during the regular season for draft slot only takes tanking completely out of the picture. You don't have a choice on your draft slot outside of trading current players for future picks which is a completely legit way of running a team. I guess I'm just not understanding the downside to running it this way.

I'd go back to my original point that potential points does not determine best teams or best rosters. In one of my leagues, I have a rebuild that I took over that had the worst record at 3-10 and worst all-play record (I have Bell, OBJ, and not much else), but I have more potential points than a 6-7 team with Murray, Gio, and Jordy Nelson. He would have easily made the playoffs if Gio did not get hurt (he lost his last three). I had a team full of boom-bust guys that were hard to predict (Antone Smith, Justin Hunter, Antoine Cason, Davante Adams, Bowe, Baldwin, et al.).

It wasn't "tanking" that led to me having less potential points; my 4 highest scoring weeks were all in the last four weeks of the regular season. I just have a lot of inconsistent players that I could not tell when they would go off.

So, why should the 6-7 team draft ahead of me?

 

[Pipes]

We do two things. First is the highest scoring non playoff team between weeks 10-13 gets 5% of the pot. Encourages those eliminated from the playoffs to put their best team forward the last 4 weeks when many are battling for playoff spots. Second we have a lottery system for the top 3 picks (1st round only) so the worst team gets 16 chances at it, the 15th place team 15, etc with the champion even getting 1 shot. After the top 3 picks are determined the remaining draft is determined by the order of finish.

It's not perfect but with the financial incentive at the end of the season and the non guarantee of the worst team getting the 1st pick we haven't had any issues.

 

[FUBAR]

My league has a most possible points rule, where the bench points possible count as the deciding factor who gets to choose first in the draft. The only way to truly tank is to destroy your roster in the process.

I'm in one league with this, our first year. didn't even think about it all year despite having a losing record, but it will either keep potential tankers from tanking or cause them to dump all of their productive players in order to do so. Nothing (nothing I'd want anyway) will prevent a team from selling off everything if they're inclined to do so.

 

[jandyt]

Trading away vets for youngsters and picks isn't tanking its dynasty strategy. Yes it increases your chance of losing but its purpose is to make your team better in long run not just to lose games. Intentionally playing a lineup you believe is not your best option is tanking as its only purpose is to lose games.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I'd go back to my original point that potential points does not determine best teams or best rosters. In one of my leagues, I have a rebuild that I took over that had the worst record at 3-10 and worst all-play record (I have Bell, OBJ, and not much else), but I have more potential points than a 6-7 team with Murray, Gio, and Jordy Nelson. He would have easily made the playoffs if Gio did not get hurt (he lost his last three). I had a team full of boom-bust guys that were hard to predict (Antone Smith, Justin Hunter, Antoine Cason, Davante Adams, Bowe, Baldwin, et al.).

It wasn't "tanking" that led to me having less potential points; my 4 highest scoring weeks were all in the last four weeks of the regular season. I just have a lot of inconsistent players that I could not tell when they would go off.

So, why should the 6-7 team draft ahead of me?

It's not 100% foolproof. Nothing is. There is no "perfect solution" that ensures that the #1 draft pick is always going to the absolute very worst team forever and ever amen. Potential points is a heck of a lot closer to perfect than any other method of awarding draft position that I've ever seen, though. I mentioned earlier that I checked the year-to-year correlation of various statistics (team wins, team points, potential points, team QB production, team RB production, team WR production, team TE production, etc). Potential points had by far the highest correlation of the bunch. It was the "stickiest" stat from year to year, meaning it was likely doing the best job of measuring some true intrinsic property of the team itself rather than just random year-to-year variation.

Now, there are ways to game potential points and cause it to underestimate your team. Tying up a lot of your resources in injured players and future draft picks is by far the easiest method. If two teams have the same number of potential points, but one of them owns six extra first rounders in next year's draft, which one is really "worse"?

Another way to game the system is to cut quality depth. For instance, if you have a bad team in a potential point system, I'd venture that there's zero reason for you to ever roster Antone Smith. A 29-year-old RB whose only value relies on his continued ability to break 50+ yard touchdowns? Sounds like a sure recipe for tanking my potential point total, to me.

Again, it's not perfect, but a draft order generated by potential points will, year after year after year, do a much better job at ensuring the worst teams get the best draft position than a draft order generated on total points, all-play record, head-to-head record, or any other proposal I've come across. And as an added bonus, it's a harder system to game. Not impossible, but harder. Gaming an "All-Play Record" based system involves benching your best players. Gaming a "potential points" based system involves cutting or trading your best players. Obviously one is a great deal more painful to the rebuilding team than the other.

 

[cloppbeast]

My league has a most possible points rule, where the bench points possible count as the deciding factor who gets to choose first in the draft. The only way to truly tank is to destroy your roster in the process.

Definitely the best idea I've heard.

 

[grateful zed]

what rules do they use for this in the NFL?

 

[cloppbeast]

what rules do they use for this in the NFL?

Teams firing coaches who lose most of their games.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Have a weighted lotto system. Another solution is to get rid of the coach.

 

[Pipes]

My league has a most possible points rule, where the bench points possible count as the deciding factor who gets to choose first in the draft. The only way to truly tank is to destroy your roster in the process.

Definitely the best idea I've heard.

I hate the idea of counting bench points. Teams out of it should be able to take fliers on developmental guys that likely aren't producing much this year. Why should those teams be penalized if they aren't starting guys like that?

 

[armchairffqb]

Once it is acknowledged that one is out of the playoff race, or clearly moving toward the future, the commish (if no conflict exists) or a fellow "tanker" gets to submit the tanker's lineups each week.

Defining some of the above is difficult, as is working to ensure the lineup submitter doesn't have a direct benefit from the person losing. It is close to a good solution simply because intentions should be sound.

 

[ebsteelers]

best way to prevent tanking: dont play in dynasty leagues

 

[Adam Harstad]

My league has a most possible points rule, where the bench points possible count as the deciding factor who gets to choose first in the draft. The only way to truly tank is to destroy your roster in the process.

Definitely the best idea I've heard.

I hate the idea of counting bench points. Teams out of it should be able to take fliers on developmental guys that likely aren't producing much this year. Why should those teams be penalized if they aren't starting guys like that?

Draft position is based on REVERSE order of potential points. So a bad team taking a flier on developmental guys who aren't scoring much right now, (which is exactly what they *SHOULD* be doing), would only help their draft position.

 

[Adam Harstad]

best way to prevent tanking: dont play in dynasty leagues

It prevents tanking in terms of sheer wanting to lose, but it's not like redraft leagues are free of all this nonsense. I've seen dozens of redraft teams that, upon being mathematically eliminated, just stopped showing up to the site or submitting a lineup. Not like that's any better.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Tanking to get the #1 pick is a legitimate strategy in dynasty leagues. Why would you want to discourage it? If you don't like long term strategies play redraft. If someone made me wear a Romo jersey because I earned the #1 pick in a dynasty format I'd find smarter friends.

How are you defining "tanking" here? I think you can encourage long term strategies (i.e. trading away productive veterans for draft picks) without putting up with a team "losing on purpose" by setting a bogus line-up to finish out the season. The latter could have ramifications on the playoff race. While dynasty is about long term strategy to a large extent it's also about the current season to most of the teams in the league.

I would define tanking as the 2014-15 Philadelphia 76ers. The NBA is free to be angry at the Sixers. But making them wear a Romo jersey (or in this case Bynum) does not respect their perfection at the art of losing for a cause.

This year, there are only about 15 or 20 players whose value is > 1.1 - 1.4 + late 1st.

 

[Chapelboy]

I don't really like using potential points. The problem with the worst teams is generally that they don't have studs, and just have a bunch on inconsistent players. It is in effect penalizing a team for not starting Antone Smith (or a similar player) when he had one of his unpredictable weeks. Also, teams with full rosters of healthy players (versus IR players) have a greater chance to guess wrong on a given week.

But the point is to give the worst team the best pick. What other way do you have to prevent tanking while giving the team with the worst roster the top pick? I mean you could go with just have the commish force players into rosters that he believes are the best starts to prevent tanking, but then it's just in the eyes of the commish and if I had a bad team and a commish did that, I'd just leave the league.

In dynasty, not starting Antone Smith the week he randomly scores is not a hinderance. In the long term, he will see more touches and have more scoring opportunities which is what you want out of fliers. plus were talking about a guy who will be a starter for your team maybe twice a year by a couple of points. This will happen on every single team. This exact process happens for every team so it's completely fair INO

For other ways to prevent tanking, why not just a have a Code of Conduct that kicks people out? If this guy in the OP is actively talking about starting a non-optimal lineup so as to get the #1 pick, he'd be kicked out of all of my dynasty leagues.

Agree with this. I'd rather have a 10-team league with owners who demonstrate integrity over a 12-team league with two schmucks who to a lesser extent probably look for loopholes. But that's just me. In 14 years, I've had to give quite a few owners their walking papers. Tough job but somebody's gotta do it.

 

[chickensoup]

People don't tank good rosters. There's even little reason to tank borderline rosters (those 6-7 teams that clog up the middle of the standings). Tanking is almost always when there are 2 terrible teams (say 3-10) and one guy doesn't start starters to get the number 1 pick. Or a team is winless after 7 weeks and doesn't set a lineup anymore. Stuff like that.

People are always jealous of the number 1 pick. Going back a few years the number 1s have been Watkins, Lacy, Luck, Julio. You get a number 1 pick, you get a stud or someone capable of being a stud.

My first question would have to be answered. If you can kick someone for tanking, yet they have the worst roster, what happens to the pick? What if it's close between him and the second worst? Why does the team that didn't tank get punished for something someone else did to make the league worse? How do you determine that the tanker has a worse roster, or better? If he's kicked out before the end of the season, who makes his roster? Who decides what the right players to start are? What if that guy makes bad decisions and that team loses in close matchups?

Sure having a code of conduct can get rid of most obvious cases, but not all of them. Is it tanking to throw in Charles Sims this week instead of Crowell who is on the injury report? What about Stephan Taylor over Ellington if he plays? You can make a case that Manzel will get the starting gig in the second half for the Browns and have that not pan out too. Or start Ben Tate and leave Doug Martin out.

Best ball during the regular season for draft slot only takes tanking completely out of the picture. You don't have a choice on your draft slot outside of trading current players for future picks which is a completely legit way of running a team. I guess I'm just not understanding the downside to running it this way.

I'd go back to my original point that potential points does not determine best teams or best rosters. In one of my leagues, I have a rebuild that I took over that had the worst record at 3-10 and worst all-play record (I have Bell, OBJ, and not much else), but I have more potential points than a 6-7 team with Murray, Gio, and Jordy Nelson. He would have easily made the playoffs if Gio did not get hurt (he lost his last three). I had a team full of boom-bust guys that were hard to predict (Antone Smith, Justin Hunter, Antoine Cason, Davante Adams, Bowe, Baldwin, et al.).

It wasn't "tanking" that led to me having less potential points; my 4 highest scoring weeks were all in the last four weeks of the regular season. I just have a lot of inconsistent players that I could not tell when they would go off.

So, why should the 6-7 team draft ahead of me?

You actually don't have a terrible core of players? You have a RB1 (Bell) future WR1 (OBJ) potential future WR2 (Adams if the Packers don't sign Cobb), and a RB flex potential in Smith once Atlanta stops giving SJax carries. I'd probably have to see both rosters to know. Plus, you didn't draft knowing that potential points determines draft slot so that makes a large difference. I wouldn't take someone like VJax in that kind of league.It's likely he took chances on mediocre players and got points on those weeks which is not sustainable. Best Ball points is generally pretty consistant on which lineup is better as long as you can use waivers and its not a draft and forget league (like MFL 10s). Other things matter as well. Was he carrying 3+ defenses in the AFC south and got to play JAX and TEN a ton? Do you have Kickers, if so how many are you carrying? My league doesn't use kickers and defense is left from the calculation because of how inconsistant year to year they are

 

[ghostguy123]

As long as you play your best lineup possible from your roster, you are not tanking.

It looks like tanking if you trade your veteran productive players for guys like Gordon, Blackmon, or guys who got hurt or are currently young backups, but as long as you play the best lineup you can from what you have left, then it's not tanking. It's building

 

[Game Time]

#1 rule:

Consolation bracket among non-playoff teams. Winner gets the #1 overall rookie pick.

I think this is the WORST thing you can do.... The worst teams just get buried even more... The team that wins the consolation bracket is most likely a pretty good team that just had a bad injury or some bad luck.... while the worst teams just get buried and saddled with mid round picks.......

A combination of things is best IMHO... I use final ranking based on standings and total points then we rank teams and create order from that based on a point system we assign... Worst teams always pick early as it should be.... Plus, if teams aren't setting best possible lineup each week, penalties should be assessed or they shouldn't be in the league in the first place....

 

[JohnnyU]

#1 rule:

Consolation bracket among non-playoff teams. Winner gets the #1 overall rookie pick.

Bad idea for dynasty leagues. The worst team needs that #1 overall pick. It's good for the league long term if the bad teams get better.

 

[Hankmoody]

I don't understand the logic of making some craptacular team win it's way to the first pick. This seams so obvious that I hesitate to even say it: Crappy teams don't score a lot of points, that is why they are crappy. Forcing them to win games or score the most points the rest of the way is not going to enhance the long term competitive balance of your league. It will only help mediocre teams get better at the expense of the bad teams.

Inverse order of potential points makes sense to me. As someone above said, you'd really have to destroy your roster to try to game the system. My second choice would be a lottery.

The draft order isn't nearly as important as most make it out to be. Drafting 1st last year got you Watkins, but drafting 6th got you OBJ or Benjamin if you picked correctly. Maybe said team is drafting first because they lost key guys to injury or suspension and next year they will be back full force. If you don't want to suck in the consolation bracket, make good trades, make good pickups, keep managing your team. Don't tank the season, don't give someone a better seed or even get them into the playoffs when they shouldn't because they beat a team that laid down for them.

I like inverse points, but the argument that the "worst" teams deserve the highest pick is bogus.

eta: bolded

 

[Amused to Death]

As long as you play your best lineup possible from your roster, you are not tanking.

How do you determine "best lineup possible"? Here's a scenario loosely based on my decisions this past week, a week where I had no incentive to win and our league's playoff seeding is already determined.

My QB plays Sunday but the forecast is bad - snow, wind, etc. My backup plays Thursday and has a favorable matchup. Which option is better? How about a starting RB that plays Monday night but is listed Q? I have a decent alternative going Sunday so I plug him in instead. Back up does squat while the starter goes off. Does the commish manually reset my lineup? Do I get a "talking to"?

Last week, I went with my usual lineup even though some viable backups might have been the better play. I wanted to lose (and I did) but I went with my usual weekly starters. Should I be kicked out of the league? Given a warning and told I should have gambled with my lineup?

You can't micromanage teams.

 

[JohnnyU]

I don't understand the logic of making some craptacular team win it's way to the first pick. This seams so obvious that I hesitate to even say it: Crappy teams don't score a lot of points, that is why they are crappy. Forcing them to win games or score the most points the rest of the way is not going to enhance the long term competitive balance of your league. It will only help mediocre teams get better at the expense of the bad teams.

Inverse order of potential points makes sense to me. As someone above said, you'd really have to destroy your roster to try to game the system. My second choice would be a lottery.

The draft order isn't nearly as important as most make it out to be. Drafting 1st last year got you Watkins, but drafting 6th got you OBJ or Benjamin if you picked correctly. Maybe said team is drafting first because they lost key guys to injury or suspension and next year they will be back full force. If you don't want to suck in the consolation bracket, make good trades, make good pickups, keep managing your team. Don't tank the season, don't give someone a better seed or even get them into the playoffs when they shouldn't because they beat a team that laid down for them.

I like inverse points, but the argument that the "worst" teams deserve the highest pick is bogus.

eta: bolded

I think you will find that over 90% of the FF dynasty world disagrees with you.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

As long as you play your best lineup possible from your roster, you are not tanking.

How do you determine "best lineup possible"? Here's a scenario loosely based on my decisions this past week, a week where I had no incentive to win and our league's playoff seeding is already determined.

My QB plays Sunday but the forecast is bad - snow, wind, etc. My backup plays Thursday and has a favorable matchup. Which option is better? How about a starting RB that plays Monday night but is listed Q? I have a decent alternative going Sunday so I plug him in instead. Back up does squat while the starter goes off. Does the commish manually reset my lineup? Do I get a "talking to"?

Last week, I went with my usual lineup even though some viable backups might have been the better play. I wanted to lose (and I did) but I went with my usual weekly starters. Should I be kicked out of the league? Given a warning and told I should have gambled with my lineup?

You can't micromanage teams.

I put the word "best" (lineup) in quotes in my anti-tanking rule for the reasons you state above. I don't want to micro-manage, but I don't want people to obviously tank. I wouldn't call anyone out if they started Doug Baldwin over Odell Beckham or if they started Bishop Sankey over Justin Forsett (even though that could/may be subtle tanking), but I may if someone is starting Chris Hogan and David Carr while Julio Jones and Tom Brady are on their bench. It's certainly possible that Hogan and Carr may outscore those guys but I would ask "if this was a playoff game would you really be starting Chris Hogan over Julio Jones or David Carr over Tom Brady?".

ETA, the Rule:

[SIZE=9pt]Each owner MUST submit his “best” lineup each week. Collusion or "Losing on Purpose" to help another team or to improve next year’s draft position will result in that owner being issued a “warning” (followed by a correction to the line-up by the commissioner or otherwise). A second offense may lead to dismissal from the league upon owner vote. An owner will be given a full opportunity to explain his line-up decisions that are called into question prior to any action or vote. [/SIZE]

Our very first season, an owner that never had done dynasty before tried to submit a bogus line-up, since he wanted to get the No. 1 pick. When I explained the ramifications of how his decision effects the rest of the league, he realized he was wrong and changed it on his own.

That's the only time I really had to enforce it, but someone did start Doug Baldwin over Odell Beckham and Brandon Marshall this past week while they were eliminated from the playoffs and while I suspected that they were subtly tanking I didn't call them out or address it other than reminding everyone of our general anti-tanking rule. I wouldn't necessarily buy any argument that they really though Baldwin was their best choice, but still felt that was too close to call and didn't want a big deal being made over it. The team ended up winning anyway.

 

[chickensoup]

I don't understand the logic of making some craptacular team win it's way to the first pick. This seams so obvious that I hesitate to even say it: Crappy teams don't score a lot of points, that is why they are crappy. Forcing them to win games or score the most points the rest of the way is not going to enhance the long term competitive balance of your league. It will only help mediocre teams get better at the expense of the bad teams.

Inverse order of potential points makes sense to me. As someone above said, you'd really have to destroy your roster to try to game the system. My second choice would be a lottery.

The draft order isn't nearly as important as most make it out to be. Drafting 1st last year got you Watkins, but drafting 6th got you OBJ or Benjamin if you picked correctly. Maybe said team is drafting first because they lost key guys to injury or suspension and next year they will be back full force. If you don't want to suck in the consolation bracket, make good trades, make good pickups, keep managing your team. Don't tank the season, don't give someone a better seed or even get them into the playoffs when they shouldn't because they beat a team that laid down for them.

I like inverse points, but the argument that the "worst" teams deserve the highest pick is bogus.

eta: bolded

Let's take a look shall we? Per DLF the best player available to the pick (my estimation, of course hindsite...)

2014:

1.01: Sammy/Evans/ODB

1.06: Benjamin/Hyde

2013:

1.01: Bell/Lacy/Gio

1.06: Bell

2012:

1.01: Luck

1.06: Alshon Jeffry (though he was consensus 7 picks later, the concensus puts you at Floyd)

2011:

1.01: Green/Julio

1.06: Newton

2010:

1.01: D.Thonas or Dez

1.06: D.Thomas

See the difference most years? You can't list one years possibility at what you cod maybe get at 1.06 and say that you should do a toilet bowl for first pick.

The first pick has a crazy low bust rate in comparison to the rest of draft. That's why the worst team, by some measure that you use, should get it. It's the team most in need of an impact player. They get the exact player that they need to get better. Giving them potentially the 6th pick helps them less than the 7th best team. How does that make any sense?

If I'm in a league where I could win a toilet bowl for one year do you know who I never trade with unless I crush them in a trade? The worst team (s). What incentive do I have to not destroy them in trades or refuse? Letting them get better in any way hurts your draft stock if you fall out of the playoffs. I'll let them wallow in last place every year because they are getting Malcom Floyd when I'm getting Andrew Luck.

 

[Don Quixote]

People don't tank good rosters. There's even little reason to tank borderline rosters (those 6-7 teams that clog up the middle of the standings). Tanking is almost always when there are 2 terrible teams (say 3-10) and one guy doesn't start starters to get the number 1 pick. Or a team is winless after 7 weeks and doesn't set a lineup anymore. Stuff like that.

People are always jealous of the number 1 pick. Going back a few years the number 1s have been Watkins, Lacy, Luck, Julio. You get a number 1 pick, you get a stud or someone capable of being a stud.

My first question would have to be answered. If you can kick someone for tanking, yet they have the worst roster, what happens to the pick? What if it's close between him and the second worst? Why does the team that didn't tank get punished for something someone else did to make the league worse? How do you determine that the tanker has a worse roster, or better? If he's kicked out before the end of the season, who makes his roster? Who decides what the right players to start are? What if that guy makes bad decisions and that team loses in close matchups?

Sure having a code of conduct can get rid of most obvious cases, but not all of them. Is it tanking to throw in Charles Sims this week instead of Crowell who is on the injury report? What about Stephan Taylor over Ellington if he plays? You can make a case that Manzel will get the starting gig in the second half for the Browns and have that not pan out too. Or start Ben Tate and leave Doug Martin out.

Best ball during the regular season for draft slot only takes tanking completely out of the picture. You don't have a choice on your draft slot outside of trading current players for future picks which is a completely legit way of running a team. I guess I'm just not understanding the downside to running it this way.

I'd go back to my original point that potential points does not determine best teams or best rosters. In one of my leagues, I have a rebuild that I took over that had the worst record at 3-10 and worst all-play record (I have Bell, OBJ, and not much else), but I have more potential points than a 6-7 team with Murray, Gio, and Jordy Nelson. He would have easily made the playoffs if Gio did not get hurt (he lost his last three). I had a team full of boom-bust guys that were hard to predict (Antone Smith, Justin Hunter, Antoine Cason, Davante Adams, Bowe, Baldwin, et al.).

It wasn't "tanking" that led to me having less potential points; my 4 highest scoring weeks were all in the last four weeks of the regular season. I just have a lot of inconsistent players that I could not tell when they would go off.

So, why should the 6-7 team draft ahead of me?

You actually don't have a terrible core of players? You have a RB1 (Bell) future WR1 (OBJ) potential future WR2 (Adams if the Packers don't sign Cobb), and a RB flex potential in Smith once Atlanta stops giving SJax carries. I'd probably have to see both rosters to know. Plus, you didn't draft knowing that potential points determines draft slot so that makes a large difference. I wouldn't take someone like VJax in that kind of league.It's likely he took chances on mediocre players and got points on those weeks which is not sustainable. Best Ball points is generally pretty consistant on which lineup is better as long as you can use waivers and its not a draft and forget league (like MFL 10s). Other things matter as well. Was he carrying 3+ defenses in the AFC south and got to play JAX and TEN a ton? Do you have Kickers, if so how many are you carrying? My league doesn't use kickers and defense is left from the calculation because of how inconsistant year to year they are

Potential points is not the same as "best ball." If you were advocating scoring based on potential points on a weekly basis and then looking at all-play record using those results, that would be closer to best ball, and I'd more amenable to that. Potential points does not take into account that you can have a strong team for 10 weeks, and a terrible team for 3 weeks due to a short-term injury, which takes your potential points down. In the league that I mentioned, the team with less potential points than me had an all-play record .100 points better than me, and using potential points on a weekly basis probably would not have greatly changed that result.

Maybe the difference is that my dynasty leagues are all kicker and IDP, which do have a lot of swings in scoring. Particularly with CBs and OLBs that can be boom-bust if they have a pick or extra sacks in a given week. But IDPs are a big part of those leagues, so taking those out of the calculation would remove an important part of determining team strength and reduce the accuracy of potential points as a metric in making that determination.

 

[chickensoup]

People don't tank good rosters. There's even little reason to tank borderline rosters (those 6-7 teams that clog up the middle of the standings). Tanking is almost always when there are 2 terrible teams (say 3-10) and one guy doesn't start starters to get the number 1 pick. Or a team is winless after 7 weeks and doesn't set a lineup anymore. Stuff like that.

People are always jealous of the number 1 pick. Going back a few years the number 1s have been Watkins, Lacy, Luck, Julio. You get a number 1 pick, you get a stud or someone capable of being a stud.

My first question would have to be answered. If you can kick someone for tanking, yet they have the worst roster, what happens to the pick? What if it's close between him and the second worst? Why does the team that didn't tank get punished for something someone else did to make the league worse? How do you determine that the tanker has a worse roster, or better? If he's kicked out before the end of the season, who makes his roster? Who decides what the right players to start are? What if that guy makes bad decisions and that team loses in close matchups?

Sure having a code of conduct can get rid of most obvious cases, but not all of them. Is it tanking to throw in Charles Sims this week instead of Crowell who is on the injury report? What about Stephan Taylor over Ellington if he plays? You can make a case that Manzel will get the starting gig in the second half for the Browns and have that not pan out too. Or start Ben Tate and leave Doug Martin out.

Best ball during the regular season for draft slot only takes tanking completely out of the picture. You don't have a choice on your draft slot outside of trading current players for future picks which is a completely legit way of running a team. I guess I'm just not understanding the downside to running it this way.

I'd go back to my original point that potential points does not determine best teams or best rosters. In one of my leagues, I have a rebuild that I took over that had the worst record at 3-10 and worst all-play record (I have Bell, OBJ, and not much else), but I have more potential points than a 6-7 team with Murray, Gio, and Jordy Nelson. He would have easily made the playoffs if Gio did not get hurt (he lost his last three). I had a team full of boom-bust guys that were hard to predict (Antone Smith, Justin Hunter, Antoine Cason, Davante Adams, Bowe, Baldwin, et al.).

It wasn't "tanking" that led to me having less potential points; my 4 highest scoring weeks were all in the last four weeks of the regular season. I just have a lot of inconsistent players that I could not tell when they would go off.

So, why should the 6-7 team draft ahead of me?

You actually don't have a terrible core of players? You have a RB1 (Bell) future WR1 (OBJ) potential future WR2 (Adams if the Packers don't sign Cobb), and a RB flex potential in Smith once Atlanta stops giving SJax carries. I'd probably have to see both rosters to know. Plus, you didn't draft knowing that potential points determines draft slot so that makes a large difference. I wouldn't take someone like VJax in that kind of league.It's likely he took chances on mediocre players and got points on those weeks which is not sustainable. Best Ball points is generally pretty consistant on which lineup is better as long as you can use waivers and its not a draft and forget league (like MFL 10s). Other things matter as well. Was he carrying 3+ defenses in the AFC south and got to play JAX and TEN a ton? Do you have Kickers, if so how many are you carrying? My league doesn't use kickers and defense is left from the calculation because of how inconsistant year to year they are

Potential points is not the same as "best ball." If you were advocating scoring based on potential points on a weekly basis and then looking at all-play record using those results, that would be closer to best ball, and I'd more amenable to that. Potential points does not take into account that you can have a strong team for 10 weeks, and a terrible team for 3 weeks due to a short-term injury, which takes your potential points down. In the league that I mentioned, the team with less potential points than me had an all-play record .100 points better than me, and using potential points on a weekly basis probably would not have greatly changed that result.

Maybe the difference is that my dynasty leagues are all kicker and IDP, which do have a lot of swings in scoring. Particularly with CBs and OLBs that can be boom-bust if they have a pick or extra sacks in a given week. But IDPs are a big part of those leagues, so taking those out of the calculation would remove an important part of determining team strength and reduce the accuracy of potential points as a metric in making that determination.

I meant best ball as in what your highest weekly lineup could possibly be and then get the total points for the year. It's probably a terminology difference, I'm just used to calling it that for that league (we use the best ball total points, not best ball all-play record).

IDP doesn't change as much depending on scoring. Kickers fluctuate wildly at times though and I personally don't use them in dynasty as really only 2 or 3 would have much value ever and that's uninteresting to me.

 

[voiceofunreason]

I'd go back to my original point that potential points does not determine best teams or best rosters. In one of my leagues, I have a rebuild that I took over that had the worst record at 3-10 and worst all-play record (I have Bell, OBJ, and not much else), but I have more potential points than a 6-7 team with Murray, Gio, and Jordy Nelson. He would have easily made the playoffs if Gio did not get hurt (he lost his last three). I had a team full of boom-bust guys that were hard to predict (Antone Smith, Justin Hunter, Antoine Cason, Davante Adams, Bowe, Baldwin, et al.).

It wasn't "tanking" that led to me having less potential points; my 4 highest scoring weeks were all in the last four weeks of the regular season. I just have a lot of inconsistent players that I could not tell when they would go off.

So, why should the 6-7 team draft ahead of me?

It's not 100% foolproof. Nothing is. There is no "perfect solution" that ensures that the #1 draft pick is always going to the absolute very worst team forever and ever amen. Potential points is a heck of a lot closer to perfect than any other method of awarding draft position that I've ever seen, though. I mentioned earlier that I checked the year-to-year correlation of various statistics (team wins, team points, potential points, team QB production, team RB production, team WR production, team TE production, etc). Potential points had by far the highest correlation of the bunch. It was the "stickiest" stat from year to year, meaning it was likely doing the best job of measuring some true intrinsic property of the team itself rather than just random year-to-year variation.

Now, there are ways to game potential points and cause it to underestimate your team. Tying up a lot of your resources in injured players and future draft picks is by far the easiest method. If two teams have the same number of potential points, but one of them owns six extra first rounders in next year's draft, which one is really "worse"?

Another way to game the system is to cut quality depth. For instance, if you have a bad team in a potential point system, I'd venture that there's zero reason for you to ever roster Antone Smith. A 29-year-old RB whose only value relies on his continued ability to break 50+ yard touchdowns? Sounds like a sure recipe for tanking my potential point total, to me.

Again, it's not perfect, but a draft order generated by potential points will, year after year after year, do a much better job at ensuring the worst teams get the best draft position than a draft order generated on total points, all-play record, head-to-head record, or any other proposal I've come across. And as an added bonus, it's a harder system to game. Not impossible, but harder. Gaming an "All-Play Record" based system involves benching your best players. Gaming a "potential points" based system involves cutting or trading your best players. Obviously one is a great deal more painful to the rebuilding team than the other.

I think most possible points fails in IDP leagues. Firstly, it's much easier and less hurtful long term to dump usable IDP players and basically put in duds who aren't going to score or to make sure you don't have any good IDP players on the bench at least. A decent offensive team could gut their defense and score way less than they should, then the next year they rebuild their defense fairly easily, while gaining a much higher draft spot. Since almost all leagues I'm in are IDP it's not a solution for me.

 

[IHEARTFF]

I'm in leagues that are anti-tanking. One method is to give commissioner privileges to help set the lineups of teams that seemingly have tuned out.

I'm changing my tune personally on tanking. I think it should be allowed. Teams employ these strategies to attempt to get higher draft picks, why should dynasty FF be exempt from it?

 

[IHEARTFF]

Starting people who are on bye or out with injury should probably not be allowed, but otherwise it should be free game to start whoever you want to. You should have no obligation to worsen your draft pick to benefit some other random team.

 

[spider321]

#1 rule:

Consolation bracket among non-playoff teams. Winner gets the #1 overall rookie pick.

Bad idea for dynasty leagues. The worst team needs that #1 overall pick. It's good for the league long term if the bad teams get better.

No. More often than not, the first pick is not the best player anyway.

My league lets the worst teams during the season have the highest waiver priority each week, though.

Also, every team gets a first round rookie pick, but after that, where you pick depends on how many players you drop.

If you drop 6 players, and I drop 5, your second pick will come before mine.

That way the weakest teams CAN improve their teams without automatically having the first pick.

 

[Amused to Death]

#1 rule:

Consolation bracket among non-playoff teams. Winner gets the #1 overall rookie pick.

Bad idea for dynasty leagues. The worst team needs that #1 overall pick. It's good for the league long term if the bad teams get better.

No. More often than not, the first pick is not the best player anyway.

My league lets the worst teams during the season have the highest waiver priority each week, though.

Also, every team gets a first round rookie pick, but after that, where you pick depends on how many players you drop.

If you drop 6 players, and I drop 5, your second pick will come before mine.

That way the weakest teams CAN improve their teams without automatically having the first pick.

So you would swap your #1 for #4 straight up? All 1st round picks are equal? If they're not all equal, which pick next year is the best to have?

We're all aware the player with the best career is not always (perhaps rarely) the top pick in any given year. But you can't deny the most valuable rookie pick to have in any dynasty draft is #1.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Literally shocked to see only 2 people using common sense and suggest the use of a weighted lottery.

In my 16-team dynasty, half make PO's half don't. Worst record has a 50% chance of winning the #1 pick. You can tank sure. Enjoy your 50% chance. Maybe you'll get lucky. I have my worst 4 teams weighted with about a 97% chance split among them. Going off top of my head teams 16th-13th have something like a 50, 23, 17, 7% chance of winning the first pick. #12th has like a 1% chance and 11th, 10th,and 9th (first team out of PO's) are pretty much negligible each with less than 1% chance.

In our first 2 drafts (league's 3rd year) the worst team has picked 2nd. Nobody complains because I make it abundantly clear we use a lottery. It's fair and more importantly it's particularly fair for the worst quarter of our league to rebuild with first priority. So go on and tank if it's that important to you. Enjoy your 50/50 odds.

And as a post-edit FYI, get serious, legit players dedicated to dynasty rules football. I'm yet to have anyone blatantly tank and we've had some god awful teams. But I check lineups weekly and they are always what I would deem acceptable and competitive as much as the team can muster. Just communicate properly BEFORE a player joins your league and make sure they know and will abide by league rules and are dedicated to the competitiveness and betterment of the league as a whole.

 

[helix]

My league started with a losers bracket to determine draft order. The issue for us was the top non-playoff team "won" the #1 pick year after year. We then went to a weighted solution 60% total points/40% record. After another 5 years we evolved into a weighted lottery system for the worst 3 teams. It is the best system by far. Definitely the way to go.

 

[Hankmoody]

I don't understand the logic of making some craptacular team win it's way to the first pick. This seams so obvious that I hesitate to even say it: Crappy teams don't score a lot of points, that is why they are crappy. Forcing them to win games or score the most points the rest of the way is not going to enhance the long term competitive balance of your league. It will only help mediocre teams get better at the expense of the bad teams.

Inverse order of potential points makes sense to me. As someone above said, you'd really have to destroy your roster to try to game the system. My second choice would be a lottery.

The draft order isn't nearly as important as most make it out to be. Drafting 1st last year got you Watkins, but drafting 6th got you OBJ or Benjamin if you picked correctly. Maybe said team is drafting first because they lost key guys to injury or suspension and next year they will be back full force. If you don't want to suck in the consolation bracket, make good trades, make good pickups, keep managing your team. Don't tank the season, don't give someone a better seed or even get them into the playoffs when they shouldn't because they beat a team that laid down for them.

I like inverse points, but the argument that the "worst" teams deserve the highest pick is bogus.

eta: bolded

Let's take a look shall we? Per DLF the best player available to the pick (my estimation, of course hindsite...)

2014:

1.01: Sammy/Evans/ODB

1.06: Benjamin/Hyde

2013:

1.01: Bell/Lacy/Gio

1.06: Bell

2012:

1.01: Luck

1.06: Alshon Jeffry (though he was consensus 7 picks later, the concensus puts you at Floyd)

2011:

1.01: Green/Julio

1.06: Newton

2010:

1.01: D.Thonas or Dez

1.06: D.Thomas

See the difference most years? You can't list one years possibility at what you cod maybe get at 1.06 and say that you should do a toilet bowl for first pick.

The first pick has a crazy low bust rate in comparison to the rest of draft. That's why the worst team, by some measure that you use, should get it. It's the team most in need of an impact player. They get the exact player that they need to get better. Giving them potentially the 6th pick helps them less than the 7th best team. How does that make any sense?

If I'm in a league where I could win a toilet bowl for one year do you know who I never trade with unless I crush them in a trade? The worst team (s). What incentive do I have to not destroy them in trades or refuse? Letting them get better in any way hurts your draft stock if you fall out of the playoffs. I'll let them wallow in last place every year because they are getting Malcom Floyd when I'm getting Andrew Luck.

I didn't say the first pick should go to a toilet bowl champ. I merely stated that it's not some magic remedy to turn a team around, and that draft order isn't nearly as important as it's made out to be. Your examples make my point. Except 2011 (which you could easily have put DeMarco Murray in) there isn't one #1 pick in your list that's a compelling difference over the #6. My point was if you make good picks, where you're drafting isn't all that important. Heck more often than not the "worst" team isn't at all the lowest aggregate talent, they were probably more the victim of injury or simple bad luck.

edit: I guess by responding to the post I did it seems like I was implying support for a toilet bowl to determine the draft order. I don't necessarily, but I will reiterate that it's not nearly as bad an idea as it's made out to be.

 

[spider321]

#1 rule:

Consolation bracket among non-playoff teams. Winner gets the #1 overall rookie pick.

Bad idea for dynasty leagues. The worst team needs that #1 overall pick. It's good for the league long term if the bad teams get better.

No. More often than not, the first pick is not the best player anyway.

My league lets the worst teams during the season have the highest waiver priority each week, though.

Also, every team gets a first round rookie pick, but after that, where you pick depends on how many players you drop.

If you drop 6 players, and I drop 5, your second pick will come before mine.

That way the weakest teams CAN improve their teams without automatically having the first pick.

So you would swap your #1 for #4 straight up? All 1st round picks are equal? If they're not all equal, which pick next year is the best to have?

We're all aware the player with the best career is not always (perhaps rarely) the top pick in any given year. But you can't deny the most valuable rookie pick to have in any dynasty draft is #1.

Were you only able to read the first sentence? Sound it out, bud.

My league gives the worst teams higher waiver priority every week, more picks after the first round, earlier picks after the first round AND they play each other for the highest rookie picks.

That is worth more and will allow them to improve their teams much more than just giving the "Al Davis-esque" owner the 1st pick.

 

[fredsavage]

Not sure if it's already been mentioned as a strategy but 12 team we just go inverse order for playoff teams with cash prizes for consolation games and random unweighted draw for non play off team picks 1-4. Get the cream weighs out over losing consolation to improve from 10th to 9th etc

 

[Flint Fireballs!]

Tanking to get the #1 pick is a legitimate strategy in dynasty leagues. Why would you want to discourage it? If you don't like long term strategies play redraft. If someone made me wear a Romo jersey because I earned the #1 pick in a dynasty format I'd find smarter friends.

I absolutely agree with this. Just had an owner tank his way to an 0-13 record and definitely created discussion in our league. Not everyone was happy about it, but in the end, I supported his stance. As the guy who started the league and has been commissioner for all 9 seasons I stood by what I have always insisted upon: that each franchise owner always operate in the best interest of their team. The guy who tanked, Leonard, was doing just that. He wasn't trying to screw anyone. He wasn't being a #### about it. He was doing what he thought was in the best interest of his franchise and I applauded it. It would be nice to not have someone tank, but that is very difficult to legislate against. I like that I guy the 14 owners in the league (including Leonard and I) to accept the fact that he was doing what he thought was right, as we all do. We have a great league and this was a small bump in the road. Anyone who had a major problem with it I would gently encourage to leave the league rather than raise Hell over it - there are a billion leagues, find one you like, I say.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Tanking to get the #1 pick is a legitimate strategy in dynasty leagues. Why would you want to discourage it? If you don't like long term strategies play redraft. If someone made me wear a Romo jersey because I earned the #1 pick in a dynasty format I'd find smarter friends.

I absolutely agree with this. Just had an owner tank his way to an 0-13 record and definitely created discussion in our league. Not everyone was happy about it, but in the end, I supported his stance. As the guy who started the league and has been commissioner for all 9 seasons I stood by what I have always insisted upon: that each franchise owner always operate in the best interest of their team. The guy who tanked, Leonard, was doing just that. He wasn't trying to screw anyone. He wasn't being a #### about it. He was doing what he thought was in the best interest of his franchise and I applauded it. It would be nice to not have someone tank, but that is very difficult to legislate against. I like that I guy the 14 owners in the league (including Leonard and I) to accept the fact that he was doing what he thought was right, as we all do. We have a great league and this was a small bump in the road. Anyone who had a major problem with it I would gently encourage to leave the league rather than raise Hell over it - there are a billion leagues, find one you like, I say.

I'm not in your league, so I feel I'm just commenting from an outsider perspective and hope you can respect that. As a fellow commissioner, I would hate this. That to me, shows absolutely zero effort or involvement in my league. That's no better than having an inactive owner. The guy probably just set a useless lineup for week 1, and didn't log in until the last week of the season. I would never be okay with this. But again, it's just my opinion. At the end of the day, we both have our own leagues to worry about.

 

[Flint Fireballs!]

Tanking to get the #1 pick is a legitimate strategy in dynasty leagues. Why would you want to discourage it? If you don't like long term strategies play redraft. If someone made me wear a Romo jersey because I earned the #1 pick in a dynasty format I'd find smarter friends.

I absolutely agree with this. Just had an owner tank his way to an 0-13 record and definitely created discussion in our league. Not everyone was happy about it, but in the end, I supported his stance. As the guy who started the league and has been commissioner for all 9 seasons I stood by what I have always insisted upon: that each franchise owner always operate in the best interest of their team. The guy who tanked, Leonard, was doing just that. He wasn't trying to screw anyone. He wasn't being a #### about it. He was doing what he thought was in the best interest of his franchise and I applauded it. It would be nice to not have someone tank, but that is very difficult to legislate against. I like that I guy the 14 owners in the league (including Leonard and I) to accept the fact that he was doing what he thought was right, as we all do. We have a great league and this was a small bump in the road. Anyone who had a major problem with it I would gently encourage to leave the league rather than raise Hell over it - there are a billion leagues, find one you like, I say.

I'm not in your league, so I feel I'm just commenting from an outsider perspective and hope you can respect that. As a fellow commissioner, I would hate this. That to me, shows absolutely zero effort or involvement in my league. That's no better than having an inactive owner. The guy probably just set a useless lineup for week 1, and didn't log in until the last week of the season. I would never be okay with this. But again, it's just my opinion. At the end of the day, we both have our own leagues to worry about.

No. I'm glad that you write. Totally respect it. You wrote it respectfully. For the record, the owner has been very involved. In fact, on our website you can see the last time every owner checked in and he does so everyday. He has also been in a dynasty baseball league with me for 14 years, and a dynasty basketball league - of which he is the reigning champion - for 4+ seasons. He's a great owner. He signed and released young players all year long as he tried to stock his roster with guys that had upside, and he made several trades. He has two more first round picks in addition to #1. I insist on involvement and effort - and have gotten it. I tell guys, I want you to care, compete, etc. If you don't, shove off. This guy IS competing, which is my point. Sure, he's giving away wins this year, but that's because the guy is committed to being in our league for years, if not decades. I respect it. Thanks for writing.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

There are some very thoughtful ideas in here. Something came to mind that I have not yet seen in a league... What about settling the basic draft order from record at the 8 game point in the season? Or possibly weight the games heavier early in the season and make the last 4ish games count less. Any downside?

 

[Fariq]

There are some very thoughtful ideas in here. Something came to mind that I have not yet seen in a league... What about settling the basic draft order from record at the 8 game point in the season? Or possibly weight the games heavier early in the season and make the last 4ish games count less. Any downside?

You might be on to something with that. If you base order on first 8 weeks, the also-rans can try to win games late in the year and play the spoiler role. Winning down the stretch would not hurt their draft position.

Alas, I am sure someone will show us the downside.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I don't understand the logic of making some craptacular team win it's way to the first pick. This seams so obvious that I hesitate to even say it: Crappy teams don't score a lot of points, that is why they are crappy. Forcing them to win games or score the most points the rest of the way is not going to enhance the long term competitive balance of your league. It will only help mediocre teams get better at the expense of the bad teams.

Inverse order of potential points makes sense to me. As someone above said, you'd really have to destroy your roster to try to game the system. My second choice would be a lottery.

The draft order isn't nearly as important as most make it out to be. Drafting 1st last year got you Watkins, but drafting 6th got you OBJ or Benjamin if you picked correctly. Maybe said team is drafting first because they lost key guys to injury or suspension and next year they will be back full force. If you don't want to suck in the consolation bracket, make good trades, make good pickups, keep managing your team. Don't tank the season, don't give someone a better seed or even get them into the playoffs when they shouldn't because they beat a team that laid down for them.

I like inverse points, but the argument that the "worst" teams deserve the highest pick is bogus.

eta: bolded

Order is extremely important. There is almost always a very steep tier break between the top-tier talents and the 2nd-tier talents. That tier break does not always materialize in high-end outcomes, but it universally manifests in success rate. Yes, you *COULD* have gotten a guy in the late 1st who was as valuable as a guy who went in the early 1st, but early 1st rounders hit at a 66% success rate, and late 1st rounders hit at a 33% success rate, so early 1st rounders still are worth twice as much. (Numbers here are made up for illustrative purposes- the hit rate of top picks is actually even higher compared to late picks).

Here are the 24 players taken in the top three picks of rookie drafts of my oldest dynasty league: Adrian Peterson, Calvin Johnson, Marshawn Lynch, Darren McFadden, Matt Forte, Jonathan Stewart, Knowshon Moreno, Beanie Wells, LeSean McCoy, Dez Bryant, C.J. Spiller, Ryan Matthews, Julio Jones, Mark Ingram, A.J. Green, Trent Richardson, Doug Martin, Andrew Luck, Eddie Lacy, Tavon Austin, Gio Bernard, Sammy Watkins, Brandin Cooks, Mike Evans

The bolded are guys who either had multiple dominant seasons or could reasonably still be expected to go in the first 24 picks of a startup today (or, in the case of Calvin, both). These guys are studs. The italicized guys are the guys who never returned any value whatsoever. These guys are total busts. The others fall somewhere in between- they gave some usable seasons, at one point or another they commanded a ton in trade value, etc. Probably disappointments, but not busts. We can quibble with some distinctions- maybe Tavon Austin is a bust, though I think two years is too early to say so. Some might argue that Gio deserves to be bolded. Richardson and Martin are both busts now, but they also both had top-12 seasons and at one point in time they were the consensus top two players in dynasty. A year ago, Ingram would have been on the bust list, but he's performing a nice little turnaround. Knowshon Moreno did the same. By my count, the only guy out of those 24 who just absolutely never gave you ANYTHING was Beanie Wells.

In that same league, here are the players taken from 4-6: Brandon Jackson, Jamarcus Russell, Anthony Gonzalez, Rashard Mendenhall, Kevin Smith, Ray Rice, Donald Brown, Percy Harvin, Mark Sanchez, Jahvid Best, Mike Williams, Sam Bradford, Daniel Thomas, Roy Helu, Greg Little, RGIII, Justin Blackmon, Coby Fleener, DeAndre Hopkins, E.J. Manuel, Montee Ball, Bishop Sankey, Carlos Hyde, Devonta Freeman

Okay, yes, there were a few too many QBs in the sample. It's a deep league and the QB wire is always picked clean, so desperate teams often reach in that range once the sure-fire prospects are gone. But... holy hell, just look at those two lists. Perhaps because of the reaches at QB, all sorts of talent is falling to the 7-9 range?:

Jacoby Jones, Dwayne Bowe, Michael Bush, Matt Ryan, Chris Johnson, Steve Slaton, Hakeem Nicks, Michael Crabtree, Jeremy Maclin, Dexter McCluster, Demaryius Thomas, Montario Hardesty, Leonard Hankerson, Randall Cobb, Jonathan Baldwin, David Wilson, Isaiah Pead, Robert Turbin, Tyler Eifert, Le'Veon Bell, Cordarrelle Patterson, Jordan Matthews, Kelvin Benjamin, Jeremy Hill

There's some solid mid-tier talent on that list, but again, it's a substantially worse list. Remember, the worst pick in the top 3 was Beanie Wells. The 2nd-worst pick was either Tavon Austin, for whom the jury is still out, or one of about a half-dozen RBs (Knowshon Moreno, Darren McFadden, Jonathan Stewart, C.J. Spiller, Ryan Matthews, Mark Ingram, Trent Richardson, Doug Martin), almost all of whom have returned a top-10 season at some point. Where are the Anthony Gonzalezes or Daniel Thomases or Brandon Jacksons or Leonard Hankersons or Montario Hardestys in the top 3? They simply don't exist.

I don't know how anyone could look at actual outcomes from actual rookie drafts and argue that draft position is not as important as it's made out to be.

 

[chickensoup]

I don't understand the logic of making some craptacular team win it's way to the first pick. This seams so obvious that I hesitate to even say it: Crappy teams don't score a lot of points, that is why they are crappy. Forcing them to win games or score the most points the rest of the way is not going to enhance the long term competitive balance of your league. It will only help mediocre teams get better at the expense of the bad teams.

Inverse order of potential points makes sense to me. As someone above said, you'd really have to destroy your roster to try to game the system. My second choice would be a lottery.

The draft order isn't nearly as important as most make it out to be. Drafting 1st last year got you Watkins, but drafting 6th got you OBJ or Benjamin if you picked correctly. Maybe said team is drafting first because they lost key guys to injury or suspension and next year they will be back full force. If you don't want to suck in the consolation bracket, make good trades, make good pickups, keep managing your team. Don't tank the season, don't give someone a better seed or even get them into the playoffs when they shouldn't because they beat a team that laid down for them.

I like inverse points, but the argument that the "worst" teams deserve the highest pick is bogus.

eta: bolded

Order is extremely important. There is almost always a very steep tier break between the top-tier talents and the 2nd-tier talents. That tier break does not always materialize in high-end outcomes, but it universally manifests in success rate. Yes, you *COULD* have gotten a guy in the late 1st who was as valuable as a guy who went in the early 1st, but early 1st rounders hit at a 66% success rate, and late 1st rounders hit at a 33% success rate, so early 1st rounders still are worth twice as much. (Numbers here are made up for illustrative purposes- the hit rate of top picks is actually even higher compared to late picks).

Here are the 24 players taken in the top three picks of rookie drafts of my oldest dynasty league: Adrian Peterson, Calvin Johnson, Marshawn Lynch, Darren McFadden, Matt Forte, Jonathan Stewart, Knowshon Moreno, Beanie Wells, LeSean McCoy, Dez Bryant, C.J. Spiller, Ryan Matthews, Julio Jones, Mark Ingram, A.J. Green, Trent Richardson, Doug Martin, Andrew Luck, Eddie Lacy, Tavon Austin, Gio Bernard, Sammy Watkins, Brandin Cooks, Mike Evans

The bolded are guys who either had multiple dominant seasons or could reasonably still be expected to go in the first 24 picks of a startup today (or, in the case of Calvin, both). These guys are studs. The italicized guys are the guys who never returned any value whatsoever. These guys are total busts. The others fall somewhere in between- they gave some usable seasons, at one point or another they commanded a ton in trade value, etc. Probably disappointments, but not busts. We can quibble with some distinctions- maybe Tavon Austin is a bust, though I think two years is too early to say so. Some might argue that Gio deserves to be bolded. Richardson and Martin are both busts now, but they also both had top-12 seasons and at one point in time they were the consensus top two players in dynasty. A year ago, Ingram would have been on the bust list, but he's performing a nice little turnaround. Knowshon Moreno did the same. By my count, the only guy out of those 24 who just absolutely never gave you ANYTHING was Beanie Wells.

In that same league, here are the players taken from 4-6: Brandon Jackson, Jamarcus Russell, Anthony Gonzalez, Rashard Mendenhall, Kevin Smith, Ray Rice, Donald Brown, Percy Harvin, Mark Sanchez, Jahvid Best, Mike Williams, Sam Bradford, Daniel Thomas, Roy Helu, Greg Little, RGIII, Justin Blackmon, Coby Fleener, DeAndre Hopkins, E.J. Manuel, Montee Ball, Bishop Sankey, Carlos Hyde, Devonta Freeman

Okay, yes, there were a few too many QBs in the sample. It's a deep league and the QB wire is always picked clean, so desperate teams often reach in that range once the sure-fire prospects are gone. But... holy hell, just look at those two lists. Perhaps because of the reaches at QB, all sorts of talent is falling to the 7-9 range?:

Jacoby Jones, Dwayne Bowe, Michael Bush, Matt Ryan, Chris Johnson, Steve Slaton, Hakeem Nicks, Michael Crabtree, Jeremy Maclin, Dexter McCluster, Demaryius Thomas, Montario Hardesty, Leonard Hankerson, Randall Cobb, Jonathan Baldwin, David Wilson, Isaiah Pead, Robert Turbin, Tyler Eifert, Le'Veon Bell, Cordarrelle Patterson, Jordan Matthews, Kelvin Benjamin, Jeremy Hill

There's some solid mid-tier talent on that list, but again, it's a substantially worse list. Remember, the worst pick in the top 3 was Beanie Wells. The 2nd-worst pick was either Tavon Austin, for whom the jury is still out, or one of about a half-dozen RBs (Knowshon Moreno, Darren McFadden, Jonathan Stewart, C.J. Spiller, Ryan Matthews, Mark Ingram, Trent Richardson, Doug Martin), almost all of whom have returned a top-10 season at some point. Where are the Anthony Gonzalezes or Daniel Thomases or Brandon Jacksons or Leonard Hankersons or Montario Hardestys in the top 3? They simply don't exist.

I don't know how anyone could look at actual outcomes from actual rookie drafts and argue that draft position is not as important as it's made out to be.

Yeah the list I put up earlier was incomplete as I had made two posts in word docs and gave the wrong one. What I posted was best possible at 1.01/1.06. I meant to add what concensus was (per DLF) for those picks and how huge of a drop off it was most years. It's like Luck to Michael Floyd types of drops must years.Pick 1 is always worth more because that guy has a chance at whoever they want. Pick 6 has whoever they want minus 5 guys. It's up to the owner to get the right guy and generally, concensus top 3 picks are there for a reason. Guys after that are not top 3 for a reason.