Why do people think stud WRs are more valuable... (1 Viewer)

BassNBrew · May 29, 2003

in a start three league instead of a start two league.Please explain this, I hear it all the time. (bear with me if this is a repeat, orginally posted in a Harrison thread when I should have started a new topic)Take a look at this example in a league with no pts/recpt from last years stats.Start 3 WR, 12 team leagueTeam 1 (Harrison 1st WR, 24th WR, 36th WR) = 239+132+108 = 479Team 2 (6th WR, 18th WR, 30th WR) = 183+147+120 = 450I'm assume that team one takes Harrison in the 1st and then drafts the last of the 2nd WR and last of the 3rd WR. Team 2 represents an average draft where an owner drafts a WR in the middle of each group (WR1, WR2, WR3)Net 29 point advantage to Team 1 (Harrison)Start 2 WR, 12 team leagueTeam 1 (Harrison, 24th WR) = 239+132 = 371Team 2 (6th WR, 18th WR) = 183+147 = 330Net 41 point advantage to Team 1.People often accept the fallacy that WRs are more valuable in a start 3 league. Actually the slope of the point drop off is so steep at the beginning, that by limiting a league to start 2 WR, the elite WRs are more valuable.Here are so more stats to chew on...Last year the drop off from WR#1 to WR#4 was 50 points. The drop off from WR#22 to WR#57 was 49 points. The drop off from #4 to #21 was 49 points.Lastly, think about it this way. If you can plug a stud WR into a start 2 lineup, then 50% of your WR are studs v. 33% in a start 3. The more WR you start, the more likely your opponent is to find /start a weekly diamond in the rough rather then having them on the bench. The more you start, the more value that mid-season waiver wire addition will have.

Holy Schneikes · May 29, 2003

Hasn't Maurile already answered this in a previous thread?I'd give it a shot, but I think he did a pretty good job the first time.

BassNBrew · May 29, 2003

MT's response...1. You just added a third round where Team 2 goes first. Of course he will make up ground. In a 3-round draft, the team that goes first in two of the three rounds will always have an advantage as compared to a 2-round draft where he goes first only once.2. If Team 1 can get Harrison + WR24 in the 2-WR league, he will not be able to get Harrison + WR24 in the 3-WR league since more receivers will go off the board between picks. It would be more like Harrison + WR30 + . . .The reason the top WR is more valuable in a 3-WR league is that (a) the baseline for WRs is lower (static baseline); or (B) more WRs will be picked each round, so the quality falls off faster (dynamic baseline). Static baseline vs. dynamic baseline is a matter of perspective, but they both get the same answer to this particular question.

BassNBrew · May 29, 2003

In response to MT, I think he's falling into the same fallacy. Sure more WRs are drafted, the the drop off in that tier of WR is far leass then the drop off at the top end. My numbers back this up.

BassNBrew · May 29, 2003

By the way...I'm definately open to being proven wrong on this. I just can't make the numbers demonstrate it.

heavy-set1 · May 29, 2003

part of the problem is your example. when the AVT app comes out, you will see the value change at the wr position when the requirement is changed from 2 to 3 wrs.

Zerp · May 29, 2003

Hmmm. I'll take a try at answering with "math", but with geometry, not algebra.Theory 1: RBs are worth more than other positions in a league with a start 2 requirement because of the scarcity of "quality" RBs in the NFL.If you accept this as true, then the following must also be true: Theory 2: In a start 3 WRs league, "quality" WRs are more scarce than in a start 2 WR league.

BassNBrew · May 29, 2003

Hmmm. I'll take a try at answering with "math", but with geometry, not algebra.Theory 1: RBs are worth more than other positions in a league with a start 2 requirement because of the scarcity of "quality" RBs in the NFL.If you accept this as true, then the following must also be true: Theory 2: In a start 3 WRs league, "quality" WRs are more scarce than in a start 2 WR league.

Good point in theory, but...WR#1 to WR#4 was 50 points. The drop off from WR#22 to WR#57 was 49 points. The drop off from #4 to #21 was 49 points.WR#57 is a fifth WR in a 12 team league.

BassNBrew · May 29, 2003

part of the problem is your example. when the AVT app comes out, you will see the value change at the wr position when the requirement is changed from 2 to 3 wrs.

I assume that you meant VBD rather then AVT, not sure. You're correct about the application, but do you really understand it (math wise)? I sure don't, especially since I don't know where the formulas are drawing their values from.Although maybe what I'm getting at is an AVT application.

joffer · May 30, 2003

I'm not sure why you're only comparing WRs to WRs, and not to other positions. It seems to me that's where the value comes in.

rabidfireweasel · May 30, 2003

Brew-If we all got to know the stats before we drafted it might not be an advantage. But we don't. Harrison, Owens and Moss have been top 5 locks for years. You don't have this consistency at any other position. Many guys who finished in the top ten were considered WR #2, 3 4 or even 5 before the draft:Toomer, Ward, Price, Driver. So maybe you get lucky and your #1 is Eric Moulds and your #2 is Plax. But many drafted Holt, Jimmy Smith, David Boston or Rod Smith as a 1, and good old Tim Brown, Key, Derrick Mason or Troy Brown as a #2. These owners were screwed.The more receivers you must start, the more variability you have. In a 12 team league, more than half are playing the match-up game for WR3. That WR3 easily becomes WR4,5,or 6 with bye weeks and injuries.It is very valuable to have a lock where you don'thave to play the match up game.

BassNBrew · May 30, 2003

I'm not sure why you're only comparing WRs to WRs, and not to other positions. It seems to me that's where the value comes in.

Because I'm trying to understand why people say a 3WR requirement makes a stud WR more important. I'm not talking about the value of WR relative to other positions, I'm talking about the value of WR to WR. I understand that changing the requirements/scoring at other positions impacts the overall value of the WR.

Bigdee · May 30, 2003

I'm not sure why you're only comparing WRs to WRs, and not to other positions. It seems to me that's where the value comes in.

First of all, the main concept of the VBD is that you determine a players value by comparing his worth to others at his position.When you start comparing players of different positions you begin to run into the variables involved from one league to the next, mostly in regards to the scoring system. But then you already knew this, huh? :no:

Bigdee · May 30, 2003

Biggest difference in the two that I can see is that you have a larger difference between the worth of the #1 and the lowest ranked starting WR because of the greater number at that position that is drafted and used. In a way, yes, their value is greater in a start 3 WR format, but only from the position of what's available vs. what's used.

I think that made sense, but then it's getting late. Probably won't make a lick of sense if I read it again in the morning. :no:

Holy Schneikes · May 30, 2003

Because I'm trying to understand why people say a 3WR requirement makes a stud WR more important. I'm not talking about the value of WR relative to other positions, I'm talking about the value of WR to WR. I understand that changing the requirements/scoring at other positions impacts the overall value of the WR.

Not really. You say you're comparing WRs in start 2 to WRs in start 3 leagues. But even so, it's not a true WR to WR comparison. What you are really comparing is the VALUE of WRs in a start 2/3 which is ALWAYS relative to other positions.The bottom line is that when 3 WRs are required, WR value AS A WHOLE goes up relative to the rest of the positions. More are needed, more are drafted, and WORSE WRs will start. Yes, the curve is fairly flat toward the end of the viable WR, but it isn't COMPLETELY flat.Now, I get that the point that the "big 3" present a BIT of a special case in that they have inherent value due to their consistency which makes them a little less subject to the value "rules" that the other WRs adhere to. They are pretty valuable in both start 2 and start 3 leagues because of this and maybe their value doesn't change as much as the other receivers when different starting requirements are applied.To be honest, I don't really get what you are trying to prove with your numbers, but I'm going to look at them a little closer to see what I can figure out.

joffer · May 30, 2003

First of all, the main concept of the VBD is that you determine a players value by comparing his worth to others at his position.

it is?

BassNBrew · May 30, 2003

Brew-If we all got to know the stats before we drafted it might not be an advantage. But we don't. Harrison, Owens and Moss have been top 5 locks for years. You don't have this consistency at any other position. Many guys who finished in the top ten were considered WR #2, 3 4 or even 5 before the draft:Toomer, Ward, Price, Driver. So maybe you get lucky and your #1 is Eric Moulds and your #2 is Plax. But many drafted Holt, Jimmy Smith, David Boston or Rod Smith as a 1, and good old Tim Brown, Key, Derrick Mason or Troy Brown as a #2. These owners were screwed.The more receivers you must start, the more variability you have. In a 12 team league, more than half are playing the match-up game for WR3. That WR3 easily becomes WR4,5,or 6 with bye weeks and injuries.It is very valuable to have a lock where you don'thave to play the match up game.

I think your reply actually supports my argument. The more WRs you start the further the drop off flattens. ReferenceStart 2 WR, 12 team leagueTeam 1 (Harrison, 24th WR) = 239+132 = 371Team 2 (6th WR, 18th WR) = 183+147 = 330Net 41 point advantage to Team 1.Let's take this to a radical extreme...a start 10 WR league and we'll assume that both teams get equal talent from WR3-10.WR 30 = 120 36 = 108WR 42 = 105 48 = 99WR 54 = 90 60 = 76WR 66 = 67 72 = 60WR 78 = 56 84 = 50WR 90 = 42 96 = 38WR 102 = 32 108 = 29WR 114 = 23 120 = 19That's 535 total points.In a two WR league the Harrison owner's WR scores approximately 11% more points. In the 10 WR league the Harrison owner scores approximately 5% more points (using the same WR for WR3-10).If the non-Harrison owner drafts a WR 6 positions better thruout the draft then the total points are non-Harrison 865, Harrison owner 850 for the start 10 WR league.

BassNBrew · May 30, 2003

"To be honest, I don't really get what you are trying to prove with your numbers, but I'm going to look at them a little closer to see what I can figure out."What I'm trying to prove is that the more WR you start, the more opportunity you have to eat into the advantage gained by drafting a big three WR. I could also argue (as a second point) that the more you start, the more likely you will hit on a WR in any given week the matches the stud WR. 2 chances in a start three league v. 1 in a start two (assuming that you start your WR1 regardless of matchup).

Shirtless · May 30, 2003

I think the key here is predictability. Your numbers crunch out provided that you know exactly which WRs will comprise 1-50. Of course, we know this is never the case. Given that, I think it is much easier and safer to predict that Harrison (or Owens for that matter) will end up as the #1 receiver (or close to it) than WRX will end up at a certain spot.For example, take a look at WRs 3-12 (in my league). They are (in order): Ward, Moulds, Moss, Toomer, Price, Horn, Burress, Driver, Rice, Coles. With the exception of Moss (you could actually argue lackluster production for Moss), Horn, and maybe Burress, I don't think any of them were projected to finish that high. In contrast, Harrison and Owens (#1 and #2) were projected to finish that high. Think about it, if you were attempting to target the #6 receiver (or someone close to it) during the late 3rd round or early 4th round of your draft last year, who would you have taken? Horn? Burress? If you did, you would have lucked out. However, what if they were off the board, or what if you were one of the people who took Holt (#15), Bruce (#19), Keyshawn (#20), or Rod Smith (#22)? You'd be really screwed while the guy who took Harrison or Owens, expecting his pick to be #1 or close to it, thrived in his pick's predictable production.Therefore, recognizing that you want your WRs to produce at an expected level (whatever that level may be), and recognizing that the need for your WRs to produce at that level is even greater as you start three instead of two, Harrison is more valuable because it is a safer bet that a WR corps led by Harrison will come closer to reaching its level of expected production.

Holy Schneikes · May 30, 2003

More thoughts on the numbers:You first group of numbers don't mean much to me because of the following:You are talking about the VALUE of receivers (sometimes the value of the "top" receivers and other times the value of receivers overall so I'm not sure which you are talking about when) but your selection of receivers is arbitrary in that they don't have any bearing on draft status. Draft status determines "value" (or vice-versa) but you are just knd of randomly selecting guys according to end of year stat rankings.Give me an example of where you can actually GET the guys you are talking about and compare the numbers from one realistically drafted team of WRs to another realistically drafted team of WRs and maybe I'll buy what you are saying with these numbers (though I think that analysis might be tough to construct due to the large number of "variables" you'd have to plug in assumptions for).I guess my point is that if we are talking about "value" relate it to draft position somehow or tell me how you are defining value.You SECOND set of numbers just describes the fairly logarythmic curve for the dropoff in stat output that is common to more than just WRs.Neither set of numbers really tells me that WRs in general OR the "top" WRs are less valuable in a start 3 league than a start 2 league.

BassNBrew · May 30, 2003

I think the key here is predictability. Your numbers crunch out provided that you know exactly which WRs will comprise 1-50. Of course, we know this is never the case. Given that, I think it is much easier and safer to predict that Harrison (or Owens for that matter) will end up as the #1 receiver (or close to it) than WRX will end up at a certain spot.For example, take a look at WRs 3-12 (in my league). They are (in order): Ward, Moulds, Moss, Toomer, Price, Horn, Burress, Driver, Rice, Coles. With the exception of Moss (you could actually argue lackluster production for Moss), Horn, and maybe Burress, I don't think any of them were projected to finish that high. In contrast, Harrison and Owens (#1 and #2) were projected to finish that high. Think about it, if you were attempting to target the #6 receiver (or someone close to it) during the late 3rd round or early 4th round of your draft last year, who would you have taken? Horn? Burress? If you did, you would have lucked out. However, what if they were off the board, or what if you were one of the people who took Holt (#15), Bruce (#19), Keyshawn (#20), or Rod Smith (#22)? You'd be really screwed while the guy who took Harrison or Owens, expecting his pick to be #1 or close to it, thrived in his pick's predictable production.Therefore, recognizing that you want your WRs to produce at an expected level (whatever that level may be), and recognizing that the need for your WRs to produce at that level is even greater as you start three instead of two, Harrison is more valuable because it is a safer bet that a WR corps led by Harrison will come closer to reaching its level of expected production.

I follow you, but if your going to bring the concept of unpredictability into it then doesn't starting more WR increase your chances that you'll draft a good one. Using your example for a start 2 league, if you drafted Smith, Keyshawn, and Bruce, you never fielded a top 15 WR and always left a top 25 on the bench, thereby leaving you behind your leaguemates. In a start three league, you were playing 3 top 25 WR which put you on par with everyone else.

Holy Schneikes · May 30, 2003

Another thought:Maybe you really ARE comparing the top WRs to other WRs in the same draft (still not sure if you are talking about the "top" WRs or just WRs in general).In that case, you may well be right that the "top" WRs might have a little more "distance" between them and the rest of the WRs in a start 2 league vs a start 3 league. But that doesn't tell us anything of value, because what we need to know is where to draft the "top" WRs (and the other WRs for that matter) RELATIVE TO ALL THE OTHER POSITIONS in a real draft (or auction).If we drafted one position at a time, you'd be really on to something here. :no:

rabidfireweasel · May 30, 2003

I follow you, but if your going to bring the concept of unpredictability into it then doesn't starting more WR increase your chances that you'll draft a good one. Using your example for a start 2 league, if you drafted Smith, Keyshawn, and Bruce, you never fielded a top 15 WR and always left a top 25 on the bench, thereby leaving you behind your leaguemates. In a start three league, you were playing 3 top 25 WR which put you on par with everyone else.

THis arguement makes no sense for this reason: In a 12 team start 3 WR league in 2002, it would be extraordinarily difficult to draft Bruce, Key and Smith. If you did, you made a trade to get an extra 3rd or 4th and tried to make the WR core the strength of your team. Wr's go faster in a start 3 league. How hard is that? In a start 3 league, Harrison is worth more because he way above the baseline of the 36th WR. In addition, WR's in the 60's and 70's will play on occassion in a start 3 league. Rarely do Wr's in the 50's start in in start 2 league.AS to your having two shots for the scrub to score equal to the stud assertion- I say your posts on the FAD draft have tainted your brain. There you don't have to pick a starter. In almost every other league, you do.

BassNBrew · May 30, 2003

Holy...I'm using year end rankings for two reasons. First, that's all we have available that we can agree on. Secondly, that's what our goal is when we draft. To counter your point; we know that 5 of last year's top ten RBs will not be top ten this year. That doesn't mean that we won't draft a top ten RB. Let's try another example, in a start one league where the dropoff is steepest at the beginning, how important would it be to be at the front of the curve?

Holy Schneikes · May 30, 2003

Example of the problem I'm talking about with your numbers:I just got from ADP the draft positions (12 team) that correspond to one of your WR selection sets.Harrison + WR24 are 1.10 and 6.09WR6 + WR18 are 3.07 and 5.08OF COURSE you are going to get an advantage from picks 1.10 and 6.09 over the guys you will get from 3.07 and 5.08. You had better, or you are a VERY bad drafter.

BassNBrew · May 30, 2003

Another thought:Maybe you really ARE comparing the top WRs to other WRs in the same draft (still not sure if you are talking about the "top" WRs or just WRs in general).In that case, you may well be right that the "top" WRs might have a little more "distance" between them and the rest of the WRs in a start 2 league vs a start 3 league. But that doesn't tell us anything of value, because what we need to know is where to draft the "top" WRs (and the other WRs for that matter) RELATIVE TO ALL THE OTHER POSITIONS in a real draft (or auction).If we drafted one position at a time, you'd be really on to something here.

Bingo...now we're on the same page.

Bigdee · May 30, 2003

First of all, the main concept of the VBD is that you determine a players value by comparing his worth to others at his position.

Click to expand...

it is?

Principles of VBD :no:

Read this.

BassNBrew · May 30, 2003

Example of the problem I'm talking about with your numbers:I just got from ADP the draft positions (12 team) that correspond to one of your WR selection sets.Harrison + WR24 are 1.10 and 6.09WR6 + WR18 are 3.07 and 5.08OF COURSE you are going to get an advantage from picks 1.10 and 6.09 over the guys you will get from 3.07 and 5.08. You had better, or you are a VERY bad drafter.

This is good...can you take it out to 3 WR?

Shirtless · May 30, 2003

I think the key here is predictability. Your numbers crunch out provided that you know exactly which WRs will comprise 1-50. Of course, we know this is never the case. Given that, I think it is much easier and safer to predict that Harrison (or Owens for that matter) will end up as the #1 receiver (or close to it) than WRX will end up at a certain spot.For example, take a look at WRs 3-12 (in my league). They are (in order): Ward, Moulds, Moss, Toomer, Price, Horn, Burress, Driver, Rice, Coles. With the exception of Moss (you could actually argue lackluster production for Moss), Horn, and maybe Burress, I don't think any of them were projected to finish that high. In contrast, Harrison and Owens (#1 and #2) were projected to finish that high. Think about it, if you were attempting to target the #6 receiver (or someone close to it) during the late 3rd round or early 4th round of your draft last year, who would you have taken? Horn? Burress? If you did, you would have lucked out. However, what if they were off the board, or what if you were one of the people who took Holt (#15), Bruce (#19), Keyshawn (#20), or Rod Smith (#22)? You'd be really screwed while the guy who took Harrison or Owens, expecting his pick to be #1 or close to it, thrived in his pick's predictable production.Therefore, recognizing that you want your WRs to produce at an expected level (whatever that level may be), and recognizing that the need for your WRs to produce at that level is even greater as you start three instead of two, Harrison is more valuable because it is a safer bet that a WR corps led by Harrison will come closer to reaching its level of expected production.

Click to expand...

I follow you, but if your going to bring the concept of unpredictability into it then doesn't starting more WR increase your chances that you'll draft a good one. Using your example for a start 2 league, if you drafted Smith, Keyshawn, and Bruce, you never fielded a top 15 WR and always left a top 25 on the bench, thereby leaving you behind your leaguemates. In a start three league, you were playing 3 top 25 WR which put you on par with everyone else.

I follow you here as well. However, I think what makes your situation more difficult is that your projected number is higher than say the situation of the person who drafted Harrison. Let's assume that I drafted Harrison and you managed to draft the #6 receiver. My next receiver only needs to be #24 at best. If he finishes higher, cool. But all I need him to be in order for my situation to work out is #24. In contrast, you need your next WR to be #18. Of course, if he finishes higher, it's all good, but you need him to be at least #18 in order for your situation to work out. I think we can both agree that after a certain point--say, Harrison, Owens, Moss, and maybe 2-3 more--WR production becomes a veritable crap shoot. Since both of us will essentially be playing pin the tail on the donkey, it's more likely that I'll pin the tail on my donkey because I only need to find #24 whereas you need to find #18. Theoretically we could target the same player, say... Kevin Johnson. He actually finished lower than #24 but even so he came closer to hitting my mark than yours. Of course we could have also targeted say... Laveranues Coles and both struck gold, you more so than I.Now, when you factor in starting another WR, that means subjecting yourself to even more unpredictability. The chances that you might screw up increase at a rate higher than mine because your target will also be higher, whereas the chances that we both might do well remain the same.What I'm basically trying to say is, at a very unpredictable position, the best strategy is to try to set yourself up so that some variability won't kill you. Essentially, my margin for error is larger than yours.

Holy Schneikes · May 30, 2003

Holy...I'm using year end rankings for two reasons. First, that's all we have available that we can agree on. Secondly, that's what our goal is when we draft. To counter your point; we know that 5 of last year's top ten RBs will not be top ten this year. That doesn't mean that we won't draft a top ten RB. Let's try another example, in a start one league where the dropoff is steepest at the beginning, how important would it be to be at the front of the curve?

I've got no real problem with year-end rankings for the purposes of some arguments as long as you can relate it to a draft where we can get some sense of value.I don't get the RB comparison at all - how does that "counter" anything I've said?

BassNBrew · May 30, 2003

"THis arguement makes no sense for this reason: In a 12 team start 3 WR league in 2002, it would be extraordinarily difficult to draft Bruce, Key and Smith. If you did, you made a trade to get an extra 3rd or 4th and tried to make the WR core the strength of your team." Doesn't matter. The fact is that they're more valuable in a start 3 then a start 2. Wr's go faster in a start 3 league. How hard is that? In a start 3 league, Harrison is worth more because he way above the baseline of the 36th WR. In addition, WR's in the 60's and 70's will play on occassion in a start 3 league. Rarely do Wr's in the 50's start in in start 2 league.Just because they "go faster" doesn't mean that's where they should be drafted. In a start 10 league, Harrison's baseline is astronimically above 120th.AS to your having two shots for the scrub to score equal to the stud assertion- I say your posts on the FAD draft have tainted your brain. There you don't have to pick a starter. In almost every other league, you do. That may be the case (tainted brain), but you're arguing my point. It's easier to pick starters in a start 3 then a start 2 (see your Bruce, Smith, Keyshawn example)

BassNBrew · May 30, 2003

I think the key here is predictability. Your numbers crunch out provided that you know exactly which WRs will comprise 1-50. Of course, we know this is never the case. Given that, I think it is much easier and safer to predict that Harrison (or Owens for that matter) will end up as the #1 receiver (or close to it) than WRX will end up at a certain spot.For example, take a look at WRs 3-12 (in my league). They are (in order): Ward, Moulds, Moss, Toomer, Price, Horn, Burress, Driver, Rice, Coles. With the exception of Moss (you could actually argue lackluster production for Moss), Horn, and maybe Burress, I don't think any of them were projected to finish that high. In contrast, Harrison and Owens (#1 and #2) were projected to finish that high. Think about it, if you were attempting to target the #6 receiver (or someone close to it) during the late 3rd round or early 4th round of your draft last year, who would you have taken? Horn? Burress? If you did, you would have lucked out. However, what if they were off the board, or what if you were one of the people who took Holt (#15), Bruce (#19), Keyshawn (#20), or Rod Smith (#22)? You'd be really screwed while the guy who took Harrison or Owens, expecting his pick to be #1 or close to it, thrived in his pick's predictable production.Therefore, recognizing that you want your WRs to produce at an expected level (whatever that level may be), and recognizing that the need for your WRs to produce at that level is even greater as you start three instead of two, Harrison is more valuable because it is a safer bet that a WR corps led by Harrison will come closer to reaching its level of expected production.

Click to expand...

I follow you, but if your going to bring the concept of unpredictability into it then doesn't starting more WR increase your chances that you'll draft a good one. Using your example for a start 2 league, if you drafted Smith, Keyshawn, and Bruce, you never fielded a top 15 WR and always left a top 25 on the bench, thereby leaving you behind your leaguemates. In a start three league, you were playing 3 top 25 WR which put you on par with everyone else.

Click to expand...

I follow you here as well. However, I think what makes your situation more difficult is that your projected number is higher than say the situation of the person who drafted Harrison. Let's assume that I drafted Harrison and you managed to draft the #6 receiver. My next receiver only needs to be #24 at best. If he finishes higher, cool. But all I need him to be in order for my situation to work out is #24. In contrast, you need your next WR to be #18. Of course, if he finishes higher, it's all good, but you need him to be at least #18 in order for your situation to work out. I think we can both agree that after a certain point--say, Harrison, Owens, Moss, and maybe 2-3 more--WR production becomes a veritable crap shoot. Since both of us will essentially be playing pin the tail on the donkey, it's more likely that I'll pin the tail on my donkey because I only need to find #24 whereas you need to find #18. Theoretically we could target the same player, say... Kevin Johnson. He actually finished lower than #24 but even so he came closer to hitting my mark than yours. Of course we could have also targeted say... Laveranues Coles and both struck gold, you more so than I.Now, when you factor in starting another WR, that means subjecting yourself to even more unpredictability. The chances that you might screw up increase at a rate higher than mine because your target will also be higher, whereas the chances that we both might do well remain the same.What I'm basically trying to say is, at a very unpredictable position, the best strategy is to try to set yourself up so that some variability won't kill you. Essentially, my margin for error is larger than yours.

I think you just proved my point. The more shots an owner gets to close the gap (start 3 v. 2), the more likely they are to do so.

Holy Schneikes · May 30, 2003

Another thought:Maybe you really ARE comparing the top WRs to other WRs in the same draft (still not sure if you are talking about the "top" WRs or just WRs in general).In that case, you may well be right that the "top" WRs might have a little more "distance" between them and the rest of the WRs in a start 2 league vs a start 3 league. But that doesn't tell us anything of value, because what we need to know is where to draft the "top" WRs (and the other WRs for that matter) RELATIVE TO ALL THE OTHER POSITIONS in a real draft (or auction).If we drafted one position at a time, you'd be really on to something here.

Click to expand...

Bingo...now we're on the same page.

Are we?Can you please for the record tell us EXACTLY what your assertion(s) is (are)? I'll give you some options and you can pick as many as you want:A ) WRs in general are more valuable RELATIVE TO ALL POSITIONS in Start 2 leagues (S2L) than in Start 3 leagues (S3L)B ) the "top" WRs are more valuable RELATIVE TO ALL POSITIONS in S2L than in S3LC ) the "top" WRs are more valuable RELATIVE TO OTHER WRs in S2L than in S3LPersonally, I believe along with popular opinion (an unusal place for me to be) that A and B are false (and that the CONVERSE is actually true).I belive C COULD be true, but even if it were, it wouldn't help me draft in the slightest.

BassNBrew · May 30, 2003

Holy...I'm using year end rankings for two reasons. First, that's all we have available that we can agree on. Secondly, that's what our goal is when we draft. To counter your point; we know that 5 of last year's top ten RBs will not be top ten this year. That doesn't mean that we won't draft a top ten RB. Let's try another example, in a start one league where the dropoff is steepest at the beginning, how important would it be to be at the front of the curve?

Click to expand...

I've got no real problem with year-end rankings for the purposes of some arguments as long as you can relate it to a draft where we can get some sense of value.I don't get the RB comparison at all - how does that "counter" anything I've said?

I brought up the RB example to counter the argument that year end results aren't valid. I shouldn't have gone on that tangent. I liked where you were going with the draft position though.

Shirtless · May 30, 2003

I think the key here is predictability. Your numbers crunch out provided that you know exactly which WRs will comprise 1-50. Of course, we know this is never the case. Given that, I think it is much easier and safer to predict that Harrison (or Owens for that matter) will end up as the #1 receiver (or close to it) than WRX will end up at a certain spot.For example, take a look at WRs 3-12 (in my league). They are (in order): Ward, Moulds, Moss, Toomer, Price, Horn, Burress, Driver, Rice, Coles. With the exception of Moss (you could actually argue lackluster production for Moss), Horn, and maybe Burress, I don't think any of them were projected to finish that high. In contrast, Harrison and Owens (#1 and #2) were projected to finish that high. Think about it, if you were attempting to target the #6 receiver (or someone close to it) during the late 3rd round or early 4th round of your draft last year, who would you have taken? Horn? Burress? If you did, you would have lucked out. However, what if they were off the board, or what if you were one of the people who took Holt (#15), Bruce (#19), Keyshawn (#20), or Rod Smith (#22)? You'd be really screwed while the guy who took Harrison or Owens, expecting his pick to be #1 or close to it, thrived in his pick's predictable production.Therefore, recognizing that you want your WRs to produce at an expected level (whatever that level may be), and recognizing that the need for your WRs to produce at that level is even greater as you start three instead of two, Harrison is more valuable because it is a safer bet that a WR corps led by Harrison will come closer to reaching its level of expected production.

Click to expand...

I follow you, but if your going to bring the concept of unpredictability into it then doesn't starting more WR increase your chances that you'll draft a good one. Using your example for a start 2 league, if you drafted Smith, Keyshawn, and Bruce, you never fielded a top 15 WR and always left a top 25 on the bench, thereby leaving you behind your leaguemates. In a start three league, you were playing 3 top 25 WR which put you on par with everyone else.

Click to expand...

I follow you here as well. However, I think what makes your situation more difficult is that your projected number is higher than say the situation of the person who drafted Harrison. Let's assume that I drafted Harrison and you managed to draft the #6 receiver. My next receiver only needs to be #24 at best. If he finishes higher, cool. But all I need him to be in order for my situation to work out is #24. In contrast, you need your next WR to be #18. Of course, if he finishes higher, it's all good, but you need him to be at least #18 in order for your situation to work out. I think we can both agree that after a certain point--say, Harrison, Owens, Moss, and maybe 2-3 more--WR production becomes a veritable crap shoot. Since both of us will essentially be playing pin the tail on the donkey, it's more likely that I'll pin the tail on my donkey because I only need to find #24 whereas you need to find #18. Theoretically we could target the same player, say... Kevin Johnson. He actually finished lower than #24 but even so he came closer to hitting my mark than yours. Of course we could have also targeted say... Laveranues Coles and both struck gold, you more so than I.Now, when you factor in starting another WR, that means subjecting yourself to even more unpredictability. The chances that you might screw up increase at a rate higher than mine because your target will also be higher, whereas the chances that we both might do well remain the same.What I'm basically trying to say is, at a very unpredictable position, the best strategy is to try to set yourself up so that some variability won't kill you. Essentially, my margin for error is larger than yours.

Click to expand...

I think you just proved my point. The more shots an owner gets to close the gap (start 3 v. 2), the more likely they are to do so.

But I have just as many shots as you do. I have just as much of a chance to improve my WR corps as you do. The only difference is that my corps inherently has a better chance of succeeding. You have to depend on luck more than I do.

BassNBrew · May 30, 2003

A) WRs in general are more valuable RELATIVE TO ALL POSITIONS in Start 2 leagues (S2L) than in Start 3 leagues (S3L) PROBABLY FALSEB) the "top" WRs are more valuable RELATIVE TO ALL POSITIONS in S2L than in S3L DEPENDSC) the "top" WRs are more valuable RELATIVE TO OTHER WRs in S2L than in S3L THIS IS MY ASSERTION.I've commonly heard this statement, "Had to take Harrison here, I especially like his value here becuase we start 3 WR."I believe that this is a false statement. I think he's more valuable in a start 2 league. I think he's off the charts in a start one league.

rabidfireweasel · May 30, 2003

That may be the case (tainted brain), but you're arguing my point. It's easier to pick starters in a start 3 then a start 2 (see your Bruce, Smith, Keyshawn example)

If those are you three WR then it is, but those are rarely if ever you 3 WR. In a twelve team league rarely do you have a clear distinction between your #2 and your number three.When you talk about the chance for your two scrubs to catch up to my stud, you are forgetting something. You are ignoring the fact that my two scrubs have the same chance as performing as well as your two scrubs.

Holy Schneikes · May 30, 2003

A) WRs in general are more valuable RELATIVE TO ALL POSITIONS in Start 2 leagues (S2L) than in Start 3 leagues (S3L) PROBABLY FALSEB) the "top" WRs are more valuable RELATIVE TO ALL POSITIONS in S2L than in S3L DEPENDSC) the "top" WRs are more valuable RELATIVE TO OTHER WRs in S2L than in S3L THIS IS MY ASSERTION.I've commonly heard this statement, "Had to take Harrison here, I especially like his value here becuase we start 3 WR."I believe that this is a false statement. I think he's more valuable in a start 2 league. I think he's off the charts in a start one league.

But your assertion C ) does NOT run counter to the Harrison justification you mention at all!The Harrison justification runs counter to option B ) - it has very little to do with option C ) at all. He is drafting Harrison where he is based on a belief that he is more valuable RELATIVE TO ALL POSITIONS in a S3L than in a S2L.As for the S1L, you are again confusing the issue. Harrison may indeed be off the charts in a S1L RELATIVE TO OTHER RECEIVERS, but he wouldn't be any higher than he usually is and probably lower RELATIVE TO ALL POSITIONS.

BassNBrew · May 30, 2003

Start 2 league...Team 1: Stud, Hopefully WR2...50% sure thing, 50% hopeTeam 2: Hopefully WR1, Hopefully WR2...100% hopeStart 3 leagueTeam 1: Stud, Hopefully WR2, Hopefully WR3...33% sure thing, 67% hopeTeam 2: Hopefully WR1, Hopefully WR2, Hopefully WR3...100% hope

aaronr28 · May 30, 2003

Can you please for the record tell us EXACTLY what your assertion(s) is (are)? I'll give you some options and you can pick as many as you want:A ) WRs in general are more valuable RELATIVE TO ALL POSITIONS in Start 2 leagues (S2L) than in Start 3 leagues (S3L)B ) the "top" WRs are more valuable RELATIVE TO ALL POSITIONS in S2L than in S3LC ) the "top" WRs are more valuable RELATIVE TO OTHER WRs in S2L than in S3LPersonally, I believe along with popular opinion (an unusal place for me to be) that A and B are false (and that the CONVERSE is actually true).I belive C COULD be true, but even if it were, it wouldn't help me draft in the slightest.

I think it is pretty clear that he is talking about Cand I would also agree that Harrison, Owens, and Moss are more "valuable" in Start 2 WR leagues than they are in Start 3 WR leagues.The same logic holds true for RBs. Williams or Tomlinson (assuming they are #1 and #2 RBs for a given year) would be more "valuable" in a league that started 1 RB than they would be in a league that started 2 RBs.Fewer starting positions places a higher need for players to consistently score high from week to week. More starting positions increases the variability, and thus a WR2 and WR3 could help offset a bad week by your WR1. When you only start 2 WRs though, being able to count on a big game from Harrison every week is practically priceless in terms of peace of mind.

BassNBrew · May 30, 2003

The Harrison justification runs counter to option B ) - it has very little to do with option C ) at all. He is drafting Harrison where he is based on a belief that he is more valuable RELATIVE TO ALL POSITIONS in a S3L than in a S2L.But he's not more valuable relative to other positions in a S3L (nice abbrev. by the way). That's his belief which I presented numbers to dispel.As for the S1L, you are again confusing the issue. Harrison may indeed be off the charts in a S1L RELATIVE TO OTHER RECEIVERS, but he wouldn't be any higher than he usually is and probably lower RELATIVE TO ALL POSITIONS.May I offer Gonzo as a counter example. He's off the charts relative to other TE and screams up the charts relative to other positions. Would Gonzo be more valuable in a S2TEL...not in my opinion.

BassNBrew · May 30, 2003

Aaron28 to the rescue. Well written. I truly believe that to be the case although it goes against the grain. I may be wrong, but I'd like to see some examples to demonstrate that. I'd appreciate some more debate, because this is definately helping me define value within a position in leagues that start small numbers at a given position.

aaronr28 · May 30, 2003

Think of it this way: If you were in a league that started 1 QB, 1 RB, 1 WR, 1 TE, and 1 PKthe value of any given position would be based on where the dropoff in points is likely to occur. With regard to WRs, I think most would agree that the top 3 are a cut above the rest. With regard to QBs, it depends greatly on the scoring system but I suppose a top 5 could be identified as a cut above. With regard to TEs, there are likely 3 top players to choose from. Finally, with regard to RBs, I'd say there are about 6 or 7 RBs that could all put up pretty similar numbers.Based on that, I'd think the top WRs and top TEs would be very valuable in a league like this since they are much more likely to outperform the other starters in a given week. Meanwhile, the top 5 QBs or top 6 RBs would be somewhat less certain to outperform the other starters in a given week.This same logic could be extended to leagues that started 2 of every position, but it becomes more complicated because starting QBs and RBs would become more scarce in that type of league. Thus, it's difficult to assess the value of stud WRs to players of other positions in a S2L vs. S3L because scarcity plays such a big role. However, this doesn't necessarily refute the fact that stud players are more valuable when there are fewer starting positions available.

Holy Schneikes · May 30, 2003

The Harrison justification runs counter to option B ) - it has very little to do with option C ) at all. He is drafting Harrison where he is based on a belief that he is more valuable RELATIVE TO ALL POSITIONS in a S3L than in a S2L.But he's not more valuable relative to other positions in a S3L (nice abbrev. by the way). That's his belief which I presented numbers to dispel.As for the S1L, you are again confusing the issue. Harrison may indeed be off the charts in a S1L RELATIVE TO OTHER RECEIVERS, but he wouldn't be any higher than he usually is and probably lower RELATIVE TO ALL POSITIONS.May I offer Gonzo as a counter example. He's off the charts relative to other TE and screams up the charts relative to other positions. Would Gonzo be more valuable in a S2TEL...not in my opinion.

You're KILLIN me here Bass.That's why I asked you what your assertion truly was. You said it was C and said B "depends". I think you now are starting to see that C is pretty much irrelavent, and the only thing that matters is B (now that you have conceded A is incorrect, the whole FF world is in agreement on that one

).As for B, you simply have not made your case. You just told me that the numbers you presented were prove assertion C (not sure you made it, but it doesn't matter), and now you are telling me that all of that stuff was meant to prove B? Right after after I GAVE you the option to make that assertion and you told me that "it depends"???Gonzo WOULD be just as valuable if not more in a start 2 TE league relative to all positions, but let's stick to Harrison.If you require 2 RBs and 1 WR, are you seriously telling me you would draft Harrison EARLIER than he is ually going? If he is going at 1.10 now, you'd draft him at say 1.8? 1.6? Just how "off the charts" would he be?His consistency might keep him from dropping through the floor like the rest of the WRs on my list, but I'd still draft him a little LOWER than I normally would, not higher.

Holy Schneikes · May 30, 2003

Aaron28 to the rescue. Well written. I truly believe that to be the case although it goes against the grain. I may be wrong, but I'd like to see some examples to demonstrate that. I'd appreciate some more debate, because this is definately helping me define value within a position in leagues that start small numbers at a given position.

Aaron isn't helping you. OPTION C IS COMPLETELY WORTHLESS!!!What don't you understand about that? When I'm doing a draft, I draft with all positions as options. If an assertion (or a theory or a gut feeling or WHATEVER) doesn't help me determine the value of one guy RELATIVE TO EVERYONE ELSE AVAILABLE, it doesn't do me any good.When you talk about VALUE, the only thing that has any meaning is what a guy is worth relative to everyone else, not just relative to small fraction of the players available. I just don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

aaronr28 · May 30, 2003

Aaron isn't helping you. OPTION C IS COMPLETELY WORTHLESS!!!

What don't you understand about that? When I'm doing a draft, I draft with all positions as options. If an assertion (or a theory or a gut feeling or WHATEVER) doesn't help me determine the value of one guy RELATIVE TO EVERYONE ELSE AVAILABLE, it doesn't do me any good.

When you talk about VALUE, the only thing that has any meaning is what a guy is worth relative to everyone else, not just relative to small fraction of the players available. I just don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

I see your point.In a S2L, I would probably bump up the value of the top WRs slightly compared to a S3L, but I could easily understand someone arguing the opposite position.

BassNBrew · May 30, 2003

You're KILLIN me here Bass.SORRY, I ONLY LIKE TO DO THAT IN OUR SURVIVOR LEAGUE.

That's why I asked you what your assertion truly was. You said it was C and said B "depends". I think you now are starting to see that C is pretty much irrelavent, and the only thing that matters is B (now that you have conceded A is incorrect, the whole FF world is in agreement on that one ).As for B, you simply have not made your case. You just told me that the numbers you presented were prove assertion C (not sure you made it, but it doesn't matter), and now you are telling me that all of that stuff was meant to prove B? Right after after I GAVE you the option to make that assertion and you told me that "it depends"???C C C C C....THAT'S ALL I'M SAYINGGonzo WOULD be just as valuable if not more in a start 2 TE league relative to all positions, but let's stick to Harrison.If you require 2 RBs and 1 WR, are you seriously telling me you would draft Harrison EARLIER than he is ually going? If he is going at 1.10 now, you'd draft him at say 1.8? 1.6? Just how "off the charts" would he be?I MIGHT JUST DRAFT HIM EARLIER, THAT'S THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION. ONE THING'S FOR SURE, I WOULDN'T TAKE HIM EARLIER BECAUSE IT'S A START THREE, WHICH APPARTENTLY MOST PEOPLE WOULD. HOW OFF THE CHARTS IN A START ONE? MAYBE ENOUGH TO TAKE HIM AT 1.6 AND TAKE MY CHANCES WITH GREEN, MARTIN, OR BENNETT AND BARLOW OR DUNN WITH HEARST OR DUCKETT AS A THIRD. His consistency might keep him from dropping through the floor like the rest of the WRs on my list, but I'd still draft him a little LOWER than I normally would, not higher. WHY?

Holy Schneikes · May 30, 2003

Option B:The "top" WRs are more valuable RELATIVE TO ALL POSITIONS in S2L than in S3LOption C:The "top" WRs are more valuable RELATIVE TO OTHER WRs in S2L than in S3LBass:

But he's not more valuable relative to other positions in a S3L (nice abbrev. by the way). That's his belief which I presented numbers to dispel.

I've commonly heard this statement, "Had to take Harrison here, I especially like his value here becuase we start 3 WR."I believe that this is a false statement. I think he's more valuable in a start 2 league.

I WOULDN'T TAKE HIM EARLIER BECAUSE IT'S A START THREE, WHICH APPARTENTLY MOST PEOPLE WOULD.

These are all option B or at least the opposite of the negative of option B :wacko: You are talking about Harrison's value relative to all positions, i.e. where he should be drafted. This is what I think you really believe, but have been unable to prove (even to your self) so you claim option C is your assertion.The "other" Bass:

B ) the "top" WRs are more valuable RELATIVE TO ALL POSITIONS in S2L than in S3L DEPENDSC ) the "top" WRs are more valuable RELATIVE TO OTHER WRs in S2L than in S3L THIS IS MY ASSERTION.

...

C C C C C....THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING

You've said this at least twice, but when push comes to shove, what you are really trying to get at is option B. I don't really blame you, because as I have mentioned several times before, option C is worthless. It doesn't tell you where to draft Harrison or anyone else.You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to try to prove something "easy" (though you haven't even really done that...) but then state something else that's much harder to make an argument for.I give up my man, I've got some sheep to count. Try not to kill yourself on any windmills Don Quixote!

Unlucky · May 30, 2003

First of all, the main concept of the VBD is that you determine a players value by comparing his worth to others at his position.

Click to expand...

it is?

Yes. And then drafting accordingly.

chinawildman · May 30, 2003

Lastly, think about it this way. If you can plug a stud WR into a start 2 lineup, then 50% of your WR are studs v. 33% in a start 3.

that 33% doesnt apply to EVERYONE of your opponents.... think about it THAT way.

Why do people think stud WRs are more valuable... (1 Viewer)

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

heavy-set1

Guest

Interdisciplinary Research

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Moderator

Footballguy

Footballguy

Moderator

Footballguy

Footballguy

Moderator

Footballguy

Footballguy

Phenom

Footballguy

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread