Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
matttyl

Dynasty - rather have one 1st, or three 2nds?

Dynasty - rather have one "average" first, or three "average" second rounders.  

118 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, matttyl said:

I'm not so sure, statistically speaking.  Lets just assume that this dynasty rankings value chart from fantasy pros is semi-accurate - it's for a 12 teamer.

If you add up the "value" of all 12 first round picks, and divide by 12 - the average first rounder is worth 31.5 (42+42+42+36+36+36+24+24+24+24+24+24 = 378 / 12 = 31.5).  The average for a random second rounder is 15.5. That means that your average second is worth exactly half of your average first.  But you're getting three of them, not two.  The third one is a bonus. 

Here is another value chart, from this very site.  It has a random first valued at 12.4, and a random second valued at 5.  So they value two and a half random seconds the same as a random first.  But again, you're getting 3 of them, not 2.5 of them. 

I understand that if you knew you'd be getting a top 3 first you'd do that no question, but you have the same statistical shot at getting a top 3 first as you do a bottom three first. 

Average Schmaverage.

You can’t get the 1.01 or 1.02 if you’re drafting in the second round. The chance of getting a super early pick far outweighs whatever the average calculation turns out to be.

IMO

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d rather have 3 top 20/24 picks than 1 on a new team. Now if your still getting all your normal picks with the 1st, that may change my choice. 

The thing is would you rather get 1 elite guy vs 3 very/good guys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, looking at current ADP (using ppr) for this year and then ppw scoring from last year by position ranking, I used the optimal 1st rounder and midrange 2nd rounders to see how starters scoring shakes out.

Starting lineups: 1 QB, 1 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 Flex

 

Team A (optimal 1st rounder)/Team B (3 mid 2nds)

QB9 / QB7

RB1 / RB10

WR9 / WR7

WR18 / WR17

WR21 / WR24

TE5 / TE2

Flex

RB27-WR31 / RB13

——————————————-

So Team A in optimal draft position gets a large edge at starting RB.  Team B gets large edges at TE and the flex spot.  QB and WRs are pretty even with Team B getting a slight edge.  The advantages on each side pretty much cancel each other overall in starters.

So overall, the starting scoring is almost exactly even.  But that’s giving Team A the best pick in the draft while giving Team B only average draft position.  So the best you can expect the exchange to shake out is for the team with the 1st rounder to end up near even. 

But there is more advantage to Team B.  Team B fills its starting requirements in 7 rounds while Team A takes 9 rounds.  That means Team B is filling their bench with better players throughout the balance of the draft.  That’s not an insignificant advantage. 

Just some food for thought...

 

Edited by Bronco Billy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

In terms of FBG-centric dynasty calculators, Jeff's right here is the one you need. It's configurable with all manner of league, roster, and lineup settings.

Based on a 12-team league with 26-man rosters, Pasquino says pick 1.07 is worth 670 points, far more than 3 mid-2nds (about 400). You can play with the settings some, but you have to plug in a really large league with some really deep rosters to make the two sides close to even.

Personally, I think his value formulas overstate the gap a little, as I'd consider a (known) 1.07 and three (known) mid-2nds close to equal. But when you factor in the nonlinear upside of an unknown 1st that could be 1.01 or 1.02, I agree with him that the 1st is the big winner here.

Yeah I remember when Jeff floated this idea in the SP several years back.

I disagreed with it then and I disagree with it now. I do not see the values he comes up with matching any version of reality I have lived in.

I would always be happy to use such a chart against him or anyone who might follow it closely when making trades though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it comes down to the slim odds of landing the #1 or #2 overall pick (less than 20% shot at getting a top 2 pick randomly in a 12 teamer) isn't good enough to give up 3 pretty solid players that I can get in the second.  Also, with 3 seconds your odds of getting a top 2 pick in the 2nd round are 3x as good, and I've yet to have a rookie draft where the first 10/12 picks in that draft are in fact the top 10/12 on my own draft board - so I can more than likely still get a guy who I personally have a first round grade on with the 3 second round picks.  Perhaps even two of them if I package the two later 2nd rounders to move up.

I mean, taking the first with the odds of getting the #1 or 2....you have the exact same odds of landing the 11 or 12 (in a 12 teamer).  You could be giving up the 12 to land the 13, 14 and 15 (though of course the odds of landing those three in order are also slim). 

Edited by matttyl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, matttyl said:

(less than 20% shot at getting a top 2 pick randomly in a 12 teamer) isn't good enough to give up 3 pretty solid players that I can get in the second.  Also, with 3 seconds your odds of getting a top 2 pick in the 2nd round are 3x as good

Would you rather have a 20% chance at $1000 or three 20% chances at $100?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

Would you rather have a 20% chance at $1000 or three 20% chances at $100?

You aren't asking the right question - the math is off.  Most places value 2nd round picks pretty closely top to bottom (so you'd pretty much have 3 100% chances at $100), and they don't value the #1 10x as much as the #11 (or #13).  Of course in the above I'd take the shot at $1k, but that's not what we're looking at here.

Again, using this chart (and adding a 0 to make the $ a little bit more interesting) your question would be....(in a 10 teamer) would you rather have a 10% chance at $240, a 10% chance at $200, a 10% chance at $180, a 10% chance at $160, a 10% chance at $120, a 10% chance at $110, a 10% chance at $100, a 10% chance at $90, a 10% chance at $80, and a 10% chance of getting $70......OR (the math isn't exactly this, but close enough) would you rather have a 60% chance at $70, a 120% chance at $60, and a 120% chance at $50. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, matttyl said:

 a 60% chance at $70, a 120% chance at $60, and a 120% chance at $50. 

I don't think you understand how probabilities work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

Would you rather have a 20% chance at $1000 or three 20% chances at $100?

 

So you can state with certainty that the 1st rounder will be 10x more valuable in FF than any of the 3 2nd rounders?  That seems pretty outlandish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bronco Billy said:

So you can state with certainty that the 1st rounder will be 10x more valuable in FF than any of the 3 2nd rounders?  That seems pretty outlandish.

I prefer to use this rookie value chart in a typical year:  https://dynastyleaguefootball.com/2014/03/14/updated-rookie-trade-value-chart/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tangfoot said:

I don't think you understand how probabilities work.

No, I do.  You're getting 3 "dart throws" in the 2nd round, not just one.  If you add 60%, 120% and 120% you get 300%, or a 100% chance of 3 different picks.

I could have said "a 20% shot at $70, a 40% shot at $60, and a 40% shot at $50 with each chance, of which you have 3 chances" if that's any better.  Of course the math goes off the rails a bit in that if you draw the #11 pick with your first shot, you aren't going to draw it a second time with your second pick.  That's why I said that the math isn't exactly that, but close enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, matttyl said:

No, I do.  You're getting 3 "dart throws" in the 2nd round, not just one.  If you add 60%, 120% and 120% you get 300%, or a 100% chance of 3 different picks.

I could have said "a 20% shot at $70, a 40% shot at $60, and a 40% shot at $50 with each chance, of which you have 3 chances" if that's any better.  Of course the math goes off the rails a bit in that if you draw the #11 pick with your first shot, you aren't going to draw it a second time with your second pick.  That's why I said that the math isn't exactly that, but close enough. 

It's not possible to ever have a 120% chance of anything, and getting 3 chances at something is not the same as simply tripling the chances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bronco Billy said:

So you aren’t actually interested in the likely FF production of the players available for those picks?

For dynasty purposes, absolutely not.  It's all about value, perceived value and trading value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tangfoot said:

For dynasty purposes, absolutely not.  It's all about value, perceived value and trading value.

:lol:  Well, that would explain your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

It's not possible to ever have a 120% chance of anything, and getting 3 chances at something is not the same as simply tripling the chances.

It was easier to phrase it the way I did.  As to the bolded, it most certainly is, in this case.  If you have one random 2nd round pick, you have a 10% chance of it being the 11 (in a 10 team league, where this math is easier).  With 3 random 2nd round picks, you have a 30% change of one of them being the #11.

Anyway, if you want to rephrase my above to be "a 20% shot at $70, a 40% shot at $60, and a 40% shot at $50 with each chance, of which you have 3 chances"....what would your answer be?  You can figure it out mathematically.

Actually, if you want to use your rookie chart, we can use it.  Your question would then be - "would you rather have a "ticket" that has a 10% chance of $3,000, a 10% chance at $2,550, a 10% chance of $2,200, a 10% chance of $1,950, a 10% chance of $1,825, a 10% chance of $1,700, a 10% chance of $1,600, a 10% chance of $1,500, a 10% chance of $1,425 and a 10% chance of $1,350......or 3 "tickets" EACH with a 10% chance of $1,275, a 10% chance of $1,200, a 10% chance of $1,125, a 10% chance of $1,050, a 10% chance of $975, a 10% chance of $900, a 10% chance of $875, a 10% chance of $850, a 10% chance of $825 and a 10% chance of $800?"

Mathematically speaking, the first ticket has a "value" of $1,910 (add up all 10 equal chances, and divide by 10).  Each of the lesser tickets have a "value" of $987.5 (same math problem) - but you're getting THREE of them, so the total value would be $2,962.50.  Over $1,000 more value than the single higher ticket. 

Still want the single higher value ticket, or three lower value tickets?  Two posts up you state "it's all about value."  Correct, it is.  The lesser picks, combined, have more of it - from your own value source. 

Edited by matttyl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, matttyl said:

Still want the single higher value ticket, or three lower value tickets?  Two posts up you state "it's all about value."  Correct, it is.  The lesser picks, combined, have more of it - from your own value source. 

The logarithmic value of the 1.01 makes it worthwhile to take the 1st round pick.  On average you may be correct, but in the 10% of the time when you end up pulling the 1.01 out of that hat, it is worth far more than the total of the three 2nd round picks, no matter how high they are (2.01, 2.02, 2.03 being the best case scenario).

This is the value I was referring to, and what makes the completely random chance at getting a 1.01 far better than getting three chances at something that will only ever be worth 1/5 or 1/6 of the value of 1.01.

Sure, 10% of the time you are getting the 1.10, which is only marginally better than any of the 2nd round picks.  But the offset value of the highest 1st round picks make it a gamble worth taking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2019 at 1:58 PM, ghostguy123 said:

Roster size is actually the biggest factor.  With small roster sizes you cant keep adding a bunch of guys who would take longer to either develop or to move up in the depth chart.   

If I take three 2nds (really 4 since I would still have my own) for three years in a row, that is 12 players drafted in the 2nd round.  It's just not possible to keep all of those players, and you will lose value by default.  If the rosters a larger then that wont be the case, especially with taxi squads.

This.

Try a 32 team (two copy) superflex with 30 man rosters (including taxi squads)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

The logarithmic value of the 1.01 makes it worthwhile to take the 1st round pick.  On average you may be correct, but in the 10% of the time when you end up pulling the 1.01 out of that hat, it is worth far more than the total of the three 2nd round picks, no matter how high they are (2.01, 2.02, 2.03 being the best case scenario).

This is the value I was referring to, and what makes the completely random chance at getting a 1.01 far better than getting three chances at something that will only ever be worth 1/5 or 1/6 of the value of 1.01.

Sure, 10% of the time you are getting the 1.10, which is only marginally better than any of the 2nd round picks.  But the offset value of the highest 1st round picks make it a gamble worth taking.

How are you getting the single second only being worth 1/5th or 1/6th of the 1?  By your own chart it’s right at ~1/3rd.  By your own source the 12, 14, and 18 (for instance) combined are worth more than the #1, should you have been lucky enough to actually get it.  So maybe your chart is off, which is fine, but my mind is very mathematical by nature.  If this is a real world situation (which you brought up) with those “tickets”, and that chart is accurate - then in my mind the choice is easy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, matttyl said:

How are you getting the single second only being worth 1/5th or 1/6th of the 1?  By your own chart it’s right at ~1/3rd.  By your own source the 12, 14, and 18 (for instance) combined are worth more than the #1, should you have been lucky enough to actually get it.  So maybe your chart is off, which is fine, but my mind is very mathematical by nature.  If this is a real world situation (which you brought up) with those “tickets”, and that chart is accurate - then in my mind the choice is easy.  

You're looking at the wrong chart.  I posted this one, which is far more top-heavy.  https://dynastyleaguefootball.com/2014/03/14/updated-rookie-trade-value-chart/

1 is worth 3000

11 is worth 562

12 is worth 509

13 is worth 463

Combined, those three picks are about half of the 1.01, and individually they are less than 1/5 each.

Edited by tangfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

1 is worth 3000

11 is worth 562

12 is worth 509

13 is worth 463

Combined, those three picks are about half of the 1.01, and individually they are less than 1/5 each.

Sorry, was looking at the wrong chart.  I was looking at this one (was linked to from your link as the "rookie value chart"). 

I saw the other chart from your link, but assume "startup" at the top of it meant a brand new start up draft, not just rookies.  Looking into it further, I'm not sure I like how those values in that chart were calculated (they are seeing where rookies get drafted in brand new start up drafts, and then assigning a point system to that - which isn't how "rookie drafts" go).  Anyway, if you're going to use that chart, then yes - I'd take the single first.  I just don't agree with how they arrived at those values.

I agree that last year's #1 (Barkley) was likely more valuable than the entire 2nd round - but the year prior (at least in my league) at 11-13 I could have had Kamara, Hunt and Juju vs Fournette alone.  The players in the draft itself also play a part here.  How often is the #1 overall pick so far ahead of his peers that year, and actually lives up to the hype?  Barkely looks to be that, likely Zeke too, and Gurley and Bell.  Will Fournette or Watkins?  Trent Richardson definitely didn't, hard to argue that Ingram was, or Ryan Mathews, or K Moreno back in the day (that's as far back as my league was on MFL where I can easily look it up).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, matttyl said:

I saw the other chart from your link, but assume "startup" at the top of it meant a brand new start up draft, not just rookies.  Looking into it further, I'm not sure I like how those values in that chart were calculated (they are seeing where rookies get drafted in brand new start up drafts, and then assigning a point system to that - which isn't how "rookie drafts" go).  Anyway, if you're going to use that chart, then yes - I'd take the single first.  I just don't agree with how they arrived at those values.

I'm of two minds here.  I don't love either chart, but I think the one I linked is closer to real leagues than the one you looked at.  In just about every year there's 1-2 superior prospects which dwarf the entire rest of the draft class AT THE TIME OF THE ROOKIE DRAFT.  You mentioned that you could have hit on 2nd round studs when Fournette was considered the easy #1 overall, and that's true most years.  But the value of that 1.01 at the time the picks are made is really all that matters for these charts.  Actual production on an NFL field resets the values of all rookies, no matter where they were picked.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tangfoot said:

The logarithmic value of the 1.01 makes it worthwhile to take the 1st round pick.  On average you may be correct, but in the 10% of the time when you end up pulling the 1.01 out of that hat, it is worth far more than the total of the three 2nd round picks, no matter how high they are (2.01, 2.02, 2.03 being the best case scenario).

This is the value I was referring to, and what makes the completely random chance at getting a 1.01 far better than getting three chances at something that will only ever be worth 1/5 or 1/6 of the value of 1.01.

Sure, 10% of the time you are getting the 1.10, which is only marginally better than any of the 2nd round picks.  But the offset value of the highest 1st round picks make it a gamble worth taking.

Exactly. 

And sure, sometimes you have a draft like this year when the 1.01 isn’t that great. But even this year, there’s people who wouldn’t trade the 1.01 for three seconds.

The potential value of 1.01 is like a Powerball ticket. You may not get the 1.01, but the potential value of that is so far and away more valuable than any second rounder that to me, this question isn’t even close.

And saying guys like JuJu and Kamara were available in the second doesn’t matter. You still had to have some luck and pick those guys. Everyone knew Zeke and Barkley were going to be great. There’s no luck. No missing. It’s a sure thing. Even if those guys only come along every few years, the chance of getting them just blows away your three dart throws in round 2.

And that’s not even considering the innate value of the 1.01 and what you can get for it pre-draft in trades in any year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, tangfoot said:

Would you rather have a 20% chance at $1000 or three 20% chances at $100?

Choice A being 10 times more than  choice B is not equivalent to the conversation we are having here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tangfoot said:

The logarithmic value of the 1.01 makes it worthwhile to take the 1st round pick.  On average you may be correct, but in the 10% of the time when you end up pulling the 1.01 out of that hat, it is worth far more than the total of the three 2nd round picks, no matter how high they are (2.01, 2.02, 2.03 being the best case scenario).

This is the value I was referring to, and what makes the completely random chance at getting a 1.01 far better than getting three chances at something that will only ever be worth 1/5 or 1/6 of the value of 1.01.

Sure, 10% of the time you are getting the 1.10, which is only marginally better than any of the 2nd round picks.  But the offset value of the highest 1st round picks make it a gamble worth taking.

Why are you ( or others) using logarithmic value for these picks?

What you are doing is saying the 1.01 pick is worth 2.718 than the next value so you have already set it up for the pick to be over two times more valuable.

So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

Why are you ( or others) using logarithmic value for these picks?

What you are doing is saying the 1.01 pick is worth 2.718 than the next value so you have already set it up for the pick to be over two times more valuable.

So what?

Would you trade a high 1st round pick for any three 2nd round picks in a rookie draft that is top-heavy?

I don't see this exercise as simply determining the value of an average 1st round pick vs three average 2nd round picks. I am weighing in the opportunity cost of the extreme value of the 1.01 vs an average 1st round pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

Would you trade a high 1st round pick for any three 2nd round picks in a rookie draft that is top-heavy?

I don't see this exercise as simply determining the value of an average 1st round pick vs three average 2nd round picks. I am weighing in the opportunity cost of the extreme value of the 1.01 vs an average 1st round pick.

You didn't answer my question.

For the purpose of this discussion we do not know where the picks will fall. That is yet to be determined.

So you have a 10% chance of the 1st round pick being the 1.01 and I do not see you applying that math while you tell people they do not understand how probability works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

You didn't answer my question.

For the purpose of this discussion we do not know where the picks will fall. That is yet to be determined.

So you have a 10% chance of the 1st round pick being the 1.01 and I do not see you applying that math while you tell people they do not understand how probability works.

I think the point is that it is hard to quantify. When there’s a Zeke or Barkley coming out, someone who has extreme value, there’s almost no price you can put on that. I had the 1.01 last year and there’s almost no trade I would have made out of that spot. In those cases, the 1.01 is worth so much more than any other pick, let alone second round picks, that just having a 10 percent chance at that still far outweighs any other option. 

I’ll agree in a draft like this year, you may be able to put percentages and numbers and blah blah blah and find a formula that says one thing or another. But not when there’s a surefire superstar, and I’ll take just about any chance I can get to land the next Zeke or Barkley.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

You didn't answer my question.

For the purpose of this discussion we do not know where the picks will fall. That is yet to be determined.

So you have a 10% chance of the 1st round pick being the 1.01 and I do not see you applying that math while you tell people they do not understand how probability works.

I would rather have a 10% chance at 1.01 than three 0% chances. I’ve made this clear all day long if you care to read my comments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not talking about a rookie draft. Three of the top 24 in dynasty versus who knows what for
one player in the top twelve. 

Drafting an elite tight end with one of those picks is worth a lot when you consider the difference in
points scored from the rest of the field. 

J Kelce and Z Ertz have a 6 to 7 point advantage PER GAME over the 6th ranked TE. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tangfoot said:

I would rather have a 10% chance at 1.01 than three 0% chances. I’ve made this clear all day long if you care to read my comments. 

My question was why you would use a logarhythmic value for the picks?

Would you care to explain that. You did seem quite sure that this is the appropriate thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

My question was why you would use a logarhythmic value for the picks?

Would you care to explain that. You did seem quite sure that this is the appropriate thing to do.

It’s the closest approximation to real world value I’ve ever found. The 1-2 top draft picks are almost always Uber stud rookies that are worlds more valuable than pretty much every other pick in the draft combined. 

This matches my experience in dynasty leagues when trying to trade for a top rookie pick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2019 at 10:50 PM, tangfoot said:

It’s the closest approximation to real world value I’ve ever found. The 1-2 top draft picks are almost always Uber stud rookies that are worlds more valuable than pretty much every other pick in the draft combined. 

This matches my experience in dynasty leagues when trying to trade for a top rookie pick. 

I don't think it is a close approximation of the actual value of the picks and I do not see any reason why we would use logarhythmic values that are not actually associated with how the players perform in terms of fantasy points historically.

This is something that does look at the historical value of players based on draft order and the position they play. 

You still see the 1st overall pick is worth a lot more than any other pick and over twice as valuable as players in the 11th position and after.

Now compare that to the 2018 generic rookie rankings and you will see that Sanquon Barkley is worth almost twice that of Josh Jacobs. Both 1st overall picks.

In what we are discussing in this topic is what is more valuable, a 1st round pick or 3 2nd round picks. Although your focus has been on the 1st overall pick, or the chance at getting the 1st overall pick compared to players picked in the 2nd round.

However your chance of getting the 1st overall pick in a 10 team league is 10% so you could do this by calculating your chance of getting this value for each of the 10 variables or you could just make this simple and say the value of the average of those 10 picks as both methods will lead to the same result.

The average value of the top 10 picks in 2019 is 147.5

The average value of picks 11-20 is 85.4

So the value of 3 average second round picks would be 256 which is significantly more than the average value of 147.5 but actually 5 points more valuable than the 1st overall pick in 2019.

The average value of the top 10 picks in 2018 was 196

The average value of picks 11-20 in 2018 was 96

So the value of 3 average second round picks would be 288 which is significantly more than the average of a 1st round pick but not more than what Barkley was worth at 429

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2019 at 9:31 PM, nightmare said:

We're not talking about a rookie draft. Three of the top 24 in dynasty versus who knows what for
one player in the top twelve. 

Drafting an elite tight end with one of those picks is worth a lot when you consider the difference in
points scored from the rest of the field. 

J Kelce and Z Ertz have a 6 to 7 point advantage PER GAME over the 6th ranked TE. 

Except that's exactly what we're talking about.  2020 rookie draft to be specific.  Per the OP, a startup this year that hasn't drafted yet, so the 2020's are still purely random.  I don't think it would even be a conversation in a startup year, the falloff in value from 6 - 24 is far less drastic that a rookie draft would be.  Heck you could probably pose the question "locked in top 3 or three 2nd's" and it would be pretty close.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Hankmoody said:

Except that's exactly what we're talking about.  2020 rookie draft to be specific.  Per the OP, a startup this year that hasn't drafted yet, so the 2020's are still purely random.  I don't think it would even be a conversation in a startup year, the falloff in value from 6 - 24 is far less drastic that a rookie draft would be.  Heck you could probably pose the question "locked in top 3 or three 2nd's" and it would be pretty close.

He's talking about a "startup dynasty league that hasn't drafted PLAYERS yet"
He also said "average first" not the 1.01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, nightmare said:

He's talking about a "startup dynasty league that hasn't drafted PLAYERS yet"
He also said "average first" not the 1.01

Right, and the picks aren't until next year, he explicitly said 2020 picks.

Nowhere did I mention the 1.01 so not sure of that reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hankmoody said:

Right, and the picks aren't until next year, he explicitly said 2020 picks.

Nowhere did I mention the 1.01 so not sure of that reference.

I think it's a league that doesn't start until 2020. Hence the "a 2020 league that hasn't even drafted players yet."
The 1.01 mention was for every one else that doesn't understand an average first round pick.
Sorry for the confusion. The OP should clear this up.  

Not all rookie drafts have S Barkley's or E Eliot's in them. I would take the 3 2nds
in this rookie draft without a second thought over the 1.01, never mind the "average".
These rookie RB's are going in the top 3 because of situation, not talent. They are
good RB's, just not top 3 good compared to other rookie drafts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nightmare said:

He's talking about a "startup dynasty league that hasn't drafted PLAYERS yet"
He also said "average first" not the 1.01

No, I'm talking about future rookie picks.  Sorry for any confusion - but I'm wondering if you were in a dynasty league today, and you had an opportunity to have either one random future 1st round rookie pick from a relatively unknown draft class (say 2020 or 2021), or three random 2nd from the same class. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of my better picks have come in the 2nd round, and quite a few cornerstone players in the league were 2nd or even 3rd round picks. It's a relative situation, though. You have a 1st that could net you a Saquon Barkley, you hold. I have a philosophy to trade back once rookie fever hits to garner future picks and I've found that having cash when the ATM/Card Machine is down is king...

Examples of non-first rounders in my dyno league that would make a formidable lineup:

 

QB: Mahomes(3rd), Trubisky(2nd)

RB: Kamara(3rd), Chubb(2nd), Conner(4th), Cohen(WW), Lindsey(WW)

WR: Smith-Schuster(2nd), Dante Pettis(3rd), Cooper Kupp(3rd), Keenan Allen(3rd), Tyreek Hill(WW), Kenny Golladay(WW)

TE: Kelce(2nd), Kittle(WW)

More often than not, I'm taking those three 2nds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Paul said:

Some of my better picks have come in the 2nd round, and quite a few cornerstone players in the league were 2nd or even 3rd round picks. It's a relative situation, though. You have a 1st that could net you a Saquon Barkley, you hold. I have a philosophy to trade back once rookie fever hits to garner future picks and I've found that having cash when the ATM/Card Machine is down is king...

Examples of non-first rounders in my dyno league that would make a formidable lineup:

 

QB: Mahomes(3rd), Trubisky(2nd)

RB: Kamara(3rd), Chubb(2nd), Conner(4th), Cohen(WW), Lindsey(WW)

WR: Smith-Schuster(2nd), Dante Pettis(3rd), Cooper Kupp(3rd), Keenan Allen(3rd), Tyreek Hill(WW), Kenny Golladay(WW)

TE: Kelce(2nd), Kittle(WW)

More often than not, I'm taking those three 2nds.

How did that happen?  I took him #3 overall last year.  Kerryon Johnson, though, made it to the 2nd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, matttyl said:

How did that happen?  I took him #3 overall last year.  Kerryon Johnson, though, made it to the 2nd. 

He was falling pretty hard after Cleveland took him. People were thinking the backfield was too muddled and they didn't know when he'd get his shot. I was surprised he fell that far, so I pounced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Paul said:

He was falling pretty hard after Cleveland took him. People were thinking the backfield was too muddled and they didn't know when he'd get his shot. I was surprised he fell that far, so I pounced.

That’s a crazy league your in. In my league, Chubb was the 1.05, Kamara was the 1.09, and JuJu was the 1.11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two other things that help me decide to trade back: 

1. I follow MFL's ADPs for rookies regularly as my draft approaches. If a player I want, Fant, for example, is tracking around 8-10, I am not taking him at 1.03. I had that pick and traded back to 1.10, also picking up the 2.02. Fant went at 1.09 and I missed out, but I netted Parris Campbell and Andy Isabella with those picks...

2. I use this as a guide, always have a current value for the players/picks in your league. It helps to keep your objective: https://www.fantasypros.com/2019/03/fantasy-football-rankings-dynasty-trade-value-chart-march-2019-update/

 

If the offer you received nets you a positive on your scale above, you can accept the trade. Anyways, it's worked for me the last couple of years and I have a pretty good bounty of future firsts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kutta said:

That’s a crazy league your in. In my league, Chubb was the 1.05, Kamara was the 1.09, and JuJu was the 1.11.

All leagues vary, those are just examples from my own. You can use this tool:http://home.myfantasyleague.com/adp-rankings/  to see where those and other guys eventually planed out in those years. If you do a deep dive into the ADPs, you'll see where a lot of potential is waiting in the 2nd and beyond. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, John Paul said:

Some of my better picks have come in the 2nd round, and quite a few cornerstone players in the league were 2nd or even 3rd round picks. It's a relative situation, though. You have a 1st that could net you a Saquon Barkley, you hold. I have a philosophy to trade back once rookie fever hits to garner future picks and I've found that having cash when the ATM/Card Machine is down is king...

Examples of non-first rounders in my dyno league that would make a formidable lineup:

 

QB: Mahomes(3rd), Trubisky(2nd)

RB: Kamara(3rd), Chubb(2nd), Conner(4th), Cohen(WW), Lindsey(WW)

WR: Smith-Schuster(2nd), Dante Pettis(3rd), Cooper Kupp(3rd), Keenan Allen(3rd), Tyreek Hill(WW), Kenny Golladay(WW)

TE: Kelce(2nd), Kittle(WW)

More often than not, I'm taking those three 2nds.

If you're doing this exercise, it's also beneficial to look at the 1st round picks.  What was the opportunity cost for getting a lottery ticket that netted you JuJu in the 2nd?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

If you're doing this exercise, it's also beneficial to look at the 1st round picks.  What was the opportunity cost for getting a lottery ticket that netted you JuJu in the 2nd?

a 10% chance at McCaffrey?  No other player from that draft is worth what Juju is now, though Mixon is close depending on the league structure.  And you could have had two other 2nds from that class - which in my draft could have netted you Hunt or Kamara or D Watson.

I totally get what you're saying about the 10% shot at getting Zeke or Barkley outweighing everything else.  But you're banking on two things there - the ~10% shot at getting the #1 overall pick, and also that particular draft having that Zeke or Barkley in it (rather than an Ingram, or a Ryan Mathews, or a K Moreno, or a Sammy Watkins, or a Trent Richardson or thus far a Fournette).  Say that it's a 50/50 proposition that a future draft has that awesome stud player that actually lives up to expectation - and you have a 10% shot at actually randomly getting that #1 overall pick....we're talking about a 5% shot at those two things lining up.  Conversely, every rookie draft has guys come out of the 2nd round that hit, and some have multiple guys like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, matttyl said:

a 10% chance at McCaffrey?  No other player from that draft is worth what Juju is now, though Mixon is close depending on the league structure.  And you could have had two other 2nds from that class - which in my draft could have netted you Hunt or Kamara or D Watson.

I totally get what you're saying about the 10% shot at getting Zeke or Barkley outweighing everything else.  But you're banking on two things there - the ~10% shot at getting the #1 overall pick, and also that particular draft having that Zeke or Barkley in it (rather than an Ingram, or a Ryan Mathews, or a K Moreno, or a Sammy Watkins, or a Trent Richardson or thus far a Fournette).  Say that it's a 50/50 proposition that a future draft has that awesome stud player that actually lives up to expectation - and you have a 10% shot at actually randomly getting that #1 overall pick....we're talking about a 5% shot at those two things lining up.  Conversely, every rookie draft has guys come out of the 2nd round that hit, and some have multiple guys like that. 

But you also only had a 10% shot at Juju!  I'm far more comfortable with the bird in the hand in this scenario, especially given the completely random nature of this exercise.  Going into the Juju draft, it was pretty clear that he was falling into the late-1st/early-2nd range.  He wasn't falling to 2.10. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tangfoot said:

But you also only had a 10% shot at Juju!  I'm far more comfortable with the bird in the hand in this scenario, especially given the completely random nature of this exercise.  Going into the Juju draft, it was pretty clear that he was falling into the late-1st/early-2nd range.  He wasn't falling to 2.10. 

My league, quoted above, I got him in the third.  I got Hunt in the 2nd (someone else got Kamara in the 2nd as well). 

I'm also not sure you can make the "bird in the hand" comparison, as you had a 10% shot of getting Corey Davis, or 10% of Mike Williams in the 1st.  Or a 10% shot at Perine.  Most of each of those were drafted in the first, so you had a 30% shot at ending up with just one of them.  I understand that was an odd draft, but you get the point - there are dud first rounders every year (though generally not so many stud 2nd rounders). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, matttyl said:

there are dud first rounders every year (though generally not so many stud 2nd rounders). 

This is really all I was trying (poorly) to say.

If you're making this trade on the eve of your league rookie draft AFTER the NFL draft has happened, there's a ton more clarity.  And you know exactly which 1st you're giving up for 2nds.

In a 100% hypothetical future draft where you don't know the values of anything, I'm sticking to the single "high" pick with the expectation that even if I don't hit on a stud, I can retrade that player for similar value later.  It's very rare for a 1st round rookie player to completely tank in value going into year 2, although we've had some solid examples of it recently (Ross, Rojo)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.