2013 Off Season Dynasty Trade Thread (for completed trades) (4 Viewers)

[Zdravko]

Whether its PPR or non-PPR is a much bigger factor than those starting requirements imo. Apologize if you've already mentioned it either way, but which is it? If PPR, I think Blackmon is quite a bit more valuable than Pierce.


Also, its not a terribly uncommon setup and provides only a slight bump to RB imo if this is still PPR. In another league with the same setup (PPR), I traded up to the 1.2 during the draft (1.12 + 2.12 + 2014 1st) to draft Tavon. WRs are still valuable if PPR.

Sorry, I assumed it's obvious - definitely PPR. In a non-PPR, start 2 WR league, I don't think there is much to discuss, although surprisingly I might be in the minority here on that as well.

I know Ernol knows his stuff, but his stance didn't make intuitive sense to me. So decided to run the numbers and convince myself with data one way or the other. Assumed last season is representative of the typical year. Took Weeks 1-16 using that league's scoring (pretty generic PPR). Ran the VBD baselines to see how big the difference is.

In PPR:

RB - start 2 - baseline: 12.1 ppg

WR - start 2 - baseline: 13.6 ppg

WR - start 3 - baseline: 12.3 ppg

In Non-PPR:

RB - start 2 - baseline: 10.1 ppg

WR - start 2 - baseline: 9.1 ppg

WR - start 3 - baseline: 7.8 ppg

Findings:

No surprises with the PPR vs non-PPR difference - it's massive. In the PPR case, 1.3 ppg difference from adding the third WR to the starting requirements.

The question is how big is that for you? I find it quite substantial, but consult your own projections.

One simplistic way to translate into English is:

Imagine you own Pierce. In a start-3-WR PPR setup, which WR would you accept to swap Pierce for? Add 1.3 ppg to that guy's projected stats and this is the WR production you should be asking for Pierce in a start 2 WR PPR.

 

[Ernol]

Whether its PPR or non-PPR is a much bigger factor than those starting requirements imo. Apologize if you've already mentioned it either way, but which is it? If PPR, I think Blackmon is quite a bit more valuable than Pierce.


Also, its not a terribly uncommon setup and provides only a slight bump to RB imo if this is still PPR. In another league with the same setup (PPR), I traded up to the 1.2 during the draft (1.12 + 2.12 + 2014 1st) to draft Tavon. WRs are still valuable if PPR.

Sorry, I assumed it's obvious - definitely PPR. In a non-PPR, start 2 WR league, I don't think there is much to discuss, although surprisingly I might be in the minority here on that as well.

I know Ernol knows his stuff, but his stance didn't make intuitive sense to me. So decided to run the numbers and convince myself with data one way or the other. Assumed last season is representative of the typical year. Took Weeks 1-16 using that league's scoring (pretty generic PPR). Ran the VBD baselines to see how big the difference is.

In PPR:

RB - start 2 - baseline: 12.1 ppg

WR - start 2 - baseline: 13.6 ppg

WR - start 3 - baseline: 12.3 ppg

In Non-PPR:

RB - start 2 - baseline: 10.1 ppg

WR - start 2 - baseline: 9.1 ppg

WR - start 3 - baseline: 7.8 ppg

Findings:

No surprises with the PPR vs non-PPR difference - it's massive. In the PPR case, 1.3 ppg difference from adding the third WR to the starting requirements.

The question is how big is that for you? I find it quite substantial, but consult your own projections.

One simplistic way to translate into English is:

Imagine you own Pierce. In a start-3-WR PPR setup, which WR would you accept to swap Pierce for? Add 1.3 ppg to that guy's projected stats and this is the WR production you should be asking for Pierce in a start 2 WR PPR.

I would guess that in calculating the baseline for the 2RB/2WR you are using the same baseline player for WR and RB (e.g., WR24 and RB24). If so, then you are not accounting for the fact that the 12 flex starters (I assume this is a 12-teamer) are going to consist of entirely or almost entirely of WRs (because WRs score more points at that range). This makes this format not all that different from a straight 2RB/3WR with no flex.

As for a 2RB/3WR with 1 flex, the 12 flexes will include a number of RBs (or at least more than at 2/2). I don't know how much this will affect your numbers, but I would think it would cut your difference in half.

 

[Concept Coop]

I would guess that in calculating the baseline for the 2RB/2WR you are using the same baseline player for WR and RB (e.g., WR24 and RB24). If so, then you are not accounting for the fact that the 12 flex starters (I assume this is a 12-teamer) are going to consist of entirely or almost entirely of WRs (because WRs score more points at that range). This makes this format not all that different from a straight 2RB/3WR with no flex.

As for a 2RB/3WR with 1 flex, the 12 flexes will include a number of RBs (or at least more than at 2/2). I don't know how much this will affect your numbers, but I would think it would cut your difference in half.

I like my flex baselines to be a point total, rather than number of starters. The fact that there are more flex worthy WRs doesn't hinder an above baseline RB's value, assuming he scores as many points as the WRs we are comparing him to. If RBA and WRA score 300 points, WRA is not more valuable, in my opinion, because 9 of 12 flex options happen to be WR. RBA is an equal flex option.

Of course, [SIZE=10.5pt]especially[/SIZE] in dynasty leagues, there are other factors that come into play. When comparing them as flex options, most of us would prefer the WR, in terms of health and duration.

 

[Ernol]

I would guess that in calculating the baseline for the 2RB/2WR you are using the same baseline player for WR and RB (e.g., WR24 and RB24). If so, then you are not accounting for the fact that the 12 flex starters (I assume this is a 12-teamer) are going to consist of entirely or almost entirely of WRs (because WRs score more points at that range). This makes this format not all that different from a straight 2RB/3WR with no flex.

As for a 2RB/3WR with 1 flex, the 12 flexes will include a number of RBs (or at least more than at 2/2). I don't know how much this will affect your numbers, but I would think it would cut your difference in half.

I like my flex baselines to be a point total, rather than number of starters. The fact that there are more flex worthy WRs doesn't hinder an above baseline RB's value, assuming he scores as many points as the WRs we are comparing him to. If RBA and WRA score 300 points, WRA is not more valuable, in my opinion, because 9 of 12 flex options happen to be WR. RBA is an equal flex option.

Of course, [SIZE=10.5pt]especially[/SIZE] in dynasty leagues, there are other factors that come into play. When comparing them as flex options, most of us would prefer the WR, in terms of health and duration.

I thought we previously had this discussion and you came around to flex positions mattering for baselines, but I could be recalling that incorrectly. Take a league that has 1RB/1WR and 4 flex format. You cant use RB12 and WR12 as your baselines (I am assuming we are talking VBD here). It would make little sense to do so imo. You need to anticipate how many RBs will start and how many WRs will start in that format to determine baselines (if using the baseline starter method - which again I am assuming we are using here).

I think we are looking for value over replacement level. If a WR is starting (whether in a WR or flex position - it makes no difference), he is not replacement level.

 

[Zdravko]

Ernol - I agree it should affect the numbers. In theory, in both cases, the flexes should be heavily dominated by WRs. If you assume all flexes are WRs, the baseline drops to the 2/3 format where RB24 and WR36 are practically equal value.

On a side note, that inspired me to run a test sample. Strangely enough, only maybe half of the flex starts were WRs. Explanation is either incompetence or the fact that a few teams carry a lot of WR2, 3, 4s that are hard to offload because everyone asks a hefty premium on the RBs.

 

[meyerj31]

I would guess that in calculating the baseline for the 2RB/2WR you are using the same baseline player for WR and RB (e.g., WR24 and RB24). If so, then you are not accounting for the fact that the 12 flex starters (I assume this is a 12-teamer) are going to consist of entirely or almost entirely of WRs (because WRs score more points at that range). This makes this format not all that different from a straight 2RB/3WR with no flex.

As for a 2RB/3WR with 1 flex, the 12 flexes will include a number of RBs (or at least more than at 2/2). I don't know how much this will affect your numbers, but I would think it would cut your difference in half.

I like my flex baselines to be a point total, rather than number of starters. The fact that there are more flex worthy WRs doesn't hinder an above baseline RB's value, assuming he scores as many points as the WRs we are comparing him to. If RBA and WRA score 300 points, WRA is not more valuable, in my opinion, because 9 of 12 flex options happen to be WR. RBA is an equal flex option.

Of course, [SIZE=10.5pt]especially[/SIZE] in dynasty leagues, there are other factors that come into play. When comparing them as flex options, most of us would prefer the WR, in terms of health and duration.

Some would argue you should be favoring the RB with an identical point total because they are harder to come by over time. I've seen too many dynasty leagues take the "safer" option and have a sweet WR core, but never run deep in the playoffs because they don't have one stud RB. Depends on scoring, I suppose, since in PPR you can probably overcome not having a great RB.

More often than not, though, you gotta get a top 12 RB to be competitive, and you can always find some WRs to throw in those spots.

 

[Zdravko]

I tend to agree with that in practice, even if the math does not support it 100%.

As anectodal evidence, in the 2/2 league, the team that won twice in row has top notch RB core, Calvin, V-Jax and not even one WR4 behind them. Since both Calvin and V-Jax played 16 games, he had no need to acquire other WRs and had sufficient top RB power to cycle through the flex, while offsetting injuries. It might look risky, but since you have multiple startable RBs and there are so many WRs sitting on benches, you can get yourself quite a good WR any time until the trade window closes.

Some would argue you should be favoring the RB with an identical point total because they are harder to come by over time. I've seen too many dynasty leagues take the "safer" option and have a sweet WR core, but never run deep in the playoffs because they don't have one stud RB. Depends on scoring, I suppose, since in PPR you can probably overcome not having a great RB.

More often than not, though, you gotta get a top 12 RB to be competitive, and you can always find some WRs to throw in those spots.

 

[SeanTaylor21]

Dynasty PPR- start 1 qb, 2 rb, 3 wr, 1 te, 1 k, 2 dl, 4 lb, and 3 db

I gave: Des Bishop, Brian Cushing, Kam Chancellor, Dustin Keller, and a 2014 2nd

I got: D'Qwell Jackson and Rob Gronkowski

Edit: also dealt James Michael Johnson for Shane Vereen

 

[Ernol]

I would guess that in calculating the baseline for the 2RB/2WR you are using the same baseline player for WR and RB (e.g., WR24 and RB24). If so, then you are not accounting for the fact that the 12 flex starters (I assume this is a 12-teamer) are going to consist of entirely or almost entirely of WRs (because WRs score more points at that range). This makes this format not all that different from a straight 2RB/3WR with no flex.

As for a 2RB/3WR with 1 flex, the 12 flexes will include a number of RBs (or at least more than at 2/2). I don't know how much this will affect your numbers, but I would think it would cut your difference in half.

I like my flex baselines to be a point total, rather than number of starters. The fact that there are more flex worthy WRs doesn't hinder an above baseline RB's value, assuming he scores as many points as the WRs we are comparing him to. If RBA and WRA score 300 points, WRA is not more valuable, in my opinion, because 9 of 12 flex options happen to be WR. RBA is an equal flex option.

Of course, [SIZE=10.5pt]especially[/SIZE] in dynasty leagues, there are other factors that come into play. When comparing them as flex options, most of us would prefer the WR, in terms of health and duration.

Some would argue you should be favoring the RB with an identical point total because they are harder to come by over time. I've seen too many dynasty leagues take the "safer" option and have a sweet WR core, but never run deep in the playoffs because they don't have one stud RB. Depends on scoring, I suppose, since in PPR you can probably overcome not having a great RB.

More often than not, though, you gotta get a top 12 RB to be competitive, and you can always find some WRs to throw in those spots.

I can understand this, but PPR does make a huge difference. In non-PPR, I'd be loading up on RBs as well.

In PPR, you can get by with mediocre RB options given a strong enough set of WRs. However, in start 2 RB leagues, I too like to have at least one top 12 option in there and think there is a lot of value in that.

 

[Ernol]

Ernol - I agree it should affect the numbers. In theory, in both cases, the flexes should be heavily dominated by WRs. If you assume all flexes are WRs, the baseline drops to the 2/3 format where RB24 and WR36 are practically equal value.

On a side note, that inspired me to run a test sample. Strangely enough, only maybe half of the flex starts were WRs. Explanation is either incompetence or the fact that a few teams carry a lot of WR2, 3, 4s that are hard to offload because everyone asks a hefty premium on the RBs.

Certainly, if you know the tendencies of your league, you should make adjustments to take advantage of them (sounds like you are). I normally look at the optimum starting lineup in hindsight (IF I go down the road of looking at this in the first place as I normally consider other factors ahead of a replacement value analysis).

 

[Gottabesweet]

Not involved:

Rebuilding team trades

Bowe 3.6

For

1.7

Now has picks 5,7,13,19

 

[cstu]

Not involved:Rebuilding team tradesBowe 3.6For1.7Now has picks 5,7,13,19

He picked a horrible year to rebuild.

 

[Gottabesweet]

True, the roster is terrible. He moved Peyton Manning and Bowe this off season. Only pieces he has to start is Matt Ryan, Blackmon and Jeffrey and then those four picks.

 

[Gottabesweet]

True, the roster is terrible. He moved Peyton Manning and Bowe this off season. Only pieces he has to start is Matt Ryan, Blackmon and Jeffrey and then those four picks.

 

[Ernol]

True, the roster is terrible. He moved Peyton Manning and Bowe this off season. Only pieces he has to start is Matt Ryan, Blackmon and Jeffrey and then those four picks.

Its a start. Add lets say Eddie Lacy, Deandre Hopkins, Christine Michael and the flyer of his choice and the team is looking much better. I like the Bowe trade.

 

[Concept Coop]

I would guess that in calculating the baseline for the 2RB/2WR you are using the same baseline player for WR and RB (e.g., WR24 and RB24). If so, then you are not accounting for the fact that the 12 flex starters (I assume this is a 12-teamer) are going to consist of entirely or almost entirely of WRs (because WRs score more points at that range). This makes this format not all that different from a straight 2RB/3WR with no flex.

As for a 2RB/3WR with 1 flex, the 12 flexes will include a number of RBs (or at least more than at 2/2). I don't know how much this will affect your numbers, but I would think it would cut your difference in half.

I like my flex baselines to be a point total, rather than number of starters. The fact that there are more flex worthy WRs doesn't hinder an above baseline RB's value, assuming he scores as many points as the WRs we are comparing him to. If RBA and WRA score 300 points, WRA is not more valuable, in my opinion, because 9 of 12 flex options happen to be WR. RBA is an equal flex option.

Of course, [SIZE=10.5pt]especially[/SIZE] in dynasty leagues, there are other factors that come into play. When comparing them as flex options, most of us would prefer the WR, in terms of health and duration.

I thought we previously had this discussion and you came around to flex positions mattering for baselines, but I could be recalling that incorrectly. Take a league that has 1RB/1WR and 4 flex format. You cant use RB12 and WR12 as your baselines (I am assuming we are talking VBD here). It would make little sense to do so imo. You need to anticipate how many RBs will start and how many WRs will start in that format to determine baselines (if using the baseline starter method - which again I am assuming we are using here).

I think we are looking for value over replacement level. If a WR is starting (whether in a WR or flex position - it makes no difference), he is not replacement level.

I just disagree with this, and always have. Flex should be a point total. It doesn't matter who my league mates start at flex, aside from the points they score against me (hypothetically). I agree that baseline shouldn't be RB12 and WR12 - we need to account for flex options. I just think we should account for that by projecting the number of points, whether it's a RB, WR, or TE.

If after the season MFL retro-actively changed Sproles to a WR, and you started him at flex every week - nothing changed.

 

[Concept Coop]

Dynasty PPR- start 1 qb, 2 rb, 3 wr, 1 te, 1 k, 2 dl, 4 lb, and 3 dbI gave: Des Bishop, Brian Cushing, Kam Chancellor, Dustin Keller, and a 2014 2ndI got: D'Qwell Jackson and Rob GronkowskiEdit: also dealt James Michael Johnson for Shane Vereen

Is this a heavy scoring IDP league? Seems like a steal for Gronk.

 

[Concept Coop]

Not involved:Rebuilding team tradesBowe 3.6For1.7Now has picks 5,7,13,19

I'd rather trade him in season for a mid-level (projected) 1st round pick, and, as petty as it is, I wouldn't include the 3rd rounder.

 

[Instinctive]

I would guess that in calculating the baseline for the 2RB/2WR you are using the same baseline player for WR and RB (e.g., WR24 and RB24). If so, then you are not accounting for the fact that the 12 flex starters (I assume this is a 12-teamer) are going to consist of entirely or almost entirely of WRs (because WRs score more points at that range). This makes this format not all that different from a straight 2RB/3WR with no flex.

As for a 2RB/3WR with 1 flex, the 12 flexes will include a number of RBs (or at least more than at 2/2). I don't know how much this will affect your numbers, but I would think it would cut your difference in half.

I like my flex baselines to be a point total, rather than number of starters. The fact that there are more flex worthy WRs doesn't hinder an above baseline RB's value, assuming he scores as many points as the WRs we are comparing him to. If RBA and WRA score 300 points, WRA is not more valuable, in my opinion, because 9 of 12 flex options happen to be WR. RBA is an equal flex option.

Of course, [SIZE=10.5pt]especially[/SIZE] in dynasty leagues, there are other factors that come into play. When comparing them as flex options, most of us would prefer the WR, in terms of health and duration.

I thought we previously had this discussion and you came around to flex positions mattering for baselines, but I could be recalling that incorrectly. Take a league that has 1RB/1WR and 4 flex format. You cant use RB12 and WR12 as your baselines (I am assuming we are talking VBD here). It would make little sense to do so imo. You need to anticipate how many RBs will start and how many WRs will start in that format to determine baselines (if using the baseline starter method - which again I am assuming we are using here).

I think we are looking for value over replacement level. If a WR is starting (whether in a WR or flex position - it makes no difference), he is not replacement level.

I just disagree with this, and always have. Flex should be a point total. It doesn't matter who my league mates start at flex, aside from the points they score against me (hypothetically). I agree that baseline shouldn't be RB12 and WR12 - we need to account for flex options. I just don't think we should account for that by projecting the number of points, whether it's a RB, WR, or TE.

The way to find the baseline in a flex league is this, isn't it?:

1. Look at the total number of games played you're league needs from each position (RB, WR, TE, Flex)

2. Graph Games Played vs. Positional Rank to see how many games you expect our of RB1, RB2, RB3, RB4, etc...

3. Once you've filled all starters for each of the positions that is flex eligible, take the next highest point total until the flex is filled, and add the number of RBs to your RB baseline, WRs ot your WR baselines, etc...

So let's say that in a start 2/2/1 with 1 flex, you typically can fulfill the demand of all games played with 31 RBs, 27 WRs, and 14 TEs. Then your 12 flex spots (with 16 games each) gets you 7 more RBs, 6 more WRs, and 2 more TEs. You add those, and you can figure out an appropriate VBD baseline.

One benefit of this approach is that you account for the average expectation of injuries when valuing players. It also lets you see where your flexes are usually at.

Alternatively, you should be looking at RB24, WR24, TE12 for the positions, and then you simply rank all remaining players, year by year for a few years, to see how many of each position typically fall in the top 12 of remaining players - those guys fill your flex spot.

 

[Concept Coop]

The way to find the baseline in a flex league is this, isn't it?:1. Look at the total number of games played you're league needs from each position (RB, WR, TE, Flex)

2. Graph Games Played vs. Positional Rank to see how many games you expect our of RB1, RB2, RB3, RB4, etc...

3. Once you've filled all starters for each of the positions that is flex eligible, take the next highest point total until the flex is filled, and add the number of RBs to your RB baseline, WRs ot your WR baselines, etc...

So let's say that in a start 2/2/1 with 1 flex, you typically can fulfill the demand of all games played with 31 RBs, 27 WRs, and 14 TEs. Then your 12 flex spots (with 16 games each) gets you 7 more RBs, 6 more WRs, and 2 more TEs. You add those, and you can figure out an appropriate VBD baseline.

One benefit of this approach is that you account for the average expectation of injuries when valuing players. It also lets you see where your flexes are usually at.

Alternatively, you should be looking at RB24, WR24, TE12 for the positions, and then you simply rank all remaining players, year by year for a few years, to see how many of each position typically fall in the top 12 of remaining players - those guys fill your flex spot.

That is certainly one way, and a viable one at that. In practice it works. I personally have my own baseline theories for dynasty leagues and I tweak them a lot. In dynasty leagues a lot changes. When comparing to a WR to a RB, more than just points matter. If you told me Adrian Peterson and Brandon Marshall would both score 20 points a game when healhty, and I am only considering them for a flex spot - I'm taking Brandon Marshall. WRs stay healthier and last longer, on average. That's an overly simple example, I know, and I don't play in any leagues with only flex spots. But an easy example.

I personally don't find use in adjusting how I value above baseline players, based on whether my league mates are producing 10 points from a WR or 10 points from a RB. My goal is to score as much over that 10 points as I can - whether that be a RB, WR, or TE.

 

[cdubz]

The way to find the baseline in a flex league is this, isn't it?:1. Look at the total number of games played you're league needs from each position (RB, WR, TE, Flex)

2. Graph Games Played vs. Positional Rank to see how many games you expect our of RB1, RB2, RB3, RB4, etc...

3. Once you've filled all starters for each of the positions that is flex eligible, take the next highest point total until the flex is filled, and add the number of RBs to your RB baseline, WRs ot your WR baselines, etc...

So let's say that in a start 2/2/1 with 1 flex, you typically can fulfill the demand of all games played with 31 RBs, 27 WRs, and 14 TEs. Then your 12 flex spots (with 16 games each) gets you 7 more RBs, 6 more WRs, and 2 more TEs. You add those, and you can figure out an appropriate VBD baseline.

One benefit of this approach is that you account for the average expectation of injuries when valuing players. It also lets you see where your flexes are usually at.

Alternatively, you should be looking at RB24, WR24, TE12 for the positions, and then you simply rank all remaining players, year by year for a few years, to see how many of each position typically fall in the top 12 of remaining players - those guys fill your flex spot.

That is certainly one way, and a viable one at that. In practice it works. I personally have my own baseline theories for dynasty leagues and I tweak them a lot. In dynasty leagues a lot changes. When comparing to a WR to a RB, more than just points matter. If you told me Adrian Peterson and Brandon Marshall would both score 20 points a game when healhty, and I am only considering them for a flex spot - I'm taking Brandon Marshall. WRs stay healthier and last longer, on average. That's an overly simple example, I know, and I don't play in any leagues with only flex spots. But an easy example.

I personally don't find use in adjusting how I value above baseline players, based on whether my league mates are producing 10 points from a WR or 10 points from a RB. My goal is to score as much over that 10 points as I can - whether that be a RB, WR, or TE.

I think I completely agree with your approach to VBD baselines in that you should look at the one point total only. Unless one position (typically RB or TE) has zero flex plays in which the baseline needs to be the last of that position rather than the flex baseline.

But this is a separate issue from who you are looking to acquire, no? In the Marshall/Peterson example despite having equal projected points, Peterson will have more value because RBs are probably more scarce within the league.

I don't think there is anything groundbreaking here, just think there might be 2 separate ways people are thinking about this.

 

[Concept Coop]

The way to find the baseline in a flex league is this, isn't it?:1. Look at the total number of games played you're league needs from each position (RB, WR, TE, Flex)

2. Graph Games Played vs. Positional Rank to see how many games you expect our of RB1, RB2, RB3, RB4, etc...

3. Once you've filled all starters for each of the positions that is flex eligible, take the next highest point total until the flex is filled, and add the number of RBs to your RB baseline, WRs ot your WR baselines, etc...

So let's say that in a start 2/2/1 with 1 flex, you typically can fulfill the demand of all games played with 31 RBs, 27 WRs, and 14 TEs. Then your 12 flex spots (with 16 games each) gets you 7 more RBs, 6 more WRs, and 2 more TEs. You add those, and you can figure out an appropriate VBD baseline.

One benefit of this approach is that you account for the average expectation of injuries when valuing players. It also lets you see where your flexes are usually at.

Alternatively, you should be looking at RB24, WR24, TE12 for the positions, and then you simply rank all remaining players, year by year for a few years, to see how many of each position typically fall in the top 12 of remaining players - those guys fill your flex spot.

That is certainly one way, and a viable one at that. In practice it works. I personally have my own baseline theories for dynasty leagues and I tweak them a lot. In dynasty leagues a lot changes. When comparing to a WR to a RB, more than just points matter. If you told me Adrian Peterson and Brandon Marshall would both score 20 points a game when healhty, and I am only considering them for a flex spot - I'm taking Brandon Marshall. WRs stay healthier and last longer, on average. That's an overly simple example, I know, and I don't play in any leagues with only flex spots. But an easy example.

I personally don't find use in adjusting how I value above baseline players, based on whether my league mates are producing 10 points from a WR or 10 points from a RB. My goal is to score as much over that 10 points as I can - whether that be a RB, WR, or TE.

I think I completely agree with your approach to VBD baselines in that you should look at the one point total only. Unless one position (typically RB or TE) has zero flex plays in which the baseline needs to be the last of that position rather than the flex baseline.

But this is a separate issue from who you are looking to acquire, no? In the Marshall/Peterson example despite having equal projected points, Peterson will have more value because RBs are probably more scarce within the league.

I don't think there is anything groundbreaking here, just think there might be 2 separate ways people are thinking about this.

I agree with you 100%. In the example, I was trying to isolate flex value only, in a vacuum.

 

[Instinctive]

The way to find the baseline in a flex league is this, isn't it?:1. Look at the total number of games played you're league needs from each position (RB, WR, TE, Flex)

2. Graph Games Played vs. Positional Rank to see how many games you expect our of RB1, RB2, RB3, RB4, etc...

3. Once you've filled all starters for each of the positions that is flex eligible, take the next highest point total until the flex is filled, and add the number of RBs to your RB baseline, WRs ot your WR baselines, etc...

So let's say that in a start 2/2/1 with 1 flex, you typically can fulfill the demand of all games played with 31 RBs, 27 WRs, and 14 TEs. Then your 12 flex spots (with 16 games each) gets you 7 more RBs, 6 more WRs, and 2 more TEs. You add those, and you can figure out an appropriate VBD baseline.

One benefit of this approach is that you account for the average expectation of injuries when valuing players. It also lets you see where your flexes are usually at.

Alternatively, you should be looking at RB24, WR24, TE12 for the positions, and then you simply rank all remaining players, year by year for a few years, to see how many of each position typically fall in the top 12 of remaining players - those guys fill your flex spot.

That is certainly one way, and a viable one at that. In practice it works. I personally have my own baseline theories for dynasty leagues and I tweak them a lot. In dynasty leagues a lot changes. When comparing to a WR to a RB, more than just points matter. If you told me Adrian Peterson and Brandon Marshall would both score 20 points a game when healhty, and I am only considering them for a flex spot - I'm taking Brandon Marshall. WRs stay healthier and last longer, on average. That's an overly simple example, I know, and I don't play in any leagues with only flex spots. But an easy example.

I personally don't find use in adjusting how I value above baseline players, based on whether my league mates are producing 10 points from a WR or 10 points from a RB. My goal is to score as much over that 10 points as I can - whether that be a RB, WR, or TE.

I think I completely agree with your approach to VBD baselines in that you should look at the one point total only. Unless one position (typically RB or TE) has zero flex plays in which the baseline needs to be the last of that position rather than the flex baseline.

But this is a separate issue from who you are looking to acquire, no? In the Marshall/Peterson example despite having equal projected points, Peterson will have more value because RBs are probably more scarce within the league.

I don't think there is anything groundbreaking here, just think there might be 2 separate ways people are thinking about this.

I agree with you 100%. In the example, I was trying to isolate flex value only, in a vacuum.

Yeah, Peterson would be more valuable because of starting RB position requirements, not because of the flex. I think Coop and I are on the same page here. If you just had 5 flex spots that were all RB/WR/TE and no starting requirements, and all that mattered were points scored, I believe that's the hypothetical here where Coop prefers Marshall when both score equally (I would too)

 

[Ernol]

The way to find the baseline in a flex league is this, isn't it?:1. Look at the total number of games played you're league needs from each position (RB, WR, TE, Flex)

2. Graph Games Played vs. Positional Rank to see how many games you expect our of RB1, RB2, RB3, RB4, etc...

3. Once you've filled all starters for each of the positions that is flex eligible, take the next highest point total until the flex is filled, and add the number of RBs to your RB baseline, WRs ot your WR baselines, etc...

So let's say that in a start 2/2/1 with 1 flex, you typically can fulfill the demand of all games played with 31 RBs, 27 WRs, and 14 TEs. Then your 12 flex spots (with 16 games each) gets you 7 more RBs, 6 more WRs, and 2 more TEs. You add those, and you can figure out an appropriate VBD baseline.

One benefit of this approach is that you account for the average expectation of injuries when valuing players. It also lets you see where your flexes are usually at.

Alternatively, you should be looking at RB24, WR24, TE12 for the positions, and then you simply rank all remaining players, year by year for a few years, to see how many of each position typically fall in the top 12 of remaining players - those guys fill your flex spot.

That is certainly one way, and a viable one at that. In practice it works. I personally have my own baseline theories for dynasty leagues and I tweak them a lot. In dynasty leagues a lot changes. When comparing to a WR to a RB, more than just points matter. If you told me Adrian Peterson and Brandon Marshall would both score 20 points a game when healhty, and I am only considering them for a flex spot - I'm taking Brandon Marshall. WRs stay healthier and last longer, on average. That's an overly simple example, I know, and I don't play in any leagues with only flex spots. But an easy example.

I personally don't find use in adjusting how I value above baseline players, based on whether my league mates are producing 10 points from a WR or 10 points from a RB. My goal is to score as much over that 10 points as I can - whether that be a RB, WR, or TE.

I think I completely agree with your approach to VBD baselines in that you should look at the one point total only. Unless one position (typically RB or TE) has zero flex plays in which the baseline needs to be the last of that position rather than the flex baseline.

But this is a separate issue from who you are looking to acquire, no? In the Marshall/Peterson example despite having equal projected points, Peterson will have more value because RBs are probably more scarce within the league.

I don't think there is anything groundbreaking here, just think there might be 2 separate ways people are thinking about this.

I am trying to understand how, using your approaches to VBD baselines, you are accounting for flex positions. Take my prior example of 12 teams, 1RB, 1WR and 4 flex positions. What baselines are you using to determine how valuable 300points is for RB and WR?

 

[Instinctive]

I am trying to understand how, using your approaches to VBD baselines, you are accounting for flex positions. Take my prior example of 12 teams, 1RB, 1WR and 4 flex positions. What baselines are you using to determine how valuable 300points is for RB and WR?

In that situation you're filling 192 RB games, 192 WR games, and 768 flex games. (16 games per team per starting lineup slot)

I chart average games played vs positional rank. So when you fill the demand for RB games, you fill (for example) 14.5 games on average from RB1, and 14.2 games from RB2, and 14 games from RB3, 13.9 games from RB4, etc...This allows you to account for expected injuries in your VBD calculations. Eventually, you'll get to 192 games at which point you have your baseline A for RBs (how many RBs did it take you to fill all 192 games of demand?). This is NOT your final baseline.

Repeat for WRs, giving you baseline A for WRs.

You then take all remaining RBs and WRs (those not already used to get to either A baseline) and rank them purely on points. Then you use that group, in order, to fill all the games you need at the flex position. This gives you the true for each position, having now accounted for the flex spots.

 

[pittstownkiller]

10 team PPR Start 1QB/2RB/3WR/1TE/1Flex(R/W/T) Gave: Colston Got: Jordy Nelson Jordy Replaces Colston as my 3rd WR. new lineup:A-RodCharles/Spiller/MartinCruz/Harvin/JordyFinley

Who on earth would do this?

somebody who is bailing on the league after this year.

...or a Packers fan.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

10 team PPR Start 1QB/2RB/3WR/1TE/1Flex(R/W/T) Gave: Colston Got: Jordy Nelson Jordy Replaces Colston as my 3rd WR. new lineup:A-RodCharles/Spiller/MartinCruz/Harvin/JordyFinley

Who on earth would do this?

somebody who is bailing on the league after this year.

...or a Packers fan.

The new Colston owner is the one everyone's questioning.

 

[xtreme11]

12 team PPR: 1qb/2rb/3wr/1te/1 flex

I gave Bowe and Lance Moore

I got Lamar Miller 2014 2nd round rookie (there is a 1 round devy draft also)

Line up becomes:

AP, Sproles, Miller, Ball

Wayne, Colston, Gordon, Decker, Givens

 

[msudaisy26]

True, the roster is terrible. He moved Peyton Manning and Bowe this off season. Only pieces he has to start is Matt Ryan, Blackmon and Jeffrey and then those four picks.

I didn't see what round those picks were but as long as they are at least 2 firsts and a second in there I think he did decent trading Manning and Bowe

 

[msudaisy26]

Not involved:Rebuilding team tradesBowe 3.6For1.7Now has picks 5,7,13,19

I'd rather trade him in season for a mid-level (projected) 1st round pick, and, as petty as it is, I wouldn't include the 3rd rounder.

I think you are right, with this years draft I would take Bowe at 29 over 1.1

 

[Instinctive]

10 team PPR Start 1QB/2RB/3WR/1TE/1Flex(R/W/T) Gave: Colston Got: Jordy Nelson Jordy Replaces Colston as my 3rd WR. new lineup:A-RodCharles/Spiller/MartinCruz/Harvin/JordyFinley

Who on earth would do this?

somebody who is bailing on the league after this year.

...or a Packers fan.

The new Colston owner is the one everyone's questioning.

I would rather have Colston.

 

[cstu]

10 team PPR Start 1QB/2RB/3WR/1TE/1Flex(R/W/T) Gave: Colston Got: Jordy Nelson Jordy Replaces Colston as my 3rd WR. new lineup:A-RodCharles/Spiller/MartinCruz/Harvin/JordyFinley

Who on earth would do this?

somebody who is bailing on the league after this year.

...or a Packers fan.

The new Colston owner is the one everyone's questioning.

I would rather have Colston.

You guys are in the minority.

 

[matttyl]

10 team dynasty league -

Traded Bradshaw, a 2014 2nd rounder (likely mid), a 2015 1st (likely mid to late), and a 2015 2nd (likely very late)

All for a 2014 1st (from one of the weakest two teams, and I already have the 1st from the other)

 

[JustinHawkins]

Made this trade in a 12 team PPR dynasty league. We start 1qb, 2rb, 3wr, 1te, 1 flex (wr/rb/te)

I gave: Brees & Hankerson

I got: Bradford & Andre Johnson

Roster (starters on bold, italics players flex options)

Luck, BradfordCharles, Spiller, Bell, MJD, BallardCalvin, Nicks, Garçon, Andre Johnson, Little, Hunter, Wheaton, Randle, LaFell, HawkinsF.Davis, Cameron, Celek

Was a little torn as I think Brees is going to have a monster year with Peyton back, but Luck is my long term starter anyway. Just hope AJ has several elite years left.

 

[Yitbos69]

10 team PPR Start 1QB/2RB/3WR/1TE/1Flex(R/W/T) Gave: Colston Got: Jordy Nelson Jordy Replaces Colston as my 3rd WR. new lineup:A-RodCharles/Spiller/MartinCruz/Harvin/JordyFinley

Who on earth would do this?

somebody who is bailing on the league after this year.

...or a Packers fan.

The new Colston owner is the one everyone's questioning.

I would rather have Colston.

You guys are in the minority.

I think most have Nelson ahead of Colston so trading him straight up is a bad move....I think Colston can be a more consistant FF WR...I think his ceiling is lower than Nelson but his Floor is higher....but you should base the trades you make on market value...and in every format Nelson has more value

 

[Winning IS Everything]

Team A Gave:

Hakeem Nicks

Greg Jennings

Team B Gave:

Larry Fitzgerald

2014 2nd (likely mid round)

 

[r0llin_game]

12 team ppr QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, TE, K RB/WR/TE flex

Team A gave: Mark Ingram/Tony Gonzalez/'14 3rd (slight chance at the playoffs)

Team B gave Kendall Wright/2.12 (Quinton Patton), '14 2nd (should be 2.09-2.12 range)

 

[ghostguy123]

10 team PPR Start 1QB/2RB/3WR/1TE/1Flex(R/W/T) Gave: Colston Got: Jordy Nelson Jordy Replaces Colston as my 3rd WR. new lineup:A-RodCharles/Spiller/MartinCruz/Harvin/JordyFinley

Who on earth would do this?

somebody who is bailing on the league after this year.

...or a Packers fan.

I meant the person GETTING Colston

 

[ghostguy123]

Team A Gave:

Hakeem Nicks

Greg Jennings

Team B Gave:

Larry Fitzgerald

2014 2nd (likely mid round)

Nicks side pretty easily for me here.

 

[SieteCinco]

12 Team 1 PPR - 2QB-2RB-2WR-1TE-1Flex

Team A Gave: AJ Jenkins

Team B Gave: 2014 2nd

I'm team A here, and although I really like Jenkins I think this 2014 2nd could end up being the 2.01-2.02 (teams rebuilding) and our drafts are rookie/devy combined so it makes the 2nds a little interesting. Team B also owns Patton/Lockette so adding Jenkins all but locks up SF's #2 WR longterm.

 

[solorca]

Team A Gave - Gio Bernard, Ahmed Bradshaw, and Travaris Cadet

Team B Gave - Lamar Miller, Mike Gillislee, and Aaron Mellette

 

[jonboltz]

Lamar Miller

Reuben Randle

for

Cruz

 

[msudaisy26]

Lamar Miller

Reuben Randle

for

Cruz

Steal for Miller and Randle

 

[Ernol]

First traded Spiller for Lamar Miller and Gio (discussed previously).

Then, went bonkers and traded a set of three potentially elite players for AJ Green (same league).

Traded Lamar Miller, Torrey Smith and Josh Gordon for AJ Green.

As a resulted, Ive added Step 4 called the "Julio/AJ Addendum - Just Pay, Its OK".

 

[whoDATT]

First traded Spiller for Lamar Miller and Gio (discussed previously).

Then, went bonkers and traded a set of three potentially elite players for AJ Green (same league).

Traded Lamar Miller, Torrey Smith and Josh Gordon for AJ Green.

As a resulted, Ive added Step 4 called the "Julio/AJ Addendum - Just Pay, Its OK".

I bet your league mates remained quiet after AJ Green was felt for Torrey Smith and two prospect/flyer types :-|*Lets be real, Miller/Gordon are nothing more than very good/highly hyped prospects right now. They shouldn't even be in the conversation for players like AJG.

 

[Ernol]

First traded Spiller for Lamar Miller and Gio (discussed previously).

Then, went bonkers and traded a set of three potentially elite players for AJ Green (same league).

Traded Lamar Miller, Torrey Smith and Josh Gordon for AJ Green.

As a resulted, Ive added Step 4 called the "Julio/AJ Addendum - Just Pay, Its OK".

I bet your league mates remained quiet after AJ Green was felt for Torrey Smith and two prospect/flyer types :-|*Lets be real, Miller/Gordon are nothing more than very good/highly hyped prospects right now. They shouldn't even be in the conversation for players like AJG.

I know, I know. Heard it before. Im an idiot for taking prospects Gio and Miller for elite player Spiller, and now this other guy is an idiot for taking prospects Miller, Torrey and Gordon for elite player AJ Green. I don't think its that simple of an analysis though.

 

[whoDATT]

Just depends on team building philosophies and how much you believe in the prospects. I like Gordon but an a believer in elite equaling elite during trades.

 

[Instinctive]

First traded Spiller for Lamar Miller and Gio (discussed previously).

Then, went bonkers and traded a set of three potentially elite players for AJ Green (same league).

Traded Lamar Miller, Torrey Smith and Josh Gordon for AJ Green.

As a resulted, Ive added Step 4 called the "Julio/AJ Addendum - Just Pay, Its OK".

I bet your league mates remained quiet after AJ Green was felt for Torrey Smith and two prospect/flyer types :-|*Lets be real, Miller/Gordon are nothing more than very good/highly hyped prospects right now. They shouldn't even be in the conversation for players like AJG.

I know, I know. Heard it before. Im an idiot for taking prospects Gio and Miller for elite player Spiller, and now this other guy is an idiot for taking prospects Miller, Torrey and Gordon for elite player AJ Green. I don't think its that simple of an analysis though.

This trade was far worse than the Spiller one. Miller is a top 3 pick if you could select him in a rookie draft this year. So's Gio. So at least that's defensible (although the margin for error is very small since the best case for either guy is that he becomes Spiller).

This one is pretty rough. AJG is a top 3 receiver. And incredibly young still. Nobody in that trade is gonna turn into AJ Green. It could be a win for the other guy if Miller becomes a top 10 RB, Smith becomes a WR1, and Gordon becomes a WR1...but that's a tiny margin of error valuing all three of those guys at their upside without any risk factored in.

 

[Ernol]

Just depends on team building philosophies and how much you believe in the prospects. I like Gordon but an a believer in elite equaling elite during trades.

Understand, and makes sense. Most subscribe to that belief as well.

 

[Ernol]

First traded Spiller for Lamar Miller and Gio (discussed previously).

Then, went bonkers and traded a set of three potentially elite players for AJ Green (same league).

Traded Lamar Miller, Torrey Smith and Josh Gordon for AJ Green.

As a resulted, Ive added Step 4 called the "Julio/AJ Addendum - Just Pay, Its OK".

I bet your league mates remained quiet after AJ Green was felt for Torrey Smith and two prospect/flyer types :-|*Lets be real, Miller/Gordon are nothing more than very good/highly hyped prospects right now. They shouldn't even be in the conversation for players like AJG.

I know, I know. Heard it before. Im an idiot for taking prospects Gio and Miller for elite player Spiller, and now this other guy is an idiot for taking prospects Miller, Torrey and Gordon for elite player AJ Green. I don't think its that simple of an analysis though.

This trade was far worse than the Spiller one. Miller is a top 3 pick if you could select him in a rookie draft this year. So's Gio. So at least that's defensible (although the margin for error is very small since the best case for either guy is that he becomes Spiller).

This one is pretty rough. AJG is a top 3 receiver. And incredibly young still. Nobody in that trade is gonna turn into AJ Green. It could be a win for the other guy if Miller becomes a top 10 RB, Smith becomes a WR1, and Gordon becomes a WR1...but that's a tiny margin of error valuing all three of those guys at their upside without any risk factored in.

I can see what you mean from that perspective. However, look at it this way. How much more valuable is AJ Green over Spiller? A number on other threads put Gordon right up to the 1.1 if he were in available in a draft with the rookies today. In other words, Gordon is equal or greater to Gio (in some minds). Miller for Miller cancels out.

Thus, we have CJ Spiller (whom I love) plus Torrey Smith (whom I rank higher than most, maybe the highest) for AJ Green. If you agree with the above (e.g., the Gordon = Gio), and believe that the AJ Green trade is much worse, then you must also believe that AJ Green >>>>> CJ Spilller + Torrey Smith, which I don't think is the case.

If you find those two sides equal, then the CJ Spiller trade must be equally as bad as the AJ Green trade.