Dynasty 1st round rookie picks -- Which would you prefer and why? (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

You can have either a single random 1st round pick for the next 6 years or you can have 6 random first found picks in any given year and then none for the other 5 years.

Which would you prefer and why?

 

[Nero]

Give me six in one year. My chances of scoring 1 or two really good players goes up exponentially. Also the players I acquire would mature together and maximize their output at the same time.

 

[Penguin]

Give me six in one year. My chances of scoring 1 or two really good players goes up exponentially. Also the players I acquire would mature together and maximize their output at the same time.

As long as you have six spots to draft/carry them, that's a decent chunk of your previous roster you'd have to blow out.

 

[Mark Davis]

Depends on the year. I like the rookie crop this year and I didn't like the group last year. All things equal, I'll take one each year. By only having one each year you have to be sure to draft the right guy each year. But perhaps more importantly you see how the other picks are developing along the way and can draft complimentary or replacement pieces as needed. If you simply have everything riding in one year and you took 1 QB you have all your eggs in that basket.

 

[Drop]

Give me six in one year. My chances of scoring 1 or two really good players goes up exponentially. Also the players I acquire would mature together and maximize their output at the same time.

Can you show your work on this math?

 

[ghostguy123]

Give me six in one year. My chances of scoring 1 or two really good players goes up exponentially. Also the players I acquire would mature together and maximize their output at the same time.

ummmm, how?

 

[ghostguy123]

I say space it out (though I have had team makeups where I think I would prefer the bulk firsts).

You would have a chance at the #1 pick multiple times. Though you also risk pick 12 multiple times as well.

Whenever I have 3-4 1st rounder in a draft, I always deal 1-2 of the picks and acquire more future 1sts

 

[ghostguy123]

Although if my choices are six 1sts THIS year, or a 1st each year the next 6 years.............I will take the picks now then trade for better value.............but I know you aren't asking about that, lol

 

[FUBAR]

Sometimes you can trade multiple picks for a stud player. So if I think I can deal three firsts for McCoy and the other three for Bryant or Green, give me the picks now.

 

[ghostguy123]

Sometimes you can trade multiple picks for a stud player. So if I think I can deal three firsts for McCoy and the other three for Bryant or Green, give me the picks now.

If you can trade, pretty silly to not tale all the picks now. You can turn pick 12 this year into like three 1sts in 2017.

 

[JohnnyU]

I would think having multiple 1st in a deep draft year like this year is the optimal choice. If this year wasn't such a good draft I would definitely want the 1st in multiple years. This is an easy choice for me.

 

[FUBAR]

Sometimes you can trade multiple picks for a stud player. So if I think I can deal three firsts for McCoy and the other three for Bryant or Green, give me the picks now.

If you can trade, pretty silly to not tale all the picks now. You can turn pick 12 this year into like three 1sts in 2017.

the only reason you wouldn't take the picks now is a lack of roster space.

 

[Jrodicus]

Give me the picks in a single season. I could always acquire more picks in the future; I can't acquire more picks in the past.

On a couple orphans I took over last year, I acquired 5 2014 1sts. I still have 4 of them in one league; in the other league I used them to trade back and acquire studs.

 

[Zyphros]

Give me 1 pick each year for the next 6 years. I'm confident I could turn some of those picks into solid players (by picking them or trading them), creating some sustainability over the years. The only way I would take them all in 1 year is if the draft is loaded like this year and possibly next.

Nobody has mentioned this yet, but it also depends on the format. If I can only start 1/1/1/1 (unlikely but humor me) then I would want them all in 1 year to trade them away because studs would be crucial. You're not going to find 6 studs in the first round of any draft so giving them up for a stud or 2 seems ideal.

 

[FUBAR]

Give me 1 pick each year for the next 6 years. I'm confident I could turn some of those picks into solid players (by picking them or trading them), creating some sustainability over the years. The only way I would take them all in 1 year is if the draft is loaded like this year and possibly next.

Nobody has mentioned this yet, but it also depends on the format. If I can only start 1/1/1/1 (unlikely but humor me) then I would want them all in 1 year to trade them away because studs would be crucial. You're not going to find 6 studs in the first round of any draft so giving them up for a stud or 2 seems ideal.

Cam, Murray, Green, JJones, Cobb, Jordan Cameron and Julius Thomas might disagree. The TEs probably fell, but the first five went in the 1st in many leagues.

 

[az_prof]

Having them all in one year is high risk. If you miss on most of them, your team is going to be weak for a long time. Also, I like to keep the age of my players spread out--I would not want players who are all aging at the same rate.

 

[ebsteelers]

I'd rather have them all in one year, I might not be

a) alive in 6 years

b) playing fantasy anymore

c) league might fold in that time frame

 

[thriftyrocker]

This is like the choice of lump sum vs. annuity in lottery payments. You take the lump sum because you can manage your money better than 0 interest.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Give me six in one year. My chances of scoring 1 or two really good players goes up exponentially. Also the players I acquire would mature together and maximize their output at the same time.

Can you show your work on this math?

If you assume all draft classes are equal (since they're unknown), I think this is actually right (minus the "exponentially" part) if your goal is just to land 1 or 2 studs.

Let's say that there are 2 studs in every draft class. 12 team league. In the former scenario every time you make a pick that is not a stud you get better odds of getting the stud on your next pick. In the latter scenario every time you miss a pick it has no effect on your next pick.

If you have 6 picks in one year your odds of hitting at least one stud are:

2/12 + 2/11 + 2/10 + 2/9 + 2/8 + 2/7 = 21%

If you have 1 pick per year for six years then your odds of hitting at least one stud are:

2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 = 16%

 

[KellysHeroes]

I'd take them all this yr

 

[Adam Harstad]

Give me six in one year. My chances of scoring 1 or two really good players goes up exponentially. Also the players I acquire would mature together and maximize their output at the same time.

Can you show your work on this math?

If you assume all draft classes are equal (since they're unknown), I think this is actually right (minus the "exponentially" part) if your goal is just to land 1 or 2 studs.

Let's say that there are 2 studs in every draft class. 12 team league. In the former scenario every time you make a pick that is not a stud you get better odds of getting the stud on your next pick. In the latter scenario every time you miss a pick it has no effect on your next pick.

If you have 6 picks in one year your odds of hitting at least one stud are:

2/12 + 2/11 + 2/10 + 2/9 + 2/8 + 2/7 = 21%

If you have 1 pick per year for six years then your odds of hitting at least one stud are:

2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 = 16%

Right. The EV will be the same, but all picks in one draft will be a lower-variance strategy- less chance of getting multiple studs, but less chance of getting no studs, too.

This assumes, of course, that all drafts are equal in quality.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Having them all in one year is high risk. If you miss on most of them, your team is going to be weak for a long time. Also, I like to keep the age of my players spread out--I would not want players who are all aging at the same rate.

I'm the opposite. I'd rather have a team where everyone is at the same point in their development. By syncing up a roster like that, I maximize my chances of winning championships because everyone (theoretically) peaks at the same time.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I think there are really three differences between the two approaches, all of which have been mentioned.

#1- roster space. Having six picks in one year forces you to carve out six roster spaces at once to hold them all.

#2- Age. Having six picks in one year will result in a roster that's largely the same age and at similar points in development.

#3- Variance. Having six picks in one year reduces your odds at an extreme outcome (either in the form of tons of hits or very few hits).

I think point #1 and #3 favor the "spreading out" point. By devoting so much of your roster space to six rookies, you lose out on a lot of valuable space that could be spent churning for quality free agents, which is a high cost. Also, as mentioned, I prefer to maximize variance because the rewards in dynasty are best at the extremes. Also as mentioned, point #2 favors the "all at once" approach, since the best way to win a title is to have a roster that peaks (and craters) all at the same time.

In total, I think the net outcome is that, ignoring the ability to trade current picks for future picks at a premium (so that 6 firsts this year really amounts to a lot more than 6 firsts over the next 6 years), spreading the wealth is the better strategy.

 

[ebsteelers]

I dont think there is a right strategy

 

[Winning IS Everything]

I would think having multiple 1st in a deep draft year like this year is the optimal choice. If this year wasn't such a good draft I would definitely want the 1st in multiple years. This is an easy choice for me.

This is my exact thinking..............

 

[plastik]

If I can make trades then definitely the six in one year. That would allow you to pick your spots in the fist year then flip some picks for 1sts in upcoming years. Something like the 1.01-1.04 could certainly land multiple future 1sts and a late first can almost always be dealt straight up for a 1st that is likely to be higher. In most active leagues, I am confidant that with 6 1sts one could probably pick three players the first year and still ensure that you'd have something like 6 more 1sts over the subsequent three years. And, to top it off, if you think a particular year is strong, you can just take all your picks and stop flipping them for future ones. Easy choice for me.

 

[Zyphros]

Give me 1 pick each year for the next 6 years. I'm confident I could turn some of those picks into solid players (by picking them or trading them), creating some sustainability over the years. The only way I would take them all in 1 year is if the draft is loaded like this year and possibly next.

Nobody has mentioned this yet, but it also depends on the format. If I can only start 1/1/1/1 (unlikely but humor me) then I would want them all in 1 year to trade them away because studs would be crucial. You're not going to find 6 studs in the first round of any draft so giving them up for a stud or 2 seems ideal.

Cam, Murray, Green, JJones, Cobb, Jordan Cameron and Julius Thomas might disagree. The TEs probably fell, but the first five went in the 1st in many leagues.

And the likelihood of grabbing exactly those 6? Daniel Thomas, Mark Ingram, Jared Cook, Ryan Williams, Greg Little are some of the others that might have been 1sts.

 

[Borden]

I think there are really three differences between the two approaches, all of which have been mentioned.

#1- roster space. Having six picks in one year forces you to carve out six roster spaces at once to hold them all.

#2- Age. Having six picks in one year will result in a roster that's largely the same age and at similar points in development.

#3- Variance. Having six picks in one year reduces your odds at an extreme outcome (either in the form of tons of hits or very few hits).

I think point #1 and #3 favor the "spreading out" point. By devoting so much of your roster space to six rookies, you lose out on a lot of valuable space that could be spent churning for quality free agents, which is a high cost. Also, as mentioned, I prefer to maximize variance because the rewards in dynasty are best at the extremes. Also as mentioned, point #2 favors the "all at once" approach, since the best way to win a title is to have a roster that peaks (and craters) all at the same time.

In total, I think the net outcome is that, ignoring the ability to trade current picks for future picks at a premium (so that 6 firsts this year really amounts to a lot more than 6 firsts over the next 6 years), spreading the wealth is the better strategy.

This was my response too but Adam said it better.

 

[FUBAR]

Give me 1 pick each year for the next 6 years. I'm confident I could turn some of those picks into solid players (by picking them or trading them), creating some sustainability over the years. The only way I would take them all in 1 year is if the draft is loaded like this year and possibly next.

Nobody has mentioned this yet, but it also depends on the format. If I can only start 1/1/1/1 (unlikely but humor me) then I would want them all in 1 year to trade them away because studs would be crucial. You're not going to find 6 studs in the first round of any draft so giving them up for a stud or 2 seems ideal.

Cam, Murray, Green, JJones, Cobb, Jordan Cameron and Julius Thomas might disagree. The TEs probably fell, but the first five went in the 1st in many leagues.

And the likelihood of grabbing exactly those 6? Daniel Thomas, Mark Ingram, Jared Cook, Ryan Williams, Greg Little are some of the others that might have been 1sts.

Agreed, and I already stated that I'd likely look to deal multiple 1sts for studs. My only disagreement was the "You're not going to find" part. You can find them, but good luck drafting them.

 

[Xue]

If you're set at RB, 2014 is a good year to have multiple 1sts and use it on WRs (Evans, Watkins, Matthews, Adams, Robinson, Cooks, Latimer) and/or a TE (Ebron).

Any other year, I'd rather have 1sts in multiple years. Though, next year is a good year to get some potential elite RBs, if you want to use the reverse strategy.

 

[Drop]

Give me six in one year. My chances of scoring 1 or two really good players goes up exponentially. Also the players I acquire would mature together and maximize their output at the same time.

Can you show your work on this math?

If you assume all draft classes are equal (since they're unknown), I think this is actually right (minus the "exponentially" part) if your goal is just to land 1 or 2 studs.

Let's say that there are 2 studs in every draft class. 12 team league. In the former scenario every time you make a pick that is not a stud you get better odds of getting the stud on your next pick. In the latter scenario every time you miss a pick it has no effect on your next pick.

If you have 6 picks in one year your odds of hitting at least one stud are:

2/12 + 2/11 + 2/10 + 2/9 + 2/8 + 2/7 = 21%

If you have 1 pick per year for six years then your odds of hitting at least one stud are:

2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 = 16%

Assuming all 6 draft classes are equal and that there are 2 studs per class on average.... Both options are equal. ( ~16.67%)

 

[Adam Harstad]

Give me six in one year. My chances of scoring 1 or two really good players goes up exponentially. Also the players I acquire would mature together and maximize their output at the same time.

Can you show your work on this math?

If you assume all draft classes are equal (since they're unknown), I think this is actually right (minus the "exponentially" part) if your goal is just to land 1 or 2 studs.

Let's say that there are 2 studs in every draft class. 12 team league. In the former scenario every time you make a pick that is not a stud you get better odds of getting the stud on your next pick. In the latter scenario every time you miss a pick it has no effect on your next pick.

If you have 6 picks in one year your odds of hitting at least one stud are:

2/12 + 2/11 + 2/10 + 2/9 + 2/8 + 2/7 = 21%

If you have 1 pick per year for six years then your odds of hitting at least one stud are:

2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 = 16%

Assuming all 6 draft classes are equal and that there are 2 studs per class on average.... Both options are equal. ( ~16.67%)

Nope. Concentrating in a single draft decreases variance. Let's use an extreme hypothetical to illustrate. Let's pretend that in every single 1st round, there is exactly 1 stud- no more and no less. If you have 12 picks in one draft, your chances of getting a stud are 100%- by definition, it is literally impossible for all 12 picks to miss. If you have 1 pick in 12 drafts, your odds of getting at least one stud are less than 100%- it would be possible to select one of the 11/12 busts in each draft.

Now, the EV of both is the same. The higher chance of getting 0 studs is also offset by a higher chance of getting 2, 3, 4, or even more studs. But assuming comparable draft quality, multiple picks in a single draft give you better odds of landing at least one stud.

 

[Drop]

Give me six in one year. My chances of scoring 1 or two really good players goes up exponentially. Also the players I acquire would mature together and maximize their output at the same time.

Can you show your work on this math?

If you assume all draft classes are equal (since they're unknown), I think this is actually right (minus the "exponentially" part) if your goal is just to land 1 or 2 studs.

Let's say that there are 2 studs in every draft class. 12 team league. In the former scenario every time you make a pick that is not a stud you get better odds of getting the stud on your next pick. In the latter scenario every time you miss a pick it has no effect on your next pick.

If you have 6 picks in one year your odds of hitting at least one stud are:

2/12 + 2/11 + 2/10 + 2/9 + 2/8 + 2/7 = 21%

If you have 1 pick per year for six years then your odds of hitting at least one stud are:

2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 = 16%

Assuming all 6 draft classes are equal and that there are 2 studs per class on average.... Both options are equal. ( ~16.67%)

Nope. Concentrating in a single draft decreases variance.Let's use an extreme hypothetical to illustrate. Let's pretend that in every single 1st round, there is exactly 1 stud- no more and no less. If you have 12 picks in one draft, your chances of getting a stud are 100%- by definition, it is literally impossible for all 12 picks to miss. If you have 1 pick in 12 drafts, your odds of getting at least one stud are less than 100%- it would be possible to select one of the 11/12 busts in each draft.

Now, the EV of both is the same. The higher chance of getting 0 studs is also offset by a higher chance of getting 2, 3, 4, or even more studs. But assuming comparable draft quality, multiple picks in a single draft give you better odds of landing at least one stud.

Are you saying that the probability of drafting a stud in either of FreeBaGeL's scenarios is not ~16.67%?

 

[Adam Harstad]

Give me six in one year. My chances of scoring 1 or two really good players goes up exponentially. Also the players I acquire would mature together and maximize their output at the same time.

Can you show your work on this math?

If you assume all draft classes are equal (since they're unknown), I think this is actually right (minus the "exponentially" part) if your goal is just to land 1 or 2 studs.

Let's say that there are 2 studs in every draft class. 12 team league. In the former scenario every time you make a pick that is not a stud you get better odds of getting the stud on your next pick. In the latter scenario every time you miss a pick it has no effect on your next pick.

If you have 6 picks in one year your odds of hitting at least one stud are:

2/12 + 2/11 + 2/10 + 2/9 + 2/8 + 2/7 = 21%

If you have 1 pick per year for six years then your odds of hitting at least one stud are:

2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 = 16%

Assuming all 6 draft classes are equal and that there are 2 studs per class on average.... Both options are equal. ( ~16.67%)

Nope. Concentrating in a single draft decreases variance.Let's use an extreme hypothetical to illustrate. Let's pretend that in every single 1st round, there is exactly 1 stud- no more and no less. If you have 12 picks in one draft, your chances of getting a stud are 100%- by definition, it is literally impossible for all 12 picks to miss. If you have 1 pick in 12 drafts, your odds of getting at least one stud are less than 100%- it would be possible to select one of the 11/12 busts in each draft.

Now, the EV of both is the same. The higher chance of getting 0 studs is also offset by a higher chance of getting 2, 3, 4, or even more studs. But assuming comparable draft quality, multiple picks in a single draft give you better odds of landing at least one stud.

Are you saying that the probability of drafting a stud in either of FreeBaGeL's scenarios is not ~16.67%?

Yes, I'm saying exactly that.

Let's run through the math. The odds of drafting at least 1 stud are the same as 100% - (the odds of drafting 0 studs). So let's calculate the odds that we walk away without a stud with each of our picks.

With 6 picks in 6 drafts, the math is easy. Each pick is an independent event. In each case, there is a 10/12 chance that we do not get a stud. Therefore, the probability of 0 studs after 6 drafts is (10/12) * (10/12) * (10/12) * (10/12) * (10/12) * (10/12). That works out to 33.5%. If we have a 33.5% chance of getting no studs, that means we have a (100-33.5)% or 66.5% chance of getting 1+ studs.

With 6 picks in 1 drafts, the events are no longer independent. The odds of not getting a stud with our first pick are 10/12 again. After that, though, ASSUMING THAT THE FIRST PICK WAS NOT A STUD, there are only 11 players left in the pool, 2 of which we know are studs. That means the odds of not picking a stud with our second pick, contingent on the fact that the first pick was not a stud, are now 9/11. And then the odds of not picking a stud with our third pick, assuming we missed with our first two picks, are 8/10. So the odds of getting 0 studs are (10/12) * (9/11) * (8/10) * (7/9) * (6/8) * (5/7), which works out to 22.7%. Therefore, the odds of getting at least one stud are (100-22.7)%, or 77.3%.

In Freebagel's hypothetical, if you have 6 picks in one draft, your odds of getting at least one stud are 77.3%. If you have six picks in different drafts, your odds of getting at least one stud are 66.5%. 77.3% > 66.5%. Of course, the 6 picks in different drafts options gives you the possibility of getting 6 studs, while 6 picks in one draft gives you just 2 studs at best. If we ran the scenarios a million times each, both would produce the exact same number of studs on average, but the multiple-drafts scenario would have a higher variance- more outcomes with no studs, more outcomes with 3+ studs.

 

[Drop]

Give me six in one year. My chances of scoring 1 or two really good players goes up exponentially. Also the players I acquire would mature together and maximize their output at the same time.

Can you show your work on this math?

If you assume all draft classes are equal (since they're unknown), I think this is actually right (minus the "exponentially" part) if your goal is just to land 1 or 2 studs.

Let's say that there are 2 studs in every draft class. 12 team league. In the former scenario every time you make a pick that is not a stud you get better odds of getting the stud on your next pick. In the latter scenario every time you miss a pick it has no effect on your next pick.

If you have 6 picks in one year your odds of hitting at least one stud are:

2/12 + 2/11 + 2/10 + 2/9 + 2/8 + 2/7 = 21%

If you have 1 pick per year for six years then your odds of hitting at least one stud are:

2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 + 2/12 = 16%

Assuming all 6 draft classes are equal and that there are 2 studs per class on average.... Both options are equal. ( ~16.67%)

Nope. Concentrating in a single draft decreases variance.Let's use an extreme hypothetical to illustrate. Let's pretend that in every single 1st round, there is exactly 1 stud- no more and no less. If you have 12 picks in one draft, your chances of getting a stud are 100%- by definition, it is literally impossible for all 12 picks to miss. If you have 1 pick in 12 drafts, your odds of getting at least one stud are less than 100%- it would be possible to select one of the 11/12 busts in each draft.

Now, the EV of both is the same. The higher chance of getting 0 studs is also offset by a higher chance of getting 2, 3, 4, or even more studs. But assuming comparable draft quality, multiple picks in a single draft give you better odds of landing at least one stud.

Are you saying that the probability of drafting a stud in either of FreeBaGeL's scenarios is not ~16.67%?

Yes, I'm saying exactly that.

Let's run through the math. The odds of drafting at least 1 stud are the same as 100% - (the odds of drafting 0 studs). So let's calculate the odds that we walk away without a stud with each of our picks.

With 6 picks in 6 drafts, the math is easy. Each pick is an independent event. In each case, there is a 10/12 chance that we do not get a stud. Therefore, the probability of 0 studs after 6 drafts is (10/12) * (10/12) * (10/12) * (10/12) * (10/12) * (10/12). That works out to 33.5%. If we have a 33.5% chance of getting no studs, that means we have a (100-33.5)% or 66.5% chance of getting 1+ studs.

With 6 picks in 1 drafts, the events are no longer independent. The odds of not getting a stud with our first pick are 10/12 again. After that, though, ASSUMING THAT THE FIRST PICK WAS NOT A STUD, there are only 11 players left in the pool, 2 of which we know are studs. That means the odds of not picking a stud with our second pick, contingent on the fact that the first pick was not a stud, are now 9/11. And then the odds of not picking a stud with our third pick, assuming we missed with our first two picks, are 8/10. So the odds of getting 0 studs are (10/12) * (9/11) * (8/10) * (7/9) * (6/8) * (5/7), which works out to 22.7%. Therefore, the odds of getting at least one stud are (100-22.7)%, or 77.3%.

In Freebagel's hypothetical, if you have 6 picks in one draft, your odds of getting at least one stud are 77.3%. If you have six picks in different drafts, your odds of getting at least one stud are 66.5%. 77.3% > 66.5%. Of course, the 6 picks in different drafts options gives you the possibility of getting 6 studs, while 6 picks in one draft gives you just 2 studs at best. If we ran the scenarios a million times each, both would produce the exact same number of studs on average, but the multiple-drafts scenario would have a higher variance- more outcomes with no studs, more outcomes with 3+ studs.

You're right. My work is based on a bad assumption and followed up with some fuzzy math, ignore it.