Jeff, I applaud the work, but the relationship of roster size being INVERSELY proportional to value seems backwards.
... if you have a deep bench, you can afford to put more rookies on your roster and wait for them to develop, so there is less pressure on you getting your picks right.
This tried to equate "less pressure" to "less value". That isn't correct. Less pressure means "less risk". And less risk means more value, not less, because risk and value are inversely proportional.Let's say that 50% of the time a rookie in the small roster league contributes before needing to be cut. In the bigger roster league the rookies are held longer and so 80% of the time the same rookies contributes before needing to be cut. I hope it's clear that the latter situation has the more valuable pick since 80% of the time you get something of value and in the small league you only get something of value 50% of the time.
Put another way, which are you willing to pay more money to play... a game where 50% of the time you win $100, or a game where 80% of the time you win $100?
Your comments about number of teams in the league bear this out as well:
Number of Teams in the League - As the number of teams increases, the value of the picks increase. Again, this passes the sanity check in that you have fewer draft picks and more teams are fighting for talent. Additionally, more players are rostered in the league and thus fewer talented players are available in free agency.
GregR,First, I appreciate your comments. You've contributed a great deal around the SP so thanks for reading the article and checking out the tool.
I have to disagree. I thougth long and hard about this tool, and I believe it has the right relationships.
I believe that the disagreement comes from what the numerical value of a pick represents. It is not about the value of the player or the pick itself but more about the RELATIVE value of the pick.
So, in a league where you have 9 starters and just 20 roster spots, there is pressure for your rookies to produce quickly else you have to cut them and move on - you don't have room for projects. As such, if you are going to trade for a 3rd rounder, that pick is far less worthwhile than in a league where you have 25 roster spots. The pick itself has more value if have more time to seek value with it.
In a league where I have to cut players quickly, later picks become less and less valuable. If I have bench space, the value of the pick goes up.
This argument extends to more teams in a league as well. With more teams, it becomes harder to find talent to put on your team. With fewer teams, the value of the waiver wire players rises, so your rookie draft picks aren't as valuable. With 16 teams vs. 12, that's 100+ talented players that won't be available anywhere but in a trade or on Draft Day, so the pick means more.
Therefore, I have the value of picks being higher with MORE teams and MORE roster space because you can get a bigger return / value from that pick than if you have the opposite situation(s).
I hope that clarified my thoughts.
layer #23 would be 975 points.
although i never really liked giving flat numbers to rookie picks each year. it should be dependant on your rookie rankings first. for example - 1.04 in 2006 was worth a lot more than 1.04 in 2007.
that a computer will dictate who we trade or keep?
