Evaluating Dynasty Players (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Tefertiller]

I love this time of year in the Shark Pool. It is great to see all of the different rankings. A big thank you to all of the guys who spend time putting them out there for criticism and discussion. But, there has been a term used a lot lately that got me thinking (I know, scary). The term is "exit value". The thinking that if dynasty owners use a three year window, for example, many players will have value after three years. This is a good thought. I do think exit value is something to consider. But, I do have a couple of concerns when we use the term carte blanche across different players at different stages of their careers in different situations.

First of all, it is dangerous to to assume that the player's current situation will stay static throughout the next three years and beyond. The player who is used as the "exit value" poster boy is Larry Fitzgerald. I do not think it is wise to assume that Fitzgerald will remain in such a good situation for the duration of his career. In this case, exit value still has merit, but it must contain a risk coefficient. If Fitzgerald was playing for the Vikings instead of the Cardinals, he may notbe worth the same. In addition, most of the players fantasy owners use "exit value" in determining value are in very good situations.

The other issue I have is the assumption that said player will not/can not get injured. So, when looking at Fitzgerald, who is still a very young receiver, the dynasty value cannot assume he definitely will play until a certain age. Yes, he is young and could/should play a long time. But, the exit value has to include some risk for injury.

So, the idea of exit value is extremely good. But, to use an exit value in determining future dynasty value, it must include the risk of injury and situation change.

 

[EBF]

I love this time of year in the Shark Pool. It is great to see all of the different rankings. A big thank you to all of the guys who spend time putting them out there for criticism and discussion. But, there has been a term used a lot lately that got me thinking (I know, scary). The term is "exit value". The thinking that if dynasty owners use a three year window, for example, many players will have value after three years. This is a good thought. I do think exit value is something to consider. But, I do have a couple of concerns when we use the term carte blanche across different players at different stages of their careers in different situations. First of all, it is dangerous to to assume that the player's current situation will stay static throughout the next three years and beyond. The player who is used as the "exit value" poster boy is Larry Fitzgerald. I do not think it is wise to assume that Fitzgerald will remain in such a good situation for the duration of his career. In this case, exit value still has merit, but it must contain a risk coefficient. If Fitzgerald was playing for the Vikings instead of the Cardinals, he may notbe worth the same. In addition, most of the players fantasy owners use "exit value" in determining value are in very good situations. The other issue I have is the assumption that said player will not/can not get injured. So, when looking at Fitzgerald, who is still a very young receiver, the dynasty value cannot assume he definitely will play until a certain age. Yes, he is young and could/should play a long time. But, the exit value has to include some risk for injury.

All of those same risk factors apply to Reggie Wayne, Chad Johnson, Randy Moss, etc.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

I love this time of year in the Shark Pool. It is great to see all of the different rankings. A big thank you to all of the guys who spend time putting them out there for criticism and discussion. But, there has been a term used a lot lately that got me thinking (I know, scary). The term is "exit value". The thinking that if dynasty owners use a three year window, for example, many players will have value after three years. This is a good thought. I do think exit value is something to consider. But, I do have a couple of concerns when we use the term carte blanche across different players at different stages of their careers in different situations. First of all, it is dangerous to to assume that the player's current situation will stay static throughout the next three years and beyond. The player who is used as the "exit value" poster boy is Larry Fitzgerald. I do not think it is wise to assume that Fitzgerald will remain in such a good situation for the duration of his career. In this case, exit value still has merit, but it must contain a risk coefficient. If Fitzgerald was playing for the Vikings instead of the Cardinals, he may notbe worth the same. In addition, most of the players fantasy owners use "exit value" in determining value are in very good situations. The other issue I have is the assumption that said player will not/can not get injured. So, when looking at Fitzgerald, who is still a very young receiver, the dynasty value cannot assume he definitely will play until a certain age. Yes, he is young and could/should play a long time. But, the exit value has to include some risk for injury.

All of those same risk factors apply to Reggie Wayne, Chad Johnson, Randy Moss, etc.

Exactly, but each player has different risk. No one can say Randy Moss and Chad Johnson have the same risk associated in the exit value.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

All of those same risk factors apply to Reggie Wayne, Chad Johnson, Randy Moss, etc.

For anyone who does NOT use/advocate something like this -- how do you account for the long-term value differences in a player like Fitz and a player like Moss? Or a player like Brees and a player like McNabb?

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

All of those same risk factors apply to Reggie Wayne, Chad Johnson, Randy Moss, etc.

For anyone who does NOT use/advocate something like this -- how do you account for the long-term value differences in a player like Fitz and a player like Moss? Or a player like Brees and a player like McNabb?

agree completely. It has to be included somehow. We each probably valuate the exit vlaue differently. But, the issue is that each player has different risk in years three beyond.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Great topic Jeff.

There's also something to be said for a bird in hand.... I'd rather have an elite WR now for 3 years and even nothing for "exit" value than to have less of a player who might have a longer career.

I'd have to dig up the numbers, but there's a link in the Dynasty Draft Pick Calculator article that talks about the avg. career length (by position). 4 years is typical. I'd say Pro Bowlers usually last longer (5-6) but that's a guess.

 

[EBF]

I love this time of year in the Shark Pool. It is great to see all of the different rankings. A big thank you to all of the guys who spend time putting them out there for criticism and discussion. But, there has been a term used a lot lately that got me thinking (I know, scary). The term is "exit value". The thinking that if dynasty owners use a three year window, for example, many players will have value after three years. This is a good thought. I do think exit value is something to consider. But, I do have a couple of concerns when we use the term carte blanche across different players at different stages of their careers in different situations. First of all, it is dangerous to to assume that the player's current situation will stay static throughout the next three years and beyond. The player who is used as the "exit value" poster boy is Larry Fitzgerald. I do not think it is wise to assume that Fitzgerald will remain in such a good situation for the duration of his career. In this case, exit value still has merit, but it must contain a risk coefficient. If Fitzgerald was playing for the Vikings instead of the Cardinals, he may notbe worth the same. In addition, most of the players fantasy owners use "exit value" in determining value are in very good situations. The other issue I have is the assumption that said player will not/can not get injured. So, when looking at Fitzgerald, who is still a very young receiver, the dynasty value cannot assume he definitely will play until a certain age. Yes, he is young and could/should play a long time. But, the exit value has to include some risk for injury.

All of those same risk factors apply to Reggie Wayne, Chad Johnson, Randy Moss, etc.

Exactly, but each player has different risk. No one can say Randy Moss and Chad Johnson have the same risk associated in the exit value.

Out of curiosity, do you think Randy has more or less risk? I actually think Chad is a safer pick given his consistency.At any rate, I wouldn't get too hung up on trying to quantify situational and injury risks. It's so unpredictable that it would be virtually impossible to implement in a useful way. All you can really look at when you're talking long-term in dynasty leagues is talent and longevity potential (with some minor consideration for injury history and some short-term consideration for situation). I don't see how anyone can rank Larry Fitzgerald anything less than the number one dynasty WR, but that's just me.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

All of those same risk factors apply to Reggie Wayne, Chad Johnson, Randy Moss, etc.

For anyone who does NOT use/advocate something like this -- how do you account for the long-term value differences in a player like Fitz and a player like Moss? Or a player like Brees and a player like McNabb?

Purely a discretionary tiebreaker. If I have a 25 year old and a 28 year old about the same tier / value line, I'd give a slight nod to the 25 year old, but that's really questionable. Now if they are 28 and 31, I'd lean to the 28 year old even if they are tied. If the older player is better I'd might say the 28 year old is even with him if you factor in the age. It really is more of a subjective factor.That's why I generally use a 4-year thought as a baseline (40%, 30%, 20%, 10%) for the next 4-years. It really doesn't change the 3-year view except for that little extra at the end if it matters.

 

[gianmarco]

Purely a discretionary tiebreaker. If I have a 25 year old and a 28 year old about the same tier / value line, I'd give a slight nod to the 25 year old, but that's really questionable. Now if they are 28 and 31, I'd lean to the 28 year old even if they are tied. If the older player is better I'd might say the 28 year old is even with him if you factor in the age. It really is more of a subjective factor.

Well, that kind of stuff above is pretty obvious. The real question I think is how much better does the older WR have to be in order to be worth the difference in age. If you have a pretty even 28 yo and 31 yo WR, obviously you go with the 28 yo. But, how much more productive does that 31 yo have to be where you decide that it's better to take the older guy. Something alone the lines of a Randy Moss vs. Boldin or Roy Williams. I just don't think any of this stuff is static. A lot of it has to do with the makeup of your team. We see this over and over, but I honestly think it's true. If you have a team that can win now, you take the better player no matter what the age is and try to win. Then, go back to work in trying to get your team younger or trade, even if the value is lower at that point. If your team is young but still needs some time to get the right finished product, then go about building yourself a nice young core of players.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

I love this time of year in the Shark Pool. It is great to see all of the different rankings. A big thank you to all of the guys who spend time putting them out there for criticism and discussion. But, there has been a term used a lot lately that got me thinking (I know, scary). The term is "exit value". The thinking that if dynasty owners use a three year window, for example, many players will have value after three years. This is a good thought. I do think exit value is something to consider. But, I do have a couple of concerns when we use the term carte blanche across different players at different stages of their careers in different situations. First of all, it is dangerous to to assume that the player's current situation will stay static throughout the next three years and beyond. The player who is used as the "exit value" poster boy is Larry Fitzgerald. I do not think it is wise to assume that Fitzgerald will remain in such a good situation for the duration of his career. In this case, exit value still has merit, but it must contain a risk coefficient. If Fitzgerald was playing for the Vikings instead of the Cardinals, he may notbe worth the same. In addition, most of the players fantasy owners use "exit value" in determining value are in very good situations. The other issue I have is the assumption that said player will not/can not get injured. So, when looking at Fitzgerald, who is still a very young receiver, the dynasty value cannot assume he definitely will play until a certain age. Yes, he is young and could/should play a long time. But, the exit value has to include some risk for injury.

All of those same risk factors apply to Reggie Wayne, Chad Johnson, Randy Moss, etc.

Exactly, but each player has different risk. No one can say Randy Moss and Chad Johnson have the same risk associated in the exit value.

Out of curiosity, do you think Randy has more or less risk? I actually think Chad is a safer pick given his consistency.At any rate, I wouldn't get too hung up on trying to quantify situational and injury risks. It's so unpredictable that it would be virtually impossible to implement in a useful way. All you can really look at when you're talking long-term in dynasty leagues is talent and longevity potential (with some minor consideration for injury history and some short-term consideration for situation). I don't see how anyone can rank Larry Fitzgerald anything less than the number one dynasty WR, but that's just me.

To each their own. To include an exit value in the dynasty value of a player, it has to be made up of something. It has to be more than just a gut feeling. And to be quantified, the exit value must include risk in the same way dynasty value is derived. I would take Wayne as the top receiver because I see his situation as the most static of all of these receivers, not to mention that Wayne is in a great situation. He still should have several good years left. Also, the thought of exit value should be applied to every position. It is an entirely different dynamic for running backs with the shorter average careers. The one HUGE issue left out of every discussion on the topic is that the the salary cap era may be coming to an end. If this is the case, many of these situations will change.

 

[gianmarco]

I don't see how anyone can rank Larry Fitzgerald anything less than the number one dynasty WR, but that's just me.

I have him at #2. But, despite his age, Moss is the #1 WR for me. I'll take 3 more years of game-changing Moss years to potentially 5-6 years of very, very, very good Fitzgerald.ETA--Randy Moss finished top 5 in fantasy scoring 7 out of 10 yrs. Out of those 7 years, FOUR have been at #1. Another was at #2. If this guy stays in NE, which I'd feel pretty comfortable with that idea, I can't see him finishing out of the top 3 for AT LEAST the next 3 years. As good as Fitzgerald is, or Wayne, or any other guy, there isn't anyone that can touch those #'s.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

I don't see how anyone can rank Larry Fitzgerald anything less than the number one dynasty WR, but that's just me.

I have him at #2. But, despite his age, Moss is the #1 WR for me. I'll take 3 more years of game-changing Moss years to potentially 5-6 years of very, very, very good Fitzgerald.

Good point. That is the thing in dynasty. We all look through a different window and have different levels of risk tolerance. This is why I like dynasty so much. We see the differences in every set of rankings.

 

[FUBAR]

At any rate, I wouldn't get too hung up on trying to quantify situational and injury risks. It's so unpredictable that it would be virtually impossible to implement in a useful way.

Therein lays the problem. I won't put much value on "exit value", as all it seems to mean among equally talented players is "who's younger?"

I don't see how anyone can rank Larry Fitzgerald anything less than the number one dynasty WR, but that's just me.

Because he's never been the #1 WR, he may not be the best WR on his own team, the QB situation is unclear (does Leinart make major strides?), there are arguably more talented younger WRs in the league (Calvin Johnson and Braylon Edwards has less time in the league, but may have played better this year) ... That's not to say I wouldn't place Fitz #1, but there's plenty of reasons not to.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Two thoughts here, so let me break this up:

Purely a discretionary tiebreaker. If I have a 25 year old and a 28 year old about the same tier / value line, I'd give a slight nod to the 25 year old, but that's really questionable. Now if they are 28 and 31, I'd lean to the 28 year old even if they are tied. If the older player is better I'd might say the 28 year old is even with him if you factor in the age. It really is more of a subjective factor.

Well, that kind of stuff above is pretty obvious. The real question I think is how much better does the older WR have to be in order to be worth the difference in age. If you have a pretty even 28 yo and 31 yo WR, obviously you go with the 28 yo. But, how much more productive does that 31 yo have to be where you decide that it's better to take the older guy. Something alone the lines of a Randy Moss vs. Boldin or Roy Williams.

I agree with this, but I'm seeing a trend in FF / Dynasty trading that I'm not a fan / proponent of, and that's trading elite players because of the thought that they are on the downside of their careers - based solely on age (or possibly wear and tear). For example, I'm seeing a lot of movement of Westbrook and Tomlinson this off-season. Why? These guys are top notch, yet people think that they will break down sooner rather than later - based on what exactly? Then what do you do, root against these guys hoping that you were right in the first place?I see a lot of teams go hard after a 2nd/3rd year stud and then flip him 2-3 years later. Talk about your 3 year windows and buying high / selling low. Why on Earth would you break the bank to get LT2 or Westy 3 years ago, and then trade him away? Isn't the goal of Dynasty (or even Keepers) to collect all the top notch players you can and hold them for as long as you can?For me, I'll take that player and ride him to the bitter end. Some might say that's crazy, but I will take a Top 10 RB for 2-3 years and then have him gone rather than kick myself for selling him both low and too early just because I thought he might be nearing the end. Sure he could tear his knee next year, but so could any RB. I know that the stud has a MUCH better chance of having another stud year - so I'm keeping him.

I just don't think any of this stuff is static. A lot of it has to do with the makeup of your team. We see this over and over, but I honestly think it's true. If you have a team that can win now, you take the better player no matter what the age is and try to win. Then, go back to work in trying to get your team younger or trade, even if the value is lower at that point. If your team is young but still needs some time to get the right finished product, then go about building yourself a nice young core of players.

None of this is static, which is why you see rankings all over the place. In my Keeper article (FBG Futures - Dynasty Tab), I tailored it into tiers on purpose. Not everyone plays in the same style of leagues, so the challenge isn't so much how to rank / tier the players. Most good FF players can do this. The challenge is presenting them in a format that works for >>1 league. The same can be said for rankings. FBG has a standard scoring system. We may soon adopt a more flexible method, and Dodds and I actually talked a little about that a few weeks ago. But it is a challenge. Keep in mind that we're always aiming to improve and be cutting edge, which is why all the Dynasty players know that this is the place to be. Anyhow, rankings are tough, and everyone does them differently. However, you will see trends in consensus and also outliers, which challenge you to think. That's the real value. Determine what you believe to be true and build your team accordingly.

 

[gianmarco]

Let me add something else about Moss. He is 5 years younger than Marvin Harrison. To put that in perspective, having Moss going into next year in 2008 is like having Marvin Harrison all the way back in 2003. That's a lot of production. You could have had Harrison for 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 and still traded him at top value going into this year if you wanted to.

Of course, that's using a little bit of hindsight and Harrison is an elite HOF talent in a great situation. But guess what? So is Moss, with probably more talent and just as good of a situation. No way I would pass that up just because ANY other WR, including someone as talented as Fitzgerald or Wayne or any other guy you want to pick may have 2-3 more years than him.

 

[gianmarco]

Two thoughts here, so let me break this up:

Purely a discretionary tiebreaker. If I have a 25 year old and a 28 year old about the same tier / value line, I'd give a slight nod to the 25 year old, but that's really questionable. Now if they are 28 and 31, I'd lean to the 28 year old even if they are tied. If the older player is better I'd might say the 28 year old is even with him if you factor in the age. It really is more of a subjective factor.

Well, that kind of stuff above is pretty obvious. The real question I think is how much better does the older WR have to be in order to be worth the difference in age. If you have a pretty even 28 yo and 31 yo WR, obviously you go with the 28 yo. But, how much more productive does that 31 yo have to be where you decide that it's better to take the older guy. Something alone the lines of a Randy Moss vs. Boldin or Roy Williams.

I agree with this, but I'm seeing a trend in FF / Dynasty trading that I'm not a fan / proponent of, and that's trading elite players because of the thought that they are on the downside of their careers - based solely on age (or possibly wear and tear). For example, I'm seeing a lot of movement of Westbrook and Tomlinson this off-season. Why? These guys are top notch, yet people think that they will break down sooner rather than later - based on what exactly? Then what do you do, root against these guys hoping that you were right in the first place?I see a lot of teams go hard after a 2nd/3rd year stud and then flip him 2-3 years later. Talk about your 3 year windows and buying high / selling low. Why on Earth would you break the bank to get LT2 or Westy 3 years ago, and then trade him away? Isn't the goal of Dynasty (or even Keepers) to collect all the top notch players you can and hold them for as long as you can?For me, I'll take that player and ride him to the bitter end. Some might say that's crazy, but I will take a Top 10 RB for 2-3 years and then have him gone rather than kick myself for selling him both low and too early just because I thought he might be nearing the end. Sure he could tear his knee next year, but so could any RB. I know that the stud has a MUCH better chance of having another stud year - so I'm keeping him.

I just don't think any of this stuff is static. A lot of it has to do with the makeup of your team. We see this over and over, but I honestly think it's true. If you have a team that can win now, you take the better player no matter what the age is and try to win. Then, go back to work in trying to get your team younger or trade, even if the value is lower at that point. If your team is young but still needs some time to get the right finished product, then go about building yourself a nice young core of players.

None of this is static, which is why you see rankings all over the place. In my Keeper article (FBG Futures - Dynasty Tab), I tailored it into tiers on purpose. Not everyone plays in the same style of leagues, so the challenge isn't so much how to rank / tier the players. Most good FF players can do this. The challenge is presenting them in a format that works for >>1 league. The same can be said for rankings. FBG has a standard scoring system. We may soon adopt a more flexible method, and Dodds and I actually talked a little about that a few weeks ago. But it is a challenge. Keep in mind that we're always aiming to improve and be cutting edge, which is why all the Dynasty players know that this is the place to be. Anyhow, rankings are tough, and everyone does them differently. However, you will see trends in consensus and also outliers, which challenge you to think. That's the real value. Determine what you believe to be true and build your team accordingly.

I completely agree. Keep in mind, I'm usually more in favor of keeping the older "stud" than the younger "potential stud". You put it perfectly about buying high and selling low. I've actually started to make a habit of buying these older studs at a lower price and just enjoying their production.

 

[gianmarco]

One last thing given this discussion so far that I think would be interesting to add and/or discuss. All of this reminded me of a trade that took place right before the trade deadline in one dynasty league.

One team gave up Carson Palmer and Reggie Wayne for Randy Moss and Marc Bulger. I will add that the team giving up Palmer/Wayne also had Big Ben on his roster so definitely had some depth at QB.

Given some of the discussion above, I wonder what some of your thoughts are on that trade, whether or not it was even or lopsided, and in which favor.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

One last thing given this discussion so far that I think would be interesting to add and/or discuss. All of this reminded me of a trade that took place right before the trade deadline in one dynasty league.One team gave up Carson Palmer and Reggie Wayne for Randy Moss and Marc Bulger. I will add that the team giving up Palmer/Wayne also had Big Ben on his roster so definitely had some depth at QB. Given some of the discussion above, I wonder what some of your thoughts are on that trade, whether or not it was even or lopsided, and in which favor.

Palmer + Wayne should be > Moss + Bulger. Bulger's gimpy and gets killed in St. Louis. He can't stay healthy.Wayne might be < Moss but he's still well up there. If I had the QB depth and can upgrade to Moss from Wayne, I get the deal - and it makes sense.This is why rosters / other components matter so much in deal evaluation. If I have 5 RBs and can only start 2, what good is it? Improve something else.

 

[coolnerd]

One last thing given this discussion so far that I think would be interesting to add and/or discuss. All of this reminded me of a trade that took place right before the trade deadline in one dynasty league.One team gave up Carson Palmer and Reggie Wayne for Randy Moss and Marc Bulger. I will add that the team giving up Palmer/Wayne also had Big Ben on his roster so definitely had some depth at QB. Given some of the discussion above, I wonder what some of your thoughts are on that trade, whether or not it was even or lopsided, and in which favor.

That read like a preferred flavor trade with no obviuos winner. The team getting palmer/Wayne has went a safer route. The Moss/Bulger side is riskier but if you think some version of the "Greatest show on Turf" is still possible then the QBs are a toss up with the possiblity of Randy Moss repeating uber-stud performance, especially if he remains in NE.

 

[squistion]

You could have had Harrison for 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 and still traded him at top value going into this year if you wanted to.

Are you saying Harrison at 35 had the same top value he did any of the previous years? If so, I would respectfully disagree on that - there were a lot of concerns voiced that age was going to catch up with him in 2007 (which may have been the case). There are not too many I know who would have given top value for him last year.

 

[EBF]

I love this time of year in the Shark Pool. It is great to see all of the different rankings. A big thank you to all of the guys who spend time putting them out there for criticism and discussion. But, there has been a term used a lot lately that got me thinking (I know, scary). The term is "exit value". The thinking that if dynasty owners use a three year window, for example, many players will have value after three years. This is a good thought. I do think exit value is something to consider. But, I do have a couple of concerns when we use the term carte blanche across different players at different stages of their careers in different situations.

First of all, it is dangerous to to assume that the player's current situation will stay static throughout the next three years and beyond. The player who is used as the "exit value" poster boy is Larry Fitzgerald. I do not think it is wise to assume that Fitzgerald will remain in such a good situation for the duration of his career. In this case, exit value still has merit, but it must contain a risk coefficient. If Fitzgerald was playing for the Vikings instead of the Cardinals, he may notbe worth the same. In addition, most of the players fantasy owners use "exit value" in determining value are in very good situations.

The other issue I have is the assumption that said player will not/can not get injured. So, when looking at Fitzgerald, who is still a very young receiver, the dynasty value cannot assume he definitely will play until a certain age. Yes, he is young and could/should play a long time. But, the exit value has to include some risk for injury.

All of those same risk factors apply to Reggie Wayne, Chad Johnson, Randy Moss, etc.

Exactly, but each player has different risk. No one can say Randy Moss and Chad Johnson have the same risk associated in the exit value.

Out of curiosity, do you think Randy has more or less risk? I actually think Chad is a safer pick given his consistency.At any rate, I wouldn't get too hung up on trying to quantify situational and injury risks. It's so unpredictable that it would be virtually impossible to implement in a useful way.

All you can really look at when you're talking long-term in dynasty leagues is talent and longevity potential (with some minor consideration for injury history and some short-term consideration for situation). I don't see how anyone can rank Larry Fitzgerald anything less than the number one dynasty WR, but that's just me.

To each their own. To include an exit value in the dynasty value of a player, it has to be made up of something. It has to be more than just a gut feeling. And to be quantified, the exit value must include risk in the same way dynasty value is derived. I would take Wayne as the top receiver because I see his situation as the most static of all of these receivers, not to mention that Wayne is in a great situation. He still should have several good years left. Also, the thought of exit value should be applied to every position. It is an entirely different dynamic for running backs with the shorter average careers.

The one HUGE issue left out of every discussion on the topic is that the the salary cap era may be coming to an end. If this is the case, many of these situations will change.

I don't use the three year plan and I don't use exit value, but I think ranking a 29 year old like Wayne over a 24 year old like Fitzgerald is a gross mathematical error. Fitzgerald is every bit as good as Wayne and while his situation is a little more volatile, there is a very real chance that he will play 4-5 productive seasons after Wayne is out of the league. That gives him a huge dynasty value edge over Wayne. 10 productive seasons is worth a lot more than 6 productive seasons.

It will be difficult for me to demonstrate my reasoning in a mathematical form since the numbers used to calculate the value of each player will be somewhat arbitrary. With that said, the logic works like this:

The value of each player in fantasy football is not determined solely by the amount of points that he scores, but rather by the difference between the amount of points he scores and the amount of points the other players at his position score. So the difference in points per game between player A and the average starting player at his position indicates Player A's true value.

In my start 3 WR PPR league, there are 36 WRs starting each week. We can thus assume that the average ppg of the top 36 WRs in my league reflects the value of the average starting WR in my league. The average top 36 WR in my league scored 15.7 ppg last season. Let's compare that average to Fitzgerald and Wayne.

Larry Fitzgerald - 20.15 ppg

Reggie Wayne - 19.7 ppg

Average Top 36 WR - 15.7 ppg

Now we have our raw numbers. In order to determine the value of Fitzgerald and Wayne, we have to take their ppg and subtract the ppg of the average starting WR.

The value of Fitz = 20.15 ppg - 15.7 ppg = 4.45

The value of Wayne = 19.7 ppg - 15.7 ppg = 4

These numbers show us the actual value of Fitzgerald and Wayne in my start 3 WR PPR league last season. I think it is relatively safe to assume that these figures represent the actual value of Fitzgerald and Wayne in any season in which they're healthy. But let's say you're not satisfied with these numbers. These numbers were obtained from only a single season. You want to include more seasons in your average for each player in order to eliminate the possibility of overvaluing or undervaluing him based on one fluke season. So instead of using data from 2007 alone, let's also incorporate the 2006 season to balance things out a bit.

Larry Fitzgerald's ppg by season:

2006 - 15.3

2007 - 20.15

Average - 17.7

Reggie Wayne's ppg by season:

2006 - 17.06

2007 - 19.7

Average - 18.4

Assuming that the performance of the top 36 WRs remains relatively static from season to season, then the value of Wayne and Fitzgerald can be described like so:

Fitzgerald = 17.7 ppg - 15.7 ppg = 2

Wayne = 18.4 ppg - 15.7 ppg = 2.7

So assuming that the average production of Fitzgerald and Wayne in 2006 and 2007 reflects what we can expect from them moving forward, then value of Larry Fitzgerald is 2 and the value of Reggie Wayne is 2.7.

In a redraft league it looks like Wayne is the better bet (though Fitz comes out far ahead if you also incorporate 2005). But we're not talking about redraft leagues. We're talking about dynasty leagues. We want to find the long term value of these guys. That means we have to try to look into the future.

In order to do this, we would want to find out the average career length of a stud WR. You might define a stud WR as any WR with multiple top 10 finishes since that would seemingly eliminate the flukes. I have neither the time nor the motivation to compile that data. But I've been playing this hobby for a while and I'd say it seems like 33-36 is a pretty common end point for an elite WR. Let's say that the average stud WR plays at a stud level until he's 34 years old. That seems like a decent compromise.

Assuming that both Fitzgerald and Wayne play through 34, that means we can expect the following production from them:

Dynasty value of Fitzgerald = (VALUE x SEASONS LEFT) = (2 x 10) = 20

Dynasty value of Wayne = (VALUE x SEASONS LEFT) = (2.7 x 5) = 13.5

Our rough model shows that Fitzgerald has a significantly higher long term value than Wayne assuming that both players stay healthy and produce at their 2006 and 2007 levels for the duration of their stud careers.

But hold on a second. We're not accounting for risk. What it Fitzgerald gets injured or traded to a team that doesn't pass the football? Even though Fitzgerald has had a positive value (i.e. scored better than the average starting WR) every season after his rookie year, let's pretend that there's a fifty percent chance he will give you zero value in every season moving forward. In that case his value would be split in half.

Dynasty value of Fitzgerald if he's worthless every other year = (VALUE x SEASONS LEFT) x (50% CHANCE OF COMPLETE FAILURE IN A GIVEN SEASON) = (2 x 10 x.5) = 10

Have I lost you yet? I hope not. Even if we completely ignore any of Wayne's risk factors and assume that Fitzgerald has a FIFTY PERCENT chance of totally flopping in a given season, his absolute dynasty value is still only 3.5 points lower than Wayne's, which is roughly equivalent to one season of top 5 production. If we assume that the risk factors for each player are equivalent going forward, then Fitzgerald is worth roughly two stud seasons more than Wayne. So basically, Larry Fitzgerald is worth Reggie Wayne and a two year stud (Holt or Owens?) combined. The picture is even more lopsided if instead of only looking at 2006 and 2007, you calculate the value of Fitzgerald and Wayne using the average value of their performance since and including their breakout year. Fitzgerald's averages since his breakout year in 2005 dwarf Wayne's averages since his breakout year.

I realize that this is a highly flawed analysis based on numbers that are fairly arbitrary. Nevertheless, I hope it illustrates my reasoning and why I think Larry Fitzgerald is head and shoulders above the current crop of dynasty WRs based on what we know about these players right now.

 

[gianmarco]

While I'll let others chime in on that particular trade if they want and apply it to the above discussion, I will add that the team getting Palmer/Wayne was essentially out of contention and the team getting Moss was trying to make the playoffs.

And, while there are obviously other factors involved, the team that received Moss won the championship and Moss played a key role.

 

[gianmarco]

You could have had Harrison for 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 and still traded him at top value going into this year if you wanted to.

Are you saying Harrison at 35 had the same top value he did any of the previous years? If so, I would respectfully disagree on that - there were a lot of concerns voiced that age was going to catch up with him in 2007 (which may have been the case). There are not too many I know who would have given top value for him last year.

Maybe not "top" value, but Harrison finished as the #1 fantasy WR in 2006. Even at the age of 35, he was commanding some serious value heading into the 2007 season, much like TO still will be heading into 2008 at a similar age. We quickly forget the value of players after a disappointing season or injury, but Harrison was still a top guy to own. In my startup dynasty this year, he was still the 11th WR off the board. So no, I'm not saying he had the same value as previous years, but there was not a substantial dropoff that would warrant me being happy with dealing him at top dollar at the age of 30 back in 2003. i'd MUCH prefer having him for those 3-4 yrs and still getting considerable value (top 15 WR) to boot.

 

[EBF]

A few notes on my lengthy post:

In order to make accurate estimates of a player's longevity potential it would probably be necessary to develop a database of historical satistics based on similar players. So if we wanted to make an accurate guess about how long Larry Fitzgerald will play, we might try to find a list of WRs who had similar statistics through their first four years and then determine how long on average they played. This would give us a much better guess than just saying he'll play through the age of 34.

I think Pasquino is on the right track measuring the average career length of players at the various positions. Where that method is grossly inadequate is in drawing a distinction between stud players and mediocre players. It seems clear that stud players have much longer careers than the average player at their position. Any model that incorporates career length as part of a value calculation must account for this.

It would take a staggering amount of leg work, but it may be possible to generate a dynasty value calculator that would allow you to plug in certain information about a player and receive a score representing his value based on history and probability. You would need a huge database of statistics for every type of player and you would need to make sure that you were using the right variables in your calculations in order to yield the most precise predictions possible. Off the top of my head factors to consider including in a dynasty calculator:

Draft Position - This would have to be done as a raw number that accounts for the league's gradual inflation. You couldn't use the overall draft position because being the 40th pick in the pre-Texans/Panthers/Jaguars/Ravens era was different from being the 40th pick. You might arbitrarily break players up into groups based on being drafted in the top 20% of their class, the top 21-40% of their class, the top 41-60% of their class, and so on. Why it might be necessary to include this in the calculator is because I suspect that a 250 receiving yards rookie season from a 1st round WR predicts a very different future from a 250 receiving yards season from a 4th round WR.

Similar Players - Like I said, you would want to be able to compare a player to similar players in history. So if a guy has 2,000 receiving yards through 4 years, you would want to compare him to WRs with similar yardage through 4 years. Also, you could break it up by year, comparing players who had 1,100+ receiving yards in their 4th season to other players who had 1,100+ receiving yards in their 4th season. By utilizing several different comparisons you might be able to develop a fairly accurate prediction of a player's future based on his historical classifications.

I am not a computer programmer, so I really can't tackle this one. It is possible though. It would just take an inventive mind and a ton of inspired work.

 

[EBF]

Also, we all probably have Randy Moss, Chad Johnson, and Reggie Wayne overrated.

If you're a gambling man and you believe in the cold hard numbers, you can probably make a pretty decent case that Colston, Edwards, Boldin, AJ, Marshall, and Roy are more valuable. But the fact that they have a smaller track record somewhat offsets the fact that they have significantly greater longevity potential than the older guys.

At any rate, there's really no reason to overlook long-term potential. A player who has a 20% chance at 10 stud seasons is mathemtically equivalent to a player who has a 100% chance of 2 stud seasons. This somewhat explains my low ranking of Terrell Owens.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Also, we all probably have Randy Moss, Chad Johnson, and Reggie Wayne overrated.

If you're a gambling man and you believe in the cold hard numbers, you can probably make a pretty decent case that Colston, Edwards, Boldin, AJ, Marshall, and Roy are more valuable. But the fact that they have a smaller track record somewhat offsets the fact that they have significantly greater longevity potential than the older guys.

At any rate, there's really no reason to overlook long-term potential. A player who has a 20% chance at 10 stud seasons is mathemtically equivalent to a player who has a 100% chance of 2 stud seasons. This somewhat explains my low ranking of Terrell Owens.

Don't you apply an annual "discount rate", similar to valuing a bond?

 

[EBF]

Also, we all probably have Randy Moss, Chad Johnson, and Reggie Wayne overrated.

If you're a gambling man and you believe in the cold hard numbers, you can probably make a pretty decent case that Colston, Edwards, Boldin, AJ, Marshall, and Roy are more valuable. But the fact that they have a smaller track record somewhat offsets the fact that they have significantly greater longevity potential than the older guys.

At any rate, there's really no reason to overlook long-term potential. A player who has a 20% chance at 10 stud seasons is mathemtically equivalent to a player who has a 100% chance of 2 stud seasons. This somewhat explains my low ranking of Terrell Owens.

Don't you apply an annual "discount rate", similar to valuing a bond?

I don't know anything about bonds, so I don't know how to compare the two. There is some risk of a league folding at any given point in time, so that might be one factor to consider. Your league is less likely to exist ten years from now than it is two years from now.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Also, we all probably have Randy Moss, Chad Johnson, and Reggie Wayne overrated.

If you're a gambling man and you believe in the cold hard numbers, you can probably make a pretty decent case that Colston, Edwards, Boldin, AJ, Marshall, and Roy are more valuable. But the fact that they have a smaller track record somewhat offsets the fact that they have significantly greater longevity potential than the older guys.

At any rate, there's really no reason to overlook long-term potential. A player who has a 20% chance at 10 stud seasons is mathemtically equivalent to a player who has a 100% chance of 2 stud seasons. This somewhat explains my low ranking of Terrell Owens.

Don't you apply an annual "discount rate", similar to valuing a bond?

I don't know anything about bonds, so I don't know how to compare the two. There is some risk of a league folding at any given point in time, so that might be one factor to consider. Your league is less likely to exist ten years from now than it is two years from now.

Just nit-picking. The thread has already discussed that performance today is worth more than performance next year. (much like $1 today is worth more than $1 in 5 years) So a player who as a 100% chance of 2 stud seasons - in the next 2 seasons - is worth more than a player who has a 20% chance of 10 stud seasons. Because the 10 seasons stretch out longer into the future & those later years have lesser worth today....This is a great thread. Thanks everybody for making us all think....

 

[SSOG]

To each their own. To include an exit value in the dynasty value of a player, it has to be made up of something. It has to be more than just a gut feeling. And to be quantified, the exit value must include risk in the same way dynasty value is derived. I would take Wayne as the top receiver because I see his situation as the most static of all of these receivers, not to mention that Wayne is in a great situation. He still should have several good years left.

Personally, I'm very sparing with the "injury-prone" label (I don't apply it until a player demonstrates a single recurring injury or gives clear reason to believe he was a "tissue issue", or that his ligaments and tendons are otherwise weaker than the average NFL player's). As a result, I could discount someone's exit value because of injury risk... but I'd be discounting almost everyone's exit value equally, leading to no net change. As a result, I don't consider injuries when considering exit value. I also don't really consider situation, because it changes so radically so quickly (remember coming into this season when people speculated whether the Browns would be one of the worst offenses of all time?). So if I consider all players to be equal injury risk, and I consider all players to be in equally risky situations, I don't know what sort of risk I should factor into exit value (since all risks would apply to all players equally and therefor would provide no net change in relative exit value).I consider exit value of lesser importance than immediate performance, but I don't see any good reasons to include any "risk factor" into the exit value considerations. Really, all I'm using exit value for is a nice way to improve my ability to move players like stocks, always buying low and selling high. If I predict a startling drop in exit value over a certain window, I do my best to make sure that I don't still own that player's rights when the window expires.

At any rate, I wouldn't get too hung up on trying to quantify situational and injury risks. It's so unpredictable that it would be virtually impossible to implement in a useful way.

Therein lays the problem. I won't put much value on "exit value", as all it seems to mean among equally talented players is "who's younger?"

Pretty much, but why wouldn't you put much value on that? If the players are equally talented, as you said, what's wrong with favoring the younger player simply because he's younger?To give an example of the benefit of exit value... let's look at WR rankings coming into this season. Before the season started, Steve Smith and Marvin Harrison were WR2 and WR3 in terms of ADP. Both players drastically underperformed their projections this year. Despite this, Steve Smith holds FAR more value than Marvin Harrison right now. Why? For no better reason than because he's younger, so people are more apt to believe that he's able to bounce back from his slump (whether he really is or not). Youth is insurance, it allows you to get a return on your investment no matter how poorly it performs. That is valuable in fantasy football, and as a result, it should be valued.If you don't like the Steve Smith comparison, then compare Harrison to Torry Holt, Lee Evans, or Javon Walker. Once again, all of them underperformed their projections in a big way, but do you think there's a dynasty owner on the planet who would trade Lee Evans for Marvin Harrison straight up?

 

[FUBAR]

At any rate, I wouldn't get too hung up on trying to quantify situational and injury risks. It's so unpredictable that it would be virtually impossible to implement in a useful way.

Therein lays the problem. I won't put much value on "exit value", as all it seems to mean among equally talented players is "who's younger?"

Pretty much, but why wouldn't you put much value on that? If the players are equally talented, as you said, what's wrong with favoring the younger player simply because he's younger?

I never said there was anything wrong with that, but I'm calling it what it is.

Also, we all probably have Randy Moss, Chad Johnson, and Reggie Wayne overrated.

If you're a gambling man and you believe in the cold hard numbers, you can probably make a pretty decent case that Colston, Edwards, Boldin, AJ, Marshall, and Roy are more valuable. But the fact that they have a smaller track record somewhat offsets the fact that they have significantly greater longevity potential than the older guys.

At any rate, there's really no reason to overlook long-term potential. A player who has a 20% chance at 10 stud seasons is mathemtically equivalent to a player who has a 100% chance of 2 stud seasons. This somewhat explains my low ranking of Terrell Owens.

Don't you apply an annual "discount rate", similar to valuing a bond?

I don't know anything about bonds, so I don't know how to compare the two. There is some risk of a league folding at any given point in time, so that might be one factor to consider. Your league is less likely to exist ten years from now than it is two years from now.

Just nit-picking. The thread has already discussed that performance today is worth more than performance next year. (much like $1 today is worth more than $1 in 5 years) So a player who as a 100% chance of 2 stud seasons - in the next 2 seasons - is worth more than a player who has a 20% chance of 10 stud seasons. Because the 10 seasons stretch out longer into the future & those later years have lesser worth today....This is a great thread. Thanks everybody for making us all think....

How many players perform at a stud level for 10 years? Peyton Manning has just now reached that status.

Favre even falls short if you define "stud" seasons like I would.

NO active RB has.

Emmitt Smith did, but no other recent RB did - at the true stud level anyway.

Marvin, TO, and Holt even fall short.

I realize you're dealing with semantics and no player has a 100% chance of performing. But I'll generally value the relative safe bet over a player not producing yet, but has a chance to.

 

[Warhogs]

I have played in dynasty leagues for only 2 or 3 years and have always tended to favor youth over production in my evaluations but I honestly have not ever really tried to put a formula to it. I recently have thought a little bit about trying to get a little more scientific about it. I do believe that when you are getting down to making a decision you need to try to garner information from some sort of analysis but always be willing to use your instinct in the decision as well.

The idea floating in my head lately has been that possibly the way to evaluate player value in dynasty leagues is to look at each player and try to tier them for the rest of their careers and assign some sort of weighted value. Again, this is just a rough idea in my head but maybe have a 5 point scale for ranking each of their years (5=elite year, 4=RB/WR1 type year, 3=definite starter bordering on a 1or 2, 2=marginal starter, 1 = backup. Maybe the scale has to be adjusted? This would be some sort of system for valuing players. I think the real issue is some people may say that an elite should maybe be worth an 8 on the comparitive scale and I can see why some may say that. Anyway, that is the thought of roughly what I have been thinking of using.

Any thoughts good or bad?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I have played in dynasty leagues for only 2 or 3 years and have always tended to favor youth over production in my evaluations but I honestly have not ever really tried to put a formula to it. I recently have thought a little bit about trying to get a little more scientific about it. I do believe that when you are getting down to making a decision you need to try to garner information from some sort of analysis but always be willing to use your instinct in the decision as well.The idea floating in my head lately has been that possibly the way to evaluate player value in dynasty leagues is to look at each player and try to tier them for the rest of their careers and assign some sort of weighted value. Again, this is just a rough idea in my head but maybe have a 5 point scale for ranking each of their years (5=elite year, 4=RB/WR1 type year, 3=definite starter bordering on a 1or 2, 2=marginal starter, 1 = backup. Maybe the scale has to be adjusted? This would be some sort of system for valuing players. I think the real issue is some people may say that an elite should maybe be worth an 8 on the comparitive scale and I can see why some may say that. Anyway, that is the thought of roughly what I have been thinking of using.Any thoughts good or bad?

I think this is a good way to look at it. It also lends itself to sort of a graphical way to look at a player.For example, a Larry Fitzgerald would look like:

5 XXX..   4 XXXX.   3 XXXXX   2 XXXXX   1 XXXXX

While a Sidney Rice might look like:

5 ..XXX	 4 ..XXX	 3 .XXXX	 2 XXXXX	 1 XXXXX

and a Terrell Owens may look like:

5 X....	 4 XX...	 3 XXX..	 2 XXXX.	 1 XXXX.

For a 5-year chart.

 

[FUBAR]

I have played in dynasty leagues for only 2 or 3 years and have always tended to favor youth over production in my evaluations but I honestly have not ever really tried to put a formula to it. I recently have thought a little bit about trying to get a little more scientific about it. I do believe that when you are getting down to making a decision you need to try to garner information from some sort of analysis but always be willing to use your instinct in the decision as well.The idea floating in my head lately has been that possibly the way to evaluate player value in dynasty leagues is to look at each player and try to tier them for the rest of their careers and assign some sort of weighted value. Again, this is just a rough idea in my head but maybe have a 5 point scale for ranking each of their years (5=elite year, 4=RB/WR1 type year, 3=definite starter bordering on a 1or 2, 2=marginal starter, 1 = backup. Maybe the scale has to be adjusted? This would be some sort of system for valuing players. I think the real issue is some people may say that an elite should maybe be worth an 8 on the comparitive scale and I can see why some may say that. Anyway, that is the thought of roughly what I have been thinking of using.Any thoughts good or bad?

I think this is a good way to look at it. It also lends itself to sort of a graphical way to look at a player.For example, a Larry Fitzgerald would look like:

5 XXX..   4 XXXX.   3 XXXXX   2 XXXXX   1 XXXXX

While a Sidney Rice might look like:

5 ..XXX	 4 ..XXX	 3 .XXXX	 2 XXXXX	 1 XXXXX

and a Terrell Owens may look like:

5 X....	 4 XX...	 3 XXX..	 2 XXXX.	 1 XXXX.

For a 5-year chart.

Interesting, but we have to account for risk. Fitz and TO charts look about right (some would say 2 5 star years for TO).I'd adjust the Sidney Rice's of the NFL to something like:

5 ..???	 4 ..???	 3 .?XXX	 2 XXXXX	 1 XXXXX

Just my opinion, but while I have little doubt Rice will be a marginal starter this year, I question if he can become a definite starter (FF) or border on WR1. There's no chance I'd set it in stone where he's a 5.

 

[SSOG]

How many players perform at a stud level for 10 years?

Peyton Manning has been top 4 for 9 straight years. Favre has been a fantasy QB1 15 times in 16 seasons. If a QB demonstrates at a very young age that he's a likely future HoFer, then you can easily count on 10+ fantasy relevant season out of that QB (barring injury). WRs aren't quite as long-lived, but when a guy shows he's as talented as Fitz has when he's as young as Fitz has, you can generally count on 6-8 more years of strong fantasy production. In both cases, a player's value is DRASTICALLY underestimated by restricting your focus to a 3-year window. It's not like a player has to be an uberstud in years 4-6 for a 3-year window to undervalue them, either- simple fantasy relevance is all that it would take.Besides, I think you misunderstood the comparison (or else I did, because I interpreted it differently than you did). I think you understood it as "There's a 20% chance he'll be a 10-year stud and an 80% chance that he'll never be a stud", whereas I understood it as "For each of the next 10 years, there will be a 20% chance that this player will be a stud, leading to an expected result of two stud seasons". A less all-or-nothing model would probably more accurately reflect NFL realities.

 

[FBGPoker]

How many players perform at a stud level for 10 years?

Peyton Manning has been top 4 for 9 straight years. Favre has been a fantasy QB1 15 times in 16 seasons. If a QB demonstrates at a very young age that he's a likely future HoFer, then you can easily count on 10+ fantasy relevant season out of that QB (barring injury). WRs aren't quite as long-lived, but when a guy shows he's as talented as Fitz has when he's as young as Fitz has, you can generally count on 6-8 more years of strong fantasy production. In both cases, a player's value is DRASTICALLY underestimated by restricting your focus to a 3-year window. It's not like a player has to be an uberstud in years 4-6 for a 3-year window to undervalue them, either- simple fantasy relevance is all that it would take.Besides, I think you misunderstood the comparison (or else I did, because I interpreted it differently than you did). I think you understood it as "There's a 20% chance he'll be a 10-year stud and an 80% chance that he'll never be a stud", whereas I understood it as "For each of the next 10 years, there will be a 20% chance that this player will be a stud, leading to an expected result of two stud seasons". A less all-or-nothing model would probably more accurately reflect NFL realities.

I've seen guys do the 3 year window thing in my dynasty leagues, what ends up happening is they end up having to pay up a few years down the line for using such a short sighted strategy. After a few years they don't have any real value on their team and have to do a complete rebuild or they bail out of the league.

I'd like to hear from the 3 yr window people who have been in dynasty leagues for 5+ years. While there may be a few exceptions, i'd bet most who use the win now at all costs strategy either have horrendous teams or have had a complete change of heart regarding their dynasty strategy.

If a player is an elite talent (especially at QB/WR) they have value far beyond 3 years.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

How many players perform at a stud level for 10 years?

Peyton Manning has been top 4 for 9 straight years. Favre has been a fantasy QB1 15 times in 16 seasons. If a QB demonstrates at a very young age that he's a likely future HoFer, then you can easily count on 10+ fantasy relevant season out of that QB (barring injury). WRs aren't quite as long-lived, but when a guy shows he's as talented as Fitz has when he's as young as Fitz has, you can generally count on 6-8 more years of strong fantasy production. In both cases, a player's value is DRASTICALLY underestimated by restricting your focus to a 3-year window. It's not like a player has to be an uberstud in years 4-6 for a 3-year window to undervalue them, either- simple fantasy relevance is all that it would take.Besides, I think you misunderstood the comparison (or else I did, because I interpreted it differently than you did). I think you understood it as "There's a 20% chance he'll be a 10-year stud and an 80% chance that he'll never be a stud", whereas I understood it as "For each of the next 10 years, there will be a 20% chance that this player will be a stud, leading to an expected result of two stud seasons". A less all-or-nothing model would probably more accurately reflect NFL realities.

I've seen guys do the 3 year window thing in my dynasty leagues, what ends up happening is they end up having to pay up a few years down the line for using such a short sighted strategy. After a few years they don't have any real value on their team and have to do a complete rebuild or they bail out of the league.

I'd like to hear from the 3 yr window people who have been in dynasty leagues for 5+ years. While there may be a few exceptions, i'd bet most who use the win now at all costs strategy either have horrendous teams or have had a complete change of heart regarding their dynasty strategy.

If a player is an elite talent (especially at QB/WR) they have value far beyond 3 years.

While this may be true, evaluation of a player TODAY shouldn't heavily weight potential value beyond 3 years. Could it happen? Absolutely. Some players achieve that level and stay there. Using QBs, IMHO, is a bad idea as they tend to last much longer (elite ones). WRs an RBs don't.

If Tom Brady lasts beyond 3 years as an elite QB, I wouldn't be surprised. I also wouldn't be surprised if an injury cost him performance between now and 2011, but the scenario is much more likely (injury) for Fitgerald or Edwards or M. Lynch or. M. Barber. There is a reason that the NFL average career is 4 years long.

There's also a reason why rankings evolve over time. Every season a player "survives" and performs well the 3-year window slides 1 year to the right. While they are older by 1 year, the stud history compensates for that age.

Again, these aren't rules. I just prefer a 3-4 year window for understanding all that I can - whether it be his skill, his contract, his teammates, his coaching - all of that can be (and often is) vastly different 3-4 years from today.

 

[EBF]

While this may be true, evaluation of a player TODAY shouldn't heavily weight potential value beyond 3 years.

I don't know if that's true in a dynasty. Dynasty leagues aren't about the value of a player today. They're about his value in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and so on. There is no logical justification for completely ignoring everything after 2010. Many players who are playing today will still be active and very productive well into the middle portion of the next decade. Dynasty rankings must account for this possibility.

Could it happen? Absolutely. Some players achieve that level and stay there. Using QBs, IMHO, is a bad idea as they tend to last much longer (elite ones). WRs an RBs don't. If Tom Brady lasts beyond 3 years as an elite QB, I wouldn't be surprised. I also wouldn't be surprised if an injury cost him performance between now and 2011, but the scenario is much more likely (injury) for Fitgerald or Edwards or M. Lynch or. M. Barber. There is a reason that the NFL average career is 4 years long.

The reason the average NFL career is 4 years long is because most guys get cut after their rookie contract and are replaced by players with lower salaries for cap reasons. The average career of an elite player is longer than four years. I agree that it's probably not very wise to look much beyond 2-3 years for running backs since the risk of severe injury is so high at that position, but you can't discount the future value completely. And I think you can generally expect a stud type WR to remain productive into his 30's. Consider the careers of the following receivers:Muhsin MuhammadDerrick MasonDonald DriverJimmy SmithKeenan McCardellHines WardRandy MossKeyshawn JohnsonTerry GlennJoey Galloway Isaac BruceTerrell OwensTorry HoltMarvin HarrisonEric MouldsRod SmithMany of these guys were relevant FF players for the better part of a decade. It seems pretty clear that a legitimate top 15-20 type WR has a lot of staying power in the league. And while it's true that their situation can change, it's not like their talent will suddenly disappear after they've been on your team for three years. Lots of these guys remained productive despite enduring numerous serious injuries, team changes, quarterback changes, and coaching changes. Talent lasts. By and large, an elite WR will remain relatively productive for a very long time. There may be bumps in the road because of injuries and adverse situational changes, but you simply can't assume that guys like Fitzgerald and Edwards won't be relevant in 4 years. I think it's actually far more likely that they'll still be top 15-20 type guys. I think the trick to wining long-term in dynasty leagues is identifying the players who have the talent to last in the league and then acquiring as many of those guys as you can. There will be bumps in the road. There always are. But a guy who is one of the top 10 receivers in the league as a 25 year old will probably still be playing good football when he's 32. Rankings must account for this unless you strongly suspect that your league will fold.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I realize that this is a highly flawed analysis based on numbers that are fairly arbitrary. Nevertheless, I hope it illustrates my reasoning and why I think Larry Fitzgerald is head and shoulders above the current crop of dynasty WRs based on what we know about these players right now.

That's not flawed - that's a great post.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

I love this time of year in the Shark Pool. It is great to see all of the different rankings. A big thank you to all of the guys who spend time putting them out there for criticism and discussion. But, there has been a term used a lot lately that got me thinking (I know, scary). The term is "exit value". The thinking that if dynasty owners use a three year window, for example, many players will have value after three years. This is a good thought. I do think exit value is something to consider. But, I do have a couple of concerns when we use the term carte blanche across different players at different stages of their careers in different situations.

First of all, it is dangerous to to assume that the player's current situation will stay static throughout the next three years and beyond. The player who is used as the "exit value" poster boy is Larry Fitzgerald. I do not think it is wise to assume that Fitzgerald will remain in such a good situation for the duration of his career. In this case, exit value still has merit, but it must contain a risk coefficient. If Fitzgerald was playing for the Vikings instead of the Cardinals, he may notbe worth the same. In addition, most of the players fantasy owners use "exit value" in determining value are in very good situations.

The other issue I have is the assumption that said player will not/can not get injured. So, when looking at Fitzgerald, who is still a very young receiver, the dynasty value cannot assume he definitely will play until a certain age. Yes, he is young and could/should play a long time. But, the exit value has to include some risk for injury.

All of those same risk factors apply to Reggie Wayne, Chad Johnson, Randy Moss, etc.

Exactly, but each player has different risk. No one can say Randy Moss and Chad Johnson have the same risk associated in the exit value.

Out of curiosity, do you think Randy has more or less risk? I actually think Chad is a safer pick given his consistency.At any rate, I wouldn't get too hung up on trying to quantify situational and injury risks. It's so unpredictable that it would be virtually impossible to implement in a useful way.

All you can really look at when you're talking long-term in dynasty leagues is talent and longevity potential (with some minor consideration for injury history and some short-term consideration for situation). I don't see how anyone can rank Larry Fitzgerald anything less than the number one dynasty WR, but that's just me.

To each their own. To include an exit value in the dynasty value of a player, it has to be made up of something. It has to be more than just a gut feeling. And to be quantified, the exit value must include risk in the same way dynasty value is derived. I would take Wayne as the top receiver because I see his situation as the most static of all of these receivers, not to mention that Wayne is in a great situation. He still should have several good years left. Also, the thought of exit value should be applied to every position. It is an entirely different dynamic for running backs with the shorter average careers.

The one HUGE issue left out of every discussion on the topic is that the the salary cap era may be coming to an end. If this is the case, many of these situations will change.

I don't use the three year plan and I don't use exit value, but I think ranking a 29 year old like Wayne over a 24 year old like Fitzgerald is a gross mathematical error. Fitzgerald is every bit as good as Wayne and while his situation is a little more volatile, there is a very real chance that he will play 4-5 productive seasons after Wayne is out of the league. That gives him a huge dynasty value edge over Wayne. 10 productive seasons is worth a lot more than 6 productive seasons.

It will be difficult for me to demonstrate my reasoning in a mathematical form since the numbers used to calculate the value of each player will be somewhat arbitrary. With that said, the logic works like this:

The value of each player in fantasy football is not determined solely by the amount of points that he scores, but rather by the difference between the amount of points he scores and the amount of points the other players at his position score. So the difference in points per game between player A and the average starting player at his position indicates Player A's true value.

In my start 3 WR PPR league, there are 36 WRs starting each week. We can thus assume that the average ppg of the top 36 WRs in my league reflects the value of the average starting WR in my league. The average top 36 WR in my league scored 15.7 ppg last season. Let's compare that average to Fitzgerald and Wayne.

Larry Fitzgerald - 20.15 ppg

Reggie Wayne - 19.7 ppg

Average Top 36 WR - 15.7 ppg

Now we have our raw numbers. In order to determine the value of Fitzgerald and Wayne, we have to take their ppg and subtract the ppg of the average starting WR.

The value of Fitz = 20.15 ppg - 15.7 ppg = 4.45

The value of Wayne = 19.7 ppg - 15.7 ppg = 4

These numbers show us the actual value of Fitzgerald and Wayne in my start 3 WR PPR league last season. I think it is relatively safe to assume that these figures represent the actual value of Fitzgerald and Wayne in any season in which they're healthy. But let's say you're not satisfied with these numbers. These numbers were obtained from only a single season. You want to include more seasons in your average for each player in order to eliminate the possibility of overvaluing or undervaluing him based on one fluke season. So instead of using data from 2007 alone, let's also incorporate the 2006 season to balance things out a bit.

Larry Fitzgerald's ppg by season:

2006 - 15.3

2007 - 20.15

Average - 17.7

Reggie Wayne's ppg by season:

2006 - 17.06

2007 - 19.7

Average - 18.4

Assuming that the performance of the top 36 WRs remains relatively static from season to season, then the value of Wayne and Fitzgerald can be described like so:

Fitzgerald = 17.7 ppg - 15.7 ppg = 2

Wayne = 18.4 ppg - 15.7 ppg = 2.7

So assuming that the average production of Fitzgerald and Wayne in 2006 and 2007 reflects what we can expect from them moving forward, then value of Larry Fitzgerald is 2 and the value of Reggie Wayne is 2.7.

In a redraft league it looks like Wayne is the better bet (though Fitz comes out far ahead if you also incorporate 2005). But we're not talking about redraft leagues. We're talking about dynasty leagues. We want to find the long term value of these guys. That means we have to try to look into the future.

In order to do this, we would want to find out the average career length of a stud WR. You might define a stud WR as any WR with multiple top 10 finishes since that would seemingly eliminate the flukes. I have neither the time nor the motivation to compile that data. But I've been playing this hobby for a while and I'd say it seems like 33-36 is a pretty common end point for an elite WR. Let's say that the average stud WR plays at a stud level until he's 34 years old. That seems like a decent compromise.

Assuming that both Fitzgerald and Wayne play through 34, that means we can expect the following production from them:

Dynasty value of Fitzgerald = (VALUE x SEASONS LEFT) = (2 x 10) = 20

Dynasty value of Wayne = (VALUE x SEASONS LEFT) = (2.7 x 5) = 13.5

Our rough model shows that Fitzgerald has a significantly higher long term value than Wayne assuming that both players stay healthy and produce at their 2006 and 2007 levels for the duration of their stud careers.

But hold on a second. We're not accounting for risk. What it Fitzgerald gets injured or traded to a team that doesn't pass the football? Even though Fitzgerald has had a positive value (i.e. scored better than the average starting WR) every season after his rookie year, let's pretend that there's a fifty percent chance he will give you zero value in every season moving forward. In that case his value would be split in half.

Dynasty value of Fitzgerald if he's worthless every other year = (VALUE x SEASONS LEFT) x (50% CHANCE OF COMPLETE FAILURE IN A GIVEN SEASON) = (2 x 10 x.5) = 10

Have I lost you yet? I hope not. Even if we completely ignore any of Wayne's risk factors and assume that Fitzgerald has a FIFTY PERCENT chance of totally flopping in a given season, his absolute dynasty value is still only 3.5 points lower than Wayne's, which is roughly equivalent to one season of top 5 production. If we assume that the risk factors for each player are equivalent going forward, then Fitzgerald is worth roughly two stud seasons more than Wayne. So basically, Larry Fitzgerald is worth Reggie Wayne and a two year stud (Holt or Owens?) combined. The picture is even more lopsided if instead of only looking at 2006 and 2007, you calculate the value of Fitzgerald and Wayne using the average value of their performance since and including their breakout year. Fitzgerald's averages since his breakout year in 2005 dwarf Wayne's averages since his breakout year.

I realize that this is a highly flawed analysis based on numbers that are fairly arbitrary. Nevertheless, I hope it illustrates my reasoning and why I think Larry Fitzgerald is head and shoulders above the current crop of dynasty WRs based on what we know about these players right now.

I understand why you rate Fitz over Wayne and other receivers. My point is that I do not think it is as cut and dry as you make it sound. The longer of a career you give Fitzgerald (or whomever else), the more you have to account for risk associated with injury and downturn in situation. This is just me, but I choose to not assume that a player will play at a high level for ten years (or even seven). The only skill position that you can do that with (imo) is quarterback. The QB position is one where the player can play at a high level for a long period of time. But, the receiver situation of the veteran receivers you list above had very fluid situations. That is what I think you cannot assume.

On Wayne versus Fitz, you cannot just look backward. You have to look forward in the expected production after Harrison is retired. I rank him as WR1 because his situation will improve. The thing about dynasty rankings is that no matter how any of us rank players/positions, it is just opinion. We each try to rank players that will end up the closest to actual. But, for receivers, situations will change. Look at Andre Johnson. With Schaub under center, he is more valuable in dynasty leagues than he was with Carr. The reverse was true this season with Steve Smith after the Delhomme injury. Think about dynasty rankings when Randy Moss was early in his career. We all would have had him as WR1 with Culpepper at quarterback. If someone would have used a ten year career in determining dynasty value, no way could we have predicted the ups and downs of his career.

I love the discussion. The one thing I do notice is that some see valuing dynasty players as an art and some see it as a science.

 

[Duckboy]

I love the discussion. The one thing I do notice is that some see valuing dynasty players as an art and some see it as a science.

That's the beauty of dynasty - it's almost a combination of stats analysis (science) and futures predictions (art).Personally, I don't operate with the classical 3 year window across all positions; mine is more modified to the dropoff points (29-30 RB, 32-33 WR, 36-37 QB for the most part), with some extra kick-in for specific player injury, etc. Trades, though, can be dependent on team setup as well (built more for competing now/later).Wayne vs Fitz is a very interesting, though I fall on the Fitz side (he's my #1, close followed by AJ/Edwards/Colston). More interesting, and possibly more relevant to the differences would be Moss (assuming he signs for 3-4 yrs in NE) versus Fitz. If you had a reasonable shot at the title for the next couple years, which one has more value? Moss is more likely to get you there (plus would IMO still have good trade value for the next couple of years), but Fitz may not be that far behind and has about 8-10 more at WR1 level. Likely WR#1 for next 2-3 years or WR3-10 for next 8?

 

[SSOG]

Think about dynasty rankings when Randy Moss was early in his career. We all would have had him as WR1 with Culpepper at quarterback. If someone would have used a ten year career in determining dynasty value, no way could we have predicted the ups and downs of his career. I love the discussion. The one thing I do notice is that some see valuing dynasty players as an art and some see it as a science.

You wouldn't have to predict the ups and downs. You'd simply have to predict that there WOULD BE ups and downs, but that the rest of the league would likewise be subject to similar ups and downs, and then trust that in the end, talent would always win out. Randy Moss demonstrates that concept very well. There will be ups and downs no matter who you have, but in the end, talent always shines through.

I love the discussion. The one thing I do notice is that some see valuing dynasty players as an art and some see it as a science.

That's the beauty of dynasty - it's almost a combination of stats analysis (science) and futures predictions (art).Personally, I don't operate with the classical 3 year window across all positions; mine is more modified to the dropoff points (29-30 RB, 32-33 WR, 36-37 QB for the most part), with some extra kick-in for specific player injury, etc. Trades, though, can be dependent on team setup as well (built more for competing now/later).Wayne vs Fitz is a very interesting, though I fall on the Fitz side (he's my #1, close followed by AJ/Edwards/Colston). More interesting, and possibly more relevant to the differences would be Moss (assuming he signs for 3-4 yrs in NE) versus Fitz. If you had a reasonable shot at the title for the next couple years, which one has more value? Moss is more likely to get you there (plus would IMO still have good trade value for the next couple of years), but Fitz may not be that far behind and has about 8-10 more at WR1 level. Likely WR#1 for next 2-3 years or WR3-10 for next 8?

In my opinion, Moss vs. Fitz is where the "exit value" concept really shines. I think that the rest of Fitzgerald's career will be drastically more valuable for dynasty purposes than the rest of Moss's career. Despite this, I would rank Moss as the #1 dynasty WR right now. Why? Because I'm not in the camp that just looks 3 years out, and I'm not in the camp that looks over entire careers... I do both. I look at a short window, and add a variable for exit value.Based on what I've seen from WR aging patterns and the evolution of dynasty rankings, I predict that Moss has 3-4 years of truly elite production left in him. Based on what I've seen of the reactionary nature of dynasty rankings (especially with respect to Terrell Owens), I predict that Moss has 2-3 years of truly elite perceived value left in him. Let's say that I believe that Moss and Fitz's values have both plateaued right now, and will remain relatively static over the next 2-3 years. Let's also assume that I believe that those two perceived values are identical at the moment. Finally, let's assume that I believe that Moss will outperform Fitzgerald over the next 2-3 years. If I restrict myself to a 2-year + Exit Value projection, Moss wins- he has greater 2-year production, and an equivalent exit value. If I project a 3-year + Exit value projection, it'll be comparable- Moss's higher production will be offset by a slight reduction in exit value. If I go by a 4-year + Exit value projection, Fitz wins, because the production will be comparable, but Moss's value is going to fall off of a cliff. From that, the smart play would be to take Moss, ride him for a couple of years, and then dump him before the exit value falls. The net result is Moss's short-term upside *AND* Fitz's long-term stability.Of course, the downside of projecting like this is that it exposes you to a heckuva lot more risk. If Moss signs elsewhere this offseason, his value drops like a stone. Going with the short-term player in the short term before moving to the long-term player is also risky because the long-term player's value can withstand injuries and down years a lot better than the short-term player's.

 

[Biabreakable]

How many players perform at a stud level for 10 years?

Peyton Manning has been top 4 for 9 straight years. Favre has been a fantasy QB1 15 times in 16 seasons. If a QB demonstrates at a very young age that he's a likely future HoFer, then you can easily count on 10+ fantasy relevant season out of that QB (barring injury). WRs aren't quite as long-lived, but when a guy shows he's as talented as Fitz has when he's as young as Fitz has, you can generally count on 6-8 more years of strong fantasy production. In both cases, a player's value is DRASTICALLY underestimated by restricting your focus to a 3-year window. It's not like a player has to be an uberstud in years 4-6 for a 3-year window to undervalue them, either- simple fantasy relevance is all that it would take.Besides, I think you misunderstood the comparison (or else I did, because I interpreted it differently than you did). I think you understood it as "There's a 20% chance he'll be a 10-year stud and an 80% chance that he'll never be a stud", whereas I understood it as "For each of the next 10 years, there will be a 20% chance that this player will be a stud, leading to an expected result of two stud seasons". A less all-or-nothing model would probably more accurately reflect NFL realities.

I've seen guys do the 3 year window thing in my dynasty leagues, what ends up happening is they end up having to pay up a few years down the line for using such a short sighted strategy. After a few years they don't have any real value on their team and have to do a complete rebuild or they bail out of the league.

I'd like to hear from the 3 yr window people who have been in dynasty leagues for 5+ years. While there may be a few exceptions, i'd bet most who use the win now at all costs strategy either have horrendous teams or have had a complete change of heart regarding their dynasty strategy.

If a player is an elite talent (especially at QB/WR) they have value far beyond 3 years.

It seems that people have a serious misconception of how the 3 year window thing actually works. In a thread pevious to this one EBF Holy Schneikes were dismissing it calling the 3 year window flawed, blind, short sighted, wrong ect. here: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...p;#entry8120878 This seems to be the attitude du jour. When I have explained how it does work there has been no rebuttal. Let me try again to explain how the 3 window works. Here we are its 2008 on the morning preceding the Super Bowl. All things FF related will now be applied to the 2008 season. A person using a 3 year window prior to the 2007 season was looking at player values for 2007, 2008 (now this year) and 2009. Now that 2007 season is over the 3 year window will be re-evaluated for 2008, 2009 and 2010. So you see this is a moving window. The 3rd year is never actually touched. It is only a place holder for.. guess what??

Exit value.

Using historical study of players careers some trends have been found.

RBs tend to decline at age 30. There have been a few exceptions to this (Sweetness, Emmitt) and a few more in recent seasons (CuMart, Tiki Barber) that may indicate RB exit value might become a year or two longer than 30 for a few special RBs as medicine improves. RBs can be successful as rookies while most other skill players take a bit of seasoning before they emerge as starting caliber players. Peak years tend to be year 3 through 6.

WR tend to decline 1st at age 33 and almost all have fallen off by 35 if they did not decline at 33. WRs tend to take a season or three to emerge as productive starters. Peak years tend to be from age 26-28 but WR maintain a high level of play from 28-32 sometimes a couple years longer.

QBs take a year or 2 to emerge sometimes a lot longer. There are many cases of late blooming QB who crashed and burned in their younger years. I haven't studied this closely enough to be certain when a QBs peak age is (if there is one) but a lot of them do seem to do better as they get older. So my guess as a long time observer is age 28-32. QBs can continue having productive seasons beyond the age of 35. Some have even lasted to age 40 at a decent level of performance.

Couch Potato has a study of this and it would be great if he wanted to share his data on the subject (he might not because it may give him a competitive edge). In any case I have seen some of it while discussing the 3 year window thing as well as other Dynasty strategies in this thread: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=296123&hl=

So what CP is talking about is players following a curve of production based on their age over the course of their careers. This is somthing I have observed as well having played this game for so long now (almost 20 years). So there you have some frame of reference about looking at the long term prospects/possibilities for a players career. However there is somthing much more certain than this. The NFL stands for Not For Long. Things change. Patterns change. And what you expect to happen doesen't. I will later explain why this is important.

I enjoy playing FF just for the love of the game and also because I actually enjoy crunching numbers and studying statistics and apply that study into predicting what may happen. That is a challege I find enjoyable in itself. However the bottom line and the goal of this game is to WIN. And I want to win now and keep on winning. I think that is what attracts people to dynasty play.

So knowing the historical trends of players career paths why would I or anyone decide to impliment a 3 year window of projection on players instead of a longer term view?

The 3 year window helps me as an owner to stay focused on winning NOW. But not at the cost of winning in the future as some have suggested. The 3 year window is actually a very balanced approach to determining value of players in dynasty.

Now let me make this clear and all of you can show me how I am wrong, but at least understand what I am doing 1st before you say disparaging and inaccurate things about it.

I am looking at the historical trends of players and their career paths when I make a 3 year projections for them. I am looking ahead to what a players potential career could be. But I am only going to project that players value for the next 3 years because I know in a moving 3 year window that I will have plenty of time to adjust, trade the player before they reach their exit value if I choose to and recycle that players value for my team. I do not need to look longer than a moving 3 year window in order to do this. Projecting one year is going to have plenty of errors and mistakes as it is. This only gets compounded with each additional year projected out.

When I make a projection I look at the whole picture. I make team projections. I look at all the supporting players, contracts and situations and well as their historical performace and similarity scores of their performance as well as historical trends while making these projections. One thing you cannot predict is injury and injury to the player or supporting cast for the players or other mitigating circumstances can greatly effect the outcome causing your projection to be wrong.

The moving 3 year window keeps you focused on 1st now, the current season. I do want to win it all now. I rarely make a sacrifice on total team value for the purpose of winning now. But there are times when I think this is justified. As long as you keep recycling talent/value on your roster you should be able to afford some sacrifice from time to time to push you over the top and secure championships. 2nd the 3 year window is focused on next year. How will my team look next year? Will it be as competitive as it is now then? Will it be stronger? Weaker? The 3 year window is always looking ahead and decisions will be made with the following seasons competitiveness in mind as well as the current seasons. Then finaly the 3 year window looks 2 years ahead and asks if any of the players on current roster will see a significant hit on their value in year 3? If a problem is found then the 3 year window will begin working to solve that problem 2 seasons ahead of that problem arising. This is plenty of time to trade the aging player away for equitable value. If equitable value cannot be found it is more than enough time to develop or aquire a replacement player. Most WR for example will break out within 3 years. A investment in rookie WRs to replace an aging one that you cannot get reasonable value in return for in trade can be aquired and groomed in time to be his replacement. A good dynasty team is always developing players anyways and the way I manage my teams I have tiers of players who are developing in their prime or veterans and I have never had a problem with depth on my roster. In fact most of the time I can field a competitive lineup from my backup players should an act of god or lemmingism cause my starters to all simultaniously to jump off the cliff together. I dont let a season ending injury casue me to become uncompetitive so why would a players demise cause me more of a problem than this?

That being said I have not held any player to the point of their exit value. I always sell those players long before they lose value. The biggest mistake I have made is selling players too soon not too late. That has meant the difference between playoff loss and championships for me before. Again I try to keep my focus on winning now. I have enough issues with taking trades or offering them because I see the deals having value for my team overall. That sometimes costs me competitivness short term. That is somthing I am trying to improve on.

Problems affecting a projection are not limited to a players age. Sometimes it is a contract about to expire. A coaching change. Another player brought in to compete with your player putting their job at risk. Personal issues. Player rumoured to be on trade block. There are a lot of things that happen over the course of a season you need to take into consideration. I do that when I make my projections and I re-evaluate them every year. I try to mitigate risks and build my teams around players that are valuable. I am always thinking about trade so percieved value is somthing I take into consideration as well. Projecting helps me make cost/benifit decisions and I always look at how the trade might affect my team 3 years out not just how it changes my team now.

The 3 year window is NOT win at all costs. Far from it. It is a balanced approach that is always 2 years ahead of a players possible exit value, while at the same time not putting absurd inflation on the value of youth as so many owners fall victim of.

Lets look at the Wayne vs. Fitzgerald example again using the moving 3 year window point of view and see how it stacks up against a longer term perspective.

I will assign abstract projected numbers in FF points for both players over the length of their expected remaining careers to use as example:

Wayne 30 years old in 2008-2013 age 35 - 180 160 160 140 100 total 740

Fitzgerald 26 years old in 2008-2018 age 35 190 210 200 190 180 180 160 160 140 100 total 1710

As you see by the numbers projected I am allready factoring in that Fitz is reaching the point in his career where peak numbers have historicly been and I am factoring that into all the projections I am doing for players. So I am allready considering age for what impact it has on now and moving forward. Fitz is more valueable than Wayne because of this and that goes into the projection. If the numbers I projected were closer (or the same) for both players over the next 3 years based on projection I would still value Fitz more because he is younger.

Now EBF is putting forth the idea that using a long term view this makes Fitz 2 times as valuable as Wayne. In other words you would have to trade 2 Waynes (or similarly valuable players) in order to get Fitz. Acording to the total points this seems to be true. Fitz is projected to get 1710pts over his career more than twice Waynes 740pts.

I can tell you right now from a cost/benifit perspective that trading 2 Waynes for 1 Fitz is buying high and a losing proposition. I would rather have Wayne who is competitive with Fitz over the next 3 years and my other player of similar value than I would like to have Fitz who only gives me a slight advantage over Wayne.

Now back to the point that things change fast in the NFL. All players have the same risk of being injured. But if you are basing your value of players on the expected length of their careers then you are also increasing your risk on those younger players. Using the total points example above Wayne is worth 740 and Fitz is worth 1710 right? If Wayne has a career ending injury in 2008 your team loses 740pts of value. If the same thing happens to Fitz you lose 1710. Woe to the owner who made investement in Fitz over Wayne using this philosophy by trading 2 Waynes for Fitz. They have lost a lot more because of the long term valuation philosophy than someone using a shorter term view on value of their investments.

What if Fitz gets traded to the Raiders before 2008 season because he refuses to re-negotiate his contract? Coaching and QBs continue to suck and Fitz career takes a downward spiral for the next 3-5 years as a result. This is going to hurt the owner who takes a long term view on value than it will other owners.

Stuff like this happens. Look at Moss's career. Before Moss got traded to the Patriots owners were offering me backup RBs for him and other undesirables. His value went from unquestioned top 5 WR to next to nothing very quickly. Moss got to resurect his career. But that does not always happen either. There is a lot of risk taken on by people using long term views.

The value owners place on youth can be exploited. Trade them young promising prospects that have not proven themselves yet. If you get solid players in return once again the long term thinking owner is taking on more risk than you.

In all likelyhood I cannot trade Wayne for Fitz. But if I have other recievers that are younger than him that I project to score very similarly to him over the next 3 years I may decide to make such a move now and probobly get some additional goodies in return also. Wayne is still at a premium value for anyone not really overvaluing youth who wants to win. Or I can take the high production from him this season and trade him next season more than likely still at a premium although I am projecting a slight decline coming. Keep in mind here that my 3 year window will move. Maybe Wayne outperforms my 2008 projection for him (Harrison retires) whatever the case I will re-evaluate after the 2008 season and make a new 3 year projection.

So really the 3 year window looks like this:

Wayne

2008 180 160 160 - Decline after this season. Try to sell high now.

2009 160 160 140 - Slight decline seen in year 3. Try to move for equal value now.

2010 160 140 100 - Exit value in year 3 shows risk. Owner will definitly look to recycle player now before value is lost. Wayne is 32 not unreasonable to expect to find a buyer.

2011 140 100 00 - Will be a harder sell now than the previous year will consider selling low for example for rookie picks before bottom falls out.

2012 100 00 00 - Held player much too long. A owner using a 3 year window should rarely ever be in this situation having seen the writing on the wall 2 years before.

Fitz

2008 190 210 200 - Peaking hold unless great offer made for him.

2009 210 200 190 - Still looks good. Hold. See above.

2010 200 190 180 - Hold. See above.

2011 190 180 180 - Not much reason to move him keep holding.

2012 180 180 160 - Slight decline seen coming. Begin to entertain the idea of moving him at reasonable value.

2013 180 160 160 - Slight decline expected after this season. Try to sell high or at reasonable value.

2014 160 160 140 - Further decline expected in year 3. Try to get even value in return through trade.

2015 160 140 100 - Decline in year 3 a large drop. Move now even consider selling low.

2016 140 100 00 - Will be harder to sell now than previous year. Will seriously consider selling low to recycle somthing back.

2017 100 00 00 - Held player too long. A owner using a 3 year window should never be in a situation where this happens when they have been evaluating the player for this long.

So you see the moving 3 year window really did not miss any of the long term or exit value as some of you have suggested. It gets re-evaluated every year. As long as all circumstances around the player including their age lead to a steady and favorable projection (no severe decline) then the owner is going to value that player very highly and not have much interest in moving them unless either 1- they get a deal they cannot refuse. Using the 3 year model as a guide to protect against decline and other issues btw. Or 2- They see some reason for the players value to fall off in upcoming seasons.

Don't be confused about that the 3 year window is not projecting beyond 3 years. Making such a projection is folly and unneccessary. The value of the player because of their youth is allready factored into the 3 year projection based off of historical trends. And if push comes to shove age will still be a tie breaker for trades of similar value. It is not short sighted at all imho. It is balanced. It helps owners focus on winning now and not to overvalue youth. How many owners have you seen trade star players away much much too early because they were aging and getting unproven but exciting players with promise in return. Thus making their draft picks higher (hopefully they value those highly too) and in a continual state of rebuilding. No thanks. It also helps owners to not be caught holding the bag on aging declining players. As looking 3 years out as I have described above should be time enough to move those players before age catches up with them.

As for SSOG statement. Please explain to me how my use of a 3 year window is drasticly underestimating a young players value. If anything I see it as protection from overestimating the value of a young player. I trade a lot and part of the development of the 3 year window is to help keep me focused on balance and winning. There is more than enough flexibility within the 3 year window that I may end up owning the same player multiple times during different stages of their career. Sell high Buy low. I have not been caught holding the bag on a old player yet. The biggest mistake I have made is selling players too soon, not too late.

FBG Poker. I think you are confusing win now strategy with the 3 year window. If my post has not shown the differece see the 2nd linked thread for more information. The 3 year window is NOT a win at all costs strategy. Its goal is to be as competitive 3 years from now as it is today and to keep moving that 3 year window forward.

In my 1st dynasty leagues some 15 years ago I would not say my strategy was as well refined then as it is now. I have learned a lot over time. But my principles were still much the same. These were live drafts and the leagues did not last longer than 3 years each. Because owners would see the haves and have nots by then and quit, realizing they were likely going to keep taking a beating for many years to come. They prefered to play redraft because that at least gave them another chance every year instead of being stuck in a unwinnable situation.

In 2001 I joined a dynasty league from owners recruited here at FBGs. I have employed the 3 year window strategy coupled with a strategy that revolves around trading for rookie draft picks. Because to me the more rookie picks you have the more value your team as a whole is worth due to rookie picks being like extra roster slots. I had the depth on roster to afford moving quality players for picks and still have strong teams. This league has changed scoring and owners a lot since its inception yet my teams have always been very competitive. I have been in 4 championship games over those 7 years. One title and 2 losses by less than 3 points combined. The 1st title game I got beat by more than a hair. Several other posters here still play with me in this league. You can ask them if my team looks like it will be competitive or not over the next 3 years. I have never had to rebuild. I keep building. I have little doubt that my team will be just as competitive 6 years from now as it is today. And for however I continue to participate in this league. I never stop looking for ways to improve my game.

I started another Dynasty league in 2003 using the same strategy. I have been to 2 title games winning one and never missed the playoffs over those 5 years. I see no reason why this team will miss the playoffs moving forward and I intend to keep improving it whenever I can.

 

[gianmarco]

How many players perform at a stud level for 10 years?

Peyton Manning has been top 4 for 9 straight years. Favre has been a fantasy QB1 15 times in 16 seasons. If a QB demonstrates at a very young age that he's a likely future HoFer, then you can easily count on 10+ fantasy relevant season out of that QB (barring injury). WRs aren't quite as long-lived, but when a guy shows he's as talented as Fitz has when he's as young as Fitz has, you can generally count on 6-8 more years of strong fantasy production. In both cases, a player's value is DRASTICALLY underestimated by restricting your focus to a 3-year window. It's not like a player has to be an uberstud in years 4-6 for a 3-year window to undervalue them, either- simple fantasy relevance is all that it would take.Besides, I think you misunderstood the comparison (or else I did, because I interpreted it differently than you did). I think you understood it as "There's a 20% chance he'll be a 10-year stud and an 80% chance that he'll never be a stud", whereas I understood it as "For each of the next 10 years, there will be a 20% chance that this player will be a stud, leading to an expected result of two stud seasons". A less all-or-nothing model would probably more accurately reflect NFL realities.

I've seen guys do the 3 year window thing in my dynasty leagues, what ends up happening is they end up having to pay up a few years down the line for using such a short sighted strategy. After a few years they don't have any real value on their team and have to do a complete rebuild or they bail out of the league.

I'd like to hear from the 3 yr window people who have been in dynasty leagues for 5+ years. While there may be a few exceptions, i'd bet most who use the win now at all costs strategy either have horrendous teams or have had a complete change of heart regarding their dynasty strategy.

If a player is an elite talent (especially at QB/WR) they have value far beyond 3 years.

It seems that people have a serious misconception of how the 3 year window thing actually works. In a thread pevious to this one EBF Holy Schneikes were dismissing it calling the 3 year window flawed, blind, short sighted, wrong ect. here: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...p;#entry8120878 This seems to be the attitude du jour. When I have explained how it does work there has been no rebuttal. Let me try again to explain how the 3 window works. Here we are its 2008 on the morning preceding the Super Bowl. All things FF related will now be applied to the 2008 season. A person using a 3 year window prior to the 2007 season was looking at player values for 2007, 2008 (now this year) and 2009. Now that 2007 season is over the 3 year window will be re-evaluated for 2008, 2009 and 2010. So you see this is a moving window. The 3rd year is never actually touched. It is only a place holder for.. guess what??

Exit value.

Using historical study of players careers some trends have been found.

RBs tend to decline at age 30. There have been a few exceptions to this (Sweetness, Emmitt) and a few more in recent seasons (CuMart, Tiki Barber) that may indicate RB exit value might become a year or two longer than 30 for a few special RBs as medicine improves. RBs can be successful as rookies while most other skill players take a bit of seasoning before they emerge as starting caliber players. Peak years tend to be year 3 through 6.

WR tend to decline 1st at age 33 and almost all have fallen off by 35 if they did not decline at 33. WRs tend to take a season or three to emerge as productive starters. Peak years tend to be from age 26-28 but WR maintain a high level of play from 28-32 sometimes a couple years longer.

QBs take a year or 2 to emerge sometimes a lot longer. There are many cases of late blooming QB who crashed and burned in their younger years. I haven't studied this closely enough to be certain when a QBs peak age is (if there is one) but a lot of them do seem to do better as they get older. So my guess as a long time observer is age 28-32. QBs can continue having productive seasons beyond the age of 35. Some have even lasted to age 40 at a decent level of performance.

Couch Potato has a study of this and it would be great if he wanted to share his data on the subject (he might not because it may give him a competitive edge). In any case I have seen some of it while discussing the 3 year window thing as well as other Dynasty strategies in this thread: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=296123&hl=

So what CP is talking about is players following a curve of production based on their age over the course of their careers. This is somthing I have observed as well having played this game for so long now (almost 20 years). So there you have some frame of reference about looking at the long term prospects/possibilities for a players career. However there is somthing much more certain than this. The NFL stands for Not For Long. Things change. Patterns change. And what you expect to happen doesen't. I will later explain why this is important.

I enjoy playing FF just for the love of the game and also because I actually enjoy crunching numbers and studying statistics and apply that study into predicting what may happen. That is a challege I find enjoyable in itself. However the bottom line and the goal of this game is to WIN. And I want to win now and keep on winning. I think that is what attracts people to dynasty play.

So knowing the historical trends of players career paths why would I or anyone decide to impliment a 3 year window of projection on players instead of a longer term view?

The 3 year window helps me as an owner to stay focused on winning NOW. But not at the cost of winning in the future as some have suggested. The 3 year window is actually a very balanced approach to determining value of players in dynasty.

Now let me make this clear and all of you can show me how I am wrong, but at least understand what I am doing 1st before you say disparaging and inaccurate things about it.

I am looking at the historical trends of players and their career paths when I make a 3 year projections for them. I am looking ahead to what a players potential career could be. But I am only going to project that players value for the next 3 years because I know in a moving 3 year window that I will have plenty of time to adjust, trade the player before they reach their exit value if I choose to and recycle that players value for my team. I do not need to look longer than a moving 3 year window in order to do this. Projecting one year is going to have plenty of errors and mistakes as it is. This only gets compounded with each additional year projected out.

When I make a projection I look at the whole picture. I make team projections. I look at all the supporting players, contracts and situations and well as their historical performace and similarity scores of their performance as well as historical trends while making these projections. One thing you cannot predict is injury and injury to the player or supporting cast for the players or other mitigating circumstances can greatly effect the outcome causing your projection to be wrong.

The moving 3 year window keeps you focused on 1st now, the current season. I do want to win it all now. I rarely make a sacrifice on total team value for the purpose of winning now. But there are times when I think this is justified. As long as you keep recycling talent/value on your roster you should be able to afford some sacrifice from time to time to push you over the top and secure championships. 2nd the 3 year window is focused on next year. How will my team look next year? Will it be as competitive as it is now then? Will it be stronger? Weaker? The 3 year window is always looking ahead and decisions will be made with the following seasons competitiveness in mind as well as the current seasons. Then finaly the 3 year window looks 2 years ahead and asks if any of the players on current roster will see a significant hit on their value in year 3? If a problem is found then the 3 year window will begin working to solve that problem 2 seasons ahead of that problem arising. This is plenty of time to trade the aging player away for equitable value. If equitable value cannot be found it is more than enough time to develop or aquire a replacement player. Most WR for example will break out within 3 years. A investment in rookie WRs to replace an aging one that you cannot get reasonable value in return for in trade can be aquired and groomed in time to be his replacement. A good dynasty team is always developing players anyways and the way I manage my teams I have tiers of players who are developing in their prime or veterans and I have never had a problem with depth on my roster. In fact most of the time I can field a competitive lineup from my backup players should an act of god or lemmingism cause my starters to all simultaniously to jump off the cliff together. I dont let a season ending injury casue me to become uncompetitive so why would a players demise cause me more of a problem than this?

That being said I have not held any player to the point of their exit value. I always sell those players long before they lose value. The biggest mistake I have made is selling players too soon not too late. That has meant the difference between playoff loss and championships for me before. Again I try to keep my focus on winning now. I have enough issues with taking trades or offering them because I see the deals having value for my team overall. That sometimes costs me competitivness short term. That is somthing I am trying to improve on.

Problems affecting a projection are not limited to a players age. Sometimes it is a contract about to expire. A coaching change. Another player brought in to compete with your player putting their job at risk. Personal issues. Player rumoured to be on trade block. There are a lot of things that happen over the course of a season you need to take into consideration. I do that when I make my projections and I re-evaluate them every year. I try to mitigate risks and build my teams around players that are valuable. I am always thinking about trade so percieved value is somthing I take into consideration as well. Projecting helps me make cost/benifit decisions and I always look at how the trade might affect my team 3 years out not just how it changes my team now.

The 3 year window is NOT win at all costs. Far from it. It is a balanced approach that is always 2 years ahead of a players possible exit value, while at the same time not putting absurd inflation on the value of youth as so many owners fall victim of.

Lets look at the Wayne vs. Fitzgerald example again using the moving 3 year window point of view and see how it stacks up against a longer term perspective.

I will assign abstract projected numbers in FF points for both players over the length of their expected remaining careers to use as example:

Wayne 30 years old in 2008-2013 age 35 - 180 160 160 140 100 total 740

Fitzgerald 26 years old in 2008-2018 age 35 190 210 200 190 180 180 160 160 140 100 total 1710

As you see by the numbers projected I am allready factoring in that Fitz is reaching the point in his career where peak numbers have historicly been and I am factoring that into all the projections I am doing for players. So I am allready considering age for what impact it has on now and moving forward. Fitz is more valueable than Wayne because of this and that goes into the projection. If the numbers I projected were closer (or the same) for both players over the next 3 years based on projection I would still value Fitz more because he is younger.

Now EBF is putting forth the idea that using a long term view this makes Fitz 2 times as valuable as Wayne. In other words you would have to trade 2 Waynes (or similarly valuable players) in order to get Fitz. Acording to the total points this seems to be true. Fitz is projected to get 1710pts over his career more than twice Waynes 740pts.

I can tell you right now from a cost/benifit perspective that trading 2 Waynes for 1 Fitz is buying high and a losing proposition. I would rather have Wayne who is competitive with Fitz over the next 3 years and my other player of similar value than I would like to have Fitz who only gives me a slight advantage over Wayne.

Now back to the point that things change fast in the NFL. All players have the same risk of being injured. But if you are basing your value of players on the expected length of their careers then you are also increasing your risk on those younger players. Using the total points example above Wayne is worth 740 and Fitz is worth 1710 right? If Wayne has a career ending injury in 2008 your team loses 740pts of value. If the same thing happens to Fitz you lose 1710. Woe to the owner who made investement in Fitz over Wayne using this philosophy by trading 2 Waynes for Fitz. They have lost a lot more because of the long term valuation philosophy than someone using a shorter term view on value of their investments.

What if Fitz gets traded to the Raiders before 2008 season because he refuses to re-negotiate his contract? Coaching and QBs continue to suck and Fitz career takes a downward spiral for the next 3-5 years as a result. This is going to hurt the owner who takes a long term view on value than it will other owners.

Stuff like this happens. Look at Moss's career. Before Moss got traded to the Patriots owners were offering me backup RBs for him and other undesirables. His value went from unquestioned top 5 WR to next to nothing very quickly. Moss got to resurect his career. But that does not always happen either. There is a lot of risk taken on by people using long term views.

The value owners place on youth can be exploited. Trade them young promising prospects that have not proven themselves yet. If you get solid players in return once again the long term thinking owner is taking on more risk than you.

In all likelyhood I cannot trade Wayne for Fitz. But if I have other recievers that are younger than him that I project to score very similarly to him over the next 3 years I may decide to make such a move now and probobly get some additional goodies in return also. Wayne is still at a premium value for anyone not really overvaluing youth who wants to win. Or I can take the high production from him this season and trade him next season more than likely still at a premium although I am projecting a slight decline coming. Keep in mind here that my 3 year window will move. Maybe Wayne outperforms my 2008 projection for him (Harrison retires) whatever the case I will re-evaluate after the 2008 season and make a new 3 year projection.

So really the 3 year window looks like this:

Wayne

2008 180 160 160 - Decline after this season. Try to sell high now.

2009 160 160 140 - Slight decline seen in year 3. Try to move for equal value now.

2010 160 140 100 - Exit value in year 3 shows risk. Owner will definitly look to recycle player now before value is lost. Wayne is 32 not unreasonable to expect to find a buyer.

2011 140 100 00 - Will be a harder sell now than the previous year will consider selling low for example for rookie picks before bottom falls out.

2012 100 00 00 - Held player much too long. A owner using a 3 year window should rarely ever be in this situation having seen the writing on the wall 2 years before.

Fitz

2008 190 210 200 - Peaking hold unless great offer made for him.

2009 210 200 190 - Still looks good. Hold. See above.

2010 200 190 180 - Hold. See above.

2011 190 180 180 - Not much reason to move him keep holding.

2012 180 180 160 - Slight decline seen coming. Begin to entertain the idea of moving him at reasonable value.

2013 180 160 160 - Slight decline expected after this season. Try to sell high or at reasonable value.

2014 160 160 140 - Further decline expected in year 3. Try to get even value in return through trade.

2015 160 140 100 - Decline in year 3 a large drop. Move now even consider selling low.

2016 140 100 00 - Will be harder to sell now than previous year. Will seriously consider selling low to recycle somthing back.

2017 100 00 00 - Held player too long. A owner using a 3 year window should never be in a situation where this happens when they have been evaluating the player for this long.

So you see the moving 3 year window really did not miss any of the long term or exit value as some of you have suggested. It gets re-evaluated every year. As long as all circumstances around the player including their age lead to a steady and favorable projection (no severe decline) then the owner is going to value that player very highly and not have much interest in moving them unless either 1- they get a deal they cannot refuse. Using the 3 year model as a guide to protect against decline and other issues btw. Or 2- They see some reason for the players value to fall off in upcoming seasons.

Don't be confused about that the 3 year window is not projecting beyond 3 years. Making such a projection is folly and unneccessary. The value of the player because of their youth is allready factored into the 3 year projection based off of historical trends. And if push comes to shove age will still be a tie breaker for trades of similar value. It is not short sighted at all imho. It is balanced. It helps owners focus on winning now and not to overvalue youth. How many owners have you seen trade star players away much much too early because they were aging and getting unproven but exciting players with promise in return. Thus making their draft picks higher (hopefully they value those highly too) and in a continual state of rebuilding. No thanks. It also helps owners to not be caught holding the bag on aging declining players. As looking 3 years out as I have described above should be time enough to move those players before age catches up with them.

As for SSOG statement. Please explain to me how my use of a 3 year window is drasticly underestimating a young players value. If anything I see it as protection from overestimating the value of a young player. I trade a lot and part of the development of the 3 year window is to help keep me focused on balance and winning. There is more than enough flexibility within the 3 year window that I may end up owning the same player multiple times during different stages of their career. Sell high Buy low. I have not been caught holding the bag on a old player yet. The biggest mistake I have made is selling players too soon, not too late.

FBG Poker. I think you are confusing win now strategy with the 3 year window. If my post has not shown the differece see the 2nd linked thread for more information. The 3 year window is NOT a win at all costs strategy. Its goal is to be as competitive 3 years from now as it is today and to keep moving that 3 year window forward.

In my 1st dynasty leagues some 15 years ago I would not say my strategy was as well refined then as it is now. I have learned a lot over time. But my principles were still much the same. These were live drafts and the leagues did not last longer than 3 years each. Because owners would see the haves and have nots by then and quit, realizing they were likely going to keep taking a beating for many years to come. They prefered to play redraft because that at least gave them another chance every year instead of being stuck in a unwinnable situation.

In 2001 I joined a dynasty league from owners recruited here at FBGs. I have employed the 3 year window strategy coupled with a strategy that revolves around trading for rookie draft picks. Because to me the more rookie picks you have the more value your team as a whole is worth due to rookie picks being like extra roster slots. I had the depth on roster to afford moving quality players for picks and still have strong teams. This league has changed scoring and owners a lot since its inception yet my teams have always been very competitive. I have been in 4 championship games over those 7 years. One title and 2 losses by less than 3 points combined. The 1st title game I got beat by more than a hair. Several other posters here still play with me in this league. You can ask them if my team looks like it will be competitive or not over the next 3 years. I have never had to rebuild. I keep building. I have little doubt that my team will be just as competitive 6 years from now as it is today. And for however I continue to participate in this league. I never stop looking for ways to improve my game.

I started another Dynasty league in 2003 using the same strategy. I have been to 2 title games winning one and never missed the playoffs over those 5 years. I see no reason why this team will miss the playoffs moving forward and I intend to keep improving it whenever I can.

Quite possibly the best post I've ever read on any FF site. This is all stuff that I do without realizing that I do and would have never thought of putting in these words. Fantastic work. This is a MUST-READ for everyone, I think (and reread a few times, while you're at it).

 

[SSOG]

As for SSOG statement. Please explain to me how my use of a 3 year window is drasticly underestimating a young players value. If anything I see it as protection from overestimating the value of a young player. I trade a lot and part of the development of the 3 year window is to help keep me focused on balance and winning. There is more than enough flexibility within the 3 year window that I may end up owning the same player multiple times during different stages of their career. Sell high Buy low. I have not been caught holding the bag on a old player yet. The biggest mistake I have made is selling players too soon, not too late.

Example. QB1 is projected to throw for 12,000 yards and 80 scores over the next 3 years. QB2 is projected to throw for 11,500 yards and 80 scores over the next 3 years. QB1 is 36, while QB2 is 26. Who is more valuable? According to the 3-year window, QB1 is. Do you agree with that, or is it possible that the 3-year window is, as I said, drastically underestimating the younger player's value? And if you value QB2 higher, then aren't you looking outside of a 3-year window? And if so, then aren't you agreeing that a 3-year window is too short-sighted for dynasty purposes? You might be using a MODIFIED 3-year window, or a mostly 3-year window, but if you project one player to score more points than the other over the next 3 years and value the other player higher, then you are NOT using a 3-year window.I've only skimmed through the rest of your post, but I'll definitely reply to it later after I've had time to read it all through and make sure that I understand.

 

[gianmarco]

As for SSOG statement. Please explain to me how my use of a 3 year window is drasticly underestimating a young players value. If anything I see it as protection from overestimating the value of a young player. I trade a lot and part of the development of the 3 year window is to help keep me focused on balance and winning. There is more than enough flexibility within the 3 year window that I may end up owning the same player multiple times during different stages of their career. Sell high Buy low. I have not been caught holding the bag on a old player yet. The biggest mistake I have made is selling players too soon, not too late.

Example. QB1 is projected to throw for 12,000 yards and 80 scores over the next 3 years. QB2 is projected to throw for 11,500 yards and 80 scores over the next 3 years. QB1 is 36, while QB2 is 26. Who is more valuable? According to the 3-year window, QB1 is. Do you agree with that, or is it possible that the 3-year window is, as I said, drastically underestimating the younger player's value? And if you value QB2 higher, then aren't you looking outside of a 3-year window? And if so, then aren't you agreeing that a 3-year window is too short-sighted for dynasty purposes? You might be using a MODIFIED 3-year window, or a mostly 3-year window, but if you project one player to score more points than the other over the next 3 years and value the other player higher, then you are NOT using a 3-year window.I've only skimmed through the rest of your post, but I'll definitely reply to it later after I've had time to read it all through and make sure that I understand.

Sorry SSOG, but I think you're missing the point he made completely. It's not simply projecting the stats for 3 yrs and adding them up and figuring out which guy is better. It's figuring out how valuable a certain player will be over the next 3 yrs. For example, how valuable is QB1 in 2008, how valuable he is in 2009, and how valuable he is in 2010. If you know that QB1 is going to be 39 in 2010, then his value is going to be considerably lower than QB2 who will be 29, even if QB1's total stats are larger. That's the whole point of his post. It's a rotating window. You do NOT have to project beyond 3 yrs to take that into account. If you also read what he wrote, he stated that he's never kept a player too long. He's never had that QB1 when he turned 39, even if he did project out better than QB2 over those 3 yrs. It's not that he's projecting further, but he's looking at what his value will be in that THIRD year and realizes he needs to move him NOW, not then, even if he projects out higher in cumulative stats over those 3 yrs.

 

[az_prof]

As for SSOG statement. Please explain to me how my use of a 3 year window is drasticly underestimating a young players value. If anything I see it as protection from overestimating the value of a young player. I trade a lot and part of the development of the 3 year window is to help keep me focused on balance and winning. There is more than enough flexibility within the 3 year window that I may end up owning the same player multiple times during different stages of their career. Sell high Buy low. I have not been caught holding the bag on a old player yet. The biggest mistake I have made is selling players too soon, not too late.

Example. QB1 is projected to throw for 12,000 yards and 80 scores over the next 3 years. QB2 is projected to throw for 11,500 yards and 80 scores over the next 3 years. QB1 is 36, while QB2 is 26. Who is more valuable? According to the 3-year window, QB1 is. Do you agree with that, or is it possible that the 3-year window is, as I said, drastically underestimating the younger player's value? And if you value QB2 higher, then aren't you looking outside of a 3-year window? And if so, then aren't you agreeing that a 3-year window is too short-sighted for dynasty purposes? You might be using a MODIFIED 3-year window, or a mostly 3-year window, but if you project one player to score more points than the other over the next 3 years and value the other player higher, then you are NOT using a 3-year window.I've only skimmed through the rest of your post, but I'll definitely reply to it later after I've had time to read it all through and make sure that I understand.

This isn't what he is saying. I think what is confusing people is the term "three year window" because it makes it sound like you ONLY look at the next three years in making evaluations. But that is not the case. In the hypothetical example SSOG offers the 'three year window" owner would have traded QB1 the year before most likely. What Biakabreakable is saying is that you want to ensure that the players you have will either improve or at least maintain production over the next three years. When their age/relative to position, or other factors (injury/coaching/team situation) suggest that their production is likely to decline by year three you trade them. A 36 year old QB is not likely to put up 12,000 yards and 80 TDs over the next three years by virtue of being a 36 year old QB--and so you should trade them. I don't know if this strategy is really as good as it sounds, but it can't be as easily rebutted by simply saying that he doesn't take into account youth and long term production. He does. In the case of Fitzgerald for example, he doesn't recommend trading him for quite a few years beyond the three year window.

 

[gianmarco]

As for SSOG statement. Please explain to me how my use of a 3 year window is drasticly underestimating a young players value. If anything I see it as protection from overestimating the value of a young player. I trade a lot and part of the development of the 3 year window is to help keep me focused on balance and winning. There is more than enough flexibility within the 3 year window that I may end up owning the same player multiple times during different stages of their career. Sell high Buy low. I have not been caught holding the bag on a old player yet. The biggest mistake I have made is selling players too soon, not too late.

Example. QB1 is projected to throw for 12,000 yards and 80 scores over the next 3 years. QB2 is projected to throw for 11,500 yards and 80 scores over the next 3 years. QB1 is 36, while QB2 is 26. Who is more valuable? According to the 3-year window, QB1 is. Do you agree with that, or is it possible that the 3-year window is, as I said, drastically underestimating the younger player's value? And if you value QB2 higher, then aren't you looking outside of a 3-year window? And if so, then aren't you agreeing that a 3-year window is too short-sighted for dynasty purposes? You might be using a MODIFIED 3-year window, or a mostly 3-year window, but if you project one player to score more points than the other over the next 3 years and value the other player higher, then you are NOT using a 3-year window.I've only skimmed through the rest of your post, but I'll definitely reply to it later after I've had time to read it all through and make sure that I understand.

This isn't what he is saying. I think what is confusing people is the term "three year window" because it makes it sound like you ONLY look at the next three years in making evaluations. But that is not the case. In the hypothetical example SSOG offers the 'three year window" owner would have traded QB1 the year before most likely. What Biakabreakable is saying is that you want to ensure that the players you have will either improve or at least maintain production over the next three years. When their age/relative to position, or other factors (injury/coaching/team situation) suggest that their production is likely to decline by year three you trade them. A 36 year old QB is not likely to put up 12,000 yards and 80 TDs over the next three years by virtue of being a 36 year old QB--and so you should trade them. I don't know if this strategy is really as good as it sounds, but it can't be as easily rebutted by simply saying that he doesn't take into account youth and long term production. He does. In the case of Fitzgerald for example, he doesn't recommend trading him for quite a few years beyond the three year window.

Exactly. Another way of looking at it:Fitzgerald's 3 year window starting in 2008 looks good--should produce very well for the next 3 yrs and still have good value at the end of the 3 yrsFitzgerald's 3 year window starting in 2009 SHOULD look good--should continue to produce very well for the next 3 yrs and still have good value at the end of 3 yrsFitzgerald's 3 year window starting in 2010 SHOULD look good--should continue to produce very well for the next 3 yrs and still have good value at the end of 3 yrsOf course, at some point, you're going to evaluate his 3 year window and something is going to be amiss. Either his age will be up there, he will have sustained an injury at some point, he may change teams, etc. There is no need to project beyond 3 yrs NOW in order for this to work. As it's nearly impossible to predict what will be going on with Fitzgerald in 2011 or 2012, you can make a better evaluation of that 1-2 yrs down the road in that rotating 3 yr window. However, you don't lose the fact that he should have continued value simply because you stop at projecting 3 yrs. When you reevaluate next year, unless something has changed, he will continue to have the same very good outlook. When something DOES change, then it will cause you to adjust that 3 yr window and make a decision based on that info.

 

[SSOG]

As for SSOG statement. Please explain to me how my use of a 3 year window is drasticly underestimating a young players value. If anything I see it as protection from overestimating the value of a young player. I trade a lot and part of the development of the 3 year window is to help keep me focused on balance and winning. There is more than enough flexibility within the 3 year window that I may end up owning the same player multiple times during different stages of their career. Sell high Buy low. I have not been caught holding the bag on a old player yet. The biggest mistake I have made is selling players too soon, not too late.

Example. QB1 is projected to throw for 12,000 yards and 80 scores over the next 3 years. QB2 is projected to throw for 11,500 yards and 80 scores over the next 3 years. QB1 is 36, while QB2 is 26. Who is more valuable? According to the 3-year window, QB1 is. Do you agree with that, or is it possible that the 3-year window is, as I said, drastically underestimating the younger player's value? And if you value QB2 higher, then aren't you looking outside of a 3-year window? And if so, then aren't you agreeing that a 3-year window is too short-sighted for dynasty purposes? You might be using a MODIFIED 3-year window, or a mostly 3-year window, but if you project one player to score more points than the other over the next 3 years and value the other player higher, then you are NOT using a 3-year window.I've only skimmed through the rest of your post, but I'll definitely reply to it later after I've had time to read it all through and make sure that I understand.

This isn't what he is saying. I think what is confusing people is the term "three year window" because it makes it sound like you ONLY look at the next three years in making evaluations. But that is not the case. In the hypothetical example SSOG offers the 'three year window" owner would have traded QB1 the year before most likely. What Biakabreakable is saying is that you want to ensure that the players you have will either improve or at least maintain production over the next three years. When their age/relative to position, or other factors (injury/coaching/team situation) suggest that their production is likely to decline by year three you trade them. A 36 year old QB is not likely to put up 12,000 yards and 80 TDs over the next three years by virtue of being a 36 year old QB--and so you should trade them. I don't know if this strategy is really as good as it sounds, but it can't be as easily rebutted by simply saying that he doesn't take into account youth and long term production. He does. In the case of Fitzgerald for example, he doesn't recommend trading him for quite a few years beyond the three year window.

Exactly. Another way of looking at it:Fitzgerald's 3 year window starting in 2008 looks good--should produce very well for the next 3 yrs and still have good value at the end of the 3 yrsFitzgerald's 3 year window starting in 2009 SHOULD look good--should continue to produce very well for the next 3 yrs and still have good value at the end of 3 yrsFitzgerald's 3 year window starting in 2010 SHOULD look good--should continue to produce very well for the next 3 yrs and still have good value at the end of 3 yrsOf course, at some point, you're going to evaluate his 3 year window and something is going to be amiss. Either his age will be up there, he will have sustained an injury at some point, he may change teams, etc. There is no need to project beyond 3 yrs NOW in order for this to work. As it's nearly impossible to predict what will be going on with Fitzgerald in 2011 or 2012, you can make a better evaluation of that 1-2 yrs down the road in that rotating 3 yr window. However, you don't lose the fact that he should have continued value simply because you stop at projecting 3 yrs. When you reevaluate next year, unless something has changed, he will continue to have the same very good outlook. When something DOES change, then it will cause you to adjust that 3 yr window and make a decision based on that info.

If you're predicting what Fitz's 3-year window will look like in 2010, isn't that technically a 5-year window?

 

[az_prof]

As for SSOG statement. Please explain to me how my use of a 3 year window is drasticly underestimating a young players value. If anything I see it as protection from overestimating the value of a young player. I trade a lot and part of the development of the 3 year window is to help keep me focused on balance and winning. There is more than enough flexibility within the 3 year window that I may end up owning the same player multiple times during different stages of their career. Sell high Buy low. I have not been caught holding the bag on a old player yet. The biggest mistake I have made is selling players too soon, not too late.

Example. QB1 is projected to throw for 12,000 yards and 80 scores over the next 3 years. QB2 is projected to throw for 11,500 yards and 80 scores over the next 3 years. QB1 is 36, while QB2 is 26. Who is more valuable? According to the 3-year window, QB1 is. Do you agree with that, or is it possible that the 3-year window is, as I said, drastically underestimating the younger player's value? And if you value QB2 higher, then aren't you looking outside of a 3-year window? And if so, then aren't you agreeing that a 3-year window is too short-sighted for dynasty purposes? You might be using a MODIFIED 3-year window, or a mostly 3-year window, but if you project one player to score more points than the other over the next 3 years and value the other player higher, then you are NOT using a 3-year window.I've only skimmed through the rest of your post, but I'll definitely reply to it later after I've had time to read it all through and make sure that I understand.

This isn't what he is saying. I think what is confusing people is the term "three year window" because it makes it sound like you ONLY look at the next three years in making evaluations. But that is not the case. In the hypothetical example SSOG offers the 'three year window" owner would have traded QB1 the year before most likely. What Biakabreakable is saying is that you want to ensure that the players you have will either improve or at least maintain production over the next three years. When their age/relative to position, or other factors (injury/coaching/team situation) suggest that their production is likely to decline by year three you trade them. A 36 year old QB is not likely to put up 12,000 yards and 80 TDs over the next three years by virtue of being a 36 year old QB--and so you should trade them. I don't know if this strategy is really as good as it sounds, but it can't be as easily rebutted by simply saying that he doesn't take into account youth and long term production. He does. In the case of Fitzgerald for example, he doesn't recommend trading him for quite a few years beyond the three year window.

Exactly. Another way of looking at it:Fitzgerald's 3 year window starting in 2008 looks good--should produce very well for the next 3 yrs and still have good value at the end of the 3 yrsFitzgerald's 3 year window starting in 2009 SHOULD look good--should continue to produce very well for the next 3 yrs and still have good value at the end of 3 yrsFitzgerald's 3 year window starting in 2010 SHOULD look good--should continue to produce very well for the next 3 yrs and still have good value at the end of 3 yrsOf course, at some point, you're going to evaluate his 3 year window and something is going to be amiss. Either his age will be up there, he will have sustained an injury at some point, he may change teams, etc. There is no need to project beyond 3 yrs NOW in order for this to work. As it's nearly impossible to predict what will be going on with Fitzgerald in 2011 or 2012, you can make a better evaluation of that 1-2 yrs down the road in that rotating 3 yr window. However, you don't lose the fact that he should have continued value simply because you stop at projecting 3 yrs. When you reevaluate next year, unless something has changed, he will continue to have the same very good outlook. When something DOES change, then it will cause you to adjust that 3 yr window and make a decision based on that info.

If you're predicting what Fitz's 3-year window will look like in 2010, isn't that technically a 5-year window?

As I said, I agree that the term "three year window" is confusing. Perhaps it is better to describe this as others have said above as "three year rotating window"

 

[gianmarco]

As for SSOG statement. Please explain to me how my use of a 3 year window is drasticly underestimating a young players value. If anything I see it as protection from overestimating the value of a young player. I trade a lot and part of the development of the 3 year window is to help keep me focused on balance and winning. There is more than enough flexibility within the 3 year window that I may end up owning the same player multiple times during different stages of their career. Sell high Buy low. I have not been caught holding the bag on a old player yet. The biggest mistake I have made is selling players too soon, not too late.

Example. QB1 is projected to throw for 12,000 yards and 80 scores over the next 3 years. QB2 is projected to throw for 11,500 yards and 80 scores over the next 3 years. QB1 is 36, while QB2 is 26. Who is more valuable? According to the 3-year window, QB1 is. Do you agree with that, or is it possible that the 3-year window is, as I said, drastically underestimating the younger player's value? And if you value QB2 higher, then aren't you looking outside of a 3-year window? And if so, then aren't you agreeing that a 3-year window is too short-sighted for dynasty purposes? You might be using a MODIFIED 3-year window, or a mostly 3-year window, but if you project one player to score more points than the other over the next 3 years and value the other player higher, then you are NOT using a 3-year window.I've only skimmed through the rest of your post, but I'll definitely reply to it later after I've had time to read it all through and make sure that I understand.

This isn't what he is saying. I think what is confusing people is the term "three year window" because it makes it sound like you ONLY look at the next three years in making evaluations. But that is not the case. In the hypothetical example SSOG offers the 'three year window" owner would have traded QB1 the year before most likely. What Biakabreakable is saying is that you want to ensure that the players you have will either improve or at least maintain production over the next three years. When their age/relative to position, or other factors (injury/coaching/team situation) suggest that their production is likely to decline by year three you trade them. A 36 year old QB is not likely to put up 12,000 yards and 80 TDs over the next three years by virtue of being a 36 year old QB--and so you should trade them. I don't know if this strategy is really as good as it sounds, but it can't be as easily rebutted by simply saying that he doesn't take into account youth and long term production. He does. In the case of Fitzgerald for example, he doesn't recommend trading him for quite a few years beyond the three year window.

Exactly. Another way of looking at it:Fitzgerald's 3 year window starting in 2008 looks good--should produce very well for the next 3 yrs and still have good value at the end of the 3 yrsFitzgerald's 3 year window starting in 2009 SHOULD look good--should continue to produce very well for the next 3 yrs and still have good value at the end of 3 yrsFitzgerald's 3 year window starting in 2010 SHOULD look good--should continue to produce very well for the next 3 yrs and still have good value at the end of 3 yrsOf course, at some point, you're going to evaluate his 3 year window and something is going to be amiss. Either his age will be up there, he will have sustained an injury at some point, he may change teams, etc. There is no need to project beyond 3 yrs NOW in order for this to work. As it's nearly impossible to predict what will be going on with Fitzgerald in 2011 or 2012, you can make a better evaluation of that 1-2 yrs down the road in that rotating 3 yr window. However, you don't lose the fact that he should have continued value simply because you stop at projecting 3 yrs. When you reevaluate next year, unless something has changed, he will continue to have the same very good outlook. When something DOES change, then it will cause you to adjust that 3 yr window and make a decision based on that info.

If you're predicting what Fitz's 3-year window will look like in 2010, isn't that technically a 5-year window?

SSOG, seriously. Are you having trouble reading and understanding what is being said? I even put in capital letters it SHOULD be good. I don't know right now in 2008. In 2010, he will have a new 3 year window that will predict 2010, 2011, and 2012. It's much easier to predict how his 2012 season will go in the year 2010 that it is now (2008) since the NFL is so dynamic. So no, I'm NOT predicting what his 3 year window will look like in 2010.Right now, his 3 year window looks very good. He's a player that has a ton of value because of what his 3 year window holds. So, if I own him, I'm happy. Next year, I will REASSES his 3 year window (2009, 2010, 2011). If nothing has changed and things still look good (which most would think they do), then I continue to hold. When 2010 rolls around, I will do ANOTHER 3 year projection window. At that time (2010), it will be much easier to project what he will be doing in 2012 than it is now. If something happens to change in 2010 (i.e. he goes to the Raiders), then I can adjust at THAT time. By looking at it this way, you're not losing value of younger players simply bc you fail to project beyond 3 yrs at a given time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, all other things being equal, you take the younger player.