Evaluating Dynasty Players (1 Viewer)

[SSOG]

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"

Or a "2nd-degree 3-year window", which is basically a 3-year window of how someone's 3-year windows will look.

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.

I'm not having trouble reading and understanding, I'm just seeing a lot of contradictions. You say that "all other things being equal, you take the younger player", but if you're doing that you're not using a 3-year window. If you *ONLY* look at a 3-year window, and two players have identical projections during that span, then you should have them ranked equally. If you don't, you're not using a 3-year window, you're allowing for outside concerns.And what if things aren't equal, but they're ALMOST equal. What if you have an older player who you project out very, very, very marginally better over the next 3 years than a drastically younger player. Would youth still win out? And if so, what if it's only very, very marginally better? And if youth still wins out, what if it's only very marginally better? Where's the cutoff point for where higher projections beat out youth? And how can you justify favoring youth without resorting to a defense that looks beyond a 3-year window? And if you DO acknowledge that you look beyond 3 years, then aren't you admitting that you're not using a 3-year window so much as you're just putting an emphasis on the next 3 years?For perhaps the most extreme example of demonstrating the weaknesses of the 3-year window... Peyton Manning said before this season that he plans on playing 16 total years. Let's say that, after 13 years, he is still an uberstud of the highest magnitude. Let's say that Roethlisberger is still performing like he did this year, and you project Manning and Roeth to put up identical numbers over the next 3 years (with a slight edge to Manning). A 3-year window approach will say that both players will be equally valuable until the beginning of next season, where Manning's value will drop precipitously. Is there anyone on the planet that wouldn't prefer Roeth in that hypothetical, though? Would you really wait a year before dropping Manning's value, given the concrete knowledge that Manning was at least incredibly likely to retire after 3 more years? Don't you think some variable should exist that looks OUTSIDE OF THE 3-YEAR WINDOW to add to the equation in order to justify ranking Roeth over Manning?If you give preference to youth to break ties, you're adding a variable to the value equation that looks outside of the 3-year window. All I'm trying to do with "exit value" is codify that variable, pin it down, and come up with a way to assign a more concrete and defensible value to it instead of simply saying "well, in these certain cases which I will not concretely define, I choose to ignore my primary philosophy because there is a major flaw in it which I have not addressed". If you have a strategy, you shouldn't have to abandon that strategy in easily recognizable situations (such as you do when you use youth as a tiebreaker), you should have some sort of contingency built into that strategy that recognizes these situations and accounts for them in the valuation formula.

 

[gianmarco]

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"

Or a "2nd-degree 3-year window", which is basically a 3-year window of how someone's 3-year windows will look.

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.

I'm not having trouble reading and understanding, I'm just seeing a lot of contradictions. You say that "all other things being equal, you take the younger player", but if you're doing that you're not using a 3-year window. If you *ONLY* look at a 3-year window, and two players have identical projections during that span, then you should have them ranked equally. If you don't, you're not using a 3-year window, you're allowing for outside concerns.And what if things aren't equal, but they're ALMOST equal. What if you have an older player who you project out very, very, very marginally better over the next 3 years than a drastically younger player. Would youth still win out? And if so, what if it's only very, very marginally better? And if youth still wins out, what if it's only very marginally better? Where's the cutoff point for where higher projections beat out youth? And how can you justify favoring youth without resorting to a defense that looks beyond a 3-year window? And if you DO acknowledge that you look beyond 3 years, then aren't you admitting that you're not using a 3-year window so much as you're just putting an emphasis on the next 3 years?For perhaps the most extreme example of demonstrating the weaknesses of the 3-year window... Peyton Manning said before this season that he plans on playing 16 total years. Let's say that, after 13 years, he is still an uberstud of the highest magnitude. Let's say that Roethlisberger is still performing like he did this year, and you project Manning and Roeth to put up identical numbers over the next 3 years (with a slight edge to Manning). A 3-year window approach will say that both players will be equally valuable until the beginning of next season, where Manning's value will drop precipitously. Is there anyone on the planet that wouldn't prefer Roeth in that hypothetical, though? Would you really wait a year before dropping Manning's value, given the concrete knowledge that Manning was at least incredibly likely to retire after 3 more years? Don't you think some variable should exist that looks OUTSIDE OF THE 3-YEAR WINDOW to add to the equation in order to justify ranking Roeth over Manning?If you give preference to youth to break ties, you're adding a variable to the value equation that looks outside of the 3-year window. All I'm trying to do with "exit value" is codify that variable, pin it down, and come up with a way to assign a more concrete and defensible value to it instead of simply saying "well, in these certain cases which I will not concretely define, I choose to ignore my primary philosophy because there is a major flaw in it which I have not addressed". If you have a strategy, you shouldn't have to abandon that strategy in easily recognizable situations (such as you do when you use youth as a tiebreaker), you should have some sort of contingency built into that strategy that recognizes these situations and accounts for them in the valuation formula.

Your Manning/Roeth analogy is showing why you're not understanding what is being said. You're looking at it simply as adding up their production over 3 years and if it's even, then the players are even.Instead, what is being said, is that each player has a certain VALUE. Peyton's VALUE in 2010 is CONSIDERABLY lower because it will be his last year. Therefore, using a 3 yr window, and him having announced that he will only play 3 more years (in your example) you know NOW in 2008 that his value in 2010 (3 years from now) his value will be lower. Therefore, you dont' have to project further than 3 years to see that Roethlisberger's value will be higher. You can project 3 yrs from now for Roeth and PROJECT his value for the 2010 season to be just as high, if not higher, than 2008. Therefore, when you look at these 2 players using a 3 yr projection, you can see that Roeth's value in 2010 will be MUCH higher than Manning's in 2010. All of this can be determined using a 3 year projection without having to project further.You're simply doing projections in terms of stats. Just because Manning will have uber-stats in 2010 doesn't mean his value will be the same. This is how it can apply to certain players of today.TO (age 34)--His value 3 yrs from now, even if he performs at an uber level will be dramatically lower in 2010 (when he is 37).Torry Holt (age 31)--His value 3 yrs from now will be similar to what TO's was going into this year. He'll be right at that cusp. If you have Holt, it's best to trade him in the next 1-2 yrs since his value 3 yrs from now will be somewhat lower. No need to project further as you don't plan on owning him nor is it needed to see hiw value will be lower in 2010 when he's 34 yrs old.Chad Johnson (age 29)--His value 3 yrs from now will be similar to Holt's was going into this year. He still should have exceptional value in 2010. I wouldn't be worried about moving him anytime soon nor do I need to try and figure out how much value he will have when he's 31 right now. This is a player that will be reevaluated next year to determine if his value will be less in 2011+Larry Fitzgerald (age 25)--His value 3 yrs from now will be similar to CJ's was going into this year. He still should have exceptional value in 2010. I obviously wont' worry about moving him right now. In terms of comparing CJ to Fitz, if their production is equal, then I would just take Fitz because he's younger. However, if CJ's production is higher, I would take CJ using the 3 yr window THIS YEAR. Because in 3 yrs, they should have similar value right now. Next year, I would reassess their 3 yr value and if it was still the same at the end of 3 yrs while CJ was still having higher production, I would STILL keep CJ. When the time comes that CJ's value at that 3rd year is lower, then the decision needs to be made between the 2. I'm not trying to figure out how good Fitz will be in 2012 to know whether or not I want to have him over CJ. When I stated above "all things being equal, take the younger player", that's meant in terms of common sense. You took it literally when it's not meant to be. If 2 guys are exactly equal, you take the younger guy. Has nothing to do with projecting past 3 years. It's just simple, old common sense. If CJ and Fitz both had 100/1400/10 the last 2 years, I take Fitz simply because he's younger. That's simple. I'm not projecting more than 3 yrs to make that decision. If they aren't equal, but ALMOST equal, then I use the above. I figure their value after 3 yrs and compare it to their current/projected production over those 3 yrs and decide. But I'm not thinking of 2011+ to make that decision. If you want to, that's fine. No one is saying that the 3 yr window is the CORRECT solution. But stop twisting what is being said when it's obvious you're not really understanding what is being written so you can prove your point and be right.

 

[gianmarco]

And what if things aren't equal, but they're ALMOST equal. What if you have an older player who you project out very, very, very marginally better over the next 3 years than a drastically younger player. Would youth still win out? And if so, what if it's only very, very marginally better? And if youth still wins out, what if it's only very marginally better? Where's the cutoff point for where higher projections beat out youth? And how can you justify favoring youth without resorting to a defense that looks beyond a 3-year window? And if you DO acknowledge that you look beyond 3 years, then aren't you admitting that you're not using a 3-year window so much as you're just putting an emphasis on the next 3 years?

Also, specifically for this paragraph. There is no specific "cutoff" point. There is no exact science to any of this. This still fits the revolving 3 yr model. If I have a guy that is 32 vs. 27, the older player's value in 3 yrs is significantly lower to not justify only a marginally better production. How much better would he have to be? Well, it depends on the actual players and their circumstances. But that's how I would judge it. I would figure out what I think his value will be in 3 yrs and whether or not whatever dropoff justifies his current increase productivity.If I have two younger guys, say 24 and 27 and both should retain similar value 3 yrs from now (based on my current 3 yr projections) but the 27 year old is better than the 24 yr old (even marginally), then I take the more productive player. Now, you may not agree with that and that's fine. But I'm not gonna take the younger player just because of what he MIGHT do 4-5+ yrs from now. If they retain similar value after 3 yrs, I simply take the better player as I'm not losing anything by doing so. If next year, I predict that older player to start to drop some value in that 3rd year, THEN I will move him if need be. Make sense?

 

[EBF]

I haven't had time to read that mammoth post on the first page yet, but I've been following some of the replies.

Biabreakable's version of the three year strategy makes a lot of sense, but it almost just seems like a slightly more complicated way of saying use common sense and practice buying low/selling high.

One of the interesting challenges in dynasty leagues is developing a sense for players whose actual value differs radically from their perceived value. I would argue that Terrell Owens has steadily been dropping in actual value over the past few seasons to the point where he went from a top 3-4 dynasty WR to a borderline top 20 dynasty WR. And yet his perceived value hasn't dipped as much. He's listed as WR10 in the current staff dynasty list and two of the three staff members have him inside their top 10.

In cases like this one, you could conceivably hold a guy while his actual value is dropping and then sell him off for a player of equivalent perceived value and greater actual value right before his perceived value drops. So it doesn't necessarily matter that YOU know his actual value is dropping. The only thing that matters is whether or not the other guys in your league know. After all, what dictates the trade value of a player isn't your opinion of him or his actual value, but rather the opinion of the guys in your league who might trade for him (i.e. his perceived value). You don't necessarily need to take the 3 year window into account if you have a keen eye for the future. You can use a one week window, a one month window, or a one year window. As long as you're getting players before they rise and selling them before they drop, you'll be golden.

I think every owner who's been around the dynasty block understands that when he has a hot potato in his hands, he needs to toss it to someone else. The three year window seems like a useful framing device, but still strikes me as somewhat arbitrary.

 

[SSOG]

Your Manning/Roeth analogy is showing why you're not understanding what is being said. You're looking at it simply as adding up their production over 3 years and if it's even, then the players are even.Instead, what is being said, is that each player has a certain VALUE. Peyton's VALUE in 2010 is CONSIDERABLY lower because it will be his last year. Therefore, using a 3 yr window, and him having announced that he will only play 3 more years (in your example) you know NOW in 2008 that his value in 2010 (3 years from now) his value will be lower. Therefore, you dont' have to project further than 3 years to see that Roethlisberger's value will be higher. You can project 3 yrs from now for Roeth and PROJECT his value for the 2010 season to be just as high, if not higher, than 2008. Therefore, when you look at these 2 players using a 3 yr projection, you can see that Roeth's value in 2010 will be MUCH higher than Manning's in 2010. All of this can be determined using a 3 year projection without having to project further.

That's what az_prof and I were discussing when we were talking about 2nd-degree 3-year windows. Regardless, I fail to see how this isn't just taking the exit value concept and dressing it up as a 3-year window. And if you take a long-view when determining what value will be 3 years from now, there's really no difference at all between that and no window at all.

When I stated above "all things being equal, take the younger player", that's meant in terms of common sense. You took it literally when it's not meant to be. If 2 guys are exactly equal, you take the younger guy. Has nothing to do with projecting past 3 years. It's just simple, old common sense. If CJ and Fitz both had 100/1400/10 the last 2 years, I take Fitz simply because he's younger. That's simple. I'm not projecting more than 3 yrs to make that decision. If they aren't equal, but ALMOST equal, then I use the above. I figure their value after 3 yrs and compare it to their current/projected production over those 3 yrs and decide. But I'm not thinking of 2011+ to make that decision. If you want to, that's fine. No one is saying that the 3 yr window is the CORRECT solution. But stop twisting what is being said when it's obvious you're not really understanding what is being written so you can prove your point and be right.

The point isn't that I'm not understanding, it's that the "3-year window" theory being laid out in this thread is not really the "3-year window" theory (which is that you project out over the next 3 years and assign some sort of weighting to make sooner seasons more valuable). Despite your assertions that it's a 3-year window theory, it's really a drastically different theory simply masquerading under that name. The "3-year window" theory being laid out in this thread as an alternative to the "exit value theory" or the "don't apply a window at all" theory is functionally identical to the "exit value theory" or the "don't apply a window at all" theory, while the real "3-year window" theory which bases valuations solely on projections over the next 3 seasons is radically different to the one you are proposing.The "exit value theory" that this thread was based on is that you project what a player will do over a specific period of time, and you project what a player will be worth at the end of that period, and you make decisions based on this combination of data. If we let "exit" mean "the year 2010" (or the exit year of our projection span) and we let "value" mean "value", then "exit value" quite literally means "value in 2010", which is what you say you're basing your 3-year window on.

 

[gianmarco]

The "exit value theory" that this thread was based on is that you project what a player will do over a specific period of time, and you project what a player will be worth at the end of that period, and you make decisions based on this combination of data. If we let "exit" mean "the year 2010" (or the exit year of our projection span) and we let "value" mean "value", then "exit value" quite literally means "value in 2010", which is what you say you're basing your 3-year window on.

There you go!! Bravo, sir. Now, it seems you're at least getting what was trying to be said. Before, you were misinterpreting it, at least now you're seeing that it's just a matter of semantics. In fact, if you reread the post by biabreakable, this is a quote from the very top:"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."What was stated is EXACTLY what you just said above and I agree with it 100%. You want to call it exit value, biabreakable wants to call it a moving windows. There really is no difference as they are both describing the same concept. However, what is part of that concept that I also agree with is that you do not have to predict or project beyond 3 yrs. You simply have to make a determination how good the value will be in 3 yrs (i.e. exit value). Others have stated that it is being short sighted and that you should look beyond 3 yrs and the point that was made was that those years ARE looked at. Difference is, they just aren't looked at this year. They are reassessed and readdressed with each passing year. Different point of view, different words, doesn't really matter. And again, you don't have to agree with it but your earlier posts really sounded as if you weren't getting what was trying to be said and the one above shows that you are.You can still make projections for actual production over those 3 yrs and combine it with your "exit value" to get a determination about a certain player. So it's still a 3 yr window as you described above and exit value with a slightly different point of view and one that I just happen to agree with completely.

 

[Biabreakable]

I haven't had time to read that mammoth post on the first page yet, but I've been following some of the replies.

Biabreakable's version of the three year strategy makes a lot of sense, but it almost just seems like a slightly more complicated way of saying use common sense and practice buying low/selling high.

One of the interesting challenges in dynasty leagues is developing a sense for players whose actual value differs radically from their perceived value. I would argue that Terrell Owens has steadily been dropping in actual value over the past few seasons to the point where he went from a top 3-4 dynasty WR to a borderline top 20 dynasty WR. And yet his perceived value hasn't dipped as much. He's listed as WR10 in the current staff dynasty list and two of the three staff members have him inside their top 10.

In cases like this one, you could conceivably hold a guy while his actual value is dropping and then sell him off for a player of equivalent perceived value and greater actual value right before his perceived value drops. So it doesn't necessarily matter that YOU know his actual value is dropping. The only thing that matters is whether or not the other guys in your league know. After all, what dictates the trade value of a player isn't your opinion of him or his actual value, but rather the opinion of the guys in your league who might trade for him (i.e. his perceived value). You don't necessarily need to take the 3 year window into account if you have a keen eye for the future. You can use a one week window, a one month window, or a one year window. As long as you're getting players before they rise and selling them before they drop, you'll be golden.

I think every owner who's been around the dynasty block understands that when he has a hot potato in his hands, he needs to toss it to someone else. The three year window seems like a useful framing device, but still strikes me as somewhat arbitrary.

Im not sure what you mean by arbitrary here?

Arbitrary ADJECTIVE:

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice. - Definitly not.

2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference. Maybe. But so would any projection/prediction be.

In any case as ushual I agree with much of what you have said. EBF and I actually are very close on most things when it comes to dynasty philosophy. The devils in the details and those minor differences ushually do make for usefull discussion.Disclaimer here. Before anything else I am flexible. There is always more than one way to skin a cat and you will never see me restricted by a tool, philosophy or ideology if somthing else will work too. Just see my signature. One can never have enough tricks and I like to keep them guessing.

That being said there is a method to the 3 year window. Every owner will use it differently and will have different projections for players while using it but I doubt any of them are so restricted, blind or naive as you HS and SSOG have tried to paint them. The focus of this thread has been on exit value so projecting when players will decline or drop in value. Having a longer term perspective should automaticly have an advantage when focusing on this. A owner who places more value on youth than a owner focused on winning now should by those priciples have younger players and be focused on aquiring younger players and not holding players too long. That is why I consider a 3 year window to be balanced between those 2 ends of the spectrum.

What hasn't been touched upon yet is how a owner using a 3 year window might buy low/get younger with the strategy. This is where the projections come into play and are used as a tool to identify these opportunities.

Lets say you have projected all the players for the next 3 years allready (I am not even close to having done this yet for 2008-2010 thats why I dont have rankings right now). In looking at the numbers you see a player like this:

Player A 24 years old: 2007 scored 80pts. Projected 2008 140pts 2009 180pts 2010 180pts

You decide to pursue that player in trade and have projections for your players to compare to player A for cost/benifit analysis in how giving up those players will impact your teams ability to win this year and the next 2 years. If you can find a deal that is a straight win for you starting right away in 2008 you will of course take it without hesitation. But a owner using a 3 year window may decide to sacrifice their starting lineup in 2008 because of the projected benifit Player A will give that owner in 2009 and 2010. That is a judegement made and a risk taken that 1st of all your projections might be wrong and 2nd of all that the point loss in 2008 might hurt your chances to win this year (depending of course on what you give up for player A).

I just felt this was important to point out because the picture being painted of the owners using a 3 year window, or a weighted projection over a 3 year window such as gheemoney will have too much of their focus on winning now. That is not really the case. 3 years is a long time from now and owners using this philosophy may be using it to line themselves up to win championships in 2009 or 2010. It is not a win now at all costs strategy.

If that seems arbitrary then all I can say is that each owners current team composition is different. A 3 year window is flexible enough to have owners focusing on winning it all now or winning it all next year or the year after. Those are hard decisions that each owner needs to make I think. I do think the 3 year window is flexible enough to do more than just focus on winning it all this year.

 

[SSOG]

The "exit value theory" that this thread was based on is that you project what a player will do over a specific period of time, and you project what a player will be worth at the end of that period, and you make decisions based on this combination of data. If we let "exit" mean "the year 2010" (or the exit year of our projection span) and we let "value" mean "value", then "exit value" quite literally means "value in 2010", which is what you say you're basing your 3-year window on.

There you go!! Bravo, sir. Now, it seems you're at least getting what was trying to be said. Before, you were misinterpreting it, at least now you're seeing that it's just a matter of semantics. In fact, if you reread the post by biabreakable, this is a quote from the very top:"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."What was stated is EXACTLY what you just said above and I agree with it 100%. You want to call it exit value, biabreakable wants to call it a moving windows. There really is no difference as they are both describing the same concept. However, what is part of that concept that I also agree with is that you do not have to predict or project beyond 3 yrs. You simply have to make a determination how good the value will be in 3 yrs (i.e. exit value). Others have stated that it is being short sighted and that you should look beyond 3 yrs and the point that was made was that those years ARE looked at. Difference is, they just aren't looked at this year. They are reassessed and readdressed with each passing year. Different point of view, different words, doesn't really matter. And again, you don't have to agree with it but your earlier posts really sounded as if you weren't getting what was trying to be said and the one above shows that you are.You can still make projections for actual production over those 3 yrs and combine it with your "exit value" to get a determination about a certain player. So it's still a 3 yr window as you described above and exit value with a slightly different point of view and one that I just happen to agree with completely.

Well, the problem is that I understood what you and Bia were saying, and I understood what a 3-year window was... but, in my opinion, the two were not the same thing. When people say "3-year window", the vast majority of the time they mean they only project over the next 3 years and base their decisions on that. When I was referring to the 3-year window in this thread, I was mostly referring to that understanding of the 3-year window, not this "modified 3-year window" or "2nd-degree 3-year window" that you and Bia and az_prof were talking about.

 

[Biabreakable]

I don't think anyone using a 3 year window is so blind and ignorant as SSOG HS and EBF have presented them as being. Maybe some of them are but if they are I really dont think it would matter what type of system, method or philosphy they might be using.

Fact is you guys have called using a 3 year window flawed, short sighted ect. but now your backpedaling.

I think the variety of strategies as discussed in lined thread in my earlier post are all valid methods. I would tailor each to maximise the improvement of my chances to win based on how my current team is put together.

If you are competitive but need one or two more players to push you over the edge and increase your chances of winning a title then I think it is reasonable to make sacrifices in order to accomplish that goal. A win now strategy.

If your team has good balance of vets, rookies players in their prime then a 3 year model or even 4 or 5 can be used to maintain your competitivness but also still building for the future.

If your team needs to rebuild then I think taking a longer view will help you more in the long run.

I see some owners always spinning their wheels year after year with teams that have some good players but not enough of them to really compete for a title. Yet their teams are too good to lose a lot of games so their draft picks keep ending up middle of the road as well. I thinka cycle of mediocrity like this needs to get shaken up and the owner should make some hard choices. Because if they stay the course and keep making mid round rookie selections they will probobly just keep winning close to half of their games in the years ahead. They should make a decision to either sell out the future to help their team win now before the good players they do have get old or they should decide to put themselves in a rebuilding situation that will allow them to get a lot better over time.

So all the philosophies have there uses depending on where you team is at at the time.

When drafting for the initial draft you can make a similar choice to follow whichever strategy you prefer.

I prefer a balanced aproach which I think the 3 year window provides. It gives me more flexibility than the other two extremes.

 

[Biabreakable]

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.

First of all I think anyone who projected a 36 year old QB to throw for 4000 yards and 26TD a year steadily from ages 36 to 39 as someone not giving any consideration to that QB possibly not playing that long.. or playing that well. I find that to be a specious projection. About the only way I could explain that is if it were a Packer fan projecting for Favre (and if so what about the INTs?).Secondly 500 yards of different production over 3 years would average out to a difference of 167 yards a year. I don't project things in such a way that I would notice such a insignificant difference. These player projections are even. Tie breaker goes to age.Any owner (not just me) is going to use a little common sense. I really don't think people are as block-headed as you make them out to be. And anyone getting their heads so tightly boxed in as your example should take a step back. If you think other people are that blind I think you should take a step back as well.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

I think Bia brings up a good point with balance. If an owner values youth too much, there is way too much risk with the percentage of rookies that bust. Yes, some will hit, but many will not. Hard to find enough studs to win continuously. On the other side, I find that teams that overvalue "proven" older players have a tough time with injuries and the window of opportunity is small and always shrinking. This is why balance is so neccessary.

 

[SSOG]

I don't think anyone using a 3 year window is so blind and ignorant as SSOG HS and EBF have presented them as being. Maybe some of them are but if they are I really dont think it would matter what type of system, method or philosphy they might be using.Fact is you guys have called using a 3 year window flawed, short sighted ect. but now your backpedaling.

I'm not backpedaling. The 3-year window, as it has been presented to me, is a method of weighting the next 3 years' worth of projections in some manner (such as 50-30-20) and using that to rank players. It really is just projecting the next 3 seasons and using that- and only that. And I don't think it's anywhere near as uncommon as you seem to think.

First of all I think anyone who projected a 36 year old QB to throw for 4000 yards and 26TD a year steadily from ages 36 to 39 as someone not giving any consideration to that QB possibly not playing that long.. or playing that well. I find that to be a specious projection. About the only way I could explain that is if it were a Packer fan projecting for Favre (and if so what about the INTs?).Secondly 500 yards of different production over 3 years would average out to a difference of 167 yards a year. I don't project things in such a way that I would notice such a insignificant difference. These player projections are even. Tie breaker goes to age.Any owner (not just me) is going to use a little common sense. I really don't think people are as block-headed as you make them out to be. And anyone getting their heads so tightly boxed in as your example should take a step back. If you think other people are that blind I think you should take a step back as well.

I'm not trying to box anyone in. I think any sane individual would recognize that the younger player is more valuable in that situation. That's the point- I'm simply trying to establish agreement among all parties that there's more to dynasty than just projections over the next 3 seasons, and as a result the "three year window" (meaning the method described above of projecting to 3 seasons, weighting, and ranking solely on that) is fatally flawed.

 

[Biabreakable]

I don't think anyone using a 3 year window is so blind and ignorant as SSOG HS and EBF have presented them as being. Maybe some of them are but if they are I really dont think it would matter what type of system, method or philosphy they might be using.Fact is you guys have called using a 3 year window flawed, short sighted ect. but now your backpedaling.

I'm not backpedaling. The 3-year window, as it has been presented to me, is a method of weighting the next 3 years' worth of projections in some manner (such as 50-30-20) and using that to rank players. It really is just projecting the next 3 seasons and using that- and only that. And I don't think it's anywhere near as uncommon as you seem to think.

First of all I think anyone who projected a 36 year old QB to throw for 4000 yards and 26TD a year steadily from ages 36 to 39 as someone not giving any consideration to that QB possibly not playing that long.. or playing that well. I find that to be a specious projection. About the only way I could explain that is if it were a Packer fan projecting for Favre (and if so what about the INTs?).Secondly 500 yards of different production over 3 years would average out to a difference of 167 yards a year. I don't project things in such a way that I would notice such a insignificant difference. These player projections are even. Tie breaker goes to age.Any owner (not just me) is going to use a little common sense. I really don't think people are as block-headed as you make them out to be. And anyone getting their heads so tightly boxed in as your example should take a step back. If you think other people are that blind I think you should take a step back as well.

I'm not trying to box anyone in. I think any sane individual would recognize that the younger player is more valuable in that situation. That's the point- I'm simply trying to establish agreement among all parties that there's more to dynasty than just projections over the next 3 seasons, and as a result the "three year window" (meaning the method described above of projecting to 3 seasons, weighting, and ranking solely on that) is fatally flawed.

How does anyone make a projection without considering other factors while they are doing so? To me you are trying to box owners using a 3 year window into making really bad projections. Like your example of the 36-39 year old QB above. I give owners more credit than that. If an owner does make such bad projections then I don't think it will mater what method they use. However the longer they project with bad projections the more exhasberated the errors will be.Do you see how a 3 year projection might lead a owner to conclude that some players will perform better in year 2 and year 3 than they do in year one? Do you see how a owner might use it to get better next year and years following that? Or is your perspective of projections based exclusivly on past performance? Owners using a 3 year window will look ahead and make decisions based on more than just the current season.As far as weighted projections go I would have to let gheemoney or others that use them speak on how that works for them long term. My perspective has been more 33/33/33 but I was inruiged by the 50/33/17 idea at the time he suggested it. Especially because my teams are championshp caliber now. I can see using such a weighting for a year or 2 but I think you would need to bring that balance back eventually.Now your calling the 3 year window fataly flawed. No I do not agree with that statement. Nor have you presented any evidence of it being so.