Is the Pick Value Calculator broken? (1 Viewer)

[smcindoe]

According to the tool, you should be willing to trade the #1 overall pick for the #23 and #25. You should also trade down from #1 to #6 if you can get the guy to throw in a #80. Both picks are miles away from fair based on the NFL draft chart.

That just seems odd. And I can remember using the tool in past years and thinking it was pretty accurate. Did the formula change this year?

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

According to the tool, you should be willing to trade the #1 overall pick for the #23 and #25. You should also trade down from #1 to #6 if you can get the guy to throw in a #80. Both picks are miles away from fair based on the NFL draft chart.That just seems odd. And I can remember using the tool in past years and thinking it was pretty accurate. Did the formula change this year?

I dunno that's the 1 for 2.11 and a 3.2 aor a 5 slot drop for 5.2. Both seem pretty reasonable.

 

[whhwalker]

there's math sense and then there's common sense. These are decision assisting tools, not decision making tools.

Here's your question:

If I trade 1.1 and get 2.11 and 3.2 and couple it with my existing 2.12, 3.1

Your roster goes from:

LJ, Kevin Jones and Chris Chambers

to:

Kevin Jones, Chester Taylor, Chris Chambers and Randy Moss.

so is LJ>Chester Taylor and Moss? Some say yes some say no, but now you have the rest of the story to go with the math.

Personally, I've traded the 1.1 and 4.12 for 1.12 and 2.1 so you have to weigh the math with the variable that is the person you're trading with.

 

[avoiding injuries]

If I trade 1.1 and get 2.11 and 3.2 and couple it with my existing 2.12, 3.1Your roster goes from:LJ, Kevin Jones and Chris Chambersto:Kevin Jones, Chester Taylor, Chris Chambers and Randy Moss.

and the guy he trades with gets (2 of) LJ, LT, SA and Derrick Mason, Joe Horn.sign me up.

 

[whhwalker]

If I trade 1.1 and get 2.11 and 3.2 and couple it with my existing 2.12, 3.1Your roster goes from:LJ, Kevin Jones and Chris Chambersto:Kevin Jones, Chester Taylor, Chris Chambers and Randy Moss.

and the guy he trades with gets (2 of) LJ, LT, SA and Derrick Mason, Joe Horn.sign me up.

Which is precisely why you have to factor in the human element. And no I wouldn't suggest you trade the 1.1 to the 1.2.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Don't use decimals - it has to be integers for one thing.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

1 = 1889

6 = 1587

23 = 975

25 = 931

80 = 316

So 1 is about 23 + 25 (1% diff)

and 6+80=1 (again about 1%)

Seems right to me.

 

[Z-Dog]

According to the tool, you should be willing to trade the #1 overall pick for the #23 and #25. You should also trade down from #1 to #6 if you can get the guy to throw in a #80. Both picks are miles away from fair based on the NFL draft chart.

The draft chart used for trading picks in the NFL draft shouldn't look anything like a chart used to trade picks in a fantasy league draft.

 

[CalBear]

1 = 1889

6 = 1587

23 = 975

25 = 931

80 = 316

So 1 is about 23 + 25 (1% diff)

and 6+80=1 (again about 1%)

Seems right to me.

No, this is a mis-use of the pick value calculator; it only works if you're trading the same number of players, or at least, the same number of starters. The value of 1889 points in one roster slot is greater than the value of 1906 points in two.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

1 = 1889

6 = 1587

23 = 975

25 = 931

80 = 316

So 1 is about 23 + 25 (1% diff)

and 6+80=1 (again about 1%)

Seems right to me.

No, this is a mis-use of the pick value calculator; it only works if you're trading the same number of players, or at least, the same number of starters. The value of 1889 points in one roster slot is greater than the value of 1906 points in two.

CalBear,While I agree that you should get max value for all your starters, that wasn't the original question.

It wasn't a "would you give 23 and 25 for #1 overall", but whether the calculator puts them equivalent.

I would agree that Pick 1 and 169 for 23 and 25 isn't a good deal on the surface, but you would be improving that very late pick to a Top 25 pick. Sometimes having 3 picks in the Top 25 is better than having 1 and 24.

To put it another way, you're trading a starter pick for two starter picks by throwing in a 15th rounder.

 

[CalBear]

CalBear,While I agree that you should get max value for all your starters, that wasn't the original question.It wasn't a "would you give 23 and 25 for #1 overall", but whether the calculator puts them equivalent.I would agree that Pick 1 and 169 for 23 and 25 isn't a good deal on the surface, but you would be improving that very late pick to a Top 25 pick. Sometimes having 3 picks in the Top 25 is better than having 1 and 24.To put it another way, you're trading a starter pick for two starter picks by throwing in a 15th rounder.

But the value of the pick you're trading away is greater than the value of the two picks you're getting, because it's concentrated in one starter slot. Starter slots are a scarce resource; if you start 8 players in your league, a starter spot is worth about 1/8th of the points you'll score on the year. (A starting RB/WR slot is worth even more).

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

CalBear,While I agree that you should get max value for all your starters, that wasn't the original question.It wasn't a "would you give 23 and 25 for #1 overall", but whether the calculator puts them equivalent.I would agree that Pick 1 and 169 for 23 and 25 isn't a good deal on the surface, but you would be improving that very late pick to a Top 25 pick. Sometimes having 3 picks in the Top 25 is better than having 1 and 24.To put it another way, you're trading a starter pick for two starter picks by throwing in a 15th rounder.

But the value of the pick you're trading away is greater than the value of the two picks you're getting, because it's concentrated in one starter slot. Starter slots are a scarce resource; if you start 8 players in your league, a starter spot is worth about 1/8th of the points you'll score on the year. (A starting RB/WR slot is worth even more).

CalBear,I agree on your point about maximizing your starters, but I don't think there is a clear answer one way or the other.Consider that your first 8 will be these picks will be these picks:124254849727396In the "trade 1 and 169 for 23 and 26 (you already have 25) scenario, you now have:2324252648497273So I've actually traded my 8 starters, giving up my 1 (1889) and 96 (197) for 23 (975), 26 (910). So you are giving up about 200 points, or 10%, so you can get your last starter at 73 rather than at 96. That's the tradeoff. Do you want yor roster filled by the first pick of the 7th round, or the last of the 8th?The -200 shrinks as you draw a line as to where your bench is - if you think that you should only need to go 4 bench players deep, then it is pick 144 rather than 96, which makes the trade closer.There isn't a wrong way to look at this, but there is lots of food for thought here.

 

[Synthesizer]

I agree with the original poster that the calculator just doesn't work properly if you use an uneven number of picks. Unless there is someone out there who would be willing to give me the #1 overall pick for the #12, #100, #101, #102, and #103 like the calculator suggests they should.

 

[CalBear]

Let's take a theoretical league with 16-player rosters, 12 teams.

You have pick 1.01. You trade 1.01 and 16.12 for 2.11 and 3.01: even value according to the calculator. Then you trade 2.11, 2.12, 3.01, and 15.01 for 3.11, 3.12, 4.01, and 4.02: also even value. Now trade 3.11, 3.12, 4.01, 4.02, and 14.12 for 4.11, 5.02, 5.03, 5.04, and 5.05.

You've now effectively traded your picks from rounds 1,2,3,14,15, and 16 for a whole bunch of fifth-round picks. Your first pick overall will be 4.11. There is no way, building a team from players at that level, that you'll compete in your league; with each of the above trades, you lost value in your starting lineup, despite the draft picks being roughly equal in value and the number of players being the same. If you're doing two-for-one trades, it's even worse.

 

[David Dodds]

I agree with the original poster that the calculator just doesn't work properly if you use an uneven number of picks. Unless there is someone out there who would be willing to give me the #1 overall pick for the #12, #100, #101, #102, and #103 like the calculator suggests they should.

I make these trades all the time and field a great team. I understand the argument for starter spots, but most leagues allow trades too. If you stockpile very good players, then you can reverse that during the season and trade twoi for 1 just as you did before the draft.I will concede though that if you trade out of the 1st round, you should not be looking to trade out of the 2nd or third rounds. You don't want a team of mediocre players. But you can make a solid case that having a lot of picks in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th can definitely be a good thing.Larry Johnson and Steve Smith (the best RB and best WR) were not drafted in the first round last year. Priest Holmes and Peyton Manning were. And they both likely cost their owners the championship.

 

[bos]

Let's take a theoretical league with 16-player rosters, 12 teams. You have pick 1.01. You trade 1.01 and 16.12 for 2.11 and 3.01: even value according to the calculator. Then you trade 2.11, 2.12, 3.01, and 15.01 for 3.11, 3.12, 4.01, and 4.02: also even value. Now trade 3.11, 3.12, 4.01, 4.02, and 14.12 for 4.11, 5.02, 5.03, 5.04, and 5.05.You've now effectively traded your picks from rounds 1,2,3,14,15, and 16 for a whole bunch of fifth-round picks. Your first pick overall will be 4.11. There is no way, building a team from players at that level, that you'll compete in your league; with each of the above trades, you lost value in your starting lineup, despite the draft picks being roughly equal in value and the number of players being the same. If you're doing two-for-one trades, it's even worse.

The first trade is wrong, since you start with 3.01. This is significant, since the original 3.01 disappears in the final analysis.In reality, if you were to trade rounds 1-3 and 14-16 from the 1 spot for even value, your run starts in the middle of the fourth: 4.06, 4.07, 4.08, 4.09, 4.10, 4.11. That's an 8-pick run when you include 4.12 and 5.01.Starting strength lacks, though drafting your eighth player at 5.01 would be very nice in a big-lineup league like 2QB, 2RB, 3WR, TE, PK, DT.

 

[Synthesizer]

I agree with the original poster that the calculator just doesn't work properly if you use an uneven number of picks. Unless there is someone out there who would be willing to give me the #1 overall pick for the #12, #100, #101, #102, and #103 like the calculator suggests they should.

I make these trades all the time and field a great team. I understand the argument for starter spots, but most leagues allow trades too. If you stockpile very good players, then you can reverse that during the season and trade twoi for 1 just as you did before the draft.I will concede though that if you trade out of the 1st round, you should not be looking to trade out of the 2nd or third rounds. You don't want a team of mediocre players. But you can make a solid case that having a lot of picks in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th can definitely be a good thing.Larry Johnson and Steve Smith (the best RB and best WR) were not drafted in the first round last year. Priest Holmes and Peyton Manning were. And they both likely cost their owners the championship.

Agreed that there is good value through about 4 or 5 rounds. You can still scoop up the young RBs or big upside WRs. But once you get down to the 8th or 9th round, I feel those picks have just as much value as going to the waiver wire after the draft is finished. Possible suggestion for the pick calculater..... if the pick count is uneven, add some kind of "waiver wire" value or "lineup filling" value to the team giving up less picks.

 

[smcindoe]

I have a really tough time thinking that, in a 10-team league, two mid-third round picks would be enough to get you the 1.1 spot.But my question ("is this broken") has been answered... it's working as designed, I just may not agree with the results. That's cool.

The draft chart used for trading picks in the NFL draft shouldn't look anything like a chart used to trade picks in a fantasy league draft.

Just curious, but why not?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I have a really tough time thinking that, in a 10-team league, two mid-third round picks would be enough to get you the 1.1 spot.

But my question ("is this broken") has been answered... it's working as designed, I just may not agree with the results. That's cool.

The draft chart used for trading picks in the NFL draft shouldn't look anything like a chart used to trade picks in a fantasy league draft.

Just curious, but why not?

Because it is a Dynasty Chart.I mentioned this in my recent article, The Dynasty Calculator, and I compared the two.

Check it out.

 

[Z-Dog]

I agree with the original poster that the calculator just doesn't work properly if you use an uneven number of picks. Unless there is someone out there who would be willing to give me the #1 overall pick for the #12, #100, #101, #102, and #103 like the calculator suggests they should.

I make these trades all the time and field a great team. I understand the argument for starter spots, but most leagues allow trades too. If you stockpile very good players, then you can reverse that during the season and trade twoi for 1 just as you did before the draft.I will concede though that if you trade out of the 1st round, you should not be looking to trade out of the 2nd or third rounds. You don't want a team of mediocre players. But you can make a solid case that having a lot of picks in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th can definitely be a good thing.Larry Johnson and Steve Smith (the best RB and best WR) were not drafted in the first round last year. Priest Holmes and Peyton Manning were. And they both likely cost their owners the championship.

Agreed that there is good value through about 4 or 5 rounds. You can still scoop up the young RBs or big upside WRs. But once you get down to the 8th or 9th round, I feel those picks have just as much value as going to the waiver wire after the draft is finished. Possible suggestion for the pick calculater..... if the pick count is uneven, add some kind of "waiver wire" value or "lineup filling" value to the team giving up less picks.

If you are on the receiving end of a many picks for one pick deal, you will be unable to use your final round picks b/c you will run out of roster space. To properly evaluate the trade, you must put the bottom round picks that you will not be making on the other side of the pick calculator (i.e. 1.01 and 17.01 for 2.11 and 3.02).