Plenty of Responses. Thanks! (1 Viewer)

[AJules]

Hey all,

I write about dynasty over at DLF, and I'm conducting a short player valuation survey. I'd like to get opinions from across the community, so if you have five minutes, please help me out!

link deleted

 

[maf005]

Ooh, this survey is kinda a mess. You could get the answers you're looking for in about 1/5th of the questions

 

[Uncle Grandpa]

Yes. You should be paying people to take this. It's mind numbing.

 

[Bri]

It seems like you're looking for some validation for the obvious. While you've gone to considerable effort to create the poll and post it on many forums, I don't think it's at all necessary.

Write with some conviction and understand people will disagree with you sometimes.

No one pretends Michael Clayton's rookie year is the norm or that he had a better career than Jerry Rice.

Dynasty isn't just about 1 guy having 20ppg one year versus 2 years with 16ppg. It's also about knowing or thinking you know how that second and third year (unmentioned) will be and how to move forward. Most everyone would say quality depth as the answer to most every dynasty question involving players with poor performance.

 

[FUBAR]

I interpreted your questions as asking which would I have been happiest with, as I've never looked at the past ppg in a vacuum to decide which player to draft.

 

[AJules]

I interpreted your questions as asking which would I have been happiest with, as I've never looked at the past ppg in a vacuum to decide which player to draft.

Correct. This is what I was going for. Thanks!

 

[AJules]

It seems like you're looking for some validation for the obvious.

Actually, I was looking to learn what people's positional baselines are when considering the value of player production. The answers were surprising indeed.

For example, the vast majority of respondents preferred 16 games of an 11 ppg WR over 12 games of a 12 ppg WR. To me, that's insane. It implies a baseline of less than 8 ppg. In other words, if you have a WR on your bench who scores more than 8 ppg on average (and this is ppr, so who doesn't?), then you should prefer the 12 game, 12 ppg WR.

 

[Bronco Billy]

It seems like you're looking for some validation for the obvious.

Actually, I was looking to learn what people's positional baselines are when considering the value of player production. The answers were surprising indeed. For example, the vast majority of respondents preferred 16 games of an 11 ppg WR over 12 games of a 12 ppg WR. To me, that's insane. It implies a baseline of less than 8 ppg. In other words, if you have a WR on your bench who scores more than 8 ppg on average (and this is ppr, so who doesn't?), then you should prefer the 12 game, 12 ppg WR.

Some of us play in leagues where 11 ppg WRs are startable, especially as injuries impact your roster. I view your position and think that advocating for only one additional ppw in trade for missing one third of the regular season - or worse, the playoffs - would be more of an "insane" position (pretty strong word there for what is clearly a matter of preference).

It's all about perspective.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

It seems like you're looking for some validation for the obvious.

Actually, I was looking to learn what people's positional baselines are when considering the value of player production. The answers were surprising indeed.

For example, the vast majority of respondents preferred 16 games of an 11 ppg WR over 12 games of a 12 ppg WR. To me, that's insane. It implies a baseline of less than 8 ppg. In other words, if you have a WR on your bench who scores more than 8 ppg on average (and this is ppr, so who doesn't?), then you should prefer the 12 game, 12 ppg WR.

Seems like you're taking too much out of this. The vast majority of responders probably looked at it as "1 extra PPG is absolutely nothing, even over an entire season, so I'll take the security of knowing he'll be available all season".

 

[Bri]

It seems like you're looking for some validation for the obvious.

Actually, I was looking to learn what people's positional baselines are when considering the value of player production. The answers were surprising indeed.

For example, the vast majority of respondents preferred 16 games of an 11 ppg WR over 12 games of a 12 ppg WR. To me, that's insane. It implies a baseline of less than 8 ppg. In other words, if you have a WR on your bench who scores more than 8 ppg on average (and this is ppr, so who doesn't?), then you should prefer the 12 game, 12 ppg WR.

How does an 11ppg WR give you a baseline of 8. It's 16 games, there's no more to fluctuate the value or affect the average-that's a full season.

One starts the best players and this is the only way a bench player should indicate the quality of a starter. Your last sentence is way off.

 

[ghostguy123]

Most skewed questionaire ever? Fantasy is about predicting, not doing the math afterwards