Random hypothetical about drafting (1 Viewer)

[Driver]

Interesting posts here. BF's 1.04 shtick sidetracked things a bit, but I really don't care about thoughts on Reggie Bush. The idea here is whoever you have at RB10, now make him only available at flex.

I think there's a slight downgrade in value. I'm having a tough time exactly quantifying it. I can safely say two things.

1) He's not more valuable than before. There is no additional value gained by switching from "RB or FLEX" option to "FLEX only" option.

2) He's not exactly as valuable as before. This is because you would (normally) start 2 RBs and 4 WRs a nonzero amount of times.

Outside of that, I don't have a terribly strong grasp on where I'd put him.

Difficult to measure but there would have to be a huge gap between RB10 (the flex player only) and RB 11 in my rankings for me to even consider drafting RB 10 in the 1st round. I'm guesstimating that the drop would be approximately 5-10 spots, thus making that RB10 a non-factor in the 1st round.

Very interesting thread. A thought-provoking problem, and excellent points made by several posters IMO.Unfortunately, only Trader Jake has been on the right track in this thread, but he was also wrong by concluding that the drop (for RB10 restricted to Flex only) would only be 5-10 spots -- I'm assuming he meant dropping from around 10th pick overall to around pick 15-20 overall.

The EV+ (or shark move) is to pick him 25th overall or higher, given the league requirements in the OP. From the discussion so far, it's apparent that RB10 would be drafted before 25th overall. Therefore, it's an example of the "winner's curse" striking again.

Question - In this case, is RB10 (restricted to Flex) more or less valuable than Gates? "Less" is the correct answer.

The Shark Move is to take Tomlinson in the third this year, too.

Sorry BF -- I enjoy your posts and the sarcasm, too. Unfortunately, you've been consistently wrong in this thread IMO.I'll be glad to stand corrected if someone can prove that I'm wrong. Don't want to appear boastful, but I'm close to 100% confident that I'm correct. Not 100% sure, but close.

 

[LHUCKS]

Sorry BF -- I enjoy your posts and the sarcasm, too. Unfortunately, you've been consistently wrong in this thread IMO.I'll be glad to stand corrected if someone can prove that I'm wrong. Don't want to appear boastful, but I'm close to 100% confident that I'm correct. Not 100% sure, but close.

Alias check.

 

[Driver]

Very interesting thread. A thought-provoking problem, and excellent points made by several posters IMO.Unfortunately, only Trader Jake has been on the right track in this thread

This guy knows things.

So TJ, did I convince you, or not?I find it hard to believe that I'm the only person in the SP who came to these conclusions. I tried to lay out (above) the key facts and the correct perspective for analyzing this problem -- so that any true shark would come to the same conclusions that I came to.But it's possible that I may be mistaken, of course -- this is a deceptively hard problem as described in the OP (and the modification to focus on "RB10" instead of Bush). IMO the key to understanding is recognizing that restricting RB10 to the Flex position in effect creates a special set of constraints that have a complex interrelationship with the other positions -- and a large impact on the point potential of other positions, especially the required RB starters.If I've interpreted and analyzed this problem correctly, the primary result is severely diminished value for RB10 because any team that drafts RB10 will have significantly lower total team pts (weekly average over the course of the season) because of degraded production from the 2 RB starters. In addition, the problem is exacerbated if the league gives ppr since this increases the value of WRs who are competitors to RB10 for the Flex position -- thus, the value of RB10 decreases further in ppr leagues.Any owner that drafts RB10 before the productivity break-even point (which I believe is 25th overall at a minimum in non-ppr formats) will encounter the "winner's curse." Enough said -- now I hope my position is somewhat clearer.

 

[pizzatyme]

Please clear this up for me...

If Bush is a Flex-only player, won't there also be 11 other teams with a Flex-only player? If so, then wouldn't Bush or the #10 RBs value be relative to all other flex-only players?

I could see his value actually increasing if this is the scenario. If his VBD is dominant versus the balance of the flex-only player that is.

I'd think his value would increase much like Gates' value does in a required starting TE league. No?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Please clear this up for me...If Bush is a Flex-only player, won't there also be 11 other teams with a Flex-only player? If so, then wouldn't Bush or the #10 RBs value be relative to all other flex-only players?I could see his value actually increasing if this is the scenario. If his VBD is dominant versus the balance of the flex-only player that is.I'd think his value would increase much like Gates' value does in a required starting TE league. No?

Every RB/WR/TE in the league can play at the flex position, or their regular position. Bush can play at the Flex position, only. He is not eligible at RB, like every other RB that you would play at flex.

 

[trader jake]

Please clear this up for me...If Bush is a Flex-only player, won't there also be 11 other teams with a Flex-only player? If so, then wouldn't Bush or the #10 RBs value be relative to all other flex-only players?I could see his value actually increasing if this is the scenario. If his VBD is dominant versus the balance of the flex-only player that is.I'd think his value would increase much like Gates' value does in a required starting TE league. No?

Every RB/WR/TE in the league can play at the flex position, or their regular position. Bush can play at the Flex position, only. He is not eligible at RB, like every other RB that you would play at flex.

Exactly. You CAN'T take RB10's eligibility at RB away (FLEX only) and make that player MORE valuable. How much it drops his value is the debate:- bostonfred feels RB10's value is essentially the same- I feel RB10's value would drop 5-10 draft positions (from 10th/11th overall selection to somewhere between 15 and 21)- Driver believes RB10 should not be selected prior to 25th overall under this scenario

 

[bostonfred]

Please clear this up for me...If Bush is a Flex-only player, won't there also be 11 other teams with a Flex-only player? If so, then wouldn't Bush or the #10 RBs value be relative to all other flex-only players?I could see his value actually increasing if this is the scenario. If his VBD is dominant versus the balance of the flex-only player that is.I'd think his value would increase much like Gates' value does in a required starting TE league. No?

Every RB/WR/TE in the league can play at the flex position, or their regular position. Bush can play at the Flex position, only. He is not eligible at RB, like every other RB that you would play at flex.

Exactly. You CAN'T take RB10's eligibility at RB away (FLEX only) and make that player MORE valuable. How much it drops his value is the debate:- bostonfred feels RB10's value is essentially the same- I feel RB10's value would drop 5-10 draft positions (from 10th/11th overall selection to somewhere between 15 and 21)- Driver believes RB10 should not be selected prior to 25th overall under this scenario

That's not a good representation of what I said. I never implied that Bush's value goes up, or even stays the same. I agree with you that his value goes down, and have said so repeatedly. I just don't thinik it goes down by enough to drop him 5-10 draft positions, let alone 15+. Your biggest concern seems to be that you'd have to waste a pick on a RB4. What if I told you that you could have an extra seventh round pick to make up for Bush's position ineligibility? That should cover your biggest concerns, which are bye week and injury issues with your non-Bush RBs. If FLEX-ONLY Bush + a 7th is worth RB Bush, and RB Bush has been stipulated as being worth 1.10, then you're basically saying that you would trade down five, ten, or even fifteen spots for a seventh round pick, while I'm saying I wouldn't. Either that, or you're having a hard time articulating why Bush's position eligibility is worth more than a seventh round pick.

 

[CD Dragon]

logic would dictate that the normal drafter would draft his first flex player in the 3rd round because it is impossible to pick him before that. the first 2 picks would fill a required starting spot. so bush should be considered a 3rd round quantity. this logic already assumes a disadvantage

if that is the case, then you are forced to play your 1st rounder as a third rounder, with no deviation.

assuming same drafting pattern of RB/RB/RB/WR/WR/WR/FLEX

in that case your lineup would be...........compared to opponents

.............RB 2nd.........................................RB 1st

.............RB 3rd..........................................RB 2nd

.............WR 4th.........................................WR 4th

.............WR 5th.........................................WR 5th

.............WR 6th.........................................WR 6th

.............RB 1st.........................................WR 7th/RB 3rd

fine. they are the same, but bye week consideration. and considering you may get opponents with full compliments of teams due to dissimilar bye weeks equates to this (assuming you picked the first 7 picks with different bye weeks)

RB2nd bye.........RB3 bye.......WR4 bye....WR5 bye....WR6 bye....bush bye (RB1)

RB3rd..............RB2nd..........RB2nd.......RB2nd.......RB2nd......RB2nd

RB7th...............RB7th...........RB3rd........RB3rd........RB3rd.......RB3rd

WR4.................WR4.............WR5.......... WR4..........WR4.........WR4

WR5.................WR5.............WR6...........WR6..........WR5.........WR5

WR6.................WR6.............WR7...........WR7..........WR7.........WR6

RB1..................RB1..............RB1............RB1..........RB1..........R

7/WR7

these examples show that taking your flex in the 1st forces you to use your 4th-7th round RB 2-3 times a year with no opportunity to play lesser talent at better mathups (what if your RB3rd (rbrown/edge) plays the #1 run D and your WR8th (plax/ward/coles) plays the #32 passD, tuff luck) ***using FBG ADPs***

while your opponent would never have to play any RB beyond the 3rd round (you are forced 2-3 times at 4th-7th) and forced to play your WR7th 3-4 times while your opponent would only need to during 6 byes.

so in conclusion,

there is a definite disadvantage to taking bush in the 1st, you will always be at least 1 round in talent (maybe more) during bye weeks and the inability for flexibility during the course of the rest of the season will hamper matchup play possibilities.



thats worth about 6 cents

 

[bostonfred]

CD that's a good way of looking at it. Now, how many points do you think you lose over the course of the year in your scenario, by starting your RB4 two weeks during the season?

 

[CD Dragon]

CD that's a good way of looking at it. Now, how many points do you think you lose over the course of the year in your scenario, by starting your RB4 two weeks during the season?

this is using last years point totals in a non PPR league and assuming the RBs were drafted in the proper slots in decending order from 1 through 26#12 RB last yr =................... 173 pts4th round RB (#18RB) =....... 162 pts 5th round RB (#21RB) =....... 159 pts6th round RB (#22RB) =....... 158 pts7th round RB (#26RB) =....... 139 ptsbut you need to remember that if you picked a RB in the 4th other than the WR in the example, then you have to take into consideration the difference between the 4th round WR and the 8th round WR and add those differences onto the differences between the RBs in the above examples. because now you are still 1 RD behind the opponent in the WR values4th WR (#6)..........1735th WR (#12)........1516th WR (#13)........1507th WR (#18)........1378th WR (#19)........1364th rd Rb= 48 pt diff5th rd RB= 29 pt diff6th rd RB= 29 pt diff7th rd RB= 35 pt diffthese sanitary numbers process out to 2-4 pts a week difference, which surprising less than i would have thought. but the samples have a wide variance of error due to the unpredictability of players at their current ADP.in an ideal world the difference would be insignificant. but i still think there is a larger disadvantage than being represented here. other variables that need to be taken into consideration:injuries and suspensions taint the numbers used in this example. i think that if i would take an average pt per start other than the total pts for season (like i did) the gaps would get larger. and the differences would be more pronounced.inconsistant play by players and strength of Ds would obviously spike the numbers higher or lower per week, and that is where your flexibility in lineup would hamstring you also.gut feeling, the numbers represented here are best case scenario in a perfect world, but the actual volatility in the REAL world makes this more of a significant gap than shown***also these examples are based on a 1.12/2.1 draft spot. if you take bush at the 1.7 i think that the gaps would get wider also***