Value chart dynasty rookie picks (1 Viewer)

[seabronc]

For dynasty rookie drafts, I've always wanted to answer questions like "how much more valuable is 1.1 than 1.5"? Where should I be able to move up to if I traded my 2nd and 3rd round picks? To try to come up with some answers, I've been tracking the career performance of the players drafted each year in my dynasty rookie draft in an attempt to gauge the value of the different draft slots (similar to the NFL draft charts we often hear referenced). Thought I'd share it with you and get your thoughts-- it's more a fun offseason project than something I think is really that statistically sound, so I'd appreciate any thoughts on how to improve it.

Let's start with the RESULTS:

Pick # Value

1 100

2 83

3 73

4 66

5 61

6 56

7 53

8 49

9 46

10 44

11 42

12 39

13 37

14 36

15 34

16 32

17 31

18 30

19 28

20 27

21 26

22 25

23 24

24 23

25 22

26 21

27 20

28 19

29 18

30 17

31 16

32 16

33 15

34 14

35 13

36 13

37 12

38 11

39 11

40 10

41 9

42 9

43 8

44 8

45 7

46 7

47 6

48 6

49 5

50 5

51 4

52 4

53 3

54 3

55 3

56 3

57 2

58 2

59 1

60 0

PROCESS

Without getting too into the details, my process has been to assign different point values depending on how players finish each year (40 pts. for a top five ppg RB finish, 30 pts. for a top five ppg QB, etc., 2 points for a top 50 WR finish, etc.) The point values are based on our league scoring requirements and how I believe each position is valued. I also give decreasing bonuses for players reaching those finishes in the years immediately following their draft (because if a player produces immediately, their lasting dynasty value is much higher than if they breakout year 5). For each player, I am able to assign a number of "value points" for each player for their career. By adding all of the value points for players in each draft position (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.), I have what I think is a pretty good estimate of how the performance diminishes as the draft goes on. The chart above uses a best fit equation and adjusts to a 100 point scale.

APPLYING IT

The biggest barrier to using this chart was figuring out how much a roster spot is worth. You cannot simply say a 2nd and 3rd round pick is worth a 1st without knowing the value of the free agent that could be picked up by the team who just gave up two picks for one. So, I also ran some numbers for the free agents picked up in my league following the draft, and their value turned out to be 7 points, or equivalent to the 45th pick in the draft. So, I believe that you should be able to use the chart at face value, as long as you factor in an additional 7 points for any two for one deals (for example, I think to move from 1.2 (83 points) to 1.1 (100 points), you should give up roughly 24 points (pick 23).

CONCLUSIONS

That's where I need you all... what do you make of this? Does it change any perceptions you have about drafting rookies? If my method makes any sense, it does show that in my league any pick after #45 is worthless (just the same likelihood of panning out as someone you pick after the draft). Someone with more stats savvy than me, what are my holes in this project?

A couple caveats from my end:

-- This is obviously more useful before we know who is in the draft. Each year's draft is not created equal...

-- The league I ran this on is only 7 years in, so I still don't have enough data or full careers to feel very solid in the results.

-- I gave a ton of weight to star performance (finishing at the top vs. being startable at your position), so I think it does a pretty good job of factoring in that the chance at a star player is worth much more than possibly finding mid range guys. Late drafts of guys like Arian Foster and Jimmy Graham are what earned value points for late round picks, not the Kevin Walter's of the world who were drafted late in my league and have a lot of top 30 finishes.

-- You should know that our rookie draft also includes street free agents (veterans that nobody in my league has rostered)

Have at it, Shark Pool...

 

[djmich]

Even though you gave a ton of weight to star performance at first blush it looks like to me high end picks are not in line with how people value them in FF (you have them too low). Maybe that means high end picks are overvalued, or your weighted is wrong, I'm not sure which one.

 

[Concept Coop]

Much more value in tbe top few picks than you suggest. No combination of 2nds is getting the 1.01.

 

[dgreen]

-- The league I ran this on is only 7 years in, so I still don't have enough data or full careers to feel very solid in the results.

So your assigned values are based on who was actually drafter in certain spots in your league? If you take more of a hindsight look at who should have been drafted in each slot, you could then get as many years of data as you're willing to do the work. For example, you could look at who all the available rookies were in, say, 1988. In hindsight, the top pick should have been Thurman Thomas. If he was drafted in a league at 1.03, then that's going to greatly affect the perceived value of the third pick.

 

[sports_fan]

Much more value in tbe top few picks than you suggest. No combination of 2nds is getting the 1.01.

Using his values, it would take 2-3 2nds to equal the value of the #1 pick. To me that sounds about right. No experienced FF player would take such a deal, for the same reasons that 2-for-1 player deals are rarely a good idea for the side receiving 2 players, but if you're only considering individual player value it's reasonable.There's a large dropoff after the first few picks followed by fairly constant decline in subsequent picks. I think most understand/assume this but it's nice to have some numbers to back it up. This chart could be helpful when trading an equal number of picks (2-for-2 or 3-for-3) or a combination of picks and players. Thanks for sharing.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Jeff Pasquino has a version of this here: dynasty draft pick calc

 

[_lurker_]

Someone here crunched some data a few years back and came to the rough conclusion that the first pick was roughly equal to a player you might draft in the first round of a redraft. The second rookie pick to the 2nd round of a redraft. I thought that it should be more like 1.01 = 2nd round, 1.02 = 3rd round, etc. But you get the idea and maybe someone can link that thread.

The point is, there's a value chart here, somewhere, on pick values in a redraft. Perhaps a simple solution would be to take the sum of all the pick values in the first round of a redraft and assign that value to 1.01. Sum of all redraft picks in round to and assign that to 1.02 and so on. You might only get enough useful data to get to the 12th, 14th pick or so, but that might be enough to plot out the rest of the values, roughly speaking, for the top 100 rookie picks where it'll probably flatten out at that point.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

With this, you have a good chart of the actual values of draft picks. Using dgreen's suggestion in post 4 would give you the perceived values of the picks. Having both would give you a nice range.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

I appreciate the effort by the OP. I believe either I'm not understanding the process that he got his numbers from correctly, or he's altered the numbers so they consistently decline. I just don't think you can get results like that in a 7 year window.

As an example here's the last four #1 picks in our draft. (the only years I currently have access to our draft)

Ingram, Mathews, Moreno, McFadden.

Here's the last four #9 picks.

Newton, Gerhart, McCoy, Keller.

I could show draft picks #2 and #8 together, and give you about the same results too.

I'm not a stats guy, but I'm sure there is a window of time in which this would work out. However, my guess is it would be more like 25 years.

 

[sports_fan]

I appreciate the effort by the OP. I believe either I'm not understanding the process that he got his numbers from correctly, or he's altered the numbers so they consistently decline. I just don't think you can get results like that in a 7 year window. As an example here's the last four #1 picks in our draft. (the only years I currently have access to our draft)Ingram, Mathews, Moreno, McFadden.Here's the last four #9 picks.Newton, Gerhart, McCoy, Keller.I could show draft picks #2 and #8 together, and give you about the same results too. I'm not a stats guy, but I'm sure there is a window of time in which this would work out. However, my guess is it would be more like 25 years.

I think the best fit line was used for this reason. There are definitely outliners in his data, but over a long enough time frame (like 25 years) in theory the data should more or less align with his regression.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

I appreciate the effort by the OP. I believe either I'm not understanding the process that he got his numbers from correctly, or he's altered the numbers so they consistently decline. I just don't think you can get results like that in a 7 year window. As an example here's the last four #1 picks in our draft. (the only years I currently have access to our draft)Ingram, Mathews, Moreno, McFadden.Here's the last four #9 picks.Newton, Gerhart, McCoy, Keller.I could show draft picks #2 and #8 together, and give you about the same results too. I'm not a stats guy, but I'm sure there is a window of time in which this would work out. However, my guess is it would be more like 25 years.

I think the best fit line was used for this reason. There are definitely outliners in his data, but over a long enough time frame (like 25 years) in theory the data should more or less align with his regression.

Don't want to drop a deuce on this, but what about undrafted players?

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

I appreciate the effort by the OP. I believe either I'm not understanding the process that he got his numbers from correctly, or he's altered the numbers so they consistently decline. I just don't think you can get results like that in a 7 year window.

As an example here's the last four #1 picks in our draft. (the only years I currently have access to our draft)

Ingram, Mathews, Moreno, McFadden.

Here's the last four #9 picks.

Newton, Gerhart, McCoy, Keller.

I could show draft picks #2 and #8 together, and give you about the same results too.

I'm not a stats guy, but I'm sure there is a window of time in which this would work out. However, my guess is it would be more like 25 years.

I think the best fit line was used for this reason. There are definitely outliners in his data, but over a long enough time frame (like 25 years) in theory the data should more or less align with his regression.

If you put the best player in the #1 slot every year, the value there would be astronomical. It wouldn't account for the bust rate.

 

[sports_fan]

I appreciate the effort by the OP. I believe either I'm not understanding the process that he got his numbers from correctly, or he's altered the numbers so they consistently decline. I just don't think you can get results like that in a 7 year window.

As an example here's the last four #1 picks in our draft. (the only years I currently have access to our draft)

Ingram, Mathews, Moreno, McFadden.

Here's the last four #9 picks.

Newton, Gerhart, McCoy, Keller.

I could show draft picks #2 and #8 together, and give you about the same results too.

I'm not a stats guy, but I'm sure there is a window of time in which this would work out. However, my guess is it would be more like 25 years.

I think the best fit line was used for this reason. There are definitely outliners in his data, but over a long enough time frame (like 25 years) in theory the data should more or less align with his regression.

If you put the best player in the #1 slot every year, the value there would be astronomical. It wouldn't account for the bust rate.

I don't know what you mean.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

I appreciate the effort by the OP. I believe either I'm not understanding the process that he got his numbers from correctly, or he's altered the numbers so they consistently decline. I just don't think you can get results like that in a 7 year window.

As an example here's the last four #1 picks in our draft. (the only years I currently have access to our draft)

Ingram, Mathews, Moreno, McFadden.

Here's the last four #9 picks.

Newton, Gerhart, McCoy, Keller.

I could show draft picks #2 and #8 together, and give you about the same results too.

I'm not a stats guy, but I'm sure there is a window of time in which this would work out. However, my guess is it would be more like 25 years.

I think the best fit line was used for this reason. There are definitely outliners in his data, but over a long enough time frame (like 25 years) in theory the data should more or less align with his regression.

If you put the best player in the #1 slot every year, the value there would be astronomical. It wouldn't account for the bust rate.

I don't know what you mean.

Nevermind. Multitasking today.

 

[seabronc]

Much more value in tbe top few picks than you suggest. No combination of 2nds is getting the 1.01.

Right, but I'm hoping this shows actual value rather than perceived value. This data would say that three shots from picks 11, 12, and 13 have as good a chance of getting you star output than one shot at 1. That could be true even if your league would never make the trade--- but knowing that might influence how I value my picks.

Jeff Pasquino has a version of this here: dynasty draft pick calc

Will have to look at it more. On really brief glance, seems based more on league scoring/size/rosters than production stats?

I appreciate the effort by the OP. I believe either I'm not understanding the process that he got his numbers from correctly, or he's altered the numbers so they consistently decline. I just don't think you can get results like that in a 7 year window.

I think the best fit line was used for this reason. There are definitely outliners in his data, but over a long enough time frame (like 25 years) in theory the data should more or less align with his regression.

Right. I used a "best fit" line. Pick 20 in our league has actually produced much better than some earlier picks (Arian Foster went there along with DeSean Jackson), but that doesn't you should try to go get pick 20. The best fit line accounts for those blips.

If you put the best player in the #1 slot every year, the value there would be astronomical. It wouldn't account for the bust rate.

This. Going back and seeing who should have been #1 (the Thurman Thomas example) doesn't take into account that we pick incorrectly. There is a decent likelihood that the best player in any given class will actually be picked 5th or 9th or 40th rather than 1st. I'm trying to figure out how big of a likelihood that is. If we knew who would be the best player, then #1 would be much much more valuable than #2!Thanks for all of the thoughts...

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Much more value in tbe top few picks than you suggest. No combination of 2nds is getting the 1.01.

Right, but I'm hoping this shows actual value rather than perceived value. This data would say that three shots from picks 11, 12, and 13 have as good a chance of getting you star output than one shot at 1. That could be true even if your league would never make the trade--- but knowing that might influence how I value my picks.

Jeff Pasquino has a version of this here: dynasty draft pick calc

Will have to look at it more. On really brief glance, seems based more on league scoring/size/rosters than production stats?

I appreciate the effort by the OP. I believe either I'm not understanding the process that he got his numbers from correctly, or he's altered the numbers so they consistently decline. I just don't think you can get results like that in a 7 year window.

I think the best fit line was used for this reason. There are definitely outliners in his data, but over a long enough time frame (like 25 years) in theory the data should more or less align with his regression.

Right. I used a "best fit" line. Pick 20 in our league has actually produced much better than some earlier picks (Arian Foster went there along with DeSean Jackson), but that doesn't you should try to go get pick 20. The best fit line accounts for those blips.

If you put the best player in the #1 slot every year, the value there would be astronomical. It wouldn't account for the bust rate.

This. Going back and seeing who should have been #1 (the Thurman Thomas example) doesn't take into account that we pick incorrectly. There is a decent likelihood that the best player in any given class will actually be picked 5th or 9th or 40th rather than 1st. I'm trying to figure out how big of a likelihood that is. If we knew who would be the best player, then #1 would be much much more valuable than #2!Thanks for all of the thoughts...

As a point of reference, the only time the best player was taken #1 in my league was Adrian Peterson, and that was 5 years ago. Our league is 8 years old. Looking back at our drafts, the talent falls off a cliff after about pick 18. Very rare to get a guy that can start for you after that point.

 

[Hoosier16]

I also give decreasing bonuses for players reaching those finishes in the years immediately following their draft (because if a player produces immediately, their lasting dynasty value is much higher than if they breakout year 5).The biggest barrier to using this chart was figuring out how much a roster spot is worth.

I think the picks at the top are still undervalued. I'm not sure why, but I think it has to do with the two things above.If I look at your chart, it says that picks 7-12 are roughly equal to picks 1-3, even after applying your 7 point adjustment. Yet, I believe 100% of the people on this board would rather have picks 1-3 and they would be right. It's not just that the perceived value is greater but the actual value is also greater. If you look at your drafts, I think you'll immediately see this. Actually, if you just look at 2007, it might be enough. Peterson, CJ, and Lynch might be worth more than all other 42 guys taken 7-12 in the other 7 years.I think the problem occurs in those two related areas above. First, the top draft picks get a chance to play earlier. This allows you to identify whether they will be studs or duds very quickly. This is partially because they are higher NFL draft picks but also because of the position they play. Picks 1-3 are always either RBs or very highly drafted WRs, both mostly NFL ready. The picks in the latter half of the 1st are a mixture of WRs, and QBs, and 2nd tier RBs, all whom usually take a few years to excel. While you bonus those producing early, maybe you need to also account for the zeros taken in the first few years by those producing late.This leads into the 2nd problem of roster spot value. I don't think 7 points is anywhere near enough to account for the value of that spot (in most leagues). While the actual value of the FA that fills that spot is an average of 7 points, that 7 point guys isn't necessarily going to fill that spot for 2-3 years. Your late 1st round pick will likely occupy that spot for 2-3 years before producing or getting dumped. The FA in that spot might get flipped 10 times during that same 2 year period, giving you multiple shots at hitting the jackpot or filling a specific weekly need. I'm not sure how you account for that , but it probably pushes that value up to 20-30 (random guess).

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

I also give decreasing bonuses for players reaching those finishes in the years immediately following their draft (because if a player produces immediately, their lasting dynasty value is much higher than if they breakout year 5).

The biggest barrier to using this chart was figuring out how much a roster spot is worth.

I think the picks at the top are still undervalued. I'm not sure why, but I think it has to do with the two things above.If I look at your chart, it says that picks 7-12 are roughly equal to picks 1-3, even after applying your 7 point adjustment. Yet, I believe 100% of the people on this board would rather have picks 1-3 and they would be right. It's not just that the perceived value is greater but the actual value is also greater. If you look at your drafts, I think you'll immediately see this. Actually, if you just look at 2007, it might be enough. Peterson, CJ, and Lynch might be worth more than all other 42 guys taken 7-12 in the other 7 years.

I think the problem occurs in those two related areas above. First, the top draft picks get a chance to play earlier. This allows you to identify whether they will be studs or duds very quickly. This is partially because they are higher NFL draft picks but also because of the position they play. Picks 1-3 are always either RBs or very highly drafted WRs, both mostly NFL ready. The picks in the latter half of the 1st are a mixture of WRs, and QBs, and 2nd tier RBs, all whom usually take a few years to excel. While you bonus those producing early, maybe you need to also account for the zeros taken in the first few years by those producing late.

This leads into the 2nd problem of roster spot value. I don't think 7 points is anywhere near enough to account for the value of that spot (in most leagues). While the actual value of the FA that fills that spot is an average of 7 points, that 7 point guys isn't necessarily going to fill that spot for 2-3 years. Your late 1st round pick will likely occupy that spot for 2-3 years before producing or getting dumped. The FA in that spot might get flipped 10 times during that same 2 year period, giving you multiple shots at hitting the jackpot or filling a specific weekly need. I'm not sure how you account for that , but it probably pushes that value up to 20-30 (random guess).

Consensus top 3 in 2009 was Moreno, Wells, Crabtree. 7-12 generally included Maclin, McCoy, Harvin, Nicks, Britt and Stafford. 2008 top three were McFadden, Mendenhall and Stewart. Guys after that were some combination of Ray Rice, Chris Johnson, Matt Forte, Jamaal Charles, Matt Ryan, Felix Jones, DeSean Jackson.

Your example of 2007 seems to be the only year in the last 8 (as long as I've been playing dynasty) where the consensus top 3 actually turned out to be the best 3. Many of those consensus top three's didn't even include one of the best 3.

 

[Hoosier16]

I also give decreasing bonuses for players reaching those finishes in the years immediately following their draft (because if a player produces immediately, their lasting dynasty value is much higher than if they breakout year 5).

The biggest barrier to using this chart was figuring out how much a roster spot is worth.

I think the picks at the top are still undervalued. I'm not sure why, but I think it has to do with the two things above.If I look at your chart, it says that picks 7-12 are roughly equal to picks 1-3, even after applying your 7 point adjustment. Yet, I believe 100% of the people on this board would rather have picks 1-3 and they would be right. It's not just that the perceived value is greater but the actual value is also greater. If you look at your drafts, I think you'll immediately see this. Actually, if you just look at 2007, it might be enough. Peterson, CJ, and Lynch might be worth more than all other 42 guys taken 7-12 in the other 7 years.

I think the problem occurs in those two related areas above. First, the top draft picks get a chance to play earlier. This allows you to identify whether they will be studs or duds very quickly. This is partially because they are higher NFL draft picks but also because of the position they play. Picks 1-3 are always either RBs or very highly drafted WRs, both mostly NFL ready. The picks in the latter half of the 1st are a mixture of WRs, and QBs, and 2nd tier RBs, all whom usually take a few years to excel. While you bonus those producing early, maybe you need to also account for the zeros taken in the first few years by those producing late.

This leads into the 2nd problem of roster spot value. I don't think 7 points is anywhere near enough to account for the value of that spot (in most leagues). While the actual value of the FA that fills that spot is an average of 7 points, that 7 point guys isn't necessarily going to fill that spot for 2-3 years. Your late 1st round pick will likely occupy that spot for 2-3 years before producing or getting dumped. The FA in that spot might get flipped 10 times during that same 2 year period, giving you multiple shots at hitting the jackpot or filling a specific weekly need. I'm not sure how you account for that , but it probably pushes that value up to 20-30 (random guess).

Consensus top 3 in 2009 was Moreno, Wells, Crabtree. 7-12 generally included Maclin, McCoy, Harvin, Nicks, Britt and Stafford. 2008 top three were McFadden, Mendenhall and Stewart. Guys after that were some combination of Ray Rice, Chris Johnson, Matt Forte, Jamaal Charles, Matt Ryan, Felix Jones, DeSean Jackson.

Your example of 2007 seems to be the only year in the last 8 (as long as I've been playing dynasty) where the consensus top 3 actually turned out to be the best 3. Many of those consensus top three's didn't even include one of the best 3.

Look at your actual drafts. Your consensus top 3 may be fairly accurate but your 7-12 examples are cherry picked. While all leagues are going to be different, only a couple probably occurred from 7-12. For example, our 7-12 in 2007 included Felix, Slaton, Sweed, DJax, Hardy, and Torain. Even in 2007, when an unusual amount of later picks provided value, I'd rather have McFadden, Stewart, and Mendenhall than what was likely picked at 7-12.In the worst years for the top 3, they are equal to the 7-12. In the best years, they blow them away.

 

[seabronc]

I think the problem occurs in those two related areas above. First, the top draft picks get a chance to play earlier. This allows you to identify whether they will be studs or duds very quickly. This is partially because they are higher NFL draft picks but also because of the position they play. Picks 1-3 are always either RBs or very highly drafted WRs, both mostly NFL ready. The picks in the latter half of the 1st are a mixture of WRs, and QBs, and 2nd tier RBs, all whom usually take a few years to excel. While you bonus those producing early, maybe you need to also account for the zeros taken in the first few years by those producing late.This leads into the 2nd problem of roster spot value. I don't think 7 points is anywhere near enough to account for the value of that spot (in most leagues). While the actual value of the FA that fills that spot is an average of 7 points, that 7 point guys isn't necessarily going to fill that spot for 2-3 years. Your late 1st round pick will likely occupy that spot for 2-3 years before producing or getting dumped. The FA in that spot might get flipped 10 times during that same 2 year period, giving you multiple shots at hitting the jackpot or filling a specific weekly need. I'm not sure how you account for that , but it probably pushes that value up to 20-30 (random guess).

Interesting thoughts, and I wonder how this will balance out over more years. We're pulling some really recent examples to see if this is valid or not. This is also a 2QB league, so I wonder how much that might shift later first round picks to having more value here than leagues where only the top echelon QBs are really worth much. I think your 2nd point about "how much is a roster spot worth?" is probably on target. When I was figuring the value of a free agent, I made it even more important for them to produce immediately than draft picks do (because of how quickly they would otherwise be cut), but the way I rank that importance is all pretty subjective. However, 20-30 points seems too high. That would seem to say that it's more valuable to have a roster spot that you continually flip than to draft and hold onto a 2nd-3rd round pick.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

I also give decreasing bonuses for players reaching those finishes in the years immediately following their draft (because if a player produces immediately, their lasting dynasty value is much higher than if they breakout year 5).

The biggest barrier to using this chart was figuring out how much a roster spot is worth.

I think the picks at the top are still undervalued. I'm not sure why, but I think it has to do with the two things above.If I look at your chart, it says that picks 7-12 are roughly equal to picks 1-3, even after applying your 7 point adjustment. Yet, I believe 100% of the people on this board would rather have picks 1-3 and they would be right. It's not just that the perceived value is greater but the actual value is also greater. If you look at your drafts, I think you'll immediately see this. Actually, if you just look at 2007, it might be enough. Peterson, CJ, and Lynch might be worth more than all other 42 guys taken 7-12 in the other 7 years.

I think the problem occurs in those two related areas above. First, the top draft picks get a chance to play earlier. This allows you to identify whether they will be studs or duds very quickly. This is partially because they are higher NFL draft picks but also because of the position they play. Picks 1-3 are always either RBs or very highly drafted WRs, both mostly NFL ready. The picks in the latter half of the 1st are a mixture of WRs, and QBs, and 2nd tier RBs, all whom usually take a few years to excel. While you bonus those producing early, maybe you need to also account for the zeros taken in the first few years by those producing late.

This leads into the 2nd problem of roster spot value. I don't think 7 points is anywhere near enough to account for the value of that spot (in most leagues). While the actual value of the FA that fills that spot is an average of 7 points, that 7 point guys isn't necessarily going to fill that spot for 2-3 years. Your late 1st round pick will likely occupy that spot for 2-3 years before producing or getting dumped. The FA in that spot might get flipped 10 times during that same 2 year period, giving you multiple shots at hitting the jackpot or filling a specific weekly need. I'm not sure how you account for that , but it probably pushes that value up to 20-30 (random guess).

Consensus top 3 in 2009 was Moreno, Wells, Crabtree. 7-12 generally included Maclin, McCoy, Harvin, Nicks, Britt and Stafford. 2008 top three were McFadden, Mendenhall and Stewart. Guys after that were some combination of Ray Rice, Chris Johnson, Matt Forte, Jamaal Charles, Matt Ryan, Felix Jones, DeSean Jackson.

Your example of 2007 seems to be the only year in the last 8 (as long as I've been playing dynasty) where the consensus top 3 actually turned out to be the best 3. Many of those consensus top three's didn't even include one of the best 3.

Look at your actual drafts. Your consensus top 3 may be fairly accurate but your 7-12 examples are cherry picked. While all leagues are going to be different, only a couple probably occurred from 7-12. For example, our 7-12 in 2007 included Felix, Slaton, Sweed, DJax, Hardy, and Torain. Even in 2007, when an unusual amount of later picks provided value, I'd rather have McFadden, Stewart, and Mendenhall than what was likely picked at 7-12.In the worst years for the top 3, they are equal to the 7-12. In the best years, they blow them away.

Our draft from 2008;1. Darren McFadden

2. Kevin Smith

3. Rashard Mendenhall

4. Chris Johnson

5. Matt Forte

6. Felix Jones

7. Jonathan Stewart

8. Ray Rice

9. Dustin Keller

10. James Hardy

11. Matt Ryan

12. Steve Slaton

13. Joe Flacco

14. DeSean Jackson

15. Jamaal Charles

I didn't cherry pick 2009 either.

1. Knowshon Moreno

2. Micheal Crabtree

3. Mark Sanchez

4. Beanie Wells

5. Matthew Stafford

6. Glen Coffee

7. Donald Brown

8. Jeremy Maclin

9. LeSean McCoy

10. Percy Harvin

11. Kenny Britt

12. Hakeem Nicks

We are a QB friendly league, so QBs tend to go higher than in some other leagues.

Looking back to 2005, Ronnie Brown, Cadillac Williams and Cedric Benson led off a lot of drafts. The actual prizes of that draft were Aaron Rodgers and Roddy White though. Both first round NFL picks.

2006 gave us Reggie Bush. Laurence Maroney and DeAngelo Williams at the top. Real prizes were actually Greg Jennings and MJD.

Not factoring in 2011 yet, I really only see one year in the last 8 where the actual best players were in the consensus top 3. (ADP and Calvin in 2007.) Yet the best players almost always get drafted in the top 20. That doesn't mean you have a better chance picking anywhere from 4-20 as you do 1-3. But since its happened in 7 of 8 seasons, its an interesting phenomenon.

 

[ZWK]

I did a similar analysis, and got a somewhat steeper drop in value. Here are my results for the first 24 picks, with pick value on a 100 point scale based on a best fit logarithmic curve (in parentheses I put the actual VBD average for that draft slot, and the most valuable player taken in that draft slot according to my data set):

1 100 (306, RB LaDainian Tomlinson)

2 80 (205, RB Ricky Williams)

3 68 (320, QB Peyton Manning)

4 60 (201, RB Shaun Alexander)

5 53 (58, RB Larry Johnson)

6 48 (118, WR Torry Holt)

7 44 (148, TE Tony Gonzalez)

8 40 (41, WR David Boston)

9 36 (249, WR Randy Moss)

10 34 (123, WR Marvin Harrison)

11 31 (23, WR Eric Moulds)

12 28 (65, WR Roddy White)

13 26 (87, WR Reggie Wayne)

14 24 (59, WR Anquan Boldin)

15 22 (74, RB Ahman Green)

16 20 (104, QB Aaron Rodgers)

17 18 (37, WR Muhsin Muhammad)

18 16 (25, TE Todd Heap)

19 15 (27, RB Karim Abdul-Jabbar)

20 13 (89, QB Drew Brees)

21 12 (34, TE Alge Crumpler)

22 11 (69, RB Brian Westbrook)

23 9 (22, WR Vincent Jackson)

24 8 (29, RB Rudi Johnson)

Method: I looked at data for players drafted 1996-2005, with career VBD (as calculated by PFR) as the outcome and dynasty draft order estimated based on position & NFL draft order. Basically, I assumed that the dynasty draft order was the same as the NFL draft order, but with RBs moved up and QBs & TEs moved down. (More specifically, counting each round as 32 picks, all RBs were moved up 1 round, all top 5 picks moved up half a round, QB/TEs picked 17th-45th moved down half a round, and QB/TEs picked after 45th moved down 1 round.)

If dynasty drafters are smart about who they pick (and draft better than they would if they only took into account position & NFL draft order), then the actual dropoff in value will be somewhat steeper than this.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

This is an awesome thread guys. Just really well done and lots of great data and debate.

 

[seabronc]

I did a similar analysis, and got a somewhat steeper drop in value. Here are my results for the first 24 picks, with pick value on a 100 point scale based on a best fit logarithmic curve (in parentheses I put the actual VBD average for that draft slot, and the most valuable player taken in that draft slot according to my data set):1 100 (306, RB LaDainian Tomlinson)2 80 (205, RB Ricky Williams)3 68 (320, QB Peyton Manning)4 60 (201, RB Shaun Alexander)5 53 (58, RB Larry Johnson)6 48 (118, WR Torry Holt)7 44 (148, TE Tony Gonzalez)8 40 (41, WR David Boston)9 36 (249, WR Randy Moss)10 34 (123, WR Marvin Harrison)11 31 (23, WR Eric Moulds)12 28 (65, WR Roddy White)13 26 (87, WR Reggie Wayne)14 24 (59, WR Anquan Boldin)15 22 (74, RB Ahman Green)16 20 (104, QB Aaron Rodgers)17 18 (37, WR Muhsin Muhammad)18 16 (25, TE Todd Heap)19 15 (27, RB Karim Abdul-Jabbar)20 13 (89, QB Drew Brees)21 12 (34, TE Alge Crumpler)22 11 (69, RB Brian Westbrook)23 9 (22, WR Vincent Jackson)24 8 (29, RB Rudi Johnson)Method: I looked at data for players drafted 1996-2005, with career VBD (as calculated by PFR) as the outcome and dynasty draft order estimated based on position & NFL draft order. Basically, I assumed that the dynasty draft order was the same as the NFL draft order, but with RBs moved up and QBs & TEs moved down. (More specifically, counting each round as 32 picks, all RBs were moved up 1 round, all top 5 picks moved up half a round, QB/TEs picked 17th-45th moved down half a round, and QB/TEs picked after 45th moved down 1 round.)If dynasty drafters are smart about who they pick (and draft better than they would if they only took into account position & NFL draft order), then the actual dropoff in value will be somewhat steeper than this.

Very cool. Thanks for posting this. I may try to see how this looks with VBD for my league. (Although I still would probably want to more highly weight a player's performance in seasons 1, 2, and 3 after drafting). To your last thought, I think we often overestimate our brilliance in the draft, and would be disappointed to realize that we may do just as well going by NFL draft order--- one of the most frustrating things about doing this study was realizing that I'm near the bottom of my league in draft performance (I divided the sum of the point values of each pick each owner has been made by the sum of the value produced by each of their picks. Brutal.) Maybe I should do more time looking at players and less time with spreadsheets.

 

[ZWK]

I did a similar analysis, and got a somewhat steeper drop in value. Here are my results for the first 24 picks, with pick value on a 100 point scale based on a best fit logarithmic curve (in parentheses I put the actual VBD average for that draft slot, and the most valuable player taken in that draft slot according to my data set):1 100 (306, RB LaDainian Tomlinson)2 80 (205, RB Ricky Williams)3 68 (320, QB Peyton Manning)4 60 (201, RB Shaun Alexander)5 53 (58, RB Larry Johnson)6 48 (118, WR Torry Holt)7 44 (148, TE Tony Gonzalez)8 40 (41, WR David Boston)9 36 (249, WR Randy Moss)10 34 (123, WR Marvin Harrison)11 31 (23, WR Eric Moulds)12 28 (65, WR Roddy White)13 26 (87, WR Reggie Wayne)14 24 (59, WR Anquan Boldin)15 22 (74, RB Ahman Green)16 20 (104, QB Aaron Rodgers)17 18 (37, WR Muhsin Muhammad)18 16 (25, TE Todd Heap)19 15 (27, RB Karim Abdul-Jabbar)20 13 (89, QB Drew Brees)21 12 (34, TE Alge Crumpler)22 11 (69, RB Brian Westbrook)23 9 (22, WR Vincent Jackson)24 8 (29, RB Rudi Johnson)Method: I looked at data for players drafted 1996-2005, with career VBD (as calculated by PFR) as the outcome and dynasty draft order estimated based on position & NFL draft order. Basically, I assumed that the dynasty draft order was the same as the NFL draft order, but with RBs moved up and QBs & TEs moved down. (More specifically, counting each round as 32 picks, all RBs were moved up 1 round, all top 5 picks moved up half a round, QB/TEs picked 17th-45th moved down half a round, and QB/TEs picked after 45th moved down 1 round.)If dynasty drafters are smart about who they pick (and draft better than they would if they only took into account position & NFL draft order), then the actual dropoff in value will be somewhat steeper than this.

Looking at the numbers a slightly different way, my best-fit curve seems to have about the right shape for the first round and a half, but after that it drops off too steeply. Here are the half-round average values, scaled to first pick = 100.pick 1: 100picks 2-6: 59picks 7-12: 35picks 13-18: 21picks 19-24: 15picks 25-30: 11picks 31-36: 10So it looks like value really flattens out after the mid 2nd round.