Why do people think stud WRs are more valuable... (1 Viewer)

[Unlucky]

Let's try another example, in a start one league where the dropoff is steepest at the beginning, how important would it be to be at the front of the curve?

Now we are getting somewhere. For the purposes of my examples below, let's assume a 12 team league. Obviously, in a start 1 WR league, the top few WRs have tremdous value because they are much better than even the #12 WR.Now, let's say we add more WRs to the starting lineup. The WRs continue to drop in production, but not as steeply. Therefore, the #13 WR is still better than the #24 WR, but not by as much as the #1 WR is compared to the #12 WR. Let's continue on to the #25 through #36. The steepness of the drop continues to level, but it's still a drop. There is still value in having the #25 WR over the #36 WR.Now, the question is whether or not the #1 WR is more value if we have to start 36 WRs or 24 WRs or 12 WRs. If we assume that each team drafts one WR from each group (top 12, next 12, bottom 12), then I don't think the value of the #1 WR has increased by starting more WRs. But, we know that in reality, the distribution isn't even. Some teams have multiple WRs from the top 12, and some have none from the top 12. How does that change the value? Let's say that each team does get 3 WRs from the top 36. You have to base the value of each WR on ( a ) the #36 WR, or ( b ) the average WR. Why? Because that's how we define value: how does the player stack up against his peers. There are X number of total WR points to go around. Value is defined by what % of X each WR represents. So, I conclude that the #1 WR has a higher value because ( a ) and ( b ) are both lower values than the #12 WR. ( a ) and ( b ) also decrease when going from 24 WRs to 26 WRs. Adding more WRs to the pool makes the basis for comparison worse, thus increasing the value of the top WRs.EDIT to remove stupid smilies.

 

[Unlucky]

I think you just proved my point. The more shots an owner gets to close the gap (start 3 v. 2), the more likely they are to do so.

Doesn't the Harrison owner get more shots to increase the gap as well?

 

[Brave Sir Robin]

Brew-If we all got to know the stats before we drafted it might not be an advantage. But we don't. Harrison, Owens and Moss have been top 5 locks for years. You don't have this consistency at any other position. Many guys who finished in the top ten were considered WR #2, 3 4 or even 5 before the draft:Toomer, Ward, Price, Driver. So maybe you get lucky and your #1 is Eric Moulds and your #2 is Plax. But many drafted Holt, Jimmy Smith, David Boston or Rod Smith as a 1, and good old Tim Brown, Key, Derrick Mason or Troy Brown as a #2. These owners were screwed.The more receivers you must start, the more variability you have. In a 12 team league, more than half are playing the match-up game for WR3. That WR3 easily becomes WR4,5,or 6 with bye weeks and injuries.It is very valuable to have a lock where you don'thave to play the match up game.

This says it all IMO.

 

[BassNBrew]

Doesn't the Harrison owner get more shots to increase the gap as well?

No, because he's starting Harrison every week.

 

[Unlucky]

No, because he's starting Harrison every week.

You're wrong. Why does the non-Harrison owner have a better WR2 and WR3 than the Harrison owner?

 

[BassNBrew]

You're wrong. Why does the non-Harrison owner have a better WR2 and WR3 than the Harrison owner?

In theory because the Harrison owner will have to catch up at other positions.

 

[Unlucky]

In theory because the Harrison owner will have to catch up at other positions.

In your theory, players get drafted in order of actual performance. But this obviously isn't true.It is VERY easy to draft a WR that outperforms WRs drafted a few rounds ahead of him. I don't buy the idea that the non-Harrison owner is at any advantage in drafting his WR2 and especially his WR3 vs. the Harrison owner.

 

[Unlucky]

I'd still like to read your rebuttal to my long post.EDIT - before this gets too heated, I will say that adding a 3rd WR doesn't increase the value of the top WRs by a lot. I'm not trying to say that it does. However, I do think that it increases their value as opposed to decreasing it.

 

[BassNBrew]

"Obviously, in a start 1 WR league, the top few WRs have tremdous value because they are much better than even the #12 WR."So Harrison has huge value in a S1L, much less value in a S2L, but more value in a S3L. "Let's continue on to the #25 through #36. The steepness of the drop continues to level, but it's still a drop. There is still value in having the #25 WR over the #36 WR."So apparently more WRs level the playing field."Now, the question is whether or not the #1 WR is more value if we have to start 36 WRs or 24 WRs or 12 WRs. If we assume that each team drafts one WR from each group (top 12, next 12, bottom 12), then I don't think the value of the #1 WR has increased by starting more WRs." That's my assertion. Looks like you support it here."But, we know that in reality, the distribution isn't even. Some teams have multiple WRs from the top 12, and some have none from the top 12. How does that change the value? Let's say that each team does get 3 WRs from the top 36. You have to base the value of each WR on ( a ) the #36 WR, or ( b ) the average WR. Why? Because that's how we define value: how does the player stack up against his peers. There are X number of total WR points to go around. Value is defined by what % of X each WR represents. So, I conclude that the #1 WR has a higher value because ( a ) and ( b ) are both lower values than the #12 WR. ( a ) and ( b ) also decrease when going from 24 WRs to 26 WRs. Adding more WRs to the pool makes the basis for comparison worse, thus increasing the value of the top WRs."On the flip side, the more WRs you add, the smaller percentage Harrison's advantage is. In a S1L his advantage is 100%. In a S2L the denominator in that % equation is increased by points of the 2nd WR, thereby reducing the percentage. Add a 3rd WR and the denominator increases more and the % further declines.If I'm really off base here, can someone demonstrate it with a numerical example. I've seen some attempts to discredit my numbers (feeble in my opinion), but I haven't seen any numbers to the contary. Holy was coming close to attempting this but didn't expand his attempt to include the 3rd WR.

 

[BassNBrew]

I'd still like to read your rebuttal to my long post.EDIT - before this gets too heated, I will say that adding a 3rd WR doesn't increase the value of the top WRs by a lot. I'm not trying to say that it does. However, I do think that it increases their value as opposed to decreasing it.

I'm a slow typer and it's late.

 

[BassNBrew]

I'd still like to read your rebuttal to my long post.EDIT - before this gets too heated, I will say that adding a 3rd WR doesn't increase the value of the top WRs by a lot. I'm not trying to say that it does. However, I do think that it increases their value as opposed to decreasing it.

It's not going to get heated. If I'm proven wrong then so be it and I learn something from the process. However I assert the 3rd WR decreases the stud WR value by some amount rather then increasing it.

 

[BassNBrew]

In your theory, players get drafted in order of actual performance. But this obviously isn't true.It is VERY easy to draft a WR that outperforms WRs drafted a few rounds ahead of him. I don't buy the idea that the non-Harrison owner is at any advantage in drafting his WR2 and especially his WR3 vs. the Harrison owner.

All I have to work with it actual performance. I would say that on average, for as many WRs you draft that perform better then those two rounds ahead, you'll draft just as many that perform two rounds worse (in a league of sharks over time). We can't use uncertainty of performance as a basis to disprove ideas. If that was the case, we could say that stud WR is the best draft theory because there's always a Portis and Garner available in the middle rounds.

 

[Unlucky]

If I'm really off base here, can someone demonstrate it with a numerical example. I've seen some attempts to discredit my numbers (feeble in my opinion), but I haven't seen any numbers to the contary. Holy was coming close to attempting this but didn't expand his attempt to include the 3rd WR.

Ok, using the last paragraph of my long post.1. We must establish some sort of baseline to determine value. Without one, we have no reference of value. 2. I feel there are two viable baselines: average starter and worst starter. (I'll address dynamic later)3. In going from 12 to 24 to 36 WRs, the baselines decrease and thus the value of WR#1 (Harrison) is greater. I think this is simple and clear. If not, let me know.I think your biggest misconception is that going from 24 to 36 WRs gives the non-Harrison owner an advantage. I still don't believe that the non-Harrison owner is more likely to close the gap in total WR scoring than the Harrison owner is to widen the gap. What is the non-Harrison owner's real advantage? This leads into the dynamic VBD a little bit. In dynamic VBD, we consider what will be available later in the draft. We think, "if we passing on our #1 WR here, what will our two possible WRs lineups look like?" The tricky part is that we may need 3 WRs. So by passing on WR1, we are also downgrading our WR2 and maybe WR3. To illustrate this, we need to look at the point value of WRs in all rounds:Round 1: 142: 123: 114: 105: 9.56: 9Some point totals:1, 2, 3: 372, 3, 4: 331, 3, 4: 35If we only have to draft two:1, 2: 262, 3: 231, 3: 25I think this example illustrates BnB's example: what is Harrison worth? In the S3L, passing on Harrison in round 1 costs you 4 points per week, while it costs you only 3 PPW in the S2L. I look at this as "drafting Harrison gives me a 4 PPW advantage instead of a 3 PPW advantage" I have a bigger advantage by drafting Harrison in the S3L. EDIT - However, I could show that the advantage is 0 for the teams that draft Harrison and then pass on a WR in the round 2. Read my next post.

 

[Unlucky]

Upon re-reading my last post, it's possible that my final example is quite flawed. You really have to consider the point drop at other positions because the sacrifices for drafting Harrison vary based on which example I give.Just stick with the beginning of the post. I think it's correct and more pertinent.

 

[Unlucky]

OK, it's coming to me now. Here is the "end all" example:Two team league. Two cases. One is a start 1/2/2 league, and the other is a start 1/2/3 league. Here are the actual point values of the 12 available players:QB1: 20QB2: 18RB1: 20RB2: 18RB3: 16RB4: 15.5WR1: 14WR2: 13WR3: 11WR4: 10WR5: 9.5WR6: 9What does your VBD board look like for each possible starting lineup?Mine looks like thisos: Start 2 WRs - Start 3QB1: 2 - 2QB2: 0 - 0RB1: 4.5 - 4.5RB2: 2.5 - 2.5RB3: .5 - .5RB4: 0 - 0WR1: 4 - 5WR2: 3 - 4WR3: 1 - 2WR4: 0 - 1WR5: NA - .5WR6: NA - 0Does anyone disagree?

 

[Unlucky]

I'm going to sleep now. So don't bother waiting up for my next reply.Man, I really padded my post count in this thread.

 

[radballs.]

I love how everyone here is fired up as much as I am about fantasy football nonsense. I'm a total numbers guy. I love this ####. I was wondering if any of you have any contacts that would help me get the original drafting sheets for the WCOFF for last year so I could run a regression analysis to confirm my belief that you are very intelligent by drafting 5 RBs in a row, lol.

 

[BlackHole]

I love how everyone here is fired up as much as I am about fantasy football nonsense. I'm a total numbers guy. I love this ####. I was wondering if any of you have any contacts that would help me get the original drafting sheets for the WCOFF for last year so I could run a regression analysis to confirm my belief that you are very intelligent by drafting 5 RBs in a row, lol.

You're a mess!!

 

[gobosox]

I think the key here is predictability. Your numbers crunch out provided that you know exactly which WRs will comprise 1-50. Of course, we know this is never the case. Given that, I think it is much easier and safer to predict that Harrison (or Owens for that matter) will end up as the #1 receiver (or close to it) than WRX will end up at a certain spot.For example, take a look at WRs 3-12 (in my league). They are (in order): Ward, Moulds, Moss, Toomer, Price, Horn, Burress, Driver, Rice, Coles. With the exception of Moss (you could actually argue lackluster production for Moss), Horn, and maybe Burress, I don't think any of them were projected to finish that high. In contrast, Harrison and Owens (#1 and #2) were projected to finish that high. Think about it, if you were attempting to target the #6 receiver (or someone close to it) during the late 3rd round or early 4th round of your draft last year, who would you have taken? Horn? Burress? If you did, you would have lucked out. However, what if they were off the board, or what if you were one of the people who took Holt (#15), Bruce (#19), Keyshawn (#20), or Rod Smith (#22)? You'd be really screwed while the guy who took Harrison or Owens, expecting his pick to be #1 or close to it, thrived in his pick's predictable production.Therefore, recognizing that you want your WRs to produce at an expected level (whatever that level may be), and recognizing that the need for your WRs to produce at that level is even greater as you start three instead of two, Harrison is more valuable because it is a safer bet that a WR corps led by Harrison will come closer to reaching its level of expected production.

Shirtless, read all of your posts....agree, and the above further supports my theory......if Moss is available come round 2, I will draft him. Knowing I have a high degree of certainty that my WR1 that I draft as a WR1 actually performs at a WR1 level is invaluable. Too many guys last year had the likes of Holt, Smith, Bruce as their WR1 and lost HUGE production because they performed miserably.This was a very entertaining thread....and Unlucky and Bass, when do you guys sleep? Good stuff though.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Let's say that each team does get 3 WRs from the top 36. You have to base the value of each WR on ( a ) the #36 WR, or ( b ) the average WR. Why? Because that's how we define value: how does the player stack up against his peers. There are X number of total WR points to go around. Value is defined by what % of X each WR represents. So, I conclude that the #1 WR has a higher value because ( a ) and ( b ) are both lower values than the #12 WR. ( a ) and ( b ) also decrease when going from 24 WRs to 26 WRs. Adding more WRs to the pool makes the basis for comparison worse, thus increasing the value of the top WRs.

This is exactly right.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Doesn't the Harrison owner get more shots to increase the gap as well?

Yes, that was my point in the other thread.Here's the situation BnB laid out:Start 2 WR, 12 team league:Team 1 (Harrison, 24th WR) = 239+132 = 371Team 2 (6th WR, 18th WR) = 183+147 = 330Start 3 WR, 12 team leagueTeam 1 (Harrison 1st WR, 24th WR, 36th WR) = 239+132+108 = 479Team 2 (6th WR, 18th WR, 30th WR) = 183+147+120 = 450But he gave WR24 and WR30 to the wrong teams. In the first situation, he had a two-round draft, with Team 1 picking first in round 1 and Team 2 picking first in round 2. In the second situation, he had Team 2 pick first again in the third round. That's backwards. In a serpentine draft, Team 1 would have gotten the better of the third guys:Team 1 (Harrison 1st WR, 24th WR, 30th WR) = 239+132+120 = 491Team 2 (6th WR, 18th WR, 36th WR) = 183+147+108 = 438If we throw a fourth round in there, Team 2 would partially make up the advantage Team 1 gained in round 3, but not the entire advantage (since productivity flattens out later). So Team 1 still ends up better off in a four-round WR draft than in a two-round WR draft.But that's only part of the problem with BnB's original numbers. The other part of the problem is that a 3WR-league will have WRs drafted at a faster rate than a 2WR-leauge league in general. So if the WRs taken in the second round were WR24 and WR18 in the 2WR-league draft (using BnB's scenario), they would not be WR24 and WR18 in the 3WR-league draft. They would be more like WR30 and WR22. (Moreover, Team 2 may have only gotten WR8 with his first pick, thus widening the gap between Harrison and his top WR.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Imagine a 2-team league with this universe of players:RB1 - 250RB2 - 200WR1 - 225WR2 - 215WR3 - 125WR4 - 115(A) If we start 1 RB and 1 WR, whom would you draft first?(B) If we start 1 RB and 2 WRs, whom would you draft first?Change the numbers around as much as you want. It's easy to come up with scenarios where the answer to (A) is RB and the answer to (B) is WR . . . but can you come up with any scenarios where the answer to (A) is WR and the answer to (B) is RB? If not, then there are no situations in which adding extra WR requirements devalues the top WRs.

 

[Unlucky]

Thanks Maurile - I think between our posts, we've solved the riddle.As to when I sleep - usually from about 2AM or 3 AM to noon Mountian Time.

 

[BassNBrew]

This is exactly right.

How can that be right? Can someone please provide an example? Here's what I compare that paragraph to...Let's say we're betting football games. I have inside information that one game is fixed and have been given the winner. Under which scenario is playing this game most valuable.1) I make a straight bet.2) I include this game in a 2 play parlay.3) I include this game in a 3 play parlay.The fixed game represents having a known stud. The parlays represent the the decreasing slope of the performance drop off.As Unlucky stated, Harrison is huge in a S1L where the drop off is steepest from 1-12 and even steeper from 1-4. All of a sudden he becomes less valuable in a S2L and then more valuable in a S3L. This doesn't make sense.

 

[BassNBrew]

Imagine a 2-team league with this universe of players:RB1 - 250RB2 - 200WR1 - 225WR2 - 215WR3 - 125WR4 - 115(B) If we start 1 RB and 2 WRs, whom would you draft first?but can you come up with any scenarios where the answer to (B) is RB? YES...1st pick is RB1 (other team must take RB2 or there won't be any left and then WR1), 2nd pick is WR2, 3rd pick is WR3.

 

[BassNBrew]

"But he gave WR24 and WR30 to the wrong teams. In the first situation, he had a two-round draft, with Team 1 picking first in round 1 and Team 2 picking first in round 2. In the second situation, he had Team 2 pick first again in the third round. That's backwards. In a serpentine draft, Team 1 would have gotten the better of the third guys:"I strongly disagree with this statement. I wasn't looking at a draft exclusively consisting of WRs. My assumption was that a team draft WR1 would likely suffer at the other WR spots in order to gain some lost ground at RB or QB. Think of it this way...in theory each team will get one player out of each bucket (1-12, 13-24, 25-36). If you get a player high in the 1-12 range then naturally you will get players lower in the 13-24 range. My assumption was that the other positions would balance out so all the disparity would be within the WR ranks."But that's only part of the problem with BnB's original numbers. The other part of the problem is that a 3WR-league will have WRs drafted at a faster rate than a 2WR-leauge league in general."That may be true, but if the value doesn't support this trend (whcih I don't think it does because the performance curve flattens) then you don't follow it, you take a higher valued player at another position. You guys are ignoring this in my opinion...Last year the drop off from WR#1 to WR#4 was 50 points. The drop off from WR#22 to WR#57 was 49 points. The drop off from #4 to #21 was 49 points.

 

[Unlucky]

As Unlucky stated, Harrison is huge in a S1L where the drop off is steepest from 1-12 and even steeper from 1-4. All of a sudden he becomes less valuable in a S2L and then more valuable in a S3L. This doesn't make sense.

I never said he is less valueable in a S2L. Just because Harrison't value is big compared to the top 12 WRs, doesn't mean that it decreases compared to the top 24 or 36. I think I've shown that it increases as you increase the starting requirements.

 

[Unlucky]

My assumption was that a team draft WR1 would likely suffer at the other WR spots in order to gain some lost ground at RB or QB.

This is where the disagreement stems. You ASSUMED that the team drafting Harrison would intentionally wait longer to draft other WRs and thus lose ground to other teams. If you can prove that a team drafting Harrison MUST wait longer and thus MUST draft worse WRs than teams that don't draft Harrison, then you would be correct. However, the team drafting Harrison doesn't have to draft worse WRs. If you want to carry your assumption further (to a rediculous level), then why not suggest that drafting Tomlinson with your first pick is a bad idea in a start 2 RB league? Since you draft Tomlinson, you'll have to make up ground at other positions. Thus, other teams can close the gap by drafting a better 2nd RB, and thus Tomlinson's value is decreased. I hope you see this as a silly example.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

Bass,

Now you are simply ignoring posts and taking parts out of context because you have faced reasoning that you cannot argue with.

First things first:

You came up with a theory and hen tried to dig up numbers to support that theory. That is bad thinking. In reality, if your formulate a draft based on last years numbers existing numbers-there is not value to be had. There is a correct and particular player to be chosen at each draft slot due to the rules and the roster slots. FF does not operate this was. Nonetheless, I will again address your inherently flawed initial proposition.

In your initial post you tried to talk about value within the position. On principle, this is silly. Value is a combition of two things: a players worth compared to other players worth and where that player is drafted. This is why where a player is drafted is important.

Then you act as if your example is fact or a theorum: it is neither It is an example. Again here is your example:

Start 3 WR, 12 team league

Team 1 (Harrison 1st WR, 24th WR, 36th WR) = 239+132+108 = 479

Team 2 (6th WR, 18th WR, 30th WR) = 183+147+120 = 450

I'm assume that team one takes Harrison in the 1st and then drafts the last of the 2nd WR and last of the 3rd WR. Team 2 represents an average draft where an owner drafts a WR in the middle of each group (WR1, WR2, WR3)

Net 29 point advantage to Team 1 (Harrison)

Start 2 WR, 12 team league

Team 1 (Harrison, 24th WR) = 239+132 = 371

Team 2 (6th WR, 18th WR) = 183+147 = 330

Net 41 point advantage to Team 1.

In your example you decide that because player 1 drafts harrison he will wait longer to draft a second and third WR. I am not sure why you chose this to be fact- but hey- it's your example. You point appears to be: If team two adds the 30th Wr and team 1 selects the 30th Wr, then team 1 loses some of its advantage- therefore harrison is less valuable in this situation.

However, you are failing to balance the equation. When Team 1 skips a WR after WR24 (as Maurile noted, it would be his turn to act next) and takes another player at a different position- that call him RB18, that player will be better than the player team 2 takes in the round following WR 30- call him RB24.

I picked these numbers off the top of my head. In this example

RB18- 188 points

RB 24-152 points

So while tam 2 picked up 12 points getting WR30, he lost 36 points getting rb24.

You could plug in any other set-

rb24-152

rb30-130

or

rb30-130

rb36-110

This is the balance of the equation. You must consider who was drafted instead of the wr and who the other team picked up after wr 36. You are ignoring this.

 

[aaronr28]

This is where the disagreement stems. You ASSUMED that the team drafting Harrison would intentionally wait longer to draft other WRs and thus lose ground to other teams. If you can prove that a team drafting Harrison MUST wait longer and thus MUST draft worse WRs than teams that don't draft Harrison, then you would be correct. However, the team drafting Harrison doesn't have to draft worse WRs. If you want to carry your assumption further (to a rediculous level), then why not suggest that drafting Tomlinson with your first pick is a bad idea in a start 2 RB league? Since you draft Tomlinson, you'll have to make up ground at other positions. Thus, other teams can close the gap by drafting a better 2nd RB, and thus Tomlinson's value is decreased. I hope you see this as a silly example.

but isn't it pretty obvious that a team who drafts Harrison in round 1 will have to draft RBs in rounds 2 and 3, and maybe even 4? By the time they come back for WR2, they will likely be choosing from the lower ranked guys. I don't see that a big problem with the assumption that a Harrison owner may have to focus on RB before picking their WR2.It would be great to take Harrison and another stud WR in a S2L, but given the scarcity of starting RBs, you would be killing your chances by ignoring that position. Thus, a team that spends a high pick on a top WR will likely focus on RBs with their remaining high picks.I see both sides of the issue here, even though I think the numbers support Unlucky and MT's argument.

 

[sinatravolta]

I disagree with the notion that Harrison would be huge in a S1L. The problem is you do have to consider other positions and when people would be drafted. If all other positions were as they usually are (including 2 RBs), if you take Harrison around 1.10, then you're set at WR, but you're likely going to be screwed pretty badly when you select your #2 RB. On the other hand, if you started RB/RB, you could take your shots later on a bunch of potential WRs, and have decent odds of getting someone who does shoot up into the higher ranks, a la Ward, Driver, Price last year. You can make a bunch of long-shot WR picks because you only need 1 of them to pay off. And even if you don't get one, you could trade for one relatively easily because someone is bound to have some pretty good WRs just sitting on their bench during the season given they are only starting 1.These comparisons to when you have to start 1 WR and 1 RB compared to starting 2 WRs and 2 RBs aren't really applicable, because when we're talking about 2 WR vs. 3 WR leagues, it's not like the number of players at the other positions change. So back to the example, now let's say you have to start 2 WRs- the studs become a little more valuable and worth taking sooner because now there's not quite as much of a discrepancy between the scarcity of RBs and the scarcity of WRs. If you take all your WRs late, you might not get a decent one, and it will be harder to trade for one because not many people will have solid guys to spare. This continues when you go to 3 WRs, but at a smaller level. I don't think there's a huge difference, but if anything, Harrison is a little more valuable in a S3L than in a S2L.Note- I took Owens 1.9 last year in a S2L, and scored the most points in my league (although I lost in the championship). I took him because I did feel like he was more of a sure thing than the RBs available at that point. However, in retrospect I think it was a bad move, even though Owens performed as expected because I think the best move last year at that point in the draft was just to take 2 of the 2nd tier RBs in the 1st two rounds even if you weren't sure there was a lot of spread between a group of about 8 RBs. As it was I took Fred Taylor in the 3rd round as RB2 and that turned out ok, although it easily might not have.In a league that started only WRs, it is correct that Harrison is more valuable in a S1L than a S2L and even more than in a S3L. But once you add the other positions in, the opposite is true (although in the case of S2L vs. S3L, it's pretty minor).

 

[rabidfireweasel]

I wasn't looking at a draft exclusively consisting of WRs.  My assumption was that a team draft WR1 would likely suffer at the other WR spots in order to gain some lost ground at RB or QB.  Think of it this way...in theory each team will get one player out of each bucket (1-12, 13-24, 25-36).  If you get a player high in the 1-12 range then naturally you will get players lower in the 13-24 range.  My assumption was that the other positions would balance out so all the disparity would be within the WR ranks.

Actually you were, or you would have to include the value gained by drafting players at other positions. You are not doing this. You are saying Team1 will wait to draft other wr's but you are not compensating them for picking better players at other positions in your quasi-formula. Team 2 probably drafted rb,rb,wr,wr,wr,rb. Team 1 probably drafted wr,rb,rb,wr,rb,wr. You fail to give Team 1 advantage he has gained at rb3- which is greater than what he lost at wr3. You only penalize him for havinf a worse WR3. My assumption was that the other positions would balance out so all the disparity would be within the WR ranks.

You made this assumption to support your theory, but not because it makes any sense. Why would you make this assumption. Things didn't just balance out at the WR position-why would it elsewhere?

EDIT: clarify confusing pronouns and to say more stuff

 

[heavy-set1]

Imagine a 2-team league with this universe of players:RB1 - 250RB2 - 200WR1 - 225WR2 - 215WR3 - 125WR4 - 115(B) If we start 1 RB and 2 WRs, whom would you draft first?but can you come up with any scenarios where the answer to (B) is RB? YES...1st pick is RB1 (other team must take RB2 or there won't be any left and then WR1), 2nd pick is WR2, 3rd pick is WR3.

thats what your inital post was, coming up with senarios that support your opinion.do independent research and draw conclusions from it, dont have the conclusion and back into the research. in leagues that start 3 wrs, the value of the wr is incresed. its comman sense. iam staring at my avt/vbd for my league and if i switched it to a 2wrl, the value of the wr falls dramatically. if your point is that the dropoff between harrison and the other wrs is less in a 2 wr league than a 3 wr league, and your conclusion is that stud wrs arent more valueable, my only response is that people who go into a draft (3wl) and just blindly pick wrs without doing research are stupid. crunch the #s for your draft spot and find the best value.also, why does this arguement only pertain to harrison? and the dropoff between he and other wrs. the arguement should be "what is the value of wrs in a 3wrl when compared to all positions". once again, when the avt/vbd apps come out, you will see.

 

[BassNBrew]

Let me take another attempt...a universe of 48 playersP xE R F xOR x MA xN x C xE 1 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54This was supposed to be a sloped graph and it sure did look pretty when I typed it but the spaces go away when I posted it. Just imagine the x's moving further to the right the lower you go with the slope steep at first and then gradually flattening.In a twelve player league player 1's value is double player 12's. Let's assume p1=100 and p12=50. p1's value is 100% of the maximum points and p12's value is 50.In a 24 player league; team 1: p1=100, p24=27 team 2: p12=53, p13=47. Team 1 = 127pt v. team 2 100pt. Team 1 has 100% of the maximun draft points pts and p1 represents 79% of those points, team 2 has 79% of the maximum draftable points.In a 48 player league; team 1: p1=100, p24=27, p25=23, p48=7 team 2: p12=53, p13=47, p36=13, p37=12Team 1 = 157 v. team 2 125. Team 1 has 100% of the maximun draftable pts and p1 represents 64% of those points, team 2 has 79% of the maximum draftable points.Conclusion from this example: As you increase positions the difference between those two teams remains level % wise, however the contribution of p1 to that factor steadily decreases. If you carried this example out long enough I guess that p1's contribution would gradually approach zero.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

Let me take another attempt...a universe of 48 playersP xE R F xOR x MA xN x C xE 1 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54This was supposed to be a sloped graph and it sure did look pretty when I typed it but the spaces go away when I posted it. Just imagine the x's moving further to the right the lower you go with the slope steep at first and then gradually flattening.In a twelve player league player 1's value is double player 12's. Let's assume p1=100 and p12=50. p1's value is 100% of the maximum points and p12's value is 50.In a 24 player league; team 1: p1=100, p24=27 team 2: p12=53, p13=47. Team 1 = 127pt v. team 2 100pt. Team 1 has 100% of the maximun draft points pts and p1 represents 79% of those points, team 2 has 79% of the maximum draftable points.In a 48 player league; team 1: p1=100, p24=27, p25=23, p48=7 team 2: p12=53, p13=47, p36=13, p37=12Team 1 = 157 v. team 2 125. Team 1 has 100% of the maximun draftable pts and p1 represents 64% of those points, team 2 has 79% of the maximum draftable points.Conclusion from this example: As you increase positions the difference between those two teams remains level % wise, however the contribution of p1 to that factor steadily decreases. If you carried this example out long enough I guess that p1's contribution would gradually approach zero.

Bass-Now you are just being a moron. You assumption on extending this out to infinity is not relavent. You said initially you were open to debate, but you have stopped debating. It is self evident that if you extend the number of participants out to infinity, a singular participant has less value. Again, you are ignoring other players at other positions and you cannot. Certainly you are aware of this. You cannot isolate a singular position unlessA: you only play WR FFor B: you draft players one position at a time.

 

[BassNBrew]

"in leagues that start 3 wrs, the value of the wr is incresed. its comman sense. iam staring at my avt/vbd for my league and if i switched it to a 2wrl, the value of the wr falls dramatically."This may be true, but I'm focusing on the stud WR (WR1). The drop off is the steepest at the front. I'm not arguing that WRs as a whole are worth less in a S3L v. S2L. We could apply this same arguement to a S1RBL a talked about how important it is to get RB1. However it's a harder argument to discuss because supply is a very significant issue at RB.

 

[aaronr28]

Bass-Now you are just being a moron. You assumption on extending this out to infinity is not relavent. You said initially you were open to debate, but you have stopped debating. It is self evident that if you extend the number of participants out to infinity, a singular participant has less value. Again, you are ignoring other players at other positions and you cannot. Certainly you are aware of this. You cannot isolate a singular position unlessA: you only play WR FFor B: you draft players one position at a time.

you may be taking this a little too personally...what's with the name calling?Bass is simply arguing his viewpoint. If everybody in fantasy football drafted exactly the same way, what would be the point? It would all be a matter of luck.IMO, the consistency of the top 3 WRs makes them more valuable in a S2L than in a S3L, but that feeling probably wouldn't change my draft strategy a whole lot since RBs are still essential in the early rounds.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

BnB, are you arguing that WR1 is less valuable in 3-WR leagues under VBD, or are you arguing that VBD is wrong in this particular case? Because it's self-evident (or if not, you can do the math) that WR1 is more valuable in 3-WR leagues under VBD. The baseline is lower, so the difference between WR1 and the baseline is greater.

 

[BassNBrew]

Let me take another attempt...a universe of 48 playersP xE R F xOR x MA xN x C xE 1 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54This was supposed to be a sloped graph and it sure did look pretty when I typed it but the spaces go away when I posted it. Just imagine the x's moving further to the right the lower you go with the slope steep at first and then gradually flattening.In a twelve player league player 1's value is double player 12's. Let's assume p1=100 and p12=50. p1's value is 100% of the maximum points and p12's value is 50.In a 24 player league; team 1: p1=100, p24=27 team 2: p12=53, p13=47. Team 1 = 127pt v. team 2 100pt. Team 1 has 100% of the maximun draft points pts and p1 represents 79% of those points, team 2 has 79% of the maximum draftable points.In a 48 player league; team 1: p1=100, p24=27, p25=23, p48=7 team 2: p12=53, p13=47, p36=13, p37=12Team 1 = 157 v. team 2 125. Team 1 has 100% of the maximun draftable pts and p1 represents 64% of those points, team 2 has 79% of the maximum draftable points.Conclusion from this example: As you increase positions the difference between those two teams remains level % wise, however the contribution of p1 to that factor steadily decreases. If you carried this example out long enough I guess that p1's contribution would gradually approach zero.

Bass-Now you are just being a moron. You assumption on extending this out to infinity is not relavent. You said initially you were open to debate, but you have stopped debating. It is self evident that if you extend the number of participants out to infinity, a singular participant has less value. Again, you are ignoring other players at other positions and you cannot. Certainly you are aware of this. You cannot isolate a singular position unlessA: you only play WR FFor B: you draft players one position at a time.

Actually I'm trying to debate this and understand where several of you are coming from w/o name calling. It's a very complex formula when you start considering multiple variables so I'm trying to simplify it as much as possible. I understand the impact of the other positions and am trying to make some broad assumptions that are valid but limit their impact (i.e. each owner will take a player from each tier at each postion 1-12, 13-24, etc.)."It is self evident that if you extend the number of participants out to infinity, a singular participant has less value."OK, you made the statement. Everyone has countered that single participant has more value as you extended from S2L to S3L. Now you say they have less value at infinity. Exactly where does the change occur in your mind? My numbers show that the person's contribution continues to drop while the differential between the teams stays flat.Well I have to be productive for a while. I'll check back later and see if anyone has come up with something besides "it's evident" or 2 team league examples that will convince me that I'm wrong on this.

 

[SNOW32]

Just finished reading all the posts on this thread, and now my mind is COMPLETELY NUMB!!! Great posts everyone. Here are my main three thoughts, coming from a numb mind, on this topic: 1. IF you agree with BassNBrew, THEN you better be DARN SURE that the WR's you targeted to finish at WR6, WR18 and WR30 LIVE UP to your projections. 2. IF even one, or two, or all three of them do not live up to your projections, THEN the guy who KNOWS he has a top-3 WR, is gonna be far better off. 3. After the top 7 or 8 WR's are off the board, it is a complete crapshoot. You can throw all the numbers in the world at me, but cannot convince me that the non-stud WR guy has even a SLIGHTLY better chance at landing better #2 and #3 WR's than the top-3 WR guy. If the top-3WR guy hits, and you miss, then not only do you not have a top-3WR, you are gonna have to pray real hard that your WR6 performs up to his billing to carry your misses at WR2 and WR3. Case in point: Last year I kept Owens as one of my 3 keepers. I then was able to land a couple other top WR's (whifed on Boston early, hit on Coles and Conway later in the draft) and completely dominated my league in WR scoring. (and overall scoring thanks to Gannon and Priest).SO......let's say I didn't have Owens to begin with last year. If I completely wiff in the midrounds, and take a Darrell Jackson/Kevin Johnson/Keyshawn type WR instead of Coles/Conway...now I am in DEEP trouble at WR. Not only do I not have a top-3 WR to rely on, but none of my projected WR's 18/24/30 etc etc, panned out for me. And God forbid if I took Boston as my WR1 (who many projected at WR4 or WR5 last season)...I would be totally screwed!! But if I do have Owens to begin with, he would at least make me respectable at WR, even if I did wiff in the middle rounds and take D. Jackson/Key or Kev Johnson instead of Coles/Conway. This is why a STUD WR is valuable regardless of a S2L or S3L...he can make up for some misses later on in the draft, and send you into the stratosphere with some hits!I find this thread rather interesting because my main league of interest is a 10-teamer where we start 3 WR. Owens is one of my keepers, so my hand is somewhat forced from the get-go, and I can only HOPE that having a top-3 WR, in a start 3WR, league is more valuable...I have no other choice, unless I can trade Owens for a stud RB (not very likely!). Anyways, I do feel that having a top-3 WR is more valuable in a S3L, just based on past experience, and not really on any theorizing or throwing numbers around like 24WR, 30WR...etc etc. It would be nice if I knew EXACTLY where each and every WR, from 1 to 120, was going to finish in the rankings at the end of the year, but unfortunately NONE of us do. And that is why I am glad to have Owens.Peace out!

 

[BassNBrew]

BnB, are you arguing that WR1 is less valuable in 3-WR leagues under VBD, or are you arguing that VBD is wrong in this particular case? Because it's self-evident (or if not, you can do the math) that WR1 is more valuable in 3-WR leagues under VBD. The baseline is lower, so the difference between WR1 and the baseline is greater.

MT...I guess I'm arguing that VBD is wrong in this particular case or at least arguing that justifying value on the top end by lowering a baseline is flawed. Now I'm a hardcore VBD guy so it kind of smacks me in the face to say that. If you would, please try to look at this from the standpoint that I'm presenting. Rather than shoot arrows at my assumptions, such as both owners will get relative equal value at the other position, help make the necessary assumptions valid and then address the the thesis. Maybe VBD doesn't give enough value to the steepness of the slope at the front end of the population? By the way...the graph looks a lot better in the quote.

 

[Long Snapper]

I'm in an 8 team division in a 2 division league. We can keep 2 players. I have Ahman Green and Travis Henry. I also own Moss. Now here's the kicker , we start 4 WR's! Consensus in previous posts had me keeping the RB's. Assuming Moss,Harrison and Owens are unavailable if I keep my RB's, does any side of this argument suggest I keep 1 RB and Moss?

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

BnB keeps saying that the more people you have, the more starters you have the more likely you are to have one of them have a big week. However, he is not considering that the more you have, the converse is also true in that you have more chances to have a dud as well. By the time you get to the #3 WR's and bench players you are getting more and more sleepers and longshots where a player that one guy has in his top 30 might not even be in someone else's top 50. For #3 WR's and beyond the guy who drafted Harrison is no less likely to get his desired #3 and backups as the guy who ended up without Harrison as it is unlikely that they have them ranked in the exact same place. Donald Driver has just as much likelihood to end up on either roster at the end of the draft but the guy with Harrison doesn't have to rely on finding him as badly as the other guy. You can come up with some screwy things assuming where people got picked correlates to their end of season numbers. The #6 WR might have been picked in the 8th round and the #4 in the 6th round. The #10 might have been a 12th round flyer. Your third round wide receiver that you expected to match up to Harrison might have ended up being the #18 WR or worse. The Harrison guy has every bit as much of a chance of landing another top ten WR to go with his clear cut #1 as anybody else does all the while decreasing the chance that the guy he drafted as his #1 ends up being a flop. You are not accounting for the guy who picks the highly rated WR only to keep starting him every week hoping he'll have his breakout week as he fears if he benches him he'll go off. In the meantime, the other guy is starting Harrison every week and most likely has weeks where Harrison outscores the other guys 3 WR's all by himself.Another thing you have to consider is that the guy drafting Harrison in the first is most likely one of the last picks in that round and may have a lot different options than the other guy who ends up with the #6 WR. If he picks RB/RB he ends up with a better choice at RB #2 but ends up with the bottom of the #1 WR's if he waits until his 3rd pick at the end of the 3rd round. Basically he gets mediocre performance at both key positions. What's to say that he doesn't decide to go Stud WR Theory here and try to dominate that position. Your data doesn't account for that possibility. It really seems as if you have a conclusion and you are trying to make the data fit your conclusion by picking values for all of the variables that make it seem to work.

 

[aaronr28]

I'm in an 8 team division in a 2 division league. We can keep 2 players. I have Ahman Green and Travis Henry. I also own Moss. Now here's the kicker , we start 4 WR's! Consensus in previous posts had me keeping the RB's. Assuming Moss,Harrison and Owens are unavailable if I keep my RB's, does any side of this argument suggest I keep 1 RB and Moss?

Is it a 16 team league with 4 WR starters? If so, having Green, Henry, and Moss is pretty impressive. Personally, I'd keep the RBs over Moss.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If you would, please try to look at this from the standpoint that I'm presenting.

Marvin Harrison's value comes from the fact that he's better than other WRs. Whether you start 1 WR or 2 WRs or 3 WRs or 40 WRs, Harrison will always have the same value as compared to the other top 11 WRs in the universe (i.e., everybody else's WR1 if they all get one of the top 12). If you consider WR1 and WR2 to be separate positions drawn from separate pools of players, then the number of WRs your league starts has no effect on Harrison's value. He has the same advantage over the next 11 WRs, and any other WRs are irrelevant because they are in separate pools.However, that's not how FF works. The top 36 WRs (and beyond) are all in the same pool, not three separate pools corresponding to peoples WR1, WR2, and WR3. When Harrison is drafted, that not only decreases the expected value of other people's WR1, but it also decreases the expected value of their WR2 and WR3 because the whole pool of WRs (not just the pool of the top 12 WRs) is now slightly depleted.

Think of it this way. In a 1-WR league, if you wait until the end of the draft to select your WRs, you will still probably end up with around the #12 WR or so (assuming very small rosters with no backups allowed for simplicity), who may be 50 points worse than Harrison. But in a 3-WR league, if you wait until the end of the draft to select your WRs, you will end up with WRs in the mid 30s, who will all be about 100 points worse than Harrison.

Since your WRs are at a bigger disadvantage to Harrison in the 3-WR league than in the 1-WR league (because you've got more of them who are worse than Harrison), Harrison therefore has a bigger advantage over your WRs in the 3-WR league than in the 1-WR league, and that makes Harrison more valuable in the 3-WR league.

By the way...the graph looks a lot better in the quote.

That is bizarre. I've been using periods instead of spaces to get things to line up correctly, but maybe I won't have to do that anymore if I use the quote function . . .

 

[heavy-set1]

BnB, are you arguing that WR1 is less valuable in 3-WR leagues under VBD, or are you arguing that VBD is wrong in this particular case? Because it's self-evident (or if not, you can do the math) that WR1 is more valuable in 3-WR leagues under VBD. The baseline is lower, so the difference between WR1 and the baseline is greater.

exactly

 

[rabidfireweasel]

"It is self evident that if you extend the number of participants out to infinity, a singular participant has less value."OK, you made the statement. Everyone has countered that single participant has more value as you extended from S2L to S3L. Now you say they have less value at infinity. Exactly where does the change occur in your mind? My numbers show that the person's contribution continues to drop while the differential between the teams stays flat.

You are comparing apples and oranges and pretending that you are comparing the same. You address points where it suits you and you ignore other ones when you can't refute them.You have never addressed the balancing the equation issue.For your performance assertion:You are saying that as I add more more and more players to the equation, a singular player takes up a lesser percentage of the whole number. This is true.You are somehow trying to imply this relates to increasing the wr position from 2 to 3 and fantasy football. FF drafts are finite. This is not true.Starting requirements are finite. A players value at his position can be gauged as either, what he does compared to the the average starter or the worst starter. A players true value is his value at his position compared to every other available player's value compared to his position. If you start more players, Harrison's total points as a percentage of roster points may go down, but that does not make his value go down. His value relates to how he scores in relation to other players playing. Roster requirements will affect where players are drafted. In the FAD draft where you can start 3 rb's, this inceased the value of running backs and more were drafted earlier. I have stated this in several posts. So have others. You said, your assumption is that things will balance out at other positions. I challenge this assumption as false. I will assume if you do not address it in this one it is because you simply have not answer or are incapable of saying "Good point, let me reconsider that.Every draft position involves a choice. You can choose a player that fits a position: (Note team 2-is probably drafting later in round 1- Team 2 will have the stud WR) Team1 Team2Round1 rb(6) wr1 --->Round2 rb(18) rb(12)<----Round3-->wr(6) rb(24)Round4 wr(18) rb(30)<---Round5 -->rb(36) wr(24 )At this point we are even both teams have 3 rb's and 2 wr's. You cannot assume other positions will balance themselves out. Who has done better? I really don't know. However- this is where your initial premise is flawed- both teams have drafted 5 players. Your assumption is that Team 2 will not draft a wr here- he will try to strengthen his team elsewhere. I believe that this is a false assumption. Many teams would draft a wr3 right here. However, I will follow your example. Remember that Team2 will draft first in round 6.Round6 wr 30 rb 42 or QB(10)<--ROund7 rb 48 or Qb16 wr 36You cannot say, Team 1 has levelled the Harrison edge because he has WR 30 and team 2 has wr36. You must consider that when team 2 chose not to draft a wr, he took a better player at a better position. He was able to do this - in your mind- because he has a stud wr. Now you must compare the player he gets in round 6 to the player team1 gets in round 7. The fact that things flatten out at the bottom hurts your WR theory, because things aren't as flat at the other positions. Team 1 loses only 12 points by sliding from the 30th to the 36th receiver (because it is flat) but gains more points than that (in 2002) by even by getting the 42 rb over the 48th (15 points). {I assert that in a start three league, there is now way that there would be 42 rb's taken before 30 wr's. If this is he case, the advantage of selecting a rb in the mid rounds goes up more as the rb pool does not not flatten). If he drafts QB 10 here he gains 58 points at this position for drafting a player other than a wr. Even if team 1 says in round 6- I better go QB here instead of Wr and drafts QB12- he still loses on this scenario because of the drop between QB10 and QB12.Think about it: would you rather:A)Get the better player when the values are flat and the worse one where they are notorb)Get the worse player where the values are flat and the better player where they are not?Please answer this question directly, not with a hypothetical math situation.So, your assumption that everything will level out seems to be a bad one.You must consider how every pick affects the roster. I stand by my assertion. You must balance the equation, and it seems to me that you refuse to.

 

[aaronr28]

Think about it: would you rather:A)Get the better player when the values are flat and the worse one where they are notorb)Get the worse player where the values are flat and the better player where they are not?Please answer this question directly, not with a hypothetical math situation.

Obviously the answer is BIf you agree that the value of WRs are not flat at the top, then you would prefer to get a stud WR early before the dropoff occurs. But, since RB value drops off considerably also, it's hard to argue that WRs are more valuable than RBs in the early rounds.

 

[mbuehner]

I'm in an 8 team division in a 2 division league. We can keep 2 players. I have Ahman Green and Travis Henry. I also own Moss. Now here's the kicker , we start 4 WR's! Consensus in previous posts had me keeping the RB's. Assuming Moss,Harrison and Owens are unavailable if I keep my RB's, does any side of this argument suggest I keep 1 RB and Moss

Trade Moss for a draft pick. But you keep the RBs. In a 16 team league there are 32 RB slots and you have 2 very good ones locked up. Your opponents will be scrambling for the remaining backs which gives you your choice of the remaining WRs. The point is the the differential between your WRs and your opponents' WRs will ultimately be a smaller gap than your RBs and their RBs. You should run the numbers but I'm fairly positive that remains true. I suspect that the RB pressure added by the 16 teams will at least offset the extra value placed on WRs (if there is any as Bass notes).

 

[BassNBrew]

"It is self evident that if you extend the number of participants out to infinity, a singular participant has less value."OK, you made the statement.  Everyone has countered that single participant has more value as you extended from S2L to S3L.  Now you say they have less value at infinity.  Exactly where does the change occur in your mind?  My numbers show that the person's contribution continues to drop while the differential between the teams stays flat.

You are comparing apples and oranges and pretending that you are comparing the same. You address points where it suits you and you ignore other ones when you can't refute them.You have never addressed the balancing the equation issue.For your performance assertion:You are saying that as I add more more and more players to the equation, a singular player takes up a lesser percentage of the whole number. This is true.You are somehow trying to imply this relates to increasing the wr position from 2 to 3 and fantasy football. FF drafts are finite. This is not true.Starting requirements are finite. A players value at his position can be gauged as either, what he does compared to the the average starter or the worst starter. A players true value is his value at his position compared to every other available player's value compared to his position. If you start more players, Harrison's total points as a percentage of roster points may go down, but that does not make his value go down. His value relates to how he scores in relation to other players playing. Roster requirements will affect where players are drafted. In the FAD draft where you can start 3 rb's, this inceased the value of running backs and more were drafted earlier. I have stated this in several posts. So have others. You said, your assumption is that things will balance out at other positions. I challenge this assumption as false. I will assume if you do not address it in this one it is because you simply have not answer or are incapable of saying "Good point, let me reconsider that.Every draft position involves a choice. You can choose a player that fits a position: (Note team 2-is probably drafting later in round 1- Team 2 will have the stud WR) Team1 Team2Round1 rb(6) wr1 --->Round2 rb(18) rb(12)<----Round3-->wr(6) rb(24)Round4 wr(18) rb(30)<---Round5 -->rb(36) wr(24 )At this point we are even both teams have 3 rb's and 2 wr's. You cannot assume other positions will balance themselves out. Who has done better? I really don't know. However- this is where your initial premise is flawed- both teams have drafted 5 players. Your assumption is that Team 2 will not draft a wr here- he will try to strengthen his team elsewhere. I believe that this is a false assumption. Many teams would draft a wr3 right here. However, I will follow your example. Remember that Team2 will draft first in round 6.Round6 wr 30 rb 42 or QB(10)<--ROund7 rb 48 or Qb16 wr 36You cannot say, Team 1 has levelled the Harrison edge because he has WR 30 and team 2 has wr36. You must consider that when team 2 chose not to draft a wr, he took a better player at a better position. He was able to do this - in your mind- because he has a stud wr. Now you must compare the player he gets in round 6 to the player team1 gets in round 7. The fact that things flatten out at the bottom hurts your WR theory, because things aren't as flat at the other positions. Team 1 loses only 12 points by sliding from the 30th to the 36th receiver (because it is flat) but gains more points than that (in 2002) by even by getting the 42 rb over the 48th (15 points). {I assert that in a start three league, there is now way that there would be 42 rb's taken before 30 wr's. If this is he case, the advantage of selecting a rb in the mid rounds goes up more as the rb pool does not not flatten). If he drafts QB 10 here he gains 58 points at this position for drafting a player other than a wr. Even if team 1 says in round 6- I better go QB here instead of Wr and drafts QB12- he still loses on this scenario because of the drop between QB10 and QB12.Think about it: would you rather:A)Get the better player when the values are flat and the worse one where they are notorb)Get the worse player where the values are flat and the better player where they are not?Please answer this question directly, not with a hypothetical math situation.So, your assumption that everything will level out seems to be a bad one.You must consider how every pick affects the roster. I stand by my assertion. You must balance the equation, and it seems to me that you refuse to.

Wow...that's a lot to digest. I do see some potential explanations in there that might sway me. It may just be a case of apples v. oranges as you state. I'll look at it harder tonite.One question though, if I address this again using antsports mock drafts for 2 and 3 WR leagues and then tie back in to last year's numbers for predicted results would you accept that as addressing how other positions are selected/valued? I have no idea which side this would support, but I don't want to do the exercise if the consensus is that the approach would be flawed. This would be an attempt to balnace the equation."Think about it: would you rather:A)Get the better player when the values are flat and the worse one where they are notorb)Get the worse player where the values are flat and the better player where they are not?"Definately B."Please answer this question directly, not with a hypothetical math situation. You must balance the equation, and it seems to me that you refuse to."Running the numbers has always been the method I use to validate or nullified a theory. I'll agree that it's not as simple as I've tried to make it. Again, will my proposal above address your concern (at least partially)?