This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Aaron,I am talking abut rounds 6 and seven, not 1 and 2.If the Wr's flatten out at the end (30-36) but the Qb's and Rb's available at this place are not, then you are better off taking Wr36 and rb30 (as is the case in Brew's assertion) than taking wr 30 and rb 36. His assertion that wr's flatten out make Harrison more valuable, not less
In Antsports' 2-WR leagues, Harrison is going at 1.10.63 and Owens is going at 1.12.00.In the no-TE-required leagues (basically 3-WR leagues), Harrison is going at 1.10.00 and Owens is going at 1.10.85So people are taking the stud WRs earlier in the 3-WR leagues than in the 2-WR leagues.I understand you're arguing they are wrong to do so, but how would you prove that point by looking at the mock drafts? (I don't think using last year's fantasy points would be helpful.)
Here's why I would suggested using the mock drafts. One of the biggest contentions v. my argument is that I'm not equitably taking other positions and value into account. By using mock drafts I taking real world opinions of value (assume that each team is trying to draft the best possible) and I'm assigning values based upon a neutral source, not one the I arbitarily come up with. When I say last years values, I mean WR ranking and points, not specific players and past points.Make sense or am I out in left field? Suggestions on another method?
My advice would be to do that exercise with the mock drafts if you think it would be helpful or persuasive to you, and not to worry about whether it will convince anyone else.I personally think the best method is to just look at x-values in 2-WR leagues vs. 3-WR leagues based on my projections, instead of trying to look at mock drafts. But if you think it would be helpful to figure out total scores using mock drafts for your own sake, I wouldn't discourage you from doing it just because it won't persuade other people. Persuading other people is far secondary to getting the right answer for yourself, so go ahead and do whatever you think will help you get the right answer for yourself.
Combining 3 years of historical stats is making projections. The only difference is that the mock drafts weren't done using that set of projections. How is combining one set of projections with drafts based on different projections better? How is it even meaningful? The mock drafts will have been done with the 2003 perception that QBs are a dime a dozen, which the historicals won't show accurately. The 2000 RBs are going to create extra depth at RB that the mock drafters know doesn't exist in 2003. They aren't the same thing.
Heavy-set, I think your idea is a good one.This has been an excellent topic, however, with all that's been said, can someone now "summarize" under which format Harrison has more value in? 2WR or 3WR format? I play in a 1QB, 2RB and 3WR format, and I have been of the belief that the "Top 3" WR's are much more valuable when you play in a league that starts 3WR's, and after having read this entire thread, I am not sure.
Quick Summary...Majority say: The WR baseline is lower in a 3 WR league so WRs and stud WRs are more valuable in a 3 WR league.A couple lone voices say: The drop off between the stud WRs and the rest of the WRs is so steep that limiting the numbers of WR limits the ability of the non-stud owners to catch up. Essentially the more players you add, the lower % of the total WR the stud WRs are.
Bass-Can you just talk me through this? This is the part of your assertion I don't get.
All WRs from 1-24 are more valuable in a 3 WR league than in a 2 WR league. Again, simple thought experiment that shows it must be so.Picture in your mind a 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR draft. No backups for simplicity. Draft ends at round 5. Assume everyone drafts wisely, so that each WR has a more valuable player above him and a less valuable player below him.Now what happens if you increase it to 3 WRs and add a 6th round? If WRs 1-24 keep the exact same value, they can't move in relation to the RBs and QBs. If they lose value they should slide further in the draft. If they gain value they should move up in the draft.Now, you have 12 new WRs (24-36) to be drafted, and a new round. Those 12 WRs must be picked after WR 24 since they are obviously less valuable than him. Presumably you have WR24 being one of the last picks of round 5. So if the WRs 1-24 don't gain any value, this means a proper draft for a 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR league should have close to 12 WRs being taken in the last round if you think WR 1-24 hold their value constant... and if they slide, you're going to be moving up RBs and QBs past them and more than the last 12 picks will be WRs.It should be obvious to anyone in FF that this isn't right. The last RBs and QBs should slip from the end of round 5 into the end of round 6, and other QBs and RBs ahead of them will also shift down slightly. The net effect is that all WRs move up in value compared to other positions.
rabidfireweasel...I'll try to state my position a little clearer (note: I'm not arguing that WR as a whole are less valuable in a S3L v. S2L, I'm just talking about an individual stud).Let's assume that an owner thinks Harrison is the WR1 and that as a whole he'll put up solid numbers from week to week (otherwise he wouldn't be drafting him first). If he's correct, the math shows that he'll score around 16 points/week. Every other owner will then be drafting from a pool that ranges that ranges from 11-15 and averages about 12 if they draft the 2-12 ranked WRs. That's a guaranteed 4 point average advantage. In reality that average will be better since some people will draft WRs that are not in the 2-12 range and will score less points. For simplicity let's assume that the Harrison will average 5 points more then the every other owner in a S1L and that the other owners will at least get a top 24 WR. That means their window is 9-15.
the league i run, 10 teams, 1 point per recpetion, yards divided by 10, tds = 6 points.using the stats from , i beleive it was 1996-2001 (i did this last year, i dont believe i counted rushing #s)3wrl. (value stems from the baseline of 30wrs)wr1-328 avg pts, 168 valuewr2-309 avg pts, 149 valuewr3-290 avg pts, 130 value2wrl. (point are the same)wr1-value, 118wr2 value, 100wr3 value, 81it took 120+ posts to answer your question of, why do people think stud wrs are more valuebale? becasue they are.
Can we at least agree that they're not more valuable to relative to one another? Your numbers demonstrate that.Also I'm still talking about the stud WR not the group as a whole.Of course I could just point to my numbers above and stay that they aren't because they aren't.
Still digging into the angle you're looking at.
Oh, I see where the disagreement is coming from.Yes, you're right. If you have a league composed entirely of WRs, no other positions... then WR1 is probably less valuable in a league that starts 2 or 3 or 4 WRs than in a league that starts 1. If you have him in 1 WR league you know you've won. If you have him in a 2 WR league, he helps you win but obviously his contribution to the team effort is less. Which is what your example shows. When the only concept of value is comparing a guy to others at his position, I agree that he'll lose value.However, as soon as you add QBs and RBs, that isn't the case. Adding more players at a single position shifts the entire group up the draft board, including WR1.
Of course I could just point to my numbers above and stay that they aren't because they aren't.
If WR1 (Harrison) is more valuable than other WRs in a S2L (as you just implied) compared to a S3L...why wouldn't his value relative to other positions also increase? That seems to be the implication of your statement, and I believe the argument that BnB is proposing.When you shift from a S2L to a S3L, does that affect the value of players at other positions much...or does it just make WRs in general more valuable? If it mainly affects the value of WRs, then all WRs should be bumped up a notch. But, perhaps the stud WRs should be bumped up slightly more in terms of value than the remaining WRs.On a related note...how does consistency factor into VBD and other drafting models? For example, if the top WRs score consistently each week, while the lower tier WRs score much less consistently, shouldn't that be taken into consideration when drafting? While a WR having a huge game could put you over the top on any given week...it might also come during a week when you didn't need it. Meanwhile, the same WR who scores 20+ points for you 1 week might follow that up with several weeks of < 5 points when your team desperately needed just an average game from that position. Thus, WRs who are most consistent from week to week (i.e., the top 3) should be more valuable in a S2L than they are in a S3L. Right?I'm not a VBD expert so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the value of players based on year-end projections and comparison to the worst starter at that position? Depending on league type and scoring, consistency could be an important factor to consider when drafting. Consistency seems to be the underlying reason for the suggestion that Stud WRs are more valuable in S2L than they are in S3L, even though the value of WRs in general may decrease.
using the same avt/vbd #s from my first example.in my 10 team, start qb,2rb,3wr,te,k,def with all tds 6 points, (-2 ints), all carries divided by 10, all catches = 1 point, passing yds divided by 20, rush/rec yards divided by 10,. the avt/vbd i have did not take into consideration tes,def,or ks., but in the 3wr format, wr1 = the 4th best value on the board. (168 is the vaule)in the 2wr format, wr1 = 12th best value on the board. (118 is the value)in fact using the 3wrl, 10 of the top 20 best values are wrs. 2wrl, 2 wrs made the top 20.
That doesn't really answer either of my questions. I understand that, according to VBD models, WRs will have more value in S3Ls than they will in S2Ls. That is very clear since the "value" is determined by the baseline of the worst starter (i.e., WR24 in a S2L or WR36 in a S3L) and the baseline will always be lower in S3L leagues.I think the difference in consistency is being ignored in those types of models, however.Here are some examples of why consistency matters (using 1pt/rec, 1pt/10yds, and 6pts/TD):Marvin Harrison (1st ranked WR overall) weekly point totals from 2002:13, 31, 19, 30, 27, 16, 15, 27, 32, 40, 22, 19, 17, 38, 29, 9He had 0 weeks that could be considered statistical outliers (+2 SDs away from average), and his average was 24 points per week.Amani Toomer (7th ranked WR overall) weekly point totals from 2002:22, 13, 14, 7, 21, 4, 4, 8, 19, 24, 25, 15, 16, 16, 48, 8The week he scored 48 points was a huge outlier (although it came in Week 16 which was most league's championship game), and removing it drops his average scoring from 16.5 all the way down to 14.4.Isaac Bruce (16th ranked WR overall) weekly point totals from 2002:11, 15, 8, 15, 7, 18, 10, 6, 44, 20, 15, 13, 15, 4, 8, 15The week he scored 44 points was pretty much a statistical outlier, and removing it drops his average scoring total from 14 points all the way down to 12.So, what I'm wondering is, how do VBD or other available draft models account for differences in consistency such as these? Since many leagues are H2H, basing value solely on year-end projections and stats seems problematic and somewhat flawed. Seems to me that a more complete conception of a player's value would have to include information about totals, averages, standard deviation, and the lowest and highest scoring weeks. Granted, those things are very hard to predict, but past performance is usually a solid indicator of a player's propensity to have 1 or 2 huge stat-inflating weeks per year, or to put up a consistent number of points on a weekly basis. Then, player selection and "value" would be determined partly by whether you are looking for a steady contributor or a boom-or-bust player.
His value relative to other positions wouldn't be expected to behave the same as his value towards his own position does. A: In a WR-only league, adding more WRs lessens the percentage of overall points that a single WR contributes. So the value of any single WR to the team diminishes.
The articles I've seen dealing with consistency seem to suggest that consistency is not something that can be predicted. To sum them up, consistency in the past is not an accurate predictor of consistency in the future, and RBs aren't more consistent than WRs, they just score more.
simply put, they dont.vbd/avt are just useful guides. run them on new scoring systems and new roster requirements to see how they change values of the different positions etc., this will give you an idea where players/positions SHOULD be drafted.as for me, i already know that just about every projection made will be wrong, which will render every value wrong. so, i rank my players without projections, based upon several factors, consistency being one of them.
OK, so in keeping with the topic of this thread:A. Stud WRs (top 3) are more consistent than Non-Stud WRs. (Obviously true)B. Consistency is more important in a S2L than it is in a S3L. (Possibly true)C. Thus, Stud WRs are more valuable in S2L than they are in S3L. (True if B is true)Ignoring VBD for a minute, what do you guys think about the statements made above? Maybe this is too different from what BnB is trying to show, but I see the consistency of the top 3 WRs as the main source of their increased value in a S2L. While consistency is indeed difficult to predict, I think most would agree with statement A above.While B is likely a matter of opinion more than anything, I think having a consistent producer becomes more important the fewer starting positions there are. With only 2 starting WR spots, yes you should be able to put together a solid group of WRs to choose from each week. But, you will also often find yourself with bench players who outscore your starters. For reasons such as those, I would tend to value stud WRs more in a S2L than in a S3L, although the difference is probably smaller than I'm suggesting here.Regardless, I'm just trying to come up with a valid reason for why a Stud WR could be considered more valuable in a S2L and this argument seems reasonable to me (unless one just assumes that consistency is impossible to predict with any certainty whatsoever).
Aaron...I think these numbers also make sense for the path you're headed down.S1L: Harrison owner's average = 16 pt, every other owner 9-15 pt.S2L: Harrison owner's average = 26 pt, every other owner 16-29 pt.S3L: Harrison owner's average = 34 pt, every other owner 22-42 pt.
So, I assume the next step might be to compare the average weekly team total for the Harrison owner versus the teams without a stud WR, although I'm not even sure that will be all that informative.Sidenote: If people use past performance (carries/receptions, yards, TDs, fantasy points, etc.) as an indicator of future performance, and injury history as an indicator of "injury proneness," why not also factor in an individual player's past consistency as an indicator of future consistency? Unless someone has already shown that past levels of consistency are very poorly associated with future consistency, this seems like a valid way of evaluating player value. When I say consistency, I am referring not just to year-to-year consistency, which I assume most people use to inform their projections. Rather, I am talking about a player's week-to-week consistency. In some leagues, it is likely very worthwhile to avoid "boom or bust" players that score in single digits several times while also going off for 30 or 40 points in other weeks. I guess my main point is a response to many of the comments in this thread that appear to place too much emphasis on year-end statistics and projections.
this is my first post on this matter but let me tell you my thoughts on what I read.......Bass I see you arguing with faulty logic and unequivelent analogies.Your argument, if i understand it, lies outside the boundaries of Fantasy football. Which means even if you are right (which I belive you are not), it is a MOOT POINT (one which is a non-factor or unprovable) Let me explain: You are arguing about the advantage taking a top WR as opposed to middle of the line WRs in a 2 starter VS. 3 starter environment. (correct me if I'm wrong)The first problem is if you restrict yourself only to talking about WRs. If you do this, then you neglect the rest of the team. Any theory which you have about this will, WITHOUT FAIL, be faulty. Fantasy football is a multiple player/position game and any hypothesis you consider without weighing the effects on other positions is MEANINGLESS and unusable in practice. ----POINT 1: Taking anumber one WR may be more valuble in a start 2 league, IF everyone only drafted WRs. But this isn't the case, there are other positions to consider.-------------- To prove me wrong on POINT 1: You would have to show that taking a WR early in a 3WR league would hurt the overall draft of a team more than in a 2WR league. Otherwise you give up to much at other positions. The second problem is stretching the number of WRs out to 10 or shrinking it down to 1. The reason your numbers look right to you is because of the point stated above. In a given talent pool, where talent decreases exponentially (as it does in most positions in FF), dependable studs are important. The percentage of studs compared to draftable players in a position does decrease when you go from a 2 starter to a 3 starter league.In case I lost you, these last 2 sentences support your argument........HOWEVER, WRs now account for a much larger percentage of fantasy points on your team each week. (you miss this point because you didn't consider the team as a whole: Point 1) EX. In standard leagues with 2 WRs, WRs can account about 22% of the total FF points.BUT in a 3 WR league, WRs can account for about 30% of the total pointsBIG DIFFERENCE!!-----POINT 2: WRs ARE more valuble in a 3 WR league because EVERYONE has more opportunity to score more points with more WRs, which makes 3 good starters a valuble commodity.--------------- To prove me wrong on POINT 2: You would have to show me why WRs in a 3WR league, while counting for a larger percentage of available fantasy points, are less valuble than those in a 2WR league (while keeping in mind the entire team (POINT 1). Your third problem is that you assume that in a 3WR league that everyone can magically pick out the sleeper WRs and beat stud WRs often. If I could do this I would win every year. Besides if I have an extra chance, so do you. Everyone gets to draft an extra WR, so the person who has Owens gets the same chance to draft the next Peerless Price or Donald Driver that I do.-------POINT 3: Just because you opponent gets an extra roster spot to beat you with dosen't mean that you don't have the same advantage. You can work the waiver wire just as much to find the next big sleeper.------------------To prove me wrong on point 3: You can'tYour forth problem is where you said that it dosent matter if coaches consider a position valuble and draft because of that. THAT is ABSURD!!!!That is the entire principle of the world stock market and modern economics! Precieved value IS real value. Its called scarcity, Supply and demand. If everybody else in the world is going to pay $100 to get a pair of Jordans, that is is the price you'll have to pay. Just because you think they are worth $10 dollars dosen't mean the company will negotiate with you, there are 200 people standing behind you willing to pony up the money. ------POINT 4: If everyone values WRs in a 3 WR league more highly than in a 2 WR league, you WILL have to draft accordingly or you will be without any good recievers. if you draft accoring to your rules all the recievers will be gone BEFORE you are willing to take them. This makes your point MOOT, unless you canget everyone who plays FF to change there mind, which from the looks of this thread isn't going to happen anytime soon.-----------------To prove me wrong on POINT 4: You would have to pull a "Beautiful Mind" and show me a possible theory that flies in the face of modern economics.
I was referring to both, but mainly to their week-to-week scoring consistency. In other words, if you value having a WR score consistently (less variation in their point total from week to week), then the stud WRs should be more attractive to you as an owner. I think that weekly consistency is slightly more important in a S2L for the reasons I mentioned.I haven't really looked at the consistency of the RBs yet, but I assume the RB you would have to pass on in order to select a guy like Harrison would also be pretty consistent from week to week. Thus, the draft decision would be based on whether you are more likely to find a consistent performer at RB or WR in the subsequent rounds of the draft. Therefore, I think the draft decision should be based on something more than just the end of year scoring potential of a given player. I believe starting RBs are more consistent than non-starting RBs. And, due to various reasons, backup RBs emerge all the time to put up decent numbers in some weeks.So, my point is this I guess: If you draft Harrison early, you will have an advantage over the other owners in your league at the WR position because he will likely score like a top WR from week to week. In doing so, you are obviously going to have to pass up on a quality RB, but probably not a true stud. Then, in subsequent rounds, you will likely try to add several middle tier RBs who you hope will combine to equal the RB you passed up on.Picking which RBs to start on a weekly basis is usually easier than picking the WRs. Rarely do I see RBs on someone's bench go off, but it happens with WRs all the time. So, if you have guys like Barlow, Duckett, Zereoue, Canidate, etc. there situation is likely to change somewhat during the season. Eventually, you should get a good idea of whether they will be a good player to start or not. Predicting WR performance from week to week or based on matchups seems much more difficult to me, especially once you get past the top guys.Does this make sense? If not, don't worry about it.
It isn't a matter for me that it doesn't make sense. It's that I don't think the stud WRs are more consistent than other WRs from a week to week standpoint. I think that they score more points from one season to the next, so I agree that they are good picks in that respect.But, neither of us really know if they are more consistent weekly without looking. So I looked. I grabbed the stats from Doug Drinen's website and threw out everything except the top 10 WRs from 2000-2002 (standard 1/10, 6/TD scoring).The standard deviation of a player's weekly scores is a measure of consistency. If a player scores 100 points and has a standard deviation of 5, it means 68% of the time, he will score within 5 points of his average (100). So 2/3 of the time he'll score from 95-105.Here are the results:
Now I don't think it's fair to only look at the standard deviation. Though they show the Big 3 are less consistent than the other top ten WRs, I think the overall range has meaning too. So let's look at the ranges. 68% of the time, the weekly points of each group of WRs is:Big 3 WRs: 6.7 to 22.8 Top 6 WRs (excluding Big 3): 5.6 to 19.6 points a week Top 10 WRs (excluding Big 3): 4.8 to 18.8 points a week.I don't think there is enough of a difference to say that the Big 3 WRs are more consistent to a degree that matters. In fact, they are less consistent, varying by a point per week more than the other top WRs do. However, since they score more, it kind of balances out in the long run. Not saying don't take the Big 3 WRs. I'm saying, take them because they score more points. Because it doesn't look like week to week consistency is all that different between them and the other WRs. The lower end of their expected weekly points is pretty similar, it's the upper end that is where their advantage comes from.
That's basically where I was going next but haven't had time to crunch the numbers. I almost always play in 1pt/reception leagues, so that might change things a bit. But, if the numbers you just presented hold up in other scoring systems, then I'd agree Stud WRs are not more valuable in S2Ls than they are in S3Ls.I guess my basic point was that Standard Deviation and the Range of points scored from previous year(s) should be a factor when evaluating a player's value, not just their year-end statistics.My gut feeling is that there are some WRs who tend to be pretty mediocre on a weekly basis but generally put up 1 or 2 huge games per year (this may overinflate their value relative to other WRs, but those games are a statistical anomaly and shouldn't be relied on). This may help in some leagues/circumstances, but not in others. I'd prefer a WR who is going to catch at least 4 or 5 balls per week and get into the endzone consistently to a WR who may score 3 TDs one week and then barely snag 1 or 2 balls the next. I know that Marvin Harrison is a model of consistency in 1pt/rec leagues, but I'm less certain about Owens and Moss. Thus, if I believe Harrison to be a much more consistent performer than the other WRs, I might bump his value up slightly in a S2L vs. a S3L because of that (for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post).
If you do any work on it be sure to post it, we'd all be interested to see it.My gut feeling goes the other way. 2 years ago everyone said Shaun Alexander was one big game and not worth anything else... but the numbers from that year showed otherwise. When you removed everyone's biggest game, he was still a top 4 RB. Now this last year might lend some credence to that theory for SA, I don't know for sure. I didn't do the full crunching though I did eyeball SA's numbers to get a feel for if the same thing would happen, and I couldn't tell without digging deeper.
What does that mean?Edit: I understand the roster stuff, but what are raw points and factored points?
Raw points are just working through and getting a weekly total based upon the best starter (1st QB, 1st 2 RB, etc.). I realized that this penalized teams picking up depth early so I re-worked that number to factor in injuries and byes weeks. I calculated the average time lost by position to injury and bye weeks over the last three years based upon ppg ranking (as a side note: I did throw out the flier high ppg players who only had a game or two and were scrubs when doing those rankings). I then factored in a back-up to cover this lost production from the available selections. This helped the teams that drafted depth before filling out a roster first. QB's missed 3 weeks on average, RB's 3 weeks, and WR's 2 weeks.
your entire post means nothing. again do the research, draw the conclusions. dont have the conclusion and then justify it with cherry picked examples that dont answer the question. using the same avt/vbd #s from my first example.in my 10 team, start qb,2rb,3wr,te,k,def with all tds 6 points, (-2 ints), all carries divided by 10, all catches = 1 point, passing yds divided by 20, rush/rec yards divided by 10,. the avt/vbd i have did not take into consideration tes,def,or ks., but in the 3wr format, wr1 = the 4th best value on the board. (168 is the vaule)in the 2wr format, wr1 = 12th best value on the board. (118 is the value)in fact using the 3wrl, 10 of the top 20 best values are wrs. 2wrl, 2 wrs made the top 20. if you play in a quality league, and people understand the concept of value, how can you come up with "Despite what people claim, WR are not drafted significantly earlier in a S2L v. a S3L" read the statements above. the avt/vbd #s dont lie." :rotflmao: also, in a wr2l , wr1 scores more of a percentage of a teams points because the starting roster is smaller and wr1 still scores the same amount of points no matter how many wrs you start. in wr1 leagues, wr1 will still score the same amount of points but becasue the rosters are smaller and the scores are lower, the % increases. value isnt determined by what % a player scores of a teams point total when comparing different league sizes. value is determined by the scoring differences between players of the same position and then comparing that difference with the scoring difference of other positions for THE LEAGUE YOU ARE PLAYING IN. the largest # = the best value. simple vbd. also, looking at the #s solely fromt he wr position, is not only meaningless, but it has nothing to do with value. its the comparision of positions that matters.also, mock drafts and creating teams with ficticious rosters does nothing and proves nothing when it comes to value. also, what is a "real mock draft"? iam starting to think, that this entire thread is a joke, just to see how many fish you can hook or see how many posts you can get out of it. there can be no other explanation.
WE'LL JUST HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE ON THIS.Let me ask you one question. Based upon the mocks above (and they are very similiar to the mocks and expert rankings I've seen around here) and the avg. points tied to each spot, where would you draft WR1 in a S2L and a S3L (standard scoring)? Also, based upon your scoring system, where does WR1 go in both leagues?all of this has nothing to do with value. value is determined by the scoring differences between players of the same position and then comparing that difference with the scoring difference of other positions. mock drafts are meaningless for the simple fact that we dont know how the players will perform. use information that is already known or the concept of AVT. once you know historically how wr1, wr2....performs, run a vbd. when its your turn to draft, you will know what the best values(position wise) are for the slot you are picking at. if people use differenet baselines, good for them, crunch the #s based on your baselines. using different baselines, doesnt change the definition of value. also, different baselines has nothing to do with your 3 points( solely looking at wr only scoring, the % of a teams points that wr1 scores or mock drafts. )once again the % of a teams scoring isnt value. of course in a 2wrl the % of points scored by wr1 is greater, the rosters are smaller, which means less points scored by each team than in a 3wrl, but the scoring of wr1 remains the same. once again, value is determined by the scoring differences between players of the same position and then comparing that difference with the scoring difference of other positions. like i said, this is nothing but a bait and hook scheme to see how many posts you can get. using THE previous example, wr1 is worth 50 more points in a wr3 league than a wr2 league, and that translates into 8 draft spots. (#4 overall best value in a wr3l, #12 overall best value in a wr2l).
then why do you keep taking the bait?
I also don't find your argument to be all that clear or convincing. It appears you are basically arguing that the VBD way is the only possible way to determine a player's value. Yet, you also state that "mock drafts are meaningless for the simple fact that we dont know how the players will perform". If you don't know how players will perform, then what is the point of making projections, which are later used to determine the player values that you keep referring to? :wacko:
