Why Do You Care Where you Draft? (1 Viewer)

[Happy Ragnarok]

But maybe I'm assuming too much. Do some of you play in leagues where you get to say, for example, "With the first pick of the first round, I select whoever will turn out to be the most valuable fantasy player this year..."?

 

[Happy Ragnarok]

Nobody picked Chris Johnson with the first overall pick last year.

We're talking top few picks vs. last picks. Peterson and MJD were, and they had similar impressive values. Depending on league scoring, CJ3 was probably there at #9 or #10 maybe 50% of the time.

Drew Brees and Andre Johnson were picked around there too. While Michael Turner and Matt Forte were picked at the top.The point being, last year's results have nothing whatsoever to do with proving that the #1 overall pick conveys a meaningful statistical advantage in a snake draft. Indeed, last year's results suggest quite the opposite. Happily, we all know those results are meaningless...right?Correctly selecting the #1 overall performer conveys a meaningful statistical benefit. But that's hardly news, nor worthy of consideration.

 

[inca911]

I'd love to see your data as to why the players value spread apart when most of us can't even agree on who would be pick 6.01 vs. 6.12 as well as an explanation as to why you aren't giving the #10 team an equal advantage on even rounds.

If you want to see data, just graph VBD for all players in a given year, and you'll see the curved, non-linear distribution of the players, more pronounced in early rounds. You don't need to use "my data", just use the FBG published info.I'm agreeing we don't know for sure what the players will do, and that variability is important. However variability in later rounds is statistically less significant that the first couple rounds. You can't get CJ3, AD, MJD, Rodgers, Rice, Andre, Gore if you are #10 pick. That disadvatage is real and significant, so I care where I draft. By round 6, I don't care where I draft either because the variability is much greater and the players much more bunched together.I used a standard serpentine draft, so the #10 pick does get an advantage on even rounds vs. the #1 pick. Unfortunately that advantage in round #2 for pick #10 is much smaller than the advantage gained by #1's advantage from the first round. Of course the advantage isn't equal, because the player distribution is not linear. If player points were perfectly linear, then there wouldn't be an advantage. VBD on the top players is >>> than VBD on later players.

 

[FUBAR]

But maybe I'm assuming too much. Do some of you play in leagues where you get to say, for example, "With the first pick of the first round, I select whoever will turn out to be the most valuable fantasy player this year..."?

the hindsight league is the new big thing.

 

[inca911]

Correctly selecting the #1 overall performer conveys a meaningful statistical benefit. But that's hardly news, nor worthy of consideration.

And the percentage chance of selecting the #1 overall performer is much greater if you are picking early. It's not news, but that is the simple reality that makes drafting in early position much better than drafting late, which is the question we are trying to answer. I'm simply quantifying the advantage based on current projections. No, it won't be exactly 20%, but it's in that general area, so I care where I draft.Are you trying to say you have a better chance of winning your league by not taking one of the players you believe will score in the top 5 for the league? Are you saying you would prefer to pick in last position every year?

 

[FUBAR]

I'd love to see your data as to why the players value spread apart when most of us can't even agree on who would be pick 6.01 vs. 6.12 as well as an explanation as to why you aren't giving the #10 team an equal advantage on even rounds.

If you want to see data, just graph VBD for all players in a given year, and you'll see the curved, non-linear distribution of the players, more pronounced in early rounds. You don't need to use "my data", just use the FBG published info.I'm agreeing we don't know for sure what the players will do, and that variability is important. However variability in later rounds is statistically less significant that the first couple rounds. You can't get CJ3, AD, MJD, Rodgers, Rice, Andre, Gore if you are #10 pick. That disadvatage is real and significant, so I care where I draft. By round 6, I don't care where I draft either because the variability is much greater and the players much more bunched together.

I used a standard serpentine draft, so the #10 pick does get an advantage on even rounds vs. the #1 pick. Unfortunately that advantage in round #2 for pick #10 is much smaller than the advantage gained by #1's advantage from the first round. Of course the advantage isn't equal, because the player distribution is not linear. If player points were perfectly linear, then there wouldn't be an advantage. VBD on the top players is >>> than VBD on later players.

uh huh, and yet the average draft saw CJ go around #10 last year.

The advantage of having one of the the top picks not only holds up for more rounds, the advantage actually increases over the duration of the draft, up to 20%. This makes sense, as the person who picks first continues to have a small incremental advantage over other later picks, round after round. This is because the players continue to group together as the draft progresses, not spread apart.

It's okay to admit when you're arguing out of your ###. Although it's generally a good idea to stop at some point.If your point is simply that if you compared a draft to an auction, the top picks will be worth more, you have a point. If it's that the early picks have a decided advantage when it comes to actually winning, your point is weak. Although it does demonstrate how overvalued the elites can be.

 

[inca911]

I'd love to see your data as to why the players value spread apart when most of us can't even agree on who would be pick 6.01 vs. 6.12 as well as an explanation as to why you aren't giving the #10 team an equal advantage on even rounds.

If you want to see data, just graph VBD for all players in a given year, and you'll see the curved, non-linear distribution of the players, more pronounced in early rounds. You don't need to use "my data", just use the FBG published info.I'm agreeing we don't know for sure what the players will do, and that variability is important. However variability in later rounds is statistically less significant that the first couple rounds. You can't get CJ3, AD, MJD, Rodgers, Rice, Andre, Gore if you are #10 pick. That disadvatage is real and significant, so I care where I draft. By round 6, I don't care where I draft either because the variability is much greater and the players much more bunched together.

I used a standard serpentine draft, so the #10 pick does get an advantage on even rounds vs. the #1 pick. Unfortunately that advantage in round #2 for pick #10 is much smaller than the advantage gained by #1's advantage from the first round. Of course the advantage isn't equal, because the player distribution is not linear. If player points were perfectly linear, then there wouldn't be an advantage. VBD on the top players is >>> than VBD on later players.

uh huh, and yet the average draft saw CJ go around #10 last year.

The advantage of having one of the the top picks not only holds up for more rounds, the advantage actually increases over the duration of the draft, up to 20%. This makes sense, as the person who picks first continues to have a small incremental advantage over other later picks, round after round. This is because the players continue to group together as the draft progresses, not spread apart.

It's okay to admit when you're arguing out of your ###. Although it's generally a good idea to stop at some point.If your point is simply that if you compared a draft to an auction, the top picks will be worth more, you have a point. If it's that the early picks have a decided advantage when it comes to actually winning, your point is weak. Although it does demonstrate how overvalued the elites can be.

The example using CJ3 was a list of players you can't get at #10 for this year, not last year. That's why I say "can't" and not "couldn't".I'm the only one using actual data to defend my position that where you draft matters a lot. That isn't arguing based on opinions, it's using the actual data and facts. I have yet to see anyone explain the benefits of picking last every year. What point are you trying to make anyway? I'd love to understand what you're trying to prove.

I also agree with SWC, and understand his point much more easily than yours.

 

[FUBAR]

I'd love to see your data as to why the players value spread apart when most of us can't even agree on who would be pick 6.01 vs. 6.12 as well as an explanation as to why you aren't giving the #10 team an equal advantage on even rounds.

If you want to see data, just graph VBD for all players in a given year, and you'll see the curved, non-linear distribution of the players, more pronounced in early rounds. You don't need to use "my data", just use the FBG published info.I'm agreeing we don't know for sure what the players will do, and that variability is important. However variability in later rounds is statistically less significant that the first couple rounds. You can't get CJ3, AD, MJD, Rodgers, Rice, Andre, Gore if you are #10 pick. That disadvatage is real and significant, so I care where I draft. By round 6, I don't care where I draft either because the variability is much greater and the players much more bunched together.

I used a standard serpentine draft, so the #10 pick does get an advantage on even rounds vs. the #1 pick. Unfortunately that advantage in round #2 for pick #10 is much smaller than the advantage gained by #1's advantage from the first round. Of course the advantage isn't equal, because the player distribution is not linear. If player points were perfectly linear, then there wouldn't be an advantage. VBD on the top players is >>> than VBD on later players.

uh huh, and yet the average draft saw CJ go around #10 last year.

The advantage of having one of the the top picks not only holds up for more rounds, the advantage actually increases over the duration of the draft, up to 20%. This makes sense, as the person who picks first continues to have a small incremental advantage over other later picks, round after round. This is because the players continue to group together as the draft progresses, not spread apart.

It's okay to admit when you're arguing out of your ###. Although it's generally a good idea to stop at some point.If your point is simply that if you compared a draft to an auction, the top picks will be worth more, you have a point. If it's that the early picks have a decided advantage when it comes to actually winning, your point is weak. Although it does demonstrate how overvalued the elites can be.

The example using CJ3 was a list of players you can't get at #10 for this year, not last year. That's why I say "can't" and not "couldn't".I'm the only one using actual data to defend my position that where you draft matters a lot. That isn't arguing based on opinions, it's using the actual data and facts. I have yet to see anyone explain the benefits of picking last every year. What point are you trying to make anyway? I'd love to understand what you're trying to prove.

I also agree with SWC, and understand his point much more easily than yours.

chances are pretty good you can get "this year's CJ" late in the 1st, which is what matters. in case this helps, let's take a look at success rate:

According to Football Sharks,

Picking 1st meant finish 1st 10.23% of the time. % Change 1.86+ Highest Success Rate (7th in ‘08)

Picking 2nd meant finish 1st 8.22% of the time. % Change 1.09- 7th Highest Success Rate (Tied 1st in ‘08)

Picking 3rd meant finish 1st 7.43% of the time. % Change 1.77- 10th Highest Success Rate (3rd in ‘08)

Picking 4th meant finish 1st 7.46% of the time. % Change 1.56- 9th Highest Success Rate (4th in ‘08)

Picking 5th meant finish 1st 7.63% of the time. % Change 0.58- 8th Highest Success Rate (8th in ‘08)

Picking 6th meant finish 1st 8.29% of the time. % Change 0.60- 6th Highest Success Rate (5th in ‘08)

Picking 7th meant finish 1st 8.94% of the time. % Change 0.26+ 4th Highest Success Rate (6th in ‘08)

Picking 8th meant finish 1st 9.43% of the time. % Change 0.12+ 2nd Highest Success Rate (Tied 1st in ‘08)

Picking 9th meant finish 1st 8.70% of the time. % Change 1.16+ 5th Highest Success Rate (10th in ‘08)

Picking 10th meant finish 1st 9.06% of the time. % Change 1.14+ 3rd Highest Success Rate (9th in ‘08)

Picking 11th meant finish 1st 5.60% of the time. % Change 0.53+ Lowest Success Rate (12th in ‘08)

Picking 12th meant finish 1st 5.99% of the time. % Change 0.38+ 11th Highest Success Rate (11th in ‘08)

Note that the #1 slot had the 7th highest success rate in 08.

Average success rate (chance of winning) over the two years,

1: 1, 7 = 4

2: 7, 1 = 4

3: 10, 3 = 6.5

4: 9, 4 = 6.5

5: 8, 8 = 8

6: 6, 5 = 5.5

7: 4, 6 = 5

8: 2, 1 = 1.5

9: 5, 10 = 7.5

10: 3, 9 = 6

11: 12, 12 = 12

12: 11, 11 = 11

So if we judge draft positions by success rate, we'd objectively rank them as:

8, 1, 2, 7, 6, 10, 3, 4, 9, 5, 12, 11

 

[inca911]

According to Football Sharks,Picking 1st meant finish 1st 10.23% of the time. % Change 1.86+ Highest Success Rate (7th in ‘08)Picking 2nd meant finish 1st 8.22% of the time. % Change 1.09- 7th Highest Success Rate (Tied 1st in ‘08)...Picking 11th meant finish 1st 5.60% of the time. % Change 0.53+ Lowest Success Rate (12th in ‘08)Picking 12th meant finish 1st 5.99% of the time. % Change 0.38+ 11th Highest Success Rate (11th in ‘08)

Thanks for posting that data. So if I'm reading this correctly:Top 2 draft slots win the league almost 20% of the timeLast 2 draft slots win the league just over 10% of the timeIf you want to win, then it is almost two times better to have one of the top 2 draft slots. Overall, the odds are better that you get this year's CJ if you have one of the top picks.

 

[FUBAR]

According to Football Sharks,Picking 1st meant finish 1st 10.23% of the time. % Change 1.86+ Highest Success Rate (7th in ‘08)Picking 2nd meant finish 1st 8.22% of the time. % Change 1.09- 7th Highest Success Rate (Tied 1st in ‘08)...Picking 11th meant finish 1st 5.60% of the time. % Change 0.53+ Lowest Success Rate (12th in ‘08)Picking 12th meant finish 1st 5.99% of the time. % Change 0.38+ 11th Highest Success Rate (11th in ‘08)

Thanks for posting that data. So if I'm reading this correctly:Top 2 draft slots win the league almost 20% of the timeLast 2 draft slots win the league just over 10% of the timeIf you want to win, then it is almost two times better to have one of the top 2 draft slots. Overall, the odds are better that you get this year's CJ if you have one of the top picks.

In a 12 team draft, it seems to suck to have one of the last spots. But the 7 and 8 spots had almost the exact same chance as 1 and 2 in 2009 and a better chance in 2008.The chance of having this year's CJ has nothing to do with it as the later slots usually had last year's CJ.