Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

You're not understanding. You just spent 4 paragraphs summing up something I already said in two sentences. Yes, this season is more PREDICTABLE than next season. No, this season is not more VALUABLE than next season.If I had a crystal ball and I knew that one player was going to score 100 points this season and 300 points next season, while another player was going to score 200 points this season and 100 points next season, I would prefer the first guy every single time, even though the "next year is only worth half as much as this year" crowd would say they're worth exactly the same. The truth is they are NOT worth exactly the same. Having the first guy in my lineup will result in MORE WINS. Having the first guy in my lineup will give me a greater chance of winning a championship in the next two years. It's a simple mathematical fact. More points means more wins. Someone who scores more points in the next two years means more wins in the next two years. There's no arguing against that.The problem is that I don't have a crystal ball, and the further into the future I look, the shakier my projections and predictions become. As a result, I might favor someone with immediate production over someone with delayed production because of the CERTAINTY of the immediate production vs. the UNCERTAINTY of the delayed production, but I'm not preferring the "short term" guy because immediate production is somehow worth more than future production.This concept is best illustrated with draft picks, because all draft picks carry a pretty similar degree of uncertainty, regardless of when you execute them. Would you trade the #1 next year for the #5 this year? Would you trade the #10 next year for the #15 this year? Would you trade a 2013 first rounder for a 2011 second rounder? I wouldn't make any of those deals, because this year's production is NOT any more valuable than next year's production. In many cases, it's more predictable, but with draft picks it's going to be equally unpredictable in all instances. Provided I still plan on being in the league 5+ years from now, I will gladly trade current assets for more valuable future assets.

I don't think you are understanding...The very fact that the production this year is more certain BY NATURE MAKES IT MORE VALUABLE! You can not and will not ever possess the crystal ball you are speaking about, so it is completely useless and trivial to this discussion. All you are ever able to possess are your eyes (for the eyeball test), measurements, knowledge of situation, knowledge of competition, knowledge of coaching staff, etc... All of these tools may give you what you THINK is a good guess at a player's future production, but it is a very inexact guess at best. This season, all of those same tools are able to give you a decent ballpark on a players general production range.You are acting as if this is a simple mathematical equation such as: 300 (this years points) + 100 (next years points) = 400 points. That is a completely flawed equation and not at all close to reality. Because we will FOREVER lack the crystal ball you mentioned, the actual equation would go something like this: 300 x A (with A being the certainty that this years points are correct) + 100 x B (with B being the certainty that next years points are correct). If you concede that this year is easier to predict, then you by default must concede that A is by nature larger than B. This will result in this years points generally being more valuable than next years with similiar players. In common sense terms, this seasons points are more valuable BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU WILL BE GETTING THEM! Are the points themselves more valuable? No. Is the value of points tied specifically to the specific number of points themselves, especially when theoretical future points are involved? No, and this is the part you are missing. The value is derived from how many points there are AND the certainty that those points will actually be realized. Edited by Herm23
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 22.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Fear & Loathing

    2096

  • Concept Coop

    1467

  • SSOG

    1403

  • EBF

    1210

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Brewtown, the other day I posted that you were the worst thing to happen to draft discussion here in a long time--within hours it had 7-8 likes. That should tell you something.

I've been a part of this thread almost from the beginning. I've learned a lot. I've made some friends. But...let's please keep the personal attacks to a minimum. It isn't fun. Tell me what you think

Good. It's settled then. I'll continue to disregard your "analysis" and you can ignore mine. I don't think anyone in this thread will miss these exchanges.

Im not totally disagreeing with you, i just think it goes alot deeper than just saying this year is as important as every other year combined. When making trades, you have to figure how much a particualr trade benefits you for the current season, and how much it will hurt your future seasons. In other words, is it smart to make a trade for a player(s) that only increases your chances of winning this season by 3-5% if it is going to cost you a player(s) that will decrease each future year by 10-15 %? This is obviously a tough thing to figure out, but those who can do it the best are the guys who will consistently field a winning team.

Good luck with that!

With what? :thumbup:

With your ability to predict within 3-5% on odds of winning and within 10-15% of player production going forward. Sounds nice in theory though...

Do you rank players before you do a draft? Ever hit it dead on? Will you still do it in the future?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the whole value now -vs- value in the future debate, let me throw a sanity check in...

As F&L said, the BEST way to go about things is to play for the now, while still keeping an eye on the future- there is no reason they need to be mutually exclusive. The best owners are the ones who are able to RELOAD and never get stuck REBUILDING. This is only done if you consistantly keep a strong roster from year to year, but make smart, educated pickups/trades that will also help you down the road. Being on top of things and nabbing the Ryan Grant's, Miles Austin's, Arian Foster's, etc... off the waiver wire or trading for the Rashard Mendenhall's, Ray Rice's, etc... when their values were low will make it much easier to absorb the loss of potential future production when trading Jonathan Stewart for Arian Foster (or any other similar example) in order to increase this years production. This is the true win/win scenario and something everyone should be striving for- the ability to keep an eye on the future while also having the ability to give up future gains for present production.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wont disagree with you there, anyone can make a case for any player over another. I personally cant see how anyone would have Marshall over those 7 guys. Considering we both understand this, i dont get why people get on SSOG's case for ranking Marshall 7.

question for you. WHat has Desean done to merit being ahead of a guy like Marshall in dynasty? I understand he's electric and his TD's last year were nice, but Marshall has been one of the most effective pass catchers in football for 3 years in a row.
He is younger and more talented.
Is he? Talent comes in many forms. DeSean Jackson is a lot quicker and faster than Brandon Marshall, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's more talented. Allen Iverson was a lot quicker and faster than Shaquille O'Neal, but that doesn't mean he was more talented. Size is a talent. If I could take my physical skill set and put it in a 7'1" 300 pound frame, I would be an NBA All-Star. Therein lies the rub. I'm not 7'1" 300 pounds. DeSean Jackson is quick and explosive. If you could put his skill set in a 6'4" 230 pound frame, he would be the best receiver in the league. Therein lies the rub. DeSean Jackson is not 6'4" 230. He's 5'11" 175. His size prevents him from doing some of the things that Brandon Marshall can do. So while I would rather have DeSean Jackson running a streak pattern for my offense than Brandon Marshall, I would much rather have Marshall running the 8 yard curl route on 3rd and 7 against physical press coverage. He's much more physical, much stronger, and much better suited to possession duties. I see a lot of people talk about talent on these boards and I'm wondering how well we really understand what the word even means. I think most of us put far too much emphasis on obvious superficial physical traits when we talk about talent. "Calvin Johnson is 6'5" 235 with 4.3 speed in a straight line. Therefore he's the most talented WR in the league." "Reggie Wayne and Chad Johnson have average size and stopwatch speed. Therefore they're not elite talents." Bullocks. Talent involves more than superficial physical traits that are easy to quantify with a stopwatch or measuring tape. Guys like Derrick Mason, Chad Johnson, Greg Jennings, and Reggie Wayne have been shredding the league for years. They're incredibly gifted players whose fluid route running and explosive short area burst allow them to effortlessly shed coverage. They also catch the ball ridiculously well in part because their fluid body control allows them to instantly contort and adjust to errant passes. All they do is log 1000+ yard seasons every year and yet there's a reluctance to acknowledge them as elite talents. I think this is because they don't have obvious elite superficial traits like 6'4" 230 pound size or 4.3 stopwatch speed. There's no single physical trait you can point to and say, "See, he's an elite talent." When I first started watching football, I didn't understand why Steve McNair always locked onto Derrick Mason. Now I understand. Success at the WR position is about much more than being tall and/or fast. Braylon Edwards and Roy Williams are not more talented than Greg Jennings and Reggie Wayne. Dare I say that Calvin Johnson is not more talented than Santonio Holmes. We only think Calvin is more talented than Santonio because the areas in which he excels are more readily understood and the areas in which he's deficient require a more subtle knowledge of what the WR position requires. (Okay, maybe Calvin is more talented than Santonio, but I'm trying to make a point and if there is a gap, it's much thinner than what pundits believe).
Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the whole value now -vs- value in the future debate, let me throw a sanity check in...As F&L said, the BEST way to go about things is to play for the now, while still keeping an eye on the future- there is no reason they need to be mutually exclusive. The best owners are the ones who are able to RELOAD and never get stuck REBUILDING. This is only done if you consistantly keep a strong roster from year to year, but make smart, educated pickups/trades that will also help you down the road. Being on top of things and nabbing the Ryan Grant's, Miles Austin's, Arian Foster's, etc... off the waiver wire or trading for the Rashard Mendenhall's, Ray Rice's, etc... when their values were low will make it much easier to absorb the loss of potential future production when trading Jonathan Stewart for Arian Foster (or any other similar example) in order to increase this years production. This is the true win/win scenario and something everyone should be striving for- the ability to keep an eye on the future while also having the ability to give up future gains for present production.

Along those lines, I just traded S-Jax after six years in my main Keep-11 league for Dez Bryant, Owen Daniels, and a draft pick. Trying to sell a 27-year-old RB before the decline for a up-and-coming nucleus receiver. Trading my late first-round pick for McFadden at the end of last year allowed me to part with S-Jax this year.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not totally disagreeing with you, i just think it goes alot deeper than just saying this year is as important as every other year combined. When making trades, you have to figure how much a particualr trade benefits you for the current season, and how much it will hurt your future seasons. In other words, is it smart to make a trade for a player(s) that only increases your chances of winning this season by 3-5% if it is going to cost you a player(s) that will decrease each future year by 10-15 %? This is obviously a tough thing to figure out, but those who can do it the best are the guys who will consistently field a winning team.

Good luck with that!

With what? :bs:

With your ability to predict within 3-5% on odds of winning and within 10-15% of player production going forward. Sounds nice in theory though...

Do you rank players before you do a draft? Ever hit it dead on? Will you still do it in the future?

I don't have any problems with ranking players and taking into account future value for the purposes of trading. Given enough info on a player's talent, situation, track record, etc. I actually have a good feel for rankings/career path/shelf life. However, it sounds like you are saying that one must be able to fine tune their crystal ball within an extremely tight window before being able to consistently field a winning team. I'm not sure I agree with that.

If you understand how to strategize using your leagues roster/starting requirements/scoring system.

If you are always willing to explore trade options and maintain good will with league mates (keeping future doors open).

If you are able to adapt to an ever changing fantasy league/NFL/the consequences of injuries,suspensions,and player drop offs, and maintain flexibility and adapt to situations as they develop.

And if you follow simple and sound principles that are geared towards strengthening your team without selling out the future, then I believe anyone can build a contender.

You will win some and you will lose some, that's just the way it goes because no one's crystal ball is perfect. However if you have a sound strategy, some patience, and a little luck then you can succeed through the ups and downs regardless of whether a particular trade fits into a tiny window of future predictive analysis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Baloney. You got some stats from leagues that have operating for years to back that up, showing that people who play with a longer term strategy in Dynasty leagues actually do better than those of us who have a shorter term view? It is a mathematical fact in theory only. In practice I have not seen it work out. Very few here (including myself) can predict the future with any accuracy. It is hard enough to predict the coming season, but I can get a better handle on that than how some player will perform in 3-5 years.

Look, all I am saying in that a shorter term strategy is one way to win consistently in Dynasty leagues and I have proven it in my own leagues. Perhaps looking at a team in years 4-20 (like you do) is the way to go and I will crash and burn in the next three. But the bottom line is that it has not been factually proven that putting a greater value on the short term is a not a winning strategy.

First off, it's not baloney. As I said, it's a self-evident mathematical truth. Trading more points over a long timeline for less points over a long timeline results in scoring less points over a long timeline.

Second off, in response to the bolded, have you not read my posts? I've said that the present is more PREDICTABLE, but it is not more VALUABLE. I've said that predictability has value, and insofar as it is more predictable, the present season holds more value, but that value is not attributable to the fact that it is the present, that value is wholly and absolutely attributable to the increased predictability. You respond by saying "Nuh uh, the present is more valuable because it's more predictable!". How is that not exactly what I just said?

Look, it's a mathematical fact that trading future production for current production results in fewer wins.

In a vacuum, yes. However one would still be able to make "now" moves the following season to make up for any resulting shortfall from your previous year's "sell out the future" move.
Yes, but they'd be starting with a weaker base (since they'd weakened their base to make "now moves" in the past), which means that they'd either need to sell out an even greater quantity of future value. Eventually, all that value comes due.

Let's liken it to an NFL team with their full contingent of draft picks, 1-7. They see someone they like in the 2nd round, so they trade next year's 1st for this year's 2nd. Now, next year comes up, and they only have draft picks 2-7. Is it possible for this team to get back to a full complement of draft picks? Absolutely- they can sell next year's 1st *AND* next year's 2nd to land a 1st this year. Now they've got the full set of 7 picks this year, but when next year comes up, they only have picks 3-7. They can keep pushing back the payment, but eventually, everything always comes due.

Now, if that team is the greatest drafting team ever and drafts nothing but HoFers, they can still be tremendously successful despite their Devil May Care attitude about their future... but success is relative. If they were that good at talent evaluation, imagine how much more successful they would be if they had a full complement of picks because they didn't keep mortgaging the future for the present.

Well, if it is not a winning strategy, then it would seem that playing for the future as the way to go was what he was saying.

Not in the slightest. All I said was that the future is worth as much as the present. If I play the next 3 seasons, and I have a crystal ball that tells me I'm going to win a championship in exactly one of those seasons, it is no more valuable for me to win that championship this year than it would be to win it next year. I'm not saying "play for the future", because that would indicate that future years are MORE valuable than current years. They aren't. Every year is equally valuable. If I play in a league for 20 years, all I care about is how many championships I win, not when in the 20 years I won them.

I don't think you are understanding...

The very fact that the production this year is more certain BY NATURE MAKES IT MORE VALUABLE! You can not and will not ever possess the crystal ball you are speaking about, so it is completely useless and trivial to this discussion. All you are ever able to possess are your eyes (for the eyeball test), measurements, knowledge of situation, knowledge of competition, knowledge of coaching staff, etc... All of these tools may give you what you THINK is a good guess at a player's future production, but it is a very inexact guess at best. This season, all of those same tools are able to give you a decent ballpark on a players general production range.

You are acting as if this is a simple mathematical equation such as: 300 (this years points) + 100 (next years points) = 400 points. That is a completely flawed equation and not at all close to reality. Because we will FOREVER lack the crystal ball you mentioned, the actual equation would go something like this: 300 x A (with A being the certainty that this years points are correct) + 100 x B (with B being the certainty that next years points are correct). If you concede that this year is easier to predict, then you by default must concede that A is by nature larger than B. This will result in this years points generally being more valuable than next years with similiar players. In common sense terms, this seasons points are more valuable BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU WILL BE GETTING THEM! Are the points themselves more valuable? No. Is the value of points tied specifically to the specific number of points themselves, especially when theoretical future points are involved? No, and this is the part you are missing. The value is derived from how many points there are AND the certainty that those points will actually be realized.

It's time for a visual aid, I think. Please click this link.

You see that band holding the money together? The vast majority of the time you have one of those bands in your possession, it's going to be extremely valuable. Is that because the band itself has some inherent value? Of course not, it's because the band is generally accompanied by something (in this case, money) that does have inherent value. No one would say "man, I want to buy a bunch of those bands, they're worth $2,000 each!", even if most of the time you see those bands, they're in a bundle worth $2,000 each.

That's the same thing here. The present season is like the little band, and "predictability" is the fat wad of money. The present season (paper band) generally carries a lot of predictability (fat wad of cash). As a result, the present season is usually more valuable than future seasons... but it's not more valuable because the present season holds intrinsic value of its own, it's because the PREDICTABILITY of the present season holds intrinsic value of its own. Present years are not worth the tiniest bit more than future years (which, in this analogy, would be random scraps of paper not used to bind money). Both are just scraps of paper.

It's the predictability itself that holds value, and while you're right that the present is generally more predictable than the future, it's not always the case. There are plenty of instances where the present holds absolutely no more predictability than the future. For instance, when you're dealing with rookie draft picks. Both present picks and future picks are equally uncertain. Without that additional predictability, present picks are not worth any more than future picks, because THE PRESENT ITSELF IS NOT INTRINSICALLY VALUABLE. Another instance where the present doesn't hold more predictability than the future is with guys like Jonathan Stewart, Dez Bryant, or Vincent Jackson. I maintain that these players' talent levels are so obvious and so high that their future production is very predictable. As a result of that PREDICTABILITY (which is intrinsically valuable), their FUTURE VALUE, in my mind, outweighs the PRESENT VALUE of far less predictable assets like Arian Foster. I believe that Arian Foster will score more points this season than Jonathan Stewart. I believe that Jonathan Stewart will score more points for his career than Arian Foster. Since this season is not intrinsically more valuable than any other season, I'd rather have Jonathan Stewart.

At the end of the day, my point is that this year is not a single iota more valuable than next year. It's more predictable, and predictability holds value, but absent that predictability bonus, there is no intrinsic value bonus for current production vs. future production. All production is equally valuable, regardless of when it comes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the whole value now -vs- value in the future debate, let me throw a sanity check in...As F&L said, the BEST way to go about things is to play for the now, while still keeping an eye on the future- there is no reason they need to be mutually exclusive. The best owners are the ones who are able to RELOAD and never get stuck REBUILDING. This is only done if you consistantly keep a strong roster from year to year, but make smart, educated pickups/trades that will also help you down the road. Being on top of things and nabbing the Ryan Grant's, Miles Austin's, Arian Foster's, etc... off the waiver wire or trading for the Rashard Mendenhall's, Ray Rice's, etc... when their values were low will make it much easier to absorb the loss of potential future production when trading Jonathan Stewart for Arian Foster (or any other similar example) in order to increase this years production. This is the true win/win scenario and something everyone should be striving for- the ability to keep an eye on the future while also having the ability to give up future gains for present production.

Along those lines, I just traded S-Jax after six years in my main Keep-11 league for Dez Bryant, Owen Daniels, and a draft pick. Trying to sell a 27-year-old RB before the decline for a up-and-coming nucleus receiver. Trading my late first-round pick for McFadden at the end of last year allowed me to part with S-Jax this year.
:lmao: I always try to be ahead of the curve on selling aging vets. I sold Portis for what amounted to 1.02 (Wells) while he ws in the middle of his last good year. I sold TJ Housh when he still had good value for 1.04 (D.Brown). The trick on these is selling before the bottom falls out in value, and buying rookies before people get enamored or after they're disappointed with (like McFadden).
Link to post
Share on other sites

But the bottom line is that it has not been factually proven that putting a greater value on the short term is a not a winning strategy.

Nor has it been factually proven that putting a greater value on the short term is a winning strategy. When it comes to the "win now" and "win later" approaches, I have seen both of them succeed and fail.
You are mischaracterizing my position. I didn't say that it has been proven to be a winning strategy, I was arguing against SSOG's position that it has been proven (by his abstract math formula) to be a losing strategy. He is arguing you can't win long term with such an approach, but has no facts of long term results from actual leagues to back up what he says (nor does anyone else I may add, you would have to study results from multilple leagues in existance for years and that information is not available at this time). I have nothing against a long term strategy and have never said you can't win with it. I just take umbridge at the assertion that you can't win with a shorter term approach, as I have done better in my own leagues than some here who consider my strategy "short sighted." In any event, my point is that a short term approach is just as valid as a longer term strategy and no one has proven otherwise. Edited by squistion
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wont disagree with you there, anyone can make a case for any player over another. I personally cant see how anyone would have Marshall over those 7 guys. Considering we both understand this, i dont get why people get on SSOG's case for ranking Marshall 7.

question for you. WHat has Desean done to merit being ahead of a guy like Marshall in dynasty? I understand he's electric and his TD's last year were nice, but Marshall has been one of the most effective pass catchers in football for 3 years in a row.
He is younger and more talented.
Is he? Talent comes in many forms. DeSean Jackson is a lot quicker and faster than Brandon Marshall, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's more talented. Allen Iverson was a lot quicker and faster than Shaquille O'Neal, but that doesn't mean he was more talented. Size is a talent. If I could take my physical skill set and put it in a 7'1" 300 pound frame, I would be an NBA All-Star. Therein lies the rub. I'm not 7'1" 300 pounds. DeSean Jackson is quick and explosive. If you could put his skill set in a 6'4" 230 pound frame, he would be the best receiver in the league. Therein lies the rub. DeSean Jackson is not 6'4" 230. He's 5'11" 175. His size prevents him from doing some of the things that Brandon Marshall can do. So while I would rather have DeSean Jackson running a streak pattern for my offense than Brandon Marshall, I would much rather have Marshall running the 8 yard curl route on 3rd and 7 against physical press coverage. He's much more physical, much stronger, and much better suited to possession duties. I see a lot of people talk about talent on these boards and I'm wondering how well we really understand what the word even means. I think most of us put far too much emphasis on obvious superficial physical traits when we talk about talent. "Calvin Johnson is 6'5" 235 with 4.3 speed in a straight line. Therefore he's the most talented WR in the league." "Reggie Wayne and Chad Johnson have average size and stopwatch speed. Therefore they're not elite talents." Bullocks. Talent involves more than superficial physical traits that are easy to quantify with a stopwatch or measuring tape. Guys like Derrick Mason, Chad Johnson, Greg Jennings, and Reggie Wayne have been shredding the league for years. They're incredibly gifted players whose fluid route running and explosive short area burst allow them to effortlessly shed coverage. They also catch the ball ridiculously well in part because their fluid body control allows them to instantly contort and adjust to errant passes. All they do is log 1000+ yard seasons every year and yet there's a reluctance to acknowledge them as elite talents. I think this is because they don't have obvious elite superficial traits like 6'4" 230 pound size or 4.3 stopwatch speed. There's no single physical trait you can point to and say, "See, he's an elite talent." When I first started watching football, I didn't understand why Steve McNair always locked onto Derrick Mason. Now I understand. Success at the WR position is about much more than being tall and/or fast. Braylon Edwards and Roy Williams are not more talented than Greg Jennings and Reggie Wayne. Dare I say that Calvin Johnson is not more talented than Santonio Holmes. We only think Calvin is more talented than Santonio because the areas in which he excels are more readily understood and the areas in which he's deficient require a more subtle knowledge of what the WR position requires. (Okay, maybe Calvin is more talented than Santonio, but I'm trying to make a point and if there is a gap, it's much thinner than what pundits believe).
I pretty much agree with everything you said here, but why does that mean i cant like Jackson more than Marshall?I dont really agree with you on CJ, i have never seen a more complete WR.I do agree 100% about Roy Williams. I have been saying since his early career that he is not an NFL WR, that he has been getting away with looking like one due to his athleticism.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully your right on Brandon Jackson as far as him not being very good or holding onto the job because I just took a big punch to my gut in my high stakes dynasty league.

I went $983 out of my $999 remaining. Only 4 other teams had more than $983.

1 team went $986...doesn't feel good to be me right now.

I needed him to have any hopes for this year with my RB situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the bottom line is that it has not been factually proven that putting a greater value on the short term is a not a winning strategy.

Nor has it been factually proven that putting a greater value on the short term is a winning strategy.

When it comes to the "win now" and "win later" approaches, I have seen both of them succeed and fail.

You are mischaracterizing my position. I didn't say that it has been proven to be a winning strategy, I was arguing against SSOG's position that it has been proven (by his abstract math formula) to be a losing strategy. He is arguing you can't win long term with such an approach, but has no facts of long term results from actual leagues to back up what he says (nor does anyone else I may add, you would have to study results from multilple leagues in existance for years and that information is not available at this time).

I have nothing against a long term strategy and have never said you can't win with it. I just take umbridge at the assertion that you can't win with a shorter term approach, as I have done better in my own leagues than some here who consider my strategy "short sighted." In any event, my point is that a short term approach is just as valid as a longer term strategy and no one has proven otherwise.

It has been proven. There's no abstract math formula involved. If Player A scores 3,000 points for his career, and Player B scores 2,000 points for his career, then Player A will net you more wins over a long timeline than Player B, even if Player B scores his points sooner. This isn't "abstract mathematical formula". This is "simple mathematical fact". Or, as I phrased it early, trading more points over a long timeline in exchange for fewer points over a long timeline always results in scoring fewer points over a long timeline. There's nothing that needs to be proven- the statement is a truism.

Now, can you win while overvaluing present seasons? Absolutely. It's very simple to be very successful with that strategy. If your player valuations are better than the rest of the league, you can achieve strong success with pretty much any strategy you could possibly imagine. That doesn't change the fact that trading more points over a long timeline for less points over a long timeline will always result in scoring less points over a long timeline. We're talking about a definitional truth, here. Could someone trade Maurice Jones-Drew for LaDainian Tomlinson back in 2007 and still have a competitive team today? Yes. But his team would be better and more competitive if he hadn't made that trade. Over the lifetime of his league, he would have scored more points and secured more wins if he had held on to a greater future value (Jones-Drew) instead of trading it for a lesser present value (Tomlinson). There is no weighting that you can apply to points scored in the current season vs. points scored in future seasons that will have a better correlation with long term scoring and wins than a simple "all seasons are of equal value" weighting system.

Since the goal isn't just raw wins or points, but is to secure 1st place finishes at all costs, sometimes it can make sense to trade away a greater future value for a lesser present value because the present value fits more harmonically within the overall makeup of your roster and within your self-defined "championship window"... but outside of situations like that, when you're in an "all else being equal" scenario, points scored this year are not worth a single iota more than points scored next year. There is never a situation where trading 2007 MJD for 2007 Tomlinson makes you a better team over a long window.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who does everyone see as buy low candidates in dynasty? I've been checking into players like Santonio Holmes, Marshawn Lynch, Sidney Rice, Kevin Kolb, etc. Just wondering who you guys see with the potential to greatly outperform their current perceived value.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who does everyone see as buy low candidates in dynasty? I've been checking into players like Santonio Holmes, Marshawn Lynch, Sidney Rice, Kevin Kolb, etc. Just wondering who you guys see with the potential to greatly outperform their current perceived value.

Best way to gauge that is to look at younger players in ideal situations. Wallace in PIT, Huggins in TB, Stewart in CAR...the list goes on. They are drafted low because they don't produce massive numbers. Dynasty guys see them as talent waiting to be unleashed. Once they are unleashed, their draft value skyrockets because others are trying to hop onto the bandwagon that you were on years prior.At least thats how I look at it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You can argue now vs. future til you're blue in the face. The fact of the matter is that I've seen owners win leagues using both strategies over the years. I've also seem both blow up and destroy a team for years. I've had guys draft a win now team in a startup and win the initial season only to have a team that focused on youth win 3 years later.

With that being said, value is king in dynasty and the unknown high reward that younger players possess are king. A balance is absolutely needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been proven. There's no abstract math formula involved. If Player A scores 3,000 points for his career, and Player B scores 2,000 points for his career, then Player A will net you more wins over a long timeline than Player B, even if Player B scores his points sooner. This isn't "abstract mathematical formula". This is "simple mathematical fact". Or, as I phrased it early, trading more points over a long timeline in exchange for fewer points over a long timeline always results in scoring fewer points over a long timeline. There's nothing that needs to be proven- the statement is a truism.

Two rather significant problems with your otherwise good math....

1. You don't know player B is good for 2000 and A for 3000. You just don't. (These numbers are so high they actually help make this point) No matter how good you are (and you're among the best here), you're NOT THAT GOOD.

2. You're (incorrectly) assuming that every other team owner is going to read things similarly. Very often, you can own player B for this year, and TRADE HIM FOR PLAYER A in the off-season. Yeah, yeah, I know...never own inferior players based on the hope of higher future value. But if he's producing good numbers, starter numbers...he's not an inferior player at all.

Your logic isn't wrong...it's woefully incomplete. You're over-simplifying. And the funny thing is....hints throughout your posts show you don't (over)simplify these things IRL with your squads. You're trying to over-simplify your explanations to make a point, but instead are just confusing things more.

The bottom line is that the this year vs. next year thing is not as straight forward as we'd like to think it is. It's almost more of an intuitive thing rather then a mathematical one. And your current roster makeup absolutely makes a differance. This years production is much more important when you're a contender, next years is when you aren't. Likewise, this years draft picks may be more important if you're middling team needing only one or two pieces, next years are equally valuable if you're already a contender with no holes, and may actually be preferable if you're already stacked with little roster space. It is NOT as simple as a second round pick = a second round pick.

Most of us can agree that this year is not more valuable then next year, or the year after. The best owners find the intuitive balance and compete nearly every year, INCLUDING this year.

Edited by renesauz
Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been proven. There's no abstract math formula involved. If Player A scores 3,000 points for his career, and Player B scores 2,000 points for his career, then Player A will net you more wins over a long timeline than Player B, even if Player B scores his points sooner. This isn't "abstract mathematical formula". This is "simple mathematical fact". Or, as I phrased it early, trading more points over a long timeline in exchange for fewer points over a long timeline always results in scoring fewer points over a long timeline. There's nothing that needs to be proven- the statement is a truism.

This is not an entirely true statement in terms of what we're discussing here. I know you touched on a related point in your third paragraph, but you can't just look at the total points in a vacuum if you want to frame it in terms of wins.

It's important to consider the distribution of the points and the context of when they were scored. Having one really high scoring player on a bad team does not usually equal win. Similarly, we need to look at whether those points are evenly distributed across the timeline or concentrated in one good season/stretch of games matters too. If the average starter at a particular position scores 10 PPG, and this player averages 10 PPG every game - that stability is good, but it doesn't give you much of a relative advantage. On the other hand, if Player B averages 30 PPG in one year, but 5 PPG over the other years, well - he actually might have won you more games that one season because of th relative advantage he brought - and those other years can be discounted because he was "below average" and not in your starting lineup (or on your roster) anyway.

I'm not saying this year is any more or less valuable than next year - just that this distribution has a very real impact on whether the points result in a win. (Nor am I condoning investing in one year wonders - but hopefully you get my point).

I've always appreciated dynasty because of the balance between winning now vs. winning in the future. Like investing, you have to cash in on your short-term gains at times, but also need to balance your portfolio with enough stable, strong contributors so you're not caught in a bubble :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

F&L... Love your rankings.. However, I want to get your thoughts (and the boards) on Matt Ryan in general. You list him as a top 10 QB in dynasty, but I'm not sure I see it. You even used the term "Future elite".

I love that Ryan is smart QB, makes good throws and limits turnovers. But how is that going to out-produce guys like Stafford and Bradford down the road? Those two are aggressive QBs with big arms.

I've owned Ryan since he came in the league, and while his rookie year was a nice suprise, I just don't see how this kid is going to be elite. His arm strength just doesn't seem to be there, and the current ATL playbook doesn't go deep too often. ATL is about a year or two away from nearly a total re-tool at the skill positions. Turner and Gonzo are up in years for their positions and ATL's #2-#3 WRs are subpar for fantasy considerations. Thats a lot of issues to address over the next couple of years.

You know bottom line, I seem better served trading him for a legit QB1 to get me through the next couple years or moving him for a lesser QB with a much better upside.

talk to me here brotha...

Link to post
Share on other sites

:confused: points per game is more important than aggregate points. Anyone that had Owen Daniels + Fred Davis last year got top 3-4 player production even though each individually didn't rank so highly. You need to know how often a player produced stats that made him starter-worthy in your league. I'd rather have a guy that scores 100 points over 10 games than another that scores 300 points over 300 games.

It has been proven. There's no abstract math formula involved. If Player A scores 3,000 points for his career, and Player B scores 2,000 points for his career, then Player A will net you more wins over a long timeline than Player B, even if Player B scores his points sooner. This isn't "abstract mathematical formula". This is "simple mathematical fact". Or, as I phrased it early, trading more points over a long timeline in exchange for fewer points over a long timeline always results in scoring fewer points over a long timeline. There's nothing that needs to be proven- the statement is a truism.

This is not an entirely true statement in terms of what we're discussing here. I know you touched on a related point in your third paragraph, but you can't just look at the total points in a vacuum if you want to frame it in terms of wins.

It's important to consider the distribution of the points and the context of when they were scored. Having one really high scoring player on a bad team does not usually equal win. Similarly, we need to look at whether those points are evenly distributed across the timeline or concentrated in one good season/stretch of games matters too. If the average starter at a particular position scores 10 PPG, and this player averages 10 PPG every game - that stability is good, but it doesn't give you much of a relative advantage. On the other hand, if Player B averages 30 PPG in one year, but 5 PPG over the other years, well - he actually might have won you more games that one season because of th relative advantage he brought - and those other years can be discounted because he was "below average" and not in your starting lineup (or on your roster) anyway.

I'm not saying this year is any more or less valuable than next year - just that this distribution has a very real impact on whether the points result in a win. (Nor am I condoning investing in one year wonders - but hopefully you get my point).

I've always appreciated dynasty because of the balance between winning now vs. winning in the future. Like investing, you have to cash in on your short-term gains at times, but also need to balance your portfolio with enough stable, strong contributors so you're not caught in a bubble :shrug:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you're looking for the exception. Are there some all time backs not on the list? Of course, but they are the exception. Just like the "normal" backs who are on the list. Out of the thousands or more backs who have played in regular season games, out of the "normal ones" there are only a handful on the list. And out of the truly elite, there aren't that many that are not on the list. That's my point. Instead of looking at the exceptions, let's look at the generalities. If you run for 200+ yards, then it is a pretty damn good signal that you're a damn good back!

Like I said, I understand the point you're trying to make. I don't know that I agree with it. All of the exceptional backs on that list had a lot more indicators going for them than one 200 yard game. Was it the 200 yard game that was the dominant indicator that they were exceptional, or something else? What sort of lurking variables are at play, here?If you take out the guys with multiple 200 yard games and just look at the guys with a single 200 yard game, you have the following names: Mike Anderson, Jamaal Charles, Warrick Dunn, Charlie Garner, Eddie George, Ahman Green, Jerome Harrison, Priest Holmes, Fred Jackson, Chris Johnson, Leshon Johnson, Rudi Johnson, Thomas Jones, Nap Kaufman, Curtis Martin, Duce Staley, Jon Stewart, Fred Taylor, Derrick Ward. Personally, I only see one truly honest-to-goodness exceptional back on that list (Priest Holmes), with one more poised to join him (Chris Johnson), and another name or two who were very good (but not quite exceptional). That list is dominated by decent-but-not-spectacular backs, which to me suggests that rushing for 200 yards, while nice, isn't the be-all, end-all indicator, here. If you do it multiple times, then you're in some pretty elite company, but doing it once isn't this overwhelmingly powerful indicator.What's funny to me is that we're comparing Foster to another back with a 200 yard game on his resume. Everyone thinks that Stewart is more talented, so how does a single 200 yard game put Foster on Stewart's level when Stewart has one of those of his own?
"If you take out the guys with multiple 200 yard games and just look at the guys with a single 200 yard game"That's an invalid argument now. You can't parse the data without a valid reason. If we are looking for elite backs via 200 yard games, what rational can you possibly have for eliminating all the people on the list with multiple 200 yard games? If a 200 yard game is evidence of an elite back, then multiple 200 yard games are even more evidence of elite backs. So taking out all the players with multiple 200 yard games makes no logical sense. The only possible argument that can be made is that Foster only has 1 200 yard game, but then again, the guys with multiple 200 yard games have many years and entire careers under their belts. Foster only has 3 games! Again, makes no sense. The more exceptions you make, or as some would put it, degrees of freedom you add, the less reliable the analysis becomes. Especially since you're doing it after taking a look at the data and determining that it is to your advantage (for "your side" of the argument) to take out multiple 200 yard games.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been proven. There's no abstract math formula involved. If Player A scores 3,000 points for his career, and Player B scores 2,000 points for his career, then Player A will net you more wins over a long timeline than Player B, even if Player B scores his points sooner. This isn't "abstract mathematical formula". This is "simple mathematical fact". Or, as I phrased it early, trading more points over a long timeline in exchange for fewer points over a long timeline always results in scoring fewer points over a long timeline. There's nothing that needs to be proven- the statement is a truism.

Two rather significant problems with your otherwise good math....

1. You don't know player B is good for 2000 and A for 3000. You just don't. (These numbers are so high they actually help make this point) No matter how good you are (and you're among the best here), you're NOT THAT GOOD.

2. You're (incorrectly) assuming that every other team owner is going to read things similarly. Very often, you can own player B for this year, and TRADE HIM FOR PLAYER A in the off-season. Yeah, yeah, I know...never own inferior players based on the hope of higher future value. But if he's producing good numbers, starter numbers...he's not an inferior player at all.

Your logic isn't wrong...it's woefully incomplete. You're over-simplifying. And the funny thing is....hints throughout your posts show you don't (over)simplify these things IRL with your squads. You're trying to over-simplify your explanations to make a point, but instead are just confusing things more.

The bottom line is that the this year vs. next year thing is not as straight forward as we'd like to think it is. It's almost more of an intuitive thing rather then a mathematical one. And your current roster makeup absolutely makes a differance. This years production is much more important when you're a contender, next years is when you aren't. Likewise, this years draft picks may be more important if you're middling team needing only one or two pieces, next years are equally valuable if you're already a contender with no holes, and may actually be preferable if you're already stacked with little roster space. It is NOT as simple as a second round pick = a second round pick.

Most of us can agree that this year is not more valuable then next year, or the year after. The best owners find the intuitive balance and compete nearly every year, INCLUDING this year.

Re #1: Of course you can't know. Any time there's added certainty surrounding certain numbers, you should place added value on those numbers. That's the whole expectations vs. expected value phenomenon that I wrote about. But, while present numbers have a tendency to come with more certainty, that's not always the case. I think guys like Stewart and VJax have a very high degree of certainty surrounding them because they're already proven studs, even if their immediate production leaves a lot to be desired. With most players, I am uncertain whether they'll be talented enough to put up stud numbers. With Stewart and VJax, I don't have that uncertainty. I'm a lot more certain that Jonathan Stewart is going to be a stud than I am that Jahvid Best will be, even if Jahvid Best is going to put up the better numbers right now. The "value present production over future production" crowd might take Jahvid Best over Jonathan Stewart. The "value present and future production equally, but value certain production over uncertain production" crowd might take Jonathan Stewart over Jahvid Best. Or they might still take Jahvid Best over Jonathan Stewart if they believe his future production is either higher or more certain.

I'm not sitting here saying "mortgage the present for the future!", because it's clearly not that simple. All I'm saying is that it's ludicrous, in my mind, that a guy like Vincent Jackson is getting completely killed in most rankings just because he's not producing this year. Stewart is barely producing this year, yet he holds his high ranking spot. Bryant will likely barely produce this year, yet he holds his high ranking spot. Next year's #1 overall draft pick won't produce a single point this season, yet next year's #1 is an incredibly valuable commodity.

I also think the whole "I value this year's production as highly as all future production combined" line that people have thrown out is ridiculously inaccurate. I doubt those people would trade the #1 rookie pick next year for the #10 rookie pick this year, which is what they should do if they really do value this year's production as much as all future years combined. I doubt those people would trade Jonathan Stewart or Jahvid Best for Michael Turner. I doubt those people would look at a trade in 2007 where someone gave MJD and got Tomlinson and say "man, the guy who got Tomlinson really made a killing on that trade".

Re the rest of it: Of course it's not a simple process. There's no such thing as a crystal ball and we can't know the future. I just think that the phrase "this year's production is more valuable than next year's production" is wrong, and can be a very dangerous phrase to say around people who don't know what they're doing very well yet in dynasty. It's the type of phrase that, if taken to heart, can lead to running a team into the ground. That's why I keep restating that trading more points over a long timeline for fewer points over a long timeline always results in scoring fewer points over a long timeline. This isn't a simple rule that will make building a dynasty team a piece of cake, because we still have to identify who is going to score more points over a long timeline and who is going to score fewer points over a timeline, as well as situations where scoring fewer points over a long timeline might result in more championships over a long timeline. Still, the "more points for fewer points always results in fewer points" rule of thumb is an important one to keep in mind when trading rising stars for aging vets, and I think serves a fantasy team far better than "today is worth as much as all tomorrows combined".

This is not an entirely true statement in terms of what we're discussing here. I know you touched on a related point in your third paragraph, but you can't just look at the total points in a vacuum if you want to frame it in terms of wins.

It's important to consider the distribution of the points and the context of when they were scored. Having one really high scoring player on a bad team does not usually equal win. Similarly, we need to look at whether those points are evenly distributed across the timeline or concentrated in one good season/stretch of games matters too. If the average starter at a particular position scores 10 PPG, and this player averages 10 PPG every game - that stability is good, but it doesn't give you much of a relative advantage. On the other hand, if Player B averages 30 PPG in one year, but 5 PPG over the other years, well - he actually might have won you more games that one season because of th relative advantage he brought - and those other years can be discounted because he was "below average" and not in your starting lineup (or on your roster) anyway.

I'm not saying this year is any more or less valuable than next year - just that this distribution has a very real impact on whether the points result in a win. (Nor am I condoning investing in one year wonders - but hopefully you get my point).

I've always appreciated dynasty because of the balance between winning now vs. winning in the future. Like investing, you have to cash in on your short-term gains at times, but also need to balance your portfolio with enough stable, strong contributors so you're not caught in a bubble :rolleyes:

This is all true, and I was considering making this very distinction myself, but I felt it was important to just stick with "points scored" so we didn't wind up going off on any more tangents. You can replace "points scored" with any representation of value that you want, whether it be VBD, or PPG above average, or quality starts, or win shares, or whatever. At DR.net we're working on a graduated VBD that, instead of comparing a player to the worst starter at his position, calculates points scored compared to average adjusted for how frequently you'll start the player according to weekly projections (for instance, QBs drafted in the top 8 in preseason only find themselves among the top 8 in Dodds' weekly projections 49% of the time, which means QBs outside of the top 8 are being called to start the rest of the time). Regardless of how you calculate player value, though, the simple truth is trading more value over a long timeline for less value over a long timeline always results in less value over a long timeline.

As I said, sometimes less value over a long timeline is preferable, such as when it concentrates value in a tight enough window to result in more championships. It's better to always finish 1st or last than it is to always finish 4th, because finishing 1st gets you a banner and finishing last gets you the #1 overall draft pick, but finishing 4th gets you nothing. I'm not saying you should never make trades that are focused entirely on the present. I'm just saying you shouldn't make trades focused entirely on the present under the assumption that the future is somehow less valuable than the present.

"If you take out the guys with multiple 200 yard games and just look at the guys with a single 200 yard game"

That's an invalid argument now. You can't parse the data without a valid reason. If we are looking for elite backs via 200 yard games, what rational can you possibly have for eliminating all the people on the list with multiple 200 yard games? If a 200 yard game is evidence of an elite back, then multiple 200 yard games are even more evidence of elite backs. So taking out all the players with multiple 200 yard games makes no logical sense. The only possible argument that can be made is that Foster only has 1 200 yard game, but then again, the guys with multiple 200 yard games have many years and entire careers under their belts. Foster only has 3 games! Again, makes no sense. The more exceptions you make, or as some would put it, degrees of freedom you add, the less reliable the analysis becomes. Especially since you're doing it after taking a look at the data and determining that it is to your advantage (for "your side" of the argument) to take out multiple 200 yard games.

How is it an invalid argument? I'm comparing a guy with a single 200 yard game against other RBs with a single 200 yard game. I think it's far more invalid to compare a guy like Arian Foster with his lone 200 yard game to a guy like Tiki Barber with his 5 200 yard games. It seems to me that comparing a guy with one 200 yard game against a guy with two or three 200 yard games is not much different than comparing a guy with no 200 yard games to a guy with one 200 yard game.

Personally, the whole reason I brought out the data was to use it in a descriptive manner, not a predictive manner. I think it holds a lot of descriptive value. I don't think it holds a lot of predictive value. A lot has to go right to get to 200 yards. Steven Jackson hasn't done it. Maurice Jones-Drew hasn't done it. I posted the list of 200 yard rushers because I believe it illustrates what kind of RB has accomplished the feat, not because I think that list of RBs should be considered the basis for any projections we do about Foster's future. If I'm ranking or evaluating Arian Foster, I'm doing it based on processes- i.e. how he got that 200 yard game- and not outcomes- i.e. how many yards he wound up with. If Arian Foster had finished the game against Indy with 199 rushing yards, he still would have been the same back, even if he would have produced a different set of comps.

Edited by SSOG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, i love stewart as well, but in dynasty leagues i would put Foster and Stewart pretty level, since this year gets a proportionate advantage to later years.

I forgot to address this the first time around, but putting more weight on the current season than on future seasons is a losing strategy in the long run. If you trade 120 points next year for 100 points this year, all that means is that you're going to score 20 fewer points over the next 2 years. I understand a thought process that says that this season is more PREDICTABLE than future years and acts accordingly... but I strongly disagree with any thought process that says that this season is more VALUABLE than future years. I think that thought process is a good way to run your team into the ground. It's like NFL teams that trade future 1sts for current 2nds. I bet if you plotted a team's willingness to trade future picks for current picks at a discount vs. that team's winning percentage, you'd find a noticeable inverse correlation between how much a team overvalues this season and how many games that team wins in the long run.
Have you heard of present value vs future value in finance? A dollar today is worth more than a dollar in 1 year's time. This is one of the idea's behind interest rates. If you borrow a dollar, even if you assume a zero inflation rate, you'll be paying more than a dollar as time goes by. A great percentage of interest rates are inflation, but that's not the entirety of it. You also have opportunity cost and what some people refer to as entrepenuer (spelling?) cost. It is basic finance, even in the day's of a pure gold standard where you had not only ZERO inflation, but productivity induced DEFLATION where a dollar purchased more for you in the future than it did at the present, you had interest rates or usury. It is a basic concept of finance.I feel the same is true in any investment, including "investments" in fantasy football. This year is worth more than the following year. For goodness sakes, you don't even know if you'll be around next year, or like you said, you don't even know if you're players will be around next year. But even if we discount everything of that nature, this year is still worth more than future years, due to the very fundamental concepts of investment analysis or value analysis.You threw in a roughly 20% increase (120 to 100), i'm not saying it is that high. For each individual, in fact, it is different. But for sure, at whatever level, whether 20%, or .01%, there is definitely a difference.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all good SSOG. This discussion is, quite unfortunately, 90% about simple semantics, without a ton of practical difference in actual approach. FWIW...I believe I understand, and agree, with where you're coming from...just not overly comfortable with the wording you chose to explain it with (in some posts).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, i love stewart as well, but in dynasty leagues i would put Foster and Stewart pretty level, since this year gets a proportionate advantage to later years.

I forgot to address this the first time around, but putting more weight on the current season than on future seasons is a losing strategy in the long run. If you trade 120 points next year for 100 points this year, all that means is that you're going to score 20 fewer points over the next 2 years. I understand a thought process that says that this season is more PREDICTABLE than future years and acts accordingly... but I strongly disagree with any thought process that says that this season is more VALUABLE than future years. I think that thought process is a good way to run your team into the ground. It's like NFL teams that trade future 1sts for current 2nds. I bet if you plotted a team's willingness to trade future picks for current picks at a discount vs. that team's winning percentage, you'd find a noticeable inverse correlation between how much a team overvalues this season and how many games that team wins in the long run.
Have you heard of present value vs future value in finance? A dollar today is worth more than a dollar in 1 year's time. This is one of the idea's behind interest rates. If you borrow a dollar, even if you assume a zero inflation rate, you'll be paying more than a dollar as time goes by. A great percentage of interest rates are inflation, but that's not the entirety of it. You also have opportunity cost and what some people refer to as entrepenuer (spelling?) cost. It is basic finance, even in the day's of a pure gold standard where you had not only ZERO inflation, but productivity induced DEFLATION where a dollar purchased more for you in the future than it did at the present, you had interest rates or usury. It is a basic concept of finance.I feel the same is true in any investment, including "investments" in fantasy football. This year is worth more than the following year. For goodness sakes, you don't even know if you'll be around next year, or like you said, you don't even know if you're players will be around next year. But even if we discount everything of that nature, this year is still worth more than future years, due to the very fundamental concepts of investment analysis or value analysis.You threw in a roughly 20% increase (120 to 100), i'm not saying it is that high. For each individual, in fact, it is different. But for sure, at whatever level, whether 20%, or .01%, there is definitely a difference.
A dollar today is not worth more. Interest is calculated purely from expected inflation as well as the reasonable profit for assuming the risk of not actually getting paid that dollar back. The present vs future value as practically no bearing on the interest rate, contrary to what you posted.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you heard of present value vs future value in finance? A dollar today is worth more than a dollar in 1 year's time. This is one of the idea's behind interest rates. If you borrow a dollar, even if you assume a zero inflation rate, you'll be paying more than a dollar as time goes by. A great percentage of interest rates are inflation, but that's not the entirety of it. You also have opportunity cost and what some people refer to as entrepenuer (spelling?) cost. It is basic finance, even in the day's of a pure gold standard where you had not only ZERO inflation, but productivity induced DEFLATION where a dollar purchased more for you in the future than it did at the present, you had interest rates or usury. It is a basic concept of finance.I feel the same is true in any investment, including "investments" in fantasy football. This year is worth more than the following year. For goodness sakes, you don't even know if you'll be around next year, or like you said, you don't even know if you're players will be around next year. But even if we discount everything of that nature, this year is still worth more than future years, due to the very fundamental concepts of investment analysis or value analysis.You threw in a roughly 20% increase (120 to 100), i'm not saying it is that high. For each individual, in fact, it is different. But for sure, at whatever level, whether 20%, or .01%, there is definitely a difference.

I don't know that much about macroeconomics, but how much of the extra value of a dollar is owing to the fact that the stock market is always trending upwards? IIRC, there's never been a 10-year period where the stock market was lower at the end than it was at the beginning. In dynasty, there's no real analog.The only thing, in my mind, that would devalue future seasons is that there's no guarantee that future seasons will really exist. Leagues dissolve, players quit, life changes, even the NFL itself faces work stoppages and strikes. In that sense, the current season has a higher EV than future seasons because we're 100% that the current season exists and only 99% certain, or 95% certain, or 80% certain, or however certain that future seasons will exist for us in that particular dynasty league. If someone had a strategy where they'd join a start-up dynasty league with the intention of only playing for 2 season, then absolutely it would make sense to start a scorched-earth run and trade all future assets for present assets, because that owner has no future (as an aside: personally, I think running a team into the ground simply because you don't plan on being there to deal with the aftermath is about the douchiest thing a dynasty owner can do).With that said, if you gave me assurances that the league would exist and I would remain participating in it for 20 years, then I don't know why I should value any one of those seasons more than any other of those seasons. My main concern would be how many championships I walk out of those 20 years with. I'd rather have 5 championships that came in the last 5 years than 4 championships that came in the first 4 years.

It's all good SSOG. This discussion is, quite unfortunately, 90% about simple semantics, without a ton of practical difference in actual approach. FWIW...I believe I understand, and agree, with where you're coming from...just not overly comfortable with the wording you chose to explain it with (in some posts).

Most of these disagreements do wind up centering on semantics or a surfeit of clarity (generally from both sides of the debate). You almost need a universally accepted terminology in order to reach a consensus about the mechanics behind dynasty leagues, because multiple different people might say the same words but mean different things. I think a lot of it centers around the internet being such a limited medium, too. Luckily, this seems to be one of those debates where we run around in circles chasing our tails, but eventually manage to find some common middle ground (as opposed to one of those debates where we just keep running around in circles- Brandon Marshall and Vincent Jackson, I'm looking in your general direction ;)).
Link to post
Share on other sites

A dollar today is not worth more. Interest is calculated purely from expected inflation as well as the reasonable profit for assuming the risk of not actually getting paid that dollar back. The present vs future value as practically no bearing on the interest rate, contrary to what you posted.

Thanks Instinctive. I knew that with as many smart guys inhabit this thread, surely someone would be along shortly to clarify.
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we feel about McFadden at the moment?

I thought he actually looked pretty good in week 1. Watched all of his carries on game rewind, didn't have a lot to work with on most plays, but he had a few plays where he showed some good power to get yards after the first hit. No Steven Jackson power running of course, but better than I expected for how much vitriol is thrown his way. I could even see him earning the lions share of a RBBC with Bush if he has an outstanding game against the Rams. Pair that with his PPR abilities, and I'm hopeful enough for his future that I traded a 2012 1st for him in the Dynasty Rankings League©.

So what's the verdict? Finally going to break out, or still fool's gold?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we feel about McFadden at the moment? I thought he actually looked pretty good in week 1. Watched all of his carries on game rewind, didn't have a lot to work with on most plays, but he had a few plays where he showed some good power to get yards after the first hit. No Steven Jackson power running of course, but better than I expected for how much vitriol is thrown his way. I could even see him earning the lions share of a RBBC with Bush if he has an outstanding game against the Rams. Pair that with his PPR abilities, and I'm hopeful enough for his future that I traded a 2012 1st for him in the Dynasty Rankings League©. So what's the verdict? Finally going to break out, or still fool's gold?

i don't think he's ever going to be what we thought when he came out, but a mid to late 1st is not an unreasonable price to pay. i don't expect him to disappear completely, even when bush gets healthy, and you're right -- there's some chance that he ends up with the lion's share of the work. if that happens, then you'll have made out very well on that deal.
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we feel about McFadden at the moment? I thought he actually looked pretty good in week 1. Watched all of his carries on game rewind, didn't have a lot to work with on most plays, but he had a few plays where he showed some good power to get yards after the first hit. No Steven Jackson power running of course, but better than I expected for how much vitriol is thrown his way. I could even see him earning the lions share of a RBBC with Bush if he has an outstanding game against the Rams. Pair that with his PPR abilities, and I'm hopeful enough for his future that I traded a 2012 1st for him in the Dynasty Rankings League©. So what's the verdict? Finally going to break out, or still fool's gold?

If I knew he was available at that price, I would have made the offer. I watched the short-cuts version of last week's game and came away even more impressed than I was with his statline.
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we feel about McFadden at the moment? I thought he actually looked pretty good in week 1. Watched all of his carries on game rewind, didn't have a lot to work with on most plays, but he had a few plays where he showed some good power to get yards after the first hit. No Steven Jackson power running of course, but better than I expected for how much vitriol is thrown his way. I could even see him earning the lions share of a RBBC with Bush if he has an outstanding game against the Rams. Pair that with his PPR abilities, and I'm hopeful enough for his future that I traded a 2012 1st for him in the Dynasty Rankings League©. So what's the verdict? Finally going to break out, or still fool's gold?

If I knew he was available at that price, I would have made the offer. I watched the short-cuts version of last week's game and came away even more impressed than I was with his statline.
:bowtie:He was a 2-time Heisman Runner Up at a position where Heisman winners actually typically do well in the pros. He's a former top 10 draft pick, and while it's easy to criticize the Raiders' drafting history, the fact is that he was not considered a reach in the top 10. He's always had skills. Maybe he's not what people thought he was, but he's still very skilled, and it's far, far too early in his career to write him off. As I've been fond of pointing out all offseason, McFadden has fewer career carries for Moreno, and a higher career ypc to boot.
Link to post
Share on other sites

He's always had skills. Maybe he's not what people thought he was, but he's still very skilled, and it's far, far too early in his career to write him off.

:lol:
Cut McFadden a break. He has constantly been dealing with injuries and last season you could have done better behind center than Russell. He hasn't had the opportunity to show us what he can do - maybe it will turn out to be nothing, but he is young and it really is too early to write him off.
Link to post
Share on other sites

He's always had skills. Maybe he's not what people thought he was, but he's still very skilled, and it's far, far too early in his career to write him off.

:thumbup:
Cut McFadden a break. He has constantly been dealing with injuries and last season you could have done better behind center than Russell. He hasn't had the opportunity to show us what he can do - maybe it will turn out to be nothing, but he is young and it really is too early to write him off.
I like his matchup today. He has elite straight line speed and he's a threat downfield in the passing game. Having said that, I've seen plenty of him over the past couple years and he has never shown the potential to be an above average NFL starting RB. The main thing working in his favor right now is the fact that Oakland's backfield might be the worst in the league. He will get a lot of opportunities this season.
Link to post
Share on other sites

He's always had skills. Maybe he's not what people thought he was, but he's still very skilled, and it's far, far too early in his career to write him off.

:thumbup:
Cut McFadden a break. He has constantly been dealing with injuries and last season you could have done better behind center than Russell. He hasn't had the opportunity to show us what he can do - maybe it will turn out to be nothing, but he is young and it really is too early to write him off.
I like his matchup today. He has elite straight line speed and he's a threat downfield in the passing game.

Having said that, I've seen plenty of him over the past couple years and he has never shown the potential to be an above average NFL starting RB. The main thing working in his favor right now is the fact that Oakland's backfield might be the worst in the league. He will get a lot of opportunities this season.

He has never shown the potential because he has either never had the opportunity when healthy or Russell was the QB. This is a player you have never liked (low BMI or whatever) so the fact you haven't seen any potential does not carry that much weight IMO. I am not saying he won't ultimatley be a bust, but you hardly have an objective opinion regarding him.
Link to post
Share on other sites

He's always had skills. Maybe he's not what people thought he was, but he's still very skilled, and it's far, far too early in his career to write him off.

:unsure:
Cut McFadden a break. He has constantly been dealing with injuries and last season you could have done better behind center than Russell. He hasn't had the opportunity to show us what he can do - maybe it will turn out to be nothing, but he is young and it really is too early to write him off.
I like his matchup today. He has elite straight line speed and he's a threat downfield in the passing game.

Having said that, I've seen plenty of him over the past couple years and he has never shown the potential to be an above average NFL starting RB. The main thing working in his favor right now is the fact that Oakland's backfield might be the worst in the league. He will get a lot of opportunities this season.

He has never shown the potential because he has either never had the opportunity when healthy or Russell was the QB. This is a player you have never liked (low BMI or whatever) so the fact you haven't seen any potential does not carry that much weight IMO. I am not saying he won't ultimatley be a bust, but you hardly have an objective opinion regarding him.
And thus far everything I said about him has proven to be pretty accurate.

He's all straight line speed with no power and below average elusiveness. If he doesn't have big lanes to work with, he's pretty useless. The Raiders don't block well enough to make him look like a good RB. In my opinion, not many NFL teams could.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having said that, I've seen plenty of him over the past couple years and he has never shown the potential to be an above average NFL starting RB. The main thing working in his favor right now is the fact that Oakland's backfield might be the worst in the league. He will get a lot of opportunities this season.

He did last week, running inside as well as out. Edited by Fear & Loathing
Link to post
Share on other sites

And thus far everything I said about him has proven to be pretty accurate.

He's all straight line speed with no power and below average elusiveness. If he doesn't have big lanes to work with, he's pretty useless. The Raiders don't block well enough to make him look like a good RB. In my opinion, not many NFL teams could.

Yes, and thus far everything you have said about Andre Roberts has been inaccurate. Is that a fair comparison? Of course not, because we have not had the opportunity to see what Roberts can actually do. Same with McFadden - when he is given his shot and fails, then you can crow to everyone that you have been right all along. Until then, the jury is still out.

I always try to form a solid opinion about a player's skills before he steps on the field. I try not to radically change that opinion unless the player gives me a good reason to do so. I always thought McFadden was a poor RB and he has done very little to impress as a pro, so of course I'm still inclined to view him as a weak player.

You say that he hasn't had an opportunity. I say that he's had 250+ NFL touches (more than that if you include preseason). That's almost an entire season's worth of work. If he was really a special player, I think we'd have seen some stronger evidence by now.

As for Roberts, he literally hasn't caught a pass yet. If another year passes and he's still getting brutal reviews in camp and failing to impact the lineup in Arizona, you can bet that I'll drop him down my rankings. I'm actually pretty flexible and pretty open to admitting that I was wrong when clear-cut evidence suggests as much. In the case of McFadden, I think the evidence supports the opinion that I've held all along, so I don't feel like I should be forced to defend myself. All indications are that he's a niche player who was massively overrated as a top 10 pick, just like I said he was years ago. I'd venture to guess that pretty much everyone who took him with the 1.01 rookie pick in 2008 wishes they had selected someone else. While DMC may still become a weekly contributor, he hasn't shown talent on par with his lofty draft position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another solid game from McFadden, would have been nice to get a score. I'll have to go back with game rewind and watch his carries, but from the ones I caught on redzone, he looked like he ran with good power again. I like to think that ~150 yards on the ground earns him the starting gig, but who are we kidding, this is Oakland. No one knows what they'll do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And thus far everything I said about him has proven to be pretty accurate. He's all straight line speed with no power and below average elusiveness. If he doesn't have big lanes to work with, he's pretty useless. The Raiders don't block well enough to make him look like a good RB. In my opinion, not many NFL teams could.

Time to look closer EBF...he was running over and through defenders today, constantly falling forward. He LOOKED like an elite back today.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And thus far everything I said about him has proven to be pretty accurate. He's all straight line speed with no power and below average elusiveness. If he doesn't have big lanes to work with, he's pretty useless. The Raiders don't block well enough to make him look like a good RB. In my opinion, not many NFL teams could.

Time to look closer EBF...he was running over and through defenders today, constantly falling forward. He LOOKED like an elite back today.
Same form he showed in Week 1.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And thus far everything I said about him has proven to be pretty accurate. He's all straight line speed with no power and below average elusiveness. If he doesn't have big lanes to work with, he's pretty useless. The Raiders don't block well enough to make him look like a good RB. In my opinion, not many NFL teams could.

Time to look closer EBF...he was running over and through defenders today, constantly falling forward. He LOOKED like an elite back today.
Didn't see the game today. I'll try to track down some highlights.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And thus far everything I said about him has proven to be pretty accurate. He's all straight line speed with no power and below average elusiveness. If he doesn't have big lanes to work with, he's pretty useless. The Raiders don't block well enough to make him look like a good RB. In my opinion, not many NFL teams could.

Time to look closer EBF...he was running over and through defenders today, constantly falling forward. He LOOKED like an elite back today.
I also came away impressed w/McFadden.Yes, it was against the lowly Rams, but he ran with power, authority, and confidence.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Player A scores 3,000 points for his career, and Player B scores 2,000 points for his career, then Player A will net you more wins over a long timeline than Player B, even if Player B scores his points sooner. This isn't "abstract mathematical formula". This is "simple mathematical fact". Or, as I phrased it early, trading more points over a long timeline in exchange for fewer points over a long timeline always results in scoring fewer points over a long timeline. There's nothing that needs to be proven- the statement is a truism.

Dude, yet again, you fail to miss a key concept: Long-term "above average" (the Don Sutton theory) stats will not win you MUCH in a dynasty league or any other. What a fantasy owner should ALWAYS be on the lookout for is someone who is a DIFFERENCE MAKER. A guy who CAN explode for a 20+ point game on a semi-regular basis is a helluva lot more valuable than the guy that can average 8 points a week in perpetuity. I can almost ALWAYS get a guy any week of the year off the waiver wire than can get me 3-7 points. If I EVER get a guy off the waiver wire that puts up 3 games of 16+ in a year in my starting lineup, I have relatively WON THE LOTTERY.
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we feel about McFadden at the moment? I thought he actually looked pretty good in week 1. Watched all of his carries on game rewind, didn't have a lot to work with on most plays, but he had a few plays where he showed some good power to get yards after the first hit. No Steven Jackson power running of course, but better than I expected for how much vitriol is thrown his way. I could even see him earning the lions share of a RBBC with Bush if he has an outstanding game against the Rams. Pair that with his PPR abilities, and I'm hopeful enough for his future that I traded a 2012 1st for him in the Dynasty Rankings League©. So what's the verdict? Finally going to break out, or still fool's gold?

If I knew he was available at that price, I would have made the offer. I watched the short-cuts version of last week's game and came away even more impressed than I was with his statline.
:goodposting:He was a 2-time Heisman Runner Up at a position where Heisman winners actually typically do well in the pros. He's a former top 10 draft pick, and while it's easy to criticize the Raiders' drafting history, the fact is that he was not considered a reach in the top 10. He's always had skills. Maybe he's not what people thought he was, but he's still very skilled, and it's far, far too early in his career to write him off. As I've been fond of pointing out all offseason, McFadden has fewer career carries for Moreno, and a higher career ypc to boot.
And don't forget - even though this is his third year in the league, he JUST turned 23. He's a baby.
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we feel about McFadden at the moment? I thought he actually looked pretty good in week 1. Watched all of his carries on game rewind, didn't have a lot to work with on most plays, but he had a few plays where he showed some good power to get yards after the first hit. No Steven Jackson power running of course, but better than I expected for how much vitriol is thrown his way. I could even see him earning the lions share of a RBBC with Bush if he has an outstanding game against the Rams. Pair that with his PPR abilities, and I'm hopeful enough for his future that I traded a 2012 1st for him in the Dynasty Rankings League©. So what's the verdict? Finally going to break out, or still fool's gold?

If I knew he was available at that price, I would have made the offer. I watched the short-cuts version of last week's game and came away even more impressed than I was with his statline.
:goodposting: He was a 2-time Heisman Runner Up at a position where Heisman winners actually typically do well in the pros. He's a former top 10 draft pick, and while it's easy to criticize the Raiders' drafting history, the fact is that he was not considered a reach in the top 10. He's always had skills. Maybe he's not what people thought he was, but he's still very skilled, and it's far, far too early in his career to write him off. As I've been fond of pointing out all offseason, McFadden has fewer career carries for Moreno, and a higher career ypc to boot.
And don't forget - even though this is his third year in the league, he JUST turned 23. He's a baby.
So is Desean Jackson, yet some people are down on him because he hasnt established himself as a true #1 like Marshall of Fitzgerald.Im not disagreeing with you about Mcfadden, im just making the point that the same consideration should be given to Jackson, especially since WR's usually take longer to adjust to the NFL.Also, dont forget Mcfadden has spent his first two years injured. Even whne he did play, he was playing hurt, so you cant really hold his previous years against him too much.The thing i noticed about Mcfadden yesterday was he excelled at the things most people consider to be his weakness(balance, power, finishing runs, etc.)The Raiders offense has looked much better over the last couple years with Gradkowski at QB, if he keeps the starting job, Mcfadden is in for a top 15 finish.
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we feel about McFadden at the moment? I thought he actually looked pretty good in week 1. Watched all of his carries on game rewind, didn't have a lot to work with on most plays, but he had a few plays where he showed some good power to get yards after the first hit. No Steven Jackson power running of course, but better than I expected for how much vitriol is thrown his way. I could even see him earning the lions share of a RBBC with Bush if he has an outstanding game against the Rams. Pair that with his PPR abilities, and I'm hopeful enough for his future that I traded a 2012 1st for him in the Dynasty Rankings League©. So what's the verdict? Finally going to break out, or still fool's gold?

If I knew he was available at that price, I would have made the offer. I watched the short-cuts version of last week's game and came away even more impressed than I was with his statline.
:goodposting: He was a 2-time Heisman Runner Up at a position where Heisman winners actually typically do well in the pros. He's a former top 10 draft pick, and while it's easy to criticize the Raiders' drafting history, the fact is that he was not considered a reach in the top 10. He's always had skills. Maybe he's not what people thought he was, but he's still very skilled, and it's far, far too early in his career to write him off. As I've been fond of pointing out all offseason, McFadden has fewer career carries for Moreno, and a higher career ypc to boot.
And don't forget - even though this is his third year in the league, he JUST turned 23. He's a baby.
So is Desean Jackson, yet some people are down on him because he hasnt established himself as a true #1 like Marshall of Fitzgerald.Im not disagreeing with you about Mcfadden, im just making the point that the same consideration should be given to Jackson, especially since WR's usually take longer to adjust to the NFL.Also, dont forget Mcfadden has spent his first two years injured. Even whne he did play, he was playing hurt, so you cant really hold his previous years against him too much.The thing i noticed about Mcfadden yesterday was he excelled at the things most people consider to be his weakness(balance, power, finishing runs, etc.)The Raiders offense has looked much better over the last couple years with Gradkowski at QB, if he keeps the starting job, Mcfadden is in for a top 15 finish.
If you own McFadden, you need to find someone who thinks like this and trade him. His value is only going to go down and not up. He will lose some carries and TD chances to Bush, even if he keeps the starting gig. Plus, he will eventually get hurt.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you own McFadden, you need to find someone who thinks like this and trade him. His value is only going to go down and not up. He will lose some carries and TD chances to Bush, even if he keeps the starting gig. Plus, he will eventually get hurt.

Trade him for what? What are you really going to get for him?He is a 23 year old top 5 pick who is putting up very good numbers now that he is healthy, and now i should trade himfor a #2/3 WR?
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you own McFadden, you need to find someone who thinks like this and trade him. His value is only going to go down and not up. He will lose some carries and TD chances to Bush, even if he keeps the starting gig. Plus, he will eventually get hurt.

So you haven't watched him play this year, right?
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you own McFadden, you need to find someone who thinks like this and trade him. His value is only going to go down and not up. He will lose some carries and TD chances to Bush, even if he keeps the starting gig. Plus, he will eventually get hurt.

So you haven't watched him play this year, right?
I have watched him play and am leaning towards the trade him side of the equation, albeit only slightly.He had a good week 1, but was far from OUTSTANDING in my opinion (I think the only reason people are willing to view it as outstanding is because he far exceeded the very low expectations). He was by no means bad, but let's not start thinking his performance was elite. He was average to very below average in the 1st half against St. Louis before exploding and playing elite in the 2nd half. That being said, he did this against a St. Louis defense that i suspect will give up MANY 100+ yard games before the season is over (the hapless Cardinals carved them up pretty decently in week 1).Do I think he COULD continue this run of success and finish among the top 10-15 RB's and remain there moving forward? Sure, I guess that is possible. However, I think the far more likely outcome is that he regresses when he starts playing real defenses consistantly, regresses even more when Michael Bush comes back, and doesn't come close to realizing those fairly lofty expectations.Given I think that it is more likely he doesn't come close to that level of success, if you have an owner in your league who is a true believer, the time to sell is now. Given his age and pedigree, you should be able to get pretty solid value in return for him...value I do not believe will still be there if you wait for those likely regressions in performance to occur. I wouldn't be holding a fire sale on him or become desperate to move him, but I would certainly see if anyone in my league is now completely drinking the kool-aid and inquire about whether he was willing to overvalue him in a trade (and valuing him as a top 10-15 RB is, in my opinion, overvaluing him). Edited by Herm23
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...