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.
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).
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.
).
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.
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.
