Concept Coop
Footballguy
If a trend tells you that something is going to happen 90% of the time, in most cases (90%) it is going to do more good than harm. How can having access to this information be bad?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Dynasty Rankings (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fear & Loathing
- Start date
Knowing what they know now, where do you think Best would go in the 2010 NFL draft?
EBF
Footballguy
It's not like Best is some bum off the street. He was a first round pick. You don't get selected that high unless at least one team thinks you're an impact player. I don't think he's ideally built for 350+ touches in a season, but it's not out of the question. We don't know what kind of workload his body can handle, but we do know that he looks like an impact player who will excel whenever he's given opportunities. That's something to be excited about in dynasty leagues.
Because trends dont tell you what is going to happen 90% of the time, and people who think that are going to suffer from that information.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
The BMI study related to FF. As I said, RB's of his size are usually set to be RBBC roles. Teams can value that enough to spend 1st rounders on them. I don't think Detroit was planning on making Best their #1 back for the next 10 years. The Titans, even, were looking for CJ to come in and offer some of the things that Lendale could not. Again, they thought they were getting a COP, RBBC guy. Just like the Cowboys did when they took Felix over Mendenhal. So again, whatever "card" you feel I am playing now, is supported and documented. CJ is a freak and NOBODY predicted how great he would be as a football player and a FF guy. If you want to ignore a trend that proven correct 90% of the time, because you have a 1% chance at getting CJ, be my guest. I just hope you don't apply that same logic to anything with real life implications.
Last edited by a moderator:
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I guess, if access to information is going to hinder you, I could see how it could be a negative. And if a trend has proven true 90% of the time over a good sample size, 90% is a pretty damn good guess moving forward. Simple math, really.
Last edited by a moderator:
thehornet
Footballguy
yup good call. i missed the freshman year hip injury.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I may have a copy of the article on my home computer and will get it to you if I do. If you purchased the content this year, look in the archives or ask one of the staff where you can find the Best/Spiller BMI article. It was not my work. It was FBG's.
crnerblitz
Footballguy
Please allow me to disagree with you by agreeing with you.If Player A scores 501 units of measure over the course of two years
and Player B scores 500 units of measure over the course of one year
Itis far better to have player B rostered. In year two player C replaced player B on your roster and only scored 5pts. You have to add his totals to player B's one year total for the true value of that roster spot. A roster is not static and and roster spots are our real currency in trade.
Roster management is huge in determining the people that win or lose in dynasty. Teams with dead weight sink to the botton. Teams that maximise value with every slot are more likely to be long term winners. Dont be afraid to cut marginal players that could produce more points for you over the next 3 years just because the have value. Cut em loose and don't look back. Flexible owners can reload a roster in free agency.
SSOG
Moderator
Again, I never advocated ignoring any trends. Quite the contrary- I find that few fantasy owners go to such great lengths to couch every bit of production within its proper historical context as I do. I'm simply saying why on earth should I just be content with the "trend" as it is? Why shouldn't I be looking for a way to improve on the trend? If I've got something that's been right 70% of the time, and by applying a minor tweak I can make it right 80% of the time, why wouldn't I go through with that tweak? And why wouldn't I be looking for other tweaks to make to further improve accuracy?Trends are great, but the idea isn't to spot a trend and then rely on it like a crutch. The idea is to be constantly questioning, constantly improving. Knowing when to defer to trends is powerful. Knowing when not to is even more powerful.Edit: It's also one thing to say "60% of RBs who have had a 200 yard game have been fantasy uberstuds" and another thing to say "There's a 60% chance that Arian Foster is an uberstud because he had a 200 yard game". Trends can be useful indicators, but that doesn't mean they should be used as predictive tools without a rather large grain of salt. And even if that trend did have predictive power, odds are good that you could improve the predictive power by controlling for the quality of the opponent and the nature and magnitude of the 200 yard game.Concept Coop said:
It depends on what "units of measure" is. If "units of measure" is "points scored above what you would expect from a guy on the street", then it's impossible to roster Player C off the street in year 2 to make up that difference. I mean, the ideal measurement of player value takes into account a dizzying quantity of information, from league and roster sizes to starting requirements to trade history to waiver system to scoring system to the manner in which a champion is selected. Best Ball, Survivor, Head-to-Head, Double-Headers, and All-Play all have a huge impact on player values. My league allows "conditional starters", which affects the value of players that appear on the injury report with respect to those that don't. Like wise, value doesn't increase linearly with respect to scoring, even if you add in a baseline (such as with VBD), owing to the frequency of a player's starts (every point scored by QB1 is more valuable than every point scored by QB6 simply because you'll likely start QB1 16 times a season but you might only start QB6 13 times a season). We're working on a VBD-like metric that measures a player's value based on his scoring against his peers adjusted for the probability that you had him in your starting lineup in any given week. We think it addresses several of the problems with current value measurements, but hold no illusions that even that would be a flawless measure of player value.If, however, a flawless measure of player value did exist, and provided neither player's production exhibited more synergy or synchronicity with respect to the rest of my roster, then I would gladly trade someone who would produce 500 value points in exchange for someone who would produce 501 value points.With that said, I agree wholeheartedly with your point that roster spots have inherent value and proper roster management is crucial to long-term dynasty success. I think any measure of value that doesn't account for the value of the roster spots themselves is flawed, which is why I'm often such a fan of 2-for-1 trades (because they're actually 2-for-1+roster spot trades).crnerblitz said:
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
5 star recruit out of HS. Solid combination of receiving/blocking skills. Doesn't have any incredible athletic qualities, but is fluid with good coordination. Durability has been a major concern. Had trouble staying healthy at Iowa and has already been dinged a couple times in the NFL. He's easily the best TE on KC's roster. He might even be the best pass catcher on their roster. I see him as a low end TE1/high end TE2 for long term dynasty purposes.
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
Concept Coop said:
I'm the fly-by-night type I guess, but thanks for the primer on your fantasy football approach.Look, there are no statistical crib notes or BMI indices that are you going to take you to the top in Dynasty leagues. An ability to separate the "freaks" and "outliers" from the normals is where they separate the men from the boys among Dynasty league owners. If you've missed out on a chance to land a Chris Johnson or Jahvid Best due to your own lack of imagination or vision, then you're missing out on a tremendous advantage over the rest of the guys in your league for the next five years. You've effectively defeated the point of a Dynasty league.
If you take the science-only approach, the guy steeped in science with an artistic bent is going to beat you year-in and year-out. Your BMI index doesn't hold a candle to anticipation and instincts honed by knowledge.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
Wrong. You missed out on him, so you're rationalizing that everybody else must have as well. I'll save you Exhibits C through Z, and just send you to exhibits A and B on this one. Exhibit B even shows the entire Chris Johnson hype train thread with a tiresome and ultimately fruitless argument about BMI that you would surely appreciate.I realize you're new to the thread, and it's impossible to get caught up on every long-winded discussion that has come before you. Still, you might want to turn down the know-it-all condescension factor and step outside your narrow little mindset in here.Concept Coop said:
Vicktimized
Footballguy
The BMI thing confuses me. Best is listed at 5'10, 195, putting him at about 28-ish. That's really not that below average. A lot of really strong RBs have been between 28 and 29.
I think when you deal with the really slight players, that's one thing. Best seems to have bulked up since his early days at Cal, though.
I think when you deal with the really slight players, that's one thing. Best seems to have bulked up since his early days at Cal, though.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Anyone that drafted Chris Johnson outside of the number 1 pick got lucky. Period. Because if anyone knew he was going to be the top FF player for years, they would have given up anything to get the number 1 pick and selected CJ. I never said I wouldn't draft Best. He does have value. I said I would trade him now, because there is a very real chance he is in a RBBC in the next year or two.Concept Coop said:I'm the fly-by-night type I guess, but thanks for the primer on your fantasy football approach.
Look, there are no statistical crib notes or BMI indices that are you going to take you to the top in Dynasty leagues. An ability to separate the "freaks" and "outliers" from the normals is where they separate the men from the boys among Dynasty league owners. If you've missed out on a chance to land a Chris Johnson or Jahvid Best due to your own lack of imagination or vision, then you're missing out on a tremendous advantage over the rest of the guys in your league for the next five years. You've effectively defeated the point of a Dynasty league.
If you take the science-only approach, the guy steeped in science with an artistic bent is going to beat you year-in and year-out. Your BMI index doesn't hold a candle to anticipation and instincts honed by knowledge.
My lack of imagination or vision? Again, show me where somebody imagination or vision got them CJ2K. It didn't, luck did.
When did I say science only and what the hell does science have to do with anything? I am sorry if I offended you as a Best owner. Don't get mad at me for pointing out that history shows you will be owning a RBBC guy that Detroit has to keep on a pitch count. Get mad at history or FBGs for doing the awesome research.
And how does knowing or understanding the "science" surrounding smaller backs in the NFL hinder me any? If you want to use your "imagination" or "visions" as an indicator instead of science, be my guest. But I assure you that you do not have advantage because of that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Know it all? I am sorry "science" scares you. I am being attached for simply pointing out that those with Best's size/skill-set don't make it in the NFL as workhorses. For every CJ there are plenty more Slatons, Bushes, Charles, and so on. I don't want fluff articles or even valid articles saying that CJ could be "good". Show me examples of CJ being drafted #1. Because if anyone knew CJ was going to be this good, he would have gone number one overall in the NFL draft, and every dynasty FF draft too.
SSOG
Moderator
Why would someone have to have known that CJ was going to be THIS good in order for their opinion on him to be valid? I mean, imagine someone predicted CJ would be rushing for 1800 yards. Would their opinion be invalid because they didn't predict 2,000? How about 1600? How good would someone have to think CJ was going to be in order for you to care about their opinion?Look, at the end of the day, the name of the game isn't being exactly right about every player, it's being more right than your peers. Let's say that I've got Mike Vick rated as the 16th best dynasty QB (I do, actually). Let's say that everyone else has him ranked in the 20-30 range. Now, let's say that Michael Vick goes out and puts up 5 straight top-5 seasons. Was I right about him? No, but it doesn't matter, because I was MORE RIGHT about him than everyone else. Because I was the highest on him, I was the guy that owned him, which meant I benefited from those top-5 finishes even if I didn't predict he'd be THAT successful.
Let's say that I think Aaron Hernandez will be a top 5 dynasty TE and I draft him in the 6th round of a dynasty startup, and he then goes on to post a HoF-caliber career. According to you, I was "lucky" that he fell to the 6th. According to me, I reached on him and grabbed him way higher than anyone else, so even if I didn't predict the exact magnitude of his breakout, I get full credit for predicting his breakout.
If you show me a fantasy league where you only get credit for a player's scoring up to the level that you predicted and not a bit above, then your point that nobody anticipated that CJ would be this good might be the tiniest bit relevant. As it stands, though... it's not.
Hell, look at Adrian Peterson. Your beloved BMI data might have predicted he'd be good, but it never predicted he'd be THIS good, so obviously BMI got lucky on Adrian Peterson, right?
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I traded for CJ the week after the NE game in my biggest money league. Have up SJax and Maclin. I wouldn't exactly say I "missed out on him."
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
I believe you wandered into the wrong thread today. "Football Sabermetrics 101" is in the 2003 thread.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
If history shows that CJ is the SOLE example of a back of his BMI to be a top 10 FF back in the last 10 years, then you are wrong. It is about getting this player 100 %right. Otherwise, you are ignoring a proven trend and losing out for doing so. And your Hernandez and Vick analogies are either condescending, or you don't get the point. Aaron Hernandez is not a small RB in the NFL. Michael Vick is not a small RB in the NFL. Your AP comment is not worth a retort.
If you want to discredit my attempt to point out how lucky you would have to be to be getting a CJ with your pick of Best, you could have done a worse job, I suppose. But do you really want to argue that there is anything more that long shot that Best is the next CJ? And history shows, that if you are CJ's size, but not CJ, you are a RBBC, COP guy.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Thanks?
Technical trading makes a ton of sense, but give me a technical trader that understands and reacts to the fundementals over one that just follows the technicals, every time. You are right, the technicals are in your favor, but the fundementals say you may be about to miss on the next rally.Concept Coop said:
EBF
Footballguy
I initially started thinking about BMI because I thought power might be one of the main explanations for why Maurice Drew exceeded expectations while Reggie Bush disappointed. I looked around the NFL and realized that there was an archetypal physique dominating at the RB position. The vast majority of elite pro backs are roughly 5'8"-6'0" with a weight in the 200-230 range and a BMI score around 30. There's no doubt in my mind that lower body strength, leg drive, a low center of gravity, and balance are critical factors at the RB position. Most of the all-time greats had these qualities in spades. The three 2008 rookie RBs that fit this "ideal" body type mold have all been successful in the NFL (Ray Rice, Jonathan Stewart, Rashard Mendenhall).
On the other hand, some players with bad bodies have been successful as well. An ideal body type coupled with burst/instincts/speed might be sufficient for success at RB in the NFL, but that doesn't mean it's necessary. Chris Johnson and DeSean Jackson have been standout NFL players despite their diminutive size because their exceptional speed and quickness compensate for their lack of strength and power. For me, the takeaway lesson of the 2008 RB class wasn't that body type is irrelevant, but rather that weaknesses in certain categories can be offset by strengths in other categories. A good general rule of thumb is that it's okay to be slow if you're big and strong, and it's okay to be small if you're fast and quick.
I ended up acquiring Jahvid Best in 4 of my 7 PPR dynasty leagues because of the lessons that I learned from DeSean Jackson and Chris Johnson. This doesn't mean that I think body type is irrelevant. It's extremely important. All things being equal, the natural selection process at RB favors squatty backs like LaDainian Tomlinson, Marshall Faulk, Ricky Williams, Clinton Portis, and Barry Sanders. Many of the stars of tomorrow fit this mold (Trent Richardson, Mark Ingram, Jacquizz Rodgers). However, it's also clear that there's room for variety. If Jamaal Charles and Chris Johnson can carve out productive pro careers then there's hope for the likes of Noel Devine and LaMichael James. If you're so quick and explosive that no one can lay a glove on you, you don't need to be 220 pounds to play RB in the NFL. That's all you need to know about Jahvid Best.
On the other hand, some players with bad bodies have been successful as well. An ideal body type coupled with burst/instincts/speed might be sufficient for success at RB in the NFL, but that doesn't mean it's necessary. Chris Johnson and DeSean Jackson have been standout NFL players despite their diminutive size because their exceptional speed and quickness compensate for their lack of strength and power. For me, the takeaway lesson of the 2008 RB class wasn't that body type is irrelevant, but rather that weaknesses in certain categories can be offset by strengths in other categories. A good general rule of thumb is that it's okay to be slow if you're big and strong, and it's okay to be small if you're fast and quick.
I ended up acquiring Jahvid Best in 4 of my 7 PPR dynasty leagues because of the lessons that I learned from DeSean Jackson and Chris Johnson. This doesn't mean that I think body type is irrelevant. It's extremely important. All things being equal, the natural selection process at RB favors squatty backs like LaDainian Tomlinson, Marshall Faulk, Ricky Williams, Clinton Portis, and Barry Sanders. Many of the stars of tomorrow fit this mold (Trent Richardson, Mark Ingram, Jacquizz Rodgers). However, it's also clear that there's room for variety. If Jamaal Charles and Chris Johnson can carve out productive pro careers then there's hope for the likes of Noel Devine and LaMichael James. If you're so quick and explosive that no one can lay a glove on you, you don't need to be 220 pounds to play RB in the NFL. That's all you need to know about Jahvid Best.
Last edited by a moderator:
SSOG
Moderator
We interrupt you from your regularly scheduled episode of "believing that the NFL is so simple that it can be fully described in cold numbers and rejecting any visual evidence to the contrary" to bring you this week's WR ranking updates. Change log!
Concept Coop
Footballguy
How is that all I need to know about Jahvid Best when Reggie Bush did everything Best did and more in college? He was just as quick, if not quicker. There have been others like Best, and most of them are in RBBCs as the COP back.I am not saying that Best is a bust, or can't make it in the NFL. I am saying that there is a trend that suggests that he will have to be an all NFL talent to make it in the NFL. I don't know that he can be that. Playing the odds, I would "sell high" if I owned him and could get value.
Last edited by a moderator:
What is it about Best you dont like, i mean when you watch him play?
Concept Coop
Footballguy
He reminds me of Reggie Bush. I like him as a player, much more than I do a FF player. I think he could be a top 10 back, talent wise. Just not sold on him being top 10 in the FF world.Injuries scare me too, which also has to do with his size.
You dont like him because he reminds you of Reggie Bush? He runs between the tackles alot better than Bush. If Bush could do that, he would be a top 10 ff back too.Also, im a firm believer that size has nothing to do with injuries. If anything, bigger, more physical backs are more likely to get hurt than small shifty backs.
SSOG
Moderator
To change the subject entirely... let's talk about Demaryius Thomas. Just for fun, I was looking up where his debut ranks among all rookie receivers dating back to 1995. Here's my top 10:
Anquan Boldin- 10/217/2
Eddie Royal- 9/146/1 + 2/9 rushing
Randy Moss- 4/95/2
Demaryius Thomas- 8/97/1
Louis Murphy- 4/87/1
Marvin Harrison- 6/85/1
Deion Branch- 6/83/1
JuJuan Dawson- 6/83/1
Charles Rodgers- 4/38/2 + 1/12 rushing
Desean Jackson- 6/106/0
No major method to the sort order (I sorted based on yards + 30*TDs, but there's no real reason for that sort order, that just felt about right to me). I also might have missed some rookies who missed the start of the season and debuted later on in the year. Still, while you could quibble with the order of the guys at the bottom (and a couple of other guys who just missed the cut, like Javon Walker with 4/56/1 receiving and 1/11 rushing or Calvin with his 4/70/1 receiving), the top 4 are all pretty cut-and-dried.
Basically, just trying to provide some context. A lot of people probably saw Demaryius play and thought "wow, good game", but in reality, for a rookie making his regular season debut, it was an uncommonly good game. The fact that he did it despite missing almost all of camps and preseason to a foot injury that he's still dealing with, and the fact that he did it despite being widely viewed as a major project WR, makes his performance doubly impressive. Dez Bryant got 12 targets (and did nothing with them) and people went nuts. Mike Williams beats out Sammie Stroughter and Maurice Stovall and the buzz becomes deafening. Demaryius Thomas goes for 8/97/1 and nobody utters a peep. I think people have gotten so wrapped up in the fact that he's not Dez Bryant that they've lost sight of the fact that he's a damn fine prospect in his own right.
Anquan Boldin- 10/217/2
Eddie Royal- 9/146/1 + 2/9 rushing
Randy Moss- 4/95/2
Demaryius Thomas- 8/97/1
Louis Murphy- 4/87/1
Marvin Harrison- 6/85/1
Deion Branch- 6/83/1
JuJuan Dawson- 6/83/1
Charles Rodgers- 4/38/2 + 1/12 rushing
Desean Jackson- 6/106/0
No major method to the sort order (I sorted based on yards + 30*TDs, but there's no real reason for that sort order, that just felt about right to me). I also might have missed some rookies who missed the start of the season and debuted later on in the year. Still, while you could quibble with the order of the guys at the bottom (and a couple of other guys who just missed the cut, like Javon Walker with 4/56/1 receiving and 1/11 rushing or Calvin with his 4/70/1 receiving), the top 4 are all pretty cut-and-dried.
Basically, just trying to provide some context. A lot of people probably saw Demaryius play and thought "wow, good game", but in reality, for a rookie making his regular season debut, it was an uncommonly good game. The fact that he did it despite missing almost all of camps and preseason to a foot injury that he's still dealing with, and the fact that he did it despite being widely viewed as a major project WR, makes his performance doubly impressive. Dez Bryant got 12 targets (and did nothing with them) and people went nuts. Mike Williams beats out Sammie Stroughter and Maurice Stovall and the buzz becomes deafening. Demaryius Thomas goes for 8/97/1 and nobody utters a peep. I think people have gotten so wrapped up in the fact that he's not Dez Bryant that they've lost sight of the fact that he's a damn fine prospect in his own right.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
coolnerd
Footballguy
I have seen you working in this thread and overall get your argument, but ....I suspect that a relatively new guy (6 months is "NEW" on this board) does not want to hear been down that road, but many if not most of us have been down the road of arguing (and counterarguing) by science or BMI (the last science/stat size thing I remember) that certain body types are better workhorses. As soon as that the wrong body type can't be workhorses happened, the too short (Jones-Drew, Ray rice) and too small (Chris Johnson) happened. They may be exceptions that violate the rule, but especially in a changing NFL (more 3/4 WR sets, smaller LBers and RRBC) the rules of who and what are elite are probably changing as well. Not trying to move off your take, but give you some context as to why the push back.Thanks?
Tau837
Footballguy
IMO the push back is just as much about the way CC is delivering his views as the views themselves. This is one of the relatively few threads in the Shark Pool that can generally be counted on for quality discussion, and anyone who seems to be persistently driving it away from that is going to get pushback in here.
crush304
Footballguy
i thought he looked very good. huge numbers, considering he didn't really play that much
SSOG
Moderator
I'm not huge on him in redraft, since McDaniels is still limiting his playing time a lot, but he was dominant when he was on the field. Demaryius Thomas checked in, and Orton no longer had eyes for anyone else. Bay-Bay had 4/54/0 on one drive and 4/43/1 on another drive. I think those were the only two drives he was on the field for, although he might have played during Denver's two 3-and-outs to end the game.Here's his PBP log:3-14-DEN13 (3:19) (Shotgun) K.Orton pass short right to D.Thomas to DEN 31 for 18 yards (E.Thomas).1-10-DEN31 (2:36) K.Orton pass deep right to D.Thomas to SEA 49 for 20 yards (M.Trufant).3-3-SEA27 (1:54) (Shotgun) K.Orton pass short middle to D.Thomas to SEA 18 for 9 yards (L.Milloy).1-10-SEA18 (1:17) (Shotgun) K.Orton pass short left to D.Thomas to SEA 9 for 9 yards (K.Jennings, R.Brock).1-10-DEN20 (2:07) (Shotgun) K.Orton pass short left to D.Thomas to DEN 17 for -3 yards (A.Curry).3-5-DEN25
29) (Shotgun) K.Orton pass short right to D.Thomas to DEN 34 for 9 yards (C.Clemons).2-10-DEN34 (14:20) K.Orton pass short left to D.Thomas to DEN 48 for 14 yards (K.Jennings).2-8-50 (13:09) K.Orton pass incomplete deep right to D.Thomas.3-4-SEA21 (9:17) (Shotgun) K.Orton pass deep left to D.Thomas for 21 yards, TOUCHDOWN.He was targeted 4 times on 3rd down, and responded with 4/57/1 and 4 first downs.This is just pure false. Interest rates are not calculated purely from expected inflation + risk of default. That is simply not true. You should read "capital and Interest" from Bohm-Bawerk. The guy wrote it hundred or more years ago, and it is still valid today. It is the very basic and foundation of finance. At best there is an opportunity cost factored in. That is, if you let someone else borrow $1 you must be compensated for inflation + default risk, but also for the loss of the ability to use that dollar (opportunity cost). This is very basic finance. The proof of this is very easy to obtain. Just go back to the 19th century when the USA was on a true gold standard. From the founding of the country until the FED was created in 1913, the dollar actually GAINED value (no inflation, in fact there was deflation). Still, in order for the government to borrow money they still had to pay 1%-2% interest rates. That's not cost for default rates, so you are simply wrong.
A dollar today is worth more than a dollar in a year's time and that is a certainty. It's not a maybe but 100%.
"IIRC, there's never been a 10-year period where the stock market was lower at the end than it was at the beginning."Umm...that's definitely not true. In 1966 the DOW was at 1000, 15 years later it was lower than 1000 and it finally broke through the 1000 level in 1982 and started higher. In 1929 the marker peaked and didn't overtake that level until the 1940's. This isn't factoring in inflation. If you factor in inflation, from 1966 to 1982, the market lost some 75% of its value. But it doesn't matter since it has no effect on what we are talking about, present value vs future value."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."Yes, this is true as well and adds to its devaluation. But even if it didn't, a championship today would be worth more than one tomorrow."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)."Now you're taking it to the extreme. I never encourage a scorched earth campaign, i'm just saying that a championship this year is worth more than one next year. The degree to which it is more valuable depends a lot on your personal values. Perhaps it is 10% more valuable or perhaps it is only .01%, in which case basically there would be no difference in action.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.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).
Instinctive
Footballguy
Again, this is a simple rate required because the lender is assuming the risk that they do not ever get paid back. You can call that opportunity cost if you wish, as in "the opportunity to get the dollar for free immediately" because if you default then the lender is potentially screwed...but it's absolutely not because the dollar is "worth more." It isn't. It's worth a dollar. Now, if prices of all goods drop, then the dollar is worth more relative to the market basket, but in the market of the availability of money and the cost to borrow, the dollar has no intrinsic value just because it is today.Interest rates come from risk and expected inflation. If you want to call it the opportunity cost, feel free, but the reason interest exists is because the lender needs to be paid for the risk he is taking.
Instinctive
Footballguy
A championship this year is not worth more than one next year. Not in any way, shape, form, or fashion. A championship is a championship. One this year is not going to be worth more so that if I win 4 of them 10 years later then I'll be saying "Damn, I wish I had won in year 1, that championship banner is worth so much more than the 4 I have..."A championship is worth exactly the same in a vacuum. The only way I could see an argument that one is worth more is that you get an additional year of saying "Look at me and my championship." That's it. Is the Arizona Cardinals Super Bowl appearance worth more than the Colts appearance last season because it happened earlier? No. Not at all. It's absurd to try and apply a concept, which you've already incorrectly applied to lending, to a FF League Championship.
SSOG
Moderator
I won a championship in year 2 of my dynasty league. A guy named Dan won it in year 1. Are you telling me that Dan's championship is worth more than mine? Are you saying that if I could trade my championship for Dan's championship straight up, I should do so? There's a guy named Tom in my league. In one season, I went 9-4 and he went 6-7. In the next season, he went 9-4 and I went 6-7. Are you telling me that I had a better record over that two-year span than Tom did?And does this concept apply during the season, too? I mean, my dollar starts accruing interest the second I invest it, so wouldn't it then be logical to say that wins early in the season are worth more than wins late in the season? If two teams both finish with 7-6 records, should I use their record in week 1 as a tiebreaker, since that week 1 game was more valuable than any other game in the entire season?I'm just really struggling to understand the logic behind this whole "wins are worth more depending on when they come" argument, and I'd appreciate enlightenment.
squistion
Footballguy
Well, of course you are struggling with the concept - you only play in free leagues. Those of us who play for money have no problem with logic of wins/championships coming sooner being more valueable than coming later.You have stated that assuming a league runs 20 years you would rather have 4 championships in the last 5 years than 3 championships in the first three. Hey, if it didn't cost me anything to play I probably wouldn't care when I won my championships either. But I play for money and I prefer getting the cold hard cash this year over the possibility that I might get it at some point in the future.
As an example, in 2008 I joined a start up Dynasty league and won the Championship the first year. The league lasted one year after that and folded in 2010. I don't think any of the 10 owners who did not win a championship in that league would argue that my wins in 2008 are not worth more than theirs, since with the league disbanded they will never be able to equal my cash winnings.
Money leagues are precarious. Unless you run the league yourself, you have no guarantee it will be around next season (even then it is not guaranteed unless you can retain or find owners willing to pay the league dues). Also you may not want to continue in a league (perhaps with rule changes you don't like or with 2-3 teams becoming so dominant that the window for winning anything in the future is 3-5 years out).
If I played in free leagues, then yes I could have the luxury to wait for years for some eventual championship. But this concept of "it doesn't matter when you win" is simply not valid for me when the success of any given year is measured by whether I took in more than I payed out.
Last edited by a moderator:
SSOG
Moderator
I don't know why you're arguing this, because I've said all of this already. If you aren't going to be in the league 3 years from now, then production 3 years from now doesn't matter. With that said, when I'm producing dynasty rankings, I'm not producing them under the assumption that most of the people using them are playing in leagues with an expiration date. When discussing dynasty strategy, I don't think the discussion should center on the fact that some leagues have an expiration date. Sure, some leagues only last 3 seasons, but I don't think those leagues really qualify as "dynasty leagues" or should influence discussion of dynasty strategy. I've specifically stipulated that if a league lasts 20 years, it doesn't matter whether you win those championships early or late.Maybe that's a flaw in my analysis, and maybe I should be building in some expectation of failure. I'd be interested in hearing arguments from the masses on that point. However, it remains unlikely that I'm going to let the unique dynamics of money leagues influence my rankings. And the "likely-to-fail" aspect isn't the only unique dynamic of a money league. For instance, earlier I was saying it's better to have a single 1st place finish mixed in among a bunch of lean years than it is to be consistently good-but-not-great, but if you're playing in a money league and your goal is profits instead of championships, then the latter team might provide a better RoI.
When I rank players, or discuss theory, or propose strategies, I do it under the assumption that we're talking about a "true" dynasty- one with a life expectancy of at least 10 more seasons, one where the goal is winning championships instead of money. Obviously unique circumstances can change that dynamic, but in my mind, that's a deviation from the true dynasty dynamic.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I am okay with the push back. I understand most of the arguments that I am being presented with. I just don't understand why this is so crazy to people:"I am not a Best fan. Most smaller backs can't make it as workhorses in the NFL. There are studies to show this."If I felt Best a special player, I woud take him. Period. And as I said, I would draft Best and he does have value. But I would much rather a player like Mendenhal, who my eyes, and history tell me can better handle 25 carries a game. As far as the "changing NFL" you are 100% correct. It is impossible to determine how relevant info from even 5-10 years is, the way the NFL is trending. But I do think the BMI info has a place in the mental library of the fantasy football owner. Especially when Best-like backs are being forced into RBBCs every year.I have seen you working in this thread and overall get your argument, but ....I suspect that a relatively new guy (6 months is "NEW" on this board) does not want to hear been down that road, but many if not most of us have been down the road of arguing (and counterarguing) by science or BMI (the last science/stat size thing I remember) that certain body types are better workhorses. As soon as that the wrong body type can't be workhorses happened, the too short (Jones-Drew, Ray rice) and too small (Chris Johnson) happened. They may be exceptions that violate the rule, but especially in a changing NFL (more 3/4 WR sets, smaller LBers and RRBC) the rules of who and what are elite are probably changing as well. Not trying to move off your take, but give you some context as to why the push back.Thanks?
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Sorry, but I disagree, I don't think that a league that you play for money is any less "true" than one that is free. In fact, I think I take Dynasty leagues much more seriously because I play for money than those who play for free. I am on a limited budget and if I lose it will impact my pocketbook, if you lose then the worst case scenario is that your abstract mathematical theory may be wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
And this is why i dont play dynasty leagues for money.
SSOG
Moderator
And I disagree that any time you're building a team under the assumption that the league might not even be around 2 years from now, that you're playing in a "true" dynasty league. The whole premise of dynasty is that you own players forever- or for their entire careers, at least. Any "dynasty league" that only lasts 2 years is nothing more than a glorified redraft.I'm sure you take your leagues incredibly seriously, but the definition of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously". If you're playing like there might not be a tomorrow, then I'd argue that's not a "true dynasty league", or at the very least, not a "true dynasty mentality".
