Drafts Slots vs Overall Finish

[Gekko]

Although very interesting to look at, your data doesnt prove anything.

everyone is entitled to their opinion. i would take the #1 pick if given a choice. IMO the actual NFBC data supports my opinion

[Gekko]

My #1 KDS preference for all main even leagues and most remaining leagues (not auction) for the past 4 years have been #15. You can ask Tom to verify and nearly everyone who drafts with me in New York can verify that I always draft from the #15 position, unless someone else in the league chooses 15, and then i typically get 14 or another position. I won 2 main event titles in 2014 from the #15 draft position.

[Yah Mule]

Top 3 finishes by draft slot from 2011 - 2015...

1 - 2
2 - 1
3 - 1
4 - 1
5 - 1
6 - 2
7 - 1
8 - 3
9 - 0
10 - 0
11 - 2
12 - 0
13 - 0
14 - 1
15 - 0

9 teams from early draft slots 1-7 (75%)
3 teams from late draft slots 9-15 (25%)

Even with their numbers boosted by three top 3 finishes, position 8 still had the poorest overall average @ 235.9.

[Bjs2025]

Although very interesting to look at, your data doesnt prove anything.

everyone is entitled to their opinion. i would take the #1 pick if given a choice. IMO the actual NFBC data supports my opinion

I would say you're right on this. If you actually create a value system and draft players accordingly, it makes since to get your most valuable player if you have the chance, followed by hopefully someone better than your 30th most valued player on the way back.

[BK METS]

Although very interesting to look at, your data doesnt prove anything.

everyone is entitled to their opinion. i would take the #1 pick if given a choice. IMO the actual NFBC data supports my opinion

I would say you're right on this. If you actually create a value system and draft players accordingly, it makes since to get your most valuable player if you have the chance, followed by hopefully someone better than your 30th most valued player on the way back.

Disagree

[BK METS]

Top 10 finishes by draft slot from 2011-2015...

1 - 3
2 - 2
3 - 5
4 - 2
5 - 2
6 - 5
7 - 3
8 - 5
9 - 4
10 - 1
11 - 5
12 - 4
13 - 3
14 - 2
15 - 4

22 teams from early draft slots 1-7 (49%)
23 teams from late draft slots 9-15 (51%)

Looks pretty random to me

[BK METS]

Here is 2011:

1 169.8
2 220.3
3 200.5
4 194.5
5 261.8
6 189.1
7 182.4
8 242.9
9 204.2
10 203
11 136
12 160.9
13 203.5
14 180.5
15 183.1

Here is average of 2011-2015:

1 192.16
2 198.16
3 200.16
4 220.24
5 220.8
6 209.7
7 218.36
8 235.82
9 230.88
10 207.86
11 214.34
12 199.1
13 208.3
14 214.66
15 209.7

Amazingly the top ranked team from the #1 slot in 2011 was 49th.

Random data which proves that no position is better than any other. Its about the drafter, not the position.

[Gekko]

Although very interesting to look at, your data doesnt prove anything.

everyone is entitled to their opinion. i would take the #1 pick if given a choice. IMO the actual NFBC data supports my opinion

I would say you're right on this. If you actually create a value system and draft players accordingly, it makes since to get your most valuable player if you have the chance, followed by hopefully someone better than your 30th most valued player on the way back.

+1

[DOUGHBOYS]

Here is 2011:

1 169.8
2 220.3
3 200.5
4 194.5
5 261.8
6 189.1
7 182.4
8 242.9
9 204.2
10 203
11 136
12 160.9
13 203.5
14 180.5
15 183.1

Here is average of 2011-2015:

1 192.16
2 198.16
3 200.16
4 220.24
5 220.8
6 209.7
7 218.36
8 235.82
9 230.88
10 207.86
11 214.34
12 199.1
13 208.3
14 214.66
15 209.7

Amazingly the top ranked team from the #1 slot in 2011 was 49th.

Random data which proves that no position is better than any other. Its about the drafter, not the position.

Like I said, it's the singer, not the song.

[KJ Duke]

Draft slot stats are going to be coincidental based on which early picks stayed healthy/performed relative to expectations in any given year. That's not something with predictive value.

Nice red herring thread for Gek though.

[ToddZ]

A good drafter can overcome the intrinsic advantage from an early draft spot. But, there is, on paper, an advantage to the early spots.

The reason is the difference in production between players is not linear. The players at the top have the largest delta. I like to think of it as the slinky effect. Hold a slinky at the top and the rungs are widest apart at the top until they are basically on top of each other at the bottom. The difference in player production follows the same pattern.

I'll regretfully use the word value. #1 overall is usually around $45 while #15 is about $30, difference of $15. The difference decreases each round.

ON PAPER -- if a draft goes chalk, the #1 spot acquires about $265-$270 worth of players. The last few spots are $255-$257.

Of course, things do not go chalk.

Maybe the best analogy is talking in auction terms. Having the #1 pick is akin to having $265 or so to bid with while #15 has $255. This doesn't mean #1 will win. But it does give an advantage.

It's not a perfect analogy since draft dynamics and auction strategy are different - but the point about #15 needing to overcome about a $10 deficit is similar.

[Bjs2025]

A good drafter can overcome the intrinsic advantage from an early draft spot. But, there is, on paper, an advantage to the early spots.

The reason is the difference in production between players is not linear. The players at the top have the largest delta. I like to think of it as the slinky effect. Hold a slinky at the top and the rungs are widest apart at the top until they are basically on top of each other at the bottom. The difference in player production follows the same pattern.

I'll regretfully use the word value. #1 overall is usually around $45 while #15 is about $30, difference of $15. The difference decreases each round.

ON PAPER -- if a draft goes chalk, the #1 spot acquires about $265-$270 worth of players. The last few spots are $255-$257.

Of course, things do not go chalk.

Maybe the best analogy is talking in auction terms. Having the #1 pick is akin to having $265 or so to bid with while #15 has $255. This doesn't mean #1 will win. But it does give an advantage.

It's not a perfect analogy since draft dynamics and auction strategy are different - but the point about #15 needing to overcome about a $10 deficit is similar.

These are all reasons that I do much prefer auction drafts as it is much easier to get "value". I promised limiting myself to only a couple high stakes auctions this year but the early DC bug bit me again.

[Teufel Hunden]

Seems like draft slot bidding using FAAB would solve all of this. Those that believe it makes a difference could spend some money to get an optimal spot and those that don't would have a FAAB edge.

[BK METS]

Draft slot stats are going to be coincidental based on which early picks stayed healthy/performed relative to expectations in any given year. That's not something with predictive value.

Nice red herring thread for Gek though.

In 2014, my first two Main event picks in New York (from the 15 draft slot), were Darvish (10 wins in 22 starts) and Tulo (played in 91 games). I won the league and finished #16 overall. Last year, I set my KDS at 15, 1, 14, 2 in my New York league and got the #1 pick. I chose Trout, of course. Then, on the way back in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, I chose Bryce Harper and Madison Bumgarner. Pretty good value. I finished in 3rd place in my league.

[Gekko]

Seems like draft slot bidding using FAAB would solve all of this. Those that believe it makes a difference could spend some money to get an optimal spot and those that don't would have a FAAB edge.

Yup. I proposed that years ago

[DOUGHBOYS]

Seems like draft slot bidding using FAAB would solve all of this. Those that believe it makes a difference could spend some money to get an optimal spot and those that don't would have a FAAB edge.

Yup. I proposed that years ago

Maybe the time is now.....

[Teufel Hunden]

Seems like draft slot bidding using FAAB would solve all of this. Those that believe it makes a difference could spend some money to get an optimal spot and those that don't would have a FAAB edge.

Yup. I proposed that years ago

Maybe the time is now.....

I also think it would increase the excitement around draft. Obviously it would complicate the process, but reward would be worth it IMO.

[Bronx Yankees]

I seem to recall that the participants in last year's Platinum League auctioned off draft slots using FAAB. What I do not recall is whether those folks liked how it went and would want to repeat and/or expand on the concept. Seems like it might be difficult to automate with software changes. It would, however, be a helluva way to start a live draft, with folks auctioning off the draft slots and then immediately taking the appropriate seats to start drafting.

Mike

[mdecav]

After about the first three rounds, any owner can grab any player they want in a draft. The only slots where a player is going to be linked to the pick are going to be first two or three picks. If those guys have good seasons, then those owners should be okay. If not, then they suffer.

The results of the top-pick teams are going to be correlated to the performance of the top three or so picks. You're researching a small sample size of only five seasons of performance of the top three guys. These guys are not any more immune to losing a third of a season a la Goldschmidt in 2014 or having a "down year" as picks 4-6 would be.

[BK METS]

After about the first three rounds, any owner can grab any player they want in a draft. The only slots where a player is going to be linked to the pick are going to be first two or three picks. If those guys have good seasons, then those owners should be okay. If not, then they suffer.

The results of the top-pick teams are going to be correlated to the performance of the top three or so picks. You're researching a small sample size of only five seasons of performance of the top three guys. These guys are not any more immune to losing a third of a season a la Goldschmidt in 2014 or having a "down year" as picks 4-6 would be.

Exactly

[Yah Mule]

After about the first three rounds, any owner can grab any player they want in a draft. The only slots where a player is going to be linked to the pick are going to be first two or three picks. If those guys have good seasons, then those owners should be okay. If not, then they suffer.

The results of the top-pick teams are going to be correlated to the performance of the top three or so picks. You're researching a small sample size of only five seasons of performance of the top three guys. These guys are not any more immune to losing a third of a season a la Goldschmidt in 2014 or having a "down year" as picks 4-6 would be.

4-6 where guys like GarGon, CDavis, Tulo, Ellsbury, HanRam and Votto have finished in the ADP over the last five years. I'm not seeing the correlation in consistency to the Trout, Miggy, Goldie, McCutchen group. I think the dropoff in consistency between players picked 4-6 and 7-9 would be measurable as well, though probably not as pronounced as the gap between 1-3 and 4-6.

If the data compiled really said that players drafted 1-3 aren't any more reliable than the ones picked 4-6 than it would be an indictment on us a group, wouldn't it?

[KJ Duke]

I seem to recall that the participants in last year's Platinum League auctioned off draft slots using FAAB. What I do not recall is whether those folks liked how it went and would want to repeat and/or expand on the concept. Seems like it might be difficult to automate with software changes. It would, however, be a helluva way to start a live draft, with folks auctioning off the draft slots and then immediately taking the appropriate seats to start drafting.

Mike

I think most if not all of the Platinum guys liked doing this. It's obviously more fair as it removes unnecessary randomness. It was done live in Vegas a day or two prior. I've also used it for a long time in the Contract league and the original NFBC keeper; for those leagues we did bidding in a chat room.

The two concerns for wider use are: 1) it could turnoff newer players who don't yet have the same feel for FAAB as vets, and 2) it is a logistical problem. It's easy enough to do for standalone leagues so more of the higher-dollar drafts could use it going forward. Greg raised that as a possibility last year.

[Gekko]

A good drafter can overcome the intrinsic advantage from an early draft spot. But, there is, on paper, an advantage to the early spots.

The reason is the difference in production between players is not linear. The players at the top have the largest delta. I like to think of it as the slinky effect. Hold a slinky at the top and the rungs are widest apart at the top until they are basically on top of each other at the bottom. The difference in player production follows the same pattern.

I'll regretfully use the word value. #1 overall is usually around $45 while #15 is about $30, difference of $15. The difference decreases each round.

ON PAPER -- if a draft goes chalk, the #1 spot acquires about $265-$270 worth of players. The last few spots are $255-$257.

Of course, things do not go chalk.

Maybe the best analogy is talking in auction terms. Having the #1 pick is akin to having $265 or so to bid with while #15 has $255. This doesn't mean #1 will win. But it does give an advantage.

It's not a perfect analogy since draft dynamics and auction strategy are different - but the point about #15 needing to overcome about a $10 deficit is similar.

I'm buying what Todd is selling. Well done Todd!

[Gekko]

Last year, I set my KDS at 15, 1, 14, 2 in my New York league and got the #1 pick. I chose Trout, of course. Then, on the way back in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, I chose Bryce Harper and Madison Bumgarner. Pretty good value. I finished in 3rd place in my league.

just because an owner is fortunate enough to get the one hole, that doesn't eliminate them from pissing away the advantage.

[Gekko]

The results of the top-pick teams are going to be correlated to the performance of the top three or so picks. You're researching a small sample size of only five seasons of performance of the top three guys. These guys are not any more immune to losing a third of a season a la Goldschmidt in 2014 or having a "down year" as picks 4-6 would be.

the injury history of a player certainly does come into play when personally ranking him in whatever system you use. if trout had the injury history of Tulo, he wouldn't have been the #1 pick last year.