NFBC Message Boards

Hi guys,
Anyone think its more important to have to be pick 1-30-31, 7-23-37 or would you rather be 15-16-45?
Is it comfort zone or is there a ADVANTAGE?

duesman24 wrote:Hi guys,
Anyone think its more important to have to be pick 1-30-31, 7-23-37 or would you rather be 15-16-45?
Is it comfort zone or is there a ADVANTAGE?

A few random thoughts in response to your question:

1. You can win from any draft spot and I personally find KDS to be a little less important than others. (I'm not knocking those who think it is very important; just my personal take.)

2. After out-thinking myself for a couple of years, these days I go with a straight 1 to 15 KDS more often than not.

3. While I generally think it is advantageous to draft earlier in Round 1, I think the benefit of doing so fluctuates from year to year. In some years, I thought it clearly was advantageous to draft from the first X slots. In other years, I found it less advantageous.

4. I think there is a lot of personal preference involved, particularly with respect to whether you want to be in the middle or on an end. Some folks like being able to get two picks close together, while others prefer to be in the middle in the hopes of not missing out on certain player runs.

5. While I generally prefer not to be on an end, I tend to think that Trout is worth it and picking first would be my preference. Right now, and this could change, I do not see a huge difference between the second pick up through around the middle of Round 1, and so I may reflect that opinion in my future KDS selections. Still thinking about it. I may just decide that I'm safer sticking with 1 to 15 and seeing where the chips fall.

6. Part of where you try to draft may depend on whether you want an "ace" SP in the early rounds (as well as your definition of who constitutes an ace).

Mike

Thanks Mike for your well thought out answers.
Im torn as i do like having 2 picks close together no matter which end of draft.

Mike is right on, as usual. I will add that no matter where you end up drafting, what ever advantage (or disadvantage) you may feel you had, it is gone by the 10th round (maybe earlier) due to the variability of each draft, especially if you are using ADP's as one of your tools.

.

I've been happy drafting #8 in 15 team leagues in that you get to make a choice every 15 picks.
That said, I recently got my first ever #1 pick and I was amazed at the value I was getting in rounds 8-12 and beyond.

It's always nice to have the wheel picks but if you can't get #1 it seems like you lose some value plus still take the risk of a positional run starting right after you make your two picks.
I used to start my KDS 1-15-8 but now I prefer 1-8-15.

Just one guy's opinion.
.

I bet there will be some guys who dont take TROUT number 1 too.
Imagine that
Thanks guys

duesman24 wrote:I bet there will be some guys who dont take TROUT number 1 too.
Imagine that
Thanks guys

It's already happened.
Trea Turner has gone number one.
There's a for you!
Betts, Bryant, and Kershaw have gone number one as well.

It all depends where you need to buy your "core guys". For example if I have Villar as a top 5 player and segura as a top 15 player, I would prefer to be toward the back of the draft

Determine where you need to buy your core players and set KDS accordingly.

Deadheadz wrote:.

I've been happy drafting #8 in 15 team leagues in that you get to make a choice every 15 picks.
That said, I recently got my first ever #1 pick and I was amazed at the value I was getting in rounds 8-12 and beyond.

It's always nice to have the wheel picks but if you can't get #1 it seems like you lose some value plus still take the risk of a positional run starting right after you make your two picks.
I used to start my KDS 1-15-8 but now I prefer 1-8-15.

Just one guy's opinion.
.

I am almost there with you. I will say that I will probably always lead off with #1 just for the fun of having it (even if you are not going to score, you always want a shot at the head cheerleader), but as far as being on the turn, I would rather be 3/4 or 12/13. Get basically the same benefit, it is pretty easy to project the next 4/6 picks, gets a little breather between picks, and a little less time on the long-turn. Something like 1-3-4-13-12-8 or with 8 in the middle.

Hoping I get a good pick for the Main Event in NYC march 25th.
Thanks for everyone's thoughts.

DOUGHBOYS wrote:

duesman24 wrote:I bet there will be some guys who dont take TROUT number 1 too.
Imagine that
Thanks guys

It's already happened.
Trea Turner has gone number one.
There's a for you!
Betts, Bryant, and Kershaw have gone number one as well.

I can understand the argument for taking Kershaw first, but I can't see picking any hitter over Trout.

I can, I guess.
It's not like Trout's numbers are blowing away all other hitters.

Trout- .315/123/29/100/30

Betts- .318/122/31/113/26

Bryant- .292/121/39/102/8

Betts and Bryant both hit in better lineups. Bryant with positionality.
If having the number one pick, I would select Trout, but I can also understand the few who do not.

DOUGHBOYS wrote:I can, I guess.
It's not like Trout's numbers are blowing away all other hitters.

Trout- .315/123/29/100/30

Betts- .318/122/31/113/26

Bryant- .292/121/39/102/8

Betts and Bryant both hit in better lineups. Bryant with positionality.
If having the number one pick, I would select Trout, but I can also understand the few who do not.

I just can't see betting against Trout's track record of performance and durability.

Here's another interesting comp.

Bryant- .292/121/39/102/8

Donaldson - .284/122/37/99/7

How about this one?

Springer - .261/116/29/82/9 (with 10 CS)

Bradley, Jr - .267/94/26/87/9 (with 2 CS)

Gekko wrote:It all depends where you need to buy your "core guys". For example if I have Villar as a top 5 player and segura as a top 15 player, I would prefer to be toward the back of the draft

Determine where you need to buy your core players and set KDS accordingly.

Subtle.

Yah Mule wrote: I just can't see betting against Trout's track record of performance and durability.

Bryant's track record is short but impressive.
Season 1 - ROY
Season 2 - MVP
Season 3 - ???

Can you guess which forum poster took Bryant #1? (hint, it wasn't Dan )

Deadheadz wrote:

Yah Mule wrote: I just can't see betting against Trout's track record of performance and durability.

Bryant's track record is short but impressive.
Season 1 - ROY
Season 2 - MVP
Season 3 - ???

Can you guess which forum poster took Bryant #1? (hint, it wasn't Dan )

I don't necessarily require a long track record. I thought anybody who had Trout ranked lower than second after his rookie season was making a mistake.

Deadheadz wrote:Can you guess which forum poster took Bryant #1?

Another thread turned around to talk about his favorite subject.
HIM.
The legend of Deadthreadz continues....

DOUGHBOYS wrote: Good for you.

And good for you, changing the subject mid thread.
Can we get back to the topic the OP asked about?

How can Kershaw be justified as a #1? I don't see it.
.

Deadheadz wrote:

DOUGHBOYS wrote: Good for you.

And good for you, changing the subject mid thread.
Can we get back to the topic the OP asked about?

How can Kershaw be justified as a #1? I don't see it.
.

And what don't you see?
Give us some thoughts and stats that you think back up your Kershaw hesitations.

DOUGHBOYS wrote:

Deadheadz wrote: How can Kershaw be justified as a #1? I don't see it.
.

And what don't you see?
Give us some thoughts and stats that you think back up your Kershaw hesitations.
Awaiting analysis.

While he's got amazing stats and a long track record, his recent injury history makes top 3 questionable at best.
This year he should fall like Donaldson has fallen. First round? No argument. But top 3?

At the least, you're trying.

Deadheadz wrote:

DOUGHBOYS wrote:

Deadheadz wrote: How can Kershaw be justified as a #1? I don't see it.
.

And what don't you see?
Give us some thoughts and stats that you think back up your Kershaw hesitations.
Awaiting analysis.

While he's got amazing stats and a long track record, his recent injury history makes top 3 questionable at best.
This year he should fall like Donaldson has fallen. First round? No argument. But top 3?

It's an interesting question: where do you value Kershaw, clearly the best pitcher, amongst the best hitters? I'm kind of old school. Before last season, I never took a pitcher in the first round. Still haven't done it (yet) in a big money league, but I took Kershaw around the middle of the first round in a couple of DCs last year. Although his injury hurt, he still was one of the most valuable pitchers. More importantly to me, I found that I could take a pitcher first and still feel content with my hitting and roster composition at the end of the draft. I'm now more open to taking a pitcher in the first round.

That being noted, while I would take Kershaw at certain points in the first half of Round 1, I would not take him first. Even if I liked Kershaw the best and wanted him, I'd probably KDS 3 or 4. Even if desperate for Kershaw, I'd KDS 2 given that the vast majority of folks take Trout first (the worst that can happen is you're in a draft with another Kershaw lover and you get Trout with the second pick).

I also agree that last year's injury weighs on me. If he got hit in the shin with a batted ball, I'd discount it entirely. Backs, however, are a funny thing. The risk of recurrence Is greater than zero. Plus, pitchers get injured more frequently than all or most (excluding catchers?) positional players.

If you assume health, however, Kershaw is an easy top pick. If you could guarantee me that Trout would play 162 games and Kershaw would make 34 starts, I'd take Kershaw. Yes, Trout will give you five categories of excellent performance, but I think Kershaw is so strong in four categories, and provides such a huge edge in ERA and WHIP, that he'd be more valuable.

Just a few quick stats depicting Kershaw's greatness:

Starts per year since 2009: 30, 32, 33, 33, 33, 27, 33, 21.
Strikeouts per year since 2009: 185, 212, 248, 229, 232, 239, 301, 172.
ERA per year since 2009: 2.79, 2.91, 2.28, 2.53, 1.83, 1.77, 2.13, 1.69.
WHIP per year since 2009: 1.23, 1.18, 0.98, 1.02, 0.92, 0.86, 0.88, 0.72.

Really, that's just ridiculous. But for his injury, 2016 was shaping up as his most dominant season. Damn, I'm talking myself into taking him first. Better stop now, but, yes, if you believe Kershaw will be healthy, he's a very compelling pick virtually anywhere in the first round.

Mike

The reason Kershaw can be #1 is because is so much better than any other pitcher. Mike Trout isn't that much better than Betts, at least by last year's numbers. The difference of course is the risk/reward.

Even with all the time he was out, Kershaw was still the best pitcher last year.

DOUGHBOYS wrote:

duesman24 wrote:I bet there will be some guys who dont take TROUT number 1 too.
Imagine that
Thanks guys

It's already happened.
Trea Turner has gone number one.
There's a for you!
Betts, Bryant, and Kershaw have gone number one as well.

I figured everyone already knew it was I who got Bryant at #1 as well as #8 which is the latest he's been taken in slow drafts. Gotta take a player who's consensus top-10 and also has multi eligibility. Another trait most drafters at NFBC know me for having given extra value.

Trea Turner will quickly have eligibility at 3 positions which is awesome but it's too small a sample size to take him at a point where there's no upside. Maybe in an auction but not in a snake draft.

Does anyone ever KDS specifically to get a certain player and have their first close to the ADP of that player? For example, you like Arenado so you go 6-7-8... or maybe 5-6-7... just to be safe?

Does it usually work?
.

Deadheadz wrote:

DOUGHBOYS wrote:

duesman24 wrote:I bet there will be some guys who dont take TROUT number 1 too.
Imagine that
Thanks guys

It's already happened.
Trea Turner has gone number one.
There's a for you!
Betts, Bryant, and Kershaw have gone number one as well.

I figured everyone already knew it was I who got Bryant at #1 as well as #8 which is the latest he's been taken in slow drafts. Gotta take a player who's consensus top-10 and also has multi eligibility. Another trait most drafters at NFBC know me for having given extra value.

Trea Turner will quickly have eligibility at 3 positions which is awesome but it's too small a sample size to take him at a point where there's no upside. Maybe in an auction but not in a snake draft.

Does anyone ever KDS specifically to get a certain player and have their first close to the ADP of that player? For example, you like Arenado so you go 6-7-8... or maybe 5-6-7... just to be safe?

Does it usually work?
.

I was very high on Donaldson in 2015, but didn't think he would go in the first round in most early drafts, so I set my KDS 1, 2, 3, 15 etc. I wanted Trout, McCutchen or Goldie more, but my next preference was grabbing Donaldson @ 15. I got him in a lot of drafts. Just sad I didn't grab Harper @ 2/16. Donaldson's final ADP that year was 20.78. After burning early adopters for two straight years, Harper lasted until 29.52 going into his unanimous MVP season.