Drafts Slots vs Overall Finish

[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.

Drafting at #15 in nearly every draft, I am, more often than not, able to take 2 top ten picks from my rankings. In my opinion, that is worth more than drafting #1. We can go back and forth on this all winter. There is no formula to prove anything (even Todd's analysis isnt clear). As far as using FAAB bidding to draft at a particular position, I am 100% for this but I am pretty sure Greg and Tom will not do this in the overall events as it is probably a nightmare to pull off in all leagues. Maybe they will consider it in standalone leagues.

[BK METS]

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.

Yup I pissed it away in this main event league where i drafted #1 and won many of my others at #15. I definitely should have paid more attention. My bad.

[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.

Yup I pissed it away in this main event league where i drafted #1 and won many of my others at #15. I definitely should have paid more attention. My bad.

It happens.

[Greg Ambrosius]

here are the OFFICIAL averages from 2011-2015...

1 - 192.2
2 - 197.7
12 - 200.0
3 - 200.2
10 - 208.3
13 - 208.9
6 - 210.3
15 - 210.7
14 - 215.6
11 - 215.8
7 - 219.3
5 - 219.8
4 - 220.9
9 - 231.4
8 - 235.9

I love data as much as the next guy, so I appreciate the exercise that Mark started. Someone should finish this by posting 2004-09 data as well.

As Mark knows, we had this exercise in football during our early days of the National Fantasy Football Championship and we quickly made the move to even all draft spots by implementing Third Round Reversal (3RR). What that does is run the draft order as 1-14, 14-1, then 14-1 again in the third round and serpentine after that. We've been doing that for about 8 years now and it's leveled the playing field in football. That being said, we are the only pay-to-play contest that uses 3RR and some have said it has confused new owners and stunted our growth. I don't agree, but it is a wrinkle that definitely takes time to get used to in our drafts.

In football there was a huge benefit to drafting No. 1 after years of dominating performances from guys like LaDainian Tomlinson, Priest Holmes, Marshall Faulk and others, so it made sense. What the data above tells me is that the Top 3 spots have performed well over the last three years but there's still random success from all spots. If it was all just top-down performances we'd see 1 at the top and 15 at the bottom. But here, it makes no sense that No. 3 is the 4th best spot to draft from and No. 4 is 13th. Why is 12th the third best spot? If the end of the draft is so bad, why is No. 15 eighth?

And in different years you are seeing different spots excel, not the same ones. Look at where the overall champions have drafted and it's been pretty random. That being said, the last two Main Event champions have drafted from the No. 1 spot, so you have that.

Using FAAB to determine draft spots worked great in the NFBC Platinum League and will be used again this year for that league, but that process can only work well in a private league like that. You can't do that in national contests. You could consider 3RR, but then again you run the risk of confusion and using a setup that may not be needed in a game where 23 players start each week vs. just 10 in football. I know it would probably balance the results more, but you have to weigh the risk vs. reward in such an idea.

I'm pretty sure that Mark wanted to spur the discussion on this subject and that's all good, but again I'd love to see earlier year results too (I need to get 2004 and 2005 results active). The more data the better.

All good fun in December. Thanks for the look. Now get more results from the earlier years.

[Gekko]

I'll try to analyze the info for the earlier years, but it will be skewed due to less main event players back then

[Gekko]

Greg - What about using FAAB to bid on draft slots in the AL and NL auctions?

[Gekko]

I agree Greg. It's certainly interesting to see the actual data. Very curious why the middle slots are the worst performing (on average) over the past 5 years

[Greg Ambrosius]

I'll try to analyze the info for the earlier years, but it will be skewed due to less main event players back then

Not really. Let's see what the individual years look like from 2004-09 now that the overall standings have draft spots on them. (Who the hell said that was the most useless piece of information we ever added? ) If I recall, the top spots did not fare well early on.

Thanks to anyone who does that.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Greg - What about using FAAB to bid on draft slots in the AL and NL auctions?

You're already bidding for your 23 starters. You want to bid for your reserve round order now?

[BK METS]

Greg - What about using FAAB to bid on draft slots in the AL and NL auctions?

You're already bidding for your 23 starters. You want to bid for your reserve round order now?

[Gekko]

Greg - What about using FAAB to bid on draft slots in the AL and NL auctions?

You're already bidding for your 23 starters. You want to bid for your reserve round order now?

Why not!

[mdecav]

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 disagree but mostly on the deficit you're suggesting.

You're making the assumption the delta in value between picks of the first round is incrementally greater than in later rounds, aka your slinky effect based on auction values, which in theory "should be" the value of a player.

But in reality if you calculate dollar values after a season ends, you'll find that actual player performance on the top end of the scale "flatten" a bit so that the first round players who would auction $45 down to $30 are much closer together, like $38 to $29.

[KJ Duke]

The main problem I have with the slinky effect is that we are talking about results, not projections. In theory I can accept the value differential in draft slots, but we're discussing historical results here ... which are overwhelmed by other factors that cannot be controlled for and have far greater influence than draft slots - which probably makes the entire data set statistical noise.

[ToddZ]

I disagree but mostly on the deficit you're suggesting.

You're making the assumption the delta in value between picks of the first round is incrementally greater than in later rounds, aka your slinky effect based on auction values, which in theory "should be" the value of a player.

But in reality if you calculate dollar values after a season ends, you'll find that actual player performance on the top end of the scale "flatten" a bit so that the first round players who would auction $45 down to $30 are much closer together, like $38 to $29.

The flatter end-of-season numbers are a recent occurrence. Keep going back and you'll find end-of-season have been much more spread out, several seasons with the #1 player into the 50s.

[ToddZ]

The main problem I have with the slinky effect is that we are talking about results, not projections. In theory I can accept the value differential in draft slots, but we're discussing historical results here ... which are overwhelmed by other factors that cannot be controlled for and have far greater influence than draft slots - which probably makes the entire data set statistical noise.

Yeah, things don't go chalk which is why the winners are dispersed throughout the draft order. It's all theoretical.

Maybe the best way to put it is I like KDS in baseball since people may prefer a late pick for strategic reasons. However, if someone were to table the idea of 3RR in baseball, I would not be in favor of that. The on-paper advantage isn't anywhere near sufficient to do that.

The advantage to the first pick is real - it's just easily overcome.