PDA

View Full Version : Fantasy Football Drafting strategy for weird fantasy draft


cdcox
08-11-2011, 09:15 AM
You are in a dynasty fantasy league that you plan to play in for several years. This poll is about drafting your QB, which you will be stuck with for several years.

The draft system is weird.

1. Everyone drafts a given position at the same time. Basically you select your player in secret.

2. If you are the only one to select that player, you get him.

3. If more than one owner selects a given player, the league draws one of those owner's names from the hat, and that owner gets him.

4. After the first round of this, some owners will have a QB and some won't. In that case, the process would be repeated with the remaining owners and the remaining QBs.

Assume it is a 24 team league and the above 18 QBs are the top ones available. If you don't get one of these, you'll get someone worse.

Given this type of draft, which QB would you select in the first round? Do you take a chance to go for a true franchise guy that others will be voting on or do you take a small step down to be sure not to be stuck with a turd?

Would you like this kind of draft relative to the Sandbox game (for the veteran draft)? It would likely be much faster than the system we are using.

Bewbies
08-11-2011, 09:18 AM
Whenever I've done something where I keep players for years, I always pick young guys.

Sofa King
08-11-2011, 09:20 AM
Try for Rodgers and hope for the best. If not him pick someone like Ryan or Bradford.

Mile High Mania
08-11-2011, 09:20 AM
I honestly don't know how to answer this one... there's just too much unknown for me. Sounds like you're replacing strategy and planning with luck and risk. I'd likely avoid guys that many will bid on, shooting for someone like Flacco - very solid production, should be around another 7 years (easy) and with the talent there, he should continue to be good.

DeezNutz
08-11-2011, 09:21 AM
Bradford or Freeman, probably with strong leaning toward the latter.

cdcox
08-11-2011, 09:25 AM
I honestly don't know how to answer this one... there's just too much unknown for me. Sounds like you're replacing strategy and planning with luck and risk. I'd likely avoid guys that many will bid on, shooting for someone like Flacco - very solid production, should be around another 7 years (easy) and with the talent there, he should continue to be good.

So one thing I'm trying to gather from this poll is how different people will behave in balancing risk and opportunity. If everyone hedges their bets and takes someone they don't thing any one else will bid on, there might be relatively few bidders on someone like Aaron Rodgers.

The other thing is whether people would like this system.

Oh, and the idea was Rain Man's. He is one innovative dude.

Fish
08-11-2011, 09:30 AM
That sounds awful. If you had a bad run on choices, you could be stuck with a worthless QB for several years? I could see a lot of players bailing out on that and ruining it for everyone. If I'm going to do a dynasty league, I'd damn sure want to be able to actually choose the players.

cdcox
08-11-2011, 10:05 AM
That sounds awful. If you had a bad run on choices, you could be stuck with a worthless QB for several years? I could see a lot of players bailing out on that and ruining it for everyone. If I'm going to do a dynasty league, I'd damn sure want to be able to actually choose the players.

What if we did the sampling in a such a way as to make sure that if you got hosed on a few positions, you would have better luck on others? In other words, even out the luck averaged across the whole draft?

Rausch
08-11-2011, 10:08 AM
You are in a dynasty fantasy league that you plan to play in for several years. This poll is about drafting your QB, which you will be stuck with for several years.

The draft system is weird.

1. Everyone drafts a given position at the same time. Basically you select your player in secret.

2. If you are the only one to select that player, you get him.

3. If more than one owner selects a given player, the league draws one of those owner's names from the hat, and that owner gets him.

"Fuck this."

*Rausch leaves draft.*

Hydrae
08-11-2011, 10:11 AM
Woot! I get Matt Ryan (so far)!

Pestilence
08-11-2011, 10:15 AM
Bradford or Freeman, probably with strong leaning toward the latter.

This.

Pestilence
08-11-2011, 10:16 AM
If this was for the Sandbox game....then I would be more apt to play.

Fish
08-11-2011, 10:16 AM
What if we did the sampling in a such a way as to make sure that if you got hosed on a few positions, you would have better luck on others? In other words, even out the luck averaged across the whole draft?

That sounds like you're having to take steps to fix it before you even begin. You're putting a band-aid on a bad design. The underlying problem is that the setup relies too heavily on luck of the draw. You're going to end up with good intelligent players that get frustrated because their intelligence won't mean shit compared to the bad luck they get saddled with for several years.

You're creating a depressing league....

Mile High Mania
08-11-2011, 10:22 AM
That sounds like you're having to take steps to fix it before you even begin. You're putting a band-aid on a bad design. The underlying problem is that the setup relies too heavily on luck of the draw. You're going to end up with good intelligent players that get frustrated because their intelligence won't mean shit compared to the bad luck they get saddled with for several years.

You're creating a depressing league....

Bingo! I likely would not do a league like this, but the liberals should like it... It levels the playing field between those that are rich in fantasy brain power and those that do not try as hard.

patteeu
08-11-2011, 10:22 AM
So one thing I'm trying to gather from this poll is how different people will behave in balancing risk and opportunity. If everyone hedges their bets and takes someone they don't thing any one else will bid on, there might be relatively few bidders on someone like Aaron Rodgers.

The other thing is whether people would like this system.

Oh, and the idea was Rain Man's. He is one innovative dude.

I picked Aaron Rodgers assuming that most people would shoot for a less attractive option thinking they'd be more likely to get their pick. Out of the first 12 votes cast, I was only the second to take Rodgers (same as Sam Bradford, Josh Freeman, and Peyton Manning) so I like those odds. Interestingly, no one has cast a Tom Brady vote yet.

Mile High Mania
08-11-2011, 10:25 AM
I picked Aaron Rodgers assuming that most people would shoot for a less attractive option thinking they'd be more likely to get their pick. Out of the first 12 votes cast, I was only the second to take Rodgers (same as Sam Bradford, Josh Freeman, and Peyton Manning) so I like those odds. Interestingly, no one has cast a Tom Brady vote yet.

One thing we don't know is who is voting... there are a lot of people that treat fantasy football like a girl filling out an NCAA bracket.

patteeu
08-11-2011, 10:42 AM
Maybe you could have players submit a ranked list of QB choices and have an algorithm similar to the one you're using here to sort out who gets which QB, rather than having multiple rounds of picking a single QB.

On the first pass, treat it just like you do here.

After the first batch of QBs are gone, move to the next remaining QB on the list of each player who didn't get their first choice. At this point, drafters will be on their N+1 rated QB (because their top N choices all went in the first pass). You can either treat all these N+1 choices as equal and randomly assign the next round of QBs or you can give the drafters with larger Ns a compensatory advantage which would encourage people to provide lists based on their real opinions about rankings rather than trying to game the system by picking someone like Matt Schaub at #2 to have a better chance of getting him.

Another idea on top of this one would be to have drafters provide all of their ranked lists (for QB, for HB, for WR, for DE, etc.) at the same time and then rank the lists. QB is #1, WR is #2, CB is #3, LT is #4, etc. Then you could use this positional priority to help break ties in some fashion.

patteeu
08-11-2011, 10:43 AM
One thing we don't know is who is voting... there are a lot of people that treat fantasy football like a girl filling out an NCAA bracket.

I INSIST ON BELIEVING I OUTSMARTED THE SYSTEM! :p

Mile High Mania
08-11-2011, 10:51 AM
Something like this would not be fantasy football, not sure what it would be... But it would suck.

patteeu
08-11-2011, 11:03 AM
Something like this would not be fantasy football, not sure what it would be... But it would suck.

Yeah, it would probably only appeal to smart people. :Poke:

Mile High Mania
08-11-2011, 11:12 AM
Yeah, it would probably only appeal to smart people. :Poke:

I doubt it... Sounds like this is more luck of the draw.

patteeu
08-11-2011, 11:25 AM
I doubt it... Sounds like this is more luck of the draw.

Do you really think fantasy football is a skill game? The same things that give you an edge in traditional fantasy football would give you an edge in this game, except that this game strives to be deeper.

Mile High Mania
08-11-2011, 12:31 PM
Do you really think fantasy football is a skill game? The same things that give you an edge in traditional fantasy football would give you an edge in this game, except that this game strives to be deeper.

I think if you have the right league with right owners, yes it's a lot about an owner's skill in building a team. Set up the parameters of the league and how to build a team through the draft and FA, then I'll create a plan on kicking your a$$ that doesn't depend upon luck of the draws or things done within the system to help offset opportunities that were discussed earlier.

I'm not talking about generic serpentine drafts... I'm talking about complex, IDP, PPR, Dynasty leagues with developmental rosters, etc... if you want a change of pace and new direction to take in FFL, then go that route.

This game being discussed may have great intentions, but it's far from ready...

Rain Man
08-11-2011, 01:37 PM
As some addition to the original post, the concept might not involve picking one player at a position. Envision a system where you need four players on your roster at OLB. You get four or six or eight "chits", and you place your chits on four or six or eight players. So it's not just the starter, but also the starter and the depth.

As cdcox noted, if there's competition for that player, then it's luck of the draw as to whether you get him. So depending on who you're competing for, you could get all of them, none of them, or more likely, none of them.

If I have four points for OLBs, I might assign them as follows:

1 on Clay Matthews (along with 20 other owners)
1 on Tamba Hali (along with 15 other owners)
1 on Demarcus Ware (along with 20 other owners)
1 on James Harrison (along with 10 other owners)

(Recognize that I don't know ahead of time how many other owners are competing for the player.)

This is an all or nothing approach, because there's nearly a 70 percent chance that I'll get none of these guys, and even if I get one my other guy's most likely going to be a scrub. But there's a small chance that I could get two and become a powerhouse, and if I hit the lotto I get three or four and have trade bait. But most likely I'm going to end up with two scrubs.

Or instead, I could go for:

1 on Rey Maualaga (along with 5 other owners)
1 on Tamba Hali (along with 15 other owners)
1 on Calvin Pace (along with 3 other owners)
1 on Andy Studebacker (along with zero other owners)

In that case, I've got Andy, and the odds are really good that I'll get either Calvin or Rey. If I get lucky, I throw Tamba into the mix. I miss the chance to have a powerhouse, but I'm relatively confident that I'll have a solid core.

That's assuming that I have four picks, and if I end up not getting four players (odds are nearly 100 percent of that), I then go into the next round and compete for the remaining players.

But what if I need four players, and I have eight points to play with, and it's a one-round process? Maybe in that case I go with...

1 on Clay Matthews (along with 20 other owners)
1 on Tamba Hali (along with 15 other owners)
1 on James Harrison (along with 10 other owners)
1 on Parys Haralson (along with 7 other owners)
1 on Rey Maualaga (along with 5 other owners)
1 on Calvin Pace (along with 3 other owners)
1 on Andy Studebacker (along with zero other owners)
1 on Dekoda Watson (along with zero other owners)

The dice are rolled and I either

-get fewer than 4, in which case the remainder are randomly assigned to me from the pool of unclaimed players
-get 4 of the above, in which case I'm good to go
-get more than 4 of the above, in which case I automatically get the 4 for which there was the most competition

What's going to happen is that I'm going to win some and I'm going to lose some. The odds are that I'm going to get a team that's similar to what I would have drafted anyway, because I'm going to overvalue those players when making my picks. It's going to more or less give me the same team personality that I would have developed during a time-intensive drafting process. Plus, it adds a little bit of randomness that frankly is more realistic anyway. New GMs don't have any choice over the personnel of teams they take over. This system introduces some of that "take what you got" luck, but allows the gamer to guide that luck to a great extent.

I really think this could be a good system to make the initial draft much less daunting, and I think it could be pretty fun. It would also make the trade market pretty active, because you'll likely end up with teams that are loaded at one position and weaker at another.

As cdcox said, the luck factor will even out over the course of the draft in obtaining all positions. Conceivably, as he mentioned, we could also guarantee that by ensuring that the random variation doesn't significantly differ from the expected value for any given team.

Predarat
08-12-2011, 03:21 PM
Brent Farve, he will come back, he will succeed!

ct
08-12-2011, 03:30 PM
I selected Peyton Manning. Still a high quality starter for 2-3, maybe 4-5 more years. Didn't think many would go for him so you've got a good shot to get him.