Eligibility requirements remain the same. Players will be listed in ascending order, with their INT%+ rating behind them. Hall of Famers are in bold. Players who are currently active, or were active recently enough that they are not yet eligible for the Hall are in italics.
25) Sonny Jurgensen - 109
24) Steve McNair - 109
23) Phil Simms - 109
22) Dan Marino - 109
21) Joe Theismann - 110
20) Len Dawson - 110
19) Greg Landry - 112
18) Tom Brady - 112
17) Fran Tarkenton - 112
16) Steve Young - 113
15) Bart Starr - 114
14) Jeff Garcia - 113
13) Rich Gannon - 114
12) Ken Anderson - 114
11) Mark Brunell - 114
10) Ken O'Brien - 116
9) Donovan McNabb - 116
8) Roger Staubach - 117
7) Neil Lomax - 117
6) Bernie Kosar - 117
5) Neil O'Donnell - 118
4) Joe Montana - 118
3) Roman Gabriel - 119
2) Sammy Baugh - 120
1) Otto Graham - 121
10 Hall of Famers on this list, like the last, but do you get a sense that the list is not quite as strong? Me too. Greg Landry, Mark Brunell, Neil O'Donnell... this supporting cast isn't quite up to the level of the non-HOFers that rounded out the previous two lists. In truth, avoiding interceptions is great, but it's not enough to make a great quarterback. Bernie Kosar is a good example. He's 6th on this list, but 98th and 110th on the other two passing lists, and he's not often brought up as a great NFL passer.
On the other hand, Joe Montana makes his highest appearance of the three lists here, coming in at #4. But the genius of Montana was that he was so very good at avoiding mistakes while at the same time making enough big plays to keep the chains moving and the scoreboard rolling. Just avoiding mistakes isn't enough. But it sure helps.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Top 25 Quarterbacks by TD%+
The same eligibility requirements apply here, of course. Players will be listed in ascending order, with their TD%+ rating behind them. Hall of Famers are in bold. Players who are currently active, or were active recently enough that they are not yet eligible for the Hall are in italics.
25) Ken Stabler - 109
24) Sonny Jurgensen - 109
23) Randall Cunningham - 109
22) Boomer Esiason - 109
21) Otto Graham - 110
20) Carson Palmer - 110
19) Drew Brees - 110
18) Dave Krieg - 110
17) Steve Grogan - 111
16) Joe Montana - 111
15) Roger Staubach - 112
14) Bob Griese - 112
13) Jim Kelly - 112
12) Dan Marino - 112
11) Kurt Warner - 113
10) Danny White - 114
9) Terry Bradshaw - 114
8) Brett Favre - 114
7) Ben Roethlisberger - 115
6) Daryle Lamonica - 115
5) Len Dawson - 115
4) Frank Ryan - 116
3) Tom Brady - 116
2) Peyton Manning - 119
1) Steve Young - 120
Again, trying to anticipate reactions here. Frank Ryan is #4? Really? Who the heck is Frank Ryan? Steve Grogan is popping up again? What's going on?
Well, Frank Ryan was the quarterback for the Browns in the early to mid '60s, and he made a decent little career for himself handing off to Jim Brown and Leroy Kelly. His numbers aren't that great overall, but he got to throw a relative lot of TD passes since the Browns' running game was so effective. He might have gotten on this list by circumstance, but he wasn't a bad QB, and he deserves his place.
Of the top 25, 10 are Hall of Famers, and some more will be eventually. The quarterbacks whose names are most surprising generally were from high risk, high reward offenses, which produced yards, and TDs, but also INTs, and while they do well on this list, they'll be punished on the next.
25) Ken Stabler - 109
24) Sonny Jurgensen - 109
23) Randall Cunningham - 109
22) Boomer Esiason - 109
21) Otto Graham - 110
20) Carson Palmer - 110
19) Drew Brees - 110
18) Dave Krieg - 110
17) Steve Grogan - 111
16) Joe Montana - 111
15) Roger Staubach - 112
14) Bob Griese - 112
13) Jim Kelly - 112
12) Dan Marino - 112
11) Kurt Warner - 113
10) Danny White - 114
9) Terry Bradshaw - 114
8) Brett Favre - 114
7) Ben Roethlisberger - 115
6) Daryle Lamonica - 115
5) Len Dawson - 115
4) Frank Ryan - 116
3) Tom Brady - 116
2) Peyton Manning - 119
1) Steve Young - 120
Again, trying to anticipate reactions here. Frank Ryan is #4? Really? Who the heck is Frank Ryan? Steve Grogan is popping up again? What's going on?
Well, Frank Ryan was the quarterback for the Browns in the early to mid '60s, and he made a decent little career for himself handing off to Jim Brown and Leroy Kelly. His numbers aren't that great overall, but he got to throw a relative lot of TD passes since the Browns' running game was so effective. He might have gotten on this list by circumstance, but he wasn't a bad QB, and he deserves his place.
Of the top 25, 10 are Hall of Famers, and some more will be eventually. The quarterbacks whose names are most surprising generally were from high risk, high reward offenses, which produced yards, and TDs, but also INTs, and while they do well on this list, they'll be punished on the next.
Top 25 Quarterbacks by Y/A+
A quick note, first off. In all these rankings, we'll only be considering quarterbacks who reached a threshold of 2000 career pass attempts. This is arbitrary, but necessary to keep the numbers from becoming unmanageable. In fact, there have been 126 passers who have reached 2000 attempts in NFL/AFL/AAFC history, and will be considered for these lists. In fact, a list of the top 25 passers in any category represents almost 20% of the eligible quarterbacks.
Players will be listed in ascending order, with their Y/A+ rating behind them. Hall of Famers are in bold. Players who are currently active, or were active recently enough that they are not yet eligible for the Hall are in italics.
25) Tom Brady - 109
24) Dan Marino - 109
23) Ken Stabler - 110
22) Ken Anderson - 110
21) Johnny Unitas - 110
20) Earl Morrall - 111
19) Lynn Dickey - 111
18) Bart Starr - 111
17) Bob Griese - 111
16) Joe Montana - 111
15) Craig Morton - 112
14) Jim Kelly - 112
13) Steve Grogan - 113
12) Len Dawson - 113
11) Daunte Culpepper - 114
10) Norm Van Brocklin - 115
9) Roger Staubach - 115
8) Sammy Baugh - 115
7) Trent Green - 115
6) Dan Fouts - 116
5) Peyton Manning - 116
4) Ben Roethlisberger - 120
3) Kurt Warner - 120
2) Steve Young - 123
1) Otto Graham - 129
Some names will probably surprise people. Lynn Dickey right next to Bart Starr? That will certainly shock some Packer fans. Steve Grogan? Yes, I think that will surprise some people.
Still, there are 25 Hall of Famers who are eligible for these lists. 13 of them made the list, and the group that just missed includes more, including Joe Namath and Terry Bradshaw, who have the same 109 as Marino and Brady. (Ties are broken in favor of the player with more attempts, favoring those with greater longevity.) Of the other 14 on the list, there are a couple of slam dunk HOFers, a few more current/recent players who have a good argument, and some good QBs who didn't or won't make the Hall of Fame cut. This is the passing stat that is considered to be the most important, and it certainly looks as though we're measuring something pretty important here.
As for the surprises, well, this is why you shouldn't use just one stat when you can use many. Is Steve Grogan one of the top 25 quarterbacks of all time? Probably not, but he does very well with this particular piece of the puzzle, and that's worth knowing.
Players will be listed in ascending order, with their Y/A+ rating behind them. Hall of Famers are in bold. Players who are currently active, or were active recently enough that they are not yet eligible for the Hall are in italics.
25) Tom Brady - 109
24) Dan Marino - 109
23) Ken Stabler - 110
22) Ken Anderson - 110
21) Johnny Unitas - 110
20) Earl Morrall - 111
19) Lynn Dickey - 111
18) Bart Starr - 111
17) Bob Griese - 111
16) Joe Montana - 111
15) Craig Morton - 112
14) Jim Kelly - 112
13) Steve Grogan - 113
12) Len Dawson - 113
11) Daunte Culpepper - 114
10) Norm Van Brocklin - 115
9) Roger Staubach - 115
8) Sammy Baugh - 115
7) Trent Green - 115
6) Dan Fouts - 116
5) Peyton Manning - 116
4) Ben Roethlisberger - 120
3) Kurt Warner - 120
2) Steve Young - 123
1) Otto Graham - 129
Some names will probably surprise people. Lynn Dickey right next to Bart Starr? That will certainly shock some Packer fans. Steve Grogan? Yes, I think that will surprise some people.
Still, there are 25 Hall of Famers who are eligible for these lists. 13 of them made the list, and the group that just missed includes more, including Joe Namath and Terry Bradshaw, who have the same 109 as Marino and Brady. (Ties are broken in favor of the player with more attempts, favoring those with greater longevity.) Of the other 14 on the list, there are a couple of slam dunk HOFers, a few more current/recent players who have a good argument, and some good QBs who didn't or won't make the Hall of Fame cut. This is the passing stat that is considered to be the most important, and it certainly looks as though we're measuring something pretty important here.
As for the surprises, well, this is why you shouldn't use just one stat when you can use many. Is Steve Grogan one of the top 25 quarterbacks of all time? Probably not, but he does very well with this particular piece of the puzzle, and that's worth knowing.
All Time QB Rankings
In honor of the NFL starting out a new season tomorrow night, I'm going to do a ranking of the top 25 QBs in league history.
Now, how do you go about doing something like that? Anyone's list is ultimately going to be based on opinions, but nobody's opinion will be based on seeing the entire careers of more than a couple of players. Broad opinions are necessarily going to be based on secondhand reports, hearsay, and guesswork. This is why, while statistics are not capable of conveying the whole story, they are fundamental to any attempt to rank players, even across eras.
What goes into making up a good quarterback? Well, to get the whole picture, you need to know how good one is as a passer, clearly. Some quarterbacks make a huge contribution to their team with their legs as well, so evaluating them as runners is also very important. If you compare John Elway to Dan Marino and don't take Elway's running into consideration, you've failed miserably. While it's hard to quantify, a quarterback's qualities as a leader are also important, though impossible to quantify. Some passers are better at avoiding sacks and fumbles than others, and while they aren't a huge part of the picture, they are significant. How long a quarterback plays is also important. A player who plays at a high level for fifteen years has had a better career than one who plays for seven.
And then there's winning. While evaluating one player, even one as important as a quarterback, by a team accomplishment might seem ridiculous, it's generally a hugely important part of how people evaluate quarterbacks. And really, while many of the lists people produce purport to rank players by their ability, in practical terms, they rank them according to the quality of their actual careers, which are influenced by a myriad of other factors.
But how to compare quarterbacks across eras? A young modern fan, upon looking up the statistics of a luminary of yesteryear, say, a Bart Starr or a Roger Staubach, is unlikely to be impressed by their passing accomplishments. The game has changed. What I will be relying upon will be the "+" statistics available from the indispensable Pro Football Reference site. Staubach's completion percentage of 57.0 might not look terribly good in the context of the modern game, but his completion percentage +, or Cmp%+, of 114 tells us that he was actually well above the standards set by his contemporaries in this area.
And what categories will we use? Well, in passing, we'll use the + statistics derived from three of the four elements that go into the NFL's official passer rating.
1) Yards per attempt plus (Y/A+)
2) Touchdown percentage plus (TD%+)
3) Interception percentage plus (INT%+)
Now, why not the fourth statistic, completion percentage? Well, if you think about it, yards per attempt can be seen as a combination of two other statistics, completion percentage and yards per reception. One of the major drawbacks of the NFL's official passer rating is that it drastically overvalues completion percentage, counting it once as a full quarter of the system by itself, and then as one of the component parts of yards per attempt. Advanced methods of analyzing passing statistics always come to the same conclusion: yards per attempt is the most important simple statistic you can look at to determine the quality of a passing game, and in practice, it is the least important of the four categories in the NFL's official rating. Now, since the Football Reference site doesn't have a category for Yards Per Reception Plus, we'll simply eliminate completion percentage from our calculation and count Y/A+ more heavily.
Next, we'll cover the running ability of quarterbacks. That will be accomplished by looking at their average yards per game.
4) Rushing Yards per game.
This isn't perfect, or even close to it, but it will give us a rough estimate of how much a player's running ability impacted his team.
Next, we'll cover two often overlooked and very much entwined aspects of a quarterback's game, his fumbling, and his ability to avoid sacks. People often assume that a quarterback being sacked is the fault of his offensive line, if blame must be assigned. In fact, a quarterback's style and habits have an awful lot to do with how much he winds up being sacked. Good or bad sack percentages follow quarterbacks from year to year and team to team with more regularity than their TD% or INT%, indicating strongly that there is a real ability involved. Quarterback fumbles have been discussed in this space before. There is a wide range to the spectrum of how good quarterbacks are at holding onto the football. How likely they are to be hit is also a major factor in how often they drop the ball, so their proclivity for running or being sacked has an impact here. So, we'll have:
5) Sack%+
6) Fumble%
Then we'll also have to give quarterbacks points for winning and for longevity.
7) Winning
8) Longevity
Leadership, as we discussed, is important, but we'll have to assume that good leadership must lead to more positive results on the field, so we're already measuring it via the other categories.
I'll do lists in all eight categories, showing the top 25 in each. The tenth post in this series will compile them all, and reveal my picks for the top QBs of all time.
Now, how do you go about doing something like that? Anyone's list is ultimately going to be based on opinions, but nobody's opinion will be based on seeing the entire careers of more than a couple of players. Broad opinions are necessarily going to be based on secondhand reports, hearsay, and guesswork. This is why, while statistics are not capable of conveying the whole story, they are fundamental to any attempt to rank players, even across eras.
What goes into making up a good quarterback? Well, to get the whole picture, you need to know how good one is as a passer, clearly. Some quarterbacks make a huge contribution to their team with their legs as well, so evaluating them as runners is also very important. If you compare John Elway to Dan Marino and don't take Elway's running into consideration, you've failed miserably. While it's hard to quantify, a quarterback's qualities as a leader are also important, though impossible to quantify. Some passers are better at avoiding sacks and fumbles than others, and while they aren't a huge part of the picture, they are significant. How long a quarterback plays is also important. A player who plays at a high level for fifteen years has had a better career than one who plays for seven.
And then there's winning. While evaluating one player, even one as important as a quarterback, by a team accomplishment might seem ridiculous, it's generally a hugely important part of how people evaluate quarterbacks. And really, while many of the lists people produce purport to rank players by their ability, in practical terms, they rank them according to the quality of their actual careers, which are influenced by a myriad of other factors.
But how to compare quarterbacks across eras? A young modern fan, upon looking up the statistics of a luminary of yesteryear, say, a Bart Starr or a Roger Staubach, is unlikely to be impressed by their passing accomplishments. The game has changed. What I will be relying upon will be the "+" statistics available from the indispensable Pro Football Reference site. Staubach's completion percentage of 57.0 might not look terribly good in the context of the modern game, but his completion percentage +, or Cmp%+, of 114 tells us that he was actually well above the standards set by his contemporaries in this area.
And what categories will we use? Well, in passing, we'll use the + statistics derived from three of the four elements that go into the NFL's official passer rating.
1) Yards per attempt plus (Y/A+)
2) Touchdown percentage plus (TD%+)
3) Interception percentage plus (INT%+)
Now, why not the fourth statistic, completion percentage? Well, if you think about it, yards per attempt can be seen as a combination of two other statistics, completion percentage and yards per reception. One of the major drawbacks of the NFL's official passer rating is that it drastically overvalues completion percentage, counting it once as a full quarter of the system by itself, and then as one of the component parts of yards per attempt. Advanced methods of analyzing passing statistics always come to the same conclusion: yards per attempt is the most important simple statistic you can look at to determine the quality of a passing game, and in practice, it is the least important of the four categories in the NFL's official rating. Now, since the Football Reference site doesn't have a category for Yards Per Reception Plus, we'll simply eliminate completion percentage from our calculation and count Y/A+ more heavily.
Next, we'll cover the running ability of quarterbacks. That will be accomplished by looking at their average yards per game.
4) Rushing Yards per game.
This isn't perfect, or even close to it, but it will give us a rough estimate of how much a player's running ability impacted his team.
Next, we'll cover two often overlooked and very much entwined aspects of a quarterback's game, his fumbling, and his ability to avoid sacks. People often assume that a quarterback being sacked is the fault of his offensive line, if blame must be assigned. In fact, a quarterback's style and habits have an awful lot to do with how much he winds up being sacked. Good or bad sack percentages follow quarterbacks from year to year and team to team with more regularity than their TD% or INT%, indicating strongly that there is a real ability involved. Quarterback fumbles have been discussed in this space before. There is a wide range to the spectrum of how good quarterbacks are at holding onto the football. How likely they are to be hit is also a major factor in how often they drop the ball, so their proclivity for running or being sacked has an impact here. So, we'll have:
5) Sack%+
6) Fumble%
Then we'll also have to give quarterbacks points for winning and for longevity.
7) Winning
8) Longevity
Leadership, as we discussed, is important, but we'll have to assume that good leadership must lead to more positive results on the field, so we're already measuring it via the other categories.
I'll do lists in all eight categories, showing the top 25 in each. The tenth post in this series will compile them all, and reveal my picks for the top QBs of all time.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The Rams and T.O.
Right now, it's looking like it's quite possible the Rams will sign Terrell Owens tomorrow. I am, as I often am, of two minds on the subject. Or maybe it's three.
On the one hand, I don't like T.O. He's egotistical, which makes him pretty unlikable. He's got a history of conflicts with QBs that have led to problems.
On the other hand, he's old, and he wasn't any good two years ago, and was worse last year, albeit in a situation where nobody would have thrived much.
Actually, this one's looking pretty much unanimous in my head. Signing Terrell Owens is a bad idea.
Look, if this were last year, I'd probably come around to thinking it was a pretty decent idea. I'm a big believer in giving a young QB a reliable option over the middle. Think Brett Favre and Mark Chmura as a good example. Having that kind of short target gets quarterbacks into the habit of thinking of the short middle as a legitimate option, rather than a last resort. The Rams don't have that for Sam Bradford, or anything close to it. They have a bunch of question marks at TE, and more question marks at WR. Forget his being a big play threat on the outside; If Owens were capable of using his big body effectively to work the middle of the field while still threatening to break one big at any moment, he'd be a great addition, and a big help to Bradford's development, despite his personality. I just don't think there's much chance that he's going to be able to do that, given his "production" last year, and his disappointing performance in 2008. If he's not capable of performing, his presence will mean that the Rams will be giving him playing time that would be better invested in one of the young receivers they have, giving them a chance to learn, and develop a rapport with Bradford.
If Owens does become a Ram, there's essentially no chance that he'll recover his form as a hall of fame caliber receiver. That just doesn't happen often enough to receive much consideration. If he's a Ram, root for him to adapt to his new situation and level of ability to do some of the dirty work that will be a bonus for Bradford's development rather than a hindrance to the development of his young teammates.
On the one hand, I don't like T.O. He's egotistical, which makes him pretty unlikable. He's got a history of conflicts with QBs that have led to problems.
On the other hand, he's old, and he wasn't any good two years ago, and was worse last year, albeit in a situation where nobody would have thrived much.
Actually, this one's looking pretty much unanimous in my head. Signing Terrell Owens is a bad idea.
Look, if this were last year, I'd probably come around to thinking it was a pretty decent idea. I'm a big believer in giving a young QB a reliable option over the middle. Think Brett Favre and Mark Chmura as a good example. Having that kind of short target gets quarterbacks into the habit of thinking of the short middle as a legitimate option, rather than a last resort. The Rams don't have that for Sam Bradford, or anything close to it. They have a bunch of question marks at TE, and more question marks at WR. Forget his being a big play threat on the outside; If Owens were capable of using his big body effectively to work the middle of the field while still threatening to break one big at any moment, he'd be a great addition, and a big help to Bradford's development, despite his personality. I just don't think there's much chance that he's going to be able to do that, given his "production" last year, and his disappointing performance in 2008. If he's not capable of performing, his presence will mean that the Rams will be giving him playing time that would be better invested in one of the young receivers they have, giving them a chance to learn, and develop a rapport with Bradford.
If Owens does become a Ram, there's essentially no chance that he'll recover his form as a hall of fame caliber receiver. That just doesn't happen often enough to receive much consideration. If he's a Ram, root for him to adapt to his new situation and level of ability to do some of the dirty work that will be a bonus for Bradford's development rather than a hindrance to the development of his young teammates.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Fantasy Auction Advice
1. Have a firm idea of the value of every player.
Fortunately, there are plenty of guides out there. Unfortunately, almost all of them are bad. Many will be done for leagues that use different rules than yours does, and almost all of them are not going to be terribly sophisticated with regard to their idea of value. Example: Quarterback A scored 300 fantasy points last year. Quarterback B scored 200. Little has changed about either one's situation for this season. If a list has Quarterback B listed at 2/3rds of the value of Quarterback A, you need to find a different list. There are plenty of quarterbacks available who can give you 200 fantasy points, and they'll be available on the cheap. Only a couple of passers are able to reach 300 points (in most scoring systems) and they have great value. Most lists freely available today underestimate this scarcity value.
2. Realize that a player's value is fluid, not static.
If players are going for more early in the draft than they are on your lists, this means that all the remaining players are going to have to go for less later on. Your approach to the auction needs to reflect this. To handle this effect, you can keep a running tally of how selling values are comparing to your list. The higher this number climbs, the more you'll have to adjust your bids down on later players. If you're a math genius, you should be able to keep track of how this affects your bidding on every player at every point. If you're not, don't worry, just estimating will be fine.
3. Realize that early players generally go for more money than you think they should.
This is because of the nature of auctions, not because the people in your league are idiots. Well, they may be idiots, but this doesn't prove it. In any fantasy auction, a player should be sold for $1 more than the second highest amount anyone thinks they're worth. There is always variation in how much people think a player is worth, and since the price is set by the person who values them second most, in a standard 10 or 12 team league, this is likely to be somewhat higher than the average in most cases. Also, keep in mind, you shouldn't be seeing players going for less than the value you have listed, because in that case, you should have been bidding on them.
What this means is that the running tally I told you to keep in part 2 should always be a tally of how much more players have gone for than they "should" have according to your list.
4. There are 6 possible outcomes on any player. They are, in order of desirability:
This often breaks down later in auctions, unfortunately, as you run low on money, and will not be able to block, or take advantage of every possible deal. Again, don't be too wedded to the values on your original list. A player going for "less than his value" late in an auction may simply mean that the values have shifted down, and the player is going for closer to his new real value.
5. Take advantage of the fact that players generally go for more early than they will later on.
When it's your turn to nominate a player for auction early, pick a player from lower on the list who you don't want. With luck, he'll go for quite a bit more than he'd go for late, sucking money out of your opponents' pockets. You want your favorite sleepers and potential bargains to be proposed later on, when people are cash strapped, and you're more likely to poach them at low prices.
6. Don't get impatient.
Sometimes, players see the best players flying off the board at ridiculously high prices, look at their own bare cupboard, and start making panicked bids at ridiculous prices themselves. Don't. In a fairly standard auction, where you have $200 for 16 players, you can put together a terrific team that doesn't have a single player you originally valued at more than $20 to $25. If you're patient, and the other GMs are going crazy, you'll be raking in a strong team of Pierre Thomases and Sidney Rices later on.
7. Don't be afraid to pay full value for big ticket items early.
While it's never a good idea to overbid early, if you have the chance to get a $50 player for $50, take it. It's the third best outcome, and getting at least one of these top guys early takes the pressure off. It's a lot easier to wind up spending $150 for 15 guys without pressing or taking guys you don't like than it is to spend $200 for 16 guys.
Fortunately, there are plenty of guides out there. Unfortunately, almost all of them are bad. Many will be done for leagues that use different rules than yours does, and almost all of them are not going to be terribly sophisticated with regard to their idea of value. Example: Quarterback A scored 300 fantasy points last year. Quarterback B scored 200. Little has changed about either one's situation for this season. If a list has Quarterback B listed at 2/3rds of the value of Quarterback A, you need to find a different list. There are plenty of quarterbacks available who can give you 200 fantasy points, and they'll be available on the cheap. Only a couple of passers are able to reach 300 points (in most scoring systems) and they have great value. Most lists freely available today underestimate this scarcity value.
2. Realize that a player's value is fluid, not static.
If players are going for more early in the draft than they are on your lists, this means that all the remaining players are going to have to go for less later on. Your approach to the auction needs to reflect this. To handle this effect, you can keep a running tally of how selling values are comparing to your list. The higher this number climbs, the more you'll have to adjust your bids down on later players. If you're a math genius, you should be able to keep track of how this affects your bidding on every player at every point. If you're not, don't worry, just estimating will be fine.
3. Realize that early players generally go for more money than you think they should.
This is because of the nature of auctions, not because the people in your league are idiots. Well, they may be idiots, but this doesn't prove it. In any fantasy auction, a player should be sold for $1 more than the second highest amount anyone thinks they're worth. There is always variation in how much people think a player is worth, and since the price is set by the person who values them second most, in a standard 10 or 12 team league, this is likely to be somewhat higher than the average in most cases. Also, keep in mind, you shouldn't be seeing players going for less than the value you have listed, because in that case, you should have been bidding on them.
What this means is that the running tally I told you to keep in part 2 should always be a tally of how much more players have gone for than they "should" have according to your list.
4. There are 6 possible outcomes on any player. They are, in order of desirability:
- You buy the player for less than his worth.
- Someone else buys the player for more than his worth.
- You buy the player for exactly his worth.
- Someone else buys the player for his worth.
- Someone else buys the player for less than his worth.
- You buy the player for more than his worth.
This often breaks down later in auctions, unfortunately, as you run low on money, and will not be able to block, or take advantage of every possible deal. Again, don't be too wedded to the values on your original list. A player going for "less than his value" late in an auction may simply mean that the values have shifted down, and the player is going for closer to his new real value.
5. Take advantage of the fact that players generally go for more early than they will later on.
When it's your turn to nominate a player for auction early, pick a player from lower on the list who you don't want. With luck, he'll go for quite a bit more than he'd go for late, sucking money out of your opponents' pockets. You want your favorite sleepers and potential bargains to be proposed later on, when people are cash strapped, and you're more likely to poach them at low prices.
6. Don't get impatient.
Sometimes, players see the best players flying off the board at ridiculously high prices, look at their own bare cupboard, and start making panicked bids at ridiculous prices themselves. Don't. In a fairly standard auction, where you have $200 for 16 players, you can put together a terrific team that doesn't have a single player you originally valued at more than $20 to $25. If you're patient, and the other GMs are going crazy, you'll be raking in a strong team of Pierre Thomases and Sidney Rices later on.
7. Don't be afraid to pay full value for big ticket items early.
While it's never a good idea to overbid early, if you have the chance to get a $50 player for $50, take it. It's the third best outcome, and getting at least one of these top guys early takes the pressure off. It's a lot easier to wind up spending $150 for 15 guys without pressing or taking guys you don't like than it is to spend $200 for 16 guys.
Fantasy Auctions
It's officially football season. Yes, I know the season hasn't started. Heck, training camp hasn't even started yet. Nevertheless, fantasy football is already kicking into gear, and if you aren't getting prepared, you're already falling behind.
That's a depressing thought, isn't it?
I'm going to talk here about fantasy sports auctions. Many regular fantasy sports participants have never actually done a fantasy auction, instead only participating in fantasy drafts. This might be a little surprising, given that auctions are actually the older method of distributing players, since when Rotisserie baseball started in the '80s, it used auctions. Drafts came into vogue later, particularly in football, and particularly online, given the greater ease of coding applications to handle drafts rather than auctions.
Many fantasy enthusiasts greatly prefer auctions, and some now eschew leagues with drafts entirely. Why? Well, two major reasons. First, it gives everyone an equal shot at every player, eliminating the vagaries of draft order from the equation. This year, if you draft third or lower in your league, you have no chance at Adrian Peterson or Chris Johnson. You might value either of those players more than any other GM in your league, but your only option for obtaining them would be to attempt to trade with the GMs lucky enough to own one of the first two picks. In an auction, all you need to do is outbid the others. If you truly value Chris Johnson more than the rest of the league, he's yours. Further, there aren't any drop offs in an auction, where people might say that the GM drafting third is getting a raw deal, missing out on Peterson and Johnson and getting a player no better than the guy drafting 6th, yet having his second round pick come later as a result of having the earlier first rounder. Again, with an auction all GMs are on an equal footing in terms of getting any individual player, and in terms of the price they'd have to pay to get him.
The second reason is a bit more subtle. In a fantasy auction, there is more emphasis on preparedness. Not that being prepared isn't important in a draft, but an auction takes this requirement to a new level. You can't get away with simple lists by position, grabbing the most attractive player at the top of a list where you still need a player, you have to know your team, your needs, and the relative value of every player at all times. Further, there is no down time, no period while the other teams make their picks while you plan which players you'd most like to select next. Instead, you're involved on every single player. This is more taxing, but it's also, to many, much more exciting.
Next up: Advice for handling your fantasy auction.
That's a depressing thought, isn't it?
I'm going to talk here about fantasy sports auctions. Many regular fantasy sports participants have never actually done a fantasy auction, instead only participating in fantasy drafts. This might be a little surprising, given that auctions are actually the older method of distributing players, since when Rotisserie baseball started in the '80s, it used auctions. Drafts came into vogue later, particularly in football, and particularly online, given the greater ease of coding applications to handle drafts rather than auctions.
Many fantasy enthusiasts greatly prefer auctions, and some now eschew leagues with drafts entirely. Why? Well, two major reasons. First, it gives everyone an equal shot at every player, eliminating the vagaries of draft order from the equation. This year, if you draft third or lower in your league, you have no chance at Adrian Peterson or Chris Johnson. You might value either of those players more than any other GM in your league, but your only option for obtaining them would be to attempt to trade with the GMs lucky enough to own one of the first two picks. In an auction, all you need to do is outbid the others. If you truly value Chris Johnson more than the rest of the league, he's yours. Further, there aren't any drop offs in an auction, where people might say that the GM drafting third is getting a raw deal, missing out on Peterson and Johnson and getting a player no better than the guy drafting 6th, yet having his second round pick come later as a result of having the earlier first rounder. Again, with an auction all GMs are on an equal footing in terms of getting any individual player, and in terms of the price they'd have to pay to get him.
The second reason is a bit more subtle. In a fantasy auction, there is more emphasis on preparedness. Not that being prepared isn't important in a draft, but an auction takes this requirement to a new level. You can't get away with simple lists by position, grabbing the most attractive player at the top of a list where you still need a player, you have to know your team, your needs, and the relative value of every player at all times. Further, there is no down time, no period while the other teams make their picks while you plan which players you'd most like to select next. Instead, you're involved on every single player. This is more taxing, but it's also, to many, much more exciting.
Next up: Advice for handling your fantasy auction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
