GWJ Fantasy Keeper League mega-thread

One thing to keep in mind as far as numbers go: if we're using ESPN for auction drafting, from what I saw, I believe the auction cap is $100. I don't think that can be changed on the free service. Will investigate further after work.

*Legion* wrote:

One thing to keep in mind as far as numbers go: if we're using ESPN for auction drafting, from what I saw, I believe the auction cap is $100. I don't think that can be changed on the free service. Will investigate further after work.

Actually, the ESPN default is $200, so we're good there.

I'm digging the price floor idea for keepers that's being thrown around, but folks should keep in mind that even at $33 in their 5th year, any sort of elite player is going to be an absolute steal in a $200 cap league. It is not uncommon to see the cream of the crop running backs top $70 in this type of auction format, so those type of players have very little chance of ever hitting the draft again if their owner picks them up for <$15 as a rookie. In fact, it would take 7-8 years for such a player's price to get close to the market rate for elite backs, by which time they're likely in decline. The only remotely reasonable logic I can see for dumping that type player would be for a team that is otherwise in shambles, and needs to rebuild.

Landshrk83 wrote:

Actually, the ESPN default is $200, so we're good there.

Ack! Well that is good news, but now I think I'm hitting early onset dementia. And not even 30 years old!

I'm digging the price floor idea for keepers that's being thrown around, but folks should keep in mind that even at $33 in their 5th year, any sort of elite player is going to be an absolute steal in a $200 cap league.

As long as they're not to the extent of being league-breaking, I don't think "steals" are something to try and snuff out.

It is not uncommon to see the cream of the crop running backs top $70 in this type of auction format, so those type of players have very little chance of ever hitting the draft again if their owner picks them up for <$15 as a rookie.

And that fact should be reflected in the draft economy, and those players should go for reasonable sums.

Like in the NFL, drafting and developing is cheaper than trying to buy an already-established player. Those young players will be acquired at costs exceeding their current value, with the expectation that they will pan out and flip the equation: their value would then exceed their cost.

If promising rookie running backs go for <$15, then 11 owners screwed up. The rules are the same for everyone, so it's up to everyone to bid accordingly and not let someone get too many cheap talents to hold onto.

One thing I also want to be careful of is being so concerned about elite players that we set the inflation so high as to make it not economically sensible to keep midrange players. I've looked at auction drafts and one thing I've noticed is that elite players account for a disproportionately large portion of a team's cap. I don't want the inflation set so that it rapidly pushes everyone into elite salary levels.

Landshrk83 wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

One thing to keep in mind as far as numbers go: if we're using ESPN for auction drafting, from what I saw, I believe the auction cap is $100. I don't think that can be changed on the free service. Will investigate further after work.

Actually, the ESPN default is $200, so we're good there.

I'm digging the price floor idea for keepers that's being thrown around, but folks should keep in mind that even at $33 in their 5th year, any sort of elite player is going to be an absolute steal in a $200 cap league. It is not uncommon to see the cream of the crop running backs top $70 in this type of auction format, so those type of players have very little chance of ever hitting the draft again if their owner picks them up for <$15 as a rookie. In fact, it would take 7-8 years for such a player's price to get close to the market rate for elite backs, by which time they're likely in decline. The only remotely reasonable logic I can see for dumping that type player would be for a team that is otherwise in shambles, and needs to rebuild.

Weird. Maybe I should check some more sources, but I'm lazy. What Grump posted earlier had the average price for Adrian Peterson at $45 or so.

I think it probably depends on the scoring mechanism. Assuming WCOFF rosters/scoring, you need 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 Flex (RB/WR/TE) and 1 Def. It would be really hard to fill out your remaining 6 high-end slots while still paying one player $70. Also, if you've got Adrian Peterson and Tom Brady and Anquan Boldin, you can't keep them all at $70, so one, two or possibly all three of those superstars are going back into the draft. If you choose to make the investment in your hardcore back, that's fine, but now I've got a chance at your awesome receiver and quarterback.

Honestly, values for keepers doesn't have to be set in stone today (although having a rough idea would be nice), and I feel like it's something we could tweak as we have a better understanding of how the system works.

We're all mostly respectable people. I don't see any of us trying to be overly selfish about future rules changes. Especially with no money involved.

If tis auction, I'm probably out.

kaostheory wrote:

We're all mostly respectable people. I don't see any of us trying to be overly selfish about future rules changes. Especially with no money involved.

Also, by avoiding multi-year rule entanglements, we're in a position to tweak rules fairly in the offseason if needed.

The keeper rules we're discussing here basically boil down to a single mathematical function. f(x) = y. X is a player's value from the previous year, and y is this year's value for that player.

And that's it, that's the complete extent of the "rules". Keep as many or as few as you want, given the limits of the $200 bankroll. Doesn't matter how many times that player has been kept, doesn't matter if he's been traded and is on a new roster now. Nothing matters except "x".

That's so damn elegant, it makes me smile. The trick now is just to get f(x) right, but as you say, if it has to be tweaked after a season, it can be tweaked "fairly" because nobody's in any different position from anyone else (as opposed to, say, a rule which adds or subtracts a year from the number of years you can keep a player, which would unevenly affect certain owners over others)

boogle wrote:

If tis auction, I'm probably out.

Why? It can't be an irrational fear of math.

I think the biggest concern about auction is time required for the auction (mainly that first auction, because future auctions will have the benefit of "keeper" players being removed from the auction pool).

I think an auction can be held in a fairly rapid manner. Rather than a minute and a half of waiting for someone to make their pick, there's a minute and a half of people throwing out their bids.

*Legion* wrote:

I think an auction can be held in a fairly rapid manner. Rather than a minute and a half of waiting for someone to make their pick, there's a minute and a half of people throwing out their bids.

Yeah, that's been my experience. Once you plow through the top tier picks, there usually aren't more than a few people interested in the majority of players beyond the cursory opening bids.

I'd advise anyone considering dropping due to the auction to go through a mock auction draft on ESPN and see what you think. Nearly everyone I've turned on to auction drafting has not wanted to go back to regular serpentine drafting...you're in total control of your destiny with an auction, and not at the mercy of where you sit in the draft order.

*Legion* wrote:

Like in the NFL, drafting and developing is cheaper than trying to buy an already-established player. Those young players will be acquired at costs exceeding their current value, with the expectation that they will pan out and flip the equation: their value would then exceed their cost.

If promising rookie running backs go for <$15, then 11 owners screwed up. The rules are the same for everyone, so it's up to everyone to bid accordingly and not let someone get too many cheap talents to hold onto.

I wholeheartedly agree, I just wanted to make it clear to anyone who might not have understood that keeper floor or not, that sleeper pick turned elite players likely won't be hitting the draft pool for a LONG time.

*Legion* wrote:

One thing I also want to be careful of is being so concerned about elite players that we set the inflation so high as to make it not economically sensible to keep midrange players. I've looked at auction drafts and one thing I've noticed is that elite players account for a disproportionately large portion of a team's cap. I don't want the inflation set so that it rapidly pushes everyone into elite salary levels.

Agreed. I think there's a fine line between balancing the value of developing players from rookie to star and keeping players from holding onto mid-level players, especially at the WR/QB/TE positions. I wouldn't bat an eye at holding on to a mid-level RB at $20, but a TE?

*Legion* wrote:
boogle wrote:

If tis auction, I'm probably out.

Why? It can't be an irrational fear of math.

I think the biggest concern about auction is time required for the auction (mainly that first auction, because future auctions will have the benefit of "keeper" players being removed from the auction pool).

I think an auction can be held in a fairly rapid manner. Rather than a minute and a half of waiting for someone to make their pick, there's a minute and a half of people throwing out their bids.

I'm just not as comfortable with it and the first draft would have far reaching effects in such a keeper league.

boogle wrote:

I'm just not as comfortable with it and the first draft would have far reaching effects in such a keeper league.

Man up, Oklahoma!

*Legion* wrote:
boogle wrote:

I'm just not as comfortable with it and the first draft would have far reaching effects in such a keeper league.

Man up, Oklahoma!

Sorry, yould invest the time to become comfortable with that format but I'm busy with rugby and college.

Landshrk83 wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

I think an auction can be held in a fairly rapid manner. Rather than a minute and a half of waiting for someone to make their pick, there's a minute and a half of people throwing out their bids.

Yeah, that's been my experience. Once you plow through the top tier picks, there usually aren't more than a few people interested in the majority of players beyond the cursory opening bids.

I'd advise anyone considering dropping due to the auction to go through a mock auction draft on ESPN and see what you think. Nearly everyone I've turned on to auction drafting has not wanted to go back to regular serpentine drafting...you're in total control of your destiny with an auction, and not at the mercy of where you sit in the draft order.

*Legion* wrote:

Like in the NFL, drafting and developing is cheaper than trying to buy an already-established player. Those young players will be acquired at costs exceeding their current value, with the expectation that they will pan out and flip the equation: their value would then exceed their cost.

If promising rookie running backs go for <$15, then 11 owners screwed up. The rules are the same for everyone, so it's up to everyone to bid accordingly and not let someone get too many cheap talents to hold onto.

I wholeheartedly agree, I just wanted to make it clear to anyone who might not have understood that keeper floor or not, that sleeper pick turned elite players likely won't be hitting the draft pool for a LONG time.

*Legion* wrote:

One thing I also want to be careful of is being so concerned about elite players that we set the inflation so high as to make it not economically sensible to keep midrange players. I've looked at auction drafts and one thing I've noticed is that elite players account for a disproportionately large portion of a team's cap. I don't want the inflation set so that it rapidly pushes everyone into elite salary levels.

Agreed. I think there's a fine line between balancing the value of developing players from rookie to star and keeping players from holding onto mid-level players, especially at the WR/QB/TE positions. I wouldn't bat an eye at holding on to a mid-level RB at $20, but a TE?

The percentages could change based on the position. A QB might go up 25%. A WR 15, TE 15, RB 20, etc. I also have a fear that at 30% we would price players into elite status way too quickly. As Legion said, if Moreno goes for $1 this year then 11 owners messed up. I could see a guy like Slaton having gone for a few dollars last year but having it go to $15 for all keepers seems like a good compromise between keeping a guy super cheap and rewarding owners for smart play.

I could see a guy like Slaton having gone for a few dollars last year but having it go to $15 for all keepers seems like a good compromise between keeping a guy super cheap and rewarding owners for smart play.

Yeah. I'm of the opinion that the keeper floor takes care of the problem that really needs taking care of: the extreme case of a ~$1-3 value taking forever to inflate just because of the mathematics.

Bumping every keeper to a $15 minimum value prevents hoarding a team of cheap talent. Beyond that, I think there's really no problem to worry about.

Think about it: $200 over a 20 man roster = $10 average per position. $15 is a lot of money. In fact, we may want to consider lowering that floor.

Consider this page that lists average auction values of this year's drafts. These values are normalized for $200 auctions, like ours will be.

A guy like Santonio Holmes, the 23rd highest WR, is averaging a $13 auction value.

$15 is basically a mid-to-low starting QB, or a mid-to-low #2 starting RB or WR, or an elite TE.

I really think a solid floor + inflation percentage is probably all we really need (though we should continue to poke at the numbers until we're sure of this). $15 sounded great for a floor until I started looking at these values. The idea is spot-on, but we may need to think about the numbers a bit. I think it should be possible to keep a solid #3 or #4 RB or WR, but at this floor value, that guy's cost will be pushed up to #2 levels immediately.

I wish there was someone that was really good at math watching this thread...

Another option I thought about was using number of years kept as some sort of scalar and getting rid of the floor. Of course, the problem with this is that we then have to track those data points and lose the simplicity that makes the currently-discussed system so elegant. Nevertheless, another scenario using the formula

Price = LastYearsPrice * (1+(YearsKept * Pct)) + (YearsKept * Salt); Where Pct = 15%, Salt = .45

looks like:

0 ($1.00) $1.00
1 ($1.60) $2.00
2 ($3.50) $4.00
3 ($7.15) $7.00
4 ($13.00) $13.00
5 ($25.00) $25.00
6 ($50.20) $50.00
7 ($105.65) $106.00
8 ($236.80) $237.00

for a $1 draftee and:

0 ($5.00) $5.00
1 ($6.20) $6.00
2 ($8.70) $9.00
3 ($14.40) $14.00
4 ($24.20) $24.00
5 ($44.25) $44.00
6 ($86.30) $86.00
7 ($179.45) $179.00
8 ($397.40) $397.00

for a $5 guy.

My goal was basically to make the low-end, project guys be worth holding on to for 5 or 6 years (much like NFL rookie contracts?) before they got too expensive. The salt gets things moving in the early years while being a significantly smaller factor in the later years.

Just another option (though a potentially over-complicated one)...

The FleaFlicker league I set up (GWJFFK in my sig) still needs 6 more people. Notably absent is *Legion* so I'm not quite sure if this is still going to happen or not. If so, let's get moving so I can get all the organization in place.

I joined. And now that I'm in, it's officially time for everyone else to be in too.

*Legion* wrote:

I joined.

And now you're promoted. Feel free to pitch in, help out, and go to town... especially with setting up the scoring.

Team logo functionality has been turned on at FleaFlicker.

Because _that_ was a critical feature.

Grumpicus wrote:

Because _that_ was a critical feature.

It was the most highly screamed-for feature on the forums.

OK boys, it's now or never. We either need all 12 spots filled at the league site by this weekend, or we'll just have to let the idea go for this year.

*Legion* wrote:

OK boys, it's now or never. We either need all 12 spots filled at the league site by this weekend, or we'll just have to let the idea go for this year.

Well, we know Boogle is out, so we're probably looking at a 10-team league, unless we can find other willing participants.

I'm assuming I'm free to sign-up?

Landshrk83 wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

OK boys, it's now or never. We either need all 12 spots filled at the league site by this weekend, or we'll just have to let the idea go for this year.

Well, we know Boogle is out, so we're probably looking at a 10-team league, unless we can find other willing participants.

I counted 13, including Boogle, in the top post...

Grumpicus wrote:
Landshrk83 wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

OK boys, it's now or never. We either need all 12 spots filled at the league site by this weekend, or we'll just have to let the idea go for this year.

Well, we know Boogle is out, so we're probably looking at a 10-team league, unless we can find other willing participants.

I counted 13, including Boogle, in the top post...

Oops, you're right.

If we get Jayhawker signed up, we're close. Maybe we should PM those who expressed interest but haven't yet signed up, and give it until the end of the weekend to see where we stand.

As far as rules go, are folks okay to leave final the keeper rules to hash out later? Seems that we are in agreement that there will be a keeper floor price and a percentage increase every year beyond that, we just need to finalize numbers.

I can't seem to find the password for the league.

Grumpicus wrote:

I've gone ahead and created a FleaFlicker league for, at the moment, mostly organizational purposes. If you want to sign up, go to http://www.fleaflicker.com/nfl/showL... and use "HoldMe09" as the league password. *Legion* will be in charge of who gets in (or gets to stay) or not. I'm just pushing the paperwork on this one.

So, we've got 10 signed up. Do we want to try to go with that number?

If not, would the folks signed up be interested in doing a non-keeper auction league, and trying to get a few more for a keeper league next season?

I tried to send a couple (y)our way in my latest post in the other thread.

If anyone is interested, I've set up a separate thread for the purpose of gauging interest and organizing an auction-draft non-keeper league here.

With Grump's blessing, I've repurposed the Keeper league, so those who had signed up for the keeper league will have the first shot at spots in the non-keeper auction draft league. We had 10 signed up for the keeper league, and if all 10 coaches are interested in trying out a non-keeper auction league instead, we should have enough to make a go of it. We can take up to 12, but we will definitely need to retain at least 10 coaches to make it worthwhile.