FF2011: Official GWJFFLK-specific discussion thread

Dallas Clark may not be the best example. A more concerning scenario is the one that I outlined previously. I was referring more to the spirit of Landshrk83's post and not necessarily the letter.

Ok, here's a random hypthotical for you.

Kevin Kolb was drafted by Jeff Goldbloom's Unfertilized Egg for $14.
He starts in week 1
He then rides the bench until he is traded to Garion's Muffin Tops in Week 4
He starts once for Garion's Muffin Tops in Week 7, but otherwise is benched
He is cut by Garion's Muffin Tops in week 11 on Thursday (to add another player)
He is then added by Garion's Muffin Tops in week 11 on Sunday morning (he was available to anyone between Thursday and Sunday)
He is benched the rest of the year

Relevant factors:
Draft price $14
Started 2 games +$2
Did not start 14 games +$3.50
Was cut and added for $0 in wk 11

What should he be worth to keep in 2011?
a. $20
b. $6
c. $13
d. F- You Jolly, I hate multiple choice math questions.

Here's an interesting post.

ukickmydog wrote:
Grumpicus wrote:

So if a player is drafted $50, and then cut, and then claimed for $10, what's his base keeper value?

Hmmm, average it out maybe? On one hand, it isn't fair to the person that drafted him to have to hold on to him all year so that someone else doesn't get a cheap player for next year, but on the other hand, that other team is going to be wasting a roster spot on him so they should get some reward.

I just found it interesting that you suggested the average it out solution first. That is all.

I know there are some who are discontented that we are still discussing things like keeper value formulas at this stage in the game. After all, your understanding of "the way things are" affected how you played last season and had you known things were going to end up a different way, you would have made certain decisions differently. Of course, if I had known that Randy Moss was going to suck, I wouldn't have blown 21% of my budget on him.

My only defense is that this is an almost-new league and this is our first time to see how the numbers that we previously speculated about actually impact the bottom line. As a matter of fact, I'm running numbers myself and wondering if $16 for a full-season starter might not be a little bit too steep so I'm not just thinking about "Rule B" but the individual values ($1 and $.25) for the inflation calculation as well. Fair warning: they might change. I'm sorry if this bothers you; I'm certain that, over time, things will stabilize; I'd love to get your input while we figure this out. If you're in it for the long haul, thank you for your patience. If this is all just too much uncertainty, while I'd hate to see anyone leave, perhaps this is not the league for you.

This is not directed at any one individual. While certain people may have more to say than others, I welcome the discourse. The second-to-last thing I want to do is make any of you unhappy but the last thing I want to do is to not get it as "right" as possible. I encourage you all to run the numbers yourself, see how they impact both your team and the league as a whole, and come back with some opinions. Thanks.

As much as I personally like our "X for each week on the bench and Y for each game played" system, in my research, the formula "the greater of $3 and 30%" keeps popping up. It's certainly easier. I'm just adding a datapoint to the conversation for now.

Here's another option: Make the inflation amount be some factor of the player's average fantasy points from last year. Big-time players want big-time paychecks!

Yes, I'm just spewing stuff on the page now. Sorry. Maybe I should go find some dinner.

Edit: This idea kind of also looks at the fact that different positions are "worth" different money since QBs dominate the first 1.5 pages and then it's all about the RBs and WRs for a good long while. Interesting. Ok, food now.

I am very cool with how we agreed to do it last year. Honestly, I'm pretty good with almost anything I've heard, although I'm much more in favor of the (draft + free agency)/ 2 rule to set base price. unless there's a major uproar I say just keep going with what you originally posted. No drama necessary

Jolly Bill wrote:

I'm much more in favor of the (draft + free agency)/ 2 rule to set base price.

Yeah, there's two distinct factors in the equation: the base price and the inflation. The item I quoted here refers to the former and I'm pretty comfortable with where that is (though still open to having the discussion), including "Rule B" (the item quoted). Conversely, I've been fairly focused on the inflation side of the equation this evening. I like the "pizzazz" of your system, Jolly Bill, though *Legion* has been campaigning (in IM) for the simplicity of $3-or-30%.

Edit: Of course, I also like this (AFP + 10)% inflation rate that's percolating in my head... It's so shiny.

Grumpicus wrote:

though *Legion* has been campaigning (in IM) for the simplicity of $3-or-30%.

I also tried campaigning for my precious RFA-style qualifying offers idea again, to a completely unsympathetic audience.

I'm certainly fine with the idea of going with the keeper rules Grump originally posted. I think it's going to take a few seasons of seeing how player values fluctuate to decide on what the best course of action for our league will be.

Of course, the simplicity of the $3 or 30% idea is appealing, as well. I think that no matter what we'll have a few people unhappy with the way things work out, but that's the nature of the beast. We all went into this (I hope) with the knowledge that it was a learn-as-you go type experience.

The concern with the original idea is that when you actually start applying $13-16 inflation to some of the guys you actually drafted and played all year, you'll see that the number is disproportionally high for a large class of players that you might otherwise like to consider keeping.

A lot of us bought starting QBs in the $10-16 range, and so that inflation is like 100% on those guys.

Wow, if you want to actually calculate the keeper price using the (games played * X) + (games not played * Y) formula for inflation for all of your eligible players (i.e. the ones on your roster in week 16), it's actually a bit of a pain in the ass.

It's been a GWJFFL-filled day and I am burnt. I'm also concerned that as cool as the posted inflation model is, the execution is a bit overly tedious. Try actually doing it and let me know if you go cross-eyed. And if they don't, let me know your secret, please. Until then, good night.

Gents - should a slot open up, I'd love to get back in. A keeper league is the only league I'm interested in, as time is precious, and both my other leagues are keepers. Should you not wish to relinquish the championship title to me :-), I do understand though.

Holler if a slot opens up Grump please.

Pigpen

*Legion* wrote:

The concern with the original idea is that when you actually start applying $13-16 inflation to some of the guys you actually drafted and played all year, you'll see that the number is disproportionally high for a large class of players that you might otherwise like to consider keeping.

A lot of us bought starting QBs in the $10-16 range, and so that inflation is like 100% on those guys.

It seems like people have ideas about keeping "a large number" of players- this is a keeper league, not dynasty. There should be a large degree of turnover year to year, and unless someone hit the lottery on $1 players, people probably shouldn't be able to keep more than 4-6 players.

All that being said, QBs could be an issue, but I'm not sure it's one worth worrying about too much. A $10 QB that started all 16 games would cost $26 the following year, meaning he should only be kept if he blossomed into an elite player. I had a similar situation myself last year drafting Matt Ryan around $10 hoping he would step up- he hasn't, and I don't have a lot of anxiety over not being able to keep him.

So are we a keeper league in that only if you get a complete steal you keep your player? Because if you just get a player as a "buy low" he is way overpriced the next year. Only when you throw a $1 dart at some bench player and he becomes the starter would it be worth keeping, that doesn't feel like strategy to me.

Lets work with a couple examples, I've run the numbers on my team so I'm going to use them:
Player / Draft Price / New Value / Thoughts

Peyton Manning / $28 / $44 / Got him for an okay price but now he is overpriced.
Matt Forte / $24 / $40 / Bought him low but now he is overpriced.
Reggie Wayne / $33 / $49 / Paid average and now he is laughably overpriced.
Dwayne Bowe / $15 / $31 / Got a steal that is now at average price, I get rewarded for smart drafting by getting to keep a player at his average price....
Peyton Hillis / $2 / $16 / The only player on my entire roster who will be priced below average if I kept him, so of course the only player I would keep. This was a dumb luck pickup that had nothing to do with draft strategy and yet my only keeper.

I think the question is do we want our teams to be based off of who had dumb luck or about who drafted well? I know a lot of our discussion last year was worrying about the scenario in which a person drafts Adrian Peterson for $5 and gets to keep him for 10 years, so we came up with a way to get him to his worth in under 3 years. This strategy kills the keeper part of our league. How about we don't design our system for the anomaly and instead design it for the average player.

How many players should a team keep? If it's only the players you luck into, don't call it a Keeper League call it a Dumb Luck League.

I always liked the idea of a flat increase and a keeper floor. As in $5 increase and a $10 minimum.

To me, now that we're actually looking at some real numbers, the only thing that seems to makes sense is a percentage inflation.

A flat number that's just right for one position or class of players is too high or low for everyone else. It doesn't scale.

Percentage always scales. It works for positions where guys average in the single digits, and it works for $40 running backs.

It doesn't necessarily need to be 30% (from what I've read, it's very common for keeper league to use 20% or 25% as much as 30%), but I'm feeling much better about a percentage than I am the flat rate ideas. They were clever, but the numbers just aren't looking good.

I know a lot of our discussion last year was worrying about the scenario in which a person drafts Adrian Peterson for $5 and gets to keep him for 10 years, so we came up with a way to get him to his worth in under 3 years. This strategy kills the keeper part of our league. How about we don't design our system for the anomaly and instead design it for the average player.

This drove me up the wall last year. Not every corner case needs to be solved, and some of them will be solved by adjustments in draft strategy. And I'd much rather have cases where people are keeping guys at bargain value than having everyone throw almost their entire rosters back and go essentially redraft. That's just not very interesting, and there's plenty of middle ground to find between that and the other extreme of a dynasty league.

Jolly Bill wrote:

Edit edit: For clarity, I think the $1 per week started does seem to much, but we don't want to mess around trying to balance it out. Simple is better.

This.

Wow. Some people are very heated about this.

If the weeks started/not started calculation is too taxing on the owners to calculate, get rid of it. Someone (me?) could dump each week's roster into a spreadsheet and calculate the starts for each player all at once just about as easily as figuring out their own team. I'm sure I'd work with either model. I remember some valid criticisms of the other inflation method being brought up last year that I'll have to go reread so I'm refreshed.

Elliott, the reward for smart drafting on an individual player is that you got a great player for a low price for last season (Edit: meh, my point is lost in my words. I don't know what I'm saying. There are multiple kinds of smart drafting.). If we're only drafting for this year, my draft would have looked different. These rules are more geared towards depth at position, so smart drafting of a position or team would have enough starters that bench players hold their value.

If you drafted just enough good players to start and have only scrubs on your bench, I can see why you'd complain it's hard to keep your star players. I thought the reason we picked this method was because the guys you start EVERY week were supposed to be hard to keep.

Edit: As I said, I'm fine with either method, and not solving for corner cases and picking a flat rate just because it's simpler is good, too.. I really do need to go reread last year's thread, though.

Edit edit: For clarity, I think the $1 per week started does seem to much, but we don't want to mess around trying to balance it out. Simple is better.

JollyBill, sorry if I came across more heated then I am. Really it's more just me looking at everything and going, what is our goal here? If I understand you correctly, you feel the goal should be we get to keep bench players and re-draft starters? That is unless one of our bench players become stars, at which point we get to keep them for one year?

Personally when I think of a keeper league, I think of one guy as always having Michael Vick and so when you're watching football you go, "I face Grumpicus next week so I'm really hoping Vick snaps his leg this week." Offseason jawing about how I'm going to send some puppies to Vick, etc. I'd like consistency, we already have our re-draft leagues.

Elliottx wrote:

JollyBill, sorry if I came across more heated then I am. Really it's more just me looking at everything and going, what is our goal here? If I understand you correctly, you feel the goal should be we get to keep bench players and re-draft starters? That is unless one of our bench players become stars, at which point we get to keep them for one year?

Personally when I think of a keeper league, I think of one guy as always having Michael Vick and so when you're watching football you go, "I face Grumpicus next week so I'm really hoping Vick snaps his leg this week." Offseason jawing about how I'm going to send some puppies to Vick, etc. I'd like consistency, we already have our re-draft leagues.

What you're describing is a dynasty league.

Players in any sort of inflation based keeper system are going to be overpriced to keep if they were acquired at their "true" value (assuming that value stays the same year to year). The only solution I've seen used in keeper leagues that would allow keeping those sorts of players are where you get to keep the player for X years at the price he was originally acquired (or with a small premium) before he has to go back to the pool.

Edit: the more numbers I crunch, the better a percentage based system (with some sort of minimum inflation) looks. I think it would let people keep some of those steals a little longer without overly inflating the every week starters.

Elliottx wrote:

JollyBill, sorry if I came across more heated then I am. Really it's more just me looking at everything and going, what is our goal here? If I understand you correctly, you feel the goal should be we get to keep bench players and re-draft starters? That is unless one of our bench players become stars, at which point we get to keep them for one year?

I have no idea what I was thinking last year, but that sort of fits. For me, the goal is to keep players who were undervalued last year. At the time of it's inception, I liked the "pay more for starters" approach, but with $1 per starting week the vast majority of starters will face too much inflation at $10+.

Aha! From last year:

Jolly Bill wrote:

For every week you used that player as a starter, his next year draft value increases by $1, up to a maximum of $10.

The thoughts in the thread afterward wandered between a cap of $10 or $11, but I thought +$16 sounded extremely steep

If you want the simplicity of the "always $10" solution, go for it. The "$1 per start capped at $10" at least allows you to capitalize on the <$15 steals that you may or may not have started every week.

Quoted from last year:

1) increase by $10 every year
2) increase by $1 per start and $.25 per bench plus $1 base inflation (to a max of $11 or $5 respectively)

-numbers edited a bit to match what we ended up with

Those were the two solutions that we debated between last year, and it looks like we're right back there. Maybe Grumps can clear this up, but I don't think we ever considered $16 inflation to be appropriate for anybody. Maybe we were just talking regular (fantasy) season inflation?

Elliottx, how does

Matt Forte $35
Dwayne Bowe at $26
Peyton Hillis at $13

Sound to you?

*Legion* wrote:
Landshrk83 wrote:

Edit: the more numbers I crunch, the better a percentage based system (with some sort of minimum inflation) looks. I think it would let people keep some of those steals a little longer without overly inflating the every week starters.

Agreed. I think it also meets the requirement of simplicity. 30% means you multiply the guy's old value by 1.3 and you get his new value (rounding up to nearest dollar, of course).

And a $3 bare-minimum inflation means that anyone $10 or cheaper gets $3 inflation (since 30% doesn't exceed $3 until you get past $10).

So, for a $3-or-30% approach, it's:

$1-10: old value + 3 = new value
$11+: old value * 1.3 = new value

Not exactly daunting math.

So if you manage to pick up a star <$10 before they blow up, you basically have them in perpetuity?

Yeah, my only issue with the $3-or-30% approach is for the case where you get the Peyton Hillis type player. I should have to pay more then $5 for Hillis. Keeper floor of $10? So if price is under 10, it goes to 10, anything else goes up by 30%?

Price per Hillis(PPH):
2010: $2
2011: $10
2012: $13

Removing the fact that Hillis is going to have a lousy year in 2011, it still seems like I could keep him for too long. What about, the above rules and a 3 or 4 year maximum hold? Then the player gets free agency.

I thought the whole idea of drafting people before they were stars was the ability to keep them.

I thought we were against the idea of someone getting them for 6 or 7 years for cheap, though...

I have NO PROBLEM with doing that. I just agree with those who think 6 years is an excessive length of time to be able to hold onto a keeper at a cheap price, even if that's just a rare case. Maybe that's just the edge case we avoid tailoring into the rules.

I don't really think it would have changed how we drafted, except maybe more people blowing their wad on big players and getting a whole bunch of $1 players as keeper fodder. It's not like people didn't do that anyway. It will DEFINITELY change how many players are kept and much money we have for this year's draft.

Jolly Bill wrote:

So if you manage to pick up a star <$10 before they blow up, you basically have them in perpetuity?

Fine with me.

People keep talking about this scenario like it's something that needs to be legislated against at all costs, to the extent of completely wrecking the keeper formula just to prevent it from happening.

I submit the following eloquent argument about someone keeping Peyton Hillis cheaply: BFD.

Everyone will end up with their guys that they keep below market value. There's a handful of guys like that every year and they'll end up spread out across the league. And there's so much turnover in terms of fantasy performance that that <$10 guy that you think is a star now has plenty of chance of ending up a turd again. Ask someone in a keeper league a few years ago who thought they had a cheap star in Steve Slaton.

Fine with me then. Make it so. Much easier to calculate keeper values, sorry for anyone who had to deal with calculating it the other way.

Jolly Bill wrote:

I thought we were against the idea of someone getting them for 6 or 7 years for cheap, though...

It was a very common theme in last year's discussion. So much so that IMO it underminded that discussion and is the main reason we're back here discussing it.

What if, compared to a flat "$3-or-30%" formula (with or without a floor, that's a separate discussion), there was a system where the premium (i.e. "inflation") for studs was higher than role-players, players hampered by injury last year, and good-but-not-yet-great players? For example, Vick might inflate by around 40% (or $4, which is greater) while Reggie Bush would go up 20% (or $2) or so. Just throwing it out there.

Edit: I've got some other thoughts but I'm still at work. Besides, I'm grumpy today and you don't want to have to deal with it.