Pick your draft spot (10 Team). Reverse Snake in 3rd Round on

[BigBBlue 0]

10 Team PPR league. Semi standard settings. Pass TD 6pts, INT -3 pts.

 

League meeting just ended, rules established, I was unable to attend. New draft procedure for this year.

 

Regular Snake for the first 2 rounds.

Rounds 3 and on the order reverses.

 

Team 1 picks 1, 20, 30, 31 etc

Team 10 picks 10,11,21,40 etc

 

Thoughts on where to be? I'm generally in favor of the middle, but this could sway me to get a late 1st round spot.

[Flgatorguy87 160]

Not sure I understand that format. After round 2 "it reverses" isn't that still a snake draft?

 

Edit: just thinking by looking at your example. 1st place has a huge advantage. They are getting 4 picks in the first 30 AND they are getting the #1 pick....so I think that naturally seems like a nice spot. I may be misunderstanding though.

[sirensong 111]

lowest score delivers best results:

 

pick 1: 1+20+30+31 = 82

 

pick 2: 2+19+29+32 = 82

 

...

 

pick 5: 5+15+26+36 = 82

 

...

 

pick 10: 10+11+21+40 = 82

 

so assuming a linear dropoff in quality per pick, this is a way to negate the raw quantitative advantage of drafting from a mid spot. regular snake through 4:

 

pick 1: 1+20+21+40 = 82

 

pick 5: 5+15+25+35 = 80

 

pick 10: 10+11+30+31 = 82

 

now, the issue is that quality dropoff is not necessarily linear, but we don't really have a metric (something like like the harvard chart) to assess the trend and see where the curve starts breaking. i don't know if i expressed that very well. i assume that everyone is familiar with the difference between an arithmetic progression (1,2,3,4...) and an exponential (geometric) progression (1,2,4,8...). when graphed, the first is a straight line, while the second is expressed by a curve.

 

when we start thinking this way, we see the problem: pick 20 is not necessarily twice as valuable as pick 40. we would need to go back empirically and assess the comparative values of the picks. and the harvard chart isn't a good way to go about it, because that's simply an expression of market value--what someone is willing to pay for the pick--as opposed to an assessment of the relative production that we can expect from the pick.

 

i'm kind of wandering here, because the idea is interesting. this would be an neat little research project for anyone with the time/inclination to pursue it, and it could all be done with excel's simple stats functions (rather than a dedicated statistics package like R). basically, you'd be running simple regressions. draft position vice final record for past seasons would be interesting, so long as you could get enough data. if you wanted to get more complex, you could simulate drafts based on empirical ADPs, and either simulate seasons or simply use aggregate point totals.

 

but the really interesting one would be to assess final production against ADP, in order to start answering research questions like "which is more valuable: one 1st round pick or three 3rd round picks?" or "is 1.01 and 2.10 generally equal to 1.10 and 2.01?" or most broadly, "ceteris paribus, which is the most preferable draft position?"

 

we have intuitive answers--it's certainly possible to win from any draft position--but this would introduce quantitative rigor.

[BigBBlue 0]

I'm co mannaging the team. We chatted and thought there were 17 or 8 clear GREAT players, before a dropoff. Drafting in the latter half, assured us of getting 2 of them. We decided on the 5 spot, and it was open when we got to choose.

 

 

In another twist, revealed to us after picking draft spots...

1 point per win for the HTH matchup

1 point per Top 5 (half) weekly scoring.

 

I like it, but gave the commish a sh!tton of grief over the late reveal to the non-meeting attendees.

 

 

Also, the pick 5 numbers in the 2nd run were off 5, 16, 25, 36 = 82

[sirensong 111]

Also, the pick 5 numbers in the 2nd run were off 5, 16, 25, 36 = 82

 

 

good call--i derped.