Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jedi Sensei

Non-snaking draft order

Recommended Posts

The 10-teamers have complained for a couple of years now that 1st pick is "brutal" because of the 19-player run between it's 1st and 2nd selections.

 

I'm sure that first team will feel real handicapped with having to lug around LT all season. If the people you play with are that dumb, why don't you "volunteer" to draft first..... I can't believe I just typed that.

 

I'm done - good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just completed my analysis of snake drafting using 2006 actual stats. I calculated values using the traditional method (baseline of last starter at each position, using standard lineup of 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 DEF), then made perfect picks for each team through 8 rds (i.e. each took best value available for each pick). It seemed fitting, as almost all starter-worthy selections were gone after 8, meaning this should be a good approximation of how starting roster production would fall. Starting roster requirements could dictate slightly different results across the board, but in general similar values are available at numerous positions throughout the draft, meaning this data is subject to little variation. The results are quite damning.

 

Team 01 470.9

Team 02 387.5

Team 03 383.7

Team 04 332.7

Team 05 325.9

Team 06 324.7

Team 07 326.7

Team 08 314.9

Team 09 312.5

Team 10 302.7

Team 11 304.3

Team 12 303.7

 

This means that over the course of these 8 rounds, team 1 last year had the possibility to gain a 167.2 point advantage over team 12, and a 168.2 advantage over team 10 who happened to fare the worst. Those correspond to about 10 pts a game. Team 1's nearest competition, team 2, still saw an 83.4 pt disadvantage when compared to team 1, which works out to about 5 points per game. Clearly these are unacceptable results for a drafting system that so many have assumed was fair.

 

I note also the general trend of decreasing total value as we move from team 1 to team 12. This likely confirms what I speculated before: that players at the current level become more and more common as the draft goes on. In practice, this means that the backwards even-numbered rounds can never make up for the odd rounds that have just happened before them: the sharper fall-off in odd rounds means the later drafters will always come out worse. If you view the entire draft as pairs of forward and backward rounds like that, it's easy to see why there's a problem.

 

I fully believe that backfill will present much more reasonable (read: fair) results using last year's data, and will post the results of a perfect '06 VBD draft as soon as I'm able to so we can all compare the two methods. As it stands now, though, snake drafting looks very biased, and there simply has to be something that comes out more fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathmatically The snake draft works and makes sense. IN our league we even go one step further. We have a 12 team league, so we set up 3 divisions. Teams 1-4 are in one 5 to 8 in another and 9 to 12 in the other. So if there is a strange pool of talent in a given year, playing teams close to your draft order twice in a season sorta deals with that problem.

 

 

Snake draft works, not sure why people mess with it, I would think it is basically a lack of understanding of statistics and mathmatics.

 

snake drafting looks very biased
only looks biased because you throw in some made up variables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathmatically The snake draft works and makes sense. IN our league we even go one step further. We have a 12 team league, so we set up 3 divisions. Teams 1-4 are in one 5 to 8 in another and 9 to 12 in the other. So if there is a strange pool of talent in a given year, playing teams close to your draft order twice in a season sorta deals with that problem.

Snake draft works, not sure why people mess with it, I would think it is basically a lack of understanding of statistics and mathmatics.

 

only looks biased because you throw in some made up variables.

 

No, actually I just proved that it does NOT work mathematically, and gives the early drafting teams (especially team 1) a huge mathematical advantage. It may make sense in your head, but you are wrong and it is not fair, as the simple math bears out. If you intend to say it works mathematically, I will expect to see MATH proving that from you instead of a bunch of BS words coming out of your mouth as your only justification. If it is mathematically fair, prove it to me. Failing that, my work stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathmatically The snake draft works and makes sense. IN our league we even go one step further. We have a 12 team league, so we set up 3 divisions. Teams 1-4 are in one 5 to 8 in another and 9 to 12 in the other. So if there is a strange pool of talent in a given year, playing teams close to your draft order twice in a season sorta deals with that problem.

Snake draft works, not sure why people mess with it, I would think it is basically a lack of understanding of statistics and mathmatics.

 

only looks biased because you throw in some made up variables.

well, i guess a snake draft is "fair" in that everyone has the same chance at getting an advantageous drafting slot. but the slots definitely have different values. the only way they wouldn't is if there was a consistent difference in value between each pick, but obviously there's more discrepancy/value between picks early on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do they use for the WCOFF???

 

You'd think if people were going to spend that kinda $$$ that they would want a fair draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank God. I can't believe i had to scoll through the entire discussion before someone brought this up. :thumbsdown:

 

agree as well

 

FWIW, I like the backfill idea -- at least as a conversation piece. (or maybe I'm bitter about being 12th that one year...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've just completed my analysis of snake drafting using 2006 actual stats. I calculated values using the traditional method (baseline of last starter at each position, using standard lineup of 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 DEF), then made perfect picks for each team through 8 rds (i.e. each took best value available for each pick). It seemed fitting, as almost all starter-worthy selections were gone after 8, meaning this should be a good approximation of how starting roster production would fall.

 

My issues with your analysis are bolded above. You completely ignore reality. The reality is there never are and never will be "perfect picks" for an entire draft. You have to somehow account for the fact that Alexander went 1st or 2nd in most drafts and ended up the 24th or 25th RB. You also have to take into account the opposite with guys like Jones-Drew.

 

What would the numbers look like if you did the same analysis only this time you used the actual picks made in 2006 instead of the "perfect pick" based on actual 2006 results. Use the actual points the actual draft picks scored then show me it is not fair. I think you will find that a serpentine draft is as fair as any other draft other than an auction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My issues with your analysis are bolded above. You completely ignore reality. The reality is there never are and never will be "perfect picks" for an entire draft. You have to somehow account for the fact that Alexander went 1st or 2nd in most drafts and ended up the 24th or 25th RB. You also have to take into account the opposite with guys like Jones-Drew.

 

What would the numbers look like if you did the same analysis only this time you used the actual picks made in 2006 instead of the "perfect pick" based on actual 2006 results. Use the actual points the actual draft picks scored then show me it is not fair. I think you will find that a serpentine draft is as fair as any other draft other than an auction.

Exactly. It amazes the lack of understanding on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. It amazes the lack of understanding on this subject.

 

Would it be fair to say that you find a straight 1-12 (every round) draft unfair? Why? By your logic, nothing is predictable, so it doesn't matter which picks you get as long as everyone gets to pick the same number of players. You could go back and plug in the average pick order from 2006 along with the actual results of 2006 and make it look like picking 12th in every round is superior, but all you proved was that the 12th spot was a lucky place to be that year.

 

You have to admit that the early picks are better than the later ones, and by a larger increment from the previous pick, correct?

 

I still haven't seen one single analytical argument from you explaining why you think the backfill method is inferior to the snake method. All I hear is that it's always been done that way, so it must be the best. Let me see some quantitative explanation to back up your claim. Do some thinking for yourself. You can do it. Don't be a sheep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of you arguing for the backfill method and using last years VBD to analyze which draft pick in a snake draft are fair or unfair are missing out on a key point I haven't seen mentioned on this thread yet. This year, it's clear that the #1 overall pick, Tomlinson, is heads and above of greater value than anybody else. Therefore, THIS YEAR the #1 draft slot might indeed have an advantage in that one draft pick. But, from year to year, the relative values of players change and most of the time, I would argue that there isn't one player so higher valued than the rest. Last year for example, few could agree on who should be the top pick, most arguing for Alexander or LJ and a few arguing for LT2. In years where the expected talent and value is less punctuated than this year, the relative advantages of picking 1st vs. 5th vs. 12th will be variable. On average, I don't think any method is more fair than the serpentine draft. I can't remember any team with the 1st pick ever winning any of my leagues, in football or baseball. If I was in a league where I got the 1st pick in the 1st round and then the LAST pick in every other round, I would look like this :blink: and this :shocking: and eventually this :( and this :doh: and this :wall:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do they use for the WCOFF???

 

You'd think if people were going to spend that kinda $$$ that they would want a fair draft.

 

I looked up the WCOFF rules ($10,000 buy-in) to see how high-priced leagues decide draft order. They must also agree that randomly picking a draft order and following the basic snake format is unfair, because they chose to auction off (real dollars) draft spots for the first two rounds. After that it becomes a regular snake format. That shows that they consider the player value change in the first two rounds much more important than the later rounds. I tend to agree with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to admit that the early picks are better than the later ones, and by a larger increment from the previous pick, correct?

 

In a perfect world yes in the real world no.

 

I still haven't seen one single analytical argument from you explaining why you think the backfill method is inferior to the snake method. All I hear is that it's always been done that way, so it must be the best. Let me see some quantitative explanation to back up your claim. Do some thinking for yourself. You can do it. Don't be a sheep.

 

You have not provided a sound analytical argument that the back fill draft method is any more or less fair than a serpetine draft. Take the actual draft picks for the last 5 years from a serpentine and a backfill draft (and the straight 1 - 12 draft you brought up) apply the points each draft pick scored and show me those results. You may be correct about the fairness of the serpentine draft but the numbers provided thus far do not prove anything other than in an unrealistic laboratory world the back fill is more fair.

 

And don't give me "a poor drafter will screw up the results" bullsh@t. Drafting Alexander with one of the first 3 picks is not poor drafting it is part of the unpredictability of FF that must be taken into account to compare both stratagies.

 

Trying to compare both stratagies using "perfect picks" is usless because in reality you will never have a perfect fantasy draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try looking at it a different way. Everyone here agrees that an auction is the only true way to have a completely fair draft. Let's start by using FFToday's average auction values for players. Now, I know these won't be everyone's exact auction values for each player, but it's not going to be too far off.

 

These auction values are about the best estimation of player's worth that we can come up with, and the unfairness of the snake format can be seen looking at the 1st and 12th draft spots of the first two rounds. The 1st pick gets $118 worth of value ($86+$32), while the 12th pick only gets $84 worth of value ($43+$41).

 

Here's the results of the snake versus the backfill method in terms of how much auction dollars each draft spot would have got in each format throughout an entire draft. $200 cap. 16 man roster.

 

Snake Format

 

1. $219

2. $205

3. $202

4. $193

5. $190

6. $189

7. $184

8. $180

9. $181

10. $178

11. $178

12. $177

 

Backfill Format

 

1. $201

2. $189

3. $189

4. $183

5. $183

6. $187

7. $186

8. $187

9. $191

10. $192

11. $194

12. $196

 

From these results, you can see there is a $42 advantage ($219-$177) for the #1 pick in the snake format, but with the backfill there is only a $18 ($201-$183) advantage. Each team's total value is much more consistent in the backfill method.

 

Again, I'm not saying that the backfill method is totally fair, because it's not. It's just more fair than the snake method. I'm also not saying that the snake method is completely unfair, just that there ARE better options, which is what the original poster asked about.

 

I still ask you to prove that my backfill method is inherently less fair than the snake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still ask you to prove that my backfill method is inherently less fair than the snake.

Your analysis above has the same problem as the other analysis. You assume that the points generated by each player at given draft position will conincide with his auction value. In an actual draft they won't.

 

The only way I see to determine if one system is more or less fair than another is to take all the actual players drafted out of each draft position and add up the total points they ended up with at the end of the season. Analyze this over a 5 year period and make a determination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your analysis above has the same problem as the other analysis. You assume that the points generated by each player at given draft position will conincide with his auction value. In an actual draft they won't.

 

The only way I see to determine if one system is more or less fair than another is to take all the actual players drafted out of each draft position and add up the total points they ended up with at the end of the season. Analyze this over a 5 year period and make a determination.

 

See, this is not the best way to analyze a system. What you are doing here is looking into the future to justify values before anyone knows what those values are. At the time of the draft, you don't have that information. All you have is the probabilities (estimations) of player's values.

 

A good example is in poker. When you go all-in with the better hand, it doesn't matter that the other guy catches a 2-outer to win the hand. You still made the correct play because you had the advantage when you made your play. The probability (or estimation) of you winning that hand was in your favor. Just because some donkey catches the card he needs to win on the river doesn't mean that you made a wrong play. Given that same situation, thousands of time (the long-run), you would come out way ahead if you made that same play every time.

 

The same is true for picking fantasy football players. All you can go on is your best estimation of that player's value. Some players definitely have more value than others going into the draft. Even if the worse of the two players ends up with more points at the end of the year, that doesn't mean he had more value at the time of the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your analysis above has the same problem as the other analysis. You assume that the points generated by each player at given draft position will conincide with his auction value. In an actual draft they won't.

 

The only way I see to determine if one system is more or less fair than another is to take all the actual players drafted out of each draft position and add up the total points they ended up with at the end of the season. Analyze this over a 5 year period and make a determination.

 

nah. looking at things like auction values compared to the slots makes more sense. auction values by definition indicate current fair market value. in an actual auction everyone has equivalent value to work with, not the case in any other type of draft. but the backfill method distributes fair market value more evenly than a std snake. we can't work with actual season stats because it involves too many unknowns. we can, however, "know" the value folks have attached to various players by auction prices.

 

and 5 years of adp tracking is a tiny sample size and is going to be heavily influenced by where adp happened to land for a few significant sleepers (LJ a few years ago, Gore last year.) ie. if LJ landed at 9.1 on avg (first guy's selection in a snake) the first selection in the draft would undeservingly get a huge boost while if he was taken at 9.6 (6th guy's selection) that slot would get a huge boost. i doubt anyone thinks there's a huge value difference between the 9.1 and 9.6 slots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From these results, you can see there is a $42 advantage ($219-$177) for the #1 pick in the snake format, but with the backfill there is only a $18 ($201-$183) advantage. Each team's total value is much more consistent in the backfill method.

 

You're still making the same mistake I pointed out earlier in that you're only looking at this based on one year, where LT2 happens to be a runaway clear #1 in everybody's mind. Most years, that just doesn't happen. So analyzing the different draft strategies based on one year that happens to have such a clear #1 is biased because it skews the results towards the conclusion that having that #1 draft pick gives an unfair advantage to whoever has pick 1 in the serpentine draft. Try analyzing this based on a larger data set (such as the last 5 years) and I think you'll see what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See, this is not the best way to analyze a system. What you are doing here is looking into the future to justify values before anyone knows what those values are. At the time of the draft, you don't have that information. All you have is the probabilities (estimations) of player's values.

 

A good example is in poker. When you go all-in with the better hand, it doesn't matter that the other guy catches a 2-outer to win the hand. You still made the correct play because you had the advantage when you made your play. The probability (or estimation) of you winning that hand was in your favor. Just because some donkey catches the card he needs to win on the river doesn't mean that you made a wrong play. Given that same situation, thousands of time (the long-run), you would come out way ahead if you made that same play every time.

 

The same is true for picking fantasy football players. All you can go on is your best estimation of that player's value. Some players definitely have more value than others going into the draft. Even if the worse of the two players ends up with more points at the end of the year, that doesn't mean he had more value at the time of the draft.

 

This is exactly right. The fact that the MJD's an Frank Gore's of the world may even out the draft is not a sound basis to justify an inherently unequal drafting method. I rather have the opportunity to select the LT's, SA's and LJ's of the world even knowing that some years they will not necessarily perform as expected. The point is that with the information available at the time of the draft it is much easier to compile an objectively competent roster from a top slot than it is from a lower slot. The fact that this may not play out every year is due largely to what most of us call skill when it works in our favor but call luck when it goes against us; namely, chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See, this is not the best way to analyze a system. What you are doing here is looking into the future to justify values before anyone knows what those values are. At the time of the draft, you don't have that information. All you have is the probabilities (estimations) of player's values.

 

A good example is in poker. When you go all-in with the better hand, it doesn't matter that the other guy catches a 2-outer to win the hand. You still made the correct play because you had the advantage when you made your play. The probability (or estimation) of you winning that hand was in your favor. Just because some donkey catches the card he needs to win on the river doesn't mean that you made a wrong play. Given that same situation, thousands of time (the long-run), you would come out way ahead if you made that same play every time.

 

The same is true for picking fantasy football players. All you can go on is your best estimation of that player's value. Some players definitely have more value than others going into the draft. Even if the worse of the two players ends up with more points at the end of the year, that doesn't mean he had more value at the time of the draft.

 

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

 

 

I can't agree with the poker analogy because in poker you are dealing with a finite number of possible results. Because FF points actually scored at a particular draft position are not finite is the entire reason we are having this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like the Snake Draft in any redraft league, but once our league converted to a keeper league, we went to a straight draft order in the reverse order of how you finished the season the previous year. We all love it. It has made for a much more competitive league, year in year out. Twice in the past 5 years we have had a team go from the bottom 3 spot to league champ, but we have also had repeat winners, also. There is also a smaller distance between first and last place teams now.

 

I don't feel that a straight draft works in a total redraft league, but in a keeper it's the only fair way to go in my book.

 

We have had a couple new league members, that were very opposed to the straight draft when joining the league, but after a couple years in it, they like it and both voted to keep it the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is exactly right. The fact that the MJD's an Frank Gore's of the world may even out the draft is not a sound basis to justify an inherently unequal drafting method. I rather have the opportunity to select the LT's, SA's and LJ's of the world even knowing that some years they will not necessarily perform as expected. The point is that with the information available at the time of the draft it is much easier to compile an objectively competent roster from a top slot than it is from a lower slot. The fact that this may not play out every year is due largely to what most of us call skill when it works in our favor but call luck when it goes against us; namely, chance.

 

So in almost every single serpentine the person with the first selection scores the most points? Don't give me projections and preceived value. Show me an actual bias from real results and I will believe that a back fill draft is less bias than a serpentine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're still making the same mistake I pointed out earlier in that you're only looking at this based on one year, where LT2 happens to be a runaway clear #1 in everybody's mind. Most years, that just doesn't happen. So analyzing the different draft strategies based on one year that happens to have such a clear #1 is biased because it skews the results towards the conclusion that having that #1 draft pick gives an unfair advantage to whoever has pick 1 in the serpentine draft. Try analyzing this based on a larger data set (such as the last 5 years) and I think you'll see what I mean.

 

i think the actual nfl pick values chart (a baseline for trading picks) is really the best analogy here (chart is earlier in thread). you're right, the actual values of each slot vary from year-to-year (just like they do in the real nfl draft). but it's fairly consistent that the #1 and #28 have more value than the #14 and #15, altho exactly how much so varies from year-to-year of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't get it. Why can't you just plug in the last X years of actual results (sorted by VBD) and end up with empirical data comparing various fraft orders?

That is a fair assessment. However, Mangtang was plugging his 2007 projections to validate a backfilled draft, not years of past actual results. HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll keep this simple for you Bert - how many guys made the playoffs last year basically because they had Tomlinson? You would be hard pressed to find many teams at all that had him and failed to see the playoffs. Now, how often did Tomlinson fall past, say, pick 6 in last year's draft? Basically the answer is never. So that, already, is a mountain of evidence against snake drafting: getting Tomlinson put you in the playoffs in nearly every snake-drafting league there was, and no one after pick 6 ever had him. At the very least that means beyond a shadow of a doubt that the first 6 teams were heavily favored over the last 6 because they would get a shot to have Tomlinson and automatically make the playoffs. That is likely the most simple and straightforward demonstration of the unfairness of snake drafting that I can give.

 

Also, as I've been saying, you cannot evaluate a drafting system by how it actually turns out, because every draft is subject to imperfect picks by its participants. You could show me a draft that made pick 12 the best, but I can as easily show you one that made team 1 an unstoppable machine. Likewise you cannot use ADP to judge, because each year different random players over- or under-perform. That, again, adds randomness to your results, which you cannot allow in statistical analysis. You can only correctly judge a system based on the potential outcome it affords each drafting position, and the only way to evaluate that is to run a draft giving each team a perfect pick each time it picks. That shows you the potential each team is granted by the system, which means it is the best team you can draft from a given position if all other teams draft ideally. In this case, an absolutely fair system will generate 12 exactly identical teams in terms of total value, and that would be how you'd know each team had a fair shake in the real draft: even if each other team picked perfectly, any given team could still keep up. In a system where each team must pick in each round it is likely impossible to achieve this, but it IS possible to get a great deal closer to it by juggling around draft order, for instance in the backfill method.

 

Another easy point I can make is that, while the actual scores of the players vary from year to year, the general trend of value does not. Every year there are a very few players who perform miles above the rest, and the first round of a draft always sees a much steeper decline in value than does the rest of the draft as a result. The difference in the first round is generally going to be at least 100 points of value, where rd 2 typically accounts for less than 30. In the 2006 set, for example, 1 is separated from 12 by 178.4 value points. The next round, however, only sees 13 (at 76.3 val) with a 12 value advantage over pick 24 (at 64.3 val). It then takes until the end of the 9th round until we finally see some 0 value guys (i.e. worst starter at position) get drafted. So the top 12 players in '06 saw a greater drop in value than did the next 8 rounds of drafting combined, and in fact the drop from 1 to 12 is more than DOUBLE the entire drop from 13 to 108. That, in turn, means backfill is the closest we can get to an ideal draft from the perspective of closing the difference between 1 and 12. The advantage T1 gains over T12 in rd 1 is much larger than the entire fall-off in the next 8 rounds, which means the best we can do in those rounds is to flip the order (12 to 1) to give team 12 the most of that 76.3 value drop-off as possible. As I said before in non-2006 years the exact scores and fall-off will vary somewhat, but the trend still will remain that the best player is a better advantage over the 12th than the entire next 8 rds fall off combined, and that validates the backfill method. Beyond rd 9 team 12 would continue to gain ground, though likely in depth at that point, which is a bit less applicable than starter value, though somewhat important as well. By the time the remaining rds pan out in backfill, team 12 might have gained back enough extra ground in backups to come close to equaling the value of team 1, but I still think T1 would be at an advantage still. In any case it is the closest that we can get to affording a team a shot at near-equivalent value from any given position since rd 1 is always so heavily biased toward the early-picking teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!!!!!!!Everyone please stop making Fozzy4 mad as I need him to concentrate on posting his backfill analysis!!!!!!!!

 

 

LOL...now get to it Fozzy4...I am too lazy to do it myself!

 

 

 

:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the very least

That is likely

generally

typically

will vary somewhat

likely

somewhat

might have

I still think

What part of assumption do you not understand? :unsure:

 

And you can't use one draft (2006) and one player (LT) as an example for a mountain of evidence. Actually, most experiments throw out the two extremes on each side of the sample data not to mention using a huge sample (not just one years draft).

 

In statistics, "empirical" quantities are those computed from observed values, as opposed to those derived from theoretical considerations. HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What part of assumption to you no understand? :rolleyes:

 

And you can't use one draft (2006) and one player (LT) as an example for a mountain of evidence. Actually, most experiments throw out the two extremes on each side of the sample data not to mention using a huge sample (not just one years draft).

 

In statistics, "empirical" quantities are those computed from observed values, as opposed to those derived from theoretical considerations. HTH

 

observed values don't have significance without a lot of trials. and using last years adp doesn't qualify as multiple trials; it's still a single trial (just one with mean values used). so we could have people post largely anecdotal "the first guy always/never wins" in my league OR we could evaluate value based on another very real std, like what people are actually willing to pay for players in various auction formats. which type of drafting leads to a closer distribution of (assumed) value now? the back-fill. it may apply less or more in other years, but the backfill will consistently be closer to "fair", just like the nfl draft pick trade chart will be closer than assuming #1+#32 = #16+#17.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll keep this simple for you Bert - how many guys made the playoffs last year basically because they had Tomlinson? You would be hard pressed to find many teams at all that had him and failed to see the playoffs. Now, how often did Tomlinson fall past, say, pick 6 in last year's draft? Basically the answer is never. So that, already, is a mountain of evidence against snake drafting: getting Tomlinson put you in the playoffs in nearly every snake-drafting league there was, and no one after pick 6 ever had him. At the very least that means beyond a shadow of a doubt that the first 6 teams were heavily favored over the last 6 because they would get a shot to have Tomlinson and automatically make the playoffs. That is likely the most simple and straightforward demonstration of the unfairness of snake drafting that I can give.

 

Since Tomlinson wasn't the hands down number 1 pick last year how many teams made the playoffs that picked Alexander #1?

If the top FF scorer was always the first pick I might agree with you.

 

you cannot evaluate a drafting system by how it actually turns out, because every draft is subject to imperfect picks by its participants.

 

But you are perfectly willing to accept your imperfect projections to determine value and use that to show that a serpentine is bias? WOW no sense in arguing with that logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What part of assumption to you no understand? :music_guitarred:

 

And you can't use one draft (2006) and one player (LT) as an example for a mountain of evidence. Actually, most experiments throw out the two extremes on each side of the sample data not to mention using a huge sample (not just one years draft).

 

In statistics, "empirical" quantities are those computed from observed values, as opposed to those derived from theoretical considerations. HTH

 

Fine, I don't need to use Tomlinson. The THIRD placed value in 06 is SJackson at 168.4, still 89.5 pts ahead of the 12th best value pick. That is still larger than the entire fall-off (76.3) from 13 to 108, the next 8 rounds. You could begin round 2-9 with team 12 and end them with team 3 for 8 rounds after rd 1, and still team 3 picking Jackson would have an advantage over team 12 if he made good picks like we assume team 12 is making.

 

As for empirical quantities, I am using absolute real numbers from 2006. That's as empirical as it gets. If you don't understand the further continuation of my process by comparing how each team turns out making best choices, then perhaps you should study statistics harder. Statistics NEVER allows human error to enter in. You can use ADPs or whatever you want if you are polling a sample to see how most 06 drafts went, but you absolutely cannot if you're trying to prove the fairness of a draft method. Entirely different things, requiring entirely different methods. By your method I can "prove" that tic-tac-toe favors O as long as my sample set dictates that. In reality the only way to prove the nature of tic-tac-toe is to make best choices for each team, at which point you realize the game starts out fair: each player can make best picks and always generate a tie. Same theory applies here: snake draft is only balanced if best picks from each drafter generates a tie. Failure to generate a tie (i.e. same total value on each team) indicates bias in favor of higher value teams, just like non-ties in tic-tac-toe under best play would have indicated one side had an advantage. I have definitively demonstrated that the total team values are wildly different, which means the system is inherently biased when applied to the actual performance distribution of NFL players.

 

So at last we arrive at the question... What part of "entirely unfair" don't you understand???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since Tomlinson wasn't the hands down number 1 pick last year how many teams made the playoffs that picked Alexander #1?

If the top FF scorer was always the first pick I might agree with you.

 

I allowed for LT2 to go anywhere in the top 6, in case you missed it. One of those first 6 teams had a huge advantage because it had him, and the last 6 never had him so were at horrible disadvantage. You can't talk your way around it.

 

But you are perfectly willing to accept your imperfect projections to determine value and use that to show that a serpentine is bias? WOW no sense in arguing with that logic.

 

Uh, again you've missed something. I've been using 06 numbers, not projections. Work on your reading comprehension skills, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anybody know how I can arrange a non-snaking draft? W/O resorting to auction drafts or re-drawing draft order each round?

A number of years ago a 'math-nerd' buddy of mine came up with a weighted draft for our 14-team league, and everyone was happy, felt they had equal shot at talent. I'm looking for a 10 team equivalent to pitch to my league of bitchers.

 

This is the method my league has been using for years which has been vary successful, and may be useful info for you:

 

1st round drawing is based on previous year's finish, and the 2nd round is the reciprocal of that, yadayadayada. Those are the only rounds that are weightedm, though - every other odd is redrawn with even weight given to every owner, with the even rounds reciprocating. That way the spot in which you pick is totally random.

 

This is my draft order in this league. BTW, it is a 16-team redraft league which we have been doing since 1992.

 

RD1 - 12th

RD3 - 7th

RD5 - 4th

RD7 - 1st

RD9 - 6th

RD11 - 8th

RD13 (optional)

 

as you can see, this year i got pretty damn lucky with the redraws, but that is certainly not the norm!!

 

Hope this helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I allowed for LT2 to go anywhere in the top 6, in case you missed it. One of those first 6 teams had a huge advantage because it had him, and the last 6 never had him so were at horrible disadvantage. You can't talk your way around it.

Uh, again you've missed something. I've been using 06 numbers, not projections. Work on your reading comprehension skills, please.

 

How about this Fozzy. You post your actual leagues back fill draft results after your draft and I will use an Antsports or FFtoday serpentine mock average. At the end of the season we will add up total points scored for each team using only the players drafted and see what the results are. We can do this for several years and see if any patterns show up.

 

You predict the first 4 teams will signficantly outscore the bottom 4 teams in a serpentine correct?

 

You also predict in back fill draft all of the teams will be pretty close correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about this Fozzy. You post your actual leagues back fill draft results after your draft and I will use an Antsports or FFtoday serpentine mock average. At the end of the season we will add up total points scored for each team using only the players drafted and see what the results are. We can do this for several years and see if any patterns show up.

 

You predict the first 4 teams will signficantly outscore the bottom 4 teams in a serpentine correct?

 

You also predict in back fill draft all of the teams will be pretty close correct?

 

and we wonder how our schools are falling behind in math. :music_guitarred:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how we roll our modified snake draft ....

 

Rd 1 and Rd 2 are the same snake draft ... Rd 3 and on it shifts ...

 

 

RD 1: 01 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05 / 06 / 07 / 08 / 09 / 10

RD 2: 20 / 19 / 18 / 17 / 16 / 15 / 14 / 13 / 12 / 11

RD 3: 30 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29

RD 4: 31 / 40 / 39 / 38 / 37 / 36 / 35 / 34 / 33 / 32

RD 5: 49 / 50 / 41 / 42 / 43 / 44 / 45 / 46 / 47 / 48

RD 6: 52 / 51 / 60 / 59 / 58 / 57 / 56 / 55 / 54 / 53

RD 7: 68 / 69 / 70 / 61 / 62 / 63 / 64 / 65 / 66 / 67

RD 8: 73 / 72 / 71 / 80 / 79 / 78 / 77 / 76 / 75 / 74

RD 9: 87 / 88 / 89 / 90 / 81 / 82 / 83 / 84 / 85 / 86

etc

 

So basically it shifts over one column every round to give each team a back to back.

Each round will benefit a different team (Round 3 screws Team 1, but they do get first pick and it evens out in the end).

Plus, when we draw team numbers whoever draws #1 gets to pick where they want to draft, #2 then picks and so on.

 

Worked for past 5 years so we keep using it .....

 

:music_guitarred:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's try looking at it a different way. Everyone here agrees that an auction is the only true way to have a completely fair draft. Let's start by using FFToday's average auction values for players. Now, I know these won't be everyone's exact auction values for each player, but it's not going to be too far off.

 

These auction values are about the best estimation of player's worth that we can come up with, and the unfairness of the snake format can be seen looking at the 1st and 12th draft spots of the first two rounds. The 1st pick gets $118 worth of value ($86+$32), while the 12th pick only gets $84 worth of value ($43+$41).

 

Here's the results of the snake versus the backfill method in terms of how much auction dollars each draft spot would have got in each format throughout an entire draft. $200 cap. 16 man roster.

 

Snake Format

 

1. $219

2. $205

3. $202

4. $193

5. $190

6. $189

7. $184

8. $180

9. $181

10. $178

11. $178

12. $177

 

Backfill Format

 

1. $201

2. $189

3. $189

4. $183

5. $183

6. $187

7. $186

8. $187

9. $191

10. $192

11. $194

12. $196

 

From these results, you can see there is a $42 advantage ($219-$177) for the #1 pick in the snake format, but with the backfill there is only a $18 ($201-$183) advantage. Each team's total value is much more consistent in the backfill method.

 

Again, I'm not saying that the backfill method is totally fair, because it's not. It's just more fair than the snake method. I'm also not saying that the snake method is completely unfair, just that there ARE better options, which is what the original poster asked about.

 

I still ask you to prove that my backfill method is inherently less fair than the snake.

 

Alright, I think I've finally come up with the correct wording that will explain my stance on this subject better. I fully understand your point about any predictions used will inevitably be wrong come the end of the season. But again, this does not negate the validity of my argument. Here's the ultimate way to think about it:

 

Would you agree that it would be advantageous to a team to go into an auction with a $219 cap and have another team only allowed $177? Of course the $177 team could very well end up with the best team at the end of the year if he either was super good at picking talent or got lucky picking sleeper. But, you have to admit, that the $219 team had the advantage going into the auction.

 

It doesn't matter what each of those two teams had players valued at or how the results turn out. The $219 has a better chance of fielding a top team than the $177 team. This is exactly what my numbers listed above show.

 

Now, the backfill format still is advantageous to the 1st pick in the draft, but not as much ($201 versus $183).

 

Another point brought up earlier is very valid. LT is an unusually advantageous pick this year, so that would make my numbers a bit exaggerated over the "normal" years, but I'm sure even the "normal" years still support my results. I'll have to go back and find the average auction values leading into the 2006 and 2005 seasons to do a good comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright, I think I've finally come up with the correct wording that will explain my stance on this subject better. I fully understand your point about any predictions used will inevitably be wrong come the end of the season. But again, this does not negate the validity of my argument. Here's the ultimate way to think about it:

 

Would you agree that it would be advantageous to a team to go into an auction with a $219 cap and have another team only allowed $177? Of course the $177 team could very well end up with the best team at the end of the year if he either was super good at picking talent or got lucky picking sleeper. But, you have to admit, that the $219 team had the advantage going into the auction.

 

It doesn't matter what each of those two teams had players valued at or how the results turn out. The $219 has a better chance of fielding a top team than the $177 team. This is exactly what my numbers listed above show.

 

Now, the backfill format still is advantageous to the 1st pick in the draft, but not as much ($201 versus $183).

 

Another point brought up earlier is very valid. LT is an unusually advantageous pick this year, so that would make my numbers a bit exaggerated over the "normal" years, but I'm sure even the "normal" years still support my results. I'll have to go back and find the average auction values leading into the 2006 and 2005 seasons to do a good comparison.

 

I assume you use a back fill draft in your league. What do you think about doing what I proposed to Fozzy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!!!!!!!Everyone please stop making Fozzy4 mad as I need him to concentrate on posting his backfill analysis!!!!!!!!

LOL...now get to it Fozzy4...I am too lazy to do it myself!

:cry:

 

You're in luck, results are in. As last time, 8 rounds, each team takes best picks.

 

Team 01 442.7

Team 02 361.8

Team 03 361.8

Team 04 314.5

Team 05 315.3

Team 06 322.6

Team 07 328.8

Team 08 325.5

Team 09 330.7

Team 10 324.6

Team 11 330

Team 12 331.9

 

We note immediately that the difference between team 01 and team 12 has closed considerably, down to 110.8. Now the largest gap comes between team 01 and team 04, a 128.2 gap in value. That is still drastically better than the 167.2 gap the snake method gives - 39 pts better, to be exact, meaning the most disadvantaged team is less so by 39 pts using the backfill method. We also know the average distance from team 1's value to another team's value is less now, since team 1 lost some total value, which has been distributed to the other teams. Both features make this strictly superior to snake drafting.

 

However, in the end we realize that the top few picks are worth so much that it is not possible to fully counter all that value using any method where each team must pick in every round, there is simply not enough value left after rd 1 to counter rd 1. One possible solution would be to add more starters at various positions, thus yielding more meaningful rounds during which teams could accrue more starter-value advantage. More 12 to 1 rounds in backfill would build up the worse-off teams more, though the difference probably wouldn't be that great. The only really viable solution would actually involve denying the higher placed teams strategically placed draft picks in order to put a check on the overall value they could draft. One could then introduce lower rd draft picks (a second in a given round) to make the teams have the correct overall value and roster size. That, however, would require far more studying and number-crunching than I have thus-far done, and seems a bit out of bounds to boot.

 

Overall, though, I've demonstrated that backfill would easily have provided a more fair draft than snake did in '06, and that situation should improve if the top FFPt scorer's advantage is lessened. Both methods would improve in that case, but since backfill starts out closer to ideal, it will likewise remain closer should the number 1 value be closer to the pack this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're in luck, results are in. As last time, 8 rounds, each team takes best picks.

 

Team 01 442.7

Team 02 361.8

Team 03 361.8

Team 04 314.5

Team 05 315.3

Team 06 322.6

Team 07 328.8

Team 08 325.5

Team 09 330.7

Team 10 324.6

Team 11 330

Team 12 331.9

 

We note immediately that the difference between team 01 and team 12 has closed considerably, down to 110.8. Now the largest gap comes between team 01 and team 04, a 128.2 gap in value. That is still drastically better than the 167.2 gap the snake method gives - 39 pts better, to be exact, meaning the most disadvantaged team is less so by 39 pts using the backfill method. We also know the average distance from team 1's value to another team's value is less now, since team 1 lost some total value, which has been distributed to the other teams. Both features make this strictly superior to snake drafting.

 

However, in the end we realize that the top few picks are worth so much that it is not possible to fully counter all that value using any method where each team must pick in every round, there is simply not enough value left after rd 1 to counter rd 1. One possible solution would be to add more starters at various positions, thus yielding more meaningful rounds during which teams could accrue more starter-value advantage. More 12 to 1 rounds in backfill would build up the worse-off teams more, though the difference probably wouldn't be that great. The only really viable solution would actually involve denying the higher placed teams strategically placed draft picks in order to put a check on the overall value they could draft. One could then introduce lower rd draft picks (a second in a given round) to make the teams have the correct overall value and roster size. That, however, would require far more studying and number-crunching than I have thus-far done, and seems a bit out of bounds to boot.

 

Overall, though, I've demonstrated that backfill would easily have provided a more fair draft than snake did in '06, and that situation should improve if the top FFPt scorer's advantage is lessened. Both methods would improve in that case, but since backfill starts out closer to ideal, it will likewise remain closer should the number 1 value be closer to the pack this season.

 

Are you going to publish the draft result so we can compare to a serpentine draft at the end of the season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My issues with your analysis are bolded above. You completely ignore reality. The reality is there never are and never will be "perfect picks" for an entire draft. You have to somehow account for the fact that Alexander went 1st or 2nd in most drafts and ended up the 24th or 25th RB. You also have to take into account the opposite with guys like Jones-Drew.

 

Yes I read all of your posts, but this sums up the general theme of your following posts.

 

Here's my issue with your line of arguing: You're trying to compare a scientific aspect of drafting (draft order) with a theoretical aspect of drafting (actual results / user picks).

 

People that do a better job predicting results, or more to the point just get flat-out lucky, can win no matter where they draft from. This is has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fairness or unfairness of a particular draft-slot or the draft method as a whole.

 

You have to take the random part out. The fact that people might make stupid, brilliant, lucky, or unlucky (SA last year) picks is irrelevant to the system (draft method). You can scientifically assess it by assuming perfect picks and using past results. The fact that in any given season, the 3rd best player might get injured and that the 7th best player might over-perform doesn't mean that the 7th spot in a draft is better than the 3rd. It just means THAT season, if you did what you were supposed to, one spot got lucky and the other didn't.

 

The problem with Fozzy's analysis is that he only used one season. If you took the results of the last 10 seasons and did the same thing, you'd have a decent evaluation of the equality of draft positions - and they'd still be skewed toward the top, just not as bad (in fact, there are seasons where the 3rd and 4th slots would come out ahead.) I disagree with Aggie that it's unusual to have top-heavy drafts, though. I can't think of a single season where I felt like the superstars went more than 4 or 5 deep - it's almost always 2-3 studs and then a large drop-off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×