3RR/KDS, What Do You Think?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:02 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:
quote:Originally posted by Ted's Cracked Head:
You could always pull LT2, LJ and SA from the player pool BEFORE next years draft.

Footnote: this was originally Lance/sportsbettingman's suggestion, probably in a drunken stupor. It actually makes sense!

[/QUOTE]Hah, no go there. They will be the consensus 1, 2, 3, but as we found out this year, none of them are immune to injury or failure. They remain in the player pool!

Oh, and Lance can stay too!

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:12 am

Originally posted by Ted's Cracked Head:
Greg, do you have the data showing preferences for the kds this year. Of the 322 teams, how many selected 1-2-3 in the top of their choices? Some may have done this as they failed to set their choices so I might "throw out" the ones that listed 1-14 in that order. These numbers may speak volumes as to what selections were "coveted" leading into this season. This is important as it will likley show how "overwhelmingly valued" the top slots were leading into this season. That is important and part of the argument for BBDS as well. True or not, it may show that the perception by most will indicate that the system may in fact be "broken" and need fixing.

In hindsight, the KDS this year might have been the perfect segway into next years challenge with this twist applied.

Some of the purists (guilty as charged) want(ed) to see the "core" of these challenges stay the same, ie ... scoring - draft sequence - playoff format - because we naturally like to "reflect or compare" the teams from year to year. It is our nature and the root of fantasy sports. We analyze the previous years data, compare it and then interject our own twist to try and "best the rest".

Truth be told of all the sports, Fantasy Football has needed to adapt to the changes in the game it mirrors moreso than any other sport. The advent of the rules that "baby" QBS and WRs and especially the dreaded RBBC have changed this game for good.

The 3rr combined with the KDS is good for me in the main event next year. I prefer it over any of the other options previously presented on these boards. I do have this data. Of 762 teams who set KDS last year in all of our satellite leagues and live events, 330 kept it at 1 through 14. 432 teams really set their KDS preferences in a lot of different ways as they didn't just change the top three order. In looking at all of these now, you can really see that a lot of thought went into these.

Interestingly, the third pick was the next most desired after No. 1, with around 10 percent of those 432 teams picking 3 as their No. 1 preference. After 1 and 3, 2 was next. But surprisingly here are the other numbers that were chosen as first preferences: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14. Seriously. I know for a fact that the No. 14 was picked first once and slotted down to 14, which was for a satellite league. KDS is used by our guys and I truly believe will continue to be a part of the NFFC as most people seemed to like it.

I hope this helps.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:14 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
If 3RR balances out pre-draft preferences, it works. Period.

Balance would mean:
a) more people draft from where they want to, and
b) the perceived value of slots is in balance. I do agree with you Kevin. Heading into 2007 Draft Day, I think we all know that we'd LOVE to have LT or LJ. That is reality. But in a changed format, maybe you feel a lot better about one of the other spots you may wind up getting. Perception may be reality next year. And I think that will continue in future years as it pertains to football.

I don't believe this needs to be done for baseball. Basketball might be another example where 3RR/KDS is needed.

RiFF · Post by **RiFF** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:17 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
If 3RR balances out pre-draft preferences, it works. Period.

Balance would mean:
a) more people draft from where they want to, and
b) the perceived value of slots is in balance. KJ,I believe that point A would absolutely be the case in 2007. Beyond...who knows.
Point B; I do not believe is necessarily the case with 3RR. I suspect there is a very real possibilty picks 4, 5, and 6 will be even less desirable in 2007 than were the 3 least desirable picks in 2006.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:19 am

Originally posted by RiFF:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
If 3RR balances out pre-draft preferences, it works. Period.

Balance would mean:
a) more people draft from where they want to, and
b) the perceived value of slots is in balance. KJ,I believe that point A would absolutely be the case in 2007. Beyond...who knows.
Point B; I do not believe is necessarily the case with 3RR. I suspect there is a very real possibilty picks 4, 5, and 6 will be even less desirable in 2007 than were the 3 least desirable picks in 2006. [/QUOTE]Rich, what were the three least desirable picks in 2006?

Team Canada · Post by **Team Canada** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:25 am

I'm all for it anything to help equalize the top pick advantage is a step in the right direction.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:26 am

Greg - can you give us the KDS figures JUST for the main event? How do you know that if someone had 1-14 that was their choice as opposed to never touching it?

If you don't have the time to break down the raw data send it to me and I will do it tomorrow.

RiFF · Post by **RiFF** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:36 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by RiFF:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
If 3RR balances out pre-draft preferences, it works. Period.

Balance would mean:
a) more people draft from where they want to, and
b) the perceived value of slots is in balance. KJ,I believe that point A would absolutely be the case in 2007. Beyond...who knows.
Point B; I do not believe is necessarily the case with 3RR. I suspect there is a very real possibilty picks 4, 5, and 6 will be even less desirable in 2007 than were the 3 least desirable picks in 2006. [/QUOTE]Rich, what were the three least desirable picks in 2006? [/QUOTE]You tell me; whatever they were, I "suspect" picks 4, 5, and 6 will be less desirable in 2007 under 3RR. The point being, I believe 3RR helps to balance the beginning of the draft and the end of the draft, but MAY actually widen the distance between the desirable picks and the undesirable picks. Understanding there are more desirable picks under 3RR.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:42 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
Rich, what were the three least desirable picks in 2006? I can answer that question --

(1) Anything other than picks 1-3
(2) Anything other than picks 1-3
(3) Anything other than picks 1-3

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:42 am

Originally posted by Captain Hook:
Greg - can you give us the KDS figures JUST for the main event? How do you know that if someone had 1-14 that was their choice as opposed to never touching it?

If you don't have the time to break down the raw data send it to me and I will do it tomorrow. I don't know that they left it at 1-14 or set it at 1-4. I can just tell you that 330 teams had their KDS at 1-14.