GEKKO BRINGS IT - Draft slots not equal

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:45 pm

let’s sum up where we are at.
1. the other event clearly shows there to be a draft slot bias. it is so bad that there aren’t any teams that drafted 9, 10, 11, or 12 in their top 20 overall – these are the FACTS. you wanted the FACTS, you got them. kinda tough to deal with when they don’t support your argument.

2. if you believe that all draft slots are created equal and there should be a normal distribution of draft slots within the top 20, comparing 12 or 14 teams shouldn’t matter. gotcha!

3. this one is for UFS – stats from leagues that allow trading can’t be used to support claims in the NFFC. they are flawed as they relate to this event. in the NFFC the only way to have a “good” team is to draft it and supplement it through FA. in trading leagues, you can draft it, supplement it through FA, AND trade. the trading part is makes your leagues have a normal distribution. I assume “smart” owners in your leagues have a normal draft slot distribution. “smart” owners almost always get the best of trades with the sheep. in other words, a “smart” owner drafting 14th in a UFS trading league, has a better chance at success than an owner drafting 14th in a NFFC league. sorry.

4. blind bidding on draft slots is still a much better way to allocate draft slots with or without the data I mentioned . It’s really about pleasing consumers and removing randomness from the equation.

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:02 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
let’s sum up where we are at.
1. the other event clearly shows there to be a draft slot bias. it is so bad that there aren’t any teams that drafted 9, 10, 11, or 12 in their top 20 overall – these are the FACTS. you wanted the FACTS, you got them. kinda tough to deal with when they don’t support your argument.

2. if you believe that all draft slots are created equal and there should be a normal distribution of draft slots within the top 20, comparing 12 or 14 teams shouldn’t matter. gotcha!

3. this one is for UFS – stats from leagues that allow trading can’t be used to support claims in the NFFC. they are flawed as they relate to this event. in the NFFC the only way to have a “good” team is to draft it and supplement it through FA. in trading leagues, you can draft it, supplement it through FA, AND trade. the trading part is makes your leagues have a normal distribution. I assume “smart” owners in your leagues have a normal draft slot distribution. “smart” owners almost always get the best of trades with the sheep. in other words, a “smart” owner drafting 14th in a UFS trading league, has a better chance at success than an owner drafting 14th in a NFFC league. sorry.

4. blind bidding on draft slots is still a much better way to allocate draft slots with or without the data I mentioned . It’s really about pleasing consumers and removing randomness from the equation. 1- There is a bias with a 12 team league, thanx for pointing that out, so to make things fair, doing a 14 team seems mroe fair for everyone involved. Thanx for pointing that out.

2- How many times are you going to say you don't want to be drafting 13 or 14 again???????????? Isn't what this is all about, you spouted your mouth off and now you are blaming draft position for not doing better.

3- The 2 events have a different scoring system, apples and oranges. Gotta be teh same scoring system. Different scoring will create different results. That's science 101.

4- A sample size of 30 is not good, but a smaple size of 20 is???????? Gee, that makes sense. Better yet, let's try this.... Sample size of 30 for 226 team is 11% of the total field. A sample of 20 teams out of 672 is 2%. So you are comparing 11% to 2%?????

5- I like this system better witht the .5 per catch for RBs (that's a huge difference), 6pt per QB and teh 14 team. There is more equal distibution of talent. The top picks don't get the picks as you would in a 12 team league. Right? Just for the record, in 2002 when I had the #1 pick (the huge Faulk factor debate), I did not want that pick, but I adjuted and best as I could. I ended up 3rd in the league. Not because I had Faulk, but because I picked Garner, Rice and several other players in the other rounds. Remember, Faulk had a down year and was injured alot.

6- If you want an all-star team, join Yahoo and kick thier butts. If you want you favorite player, make sure you steup your own drat where you can get him. This event is about adjusting to what you have. IE- draft slot. Make it randon.

7- You want a tissue to cry in, I'll paypal you a couple of bucks for some Kleenex......

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:05 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

4. blind bidding on draft slots is still a much better way to allocate draft slots with or without the data I mentioned . It’s really about pleasing consumers and removing randomness from the equation. Yes, pleasing the customers, most people like the 14 teams and randon draft slots. Read the posts.

THANX

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:09 am

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
1- There is a bias with a 12 team league, thanx for pointing that out, so to make things fair, doing a 14 team seems mroe fair for everyone involved. Thanx for pointing that out.

2- How many times are you going to say you don't want to be drafting 13 or 14 again???????????? Isn't what this is all about, you spouted your mouth off and now you are blaming draft position for not doing better.

3- The 2 events have a different scoring system, apples and oranges. Gotta be teh same scoring system. Different scoring will create different results. That's science 101.

4- A sample size of 30 is not good, but a smaple size of 20 is???????? Gee, that makes sense. Better yet, let's try this.... Sample size of 30 for 226 team is 11% of the total field. A sample of 20 teams out of 672 is 2%. So you are comparing 11% to 2%?????

5- I like this system better witht the .5 per catch for RBs (that's a huge difference), 6pt per QB and teh 14 team. There is more equal distibution of talent. The top picks don't get the picks as you would in a 12 team league. Right?

6- If you want an all-star team, join Yahoo and kick thier butts. If you want you favorite player, make sure you steup your own drat where you can get him. This event is about adjusting to what you have. IE- draft slot. Make it randon. this is fun. i'm glad i captured everything you wrote. this could be the biggest BS post to date. so, to sum up your post, are you saying that in the wcoff (a 12 team league) draft slots are NOT created equal? thanks in advance.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:13 am

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
Yes, pleasing the customers, most people like the 14 teams and randon draft slots. Read the posts.a good part of those people can be described as sheep. show them a better way and they'll follow. sorry phil. it's really like you're on the titanic.

maybe i should reconsider whether adding a roster spot to each team is okay. that's the only thing we agree on, and you've been wrong about every other issue.

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:49 am

Gordon, actually, in your world I may be wrong. But in the real world, I might be right.

btw- the best you can do is say it's a BS post???? what, no multiple quotes, no point by point Gekko slanted view??? I'm hurt.....

btw part 2 - I f the sheep pay the bills, yea, you gotta do what the sheep want. So next year when YOU start an intercontinental football event (World and National are taken), I will look into it. You are appearently very unhappy with both events so far. Start you own, then you could be boss and tell us, if you don't like it, don't play.

richieprimo · Post by **richieprimo** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:05 am

Two words to cure all of your issues, Gordon...

Auction League

And are you going to tell me where to get those great "smileys" that you have? If you do, I'll give you an outright NFL underdog winner next week, absolutely free.

richieprimo · Post by **richieprimo** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:09 am

Gord. If you think I'm kidding, read my post below from Sunday at 9:23AM.

BENGALS + 7 – Probably their 1st Monday night game since the year after SF beat them in the Super Bowl. New coach, new outlook, and a chance to shine in front of the rest of the league. This is my upset special and it’s gonna be worth every penny against an over-rated Denver squad. Rudi Johnson finally pays up as my wasted 2nd round NFFC pick.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:10 am

Gordon, I must admit that I can't possibly explain why the Top 20 in the WCOFF all come from the first six spots. Can you? When you consider that Green, Deuce and Portis haven't performed as expected yet, there's no reason why EVERY team in the Top 20 drafted in the first half of that draft. My only explanation is that all of those teams took Culpepper coming back in the third round or at the end of the second round and are benefitting by having two good RBs and a stud QB.

Honestly, I can't believe that will hold up the rest of the year in the WCOFF, but you let us know if it does. I don't think it proves that you can't win from the second half of the draft. What's next, you reduce it to 10 teams and only 1 through 5 win?

I think what has been proven in the NFFC is that those teams who thought outside of the box and took Culpepper early with our scoring system or grabbed a stud WR earlier than others did are performing well. I think the WCOFF is set up more for RB-RB and even RB again than we are and those teams who took some chances later in the first round are doing better than those teams who stuck with the RB-RB mentality right away.

Keep the facts coming and it will lead to better discussions, even if we can disagree on the facts.

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:38 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
i also don't want to have pick 13 or 14 again. ya, you can win from there,Just wanted to make sure we got that on the record.

but it's tougher in my opinion.

It may be, but therein lies the challenge.

As far as the data accumulated, I'll be more interested in seeing if it holds true at the end of the season. More importantly, I would want to see the rosters of the teams involved -- especially the ones who chose some RBs (such as Green, Portis and McAllister) who haven't performed to expectations for the most part -- though the tide seems to be turning with all three. I would be interested in seeing if there were anything in common with these team's mid- to late-round picks.