2007 Draft Slots ~ presented by UFS

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:25 pm

So if under the current system we are all (or 99.5% of us) going for a Top 3 pick, then what exactly is the point of KDS? I guess it allows you to have a chance at a 7th pick instead of a 4th, but it doesn't do anything to help securing one of the best selections.

Greg, do you still have all the KDS data from the 322 entrants? It would be interesting to see how many people actually chose to NOT have a Top 3 pick.

To the naysayers: maybe that's why we're all trying to "reinvent the wheel" -- everyone wants a shot at one of those picks, or at least a somewhat more level playing field.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:30 pm

Originally posted by UFS:
quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:

I think I'd still rather have the 1st pick! It would go from 99.5% to 60-65 %. I can live with that. [/QUOTE]Let's get the facts straight here, John. With KDS, those who had the first preference didn't always take the first selection. Some moved down to No. 2 or even No. 3. Believe it or not, some preferences were out of the top three. But you are right, more people would move out of the top three with this scenario, but the percentages aren't right.

It's interesting that the talk is about LJ or LT, but remember that Alexander went No. 1 in seven leagues and those fortunate enough to have one of the top three picks are also some of the folks struggling with Alexander this year. I understand the constant talk to level the random draft slot preference, but it's not all rosy at the top you know!!

How many top teams also have Marques Colston, who is putting up better numbers than a No. 1 guy like Chad Johnson? There's a lot of factors working here this year and I'm not against the talk about leveling the playing field, but this talk comes up every year.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:32 pm

Originally posted by King of Queens:
So if under the current system we are all (or 99.5% of us) going for a Top 3 pick, then what exactly is the point of KDS? I guess it allows you to have a chance at a 7th pick instead of a 4th, but it doesn't do anything to help securing one of the best selections.

Greg, do you still have all the KDS data from the 322 entrants? It would be interesting to see how many people actually chose to NOT have a Top 3 pick.

To the naysayers: maybe that's why we're all trying to "reinvent the wheel" -- everyone wants a shot at one of those picks, or at least a somewhat more level playing field. Tom used this data for the draft selections and I'm sure he still has it. Prod him for it tomorrow as I'm still out of the office. I know the data is interesting as not everyone put No. 1 as their first preference in a 14-team league, and understandably so.

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:05 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by UFS:
quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:

I think I'd still rather have the 1st pick! It would go from 99.5% to 60-65 %. I can live with that. [/QUOTE]Let's get the facts straight here, John. With KDS, those who had the first preference didn't always take the first selection. Some moved down to No. 2 or even No. 3. Believe it or not, some preferences were out of the top three. But you are right, more people would move out of the top three with this scenario, but the percentages aren't right.

It's interesting that the talk is about LJ or LT, but remember that Alexander went No. 1 in seven leagues and those fortunate enough to have one of the top three picks are also some of the folks struggling with Alexander this year. I understand the constant talk to level the random draft slot preference, but it's not all rosy at the top you know!!

How many top teams also have Marques Colston, who is putting up better numbers than a No. 1 guy like Chad Johnson? There's a lot of factors working here this year and I'm not against the talk about leveling the playing field, but this talk comes up every year. [/QUOTE]I'm sure #3 was a popular pick too with the top 3.

I just looked at my KDS stuff. One #9. Newman at #14, the rest at #1 and #3.

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:18 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
It's interesting that the talk is about LJ or LT, but remember that Alexander went No. 1 in seven leagues and those fortunate enough to have one of the top three picks are also some of the folks struggling with Alexander this year. But Greg, injuries can happen to any team, any round, Alexander went down, but it could have been Chester Taylor or Kevin Jones. Those are the on-field breaks. Winning a top 3 lottery slot is not an on-field break.

How many top teams also have Marques Colston, who is putting up better numbers than a No. 1 guy like Chad Johnson? Greg, EVERYONE had a shot at Colston. Whoever got him = good drafting. Only 2 or 3 teams in each lge got a shot at LT and LJ. Whoever got those guys = good luck, not good drafting.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:43 pm

Would removing LT and LJ and SA from next years draft create a fair draft in a 14 team random serpentine style format...or would this argument still go on...but with less advantage built in???

~Lance

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:08 pm

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:
Would removing LT and LJ and SA from next years draft create a fair draft in a 14 team random serpentine style format...or would this argument still go on...but with less advantage built in???

~Lance It would still go on as you've suggested.

mikeybok · Post by **mikeybok** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:37 am

Originally posted by UFS:

With any bidding system, any owners that feel pts/faab is more vauable not spent before the draft will never get to pick 1-5. Never.

That is not a fair allocation of draft slots. Use real points (I don't like bidding FAAB ... it's too limited).

If I knew people would bid too many points and lock me out of the bidding for the first 5 picks every year ... I would be thrilled at the advantage I would have over those top 5 teams ... as we can draft from anywhere.

I just don't want to do it with a random disadvantage.

I gave up the top pick in the Super Satellite for a reason ... I like the point lead it gave me over the top teams ... if they can over come those points ... good for them as I could have had their pick for a price. If I win by less than the handicap ... it leveled the playing field. But ... utimately ... I got to decide where I picked from.

Getting the #1 pick in 2004 felt like Christmas for a reason (even if Holmes only played for 8 weeks) ... $4000+ was the gift ... thanks to Tom's old hat.

Big Mike

Ted's Cracked Head · Post by **Ted's Cracked Head** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:23 am

I am concerned that the "3rd round swing" might have a negative effect on slots 4-7.

Using the two years of data that can be found on page 6 of this thread (and below), you will see that those spots are the LEAST desireable over that time period. This system would further harm them.

Is two years worth of data reliable? You make the call but it is all we have in this system thus I believe it is credible.

Here are the top 10% for 2004 and 2005

Ted's Cracked Head · Post by **Ted's Cracked Head** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:27 am

I used the top 10% because that is the Championship Round Cutoff.