How much are studs devalued in a bestball league?

[jnappy]

I saw a post from a forum regular talking about how studs are devalued a little bit when you don't have to pick who to start. How much weight do you guys think this has? On the surface it makes sense to me, but I've really thought about it before.

[skip]

To a point, perhaps, but you can just as well argue that your "role players" who rarely have big games, just consistent production, are also negatively impacted in such a system.

[Mjvb5]

Yeah the players who get devalued are the more consistent producers and the bumped are the more hit or miss guys

[ArrylT]

Assuming the best ball dynasty lineup is similar to a MFL10 lineup I wouldnt devalue studs at all. They would only get devalued in the sense that boom/bust guys would have more value.

If we converted value into auction dollars:

So Julio Jones would be $100 regardless. But a $5 player would be $10 instead. A $10 player would be $16-20. So in that sense you could buy Julio with players that you normally couldnt in a H2H league, then I suppose he is devalued, but the production remains the same.

David Johnson is a stud whether it is best ball or h2h. Best Ball just helps you avoid making lineup choices you regret AND ensures you get optimal production out of your lineup. But havign 2 or 3 200 point players is NOT identical to having 1 David Johnson.

http://www64.myfantasyleague.com/2016/o ... 8&SORT=TOT

So DJ never scored less than 17.1 points in an MFL10 last season ... that means he NEVER finished lower than a RB1, which means he was ALWAYS used in the lineups. Who cares if Theo Riddick outscored him in Week 8 or Kelvin Benjamin did so in Week 2.

Antonio Browns worst week was 7.9 ppg, but even that was again good enough to qualify as a WR 4.

In Best ball it is important to have more depth production but depth alone will not outdo studs. What you want are Studs and a large # of players who can on any given week give you some kind of production be it RB2 or TE2 or WR4.

But thats just my 2 cents.

[pierson242]

That guy who posted that in that forum just didn't wanna admit he sold low on AJG. A stud is a stud no matter the format. However hit or miss guys like Fuller have increased value.

[BuckeyeNation]

Studs are devalued a bit in Best Ball IMO, but it's not much. Part of what makes a stud is consistent week in and week out production, and that's not quite as important in this format. On the other hand, they're studs because they score a ton of points and can win a game for you by themselves, so that remains super valuable in any format. I just much prefer depth in BB, so what would change for me in this format is that I would have more pause about consolidating too much in this format.

Mostly what changes for me in BB is that steady high floor/low ceiling players become much less valuable and attractive, and boom bust players (who I usually hate owning in regular leagues) become more appealing.

[Novacane]

To me, it is not so much that a stud is devalued relative to another player, but more that a stud is devalued relative to depth. In other words, when I see trade offers where a stud is being offered for 3-5 upside guys, I almost always lean towards the stud. Same trade scenario in a best ball league and I am leaning towards the upside guys. Lots of LEGITIMATE upside guys with a couple of studs mixed in what wins best ball leagues.

[BuckeyeNation]

To me, it is not so much that a stud is devalued relative to another player, but more that a stud is devalued relative to depth. In other words, when I see trade offers where a stud is being offered for 3-5 upside guys, I almost always lean towards the stud. Same trade scenario in a best ball league and I am leaning towards the upside guys. Lots of LEGITIMATE upside guys with a couple of studs mixed in what wins best ball leagues.

I think we're on the same page here. 3-4 high upside players with high weekly ceilings but low floors can sometimes net you more points than a single stud when you don't have the headache of trying to guess which one to put into your lineup every week.

[captain howdy]

That guy who posted that in that forum just didn't wanna admit he sold low on AJG. A stud is a stud no matter the format. However hit or miss guys like Fuller have increased value.

No, again to be clear, I know I didn't get good value. My only thought was, perhaps, my return was being undervalued. Selling low or not, which I admit.

Interesting you note Fuller has increased value, which I agree with, and ..he was a main part of my return.

[captain howdy]

Buckeye and Novacane hit the nail pretty squarely I'd say. I have done best ball for 10 years and have the benefit of intuition as well as some experience, especially in my league with two WR/RB/TE flex positions
The recipe for success involves a lot of good wrs. This is the position that can net the most points in my ppr league. Of course, you need the rbs, qbs, and tes to back you up, but you can be led by a team of wrs.

My rbs were done for, with none to be had, so I made a volume move with AJG

AJG for Jordan Matthews and Will Fuller (and a 3rd). I see the return a couple mid first's and a 3rd. This is .."OFF" the goal people would probably have for AJG for 3 firsts, but the market was soft and not likely to rise, after 11 years, I know my league mates. I'm sorry, nonetheless, if the trade causes a cringe. Rebuilds are hard in competitive leagues.

Anyway my WR's now:
Arob - wr1
Landry- wr 2
J. Matthews wr 2
B. Perriman wr 3
W. Fuller WR3
S. Sheperd wr 3
J. Doctson wr 3

Juju (R), D. Funchess, Switzer (R) for growth and further depth.

In addition to their youth, right or wrong...I think the players I have acquired have unrealized upside still. (Honestly, I am super high on Perriman and Fuller)

Besides being better for the future, I think my weekly point total should not suffer too much in the meantime... compared to my WR's before:
AJG, Arob, Landry, Perriman, , Sheperd, Doctson



So yes, IMO, Studs are devalued. Part of the allure of the stud is their consistently high scoring, which makes lineup choices less volatile. That volatility having disappeared or been mitigated with sheer numbers of good players...A WR 1 could reasonably be replaced with a few other WRs..provided they are prone to big games themselves.

Another way to think of it: These lower end big play wrs are only lower end bc of the whole "good luck picking their big weeks" sentiment. So, Will Fuller is a player who's peccadillo is removed and who's value relative to a stud increases...which means that the studs value relative to the non-stud playermaker is devalued.


[/shrugs]

[Dingram]

I wouldn't say studs are devalued, but I would personally rather have 2/3 players from "tier 2" than 1 single stud. I recently just sold David Johnson in a bestball league. Some said I was crazy for selling a stud RB in his prime. The settings are 14 team, superflex, TE premium, bestball. Sold DJ for Dak, KHunt, & Ebron. I just feel that the package of players will pay dividends far longer for my team than a single player, even one of Johnson's caliber. Some like the deal, many do not. A lot rides on Dak, and his continuance to get better.

[moishetreats]

I don't think that studs are DEvalued. I think that they are REvalued.

In line-up leagues, studs relative to the hit-and-miss players are off the charts. In best ball leagues, a combo of hit-and-miss players could package together to give you similar production to a stud.

But, that DOESN'T make them equal in any way. Indeed, those hit-and-miss players are still often relatively cheap and not so hard to acquire. I'd still rather have the stud and the two roster spots that come along with it to find my own hit-and-miss players.

The impact of a best ball league, IMO, deals much more with back-end roster construction rather than with stud players. In any league, you always want studs. In a best ball league, though, guys with unpredictable workloads (like, say, Ingram last year) or long-ball threats (like Ginn two years ago) or guys who produce in chunks-and-duds (like Riddick or Woodhead or Eli) or guys that come out of nowhere but you don't quite have the guts to start (like Gabriel last year) have TREMENDOUS back-end of the roster value. Fill your team up with some studs and these other guys, and you're golden. If you just have a team of these guys, though, you're still missing out on the stud production. As good as these guys can be in any given week, they're still far behind the stud production of a Johnson or Brown, and those guys will have those monster weeks far more often.

In short, gimme the studs on the front-end and the upside players for the back-end. It's the middle-of-the-road consistent produces (think Gore, Prescott, even Olsen, to some degree, who's more reliable than he is studly) that get devalued.

[Sterling Archer]

A lot depends on roster size, but it would be interesting to run some comparisons of actual outputs in 2-for-1 and 3-for-1 scenarios. I think if people really devalue possession guys or players considered consistent, they're screwing up. I mean, Crabtree is seen as that type, but he had a few monster games. If we are talking about just 2017 in a vacuum, I'd probably take Crabtree and Snead over AJG. These possession guys can put up huge weeks and you're kind of insulated from injury.

But just from a value standpoint, I'd prefer a trio of Marvin Jones, John Brown, and Mike Wallace to someone like AJG. You'll probably save some auction dollars as an added bonus. FWIW, I'm a big AJG fan.