Effects of league settings on values

[Pullo Vision]

QBs values go up in 2QB and superflex leagues. I imagine steady proven options also see a value move, like Alex Smith now or Eli before.

Does that also apply to other positions? Do you adjust your WR valuations and/or rankings if you start 2, versus another league where you start 4? Or, what about leagues that require starting 2 RBs? How do you factor in flexes, the number of teams in the league, or the roster depth?

Asking for a friend, thanks.

[Generic Username]

I mean, yeah, scoring and roster reqs adjust value...PPC greatly increases a RBs value, while a 1 RB starting req depresses their value some. Similarly, full PPR vs half PPR will adjust certain player values, just like non-PPR will elevate some and deflate others. Shallow starting reqs will make studs more valuable, while large starting reqs will somewhat lessen studs and increase your RB3 and WR3/4 players. One that I think few fantasy players pay close attention to is QB when scoring is 6pt over 4pt per TD; that really increases the value of certain QBs to me

[maxhyde]

Scoring and lineup are things you sort of have to tweak in every different format. Set your base rankings and adjust as scoring/lineups differ.

[gunzwil guinea pigs]

yes you have to change your valuation based on league size (in small leagues, studs are even more valuable fe.), scoring settings (-2 per INT changes things obviously fe.), starting slots (if you 4 WR and just 1 RB valuation differs for sure).

To "re-calculate" I always take a league I know for a long time (10 team, QB/RB/RB/WR/WR/TE/FLEX standard scoring) and go from there...
and try to take into account what the changes are

[Phaded]

In smaller starting requirements, studs hold more value. In larger requirements, those 2nd tier guys and lower become more important - selling studs for packages makes more sense.

[Pullo Vision]

So, wider starting requirements raise the value of the productive non-studs, like Crabtree. How do you see those types of players affected by roster size? I presume deeper rosters would also increase their value?

How are NFL prospects who haven't hit (like Treadwell) affected? I was in a 12x21 league some years ago and people put a premium on production- I eventually learned only 1sts had any real value, and 2nds had some. I don't know if that league's tilt away from the value of youthful prospects was an aberration or because rosters spots are so valuable with such short rosters. But, it makes sense to me that deeper rosters would help unproductive gambles maintain some value.