Anti-UTH

[Orenthal Shames]

I find Chad's content on UTH very informative and in-depth, but I question the "UTH way".

I just don't get punting the first and potentially second years (fees/possible winnings) of a startup in order to draft youth & upside in hopes to build a monster squad for the future.

In my experience, championship teams have a good mix of young guys and proven (old) commodities. I feel like banking on young, unproven guys early and often in startups (White, Zeke, Parker, etc. - all going top 25 startup) can be just as risky as loading up on all vets. Either strategy has a high likelihood of leaving you scrambling to start over in a few years.

Thoughts?

[skip]

My observation is teams that elect to go older and "win now" during the startup are often already thinking about rebuild by mid-season. The few that manage to reach the post season are faced with that decision after year 1.

I will grab a couple of older players in the middle rounds but never early.

[GridironGuerilla]

I completely agree. Balance has been the key for success champions in the leagues I play in. The UTH way can be a successful strategy, I've seen it work, but there's more than one way to skin a cat. Ive been the champion in a league 3 years running watching guys load up on 1st round picks while I'm riding guys like Demaryius Thomas and other "aging vets" all the way to the bank. Keeping young prospects coming in on the back end of your roster and trying to get some value out of veterans before they're out of the league has been a viable strategy for me so far.

[Orenthal Shames]

I completely agree. Balance has been the key for success champions in the leagues I play in. The UTH way can be a successful strategy, I've seen it work, but there's more than one way to skin a cat. Ive been the champion in a league 3 years running watching guys load up on 1st round picks while I'm riding guys like Demaryius Thomas and other "aging vets" all the way to the bank. Keeping young prospects coming in on the back end of your roster and trying to get some value out of veterans before they're out of the league has been a viable strategy for me so far.

This is my stance as well. I've got a young, solid core and filled in wih productive vets and rode it to a title last year.

[Jason3123]

The "UTH Way" isn't necessarily about punting. People just think it's punting when you go youth. They preach finding value, which is what everyone wants, and long-term success, which does mean "cashing" out on your older players to maximize value and sustain success. It's just a matter of how extreme you're willing to take their philosophy.

[Orenthal Shames]

The "UTH Way" isn't necessarily about punting. People just think it's punting when you go youth. They preach finding value, which is what everyone wants, and long-term success, which does mean "cashing" out on your older players to maximize value and sustain success. It's just a matter of how extreme you're willing to take their philosophy.

Agree that it's all relative. I just think I see age discrimination taken to the extreme in startups. I'm not super risk averse, but taking a Zeke, White, Parker, etc in the first few rounds of a startups is far out of my comfort zone.

[dlf_jules]

UTH* are a victim of their own success. Before, say, 2013, there was a big inefficiency in dynasty leagues. Owners were overvaluing current production and undervaluing future production. That's changed, and UTH is a big reason why. But now the inefficiency is much smaller, and it may be in the other direction (depending on your league).

Dynasty is not a simple game. There are dozens of factors to consider for each move. You can still have success using a youth-heavy approach, but your margin for error is much smaller than it used to be.

* I use "UTH" as a short hand for the youth-heavy approach. Many others -- including Ryan McDowell, for instance -- were ahead of the curve on age in dynasty. But UTH has done the most to popularize the philosophy.

[Orenthal Shames]

UTH* are a victim of their own success. Before, say, 2013, there was a big inefficiency in dynasty leagues. Owners were overvaluing current production and undervaluing future production. That's changed, and UTH is a big reason why. But now the inefficiency is much smaller, and it may be in the other direction (depending on your league).

Dynasty is not a simple game. There are dozens of factors to consider for each move. You can still have success using a youth-heavy approach, but your margin for error is much smaller than it used to be.

* I use "UTH" as a short hand for the youth-heavy approach. Many others -- including Ryan McDowell, for instance -- were ahead of the curve on age in dynasty. But UTH has done the most to popularize the philosophy.

Great response! Thanks for the info

[GridironGuerilla]

UTH* are a victim of their own success. Before, say, 2013, there was a big inefficiency in dynasty leagues. Owners were overvaluing current production and undervaluing future production. That's changed, and UTH is a big reason why. But now the inefficiency is much smaller, and it may be in the other direction (depending on your league).

I'd have to imagine the 2014 draft helped to boost the perceived advantage of the youth based strategies.

[Servo]

The diversified investment approach works in a lot of facets in life, especially investing, which is what we are doing here in Dynasty Leagues. You still invest in your large blue-chip companies that have been through hell and back, but have still produced results and you also try to find the company with a ground-breaking product or idea that could strike it big.

Solely sticking to one side of the market can be a dangerous game:
-Small Caps (Rookies/Younger Players) have always been a boom or bust industry, you'll have people who have been incredibly successful while the rest crash and burn.
-Large Caps (Veterans) can produce but maybe not at the level you are needing or will experience hiccups along the way. While you could produce consistent results with this approach, you could still be left in the dust.

[Orenthal Shames]

The diversified investment approach works in a lot of facets in life, especially investing, which is what we are doing here in Dynasty Leagues. You still invest in your large blue-chip companies that have been through hell and back, but have still produced results and you also try to find the company with a ground-breaking product or idea that could strike it big.

Solely sticking to one side of the market can be a dangerous game:
-Small Caps (Rookies/Younger Players) have always been a boom or bust industry, you'll have people who have been incredibly successful while the rest crash and burn.
-Large Caps (Veterans) can produce but maybe not at the level you are needing or will experience hiccups along the way. While you could produce consistent results with this approach, you could still be left in the dust.

Tremendous analogy and couldn't agree more.

[Dookmarriot]

My observation is teams that elect to go older and "win now" during the startup are often already thinking about rebuild by mid-season. The few that manage to reach the post season are faced with that decision after year 1.

I will grab a couple of older players in the middle rounds but never early.

I suppose it depends on the definition of "older players."

In a recent startups I've seen, guys like Dez, AB, AJG, DT and even Julio (to name but a few) were discounted because they were "old."

Personally - and I like to work in 3-5 year windows - I'll take that discount all day long. I think Jules is right and the market inefficiency is now working in favour of those who go for established production ahead of potential. I guess the key is where you set the "old" line. For me, a 27-28 cutoff is just too soon.

[Orenthal Shames]

My observation is teams that elect to go older and "win now" during the startup are often already thinking about rebuild by mid-season. The few that manage to reach the post season are faced with that decision after year 1.

I will grab a couple of older players in the middle rounds but never early.

I suppose it depends on the definition of "older players."

In a recent startups I've seen, guys like Dez, AB, AJG, DT and even Julio (to name but a few) were discounted because they were "old."

This is the same thing I've been seeing

[dlf_jules]

I guess the key is where you set the "old" line. For me, a 27-28 cutoff is just too soon.

Maybe the biggest thing that's changed is the elimination of a sharp cutoff. A 22-year-old with X production is more valuable than a 24-year-old with X production is more valuable than a 26-year-old with X production, etc. To be sure, the value gap between 30 and 32 is bigger than the gap between 22 and 24. But dynasty owners are rightly starting to apply gradual discounts instead of treating 27-year-old WRs like gold bars and 30-year-old WRs like rusty nails.

That said, no doubt some are taking the age discount too far. But many others aren't taking it far enough. Only I'm doing it exactly right.

[jdomer2403]

wow, i feel stupid but need to ask. what is UTH?