# Thread: Fantasy Football: determining scarcity

1. ## Fantasy Football: determining scarcity

I know that there are other fantasy football questions on the forum, and I have read them. Mine is a little bit different. I am looking for an equation to determine supply of a position to create a player list. For those who do not know, fantasy plays much like the stock market. Unlike the stock market, you take players (or stock of you would like to think of it that way) through a drafting process. There are typically ten managers and each player is only selected once. The key to having a good team is getting value in every round (which usually there are around 15-18 rounds). The positions consist of quarterback, runningback, wide receiver, tight end, Kicker, Defense. It is quite easy to create a list of your favorite players per positions, but it is much more difficult to combine all of the positions together into one draft list.

I am looking for an equation to help figure out how I should "weight" each position based on positional scarcity.

NOTE: QB- quarterback, RB- runningback, WR- wide receiver, TE-tight end, K- kicker, DEF- defense.

THEORETICALLY If each team had to start 1 QB, 1 RB, 1 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, and 1 DEFENSE...even if you project each player to fill those position to get the same number of points, different positions would be weighted differently because of positional scarcity. There are 32 NFL teams and each team has 1 starting QB, 2 starting RBs, 3 starting WRs, 1 starting TE, 1 kicker, and 1 defense. So obviously the WR position would have the highest supply (so the cost would be the least), the RB position would be the next highest in supply (cost the second least), and the rest of the positions be worth the same amount.

So when drafting it would make sense to draft RBs and WRs first if all else was equal based on positional scarcity.

Most fantasy football leagues get around this by making the starting positions on the fantasy teams more similar to reality: 1 QB, 3 WR, 2 RB, 1 TE, 1 K, and 1 DEF.

Can someone please help me develop an equation to put a number value on these "weights" that should be given for each position. Interesting site.

Thank you

2. ## Re: Fantasy Football: determining scarcity

I don't really do fantasy anything so it's not clear to me that the strategy you suggest is the best. Do all the positions typically contribute on average the same number of points? Or does a good quarterback earn you more points than a good wide receiver?

3. ## Re: Fantasy Football: determining scarcity

j4pac wrote:
QB, 1 RB, 1 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, ... NFL 
?

Is this about american football or about the rest of the worlds football?

4. ## Re: Fantasy Football: determining scarcity

Originally Posted by j4pac
There are typically ten managers and the draft snakes.
what the heck is this?

Originally Posted by j4pac
The positions consist of QB, RB, WR, TE, Kicker, Defense
and this stands for? what are all those acronyms?

Originally Posted by j4pac
If each team had to start 1 QB, 1 RB, 1 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, and 1 DEFENSE...even if you project each player to fill those position to get the same number of points, different positions would be weighted differently because of positional scarcity. There are 32 NFL teams and each team has 1 starting QB, 2 starting RBs, 3 starting WRs, 1 starting TE, 1 kicker, and 1 defense. So obviously the WR position would have the highest supply (so there cost would be the least), the RB position would be the next highest in supply (cost the second least), and the rest of the positions be worth the same amount.
this is a tad bit confusing... :/

5. ## Re: Fantasy Football: determining scarcity

Quarterback, running back, wide receiver, tight end, kicker, defense. I don't know much about sports but I could get those.

6. ## Re: Fantasy Football: determining scarcity

I only started playing fantasy sports last year, and I've got to say that's the first time in years that I actually watched football games. I actually had an investment in the games, without using actual money.

Originally Posted by j4pac
So obviously the WR position would have the highest supply (so there cost would be the least), the RB position would be the next highest in supply (cost the second least), and the rest of the positions be worth the same amount.

So when drafting it would make sense to draft RBs and WRs first if all else was equal based on positional scarcity.
I don't think this conclusion is right at all; since WRs are (naively thinking) the most common, then they should be lowest on your draft list because you can let others take a handful and still have good WRs left.

Anyway, here's something to think about:
1) Tight Ends: Only the New England and Green Bay TE's were worth anything. The rest were way too inconsistent (if you're playing Head To Head, consistent players give you less headaches during those bad weeks).
2) You don't want to wait til the 3rd round to draft a QB. Pretty much all the good QBs are the same (3-4 TDs, 300 yards) so the difference in scoring between them is not so different. There's just a couple of elite QBs that can get you significantly more points (Rogers, Brees?, Newton?). The thing is, usually people draft QBs first because of the TDs.
3) Defense: I would place very low draft priority on this. They don't contribute many fantasy points in the first place. Teams can easily score 30 real points and get 300 yards nowadays, you should even be thinking of garbage games where the offense is having a blowout so the defense starts going into "prevent mode". Often times defense only gets fantasy points from sacks, turnovers, and defensive TDs. So the defense fantasy scoring really depends on how lousy the other team is, ie pick up free agent defenses on a week-by-week basis.
4) Wide Receivers: Beware if you have a QB, and draft WRs from the same real team. You cannot ignore the correlation if you want to make a good equation.
5) Kickers: The contribution of a kicker is interesting, because if he's on a really strong offensive team (Green Bay), then you'll get a consistent number of points but not too many--because he'll be kicking a lot of PATs but rarely any FGs. Also if he's on a really weak offensive team (San Francisco), then you can get a huge number of points because the QB isn't good enough to score in the red zone (so easy FGs). Combined with the strong San Francisco defense last year, their plan was built around winning by FGs. I think it's too inconsistent (significant scoring only if they get FGs) to draft a kicker before the middle of the draft.

I think your equation has to take into account what is available at your draft position, ie it needs to be updated live, according to your specific draft. But that's my opinion.

Okay I said a lot more than I thought I would, but I felt really bad for how this thread was developing over the unfamiliar abbreviations.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts