Thanks. Great point regarding scarcity. Seems like that is solvable by using a non-linear player grading scale. For example:
90+: HOFer
65+: Pro bowler
32+: Good player
16+: Avg player
8+: Fringe player
This would give the HOFer at a position less correlated with winning a substantial lift in the selection process versus a good player at a very correlated position. Basically, we are making the decision that having an elite player at any position is worth substantially more than average at more important positions. Which I agree with because the analysis should be based off how difficult that player is to replace. Often at the less important positions, the player's eliteness is watered down by the positions lack of importance--guards on a team with a bad QB for instance
Strength of the draft--I would preface this with another concept---How confident in our player ratings are we? My guess is that confidence in player ratings varies amongst positions. So, for positions that I am highly confident in I can pick players later in the draft and at a smaller frequency. Given that confidence is equal for all positions--positional supply in the draft is important but I would say less so than positional value to winning. If a draft is loaded with dbs, I would be more inclined to draft all of the them than to wait to draft dbs becasue there will be some remaining later. The next draft might not have any players with a high positional importance. So I would load up when I can for the important positions.
Edge vs DBs--I am firmly in the camp that coverage is more important to winning than EDGE players. But this is a lengthy topic in itself.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2019 10:50AM by cool_hand_luke.
