Give Me The Rock » Blog Archive » Fantasy Basketball Draft Tip #4: Position Matters… Kind Of

Give Me The Rock

this is fantasy basketball 
  • GMTR Sponsors


    Play a variety of free slot machines online or visit VPR for information on video poker games and where to play securely.

    Shop residential adjustable basketball hoops at Sports Unlimited.

    fantasypa
  • Fantasy Sports

    Get This or Add Your Feed <a href="http://fantasyknuckleheads.com" title="Fantasy Football Rankings, Fantasy Football Sleepers, Fantasy football start sit, fantasy football waiver wire."><b>Fantasy Football for all you knuckleheads</b></a>

    Powered By: Fantasy Knuckleheads


  • Fantasy Basketball Draft Tip #4: Position Matters… Kind Of

    Author Icon for Patrick

    Categorized as: Fantasy Basketball
    Posted on: August 18th, 2008

    They are rivalries as old as father time himself: Coke vs. Pepsi, Magic vs. Bird, The Magic Hour vs. Arsenio Hall, the Miami Heat Dancers vs. the Clippers Dance Team.

    And within the realm of fantasy drafts, the ultimate question comes down to: should you draft for value or should you draft for position? And with absolute certainly, once and for all I can tell you the correct answer to that question is… it depends.

    Clearly, positions are important, or we wouldn’t talk about them all the time. But how much attention should you pay to them during a draft? Does it make sense to reach for a center in the early rounds? Rather than pulling an answer out of my ass like usual, I have actual research that kind of makes sense:

    More on Ranking Players by Position
    Positional Value
    The Value of a Position

    No need to plow through the old stuff (unless you want to). They suggest that a player’s position should be taken into account when drafting, although it becomes more important as a draft progresses.

    In round 1 (and possibly 2), positions don’t really matter very much at all and you can safely focus on drafting the best player available. At the beginning of a draft, players are so good that positional adjustments have little effect on a guy’s overall value (or so the research would have you believe). Basically, someone like LeBron James is so much better than a similar forward you could get in the 2nd round (if such a man exists), that it doesn’t make sense to reach for a center and then grab that forward in the next round.

    Starting with round three, positions start to have some say about who you should draft. Centers, being the scarcest position, now start to deserve a bump of a round over where they would normally be taken. Meaning that it would have made sense to draft someone like Rasheed Wallace, who finished last season ranked at #55, in the 4th round rather than the 5th. The basic premise being that that 4th round guard you passed up can be mostly replaced by the 5th round guard who pretty much does the same thing. But hey, if you can still get Rasheed in the 5th, all the better for your team.

    Unlike their taller, slower brethren, guards and forwards aren’t fortunate enough to get a similar bump, and guards might actually get a reverse bump of a round or so, because finding a guard in the mid rounds is like finding a pair of breasts at a Playboy party.

    By the 8th round or so, the center bump becomes 2 rounds, which basically means grab a center by this point or live with the horrible, horrible consequences. Wait for your center much longer and you’ll end up like me in one particularly deep league – platooning Fabricio Oberto and Sean Williams.

    Of course, it is important to use this tip in the context of your general drafting strategy. Identifying undervalued and breakout players and drafting them well below where they should be taken is going to get you much farther than knowing when to reach for a center. But, at least I can say with absolute certainty that you can stop worrying about reaching for that center in the first couple rounds.

    Other Stuff Like This:

    • No Related Post
    • dyeyk2000

      I have a different take on the positional value discussion. I experimented on a new system last year and I had some success with it. I would like to get your comments on it.

      Consider for example Josh Smith. Last year he was eligible at the G (SG,G) and F (SF,F) position. Now my system last year would have argued that Josh Smith is more valuable as a guard than as a forward; basically saying that if you want to get the most value out of Josh Smith, plug him in one of the G positions instead of the F positions.

      The lay man’s explanation of the logic behind this is if you plug J Smoove as a G, you are probably playing an above average G compared to the G’s everybody else are playing; ergo there is positional advantage for you at the G position. The typical G that everybody would have been playing would have given low FG, 3′s, some assists, etc. By plugging J Smoove at the G position, you could say that you have an extreme advantage at blocks, rebounds, slight advantage to neutral at every other G stat, with the 3′s being your only disadvantage (which you will make up with the other positions).

      If you plugged in J Smoove at the F position, his positive impact would be somehow lessened since every other F would have nullified your positional advantage. There are a lot of SF’s who can block, steal and rebound like J Smoove.

      So what would have been the most optimal solution according to this system? The normal thing to do would have been draft J Smoove and then find a G. However this system would argue that you should draft J Smoove for the G position and then find another F for the F positions for maximum positional advantage! This is based on the fact that every team is gonna have to plug in the same positional slots as you are, so you should maximize each of your slots comparative to everybody else’s

      The system itself is pretty complicated, and I don’t even know if I got my math right, but I used standard deviations and gave each player a rating for all of their position eligibility (yes that means J Smoove got 5 scores SG,G,SF,F,Util :P )

      And just to show that this system just doesn’t tell us what to do with J Smoove.. here were some other results:

      Jason Kidd – You’re basically putting yourself at a disadvantage if you play him anywhere else besides the PG position. The FG, lack of points, TO’s just negate his advantages if you place him somewhere else.

      Tyson Chandler – Got higher scores as a Util player. His efficiency at FG must have pulled his scored up. And despite his low FT, he doesn’t take that many attempts. Now if we we’re talking about..

      Tim Duncan – Now this guy is worse as a Util and as an F. Putting him in other positions beside the PF and C would hurt you too much in the FT and TO dept.

      Brandon Roy – Is most effective plugged in as a PG. Kinda like a mini-Wade with his plus in rebounds and points. His almost 6 assists won’t set you too far back in that dept.

      Now don’t get me wrong. It doesn’t mean that TD and JKidd are bad players. They’re superb players and will still rank significantly higher than say someone like Nick Collison in all positional ratings. What my system basically says is how to best utilize these players through positional advantage.

      Does this make sense? I could go on forever but this post is getting lengthy. Comment on it and I’ll explain some more. Chow.

    • http://www.givemetherock.com Nels

      Wow, I think that wins for longest comment ever. Perhaps in the entire blogosphere.

      What you’re trying to do makes sense, but the output is not making sense to me. I guess it seems like you’re looking at it at too low a level, as opposed to assembling a whole team. I mean, Josh Smith is going to get a lot of blocks. So, if you’re going with trying to win Blocks as a category, then it makes sense to put him at G where the players usually don’t get as many blocks. But if you’re just going to put him at G to get more blocks than your opponent’s G, and then put Mike Miller at F to get more threes than your opponent’s F, it seems like you’d get the same result if you put them at any position they can play. I.e., two players combined (or a whole team for that matter) are going to get the same stats no matter what position you put them at (if every player could play every position).

      I guess if you’re going to use your output to decide which position each player will occupy on your team before you draft them, then it makes a little more sense. So, since Josh Smith is a G in your mind, and top Guards are generally more valuable than average Guards, then you can move Josh Smith up, or plan to take him higher than a top Forward.

      Usually when I look at multi-position players, I increase their value not because a position they might be able to play is harder or easier to get good players for, but rather, because I can use them at those different positions when other players get injured. It just adds flexibility to your lineup to help you deal with injuries or trades.

      Okay… I guess that’s all for now.

    • dyeyk2000

      testing. couldn’t post.

    • http://www.givemetherock.com Patrick

      Thanks for the great comment dyeyk2000. It’s an interesting theory you’ve laid out and I think it could be a good one. Without looking at your calculations, it’s tough for me to completely understand what’s going on, but it sounds like you classified players by position and then calculated ratings based on standard deviations within position. In that case then, yeah, I can see how Smith would be completely different than the average guard. And by plugging him in at the G position, you’d be racking up stats like blocks and boards that the average guard can’t come close to competing with. I can see with the right combination of players, you could have quite the dominating team.

      The one thing I’m confused about is the Tyson Chandler thing. I’m wondering how he could end up more valuable as a UTIL player, especially when he plays at the most scarce position when it comes to fantasy. How many players did you use to calculate the rankings at center versus UTIL? That might have something to do with it.

      Anyway, I’d be interested to find out more about your system. Do you have a website?