Value-Based Drafting Already Provides A Kind of Optimum… for Auctions.

Let’s start with a basic premise. One of the neat interpretations of VBD theory is this: The auction price should scale directly with player Value over Baseline. That’s pretty cool, because it’s so simple.

• If it’s not already obvious, this is because you’re buying into “excess points” at each position.

• If your whole fantasy league spends their fantasy budget (say $200), then all teams end up with equal “excess points”. Equal chances of winning.

• When somebody pays more for an expensive player’s excess points, it means they won’t be able to pay up for certain other positions.

Of course, that’s all theory, not reality.

But still it explains why VBD gives a good guideline, for auctions:

• It protects you from overpaying, so you can save for other positional players and capture value elsewhere.

• VBD auction prices provide a “minimax” solution. In game theory, that means you’re guaranteed to end up with a team of at least average value.

• In other words—for auctions— VBD lowers the chance that your league could force you into ending up with a below-average team.

I will continue to discuss how the situation is different from snake drafts. However let’s first make sure we understand cumulative scarcity.

If VBD is an Optimum, How Does Positional Scarcity (%) Help?

For some people, this will be useful background, even though it’s not the main point of this article.

Positional Scarcity % (“PS%”) is one metric that some people like to use, especially as popularized by the 2010s decade of the BeerSheets draft tool. Despite my researching (articles, posts, blogs, and videos), I’ve never found a clear articulation of how PS% should be used. In fact, I find conflicting opinions!

Here’s my take. “PS%” also appears on my Subvertadown draft sheets, and it is better described as “Cumulative Percentage Value Remaining”. It tells you what fraction of positive Value will be remaining at a certain position, after the given player is drafted.

My claim is that, for optimizing points alone (or rather “optimizing your risk of missing value”), the idea of PS% isn’t strictly necessary. Auction budgeting by VBD already helps apportion budget across positions.

However, PS% could help create a more “balanced” team, if that is your goal.

• In a toss-up situation, between 2 different fantasy starter positions that you need to fill, you might choose to draft the position with lower PS%.

  • That would help avoid being weak at one particular position while being “too strong” at another position.

• But of course, it could be your strategy to do the opposite: to deliberately allow relative weakness at one roster spot. (For example to plan for waivers.)

• Just remember that “%” is not in units of fantasy points, and so it should never be interpreted as loss of Value (Value over baseline).