trrhyne Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 In the player rankings, there is an auction value for each player. Does anyone know what the total team payroll is that this is based on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sushi Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I believe it is $100 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Furley Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 In the player rankings, there is an auction value for each player. Does anyone know what the total team payroll is that this is based on? 866361[/snapback] I was wondering the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I was wondering the same thing. 866440[/snapback] It is based on a $100 Salary cap and really means percentage of salary cap. I am still exploring ways to best present auction values since roster depth, number of starters, number of teams, etc. all have a big effect on player values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 What if you base it on the assumption that, for example: 1) You spend 80% of your salary cap on your starters, regardless of how many you start 2) You spend 20% of your salary cap on your bench, regardless of how many you sit 3) You spend approximately 20% of your salary cap on ALL of your QBs 4) You spend approximately 40% of your salary cap on ALL of your RBs 5) You spend approximately 30% of your salary cap on ALL of your WRs and TEs (even if they are separate positions and the leagues is TE mandatory) 6) You spend approximately 10% of your salary cap on ALL of your DEFs and Ks (combined) ...therefore, if your league requires you to start 1QB, 2RBs, 5WRs, 1TE, 1K and 1DEF...and your roster is 20 players total...you know that you will spend 80% of your cap on the 10 starters and 20% on the 10 bench sitters...you know that you'll spend about 20% on all your QBs...40% on all your RBs...30% on all your WRs and TEs...and 10% on your Ks and DEFs... And so, if you assume that you have 16% to spend on your one starting QB and 4% to spend on how ever many bench QBs you want, DMD, you could tell everyone what percentage someone should be willing to spend of the 16% allocated to the starting QB. Meaning, if you think someone should spend 20% for PManning, then, you'd list him at 125% of the 16% ... essentially saying that you should be willing to overspend your budget to get PManning and get lesser WRs, RBs, TEs, Ks or Ds if you get him. And, this would also mean that, for example, if Hasslebeck is at 12% using your current approach, then you'd determine him to be 'worth' 75% of the 16% allocated to the starting QB position, allowing the owner to either spend more on a backup QB or to spend more on RBs, WRs, TEs, Ks or Ds. ...this is off the top of my head, so it may be a crappy idea... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgcoach Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 What if you base it on the assumption that, for example: 1) You spend 80% of your salary cap on your starters, regardless of how many you start 2) You spend 20% of your salary cap on your bench, regardless of how many you sit 3) You spend approximately 20% of your salary cap on ALL of your QBs 4) You spend approximately 40% of your salary cap on ALL of your RBs 5) You spend approximately 30% of your salary cap on ALL of your WRs and TEs (even if they are separate positions and the leagues is TE mandatory) 6) You spend approximately 10% of your salary cap on ALL of your DEFs and Ks (combined) ...therefore, if your league requires you to start 1QB, 2RBs, 5WRs, 1TE, 1K and 1DEF...and your roster is 20 players total...you know that you will spend 80% of your cap on the 10 starters and 20% on the 10 bench sitters...you know that you'll spend about 20% on all your QBs...40% on all your RBs...30% on all your WRs and TEs...and 10% on your Ks and DEFs... And so, if you assume that you have 16% to spend on your one starting QB and 4% to spend on how ever many bench QBs you want, DMD, you could tell everyone what percentage someone should be willing to spend of the 16% allocated to the starting QB. Meaning, if you think someone should spend 20% for PManning, then, you'd list him at 125% of the 16% ... essentially saying that you should be willing to overspend your budget to get PManning and get lesser WRs, RBs, TEs, Ks or Ds if you get him. And, this would also mean that, for example, if Hasslebeck is at 12% using your current approach, then you'd determine him to be 'worth' 75% of the 16% allocated to the starting QB position, allowing the owner to either spend more on a backup QB or to spend more on RBs, WRs, TEs, Ks or Ds. ...this is off the top of my head, so it may be a crappy idea... 867443[/snapback] OkeyDoke - Jim from Taxi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 What if you base it on the assumption that, for example: 1) You spend 80% of your salary cap on your starters, regardless of how many you start 2) You spend 20% of your salary cap on your bench, regardless of how many you sit 3) You spend approximately 20% of your salary cap on ALL of your QBs 4) You spend approximately 40% of your salary cap on ALL of your RBs 5) You spend approximately 30% of your salary cap on ALL of your WRs and TEs (even if they are separate positions and the leagues is TE mandatory) 6) You spend approximately 10% of your salary cap on ALL of your DEFs and Ks (combined) ...therefore, if your league requires you to start 1QB, 2RBs, 5WRs, 1TE, 1K and 1DEF...and your roster is 20 players total...you know that you will spend 80% of your cap on the 10 starters and 20% on the 10 bench sitters...you know that you'll spend about 20% on all your QBs...40% on all your RBs...30% on all your WRs and TEs...and 10% on your Ks and DEFs... And so, if you assume that you have 16% to spend on your one starting QB and 4% to spend on how ever many bench QBs you want, DMD, you could tell everyone what percentage someone should be willing to spend of the 16% allocated to the starting QB. Meaning, if you think someone should spend 20% for PManning, then, you'd list him at 125% of the 16% ... essentially saying that you should be willing to overspend your budget to get PManning and get lesser WRs, RBs, TEs, Ks or Ds if you get him. And, this would also mean that, for example, if Hasslebeck is at 12% using your current approach, then you'd determine him to be 'worth' 75% of the 16% allocated to the starting QB position, allowing the owner to either spend more on a backup QB or to spend more on RBs, WRs, TEs, Ks or Ds. ...this is off the top of my head, so it may be a crappy idea... 867443[/snapback] sounds good to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest THEbigred Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 shameless bump. GB auctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugarthium Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 It is based on a $100 Salary cap and really means percentage of salary cap. I am still exploring ways to best present auction values since roster depth, number of starters, number of teams, etc. all have a big effect on player values. 866897[/snapback] Yeah those numbers are a little out of bed for larger leagues. Our FF League has 14 Teams total, so alot of the values should be increased for a larger league since additional auction dollars are available. I don't think the difference of having a roster size of 16 or 20 will make much difference since the last few slots will go for the minimum dollars available. In our 14 team league, the last two years the top RB has gone for 43% of the salary cap, whereas the huddle has the top RB listed at 35%. And Last year, the top six RBs last year all commanded bids of 38% or higher. -Rug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Furley Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Yeah those numbers are a little out of bed for larger leagues. Our FF League has 14 Teams total, so alot of the values should be increased for a larger league since additional auction dollars are available. I don't think the difference of having a roster size of 16 or 20 will make much difference since the last few slots will go for the minimum dollars available. In our 14 team league, the last two years the top RB has gone for 43% of the salary cap, whereas the huddle has the top RB listed at 35%. And Last year, the top six RBs last year all commanded bids of 38% or higher.-Rug 871490[/snapback] No matter how big your league is or how much money you have to spend, isn't 43% still 43%? Obviously your league must heavily favor RBs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 No matter how big your league is or how much money you have to spend, isn't 43% still 43%? Obviously your league must heavily favor RBs. 871623[/snapback] This is all a case in point as to why auction $'s are nearly impossible to give accurately as an overall number. I've been in a couple of auctions already this season and both were 12 man and both were very similar in $ amounts for top players that I suggested in the rankings. But I have played in leagues where people will spend over 50% of their money on one super-stud player. I've been in others where the highest priced player was only like 30% of cap. It just varies so wildly in many leagues. Then again - that is one of the aspects that make me love auctions so much... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugarthium Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 No matter how big your league is or how much money you have to spend, isn't 43% still 43%? Obviously your league must heavily favor RBs. 871623[/snapback] Yep 43% is 43%, which is why I listed it that way instead of $$$. I guess my point is... RBs are more valuable in a larger league b/c there are fewer of them and everyone wants 2-3 of them. With 14 owners it isn't possible for every team to have 3 starting RBs with only 32 NFL teams. Plus only 20-24 of these teams have a primary RB. With 14 owners its tough to get even 2 primary RBs. Supply and Demand. RBs costs increase with more owners since the supply is limited. I still use the huddle numbers as a good guide. They tend to clue me in when a player is a significant bargain. I just wish we could get a better feel for percentages in an 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 team leagues. I wish we had some larger numbers of teams with the mock auctions. It looks like FF is heading towards auction drafting in the next few years, and it would be nice to see more coverage of this emerging format. -Rug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest THEbigred Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Yep 43% is 43%, which is why I listed it that way instead of $$$. I guess my point is... RBs are more valuable in a larger league b/c there are fewer of them and everyone wants 2-3 of them. With 14 owners it isn't possible for every team to have 3 starting RBs with only 32 NFL teams. Plus only 20-24 of these teams have a primary RB. With 14 owners its tough to get even 2 primary RBs. Which is why IMO it makes no sense to mandate or even allow 2 RB starters in such larger leagues. It just spreads em too thin. And 50%ish for any one player regardless of circumstance is stoopid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.