The Z Files: Historical Draft Slot Values

What does a Slinky have to do with fantasy baseball? Picture grabbing one end and letting the rest fall to the floor. The loops at the top are furthest apart, with the difference lessening down the spiral until the last several lay on top of each other. Each loop represents the expected production for each pick in a snake draft.

What follows is a tabular depiction of a snake draft followed by some observations and drafting applications. The model is a 15-team league. The numbers are average dollars earned since 2010 for each draft spot in a hypothetical "perfect" draft where each player is selected based on their end-of-season earnings, using a 5x5 league with a $260 budget, standard 14 hitter/9 pitcher active roster with a 69:31 hitting to pitching split. Also included are average earnings per round along with the total earned by each team.

I've been conducting this exercise for 20 years and while the totals change, the one consistency is Team 1 always earns the most. The numbers from Team 2 to Team 15 vary, with the earlier teams usually totaling over 260. It just happens the initial drop in this representation is a little steeper, flattening out the rest. It isn't always the case the last few teams finish with over 260, but there usually is a bell-shaped curve, so on paper, there's no earnings sacrifice from the late spots. It usually comes down to the first five rounds, where the delta between picks is greatest. After that it's smaller as shown by the average earnings per round. Beginning in Round 6, the difference in the average earnings for consecutive rounds is $1.

In theory, the takeaway is that picking first is optimal. However, this implies the top-ranked player in the spring ends up there in the fall, which rarely happens. As such, team construction philosophies trump the theoretical advantage of the first pick. If you're more comfortable with a middle pick, reducing the chance of missing a run, don't force yourself to the front of the line, hoping to correctly identify the top player. Proponents of using a late-wheel pick to build a desired foundation shouldn't be leery of overcoming an initial earnings disadvantage.

Beginning in Round 7 through the end of the draft, the difference between the first and last player drafted in each round is $1. Keep in mind whole dollars are displayed, but earnings of $6.54 and $7.42 both round to the same $7. That said, even if the stats are known, like year-ending numbers, valuation isn't true enough to differentiate players that close in earnings.

Many use projected earnings to generate their snake draft cheat sheet. Sage drafters know assembling a squad is much more than "taking one off the top." Tiers, such as the pitching model I presented last week, contend all players in a tier are virtually the same. Some have an issue with this, pointing out players at the end of one tier are like those fronting the next and tiering masks this. This is true, but not a reason to disparage the method. Tiered drafting will be further discussed later in the offseason. It's more of a bookkeeping process than an accurate rankings designation.

The main application of the table is framing expectations at each pick. Each selection should have a plausible path to the expected earnings. It doesn't always have to be the 50th percentile expectations. The well-timed upside shot at the 90th percentile is often a winning ploy. The key is not drafting an unworthy player because, "He won't make it back to me." The operative word is unworthy. That is, the risk the player falls short of necessary expectations far exceeds the reward of achieving them, especially with deserving players still on the board. This is more apropos early, since the difference between earnings for adjacent players lessens significantly further into the draft, as described above.

After the first couple rounds, jumping a player 10, even 15 spots up rankings is perfectly viable. Not only is valuation imprecise, but adding 10 plate appearances to a hitter or 10 innings to a pitcher then prorating their performance can increase their earnings by $1. Increasing those to 15 can add $2, depending on round-off. Playing time expectations are even more variable than the skills aspect of the expectation. This is one of the chief reasons position scarcity, except at catcher, is a myth and has been for years, save in the shallowest of leagues. At some point, there will be a player at each position within 10 or 15 spots of the top available player. Towards the bottom of the Slinky, this can be extended to 20 or 25 loops.

This may seem like a contradiction, but warning against drafting a player simply because he won't be available at the next pick, and rubber-stamping "over-drafting" a pitcher to fulfill the requirements of last week's pitching plan, are separate entities. In the former, there are better alternatives than drafting a player for fear of missing out, or whatever the reason is for jumping the rankings. Please note, this is jumping one's own rankings, not the ADP (average draft position). With regards to the latter, refusing to draft a pitcher "not worthy" of a draft spot results in a staff incapable of producing competitive ratios.

If it's necessary to draft pitching ahead of their rankings, as is often the case in the NFBC (National Fantasy Baseball Championship), higher-ranked batters must be pushed down the rankings. A practical way to demonstrate why elevating pitching is a winning strategy is to take the expected earnings of the 23 picks, reordering them from highest to lowest and comparing to the predetermined amount per draft spot. In almost every instance, the adjusted order satisfies what's initially laid out. What happens is a few hitters and pitchers swap places, with the final expected earnings still meeting or eclipsing what's expected.

For those more mathematically inclined, the truth is pitchers aren't jumped up rankings. The rankings are, in fact, wrong. Specifically, the 69:31 pitching to hitting split is inaccurate. Remember, it's an empirical setting based on history. Not all leagues abide by that specific budget allocation, most notably NFBC drafts and auctions. The data is presented in this matter since it's the most relatable. Most have a feel for a $40, $30 or $20 player utilizing the most common split.

Based on the past several seasons, 15-team NFBC auctions and drafts tend towards a 63:37 split. Redoing the above table using that ratio doesn't change the final numbers much, if at all. However, the players "assigned" to each spot are shifted, with pitchers moving up since they're allocated a greater percentage of the budget. Now, when using a cheat sheet emanating from the 63:37 expectations, pitchers warrant the spots in which they're selected.

There are other implications of the above table, but there's a decent amount here to digest so let's call it a day and circle back at a later date. As always, please post questions in the comments and I'll address them at my earliest convenience.