Fantasy Football Discussion II

[-Jrabbit]

I won't consider you an idiot unless Rivers gets hurt.

You're also 5-2 and leading the league in scoring by 6 pts/game. Me, I'm 2-5.

But while it's still in my copy cache, I must ask:

Why are you so sensitive about it? I mean seriously.

[EPW]

I'm not sensitive, I'm stating a fact!

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok.

Thanks JRabbit. I appreciate it. I try to make good and fair deals. I don't think I've screwed anyone over.

[SlowwHand]

Jr got screwed. I know it sounds weird coming from me, since I won, but he scored over 160, which has been the standard for a very good game, and lost. I was very lucky this week.

[-Jrabbit]

That's just how my season has gone. Matchups have not been my friend.

My natural tendency is to be all outraged by being 2-5, especially after my success the last few years. But the numbers show that my team just isn't as good as I thought it would be. I'm 10th in scoring, and basically have to win out in order to repeat.

At this point, I'm just hoping to work my way back to respectable.

[snoopy369]

I absolutely would make a trade that I didn't think would benefit me more than the other guy. Heck, I'm not sure THIS trade will benefit me more than Sloww; PT is in a PT situation, right now, and not the goal-line half (third). It probably won't hurt me as long as Shockey stays healthy, but I'm not sure how much it will help. He might go back to being the main guy, in which case I do well, and that's why I made the trade (That and I'm always worried about my RB situation...)

In a 14 player league, if I exchange +10 points to Sloww for +5 points to me, it's still a net benefit to me. As long as it's not a 2 or perhaps 3 player league, it's a net benefit to me... this is not a zero sum game. How would trades happen if both players needed to think they were benefiting more than the other guy? By offering a trade, every time, you'd basically be saying "I think I'm screwing you over. Willing to gamble that I'm wrong?"... which is not what trading is about.

If I benefit by +5 points, that's (say) a 3% additional chance that I win each game from here to the playoffs, and then again in the playoffs. It might be a 6% chance that Sloww wins his games, but that's fine by me - at most we meet once between here and there, and particularly for someone at 3-4 and hoping just to make the playoffs, that's a chance I'm more than willing to take in exchange for me making the playoffs. .03*(9) = .27 wins, while I'm losing .06 wins if I face Sloww once. That's a net benefit to me.

[Ben Kenobi]

this is not a zero sum game

Goddamn! Is the argument that hard to grok? Seriously.

1. THE TRADE BENEFITS BOTH PLAYERS or else it wouldn't happen. I agree with you completely.

2. THE TRADE BENEFITS ONE PERSON more than the other. Also true.

Say it benefits slowwy 10 points, and you 5, that's the perfect example. You got that correct, but then you go off the rails. It's not a "zero sum game", and I never said it was such. If both players benefit, then it's not a zero sum game, and I said that earlier.

How would trades happen if both players needed to think they were benefiting more than the other guy?

Perception!= Reality. That's the third point. YOU DON'T ABSOLUTELY KNOW WHAT THE TRUE OUTCOME WOULD BE. If you both did, no trades would happen.

I think I'm screwing you over. Willing to gamble that I'm wrong.

Again, just because I benefit, or I perceive I benefit more from the trade, does not mean I'm screwing you over. Dammit. You are thick snoopy. This isn't a hard concept. Both players benefit except one player will always benefit more than the other. Unless of course you flip the coin, and it lands on the edge. This is LOGIC.

So once again.

1. TRADE MUST BENEFIT BOTH PLAYERS.
2. ONE PLAYER BENEFITS MORE.
3. YOU DON'T KNOW THE TRUE OUTCOME.

All three are prerequisites for trading.

[Ben Kenobi]

If I benefit by +5 points, that's (say) a 3% additional chance that I win each game from here to the playoffs, and then again in the playoffs. It might be a 6% chance that Sloww wins his games, but that's fine by me - at most we meet once between here and there, and particularly for someone at 3-4 and hoping just to make the playoffs, that's a chance I'm more than willing to take in exchange for me making the playoffs

Your reason here is why I made the other offer. However it was a catch.

1. I want to make DukeOYork stronger.
2. I want him to win some games.
3. I want to get stronger myself.
4. I don't want DukeOYork to get too strong, and be able to beat me.

Some of the goals are mutually contradictory. Are you trading with Slowwy to help him go 16-0, it's the opposite, because you want him to inflict losses against everyone else and make it easier for you to make the playoffs. Understood. I would totally understand this trade if Slowwy were the one benefitting more. It makes sense. Slowwy has the bargaining position.

[-Jrabbit]

Sloww benefits by getting a viable starter, in exchange for a sometime-starting (and oft-injured) RB. The fact that he'll probably start in the W/R slot for snoopy is of no consequence to him.

And Snoop gets a strong-upside RB (with risk) in exchange for a bench-warmer TE.

A starter for a benchwarmer (which is what both teams got) is a guaranteed upgrade, since benchwarmers don't score anything.

Speaking of thick: how could you NOT understand this trade, Ben?

[Ben Kenobi]

Speaking of thick: how could you NOT understand this trade, Ben?

I think slowwy could have gotten a bit more for PT Cruiser. I honestly perceive his marginal value to be quite a bit bigger than Celek. I also consider Celek to be grossly overrated, but perhaps my perception is altered by the fact that I'm a Mike Bell owner.

[snoopy369]

Ben, the point is that this isn't a matter of 'win-lose'. The world of fantasy trades is not zero-sum; there is not a loser in this trade. One person wins more, perhaps; but that's pretty irrelevant. You just see the world in a very black and white way, and the rest of us don't

I think Pierre Thomas may turn out to have positive marginal value (hence my trade offer), but I don't think he has nearly the value you think he does. If you value him that highly, offer me a trade for him Celek is one of the highest scoring TEs in the league this year, and has a system that is very TE-friendly [even more so than Shiancoe]. Your thoughts aside, most people considered Celek to be a pretty good TE going into this year, and his performance has proved it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Put it this way, Shiancoe for PT Cruiser straight up was not in my universe of possibilities. Now I'm trying to figure out just how much the rest of yall value RBs. I was doing ok on the principle that RBs are a scarce commodity and thus more valuable than other positions.

[-Jrabbit]

The Cooley injury changed that for Sloww. Pretty simple. When you saw Cooley was hurt, you should have contacted Sloww.

I would also point out that Celek and Shiancoe (and Mike Bell, for that matter) all started the season as undrafted free agents. Bell was useful for a couple weeks whil PT was hurt. Shiancoe was nothing until defenses left him open trying to defend both AP and the WRs.

My evaluation of any given trade is entirely situational. Injuries, byes and what/how well teams are doing IRL are the biggest factors. All this stuff is situational. For instance, you offered my Shiancoe for Bell about 5 weeks back -- something that made no sense for me at the time (since Bell was starting and I had 2 decent TEs). But it would be a slam-dunk for me today.

Similarly, I'm sure Sloww didn't give a damn about Celek (or Shiancoe) until he was staring down the barrel of Delhomme-to-Rosario for the second half of the season.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would also point out that Celek and Shiancoe (and Mike Bell, for that matter) all started the season as undrafted free agents.

Great post, except for this,

Round 7:

Visanthe Shiancoe Detroit Deity Duo

About 6 picks after Cooley. Missed opportunity for sure!

Round 18:

Brent Celek Mountain Goats

And he gave up

Round 2:

Pierre Thomas!

[-Jrabbit]

But you did pick up both Bell (as did I) and Shiancoe on waivers. Which goes to my point -- that player values fluctuate wildly over the course of a season. (Ask me how I feel about Steven Jackson today, vs last August...)