I'm making a big mistake.
Here, for the first time, I am publishing my complete salary-cap league dollar valuations.
Back to me giving the world my dollar values. I am surrendering my competitive advantage in my salary-cap drafts. And I am burning real cash. Because the managers in big money leagues do their research -- by doing this, I will be guaranteeing that I will lose money for the season in fantasy basketball. As in, when you add up the buy-ins of my for-money salary-cap leagues -- it adds up to more than what ESPN pays me over the course of a season.
And I am doing it all for you. Because if you read ESPN's fantasy content, I will go to the mat for you.
In the chart below, you'll find the default ESPN salary-cap dollar values, my recommended prices, and the difference in price between the two.
When you peruse the list, you're going to see some large, gaping differences. As in between my dollar values and ESPN's. And my overall rankings and ESPN's.
Don't freak out. There are good reasons behind all of it. I think if I just go through my reasons, it will be informative and hopefully instructive.
1. ESPN.com has a new points league scoring system this season.
As I wrote a couple weeks back, ESPN made some dynamic shifts in how real-life stats generate fantasy points. More weight has been shifted into the non-"real"-points categories.
The new system is:
Point scored = 1 point
3-Pointer = 1 point
Field Goal Attempt = -1 point
Field Goal Made = 2 points
Free Throw Attempted = -1 point
Free Throw Made = 1 point
Rebound = 1 point
Assist = 2 points
Steal = 4 points
Block = 4 points
Turnover = -2 points
2. I am making the writerly switch from rotisserie to points.
As I wrote a couple weeks back, I accepted a new assignment for this season. I am switching from writing about roto to writing about points. So, by default I am now writing less about categories and more about points.
3. To frame this in my brain, I did my normal draft prep, but used the new scoring system, to learn how to value players properly.
Using ESPN's projections for individual player production, I did a deep statistical dive with one goal: generating dollar values for salary-cap leagues.
I had to dig in and crunch numbers from a lot of different angles and perspectives. But one big new dynamic stood out ...
4. For the first time in years, I really have to pay attention to "real" points scored.
One of my winning strategies in roto leagues was to ignore points scored. I simply punted the category entirely. Not that I expected to lose points as a category; I just found that if I prioritized other categories, and did my work well, that scoring followed. Plus, it prevented me from falling into the trap of always rostering a high-scoring player.
But now? In points leagues, all that changes. Because despite the new scoring system, and the new weight given to 3-pointers, assists, steals and blocks, the system is still weighted to favor "real" points above all other categories.
I know this because I did the math. And when you look at the total amount of fantasy points generated by the top 130 players, points scored (folding in the extra point a 3-pointer gets you, and the impact of missed/made FGA and FTA) accounts for 49.8% of the total amount of available value. Assists amount to 21.7%, rebounds 17.1%, steals 11.5%, and blocks 8.1%.
Meaning: it's more important to be an efficient, high-volume scorer than anything else. The second most important thing is to just be a high-volume scorer. Then you should generate assists (without a ton of turnovers), then rebounds, then steals, then blocks.
5. I learned to frame the production of "real" points scored within proper perspective.
I turned to a real-life NBA metric: points per shot. How many points does one average with every field goal attempt?
In the real NBA, you generate different outcomes of value with your shots. Even though each originates with one FGA, a made 3-pointer will give you a higher points-per-shot average than a made 2-pointer.
And it's more nuanced in our new fantasy points system than the real NBA.
For instance, a successful 3-pointer nets you five fantasy points. Three points for each of the 3-pointer's "real" points, a net positive point for making a field goal attempt (two points for the successful FG, minus one point for the FGA), and an extra point for the fact the successful shot was a 3-pointer.
Whereas a missed 3-pointer is just one negative point for the FGA.
A successful 2-pointer gives you three points. The two "real" points you get for the successful 2-pointer, and then the net positive point for a made FG.
Whereas a missed 2-pointer again is just one negative point.
I'm telling you all this because I think it's good to frame point production in terms of efficiency.
This is important, even when you're driving towards a net outcome (total fantasy points produced). Because you're better off with a player who doesn't rely on sheer volume to generate his "real" point production.
6. Aside from players who score a ton of "real" points, this points system rewards one other type of player.
If you're a point guard with a good assist-to-turnover ratio, and you're adding efficient, high-volume scoring punch, and averaging 1-2 steals a game? You're made for this system.
But here's the twist: the fact the system inflates the value of point guards ... actually makes them less valuable.
(Where am I going with this? Here's a hint: think positional scarcity.)
7. So categorical scarcity now means less. But positional scarcity means more.
The de-emphasis on categorical scarcity dramatically emphasizes the importance of positional scarcity. The amount of available fantasy value by position.
Remember when I said point guards generated the most value? Well, I gauged the positions aggregate value too.
So, points guards generate the most fantasy point value ... by a fair amount. Then centers. Then power forwards. Then shooting guards. Then small forwards.
Why does this matter? Because there are only a finite number of available slots to fill by position. Look at our standard starting lineup:
PG
SG
SF
PF
C
G
F
UTIL
UTIL
UTIL
So, you can start up to five point guards if you want. Or five shooting guards. Or five small forwards. Or five power forwards. But only four centers.
So, with positional scarcity, we are presented with two dynamics. 1) Centers get a little bump in value because there are fewer opportunities to start them. 2) Which positions offer the most amount of aggregate value -- or better yet, the least?
Because the positions with the least value are the scarcest. There are far fewer impact small forwards out there. There are a ton of impact point guards out there.
If you're a small forward, you get a bump in value. If you're a shooting guard, you get a little bit less of a bump. Power forwards get a tiny little bump. Centers get a tiny bump after folding in the extra value from being to start only four as opposed to five.
In terms of shifts in value, here's an example: small forwards are nearly 20 percent more valuable than point guards.
All of this is reflected in my player rankings, and then extrapolated into my dollar valuations.
8. I base my dollar valuations in finite terms. For that, you need a foundation. Your process. Your variables and boundaries.
(You need read this part only if you're really, really interested in my own recipe! Otherwise, you can skip ahead to see the salary-cap values chart.)
Here's my plan for building a competitive foundation in a league with a $200 draft salary cap:
1. 10-team league.
2. 13-man rosters: 10 starters, 3 reserves
3. Total: a 130-man player pool. 100 starters. 30 reserves.
4. Each team gets $200 to spend in a standard salary-cap draft.
5. So 10 teams x $200 = $2,000 in total capital.
6. So $2,000 for 130 players
7. But I assume the three bench positions will probably be filled by $1 players. So, I do fold in a little of the consideration that it's also $1,970 for 100 players (just go with me)
8. When assessing player value, I am using per-game valuations, not total valuation.
9. Thanks to ESPN's projections for per-game production by individual player, I have a good idea of the amount of aggregate fantasy-point value we're competing for: the top 130 players are projected to generate about 4,650 fantasy points.
10. Because of that $1 player bench valuation factor, I also factor in that the top-100 players are projected to generated about 3,830 points.
11. But top-level, our foundation is: We're spending $2,000 on 130 players to acquire 4,650 fantasy points.
12. I use that to get this: How much does it cost on average to purchase one fantasy point? Here, approximately, it comes down to about 50 cents per fantasy point.
13. I then multiply that price point by the projected per-game production for each individual player and get my first dollar valuations!
14. I then multiply that dollar value by an additional ratio that reflects the changes in valuation due to positional scarcity. So small forwards go up, point guards go down, etc.
15. Big twist No. 1: Most cheat sheets of projected salary-cap values add inflation for star players. ESPN does it, everyone does it. It's an industry standard, regardless of where you play. It's necessary because people overpay for big-named players. So that's the biggest reason why ESPN has Giannis at $65, but I have him at only $44. I'm adding less inflation. I also am tapering my rate of inflation down as the list descends.
16. There's a certain point where we start trending towards deflation. Where my listed price is an automatic bargain. At some point on every one of my cheat sheets, there's always a tipping point player -- the player who is actually listed at his actual dollar value. Here, the tipping point player is: Ja Morant! Taking positional scarcity into account, I have him as being worth $20. (I always try to weight my inflation so that we get out of overpriced players around 40 players in).
17. Big final twist: I made some alterations to some of ESPN's projections. There were just a few players I disagreed on in terms of their projected production. I would say out of 130 players, I had tangible disagreements with around 25-30 players. So that's another reason why my rankings of the players 1-130 are different.
Okay, that's it! Enjoy the list, happy drafting, and if you have any questions, you can tweet me, or even email me if it's an emergency.
I'll be around all weekend ... doing my own darn drafts.