MAIN FORUM

Comments

  • jimfred82

    • Blogger of the Month

    NBA prices tonight on DS

    Is anybody else having a tough time putting together a competitive team on DS tonight? I’m thinking I may not even play on there tonight, which is crazy because it’s a Wednesday!

  • Markness

    DraftKings Team

    Hey jimfred,

    Are you saying the budget seems tighter than usual or the salaries are more accurate (relatively) than usual? Either one could make it tougher to build a team.
    I’m just curious… We’re always trying to optimize our player salary process.

  • jlowery73

    2012 DDC Main Event Champion

    • 2014 FAFC Finalist

    • x3

      2015 FACFC Finalist

    I’ve always thought DS has the best (hardest) pricing out there. I will admit that I think the term “value” in reference to DS is going down some in regards to NBA. Meaning, salaries are tougher now so the perceived goal of “value” as 2.4 or 2.5x your salary in the past IMO is now down to 2.2 or so. It seems to me that salaries are tougher then ever on that site, which makes for more obvious plays at times and the 40-60% ownership you see on some players night in and night out.

    This isn’t a complaint, as I enjoy a tougher cap. I will admit though that it is tough to field a team I like on that site on some nights.

  • WhiskeyTavon4

    • 745

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2017 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • x2

      2014 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    Draftstreet is the best in the game at setting prices and it isnt even close.

  • jimfred82

    • Blogger of the Month

    @Markness said…

    Hey jimfred,

    Are you saying the budget seems tighter than usual or the salaries are more accurate (relatively) than usual? Either one could make it tougher to build a team.
    I’m just curious… We’re always trying to optimize our player salary process.

    it’s fairly accurate (although I’m not sure how Beno parlayed last night’s turd into an 11k salary), but maybe a little higher than usual. It often seems like you can find a lot more potentially useful guys in the 8-9k range whereas tonight there aren’t many. That, combined with the fact that the studs are going to eat up 20-25% of your salary each make it a tough night. Probably less overlap than usual, though, which should be nice.

  • crazy201081

    I agree that it’s tough to make a lineup that looks good on paper but that’s what I really like about DS.

  • troveur

    Yep very tough cap there recently but there are always bargains to be had if you search hard enough like Mike Scott for 5k yesterday. Same deal for tonight’s games…

  • matt686575

    It’s not so bad bro, just look at Notorious’s Bargain Bin Ballers and pick out who you think will do the best to fill out your roster.

  • jimfred82

    • Blogger of the Month

    yeah, me saying “I’m thinking I might not even play” was a bit of an over exaggeration. Nobody takes off Wednesdays or Fridays unless they absolutely have to! :)

  • jecarl2

    I was coming to post a similar thread. This thing is tough if you are trying to shoot for a score of 250 plus. I think my team is mathematically sound but when I take a step back it is a sorry group of individuals.

  • Shawners

    Keep up the great work Draft Street. I love your tight pricing.

  • jecarl2

    I do see several guys whose price does not reflect previous production. Al Jefferson @ 16.8k wtf!!!! I know he is hurt which makes it even more puzzling.

    It seems like some of the prices are over reactions based on a couple of spot starts or good games and some are priced based on last years production.

    I also don’t see the pricing model react to players bad games. There are several players who have put up multiple duds even before yesterday and their price has increased.

    I personally like the tight cap but I would also like to roster Love, AD, Lebron at some point in the season.

  • kaetorade

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBBC Finalist

    @jecarl2 said…

    It seems like some of the prices are over reactions based on a couple of spot starts or good games and some are priced based on last years production.

    I also don’t see the pricing model react to players bad games. There are several players who have put up multiple duds even before yesterday and their price has increased.

    Among other factors, DS’s pricing is the #1 reason why it’s my preferred site. They are always on top of things. It’s my observation that players are also priced to reflect recent and/or expected ownership levels; the goal being, to prevent as much overlap as possible. While it’s an inexact science, I applaud DS for such an effort.

  • jimfred82

    • Blogger of the Month

    @kaetorade said…

    Among other factors, DS’s pricing is the #1 reason why it’s my preferred site. They are always on top of things. It’s my observation that players are also priced to reflect recent and/or expected ownership levels; the goal being, to prevent as much overlap as possible. While it’s an inexact science, I applaud DS for such an effort.

    this is a great point. DS is the only site where playing on a two-game slate feels less like a gamble and more like strategy… and that’s saying something, considering it feels like a guessing game on other sites.

  • chief1976

    job well done

  • dinkpiece

    • 89

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #61

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • 2014 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    Agree on JLowery’s comments.

    I think DraftStreet pricing has always been tough and its the reason I’ve enjoyed the game more over there. I do think they could stand to be slightly more equitable in the up-pricing vs. down-pricing. Seems like guys get manually raised to a point that takes the decision out of someone’s hands (Beno was a good example last night) and especially early this year slumping players haven’t seen their prices decline (Rose is the only exception and he’s still priced at .75x his avg pts per game when their model in the past has been .5x).

    I think the bigger concern with DS is that they’ve always been the site asking more from their users. Tougher pricing, more slots to fill, more utilities and they’re trending in the wrong direction on that front with the exception of pricing. They cut a U out in baseball and have forced players hands in basketball by going 3 G, 3 F, 1 C, 1 U instead of a more open format 2-2-1-3 or 2-2-2-2 like last year.

    It’s a shame that their game is trending towards less decisions, because most of their customers have viewed that as the reason they play volume there.

  • headChopper

    RG Contributor (OG Status)

    • 494

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #84

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • 2014 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    @dinkpiece said…

    Agree on JLowery’s comments.

    I think DraftStreet pricing has always been tough and its the reason I’ve enjoyed the game more over there. I do think they could stand to be slightly more equitable in the up-pricing vs. down-pricing. Seems like guys get manually raised to a point that takes the decision out of someone’s hands (Beno was a good example last night) and especially early this year slumping players haven’t seen their prices decline (Rose is the only exception and he’s still priced at .75x his avg pts per game when their model in the past has been .5x).

    I think the bigger concern with DS is that they’ve always been the site asking more from their users. Tougher pricing, more slots to fill, more utilities and they’re trending in the wrong direction on that front with the exception of pricing. They cut a U out in baseball and have forced players hands in basketball by going 3 G, 3 F, 1 C, 1 U instead of a more open format 2-2-1-3 or 2-2-2-2 like last year.

    It’s a shame that their game is trending towards less decisions, because most of their customers have viewed that as the reason they play volume there.

    bingo. dam this guy is smart

  • DillingerFour

    FD Rep - DFBMeeMee Champ (x2)

    • Blogger of the Month

    I personally have had most of my success in all sports on DS, so I shouldn’t really complain about their setup. But I do agree with what dink said. The prices seem to go up rather quickly, then never descend. I agree that some roster flexibility would help this.

  • jlowery73

    2012 DDC Main Event Champion

    • 2014 FAFC Finalist

    • x3

      2015 FACFC Finalist

    I would have also loved to see more U spots in hoops this year, I am surprised more people voted for the change to 1 instead of 3.

  • jimfred82

    • Blogger of the Month

    @jlowery73 said…

    I would have also loved to see more U spots in hoops this year, I am surprised more people voted for the change to 1 instead of 3.

    when was the vote?

  • stlcardinals84

    Leading RG Analyst

    • 296

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2018 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • 2018 DraftKings FBBWC Finalist

    They ran a poll of some of their biggest NBA players from last year to see what they would prefer, and 3-3-1 with 1 utility won out over 2-2-2-2 again or 2-2-1 with 3 utility.

    The 2 centers was a nightmare last year on short game slates, so that really wasn’t an option for me.

    So it comes down to 3 F, 3 G with 1 UTIL or 2 F, 2 G with 3 UTIL.

    I’ll take the counter argument that the current setup actually takes more thinking and demands more from the player. 3 UTIL basically gives you the freedom to pick what you want without thinking, and if you like that more, just play at DraftKings where the whole world is multi-position eligible and you can pick whoever you want.

    It’s why I voted for the current setup and have no problem with it, outside of sometimes a guy being listed at the wrong position. Obviously, with only 1 UTIL spot, that does need to get fixed.

  • dinkpiece

    • 89

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #61

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • 2014 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    you don’t find it as hard on short slates to fill 3 F, 3 G as it was to fill 2 C?

  • dinkpiece

    • 89

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #61

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • 2014 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @stlcardinals84 said…

    They ran a poll of some of their biggest NBA players from last year to see what they would prefer, and 3-3-1 with 1 utility won out over 2-2-2-2 again or 2-2-1 with 3 utility.

    The 2 centers was a nightmare last year on short game slates, so that really wasn’t an option for me.

    So it comes down to 3 F, 3 G with 1 UTIL or 2 F, 2 G with 3 UTIL.

    I’ll take the counter argument that the current setup actually takes more thinking and demands more from the player. 3 UTIL basically gives you the freedom to pick what you want without thinking, and if you like that more, just play at DraftKings where the whole world is multi-position eligible and you can pick whoever you want.

    It’s why I voted for the current setup and have no problem with it, outside of sometimes a guy being listed at the wrong position. Obviously, with only 1 UTIL spot, that does need to get fixed.

    just to give an example and put some math to it.

    There are 17 F-eligible players in the pool tonight on DS and you have to take 3 (17% of the pool). There are 10 C-eligible players in the pool tonight and last year you had to take 2 (20% of the pool).

    It’s not a significant difference in terms of effecting the way you have to make lineups on a short slate. You’re hand-cuffed.

  • bripc23

    2013 PFBC Finalist

    Personally I don’t think I like super sharp pricing and prefer a bit softer cap but I know I am the minority for that.

  • Markness

    DraftKings Team

    The reasoning STL provided is similar to ours when we decided on the roster change this year…
    Three utils would almost remove the idea of position requirements.

    The ideal structure might have been: G G G F F F C U U, but we didn’t want to change rosters to 9 slots as that changes the budget/salaries and I think as we have more returning users we want to keep things familiar (ie: fair value is ~2x salary)

    I was also making the argument to dink (via email) that G G G F F F C U might require more difficult decision-making than having 3 U spots. It seems counter-intuitive, but more restrictions could result in more difficult decisions (assuming salaries are relatively accurate).
    More difficult decisions = more skill = more room for edge.

    STL, any chance you have a good way of explaining why more restrictions might create more room for edge?

    EDIT: Forgot to mention, the stricter requirements make it more important to have accurate position eligibility. We’ll be updating that more often this year. You should see an update Friday.

  • jlowery73

    2012 DDC Main Event Champion

    • 2014 FAFC Finalist

    • x3

      2015 FACFC Finalist

    I would think more U spots open up the potential for more creativity in your lineups, no? More creativity to me would enhance more skill/edge.

  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

Subforum Index

RotoGrinders.com is the home of the daily fantasy sports community. Our content, rankings, member blogs, promotions and forum discussion all cater to the players that like to create a new fantasy team every day of the week.

If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, crisis counseling and referral services can be accessed by calling 1-800-GAMBLER (1-800-426-2537) (IL). Gambling problem? Call 1-800-Gambler (NJ/WV/PA), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO) or 1-800-BETS OFF (IA). 21+. NJ/PA/WV/IN/IA/CO/IL only.