Would you prefer to have a roster of high-ceiling players (who could easily bottom out) or high-floor players (who are unlikely to become elite)? Explain.
Matt Waldman: If stuck with a proposition like this that's one or the other, then I'd rather have the high-ceiling players unless I need my house painted and I'm in a league where the payout(s) for making the playoffs, best record, or points score offer sufficient enough monetary incentive for me to play for money rather than championships!
Otherwise, I'd rather take risks with a higher upside. It's the difference between playing to win rather than playing for the incentive of being good, but not daring to be great. I think an added rationalization for this approach is the waiver wire. If I have players who aren't playing well, they are easier to replace with free agents during the season than players who are good, but not great. It's a tougher decision to figure out who to drop or add in those cases than it is to look at a guy who you clearly whiffed on.
In real life I draft a mix of upside and high floor and probably don't think about the decisions within this context as much as this question frames it. Still, if forced to roll with one or the other, I'd philosophically shoot for the best possible outcome.
Jason Wood: To quote my friends from York, PA...this is not a black and white world.
In GENERAL, I have a bifurcated approach to my draft. In the early rounds -- the foundational rounds -- we're all trying and expecting to roster elite talent. As a result, I tend to avoid risk (sometimes to a fault). That's why I can easily understand the logic of rostering Rob Gronkowski in the 2nd round, but I won't be the guy doing that. Similarly if I have two or more players on the board with relatively similar value (same tier, closely matching projections), I will opt for the player with the less checkered injury history and/or stability in his surroundings. I don't want to overstate this though, I won't reach for a guy that's been healthy through every training camp practice ahead of someone I believe can score 50 more points but has been out with what looks to be a precautionary measure.
After the first four or five rounds, we move into the the portion of the draft where I embrace risk with a passion. You don't win fantasy leagues by having the 12th best QB, the 12th and 24th best RBs, the 12th/24th/36th best WRs, etc...you win your leagues by finding a way to roster players who outperform the median of their tier (in other words you want your WR2 to deliver WR18 or better stats). In order to accomplish that task, you HAVE to be aggressive and take on some risk. We're trying to dominate. To win our leagues. At this point veteran fantasy footballers like us take little solace in 'contending' year in, year out. I would rather crash and burn trying to be the 1 seed and win the title than finish 5th in points and lose in the first round of the playoffs.
One of the mistakes people make is toward the end game. Let's take a receiver like Brian Hartline. He's fine, particularly in a PPR league. He'll help in bye weeks. But realistically, he's not going to morph into some uber stud. Instead take a chance on a guy like Michael Floyd or Rod Streater. Guys who COULD become every week starters. Sure they could also be complete busts, but that works to your advantage. I see so many fantasy owners hold onto a guy that ranks in the WR35-WR40 category and pass up waiver claims because it feels wrong to let go of a guy that's 'producing.' Whereas if you swung the fence on a boom/bust type late, you have on qualms about parting ways for another boom/bust waiver claim. Makes roster management more fluid and gives you more chances to hit a home run.
Chad Parsons: My general philsophy is to take big swings at high-impact players. Half of a drafted fantasy roster may end up on the waiver wire by the end of the season. With that type of turnover, all it takes is seeing a big upswing in value from a few players to dominate. I prefer to take boom-bust options along the way as they are the players that win weekly matchups with big scores. Drafting average players for each round with tempered ceilings is a strategy to end up with a middling team dependent on the waiver wire for an in-season spark.
Adam Harstad: As Matt Waldman pointed out, unless there are some unique monetary incentives for being good-but-not-great, the goal is always to finish first. I'd rather have a team that has a 50% shot at being first and a 50% shot at being last than a team that is guaranteed to finish third or fourth. VBD is distributed exponentially, with a single top player able to produce more than four or five quality starters combined, which makes it all the more imperative to land one of those top producers if you want to win.
In dynasty, this philosophy becomes even more important, because last place finishers receive high rookie picks as a consolation prize. You don't want to play with the goal of earning those top picks, but if you take a few big swings and whiff on all of them, it's nice to know that you're getting a highly valued rookie to ease the sting. In that format, embracing high-variance players becomes even more of a no-brainer; the worst place to be is consistently in the middle of the pack with no hope for improving.
Andy Hicks: How many players are truly "high-ceiling players (who could easily bottom out) or high-floor players (who are unlikely to become elite)"? Most players are somewhere in between.
To be honest you need a bit of both in your squad, unless you can get a squad of high ceiling players to all perform. A squad of high floor, but non elite players simply isn't going to win your league. Imagine having the following squad and see how you get on:
- QB - Eli Manning
- RB - Stevan Ridley
- RB - Frank Gore
- WR - Steve Smith
- WR - Marques Colston
- WR - Anquan Boldin
- TE - Owen Daniels
Where would this squad finish? Probably about 7th. Conversely having the following squad would be close to suicide:
- QB - Robert Griffin III
- RB - Darren McFadden
- RB - DeMarco Murray
- WR - Larry Fitzgerald
- WR - Hakeem Nicks
- WR - Mike Wallace
- TE - Rob Gronkowski
The 2nd team looks much better and it could win it all, but you could just as easily finish last.
The whole point of winning your league isn't having a great side on paper, it's about getting as high a floor as possible and then building further on it to get as high a ceiling as possible. Sure you could get a side that can just as easily finish first as last, but I'd rather draft a side that shouldn't do worse than 6th and still has a great shot at finishing first. Trades, Waiver Wire, intelligent depth drafting should all be used with the focus of improving your squad in season.
For a lot of people the draft is 75-99% of their fantasy season and that is a big mistake. With careful management a side that gets hit with bad luck or poor drafting can still be turned around.
Jeff Pasquino: Some really good answers to this question so far, and I tend to agree with both Jason and Andy. I think that the key to winning normal fantasy leagues (10-16 teams) is to put together a team like Jason describes. You want a WR3 to have upper WR3 potential, a WR2 to be more like WR18 overall, etc. To determine that, though, is to look for the difference in actual risk and perceived risk - that's where the arbitrage lies. The winning team is the one that can see that there are players who are undervalued in drafts for a given reason, and that the reason that the players are not higher is one that is unlikely to play out. For example, take a player who is getting older. It could be Frank Gore, or Reggie Wayne, or Tony Gonzalez - does not really matter. If you are a hardliner from old school days where you think that at some point the wheels will fall off, you are not going to see that these players have been consistent performers for years and that they have just as much likelihood - perhaps more - to repeat those strong numbers they have posted in the past. While I will not go crazy and overdraft any of them, but if a player has an injury risk, age, a new coach, changes in surrounding players, or more factors that could impact the upcoming year's production and I think that there is a general overreaction to those factors, I will be glad to take on that risk and draft that given player.
The opposite is also true - not every shiny penny will remain that way and glow all year long. A new player on a new team may feel like a new lease on life, but that might not hold up. The same could be said about an outstanding performance the year before - will it be repeated or built upon, or was it a fluke? Consistency has a value, and it is often overlooked. While it may look like a conservative pick at the time, sometimes having a solid veteran or two who you can pencil in for given production numbers will help solidify your overall roster.
Two more things about taking on boom / bust players. First, I will definitely swing for the fences in the final few rounds in any given draft. The upside always outweighs the risk for a late pick. The chance of getting the next Colston or Cruz may be slim, but it is none if you don't take a shot. Secondly, if you are playing in big contests (like the FPC), you better embrace some risk. Otherwise, you will never have a dominant roster to win the overall contest. Conservative rosters may win a league, but to win a big contest, you have to hit on some lottery tickets.
Mark Wimer: I think Jeff is on target about when to go after your home-run (high ceiling/low floor) picks - the late rounds of a draft. Early on in a draft everyone targets elite talent (high ceiling and high floor). In the middle rounds, I think reliable fantasy point production should be sought out at RB 2, WR 2 (and depending on scoring rules, QB1 - so high floor guys there in the middle). After you've set up the core of the fantasy team, go for high-ceiling players at WR3 or Flex RB/WR. And then swing for the fences late (high ceiling/low floor or inconsistent boom/bust type players).
For example, late in a draft is where Nick Toon or Kenny Stills can pay off big-time in the event that they ascend into the starting lineup in New Orleans at some point during the season, or become a boom/bust deep threat in the WR3 role like Devery Henderson was from 2006-2008.
Henderson averaged 20.4 yards per reception or better for three straight years (23.3, 20.4, and 24.8, respectively). Some weeks Henderson would go 1/9/0 and others 1/45/1 or 4/104/1 - it was unpredictable when a "boom" game would happen, but as a flex play during his heyday Henderson was a high-ceiling option. The guy was bottled lightning but only if you had the stomach (and the reliable points above him) to swallow bust weeks and still start him in hope of a boom the next week.
I'm willing to have perhaps 33-50% of my roster in high-ceiling/low-floor guys (depending on the size of the bench in any particular league) but I won't build a team made up of that type of highly variable players from top to bottom.
