Dynasty, in Theory: Concentrate

There's a lot of really strong dynasty analysis out there, especially when compared to five or ten years ago. But most of it is so dang practical-- Player X is undervalued, Player Y's workload is troubling, the market at this position is irrational, and take this specific action to win your league. Dynasty, in Theory is meant as a corrective, offering insights and takeaways into the strategic and structural nature of the game that might not lead to an immediate benefit but which should help us become better players over time.

Pop Quiz Time

Team A averages 105 points per game. Team B averages 105 points per game. Which team is better?

Alright, alright, we're going to need a bit more information to answer this one. Team A averages 20 points per game at quarterback, 30 points per game at running back, 45 points per game at wide receiver, and 10 points per game at tight end; Team B likewise averages 20 / 30 / 45 / 10. Which team is better?

It seems we need to drill down a little bit deeper, still. Let's say that Team A features two running backs who both average 15 points per game, while Team B starts one running back who averages 20 points per game and a second running back who averages just 10 points per game. Now we finally have enough information to answer. Which team is better? Think about it for a minute and form a hypothesis. Then scroll down for the answer.

No, really, this bit is interactive. Go ahead and think about it for a second, take a guess. I'll wait.

Ready for the answer? Good!

I've asked enough trick questions in the past that regular readers might now suspect me of another bit of legerdemain. On its face, the easy answer would be to say it's a trick question, and both teams are equally good because they score the same number of points.

But this was not a trick question. (Or, I suppose, it was a trick question whose trick was tricking you into thinking there was a trick when there was no trick.) Assuming all else is equal (and since this is my hypothetical, all else is equal), Team B is better than Team A.

The reason for this is simple. Although both teams produce the same amount of output, Team B's production is concentrated in fewer roster spots.

Concentrate

Concentrating more production into fewer positions has intrinsic value. The more you can distill your production down, the better off your team is. The reason why comes down to another of my favorite heuristics: "weaknesses are opportunities".

Let's say Team A and Team B are actively trying to improve their teams on waivers, so they each scoop up a promising young RB prospect, and that prospect plays his way into a timeshare. Over the latter half of the season, this young, talented timeshare back averages 11 points per game.

What does this mean for each team? The first team gains a quality young backup and a trading chip. The second team improves its starting lineup by one point per game and is now outscoring the first team.

If a team has solid players at every position, it is exceedingly difficult for it to improve. For the "no weaknesses" team to improve its starting lineup, it needs to add a 16-point-per-game running back. 16 ppg running backs are rare and valuable commodities and quite difficult to acquire.

If, on the other hand, a team has terrible players at some positions, it is exceedingly easy to improve. At the extreme, a team that is forced to use a below-replacement starter can improve to replacement level for free or very near to it. (This is a feature of the term "replacement level", which represents the level of production that is freely available in most leagues.)

Let's put some names to these numbers to illustrate the point. Let's say Team A is starting DeAndre Swift and Derrick Henry. Those backs are averaging 15.3 points per game; they rank 5th and 6th on the season so far (partly because neither has had his bye yet).

Let's say Team B is starting Travis Etienne (20.0 ppg, #2 fantasy RB) and Jaylen Warren (10.3 ppg, #27 fantasy RB). Since Team A has a pair of Top 6 running backs and Team B is starting a guy who would ideally be more of a flex, you'd think Team A was more productive, but both teams score about the same. (Well, Team B is off by 0.3, but what's a few tenths among friends?)

Either team could have acquired Gus Edwards (11.2 points per game) or Jerome Ford (12.5 points per game) off of waivers, but only Team B would have benefited from it. If Team A wanted to improve its starting lineup, there are only 12 running backs currently averaging more points per game than its two starters. Possibly Team A could have gotten a Zach Moss (17.6 points per game) off of waivers... but Team B was just as likely to wind up with him, and he'd be a 7-point improvement if Team B did (compared to a 2-point improvement if he landed on Team A).

This is what I mean when I say weaknesses are opportunities. Weaknesses are self-evidently bad, but the bigger the weakness is, the easier it is to improve upon.

Concentrating Value and the Injury Roulette

There are risks inherent in concentrating value. Injuries become a much higher-variance game, for one. An injury to one of the "duds" doesn't bother the "studs and duds" manager in the slightest. An injury to one of his or her "studs" can cripple the team. In contrast, every injury to a "no weaknesses" team hurts, but none are crippling.

On the face, this is neither good nor bad in expectation. Something that is twice as likely to happen but half as damaging if it does is no more or less of a risk than something that is half as likely but twice as damaging.

In dynasty, though, I would say the higher variance is a feature, not a bug. The goal in dynasty is always to finish first. Failing that, the best consolation is to finish last. The top finisher wins a trophy. The last-place finisher gets the 1.01 pick.

That's sort of an extreme statement- I'd rather finish 2nd than last, too, because I still consider losing the championship game to be a successful season. But regardless of our personal thresholds of success, the worst place to land is right in the middle, in that 5th-8th range that is neither very good nor well-compensated. A "studs and duds" roster is less likely to finish in that middle range and more likely to finish towards the extremes. Which is just one more reason why concentrating value magnifies value.

Concentrating Value and Building a Dynasty

Finally, the end game in every dynasty league is to build a dynasty. Not just any dynasty, but a world-destroying dynasty, a team where your leaguemates look at you on the schedule and despair. The end goal is a "studs and studs" roster.

A team composed 50% of "studs" and 50% of "duds" is twice as close to that ideal. The owner only has to upgrade half of his or her starting lineup to reach that "studs and studs" nirvana. A team composed 100% of solid, second-tier performers has to replace everyone.

Isn't This Obvious?

When I mention this concept— that concentrating value is itself inherently valuable— I get a lot of people who tell me that this is obvious. Of course, it's better to have studs. Isn't that obvious? (This is partly why I told you to think for a minute and come up with a guess before reading on; you should have a pretty good idea how obvious this was to you.)

If I were to judge solely by how I see owners manage their teams, I would say it's not at all obvious. For most owners I observe, priority #1 is always shoring up their weaknesses. If they are thin at RB, they're reaching on RBs in the rookie draft. If they have a trio of top receivers, they're trading one away to patch a weakness elsewhere.

The majority of trade questions I get also follow this pattern. Everyone seems to be really good at identifying their weaknesses and really diligent about figuring out ways to patch those weaknesses. I hear a lot of people say, "I'm concerned about whether I can win with _______ at RB."

Winning in fantasy football, in my experience, isn't about minimizing our weaknesses. It is about maximizing our strengths. It's rare, from what I've seen, for the champion to be the team whose worst unit ranks highest. Usually, it's a team whose best unit dominated the competition to a degree that could not be overcome.

Granted, it's scary to have outright liabilities in our starting lineup. It's only natural to want to improve them. And, indeed, improving on our liabilities is unquestionably a good thing... provided we can do it without sacrificing our strengths in the process.

I led this season off by suggesting that the best way to win was to stop trying to win and instead focus on improving your roster. That remains the case; in any deal, you want to be on the side that is maximizing value, even if that results in a "less concentrated" roster. I've played in leagues where everyone went star-crazy and offered really strong 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 trade packages to acquire them; in these leagues, I tend not to have very concentrated rosters because the value isn't there.

But if all else is equal, it's probably better to build top-heavy rosters, even if that leaves you uncomfortable with some of the players you're starting on a weekly basis. Weaknesses, remember, are opportunities. If you want to get the most out of your roster, all you have to do is concentrate.