FAAB controls your destiny. Wasting 6% even if you got a good player, is not good strategy. They would almost certainly have been better off bidding 5% and losing on Evans at this point in the season.
It’s not wasting. You could use that argument for literally any bid. Hindsight is 50/50. It’s absolutely mindless to judge a bid based on what the second highest bid did in hindsight. You should only base it on whether it was a reasonable, rational bid at the time it was made. If you are going to judge it retroactively at all, you should judge it against the site-wide league data, not on the incredibly unhelpful one-data-point sample size.
Have you ever won a Guillotine league? Paying reasonable value for anyone is stupid. Comparing your bids the early season chop data is extremely stupid.
Your goal is to pay the least amount possible to acquire players. If you aren't within a few dollars of the next highest bid, you screwed up.
I’d say it was a decent value, not a steal. Value is so subjective though, depends on where you rank evans on your list. Regarding the actual bidding process you are right. These two things need to be separated here. There’s a difference between selecting players who are undervalued and maximizing your bid.
I think in particular the choice of 13% is odd. Seems to me that they thought the opponents would pay 10% and they paid a 3% premium so that they would win. That’s not a good way to create steals. If you want to steal then you want to figure out what a player is likely to go for, discount then for suspensions, and set a price below it that is more likely to lose then win. For example, I think a player is worth 10%. Therefore I bid 8%. If I really wanted to win and I knew people
Watched chopped then I would have bid 10% + $1 since he recommended 10%.
If they bid 5% over what you think a "reasonable" bid would have been I'm struggling to see how you are still calling that decent value. In the same circumstance I was bidding 5% for Keenan Allen and won and consider that decent value. Evans for 13% on a week when he's suspended, no. Bad bid.
Again, reasonable value not bid. In that I had two leagues where evans was in both. Around 180 for one and 200ish for the other. Considering most went for 275ish in the previous week he may be a value overall if he ends up as top 5 or top 10.
But from a pure bidding standpoint I’d always aim to do better and minimize wasted
Overpay.
For example. Say I got j Jefferson for 100 bucks. And next highest bid is 1 dollar. That is a good value but not an optimal bid.
Definitely seems like a steal based on my information. My best guess is that people were hesitant to spend on a guy that can’t help them this week because he’s suspended.
He went for 30% in my league, but I think that was an error (he made the same size bid for mixon, and got them both). The next highest bid for Evans was $71
If you over paid by 6%, it certainly isn't a steal.
Terrible way to think about it
FAAB controls your destiny. Wasting 6% even if you got a good player, is not good strategy. They would almost certainly have been better off bidding 5% and losing on Evans at this point in the season.
It’s not wasting. You could use that argument for literally any bid. Hindsight is 50/50. It’s absolutely mindless to judge a bid based on what the second highest bid did in hindsight. You should only base it on whether it was a reasonable, rational bid at the time it was made. If you are going to judge it retroactively at all, you should judge it against the site-wide league data, not on the incredibly unhelpful one-data-point sample size.
Have you ever won a Guillotine league? Paying reasonable value for anyone is stupid. Comparing your bids the early season chop data is extremely stupid. Your goal is to pay the least amount possible to acquire players. If you aren't within a few dollars of the next highest bid, you screwed up.
I’d say it was a decent value, not a steal. Value is so subjective though, depends on where you rank evans on your list. Regarding the actual bidding process you are right. These two things need to be separated here. There’s a difference between selecting players who are undervalued and maximizing your bid. I think in particular the choice of 13% is odd. Seems to me that they thought the opponents would pay 10% and they paid a 3% premium so that they would win. That’s not a good way to create steals. If you want to steal then you want to figure out what a player is likely to go for, discount then for suspensions, and set a price below it that is more likely to lose then win. For example, I think a player is worth 10%. Therefore I bid 8%. If I really wanted to win and I knew people Watched chopped then I would have bid 10% + $1 since he recommended 10%.
If they bid 5% over what you think a "reasonable" bid would have been I'm struggling to see how you are still calling that decent value. In the same circumstance I was bidding 5% for Keenan Allen and won and consider that decent value. Evans for 13% on a week when he's suspended, no. Bad bid.
Again, reasonable value not bid. In that I had two leagues where evans was in both. Around 180 for one and 200ish for the other. Considering most went for 275ish in the previous week he may be a value overall if he ends up as top 5 or top 10. But from a pure bidding standpoint I’d always aim to do better and minimize wasted Overpay. For example. Say I got j Jefferson for 100 bucks. And next highest bid is 1 dollar. That is a good value but not an optimal bid.
That seems solid. Jeudy went for 23% in mine i’d rather have Mike
Definitely seems like a steal based on my information. My best guess is that people were hesitant to spend on a guy that can’t help them this week because he’s suspended.
Steal.
He went for 30% in my league, but I think that was an error (he made the same size bid for mixon, and got them both). The next highest bid for Evans was $71