Introduction
DynastyProcess and Dynasty Trade Values both put a number on every dynasty player. Both are also algorithm-driven, not a voting exercise. That similarity can make the two look interchangeable at a glance, but the actual formula behind each number is built differently, and that difference shows up in specific players more than others.
This is a methodology comparison, not a numbers comparison. Specific values on either site shift as new data comes in and aren’t reproduced here. What matters is understanding what each formula is actually built from.
Quick Summary
- DynastyProcess blends average draft position (ADP) with expert consensus rankings (ECR) through an open-source statistical model.
- Dynasty Trade Values computes values from ADP, age, and position directly, run through a consistent formula, updated on a regular sync schedule.
- Both are algorithmic, but they weight different inputs. DynastyProcess leans on expert opinion blended with data; ours leans on measurable data alone.
- Neither approach is objectively more correct. They’re built to answer the value question from different angles.
- Knowing which inputs feed a formula tells you what a value can and can’t account for.
How DynastyProcess Builds Its Values
DynastyProcess is an open-source project, its methodology and code published for anyone to review. Its values come from blending two inputs: average draft position and expert consensus rankings pulled from FantasyPros, run through a statistical model to produce a single blended number.
The strength of this approach is that it folds in human judgment on top of raw draft data. Expert rankings can catch a situational shift, like a depth chart change, faster than pure ADP alone would reflect it. The tradeoff is that expert consensus still carries the biases and blind spots real analysts have, just averaged across a panel instead of any one person.
How Dynasty Trade Values Builds Its Values
Our values are computed from ADP, age, and position, run through a consistent formula and recalculated on a regular sync schedule. No expert panel and no ranking exercise feeds into the number. The strength here is consistency: the same inputs always produce the same output, with no analyst opinion, however averaged, layered on top.
The tradeoff is the mirror image of blending in expert judgment. A pure data formula won’t catch a situational read an experienced analyst might notice before it shows up in ADP, in exchange for never carrying an individual analyst’s blind spot either.
Side-by-Side: The Two Approaches
| DynastyProcess | Dynasty Trade Values | |
|---|---|---|
| Core input | ADP blended with expert consensus rankings | ADP, age, position |
| How it updates | On its own refresh schedule | On a regular sync schedule |
| What it reflects | Data blended with analyst judgment | A consistent formula applied to real data alone |
| Methodology | Open-source, publicly documented | Proprietary, consistent formula |
| Risk | Can carry expert-panel bias or blind spots | Can miss a situational read before it shows up in data |
| Pick values | Modeled from historical draft capital data | Computed via an original round x slot x years-out formula |
Why Neither Approach Is “More Correct”
A data-plus-expert blend and a pure data formula are answering slightly different questions. DynastyProcess is telling you what data plus informed human judgment together suggest a player is worth. Dynasty Trade Values is telling you what a consistent, data-only formula computes a player to be worth. Both are legitimate ways to build a value. They’re weighting different inputs, which is why they can disagree on the same player without either one being wrong.
When Each Approach Has an Edge
Blended-expert has an edge on situational reads. A coaching change, a depth chart shakeup, or a role that’s clearly shifting can show up in expert rankings before enough draft data exists to move a pure ADP-based number.
Pure data has an edge for consistency and transparency of process. The formula never has an off week or a personal bias toward a player an analyst happens to like. The same inputs always produce the same output, every time.
Common Mistakes When Comparing the Two
Assuming a value gap between the two sites means one is wrong. It almost always just means the two formulas weighted something differently, expert judgment versus data alone, not that either made an error.
Treating “open-source” as the same thing as “more accurate.” A published methodology means you can see how the number was built. It doesn’t mean the inputs feeding it are automatically better than a different formula’s inputs.
Treating a pure data formula as immune to being wrong. A formula is only as good as its inputs. If ADP hasn’t caught up to a real situational change yet, a data-only value hasn’t either.
Mixing values from two sites in the same trade conversation without noting the source. If you’re citing a number to a trade partner, it’s worth being clear which methodology it came from, especially if the two disagree meaningfully.
Expert Tips
- Use a blended-expert value when you want a situational sanity check, and a pure data value as a steadier baseline. Each is better suited to a different part of your evaluation process.
- Check whether a value gap tracks a recent situational change. If it does, the expert-blended number may simply be reacting faster, not correcting an error.
- Don’t assume either site’s number is the “market.” Both are one legitimate read on value, not a universally agreed-upon price.
- Check the format (1QB vs Superflex) on both regardless of methodology. Format sensitivity matters independently of whether a value blends in expert judgment or not.
FAQ
Is DynastyProcess or Dynasty Trade Values more accurate?
Neither is universally more accurate. They’re built on different methodologies answering the value question from different angles. A blended data-plus-expert value reflects informed judgment layered on data; a pure algorithmic value reflects a consistent formula applied to data alone. Which one suits you depends on whether you want that expert layer or a steadier, formula-only calculation.
Why do DynastyProcess and Dynasty Trade Values often show different values for the same player?
Because they weight different inputs. One blends ADP with expert consensus rankings, the other runs ADP, age, and position through a fixed formula alone. A gap between them reflects a difference in methodology, not necessarily an error on either side.
Does Dynasty Trade Values copy or reference DynastyProcess’s numbers?
No. Values here are computed independently from ADP, age, and position through an original formula, never seeded from or matched against another site’s published numbers.
Is DynastyProcess crowdsourced, like a voting-based site?
No. DynastyProcess blends ADP with expert consensus rankings through an open-source statistical model. That’s different from a crowdsourced voting site and different from a pure ADP-based algorithm too.
Should I use both sites when evaluating a trade?
It’s a reasonable approach. Using a blended data-plus-expert value alongside a pure algorithmic value can give you a more complete picture than relying on either alone, especially when they disagree on a specific player.
Key Takeaways
- DynastyProcess blends ADP with expert consensus rankings through an open-source statistical model.
- Dynasty Trade Values is a pure algorithmic formula, built from ADP, age, and position alone.
- Both are algorithm-driven, but they weight different inputs, not a crowdsourced-versus-algorithmic split.
- A gap between the two usually reflects a difference in inputs, not an error.
- Knowing which inputs feed a formula tells you what the number can and can’t account for.
Leave a Reply