Zero RB Theory: The Dynasty Corollary

It’s not uncommon for many dynasty owners to try new strategies in an effort to gain an edge over the competition, in fact, it’s generally accepted as an integral part of the game. Strategies come and strategies go, some stick around and evolve like the game itself. Recently, the most popular strategy in fantasy football is, without a doubt, the “Zero RB Theorem” popularized by Shawn Siegele. Shawn is one of the brightest minds in the business and I thoroughly enjoy my conversations with him, simply put, he’s a fantasy football genius on many levels. However, (there is always a “however” isn’t there?) I think many people are misusing or misapplying his unique and absolutely ground-breaking theory.

[am4show have=’g1;’ guest_error=’sub_message’ user_error=’sub_message’ ]

The basic premise behind the theory is that the running back position suffers more injuries on average than other positions and that it is more variable than other positions as well. I’ve heavily supported this theory in the past and still believe it is a viable strategy. Let me be very clear, I am in no way knocking the theory, I’m simply of the belief that dynasty owners are misapplying the logic that is at the core of the theory.

So why am I suggesting this theory may be misapplied?

Simply put, the theory makes a lot of sense in redraft leagues. It allows owners to leverage themselves in a defined market terms where the league has a clear and defined start and end date. Injuries and variation are confined within the space of a single season. However, the misapplication of this theory arises when owners attempt to apply it to an open-ended format such as dynasty. The variables themselves are no longer easy to contain or project. Injuries heal, personnel changes, schemes change and yes, players come and go.

Aren’t I actually making the case for Zero RB given the amount of variation? Actually, no. You see, Zero RB works so well because the market is self-contained. Siegele himself states, “Whenever a starting RB gets hurt, my lineup gets better. It gets better in relation to my opponents because I didn’t have the player in question, and it gets better in the sense that I either own the backup or I have a shot to acquire the backup in free agency.” Where this falls apart though, is when that injury heals, the market for that player’s back-up evaporates or declines at the very least.

Zero RB Theory runs into problems where it meets the “Market Segmentation Theory”. As I mentioned earlier, Zero RB works extremely well in redraft format because the motivation for each team is the same, to win this season at all costs. In dynasty though, as we all know, the motivations, strategies and composition of each team doesn’t necessitate a “win now” strategy. If I have one elite running back on my team and he gets injured I may just choose to pack it in for the season and try again next year. Conversely, I may choose to mortgage my future to make my run at a championship this year. This is where Market Segmentation Theory comes in. This theory states that marketers can classify customers three separate ways, by their needs, wants and demands. These three classifications define nearly everything about us. I may need to hydrate myself, want a bottle of juice and demand Blueprint Orange Grapefruit Lemon Cold Pressed Juice. The point is, in many facets of life our needs, wants and demands become more complex as we define each level.

Now think about the differences between redraft and dynasty again for a moment. What’s the driving force in redraft? To win now of course, and to win now we must maximize the points we accrue within the season. In the redraft format, unlike dynasty, our needs, wants and demands are almost perfectly aligned. I need points, want points and demand points. To achieve this I must obtain them however I can, if this requires me to trade away some value to an owner who drafted their team per the Zero RB Theory in order replace my injured starting running back, then I must do it or risk losing my league and investment of capital and time. My potential trade partner has the same needs, wants and demands as I do too, he needs points, wants points and demands points. Not only are my needs, wants and demands aligned but they are also aligned with every one of leaguemates as well.

Now, in the dynasty format things aren’t quite as black and white. Needs, wants and demands diverge just as they do in real life. For instance, an owner, who will just barely miss the playoffs this season, will need to build their team for a playoff run in two to three years, want to trade away highly productive players who will decline when their team is entering its competitive window and demand a first round pick for their RB1. Additionally, that owner’s leaguemates needs, wants and demands aren’t perfectly aligned with their interests either. A potential trading partner for the owner I just mentioned may be looking to make a run deep into the playoffs and, obviously, his needs, wants and demands would vary greatly from the owner missing the playoffs. The “win now” owner might care less about the picks I’m demanding and more about the points he needs to make, or preserve, his run. What “win now” owner in their right mind would trade away a top pick for a back-up running back when they can use the same pick for a legit RB1 that you’re offering? Even if they were trying to obtain a back-up that player might be a young or developing asset that simply isn’t for sale.

That’s why if I own more than one elite running back in a dynasty league, then I am in the driver’s seat. I can attempt to make my run early in the life of the league. If I win some money then, obviously, the plan was successful. However, if it’s clear I’m not going to win a championship then my elite running backs give me excellent bargaining chips to acquire future draft picks and allow me to jumpstart my rebuild in a big way. Either way, obtaining elite running backs early in a start-up draft makes lots of sense.

Some teams like to “punt” the first year. It’s not a strategy I am much of a fan of, but if you are then scooping up a few high-end running backs as future bargaining chips would be an excellent way to push value forward. As many of us know, the wide receiver market is ample, some might even call it saturated. Moving high-end running backs will be a much easier proposition while your potential trading partner could, quite literally, approach any team to obtain a top wide receiver.

Finally, whatever the scenario may be, if you’re able to trade away one or more running backs for top draft picks it allows you to better regulate your rebuild as you can acquire several starting wide receivers early in the rebuild process, hold onto them as they develop and when you’re ready to make your run at a championship you can transition to drafting running backs, as their productivity window tends to be smaller than any other position. It’s reasonable to consider that a highly-sophisticated dynasty player could load up on elite running backs with an eye towards selling them off to multiple competing teams for first round picks which would then be used to build a team capable of making numerous championship runs, a true dynasty.

Zero RB Theory has been, quite literally and figuratively, a game-changing strategy for redraft fantasy football. Early adopters of the strategy were able to dominate their redraft leagues but the success of the strategy hasn’t translated to dynasty leagues which require dynamic teams in order to continuously dominate. Therefore, I’d argue that teams intent on following a Zero RB strategy temper expectations for immediate success in dynasty and instead focus on drafting running backs in the rookie drafts following the competition of the first and possibly second seasons of the league. Teams open to drafting elite running backs in the start-up draft could, and should, explore leveraging those players in trades to competitive teams, provided no avenue exists for them to make a championship run of their own.

[/am4show]