When converting projected stats into dollar values, you have to decide how much of the overall budget you want to assign to hitting and pitching, respectively. If there are 12 teams, each with $260 to spend on 23 players (14 hitters, nine pitchers), that means there's $3,120 total dollars to spend on 276 players (168 hitters and 108 pitchers.)

You could divide it 50/50, apportion $1,560 to each - after all there are five hitting categories worth 60 total points (5 * 12) and five pitching categories also worth 60 total points, and each side is contributes equally to your season-long success or failure. But if you did that, you'd be out of step with the market, as traditionally - for a variety of reasons - it apportions roughly 70 percent of the budget ($2,184) toward the 168 hitters and 30 percent ($936) toward the 108 pitchers.

You can click the link above to decide if the market is correct or not about this (I went into detail on the topic a few years ago), but I want to explore something else here: It's well known the NFBC leagues - the high-stakes contests with some of the world's best fantasy players - tend to push up elite starting pitching more than most fantasy industry leagues, but I had never seen that tendency quantified. We could compare ADPs of starting pitchers in the NFBC to our leagues and note more pitchers were taken in the first three rounds in the former, but noting there were more pitchers in the top-20, 30 or 60 picks is still an imprecise way to track it.

In the interest of more precision (though my method also has its flaws), I took this year's NFBC ADP list and I assigned dollar values to each slot. I (somewhat arbitrarily) used the NFBC's average auction values (AAVs) for every player $30 or higher (there were 21 such players), and I created a simple formula for the rest to spend the entire $3120 on the top 276 players. Moreover, I didn't use Clayton Kershaw's $44.38 AAV for Kershaw but instead for the No. 1 pick by ADP, Mike Trout. Kershaw, whose ADP is No. 5, got the fifth highest auction amount assigned to his slot ($40.25.) After all, 1.1 is the most expensive slot, and it goes to Trout. Therefore, NFBC drafters are spending the most money on him, the next most on Mookie Betts at No. 2 and so on. The reason I somewhat arbitrarily used the NFBC AAVs for the prices of each draft slot is I had to decide roughly what the top picks were worth before pricing every other draft slot relative to them such that the total of 276 picks added up to $3,120.

The way I did it was unrealistically simple, but I think it works for the purposes of the exercise. For every pick below No. 21 overall Chris Sale ($30.13), I multiplied the previous price by 0.98796. So No. 22, Joey Votto, clocks in for $29.76, No. 23, Corey Kluber, is $29.40, etc. until we get down to No. 276 Junior Guerra at $1.76. And the sum of all the 276 players (107 pitchers and 269 hitters*) equals $3,120.

*The NFBC allows you to draft bench spots before you complete your starting roster, so there's one extra hitter and one fewer pitcher in the total, but that shouldn't skew the numbers much.

Keep in mind these values have nothing to do with projections or anything substantive other than simply assigning declining amounts to each subsequent ADP slot as determined by the NFBC ADP. Moreover, in a real auction, or when you use actual projections to calculate dollar values, the decline isn't uniform and linear like this, i.e., you could have four $31 players, then a gap where the next highest player went for $28. I used a consistent multiplier to assign value. Again, for the purposes of this exercise, I don't think it should matter.

Here's the list:

What's most important here are the positions. You can see which slots are assigned to hitters and which to pitchers and add up how much money is spent in total for each. Again, while each slot price descends uniformly as you go down the list, having it be more uneven like a real set of converted projections or actual auction prices doesn't figure to shift total dollars toward or away from pitchers - at least not in any way I can imagine.

Here's a table with only the pitchers:

As you can see the total spent on pitching, given NFBC ADP, is $1060.64, which comes out to 34 percent of the $3120 total budget. In other words, using this admittedly rough hack, the NFBC drafters seem to be more aggressive in chasing pitching than the conventional 70/30 hitter/pitcher formulas. Keep in mind when I calculated the Steamer values for pitching and hitting using my formula, I used 70/30 rather than 66/34 or what the NFBC marketplace seems to be doing. Were I to have gone 66/34, Kershaw, Max Scherzer and the rest of the top pitchers would have proven to be even better values than they are now.