Measured across 31,902 player-years: what a dynasty asset is worth twelve months later, by position and age.
Every number here is recomputed when the page loads. Nothing is hardcoded.
| Position | Under 23 | 23 to 24 | 25 to 26 | 27 to 28 | 29 and older |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QB | 1.09x 810 | 1.12x 1,261 | 1.01x 1,123 | 0.95x 697 | 0.91x 1,042 |
| RB | 1.00x 2,143 | 0.94x 3,346 | 0.71x 2,704 | 0.62x 1,105 | 0.75x * 285 |
| WR | 1.11x 3,225 | 0.98x 3,702 | 0.86x 2,828 | 0.73x 2,332 | 0.54x 1,521 |
| TE | 1.23x 562 | 1.01x 999 | 0.85x 906 | 0.63x 607 | 0.65x 704 |
Median value twelve months later, as a multiple of value at the time. 1.00 means the asset held its price. Sample size under each figure. * Running backs still rostered and priced at 29 or older are the ones who did not fall off, so that cell describes survivors rather than aging, and should not be read as old backs holding value.
Every player in every weekly value snapshot is paired with his own value twelve months later, and the median is taken per position and age band. Ages come from birth date at the time of the snapshot, so a player moves between bands as he ages.
Cells below their sample floor are not published. The effect is not carried by rookies (it holds with the under-23 band removed entirely) and it is not carried by one season (it holds in every year measured).
What this does not mean. A declining value is not automatically a loss. Dynasty value is the present value of future production, so an older player is priced lower because he offers less of it later, and his decline is partly the asset paying out. Age is already inside the price. These figures describe the path, not an edge.
Free to cite, link back if you do. For one specific deal, the trade grader prices the exact assets and checks the trade shape against real clearing behavior. This study explains how to use that price evidence. Is this trade fair? covers the mechanics.