STARS AND SCRUBS VS DEPTH
Do champions win with a few elite assets and a cheap supporting cast, or with balanced depth across the roster? We measured value concentration across 6,976 championship rosters.
36.5%
ALL LEAGUES
Top-3 concentration
36.4%
SUPERFLEX
36.8%
1QB
Championship rosters held 36.5% of their total dynasty value in just their top 3 players. That's more than a third of all roster value concentrated in three assets — a meaningful tilt toward the "stars and scrubs" end of the spectrum.
The 1QB concentration (36.8%) runs slightly higher than Superflex (36.4%), which makes structural sense: in 1QB formats, there's less value to spread across the QB position, so elite non-QB assets represent a larger share of total value.
What this means for roster construction: The data supports acquiring a small number of elite assets via trade consolidation (2-for-1, 3-for-1 deals) rather than maximizing roster-wide depth. Champions didn't win with 15 decent players — they won with 3 stars and a supporting cast. But 36.5% is not 50% — champions still needed real production beyond their top 3.
FAQ
Should I build a stars-and-scrubs dynasty roster?
The data supports a top-heavy approach: champions concentrated 36.5% of value in their top 3 players. But this doesn't mean ignoring depth — the remaining 65% of value still needs to produce.
Is roster concentration different in Superflex vs 1QB?
Slightly. 1QB champions were more concentrated (36.8%) than Superflex (36.4%), likely because QB value is more evenly distributed in 1QB formats, leaving more room for concentration at other positions.
How does this affect trade strategy?
It supports consolidating assets: trading two mid-tier players for one elite one tends to create the kind of top-heavy roster that wins championships, according to the data.
HOW DOES YOUR ROSTER COMPARE?
See how your roster stacks up against 6,976 champions.