What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

5 Year Look At PPR (1 Viewer)

wannabee

wannabee

Footballguy
I play in a PPR league (WCOFF scoring) that has unique starting lineups. We start 1 QB, 1 RB, 1 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 DST, and 3 Flex (RB, WR, or TE). With this lineup, there is a ton of flexibility. I was curious as to the distribution of positions would be in a PPR league. By distribution, I mean how many of each position are in the Top 10, Top 30, etc. I wanted to know this since I had several flex options each week to choose from. I used points per game as my way of rating players (that is another discussion all together). Further, I only included players who played in 9, or more, games.

Many times, I hear how PPR really favors the WRs. I found this to be FALSE. The odd thing is that, as a rule, the top 10 is filled with RBs and QBs (even with 4 point pass TDs). I have pasted the spreadsheet as best I can. Please let me know if you have questions or want the spreadsheet emailed to you.

It is pretty interesting that, in the last 5 years, only 8 WRs made the Top 10 overall. Compare that with 16 QBs. And there were more RBs (26) than WRs and QBs combined. I know that will surprise many.

Ok, what about the Top 30? QBs dominated the Top 30. 61 QBs over the last 5 years made the Top 30. That averages over 12 per year in top 30. Only one TE made the Top 30 over the last five years, Gates in 2005. RBs (51) still outpaced WRs (38) over the last five years. So, for example, roughly 7.5 WRs made the Top 30 each year, while a little over 10 RBs made it. So, still QB and RB heavy. One thing I did notice is that since an average of 12 QBs make the Top 30, that means all QB1s made the Top 30 overall. Also, the ppg average is not THAT great. For instance, in 2006, the PPG for the QBs in the Top 30 ranged from 23.8-16.3 ppg. In 2005, the range was 21.3-16.9. I know that looks large. But, now let’s look at the discrepancy for RBs. The RBs, in 2006, ranged from 30.2 to 16.2. We can call that the LT factor. In 2005, the ppg range for the RBs in the Top 30 was 23.7-17.1. So, the ppg range for most years is greater for RBs than QBs. The only year (of the five) that is different is 2004. But, in general, this supports taking RBs early since the dropoff is much steeper and QBs later since the dropoff is not as steep. The ppg average for the cutoff of the Top 30 players is about 17 or 18 ppg.

Now, let’s look at the Top 50. Over the last five years, the average in the Top 50 is 19 QBs, 15 RBs, 15 WRs, and .6 TEs. That means all of the QB1s and half of the QB2s outscored almost all of the players that were not RB1s or WR1. This is even with 4 point per pass TD. For reference, the ppg cutoff line fore Top 50 players is around 15-15.5 ppg on average.

When looking at the Top 100, we must realize that most of these players are backups in most leagues. But, I think the Top 100 is useful so we know how to structure our bench and depth. The one thing that pops out to me while looking at this data is that from the Top 50 to the Top 100, the WRs take the lead. This makes sense given how WRs are bunched together on a ppg basis. Out of the Top 100 each year, on average there are 29 QBs, 29 RBs, 37 WRs, and 4 TEs. This should be what many would think. Why? Most NFL teams utilize more WRs than any other position. Also, barring injury or poor play, even with the progression to RBBC, most teams only have one RB that scores most of the fantasy points. In addition, few teams use the TE much.

There are big differences year to year so that is why I decided to look at a 5-year picture. The items that really stick out to me are:

1. The huge years by the top players (each year) in relation to others still in Top 10. No wonder most LT owners won their leagues.

2. How few WRs are in the Top 20 each year, even with PPR.

3. How many QBs populate the top spots even with 4 point pass TD and how all fantasy QB1s are still good producers in relation to the top QBs each year.

4. How few TEs make the Top 100. Looks like this is one position an astute fantasy owner can make up ground on his competitors.

5. How I need to start as many RBs as I can (given a flex) and how I need to populate my bench with WRs.

The one caveat I will include is that, in PPR, not all RBs and WRs are conducive to PPR scoring. For instance, many would choose a RB like Caddy high, but he does not get many catches. Good PPR RBs are ones that can get 3 or 4 catches each week. In addition to helping the ppg average, the receptions limit the downside of the player for week to week. The surprise PPR RB this year was Steven Jackson. He was 2nd overall in PPR scoring … only 4 points per game less than LT. Why, you ask, was Jackson able to pass Larry Johnson and all other RBs not named LT? Jackson had 90 receptions. This was more than most of the WRs, even some of the elite WRs. To equate it, the 90 receptions are equal to 15 TDs. That means that a RB that does not catch many passes has to score a ton more than the pass-catching RB. In addition to the receptions, Jackson had over 800 receiving yards. Obviously receiving yards come with receptions, so this is a double positive RBs like Jackson have over the run-only RBs.

What sticks out to you as you look at this data?

How will this change your drafts? How about roster make-up?

****I tried to paste the spreadsheet into this post, but the formatting was off. I can email the spreadsheet to anyone (not in my league :tinfoilhat: ) … just shoot me a pm.**** Also, I would take any advice on how to insert the spreadsheet into this post and keep the formatting.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wannabee said:
I play in a PPR league (WCOFF scoring) that has unique starting lineups. We start 1 QB, 1 RB, 1 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 DST, and 3 Flex (RB, WR, or TE). With this lineup, there is a ton of flexibility. I was curious as to the distribution of positions would be in a PPR league. By distribution, I mean how many of each position are in the Top 10, Top 30, etc. I wanted to know this since I had several flex options each week to choose from. I used points per game as my way of rating players (that is another discussion all together). Further, I only included players who played in 9, or more, games.

Many times, I hear how PPR really favors the WRs. I found this to be FALSE. The odd thing is that, as a rule, the top 10 is filled with RBs and QBs (even with 4 point pass TDs). I have pasted the spreadsheet as best I can. Please let me know if you have questions or want the spreadsheet emailed to you.

It is pretty interesting that, in the last 5 years, only 8 WRs made the Top 10 overall. Compare that with 16 QBs. And there were more RBs (26) than WRs and QBs combined. I know that will surprise many.

Ok, what about the Top 30? QBs dominated the Top 30. 61 QBs over the last 5 years made the Top 30. That averages over 12 per year in top 30. Only one TE made the Top 30 over the last five years, Gates in 2005. RBs (51) still outpaced WRs (38) over the last five years. So, for example, roughly 7.5 WRs made the Top 30 each year, while a little over 10 RBs made it. So, still QB and RB heavy. One thing I did notice is that since an average of 12 QBs make the Top 30, that means all QB1s made the Top 30 overall. Also, the ppg average is not THAT great. For instance, in 2006, the PPG for the QBs in the Top 30 ranged from 23.8-16.3 ppg. In 2005, the range was 21.3-16.9. I know that looks large. But, now let’s look at the discrepancy for RBs. The RBs, in 2006, ranged from 30.2 to 16.2. We can call that the LT factor. In 2005, the ppg range for the RBs in the Top 30 was 23.7-17.1. So, the ppg range for most years is greater for RBs than QBs. The only year (of the five) that is different is 2004. But, in general, this supports taking RBs early since the dropoff is much steeper and QBs later since the dropoff is not as steep. The ppg average for the cutoff of the Top 30 players is about 17 or 18 ppg.

Now, let’s look at the Top 50. Over the last five years, the average in the Top 50 is 19 QBs, 15 RBs, 15 WRs, and .6 TEs. That means all of the QB1s and half of the QB2s outscored almost all of the players that were not RB1s or WR1. This is even with 4 point per pass TD. For reference, the ppg cutoff line fore Top 50 players is around 15-15.5 ppg on average.

When looking at the Top 100, we must realize that most of these players are backups in most leagues. But, I think the Top 100 is useful so we know how to structure our bench and depth. The one thing that pops out to me while looking at this data is that from the Top 50 to the Top 100, the WRs take the lead. This makes sense given how WRs are bunched together on a ppg basis. Out of the Top 100 each year, on average there are 29 QBs, 29 RBs, 37 WRs, and 4 TEs. This should be what many would think. Why? Most NFL teams utilize more WRs than any other position. Also, barring injury or poor play, even with the progression to RBBC, most teams only have one RB that scores most of the fantasy points. In addition, few teams use the TE much.

There are big differences year to year so that is why I decided to look at a 5-year picture. The items that really stick out to me are:

1. The huge years by the top players (each year) in relation to others still in Top 10. No wonder most LT owners won their leagues.

2. How few WRs are in the Top 20 each year, even with PPR.

3. How many QBs populate the top spots even with 4 point pass TD and how all fantasy QB1s are still good producers in relation to the top QBs each year.

4. How few TEs make the Top 100. Looks like this is one position an astute fantasy owner can make up ground on his competitors.

5. How I need to start as many RBs as I can (given a flex) and how I need to populate my bench with WRs.

The one caveat I will include is that, in PPR, not all RBs and WRs are conducive to PPR scoring. For instance, many would choose a RB like Caddy high, but he does not get many catches. Good PPR RBs are ones that can get 3 or 4 catches each week. In addition to helping the ppg average, the receptions limit the downside of the player for week to week. The surprise PPR RB this year was Steven Jackson. He was 2nd overall in PPR scoring … only 4 points per game less than LT. Why, you ask, was Jackson able to pass Larry Johnson and all other RBs not named LT? Jackson had 90 receptions. This was more than most of the WRs, even some of the elite WRs. To equate it, the 90 receptions are equal to 15 TDs. That means that a RB that does not catch many passes has to score a ton more than the pass-catching RB. In addition to the receptions, Jackson had over 800 receiving yards. Obviously receiving yards come with receptions, so this is a double positive RBs like Jackson have over the run-only RBs.

What sticks out to you as you look at this data?

How will this change your drafts? How about roster make-up?

****I tried to paste the spreadsheet into this post, but the formatting was off. I can email the spreadsheet to anyone (not in my league :) ) … just shoot me a pm.**** Also, I would take any advice on how to insert the spreadsheet into this post and keep the formatting.
Click to expand...
I would like to bump this thread just so that the "Eagles got robbed" threads don't take over this board...And if you could pass me along this file, I'd appreciate it... I think my email's in my profile... TIA

 
The multiple flex options makes you VBD baselines a bit sketchier because of a teams options in who they can roster and start each week. I am curious where you would set you baselines in this format?

Universal PPR for all positions changes production for RBs compared to each other pretty dramaticly and to a lesser degree the WRs also.

RBs who catch a lot of passes are sick in such a format. As you pointed out PPR really deprechiates the value of TDs scored. This happens to some of the WRs who score high TDs also and really devalues them comparativly.

As far as players in the top echelon of scoring, top 20 top 30, those players are always going to be dominated by the ones who get the most action. Especialy in PPR that give additional bonus for one play. And like you said it doesen't help the top WRs as much in terms of total points as people might think it would.

The PPR brings the lower ranked WRs up in VBD numbers pretty dramaticly however because of the depth.

So again I am kind of curious where you would set your baselines due to the flexibility?

I would guess that WRs begin to dominate VBD #s once you get past the elite players and a few anomilous scorers that benifited greatly from the PPR.

I really dislike PPR but I am curious where you would set your baselines and what the results of that are nonetheless.

ETA- The Qb VBD #s are going to be really low compared to the other players because they are not part of the flex option. You can set thier baseline at 12 or 18 whatever you prefer based on how you see people starting them.

Is this a dynasty league?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wannabee,

Clayton can plug in the file for you.

I can't add a spreadsheet (.xls) file, but others I can plug in.

If you zip it I can post it though.

email it to me.

 
Biabreakable said:
The multiple flex options makes you VBD baselines a bit sketchier because of a teams options in who they can roster and start each week. I am curious where you would set you baselines in this format?Universal PPR for all positions changes production for RBs compared to each other pretty dramaticly and to a lesser degree the WRs also. RBs who catch a lot of passes are sick in such a format. As you pointed out PPR really deprechiates the value of TDs scored. This happens to some of the WRs who score high TDs also and really devalues them comparativly.As far as players in the top echelon of scoring, top 20 top 30, those players are always going to be dominated by the ones who get the most action. Especialy in PPR that give additional bonus for one play. And like you said it doesen't help the top WRs as much in terms of total points as people might think it would.The PPR brings the lower ranked WRs up in VBD numbers pretty dramaticly however because of the depth.So again I am kind of curious where you would set your baselines due to the flexibility?I would guess that WRs begin to dominate VBD #s once you get past the elite players and a few anomilous scorers that benifited greatly from the PPR.I really dislike PPR but I am curious where you would set your baselines and what the results of that are nonetheless.ETA- The Qb VBD #s are going to be really low compared to the other players because they are not part of the flex option. You can set thier baseline at 12 or 18 whatever you prefer based on how you see people starting them.Is this a dynasty league?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a dynasty league, which is why I was looking things up as sort of a review in an attempt to assess my roster distribution.I will add that someone we all know and think he is sharp told me something I am still chewing on. He said that PPR does not affect the distribution unless you introduce a flex.
 
The PPR does effect the distribution as far as which players are ranked where(one of the things that bugs me).

But I agree it doesen't effect the distribution much overall with standard starting requirements.

The flex does change the distribution of the VBD #s so that is why I am curious about where you set the baselines. I am not sure about that being inexperienced playing in such a league. Perhaps at RB/WR 40?

Starting requirements is really what drives player values much more than any scoring system you might use.

 
Biabreakable said:
The PPR does effect the distribution as far as which players are ranked where(one of the things that bugs me).But I agree it doesen't effect the distribution much overall with standard starting requirements. The flex does change the distribution of the VBD #s so that is why I am curious about where you set the baselines. I am not sure about that being inexperienced playing in such a league. Perhaps at RB/WR 40?Starting requirements is really what drives player values much more than any scoring system you might use.
Click to expand...
I really did not set any baselines, just looked at the raw data of points per game f players who played 9, or more, games. I agree wholeheartedly about the starting requirements being the key indicator. But, i think on the top surface, I realized that I should start as many RBs in the flex as possible and stock my bench with cheap WRs for the spot start since so many WRs are bunched close together
 
wannabee said:
Biabreakable said:
The PPR does effect the distribution as far as which players are ranked where(one of the things that bugs me).But I agree it doesen't effect the distribution much overall with standard starting requirements. The flex does change the distribution of the VBD #s so that is why I am curious about where you set the baselines. I am not sure about that being inexperienced playing in such a league. Perhaps at RB/WR 40?Starting requirements is really what drives player values much more than any scoring system you might use.
Click to expand...
I really did not set any baselines, just looked at the raw data of points per game f players who played 9, or more, games. I agree wholeheartedly about the starting requirements being the key indicator. But, i think on the top surface, I realized that I should start as many RBs in the flex as possible and stock my bench with cheap WRs for the spot start since so many WRs are bunched close together
Click to expand...
Well I think thats your next step to finding relative values between the positions.That might affect the way you approach your roster management moving forward.
 
Biabreakable said:
I really dislike PPR but I am curious where you would set your baselines and what the results of that are nonetheless.
Click to expand...
That's the key question.wannabee was kind enough to send me his spreadsheet, and he's using total FP/G. What we really want to look at is VBD/G, or just VBD. This is actually easier than it might sound.You start 1 RB, 1 WR, 1 TE and three flex. Assuming a twelve team league, the key here is that there will be 72 RBs/WRs/TEs starting at any given time. There are a few mins and maxes to keep in mind here; there must be at least 12 at each position, and conversely, there can be no more than 48 at any position.So you take the top 12 at each position, and then group the remaining RBs/WRs/TEs into one big group. Last year, the 12th TE was Ben Watson (131), the 12th WR was Javon Walker (244) and the 12th RB was Kevin Jones (230). If you group every other flex player together, the 36th best one was Reche Caldwell (162). Of those 36, 22 were WRs, 14 were RBs, and 0 were TEs. So we now recognize that TEs are not good flex players. The thirteenth best TE, Heath Miller, was outscored by over 100 RBs/WRs. So for TEs, you'll keep the same baseline, since it's not sensible to have a TE as a flex player. For RBs and WRs, the baseline you should use is 162, because that's the worst starter. You'll project 2.83 WRs, 2.17 RBs, and 1.00 TEs as starters per team. Here are the top 72 players from last year, with their VBD and FP numbers. Note: passing stats for RBs and WRs (think LT) were not included.
Code: 
313	474	LaDainian Tomlinson	258	419	Steven Jackson	213	375	Larry Johnson	173	335	Brian Westbrook	172	333	Frank Gore	142	304	Marvin Harrison	139	301	Tiki Barber	137	299	Willie Parker	120	281	Terrell Owens	112	274	Maurice Jones-Drew	110	272	Torry Holt	110	271	Donald Driver	110	271	Reggie Wayne	107	268	Chad Johnson	105	267	Reggie Bush	98	260	Steve Smith	98	259	Lee Evans	94	255	Roy Williams	91	253	T.J. Houshmandzadeh	88	249	Andre Johnson	86	217	Antonio Gates	82	244	Javon Walker	81	243	Ladell Betts	81	243	Mike Furrey	77	238	Rudi Johnson	77	238	Laveranues Coles	69	230	Anquan Boldin	68	230	Kevin Jones	67	229	Joseph Addai	67	228	Chester Taylor	64	225	Ahman Green	63	195	Kellen Winslow Jr	62	193	Tony Gonzalez	60	222	Plaxico Burress	60	222	Marques Colston	57	219	Darrell Jackson	55	217	Jerricho Cotchery	54	186	Todd Heap	54	216	Deuce McAllister	51	182	Alge Crumpler	50	212	Terry Glenn	50	212	Edgerrin James	49	211	Joey Galloway	49	211	Hines Ward	47	208	Thomas Jones	43	204	Marion Barber III	40	202	Isaac Bruce	39	170	Jeremy Shockey	38	200	Larry Fitzgerald	36	198	Fred Taylor	35	197	Jamal Lewis	35	166	Chris Cooley	30	191	Ronnie Brown	27	189	Corey Dillon	27	189	Travis Henry	26	188	Mark Clayton	25	186	Braylon Edwards	23	184	Reggie Brown	22	183	Warrick Dunn	20	182	Keyshawn Johnson	17	178	Santana Moss	15	176	Muhsin Muhammad	14	145	Jason Witten	13	144	Randy McMichael	12	144	Desmond Clark	10	141	L.J. Smith	9	171	Eddie Kennison	7	169	Willis McGahee	6	168	Marty Booker	4	165	Bernard Berrian	0	162	Reche Caldwell	0	131	Ben Watson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chase Stuart said:
Biabreakable said:
I really dislike PPR but I am curious where you would set your baselines and what the results of that are nonetheless.
Click to expand...
That's the key question.wannabee was kind enough to send me his spreadsheet, and he's using total FP/G. What we really want to look at is VBD/G, or just VBD. This is actually easier than it might sound.You start 1 RB, 1 WR, 1 TE and three flex. Assuming a twelve team league, the key here is that there will be 72 RBs/WRs/TEs starting at any given time. There are a few mins and maxes to keep in mind here; there must be at least 12 at each position, and conversely, there can be no more than 48 at any position.So you take the top 12 at each position, and then group the remaining RBs/WRs/TEs into one big group. Last year, the 12th TE was Ben Watson (131), the 12th WR was Javon Walker (244) and the 12th RB was Kevin Jones (230). If you group every other flex player together, the 36th best one was Reche Caldwell (162). Of those 36, 22 were WRs, 14 were RBs, and 0 were TEs. So we now recognize that TEs are not good flex players. The thirteenth best TE, Heath Miller, was outscored by over 100 RBs/WRs. So for TEs, you'll keep the same baseline, since it's not sensible to have a TE as a flex player. For RBs and WRs, the baseline you should use is 162, because that's the worst starter. You'll project 2.83 WRs, 2.17 RBs, and 1.00 TEs as starters per team. Here are the top 72 players from last year, with their VBD and FP numbers. Note: passing stats for RBs and WRs (think LT) were not included.
Code: 
313	474	LaDainian Tomlinson	258	419	Steven Jackson	213	375	Larry Johnson	173	335	Brian Westbrook	172	333	Frank Gore	142	304	Marvin Harrison	139	301	Tiki Barber	137	299	Willie Parker	120	281	Terrell Owens	112	274	Maurice Jones-Drew	110	272	Torry Holt	110	271	Donald Driver	110	271	Reggie Wayne	107	268	Chad Johnson	105	267	Reggie Bush	98	260	Steve Smith	98	259	Lee Evans	94	255	Roy Williams	91	253	T.J. Houshmandzadeh	88	249	Andre Johnson	86	217	Antonio Gates	82	244	Javon Walker	81	243	Ladell Betts	81	243	Mike Furrey	77	238	Rudi Johnson	77	238	Laveranues Coles	69	230	Anquan Boldin	68	230	Kevin Jones	67	229	Joseph Addai	67	228	Chester Taylor	64	225	Ahman Green	63	195	Kellen Winslow Jr	62	193	Tony Gonzalez	60	222	Plaxico Burress	60	222	Marques Colston	57	219	Darrell Jackson	55	217	Jerricho Cotchery	54	186	Todd Heap	54	216	Deuce McAllister	51	182	Alge Crumpler	50	212	Terry Glenn	50	212	Edgerrin James	49	211	Joey Galloway	49	211	Hines Ward	47	208	Thomas Jones	43	204	Marion Barber III	40	202	Isaac Bruce	39	170	Jeremy Shockey	38	200	Larry Fitzgerald	36	198	Fred Taylor	35	197	Jamal Lewis	35	166	Chris Cooley	30	191	Ronnie Brown	27	189	Corey Dillon	27	189	Travis Henry	26	188	Mark Clayton	25	186	Braylon Edwards	23	184	Reggie Brown	22	183	Warrick Dunn	20	182	Keyshawn Johnson	17	178	Santana Moss	15	176	Muhsin Muhammad	14	145	Jason Witten	13	144	Randy McMichael	12	144	Desmond Clark	10	141	L.J. Smith	9	171	Eddie Kennison	7	169	Willis McGahee	6	168	Marty Booker	4	165	Bernard Berrian	0	162	Reche Caldwell	0	131	Ben Watson
Click to expand...
:shrug:
 
Good work, Chase. I was kind of throwing the info out there and wanted it broad and not too dependent of that particular league.

You are right (and Bia) that VBD is the best way to analyze specific situations. This is why I left it broad as possible with just the raw data. I appreciate the help. I think the VBDs above help me for my team.

I would also like to hear fromt hose that have the spreadsheet and see if any of you see something I did not.

I will send this spreadsheet to anyone who asks ... and it has been sent to Mr. Pasquino.

 
wannabee said:
I think the VBDs above help me for my team.
Click to expand...
This point needs to be addressed.The table I listed above is useful and interesting. If you were to have a draft right now....where we will use last year's season ending stats as the only thing that matters....that table would not only be the perfect tool to dominate the draft, it would be the only tool you'd need. You'd draft straight off that list, and you'd score as many points as possible.Of course, that's not what happens in your real fantasy draft. So lots of other things need to be considered besides that above chart. Saying that 2.83 WRs and 2.17 RBs start is one thing, but saying that you should have your top 60 composed that way is an entirely different thing. For example, RBs are more predictable than WRs. That's very important. So you might want to bump RBs up because of that. Injury rates, confidence levels, league tendencies and dynamic VBD all play a big part of the equation.
 
Chase Stuart said:
wannabee said:
I think the VBDs above help me for my team.
Click to expand...
This point needs to be addressed.The table I listed above is useful and interesting. If you were to have a draft right now....where we will use last year's season ending stats as the only thing that matters....that table would not only be the perfect tool to dominate the draft, it would be the only tool you'd need. You'd draft straight off that list, and you'd score as many points as possible.Of course, that's not what happens in your real fantasy draft. So lots of other things need to be considered besides that above chart. Saying that 2.83 WRs and 2.17 RBs start is one thing, but saying that you should have your top 60 composed that way is an entirely different thing. For example, RBs are more predictable than WRs. That's very important. So you might want to bump RBs up because of that. Injury rates, confidence levels, league tendencies and dynamic VBD all play a big part of the equation.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this, plus the type of league and age of player (if dynasty). The scoring rules/starting requirements would change for some leagues, but I think it is all for the learning experience this time of year. Thank you for your input on this.
 
Hey wannabee,

If you email the spreadsheet to me I can add it into the first post for people to download right here from the boards.

shick@footballguys.com

 
Well this is kind of what I expected. The WRs overall have more value as starters once you get past the elite tier. This still needs to be verified by looking at past seasons to see if that holds true. I suspect it will but the distribution may not be as great as 2.83 WRs to 2.17 RBs. I would expect that to soften a bit more towards the middle. The 2004 season will probobly help the WRs more than other years. In any case looking at all 5 years will give you a pattern.

There is a lot more to take into consideration here than just what the end results were moving forward. The ideal of couse is to try to get as many of the pass catching RB uberstuds as you can. But when considering depth and value of your roster it is going to be found from the WRs. Which I think is what you said you have been doing.

I don't see a situation where you can expect to win consistently with a 1RB 4WR alignment. But for overall value in depth on your roster the way to get ahead of your compitition is by rostering many WRs with some staying power that may be somewhat undervalued.

I think you need to use a deeper baseline than what Chase did to find those patterns. That is why I suggested somthing like 40 RBs/WRs (80) instead of 72 overall. Maybe even a bit deeper baseline than this depending on roster size.

Because this is a dynasty league you also have to take things into consideration such as age and players that look to be improving moving forward based off of the trends from the past 5 years you have available.

 
Biabreakable said:
Well this is kind of what I expected. The WRs overall have more value as starters once you get past the elite tier. This still needs to be verified by looking at past seasons to see if that holds true. I suspect it will but the distribution may not be as great as 2.83 WRs to 2.17 RBs. I would expect that to soften a bit more towards the middle. The 2004 season will probobly help the WRs more than other years. In any case looking at all 5 years will give you a pattern.There is a lot more to take into consideration here than just what the end results were moving forward. The ideal of couse is to try to get as many of the pass catching RB uberstuds as you can. But when considering depth and value of your roster it is going to be found from the WRs. Which I think is what you said you have been doing.I don't see a situation where you can expect to win consistently with a 1RB 4WR alignment. But for overall value in depth on your roster the way to get ahead of your compitition is by rostering many WRs with some staying power that may be somewhat undervalued.I think you need to use a deeper baseline than what Chase did to find those patterns. That is why I suggested somthing like 40 RBs/WRs (80) instead of 72 overall. Maybe even a bit deeper baseline than this depending on roster size.Because this is a dynasty league you also have to take things into consideration such as age and players that look to be improving moving forward based off of the trends from the past 5 years you have available.
Click to expand...
:thumbup: I thought this would be a good subject to talk about in offseason.
 
Interesting discoveries, wannabee.

Definitely something to re-examine in the spring as you evaluate your team's strengths and needs.

Thanks for all the work.

 
Marc Levin said:
Interesting discoveries, wannabee.Definitely something to re-examine in the spring as you evaluate your team's strengths and needs.Thanks for all the work.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Marc. I would prefer this be a discussion of how the info can help determine roster moves, starters with a flex, etc for any PPR league.To be honest, I was surprised by some of the results. So, I was looking for discussion about the results (not necessarily about this particular league ... even though it is littered with Shark Pool guys). There are some very sharp people that troll these waters and I was looking for discussion. Later on in the offseason, I hope to go back and look at the volatility of players within the top 10, 30, etc. I would like to know the range/consistency of players/positions.
 
Well did you run the numbers for past years?

And what about deepening the baselines? I am actualy thinking you need to go to 16 or 18 for TEs to reflect some teams having more than one in the top 12, injuries, byes and matchups. I like my baselines to more closely reflect what people are actualy starting rather than a best case scenario using a minimum baseline.

JMO

I do think you need to look at past seasons make an average of that otherwise your sample size will be too small. I ushualy use 3 years. You will then have a good foundation for projecting forward.

 
Biabreakable said:
Well did you run the numbers for past years?And what about deepening the baselines? I am actualy thinking you need to go to 16 or 18 for TEs to reflect some teams having more than one in the top 12, injuries, byes and matchups. I like my baselines to more closely reflect what people are actualy starting rather than a best case scenario using a minimum baseline.JMOI do think you need to look at past seasons make an average of that otherwise your sample size will be too small. I ushualy use 3 years. You will then have a good foundation for projecting forward.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input. I appreciate any and all help. I have not run any baselines for this league yet. I am still digesting data. I do think 3-5 years of info is needed to make good, educated conclusions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
At every position, there are usually 2-4 guys who easily outscore all of the other players at the position. I think the best dynasty strategy is to collect as many of these difference makers as you can get.

After the top 5-6 RBs, I think WRs, Gates, and Manning start to become very attractive options in an initial PPR dynasty draft. That's because there's no sense taking a mediocre RB over a great WR in a dynasty draft.

Some of my worst mistakes have been using early picks on marginal players like Kevan Barlow, William Green, and Travis Henry. I've finally learned from my errors. These days, I simply don't draft marginal talents in the first three rounds. I'll take Torry Holt over Joseph Addai every single time.

My squad stunk it up in HyperActive, but I am VERY happy with my first two picks (Reggie Bush at 1.03 and Larry Fitzgerald at 1.09). Barring injury, those guys are going to be major contributors for years. The reason I chose them is because I felt they were among the best players in the NFL at their respective positions.

I had Antonio Gates ranked as a top 5 PPR dynasty player last year. That may seem absurd, but I think it's a solid ranking. Why? Because Gates gives you a large advantage over your opponents at a required starting position (TE). That's very valuable.

The truly elite players give you the best odds of top production over multiple seasons, which is really what you should be looking for if you're hoping for sustained dynasty success. Fluke monster years come from mediocre players almost every season, but I really believe that you can be a stable contender if you just stock up on stars.

 
This is interesting stuff. Thanks, Wannabee. I've actually been considering writing a piece on the PPR Effect. My thought was to look at how it impacts my definition of a possesion WR, or deep threat WR, or 3rd down backs, or 1000 yard rushers that are infrequently passed to etc. I had thoughts of further examining if PPR gave one position (RBs or WRs) or type of player a distinct advantage that they didn't have in a standard set up.

Again, thanks for your efforts here... much appreciated.

 
wannabee said:
coolnerd said:
:blackdot: :goodposting:
Click to expand...
Hello, :nerd: . Since you are in this league, too, I am curious to your thoughts on the info. :popcorn:
Click to expand...
Random shots 1) The number I think reflects the cut-off between starter/non-starter is about 75. We all want as many top 50 and higher guys as possible but the reality is somebody is starting borderline players and maybe even doing so every week. 2) The results show that in a given year it is better to have one the top 5 RBs than the top 5 WRs. This does not surprise me any.3) What the model fails the individual players who are getting the production. Year to year the RB position is far more dynamic than the WR position. My guess w/o research is that 25% of the RBs who are in the top 10 five years age are still there today. With WRs I am betting that 75% would still be significant fantasy pieces. 4) What #3 says to me that if you can get one the handful of RBs who can run off say 4 top 10 seasons in a row that is dynasty gold. However, chances are that you will get a couple years in a row before injury or RRBC or a new coaching staff or OL play, etc occur. 5) On the other hand while WRs are inconsistent game to game in the fantasy world, they are more consistent over the long-term. Depending on the studying, it is generally believed that WRs preform at an elite level until either 31 or 32.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
coolnerd said:
4) What #3 says to me that if you can get one the handful of RBs who can run off say 4 top 10 seasons in a row that is dynasty gold. However, chances are that you will get a couple years in a row before injury or RRBC or a new coaching staff or OL play, etc occur.
Click to expand...
This pretty much mirrors my thinking. There's no doubting the value of a guy like Steven Jackson or Brian Westbrook in a PPR, but a great WR is generally worth the same or more than a great RB who doesn't catch a lot of passes (i.e. Clinton Portis, Rudi Johnson, and Shaun Alexander). If you can land a great RB who catches passes then that's huge. But don't overpay for a great RB who doesn't catch passes. His actual value is likely to be less than his perceived value. For example, Lee Evans, Marques Colston, Andre Johnson, Mike Furrey, Hines Ward, and Laveranues Coles all outscored Rudi Johnson on a per-game basis in our PPR league last year. Which of these players would cost the most in a trade? It might be Andre, but I'm guessing that Rudi would be the most expensive. He'd certainly be more expensive than Coles or Ward (who have a decent chance to outscore him in the short and long term). Portis is another great example. He was a top 6 pick in both HyperActive conferences despite the fact that he only ranked 10th in PPR points per game among 2005 running backs. Nine 2005 wide receivers outscored him on a per-game basis. Portis wasn't even a top 20 player in PPR. Yet you would've been laughed out of the building if you had offered Santana Moss or Darrell Jackson or Anquan Boldin for him.
 
EBF said:
At every position, there are usually 2-4 guys who easily outscore all of the other players at the position. I think the best dynasty strategy is to collect as many of these difference makers as you can get.



After the top 5-6 RBs, I think WRs, Gates, and Manning start to become very attractive options in an initial PPR dynasty draft. That's because there's no sense taking a mediocre RB over a great WR in a dynasty draft.

Some of my worst mistakes have been using early picks on marginal players like Kevan Barlow, William Green, and Travis Henry. I've finally learned from my errors. These days, I simply don't draft marginal talents in the first three rounds. I'll take Torry Holt over Joseph Addai every single time.

My squad stunk it up in HyperActive, but I am VERY happy with my first two picks (Reggie Bush at 1.03 and Larry Fitzgerald at 1.09). Barring injury, those guys are going to be major contributors for years. The reason I chose them is because I felt they were among the best players in the NFL at their respective positions.

I had Antonio Gates ranked as a top 5 PPR dynasty player last year. That may seem absurd, but I think it's a solid ranking. Why? Because Gates gives you a large advantage over your opponents at a required starting position (TE). That's very valuable.



The truly elite players give you the best odds of top production over multiple seasons, which is really what you should be looking for if you're hoping for sustained dynasty success. Fluke monster years come from mediocre players almost every season, but I really believe that you can be a stable contender if you just stock up on stars.
Click to expand...
Hey EBF,You do realize that part first bolded part somewhat contradicts the second, and also the results (and hard work) that Wannabee put forth here?

I'm not saying you are wrong about Gates and Manning, but to say that after 5-6 RBs you're changing gears towards WRs and the elite TE/QB on the market I would say is a mistake.

By the data we have here, RBs dominate. So, if you have the opportunity to get a young RB who hasn't proven himself to NOT be elite, he's worth an earlier pick that you might think. Granted 2006 was an anomaly, as most any rookie RB proved to be valuable, but the point is that we are trying to corral as many stud RBs as possible for a few reasons:

1. Skip the QBs, because they are a "dime a dozen" as all of the starters are Top 30 guys.

2. If you don't get the Top 1-2 TEs, they all blend together.

3. Cornering the market on RBs gives you extra buying power on the trading front.

4. Waiting on WRs doesn't hurt as much as the values plateau in the 50th-100th player range.

5. If you are wrong about your RB choice, WRs are available later to minimize your loss.

6. By picking a RB vs. a WR, you are more likely to have a top performer (based on Top 10/30/50 analysis here).

I'm not saying to skip an elite WR if one is available. What I am saying is that if you have a Norwood, MJD or Addai staring at you and you're thinking of possibly getting your 2nd WR after 15-20 are off the table, go RB.

 
Jeff Pasquino said:
EBF said:
At every position, there are usually 2-4 guys who easily outscore all of the other players at the position. I think the best dynasty strategy is to collect as many of these difference makers as you can get.



After the top 5-6 RBs, I think WRs, Gates, and Manning start to become very attractive options in an initial PPR dynasty draft. That's because there's no sense taking a mediocre RB over a great WR in a dynasty draft.

Some of my worst mistakes have been using early picks on marginal players like Kevan Barlow, William Green, and Travis Henry. I've finally learned from my errors. These days, I simply don't draft marginal talents in the first three rounds. I'll take Torry Holt over Joseph Addai every single time.

My squad stunk it up in HyperActive, but I am VERY happy with my first two picks (Reggie Bush at 1.03 and Larry Fitzgerald at 1.09). Barring injury, those guys are going to be major contributors for years. The reason I chose them is because I felt they were among the best players in the NFL at their respective positions.

I had Antonio Gates ranked as a top 5 PPR dynasty player last year. That may seem absurd, but I think it's a solid ranking. Why? Because Gates gives you a large advantage over your opponents at a required starting position (TE). That's very valuable.



The truly elite players give you the best odds of top production over multiple seasons, which is really what you should be looking for if you're hoping for sustained dynasty success. Fluke monster years come from mediocre players almost every season, but I really believe that you can be a stable contender if you just stock up on stars.
Click to expand...
Hey EBF,You do realize that part first bolded part somewhat contradicts the second, and also the results (and hard work) that Wannabee put forth here?
Click to expand...
How so? The part about fluke years coming from marginal players? I stand by what I said. With a guy like Torry Holt, you can pretty much expect a great season.

That doesn't mean a guy like Chris Chambers or Muhsin Muhammad won't blow up every now and then on another owner's roster and give him a fluke monster year.

But you don't build a lasting winner with flukes. The consistent winners in my dynasty leagues are tough because they have a solid foundation of studs.

I think the best dynasty strategy is to use your early picks on studs. That means not reaching for marginal RBs when stud WRs on the board.

I'm not saying you are wrong about Gates and Manning, but to say that after 5-6 RBs you're changing gears towards WRs and the elite TE/QB on the market I would say is a mistake.
Click to expand...
I understand that a top RB is worth more than a top QB and usually a top TE and I also understand the idea of opportunity cost and that the dropoff at QB and TE is generally slower than the dropoff at WR and especially at RB.

That still doesn't mean I'd pass up a guy like Manning for a guy like Addai. With Manning, your QB spot is set for years. The hole is plugged. You can use all of your other picks on other positions. With Addai, your RB spot might be set. Or it might not be. You might have just burned an early pick on a guy who will never be more than mediocre. He might not even be starting in three years (see: William Green, Michael Bennett).

New players enter the league every season. You'll have a very hard time finding the next Harrison, Manning, or Gates, but a rookie RB who gives you some numbers is not all that difficult to come by. Almost every draft class gives us 2-3 rookie RBs who are immediately useful.

By the data we have here, RBs dominate. So, if you have the opportunity to get a young RB who hasn't proven himself to NOT be elite, he's worth an earlier pick that you might think. Granted 2006 was an anomaly, as most any rookie RB proved to be valuable, but the point is that we are trying to corral as many stud RBs as possible for a few reasons:

1. Skip the QBs, because they are a "dime a dozen" as all of the starters are Top 30 guys.

2. If you don't get the Top 1-2 TEs, they all blend together.

3. Cornering the market on RBs gives you extra buying power on the trading front.

4. Waiting on WRs doesn't hurt as much as the values plateau in the 50th-100th player range.

5. If you are wrong about your RB choice, WRs are available later to minimize your loss.

6. By picking a RB vs. a WR, you are more likely to have a top performer (based on Top 10/30/50 analysis here).

I'm not saying to skip an elite WR if one is available. What I am saying is that if you have a Norwood, MJD or Addai staring at you and you're thinking of possibly getting your 2nd WR after 15-20 are off the table, go RB.
Click to expand...
I understand what you're saying. Take Addai over Boldin because he has a higher ceiling and will be more valuable if he reaches that ceiling. The increased risk is justified because the potential payoff is greater. I still think it's fuzzy math. Realistically, there are only a handful of RBs who give top production over multiple seasons. Outside of a very select group of players like LaDainian Tomlinson, Ahman Green, Shaun Alexander, Clinton Portis, Tiki Barber, and Edgerrin James, most of the RBs drafted early in dynasty leagues a few years back didn't give elite sustained production. They may have had a few good years here and there, but in a flexible PPR league they were probably less valuable than boring WRs like Hines Ward and Marvin Harrison.

I think the primary factor that you're not accounting for is longevity. Sustained production is the key to lasting dynasty success. Only elite players give you elite sustained production. Very few RBs will go on to join the elite ranks. Many of the current top dogs (Jackson, LT, LJ, Portis, Westbrook, Bush) were top 5-10 picks last year.

So if you spent early picks on second tier RBs then you may have landed a Willie Parker, Frank Gore, or Joseph Addai, but you also might have gotten a DeShaun Foster, Reuben Droughns, Jamal Lewis, Ronnie Brown, Cadillac Williams, or Thomas Jones. In a flexibile PPR league that doesn't force you to start multiple RBs, I think you would've been better off going WR in the same range.

It's no coincidence that the best teams in HyperActive had great PPR RBs like Tomlinson, Westbrook, Gore, and Jackson. I recognize that there's clearly a big reward for landing an elite back, but there simply aren't many elite backs. Most of the RBs chosen in rounds 3-6 won't end up becoming the next Edgerrin James or Ahman Green. That's ultimately why I think owners are foolish to pass up relatively safe WRs for questionable RBs when you only have to start one back. You're taking an unnecessary risk with almost no real upside unless you get very lucky and land a true star (which is not likely).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF said:
By the data we have here, RBs dominate. So, if you have the opportunity to get a young RB who hasn't proven himself to NOT be elite, he's worth an earlier pick that you might think. Granted 2006 was an anomaly, as most any rookie RB proved to be valuable, but the point is that we are trying to corral as many stud RBs as possible for a few reasons:

1. Skip the QBs, because they are a "dime a dozen" as all of the starters are Top 30 guys.

2. If you don't get the Top 1-2 TEs, they all blend together.

3. Cornering the market on RBs gives you extra buying power on the trading front.

4. Waiting on WRs doesn't hurt as much as the values plateau in the 50th-100th player range.

5. If you are wrong about your RB choice, WRs are available later to minimize your loss.

6. By picking a RB vs. a WR, you are more likely to have a top performer (based on Top 10/30/50 analysis here).

I'm not saying to skip an elite WR if one is available. What I am saying is that if you have a Norwood, MJD or Addai staring at you and you're thinking of possibly getting your 2nd WR after 15-20 are off the table, go RB.
Click to expand...
I understand what you're saying. Take Addai over Boldin because he has a higher ceiling and will be more valuable if he reaches that ceiling. The increased risk is justified because the potential payoff is greater. I still think it's fuzzy math. Realistically, there are only a handful of RBs who give top production over multiple seasons. Outside of a very select group of players like LaDainian Tomlinson, Ahman Green, Shaun Alexander, Clinton Portis, Tiki Barber, and Edgerrin James, most of the RBs drafted early in dynasty leagues a few years back didn't give elite sustained production. They may have had a few good years here and there, but in a flexible PPR league they were probably less valuable than boring WRs like Hines Ward and Marvin Harrison.
Click to expand...
I think for that very reasoning, that elite RBs are hard to come by, you have to take the shot at landing one (or more). The downside is that you swing and miss. It happens. I touted LamJ last year (ouch), but I was also an ardent MJD supporter. I got both in HyperActive, so they washed out. MJD may burn brightly then fade quickly, but I'll take a 20 PPG guy for 2-3 years over a 17 point guy for 4-5.
I think the primary factor that you're not accounting for is longevity. Sustained production is the key to lasting dynasty success. Only elite players give you elite sustained production. Very few RBs will go on to join the elite ranks. Many of the current top dogs (Jackson, LT, LJ, Portis, Westbrook, Bush) were top 5-10 picks last year.

So if you spent early picks on second tier RBs then you may have landed a Willie Parker, Frank Gore, or Joseph Addai, but you also might have gotten a DeShaun Foster, Reuben Droughns, Jamal Lewis, Ronnie Brown, Cadillac Williams, or Thomas Jones. In a flexibile PPR league that doesn't force you to start multiple RBs, I think you would've been better off going WR in the similar range.

It's no coincidence that the best teams in HyperActive had great PPR RBs like Tomlinson, Westbrook, Gore, and Jackson. I recognize that there's clearly a big reward for landing an elite back, but there simply aren't many elite backs. Most of the RBs chosen in rounds 3-6 won't end up becoming the next Edgerrin James or Ahman Green. That's ultimately why I think owners are foolish to pass up relatively safe WRs for questionable RBs when you only have to start one back. You're taking an unnecessary risk with almost no real upside unless you get very lucky and land a true star (which is not likely).
Click to expand...
This seems to make my argument - go for RBs in the hopes that they can be elite. Don't go for ones that are re-treads, but rather young RBs that haven't had an opportunity to excel or fail yet.In a start-up dynasty league, 25-30 RBs will go in the first 4 rounds even with PPR. If you take three in the first four rounds, the odds are in your favor that you would have an elite back and two guys that could potentially excel. One or two could bust, but just like it is hard to get 3 to be elite, 3 also likely will not all fail.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the approaches here, but that's what makes the debate worthwhile.

 
Jeff Pasquino said:
I think for that very reasoning, that elite RBs are hard to come by, you have to take the shot at landing one (or more). The downside is that you swing and miss. It happens. I touted LamJ last year (ouch), but I was also an ardent MJD supporter. I got both in HyperActive, so they washed out. MJD may burn brightly then fade quickly, but I'll take a 20 PPG guy for 2-3 years over a 17 point guy for 4-5.
Click to expand...
I don't think elite RBs are worth aiming for because they're rare, but rather because they're valuable. I almost always draft a back in the first round. I took Bush at 1.03 in Hyper because I loved his talent and his receiving skills. I thought he had the potential to be a 20-25 PPG back given the opportunity. I feel pretty good about the pick. That said, players like Bush are rare. Guys like Addai, Maroney, and Benson have shown promise, but is there anything about their talent or production that screams superstar? Not really. I don't see any reason to go out on a limb for this type of player. However, if you truly think a guy is a superstar waiting to happen then by all means pick him. There's no doubt that it can pay dividends. Just realize how many of these flashy RBs have come and gone while guys like Hines Ward keep churning out useful seasons.
This seems to make my argument - go for RBs in the hopes that they can be elite. Don't go for ones that are re-treads, but rather young RBs that haven't had an opportunity to excel or fail yet.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. I wouldn't have touched Fred Taylor or Corey Dillon with a ten foot pole in a dynasty draft last year.
In a start-up dynasty league, 25-30 RBs will go in the first 4 rounds even with PPR. If you take three in the first four rounds, the odds are in your favor that you would have an elite back and two guys that could potentially excel. One or two could bust, but just like it is hard to get 3 to be elite, 3 also likely will not all fail.I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the approaches here, but that's what makes the debate worthwhile.
Click to expand...
I see the merits in that strategy. In one of my leagues, I'm in a division with a guy who owns Alexander and Gore and another guy who owns Tomlinson and LJ. Both teams made the playoffs and had a realistic shot at the title. I recognize the value of trying to land a group of superstar backs. But I don't think you have to sacrifice all of your early picks in order to pursue this aim. The teams that I just mentioned were able to get these elite players through trades. One guy got Gore for Mark Brunell. The other guy got LJ for Reuben Droughns. Those guys turned cheap pieces (Brunell was a late pick and Droughns was a waiver pickup) into absolute superstars. If you're crafty with your assets and you draft well in the late rounds then you can absolutely afford to avoid gambling against the odds for RB gold in the early rounds.
 
In line with EBF and Jeff's disagreement I will just say again:

I don't see a situation where you can expect to win consistently with a 1RB 4WR alignment.
Click to expand...
I think you could possibly have one year with the right combination of WRs to possibly reach a championship and possibly win it. I still think those odds are against you. But even if you did I don't think you could expect sustained success at that level (playoffs, championships) with such an alignment over several years. WR performance fluctuates too.
But for overall value in depth on your roster the way to get ahead of your compitition is by rostering many WRs with some staying power that may be somewhat undervalued.
Click to expand...
I think this helps your ability to trade. As the teams that amass more talent from the lower tier of WRs that improve into the higher ranks will have more to work with than teams who have WRs that bust. The multiple flex makes these WRs more attractive trade options as well.Drugrunners minimal WR would be a certain path to failure in a league like this. Wonder where he has been hiding all this time btw.
 
I must be missing something obvious here...isn't this precisely how you apply VBD with flex and ppr (while ignoring injuries)?...I think I did this same analysis a few years back applying AVT (prior 4 years worth of data) to evaluate how many players at each position in my PPR/2Flex league would typically warrant starts...I then compared the yearly results to see what kind of variance existed by position...

Rather than using this to project, I was actually using this to tune and model the scoring system for our new league...so I actually ran the computations over and over several times as I tweaked the numbers...

Is there something more unique here that I'm missing?

 
Biabreakable said:
But for overall value in depth on your roster the way to get ahead of your compitition is by rostering many WRs with some staying power that may be somewhat undervalued.
Click to expand...
I think this helps your ability to trade. As the teams that amass more talent from the lower tier of WRs that improve into the higher ranks will have more to work with than teams who have WRs that bust. The multiple flex makes these WRs more attractive trade options as well.
Click to expand...
What kind players are we talking about as trade value here?...We start 1RB, 2WR, 2Flex...and we rarely see WR3 or WR4 players trading for significant value...at best you're looking at RBBC backs or tier-2 TEs...reducing the starting requirements to just 1WR seems to increase the demand for the elite WR1 players but I'm not sure it increases the trade value of mid tier WR...
 
code said:
I must be missing something obvious here...isn't this precisely how you apply VBD with flex and ppr (while ignoring injuries)?...I think I did this same analysis a few years back applying AVT (prior 4 years worth of data) to evaluate how many players at each position in my PPR/2Flex league would typically warrant starts...I then compared the yearly results to see what kind of variance existed by position...Rather than using this to project, I was actually using this to tune and model the scoring system for our new league...so I actually ran the computations over and over several times as I tweaked the numbers...Is there something more unique here that I'm missing?
Click to expand...
Since most people have different leagues, I just put together the data and posted it. I thought it might be a good source of discussion. I, personally, like these types of general discussions in the offseason. My next step will be to look at individual players and how they fluctuated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Top 10 percentage? (WARNING: Lots of math talk and poor assumptions)
Replies
9
Views
327
Keith R
Keith R
T
Travdogg's positional rankings (summer edition)
2
Replies
67
Views
2K
wgoldsph
wgoldsph
A
Auction Optimizer Tool
Replies
2
Views
795
azmat
A

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top