Article of the Year! (1 Viewer)

[secretid]

Chase, thanks for all the great responses. I've got a much better feel for what you set out to accomplish and I think you succeeded in what you were going for. Great work.

 

[Chase Stuart]

And the other part of this article which should not be ignored is that the rank differential between actual points per adjusted game and value added was at most three spots except for four QBs:Favre 9Brooks 6Delhomme 5Collins -5Favre and Brooks faced two of the tougher schedules in expected fantasy ppg and their teams combined for a record of 7-25. What probably led to their improved performance is the tendency for teams to pass more when trailing in games and get those second half "pity TDs" that defenses will allow when playing prevent.

I don't think that's really a problem for this type of study. Yes, Favre and Brooks played on bad teams but scored highly. But you ignored that Delhomme played on a good team and scored well. Collins played on a horrible team...and scored poorly. Collins actually led all QBs in FPs scored in the 4th quarter last season when his team was down by 8 or more. Favre was second. This isn't surprising, of course, since their teams were down by 8 or more in the 4th quarters quite a bit. Jake Delhomme ranked 4th in QB scoring in the 4th quarters when up by 8 or more.Conclusion: Favre and Brooks being on bad teams last year isn't a reason to discount their positive play, which was hidden by difficult schedules.

 

[duaneok66]

And the other part of this article which should not be ignored is that the rank differential between actual points per adjusted game and value added was at most three spots except for four QBs:

Favre 9

Brooks 6

Delhomme 5

Collins -5

Favre and Brooks faced two of the tougher schedules in expected fantasy ppg and their teams combined for a record of 7-25. What probably led to their improved performance is the tendency for teams to pass more when trailing in games and get those second half "pity TDs" that defenses will allow when playing prevent.

I don't think that's really a problem for this type of study. Yes, Favre and Brooks played on bad teams but scored highly. But you ignored that Delhomme played on a good team and scored well. Collins played on a horrible team...and scored poorly. Collins actually led all QBs in FPs scored in the 4th quarter last season when his team was down by 8 or more. Favre was second. This isn't surprising, of course, since their teams were down by 8 or more in the 4th quarters quite a bit. Jake Delhomme ranked 4th in QB scoring in the 4th quarters when up by 8 or more.Conclusion: Favre and Brooks being on bad teams last year isn't a reason to discount their positive play, which was hidden by difficult schedules.

excellent point . . . the TDs against prevent defesnes stuff is overrated . . . no self repsecting defense is going to let you have anything; usually what happens in those types of games is that the QB drives the down the field for a late score and usually he gets sacked or throws a pick . . .

 

[Chase Stuart]

FP/AdgG Rk is essentially suppose to mimick ADP correct?

Sorta. I'd say FP/AdjG Rk is supposed to mimmick ADP on January 11th, with an upgrade for guys who will be new starters this year (Volek, Pennington) and a downgrade for guys who you think are super injury prone (Bulger, uh, Pennington).FP/AdjG Rk is really supposed to just be a normalized version of EOY stats. It shouldn't duplicate ADP because rearview SOS has no idea that Mike Martz is coaching the Lions, or that Jon Kitna's playing for them.

What in the case of say Marc Bulger whos ADP isnt 1 its 7 so the difference would be 6 not 0 and say Brett Favre whos ADP is 18 so the difference would be 3.

Would you trust using ADP more to compare the difference or FP/AdjG Rk and why?

Bulger's ADP is 7 for a few reasons.Mike Martz left.

Marshall Faulk is gone.

Bulger is injury prone.

Bulger averaged 20.6 FP/G last year, and ranked 23rd in total FPs.

All the other stuff we already had (Holt being there, Bulger ranking top 10 in 2003 and 2004, etc.)

Some idea about his SOS for 2006.

Those six things can basically explain why Bulger's ADP is what it is. I'm then trying to look at two more things.

Bulger really only played 6.8 games (not 8), so his FP/AdjG is going to be a bit higher than his FP/G. This one additional piece of knowledge would make Bulger undervalued. But we also know Bulger had the easiest schedule in the NFL last year. This would make him overvalued.

The easiest schedule probably weighs more heavily than the 6.8 instead of 8 games idea, so he might in general be overvalued. But then again, I think people put too much emphasis on how injury prone a guy is -- so in the end, I think Bulger's right where he should be.

And this kinda goes back to what I said before...the numbers this year just aren't as revealing as they could be. If Bulger had the hardest schedule in the league and put up the same numbers as he did in 2005, then I'd say he's drastically undervalued.

I like Bulger, but his ADP seems about right.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Hmmm...note the pattern Chase???

BassNBrew Aaron Brooks Oak/3 QB9 9.08 104 107 BassNBrew Brett Favre GB/6 QB17 11.08 128 110 No wonder the MB will soon be 3-0 v. the Staff.

I'll save you investing time to do the RBs...

BassNBrew Brian Westbrook Phi/9 RB8 1.08 8 16 BassNBrew Willie Parker Pit/4 RB20 3.08 32 26 BassNBrew Jamal Lewis Bal/7 RB23 4.05 41 28

Thanks BnB. That will save me a good bit of time.Seriously though, great job getting those two guys. Solid picks for sure.

 

[LehighGuy]

If you took the  2005 FP/game or the expected FP/G and applied that to the anticipated 2006 SOS (I don't have those numbers at hand) , is there a correlation to your conclusions?  How would this compare to current rankings or does it support the thinking of undervalue or overvalue for a position?

I'm not exactly sure what your question is here. I *think* you're asking me if the SOS for each QB remains constant, or whether the FPallowed to QBs by each team's defense remains constant. If what you're asking me is the first, I'd imagine the correlation is very low. If what you're asking me is the second, I'd also imagine the correlation is pretty low.People say "defenses are hard to predict" quite a lot, and I think that's mostly* true. But there are two things in that statement:

1) Defenses are hard to predict when you're choosing which fantasy defense you want to draft. This is mostly true, and the reason why I do the QBBC article. On the other hand, I did some research the other night and noticed that (adding to a very large list of things) Dodds' defensive predictions were pretty darn good. Hopefully he won't put me out of business here.

2) Defenses are hard to predict when you're choosing which RB to play against which Defense. When you say defenses are hard to predict in terms of judging SOS for your offensive players, I think this is mostly true. But Clayton Gray does a great job with his SOS analysis. But he doesn't just copy over last year's numbers -- which is what I *think* you're asking me to correlate; and in that case, yes it's pretty unpredictable.

*I don't really believe this. What I think is that most people spend 90% of their time studying offense and not defense, so we're better at predicting offense. Shooting a free throw from 15 feet out isn't any more difficult than shooting a 15 foot shot at a 45% angle, but we practice that much less often, so we're worse at it. I used to be very confident about my predictions on defense, but unfortunately I wasn't able to watch as many games as I would have liked to last season. Fortunately for me, I can rely on our great IDP staff for support.

Chase, What I was asking (and now I see I didn't phrase it very well) was.

Take the numbers you generated for 2005 Fantasy Points per game and run those numers with the upcoming season Strength of Schedule to come up with an anticipated or expected Fantasy points per game for the upcoming season.

Would the result be equal to the current projections or might there be a difference that would skew the rankings.?

Thanks

 

[cell76]

Chase thank you soo much for the insightful article. I wanted to do a quick a check based on last years ratings (I know you modified the system some for this year, using partial games and what not)

here is what I did. I used my database to recreate your rankings making sure I got the same values as you. Then I ranked the quarterbacks according to their adp value.

for the top 10 last year here is their adp value

1. p. manning

2. d. culpepper

3. d. mcnabb

4. m. bluger

5. t. green

6. k. collins

7. m. vick

8. b favre

9. t. brady

10. m. hasselbeck

now I used the differential to move the qb's in their rankings. so for example p. manning had a differential of -2 so I moved his value down to 3. I did this for all the qb's that I had data for.

here is the new top 10 (with their adp qb ranking in parens)

1.d. culpepper (2)

2.d. mcnabb (3)

3.p. manning (1)

4.c. palmer (11)

5.m. Bulger (4)

6.t. green(5)

7.t. brady(9)

8.m.hasselbeck(10)

9.k.collins(6)

10.m. vick(7)

so the way I look at this is this system, with no subjective human element it had palmer as the 4th best qb. it also told you that peyton might be overvalued.

so for the system I would call the following good calls

palmer, peyton, favre

if you just used this system you might miss a good pick but it was pretty good at picking sleepers and busts. add in your own rankings and I think this is a great tool to add to the arsenal

I would use this system to try to target sleepers and avoid busts (last year it said favre should be the 16th best qb).

for you fellow math geeks out there. I used fantasy points per game to rank the qbs and then compared the correlation of the average draft position to fpts/game and I came up with .63 for all qbs, .64 for the top 12 and an abysmal .05 for the top 5. using chase's system to adjust the adp and then checking for correlation I got .59 for all qbs, .81 for the top 12 and .4 for the top 5. it would appear that the top of qb list is better suited using chase's system rather than adp. I know this is a miniscule sample size and I will perform the same analysis for 2004. I would like to do more of this but i don't ahve adp data prior to 2004.

 

[Chase Stuart]

so for example p. manning had a differential of -2 so I moved his value down to 3.

This is the part I don't understand.For what it's worth, I already set out the biggest steals last year based on ADP: Bledsoe, Palmer, Brady and Eli. Bledsoe, Palmer and Brady ranked 1-2-3 in the system last year; that's excellent. Manning was slightly above average, but it's pretty much irrelevant. No one in the world could have predicted based on his 2004 stats that Manning would have been a top 5 fantasy QB in 2005. If you looked at his pedigree, the addition of Burress, his college career, maybe you could have -- but my system doesn't do any of that.

 

[Chase Stuart]

If you took the  2005 FP/game or the expected FP/G and applied that to the anticipated 2006 SOS (I don't have those numbers at hand) , is there a correlation to your conclusions?  How would this compare to current rankings or does it support the thinking of undervalue or overvalue for a position?

I'm not exactly sure what your question is here. I *think* you're asking me if the SOS for each QB remains constant, or whether the FPallowed to QBs by each team's defense remains constant. If what you're asking me is the first, I'd imagine the correlation is very low. If what you're asking me is the second, I'd also imagine the correlation is pretty low.People say "defenses are hard to predict" quite a lot, and I think that's mostly* true. But there are two things in that statement:

1) Defenses are hard to predict when you're choosing which fantasy defense you want to draft. This is mostly true, and the reason why I do the QBBC article. On the other hand, I did some research the other night and noticed that (adding to a very large list of things) Dodds' defensive predictions were pretty darn good. Hopefully he won't put me out of business here.

2) Defenses are hard to predict when you're choosing which RB to play against which Defense. When you say defenses are hard to predict in terms of judging SOS for your offensive players, I think this is mostly true. But Clayton Gray does a great job with his SOS analysis. But he doesn't just copy over last year's numbers -- which is what I *think* you're asking me to correlate; and in that case, yes it's pretty unpredictable.

*I don't really believe this. What I think is that most people spend 90% of their time studying offense and not defense, so we're better at predicting offense. Shooting a free throw from 15 feet out isn't any more difficult than shooting a 15 foot shot at a 45% angle, but we practice that much less often, so we're worse at it. I used to be very confident about my predictions on defense, but unfortunately I wasn't able to watch as many games as I would have liked to last season. Fortunately for me, I can rely on our great IDP staff for support.

Chase, What I was asking (and now I see I didn't phrase it very well) was.

Take the numbers you generated for 2005 Fantasy Points per game and run those numers with the upcoming season Strength of Schedule to come up with an anticipated or expected Fantasy points per game for the upcoming season.

Would the result be equal to the current projections or might there be a difference that would skew the rankings.?

Thanks

I don't think the results would be anywhere near equal to the current projections. Things like Martz going to Detroit, Owens leaving Philly, Vernon Davis to SF, Jimmy Smith leaving Jacksonville, Eric Moulds joining the Texans, Nate Burleson and half of Darrell Jackson going the Seahawks, etc., are all going to explain what the differences are.

 

[cell76]

This is the part I don't understand.For what it's worth, I already set out the biggest steals last year based on ADP: Bledsoe, Palmer, Brady and Eli. Bledsoe, Palmer and Brady ranked 1-2-3 in the system last year; that's excellent. Manning was slightly above average, but it's pretty much irrelevant. No one in the world could have predicted based on his 2004 stats that Manning would have been a top 5 fantasy QB in 2005. If you looked at his pedigree, the addition of Burress, his college career, maybe you could have -- but my system doesn't do any of that.

Chase, The reason I was adjusting the value of the qb's accoding to your differential and their adp was so that I could re-rank them and see if using your system improved upon their adp. I needed to be able to re-rank them to test the correlation numbers. I wanted to just use your system and adp as those are objective rankings. My post doesn't really add anything above what you have done, just a way to test it. I think we definately need to use our projections in addition to this. For all the reasons you have mentioned (coaching changes, personel changes, etc...). This is definately a good tool to ferret out sleepers and busts.

 

[ExtremeFajita]

Love the article! Here is my question:

If my league awards 6pts per passing TD and -3 per interception, how does that affect my use of these rankings? Is Favre downgraded a bit since he throws more picks vs Plummer who had a great TD/Int ratio last year?

Love to see an online application that let's us input our scoring system and get this data!!

Thanks in advance for your input.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Love the article! Here is my question:

If my league awards 6pts per passing TD and -3 per interception, how does that affect my use of these rankings? Is Favre downgraded a bit since he throws more picks vs Plummer who had a great TD/Int ratio last year?

Love to see an online application that let's us input our scoring system and get this data!!

Thanks in advance for your input.

My guess is your leaguemates already downgrade Favre (and upgrade Plummer) quite a bit because of your system requirements. Certainly the results would be a bit different if we changed the scoring system, but I don't believe they would be dramatically different. Actually, if this gets bumped later or you shoot me a PM tomorrow, I could probably answer that question for you and post the rankings in about five minutes. But unfortunately, I'm not around the computer where I've stored that information.

 

[Joe T]

I don't think the results would be anywhere near equal to the current projections. Things like Martz going to Detroit, Owens going to Philly, Vernon Davis to SF, Jimmy Smith leaving Jacksonville, Eric Moulds joining the Texans, Nate Burleson and half of Darrell Jackson going the Seahawks, etc., are all going to explain what the differences are.

He's going back to Philly??????

I missed this update in the FBG blogger.

 

[MarshallRob]

And the other part of this article which should not be ignored is that the rank differential between actual points per adjusted game and value added was at most three spots except for four QBs:

Favre 9

Brooks 6

Delhomme 5

Collins -5

Favre and Brooks faced two of the tougher schedules in expected fantasy ppg and their teams combined for a record of 7-25. What probably led to their improved performance is the tendency for teams to pass more when trailing in games and get those second half "pity TDs" that defenses will allow when playing prevent.

I don't think that's really a problem for this type of study. Yes, Favre and Brooks played on bad teams but scored highly. But you ignored that Delhomme played on a good team and scored well. Collins played on a horrible team...and scored poorly. Collins actually led all QBs in FPs scored in the 4th quarter last season when his team was down by 8 or more. Favre was second. This isn't surprising, of course, since their teams were down by 8 or more in the 4th quarters quite a bit. Jake Delhomme ranked 4th in QB scoring in the 4th quarters when up by 8 or more.Conclusion: Favre and Brooks being on bad teams last year isn't a reason to discount their positive play, which was hidden by difficult schedules.

I know Favre had a tough schedule last year, but did that really hide "positive play"? 29 picks seems like a lot no matter how hard the schedule was.

 

[Chase Stuart]

And the other part of this article which should not be ignored is that the rank differential between actual points per adjusted game and value added was at most three spots except for four QBs:

Favre 9

Brooks 6

Delhomme 5

Collins -5

Favre and Brooks faced two of the tougher schedules in expected fantasy ppg and their teams combined for a record of 7-25. What probably led to their improved performance is the tendency for teams to pass more when trailing in games and get those second half "pity TDs" that defenses will allow when playing prevent.

I don't think that's really a problem for this type of study. Yes, Favre and Brooks played on bad teams but scored highly. But you ignored that Delhomme played on a good team and scored well. Collins played on a horrible team...and scored poorly. Collins actually led all QBs in FPs scored in the 4th quarter last season when his team was down by 8 or more. Favre was second. This isn't surprising, of course, since their teams were down by 8 or more in the 4th quarters quite a bit. Jake Delhomme ranked 4th in QB scoring in the 4th quarters when up by 8 or more.Conclusion: Favre and Brooks being on bad teams last year isn't a reason to discount their positive play, which was hidden by difficult schedules.

I know Favre had a tough schedule last year, but did that really hide "positive play"? 29 picks seems like a lot no matter how hard the schedule was.

Favre finished as the 13th best QB in standard FP scoring, and was 15th in value added. Not one of his better years for sure, but he was certainly a decent fantasy QB -- if you use -1 for INTs. I'll try and look into how he fares in a different scoring system tomorrow.

 

[The Jerk]

And the other part of this article which should not be ignored is that the rank differential between actual points per adjusted game and value added was at most three spots except for four QBs:

Favre 9

Brooks 6

Delhomme 5

Collins -5

Favre and Brooks faced two of the tougher schedules in expected fantasy ppg and their teams combined for a record of 7-25. What probably led to their improved performance is the tendency for teams to pass more when trailing in games and get those second half "pity TDs" that defenses will allow when playing prevent.

I don't think that's really a problem for this type of study. Yes, Favre and Brooks played on bad teams but scored highly. But you ignored that Delhomme played on a good team and scored well. Collins played on a horrible team...and scored poorly. Collins actually led all QBs in FPs scored in the 4th quarter last season when his team was down by 8 or more. Favre was second. This isn't surprising, of course, since their teams were down by 8 or more in the 4th quarters quite a bit. Jake Delhomme ranked 4th in QB scoring in the 4th quarters when up by 8 or more.Conclusion: Favre and Brooks being on bad teams last year isn't a reason to discount their positive play, which was hidden by difficult schedules.

excellent point . . . the TDs against prevent defesnes stuff is overrated . . . no self repsecting defense is going to let you have anything; usually what happens in those types of games is that the QB drives the down the field for a late score and usually he gets sacked or throws a pick . . .

Sounds good, but look at the numbers:
Week 2: Packers trail Browns 26-17 with 1:50 remaining6-8 for 73 yards, 4 yard TD pass to Tony Fisher (0:04 remaining)Week 4: Packers trail Panthers 32-13 with 11:55 remaining1-1 for 16 yards, 16-yard TD pass to D.Lee and 2-pt. pass to D.Martin (11:49 remaining)8-12 for 86 yards, 4-yard TD pass to A.Chatman and 2-pt. pass to R.Ferguson (3:07 remaining)2-5 for 22 yardsTOTAL: 11-18 124 2 TDs 2 2-pt conversionsWeek 8: Packers trail Bengals 21-7 with 8:28 remaining9-12 for 87 yards, 1 yard TD pass to B.Franks (3:11 remaining)2-3 for 30 yards (includes illegal forward pass penalty declined on last play for 11-yard gain)TOTAL: 11-15 for 117 yards, 1 TDWeek 9: Packers trail Steelers 20-10 with 6:10 remaining4-9 for 40 yardsWeek 13: Packers trail Bears 19-7 with 3:00 remaining8-16 for 69 yardsWeek 16: Packers trail Bears 24-14 with 3:44 remaining5-7 for 65 yards1-2 for 56 yardsTOTAL: 6-9 for 121 yards6-8 73 1 TD11-18 124 2 TD, 2 2-pt11-15 117, 1 TD4-9 408-16 696-9 121Here are the cumulative totals:46-75 for 544 yards, 4 TD, 2 2-pt conversion passes

Only 35:07 total game time elapsed!!

Favre’s year end point total was 251.8 points

43.2 points (more than 17% of his season total) came in 35 minutes of “pity time” vs. 6 teams

So yeah, I’d say the “pity points” helped artificially inflate Favre’s numbers. Without those 43 points, Favre drops from 13th to 17th in the FBG 2005 season total stats.

 

[Chase Stuart]

And the other part of this article which should not be ignored is that the rank differential between actual points per adjusted game and value added was at most three spots except for four QBs:

Favre 9

Brooks 6

Delhomme 5

Collins -5

Favre and Brooks faced two of the tougher schedules in expected fantasy ppg and their teams combined for a record of 7-25. What probably led to their improved performance is the tendency for teams to pass more when trailing in games and get those second half "pity TDs" that defenses will allow when playing prevent.

I don't think that's really a problem for this type of study. Yes, Favre and Brooks played on bad teams but scored highly. But you ignored that Delhomme played on a good team and scored well. Collins played on a horrible team...and scored poorly. Collins actually led all QBs in FPs scored in the 4th quarter last season when his team was down by 8 or more. Favre was second. This isn't surprising, of course, since their teams were down by 8 or more in the 4th quarters quite a bit. Jake Delhomme ranked 4th in QB scoring in the 4th quarters when up by 8 or more.Conclusion: Favre and Brooks being on bad teams last year isn't a reason to discount their positive play, which was hidden by difficult schedules.

excellent point . . . the TDs against prevent defesnes stuff is overrated . . . no self repsecting defense is going to let you have anything; usually what happens in those types of games is that the QB drives the down the field for a late score and usually he gets sacked or throws a pick . . .

Sounds good, but look at the numbers:
Week 2: Packers trail Browns 26-17 with 1:50 remaining6-8 for 73 yards, 4 yard TD pass to Tony Fisher (0:04 remaining)Week 4: Packers trail Panthers 32-13 with 11:55 remaining1-1 for 16 yards, 16-yard TD pass to D.Lee and 2-pt. pass to D.Martin (11:49 remaining)8-12 for 86 yards, 4-yard TD pass to A.Chatman and 2-pt. pass to R.Ferguson (3:07 remaining)2-5 for 22 yardsTOTAL: 11-18 124 2 TDs 2 2-pt conversionsWeek 8: Packers trail Bengals 21-7 with 8:28 remaining9-12 for 87 yards, 1 yard TD pass to B.Franks (3:11 remaining)2-3 for 30 yards (includes illegal forward pass penalty declined on last play for 11-yard gain)TOTAL: 11-15 for 117 yards, 1 TDWeek 9: Packers trail Steelers 20-10 with 6:10 remaining4-9 for 40 yardsWeek 13: Packers trail Bears 19-7 with 3:00 remaining8-16 for 69 yardsWeek 16: Packers trail Bears 24-14 with 3:44 remaining5-7 for 65 yards1-2 for 56 yardsTOTAL: 6-9 for 121 yards6-8 73 1 TD11-18 124 2 TD, 2 2-pt11-15 117, 1 TD4-9 408-16 696-9 121Here are the cumulative totals:46-75 for 544 yards, 4 TD, 2 2-pt conversion passes

Only 35:07 total game time elapsed!!

Favre’s year end point total was 251.8 points

43.2 points (more than 17% of his season total) came in 35 minutes of “pity time” vs. 6 teams

So yeah, I’d say the “pity points” helped artificially inflate Favre’s numbers. Without those 43 points, Favre drops from 13th to 17th in the FBG 2005 season total stats.

Sorry The Jerk, but that's not very informative. What you'd need to do is go through each game (and not cherry pick them) for each QB, and then compare how many FP/minute they scored in garbage time vs. how many FP/minute they scored in regular time. A handful of games won't mean very much at all. Without Donovan McNabb's 30 minutes against the 49ers where he scored 37 FPs, his numbers would look worse too.Edited to add: Just to be clear here. Favre probably played in more "garbage time" than most QBs, and that helped him. In general garbage time will give a slight uptick to QBs. But that's already reflected in his SOS. If Favre plays the '85 Bears, he's probably going to get a lot of garbage time (especially if it's 1 on 11 ). But everyone that plays the '85 Bears will have lots of garbage time. And so the '85 Bears might give up more yards and TDs to QBs than you'd normally expect. And that means the Bears rating will be less impressive. So when Favre does well in garbage time, it's not as impressive. And that's the way it should be.

 

[The Jerk]

And the other part of this article which should not be ignored is that the rank differential between actual points per adjusted game and value added was at most three spots except for four QBs:

Favre 9

Brooks 6

Delhomme 5

Collins -5

Favre and Brooks faced two of the tougher schedules in expected fantasy ppg and their teams combined for a record of 7-25. What probably led to their improved performance is the tendency for teams to pass more when trailing in games and get those second half "pity TDs" that defenses will allow when playing prevent.

I don't think that's really a problem for this type of study. Yes, Favre and Brooks played on bad teams but scored highly. But you ignored that Delhomme played on a good team and scored well. Collins played on a horrible team...and scored poorly. Collins actually led all QBs in FPs scored in the 4th quarter last season when his team was down by 8 or more. Favre was second. This isn't surprising, of course, since their teams were down by 8 or more in the 4th quarters quite a bit. Jake Delhomme ranked 4th in QB scoring in the 4th quarters when up by 8 or more.Conclusion: Favre and Brooks being on bad teams last year isn't a reason to discount their positive play, which was hidden by difficult schedules.

Chase,Let me rephrase my previous post a little more bluntly. While the article is a good read, the truth is that out of all the QBs studied, only 4 showed a rank differential of more than 3 slots. That's barely 10% of the QBs in the study.

Frankly, I think that coaching and personnel changes are likely to be more of a factor in my 2006 expectations than adjusting QBs performance due to scheduling inequities.

Two of the four outliers -- Collins and Brooks -- have already left their 2005 team. And while Brooks replaces Collins, Art Shell is now the head coach. I'm guessing that change far outweights the impact of different schedules in 2005 vs. 2006.

Favre has a new coach, but I'm dismissing his "value added" due to the late game points I documented in the previous post. Granted, that could happen this year again, but if we accept that possibility, then we should also accept the possibility that the 2006 schedule could be similar to 2005.

That leaves Delhomme. And I have taken notice of his underrated 2005 performance and I am bumping him up my QB listing for 2006. So to me, the only significant insight of 2005 rearview SOS is that Delhomme is likely underrated heading into 2006 FF drafts.

2004 did indeed show more variance than 2005, and clearly you believe in the utility of rearview SOS. I respect the work done to perform this study. All I'm doing is trying to give a contrary opinion on how useful this 2005 rearview SOS study is compared to the feedback of the "best article of the year" crowd. It IS a good study, and there is useful information to be found, but it's just one of a myriad of factors impacting 2006 QB expectations, at least to me. And I think that respectful differences of opinion are an essential element of these forums.

 

[The Jerk]

And the other part of this article which should not be ignored is that the rank differential between actual points per adjusted game and value added was at most three spots except for four QBs:

Favre 9

Brooks 6

Delhomme 5

Collins -5

Favre and Brooks faced two of the tougher schedules in expected fantasy ppg and their teams combined for a record of 7-25. What probably led to their improved performance is the tendency for teams to pass more when trailing in games and get those second half "pity TDs" that defenses will allow when playing prevent.

I don't think that's really a problem for this type of study. Yes, Favre and Brooks played on bad teams but scored highly. But you ignored that Delhomme played on a good team and scored well. Collins played on a horrible team...and scored poorly. Collins actually led all QBs in FPs scored in the 4th quarter last season when his team was down by 8 or more. Favre was second. This isn't surprising, of course, since their teams were down by 8 or more in the 4th quarters quite a bit. Jake Delhomme ranked 4th in QB scoring in the 4th quarters when up by 8 or more.Conclusion: Favre and Brooks being on bad teams last year isn't a reason to discount their positive play, which was hidden by difficult schedules.

excellent point . . . the TDs against prevent defesnes stuff is overrated . . . no self repsecting defense is going to let you have anything; usually what happens in those types of games is that the QB drives the down the field for a late score and usually he gets sacked or throws a pick . . .

Sounds good, but look at the numbers:
Week 2: Packers trail Browns 26-17 with 1:50 remaining6-8 for 73 yards, 4 yard TD pass to Tony Fisher (0:04 remaining)Week 4: Packers trail Panthers 32-13 with 11:55 remaining1-1 for 16 yards, 16-yard TD pass to D.Lee and 2-pt. pass to D.Martin (11:49 remaining)8-12 for 86 yards, 4-yard TD pass to A.Chatman and 2-pt. pass to R.Ferguson (3:07 remaining)2-5 for 22 yardsTOTAL: 11-18 124 2 TDs 2 2-pt conversionsWeek 8: Packers trail Bengals 21-7 with 8:28 remaining9-12 for 87 yards, 1 yard TD pass to B.Franks (3:11 remaining)2-3 for 30 yards (includes illegal forward pass penalty declined on last play for 11-yard gain)TOTAL: 11-15 for 117 yards, 1 TDWeek 9: Packers trail Steelers 20-10 with 6:10 remaining4-9 for 40 yardsWeek 13: Packers trail Bears 19-7 with 3:00 remaining8-16 for 69 yardsWeek 16: Packers trail Bears 24-14 with 3:44 remaining5-7 for 65 yards1-2 for 56 yardsTOTAL: 6-9 for 121 yards6-8 73 1 TD11-18 124 2 TD, 2 2-pt11-15 117, 1 TD4-9 408-16 696-9 121Here are the cumulative totals:46-75 for 544 yards, 4 TD, 2 2-pt conversion passes

Only 35:07 total game time elapsed!!

Favre’s year end point total was 251.8 points

43.2 points (more than 17% of his season total) came in 35 minutes of “pity time” vs. 6 teams

So yeah, I’d say the “pity points” helped artificially inflate Favre’s numbers. Without those 43 points, Favre drops from 13th to 17th in the FBG 2005 season total stats.

Sorry The Jerk, but that's not very informative. What you'd need to do is go through each game (and not cherry pick them) for each QB, and then compare how many FP/minute they scored in garbage time vs. how many FP/minute they scored in regular time. A handful of games won't mean very much at all. Without Donovan McNabb's 30 minutes against the 49ers where he scored 37 FPs, his numbers would look worse too.

It might be cherry picking, but I don't have Doug on my speed-dial to help me with my research. I'm pretty sure that Favre's garbage time numbers are among the leaders in 2005.

 

[Chase Stuart]

And the other part of this article which should not be ignored is that the rank differential between actual points per adjusted game and value added was at most three spots except for four QBs:

Favre 9

Brooks 6

Delhomme 5

Collins -5

Favre and Brooks faced two of the tougher schedules in expected fantasy ppg and their teams combined for a record of 7-25. What probably led to their improved performance is the tendency for teams to pass more when trailing in games and get those second half "pity TDs" that defenses will allow when playing prevent.

I don't think that's really a problem for this type of study. Yes, Favre and Brooks played on bad teams but scored highly. But you ignored that Delhomme played on a good team and scored well. Collins played on a horrible team...and scored poorly. Collins actually led all QBs in FPs scored in the 4th quarter last season when his team was down by 8 or more. Favre was second. This isn't surprising, of course, since their teams were down by 8 or more in the 4th quarters quite a bit. Jake Delhomme ranked 4th in QB scoring in the 4th quarters when up by 8 or more.Conclusion: Favre and Brooks being on bad teams last year isn't a reason to discount their positive play, which was hidden by difficult schedules.

Chase,Let me rephrase my previous post a little more bluntly. While the article is a good read, the truth is that out of all the QBs studied, only 4 showed a rank differential of more than 3 slots. That's barely 10% of the QBs in the study.

Frankly, I think that coaching and personnel changes are likely to be more of a factor in my 2006 expectations than adjusting QBs performance due to scheduling inequities.

Two of the four outliers -- Collins and Brooks -- have already left their 2005 team. And while Brooks replaces Collins, Art Shell is now the head coach. I'm guessing that change far outweights the impact of different schedules in 2005 vs. 2006.

Favre has a new coach, but I'm dismissing his "value added" due to the late game points I documented in the previous post. Granted, that could happen this year again, but if we accept that possibility, then we should also accept the possibility that the 2006 schedule could be similar to 2005.

That leaves Delhomme. And I have taken notice of his underrated 2005 performance and I am bumping him up my QB listing for 2006. So to me, the only significant insight of 2005 rearview SOS is that Delhomme is likely underrated heading into 2006 FF drafts.

2004 did indeed show more variance than 2005, and clearly you believe in the utility of rearview SOS. I respect the work done to perform this study. All I'm doing is trying to give a contrary opinion on how useful this 2005 rearview SOS study is compared to the feedback of the "best article of the year" crowd. It IS a good study, and there is useful information to be found, but it's just one of a myriad of factors impacting 2006 QB expectations, at least to me. And I think that respectful differences of opinion are an essential element of these forums.

I appreciate your insight -- it always frustrates me though when I'm unable to get my point across clearly. Brooks is a good example here.You think Brooks leaving the Saints makes most of the analysis on him useless. And that's the part I disagree with. I'll agree, that the difference between Brooks' "value added" rank his FP is going to be less important about his 2006 fantasy prospects than where he is going to play. If I know how many FPs he scored last year and I could only choose to know his 2006 team or his 2005 value added rank, I'd certainly prefer his 2006 team.

But the point is that the value added rank is a starting point. If Peyton Manning left the Colts and went to the Raiders, you probably would think it's more important knowing that he's in Oakland than his value added rank last year. But that's because you already know Peyton Manning. And if he went to Oakland, you'd project him with more FPs than you're currently projecting for Brooks.

The point of this study is to say "despite what you may think, Aaron Brooks is a real good QB." So the Raiders added a better QB than the raw numbers indicated. And Brooks' ADP will be based on the raw numbers, not how good he really is. And that's how I see using this study best.

 

[Chase Stuart]

And the other part of this article which should not be ignored is that the rank differential between actual points per adjusted game and value added was at most three spots except for four QBs:

Favre 9

Brooks 6

Delhomme 5

Collins -5

Favre and Brooks faced two of the tougher schedules in expected fantasy ppg and their teams combined for a record of 7-25. What probably led to their improved performance is the tendency for teams to pass more when trailing in games and get those second half "pity TDs" that defenses will allow when playing prevent.

I don't think that's really a problem for this type of study. Yes, Favre and Brooks played on bad teams but scored highly. But you ignored that Delhomme played on a good team and scored well. Collins played on a horrible team...and scored poorly. Collins actually led all QBs in FPs scored in the 4th quarter last season when his team was down by 8 or more. Favre was second. This isn't surprising, of course, since their teams were down by 8 or more in the 4th quarters quite a bit. Jake Delhomme ranked 4th in QB scoring in the 4th quarters when up by 8 or more.Conclusion: Favre and Brooks being on bad teams last year isn't a reason to discount their positive play, which was hidden by difficult schedules.

excellent point . . . the TDs against prevent defesnes stuff is overrated . . . no self repsecting defense is going to let you have anything; usually what happens in those types of games is that the QB drives the down the field for a late score and usually he gets sacked or throws a pick . . .

Sounds good, but look at the numbers:
Week 2: Packers trail Browns 26-17 with 1:50 remaining6-8 for 73 yards, 4 yard TD pass to Tony Fisher (0:04 remaining)Week 4: Packers trail Panthers 32-13 with 11:55 remaining1-1 for 16 yards, 16-yard TD pass to D.Lee and 2-pt. pass to D.Martin (11:49 remaining)8-12 for 86 yards, 4-yard TD pass to A.Chatman and 2-pt. pass to R.Ferguson (3:07 remaining)2-5 for 22 yardsTOTAL: 11-18 124 2 TDs 2 2-pt conversionsWeek 8: Packers trail Bengals 21-7 with 8:28 remaining9-12 for 87 yards, 1 yard TD pass to B.Franks (3:11 remaining)2-3 for 30 yards (includes illegal forward pass penalty declined on last play for 11-yard gain)TOTAL: 11-15 for 117 yards, 1 TDWeek 9: Packers trail Steelers 20-10 with 6:10 remaining4-9 for 40 yardsWeek 13: Packers trail Bears 19-7 with 3:00 remaining8-16 for 69 yardsWeek 16: Packers trail Bears 24-14 with 3:44 remaining5-7 for 65 yards1-2 for 56 yardsTOTAL: 6-9 for 121 yards6-8 73 1 TD11-18 124 2 TD, 2 2-pt11-15 117, 1 TD4-9 408-16 696-9 121Here are the cumulative totals:46-75 for 544 yards, 4 TD, 2 2-pt conversion passes

Only 35:07 total game time elapsed!!

Favre’s year end point total was 251.8 points

43.2 points (more than 17% of his season total) came in 35 minutes of “pity time” vs. 6 teams

So yeah, I’d say the “pity points” helped artificially inflate Favre’s numbers. Without those 43 points, Favre drops from 13th to 17th in the FBG 2005 season total stats.

Sorry The Jerk, but that's not very informative. What you'd need to do is go through each game (and not cherry pick them) for each QB, and then compare how many FP/minute they scored in garbage time vs. how many FP/minute they scored in regular time. A handful of games won't mean very much at all. Without Donovan McNabb's 30 minutes against the 49ers where he scored 37 FPs, his numbers would look worse too.

It might be cherry picking, but I don't have Doug on my speed-dial to help me with my research. I'm pretty sure that Favre's garbage time numbers are among the leaders in 2005.

I think my edit should help clear things up there. I'm sure Favre also spent more time in garbage time than most QBs. But so did Kerry Collins, and he's no friend of my system.

 

[The Jerk]

And the other part of this article which should not be ignored is that the rank differential between actual points per adjusted game and value added was at most three spots except for four QBs:

Favre 9

Brooks 6

Delhomme 5

Collins -5

Favre and Brooks faced two of the tougher schedules in expected fantasy ppg and their teams combined for a record of 7-25. What probably led to their improved performance is the tendency for teams to pass more when trailing in games and get those second half "pity TDs" that defenses will allow when playing prevent.

I don't think that's really a problem for this type of study. Yes, Favre and Brooks played on bad teams but scored highly. But you ignored that Delhomme played on a good team and scored well. Collins played on a horrible team...and scored poorly. Collins actually led all QBs in FPs scored in the 4th quarter last season when his team was down by 8 or more. Favre was second. This isn't surprising, of course, since their teams were down by 8 or more in the 4th quarters quite a bit. Jake Delhomme ranked 4th in QB scoring in the 4th quarters when up by 8 or more.Conclusion: Favre and Brooks being on bad teams last year isn't a reason to discount their positive play, which was hidden by difficult schedules.

Chase,Let me rephrase my previous post a little more bluntly. While the article is a good read, the truth is that out of all the QBs studied, only 4 showed a rank differential of more than 3 slots. That's barely 10% of the QBs in the study.

Frankly, I think that coaching and personnel changes are likely to be more of a factor in my 2006 expectations than adjusting QBs performance due to scheduling inequities.

Two of the four outliers -- Collins and Brooks -- have already left their 2005 team. And while Brooks replaces Collins, Art Shell is now the head coach. I'm guessing that change far outweights the impact of different schedules in 2005 vs. 2006.

Favre has a new coach, but I'm dismissing his "value added" due to the late game points I documented in the previous post. Granted, that could happen this year again, but if we accept that possibility, then we should also accept the possibility that the 2006 schedule could be similar to 2005.

That leaves Delhomme. And I have taken notice of his underrated 2005 performance and I am bumping him up my QB listing for 2006. So to me, the only significant insight of 2005 rearview SOS is that Delhomme is likely underrated heading into 2006 FF drafts.

2004 did indeed show more variance than 2005, and clearly you believe in the utility of rearview SOS. I respect the work done to perform this study. All I'm doing is trying to give a contrary opinion on how useful this 2005 rearview SOS study is compared to the feedback of the "best article of the year" crowd. It IS a good study, and there is useful information to be found, but it's just one of a myriad of factors impacting 2006 QB expectations, at least to me. And I think that respectful differences of opinion are an essential element of these forums.

I appreciate your insight -- it always frustrates me though when I'm unable to get my point across clearly. Brooks is a good example here.You think Brooks leaving the Saints makes most of the analysis on him useless. And that's the part I disagree with. I'll agree, that the difference between Brooks' "value added" rank his FP is going to be less important about his 2006 fantasy prospects than where he is going to play. If I know how many FPs he scored last year and I could only choose to know his 2006 team or his 2005 value added rank, I'd certainly prefer his 2006 team.

But the point is that the value added rank is a starting point. If Peyton Manning left the Colts and went to the Raiders, you probably would think it's more important knowing that he's in Oakland than his value added rank last year. But that's because you already know Peyton Manning. And if he went to Oakland, you'd project him with more FPs than you're currently projecting for Brooks.

The point of this study is to say "despite what you may think, Aaron Brooks is a real good QB." So the Raiders added a better QB than the raw numbers indicated. And Brooks' ADP will be based on the raw numbers, not how good he really is. And that's how I see using this study best.

I've had Brooks on my teams multiple times. I believe he is underrated mostly due to being in New Orleans, both based on his supporting cast and the small media market. Chase, your point is getting across. I completely understand what you did here and how the analysis reveals Brooks to be underappreciated. Where we differ is on exactly how much emphasis to place on rearview SOS vs. other cogent information. Perhaps I'm more of a "system" and "surrounding personnel" guy. I remember going after Leonard Russell, then Curtis Martin, then Robert Edwards just because Parcells was coaching in New England -- all to good success. I remember winning a league in 1997 with a mid-round selection of Karim Abdul-Jabbar because I knew Jimmy Johnson teams score a lot of rushing TDs. I can also remember riding Elvis Grbac to a title in 2000 once it became obvious that KC just couldn't run the ball at all. Even though rearview SOS has its value, I don't think it helps me in any of these cases.

I'm an electrical engineer, so I don't mind running numbers. It's just that I believe there is a tipping point when it comes to numerical analysis, and that mathematical formulas can be overdone in the FF world. I think we can both agree that there is both luck and skill in FF, and that there is both a science and an art to projections and executing a successful draft based on these projections.

Great article. Good discussion. Thanks for replying to my thoughts.

 

[Chase Stuart]

And the other part of this article which should not be ignored is that the rank differential between actual points per adjusted game and value added was at most three spots except for four QBs:

Favre 9

Brooks 6

Delhomme 5

Collins -5

Favre and Brooks faced two of the tougher schedules in expected fantasy ppg and their teams combined for a record of 7-25. What probably led to their improved performance is the tendency for teams to pass more when trailing in games and get those second half "pity TDs" that defenses will allow when playing prevent.

I don't think that's really a problem for this type of study. Yes, Favre and Brooks played on bad teams but scored highly. But you ignored that Delhomme played on a good team and scored well. Collins played on a horrible team...and scored poorly. Collins actually led all QBs in FPs scored in the 4th quarter last season when his team was down by 8 or more. Favre was second. This isn't surprising, of course, since their teams were down by 8 or more in the 4th quarters quite a bit. Jake Delhomme ranked 4th in QB scoring in the 4th quarters when up by 8 or more.Conclusion: Favre and Brooks being on bad teams last year isn't a reason to discount their positive play, which was hidden by difficult schedules.

Chase,Let me rephrase my previous post a little more bluntly. While the article is a good read, the truth is that out of all the QBs studied, only 4 showed a rank differential of more than 3 slots. That's barely 10% of the QBs in the study.

Frankly, I think that coaching and personnel changes are likely to be more of a factor in my 2006 expectations than adjusting QBs performance due to scheduling inequities.

Two of the four outliers -- Collins and Brooks -- have already left their 2005 team. And while Brooks replaces Collins, Art Shell is now the head coach. I'm guessing that change far outweights the impact of different schedules in 2005 vs. 2006.

Favre has a new coach, but I'm dismissing his "value added" due to the late game points I documented in the previous post. Granted, that could happen this year again, but if we accept that possibility, then we should also accept the possibility that the 2006 schedule could be similar to 2005.

That leaves Delhomme. And I have taken notice of his underrated 2005 performance and I am bumping him up my QB listing for 2006. So to me, the only significant insight of 2005 rearview SOS is that Delhomme is likely underrated heading into 2006 FF drafts.

2004 did indeed show more variance than 2005, and clearly you believe in the utility of rearview SOS. I respect the work done to perform this study. All I'm doing is trying to give a contrary opinion on how useful this 2005 rearview SOS study is compared to the feedback of the "best article of the year" crowd. It IS a good study, and there is useful information to be found, but it's just one of a myriad of factors impacting 2006 QB expectations, at least to me. And I think that respectful differences of opinion are an essential element of these forums.

I appreciate your insight -- it always frustrates me though when I'm unable to get my point across clearly. Brooks is a good example here.You think Brooks leaving the Saints makes most of the analysis on him useless. And that's the part I disagree with. I'll agree, that the difference between Brooks' "value added" rank his FP is going to be less important about his 2006 fantasy prospects than where he is going to play. If I know how many FPs he scored last year and I could only choose to know his 2006 team or his 2005 value added rank, I'd certainly prefer his 2006 team.

But the point is that the value added rank is a starting point. If Peyton Manning left the Colts and went to the Raiders, you probably would think it's more important knowing that he's in Oakland than his value added rank last year. But that's because you already know Peyton Manning. And if he went to Oakland, you'd project him with more FPs than you're currently projecting for Brooks.

The point of this study is to say "despite what you may think, Aaron Brooks is a real good QB." So the Raiders added a better QB than the raw numbers indicated. And Brooks' ADP will be based on the raw numbers, not how good he really is. And that's how I see using this study best.

I've had Brooks on my teams multiple times. I believe he is underrated mostly due to being in New Orleans, both based on his supporting cast and the small media market. Chase, your point is getting across. I completely understand what you did here and how the analysis reveals Brooks to be underappreciated. Where we differ is on exactly how much emphasis to place on rearview SOS vs. other cogent information. Perhaps I'm more of a "system" and "surrounding personnel" guy. I remember going after Leonard Russell, then Curtis Martin, then Robert Edwards just because Parcells was coaching in New England -- all to good success. I remember winning a league in 1997 with a mid-round selection of Karim Abdul-Jabbar because I knew Jimmy Johnson teams score a lot of rushing TDs. I can also remember riding Elvis Grbac to a title in 2000 once it became obvious that KC just couldn't run the ball at all. Even though rearview SOS has its value, I don't think it helps me in any of these cases.

I'm an electrical engineer, so I don't mind running numbers. It's just that I believe there is a tipping point when it comes to numerical analysis, and that mathematical formulas can be overdone in the FF world. I think we can both agree that there is both luck and skill in FF, and that there is both a science and an art to projections and executing a successful draft based on these projections.

Great article. Good discussion. Thanks for replying to my thoughts.

Agreed. I was waiting to see what you'd write because you always have thought provoking posts. Have a good one.

 

[The Jerk]

And the other part of this article which should not be ignored is that the rank differential between actual points per adjusted game and value added was at most three spots except for four QBs:

Favre 9

Brooks 6

Delhomme 5

Collins -5

Favre and Brooks faced two of the tougher schedules in expected fantasy ppg and their teams combined for a record of 7-25. What probably led to their improved performance is the tendency for teams to pass more when trailing in games and get those second half "pity TDs" that defenses will allow when playing prevent.

I don't think that's really a problem for this type of study. Yes, Favre and Brooks played on bad teams but scored highly. But you ignored that Delhomme played on a good team and scored well. Collins played on a horrible team...and scored poorly. Collins actually led all QBs in FPs scored in the 4th quarter last season when his team was down by 8 or more. Favre was second. This isn't surprising, of course, since their teams were down by 8 or more in the 4th quarters quite a bit. Jake Delhomme ranked 4th in QB scoring in the 4th quarters when up by 8 or more.Conclusion: Favre and Brooks being on bad teams last year isn't a reason to discount their positive play, which was hidden by difficult schedules.

Chase,Let me rephrase my previous post a little more bluntly. While the article is a good read, the truth is that out of all the QBs studied, only 4 showed a rank differential of more than 3 slots. That's barely 10% of the QBs in the study.

Frankly, I think that coaching and personnel changes are likely to be more of a factor in my 2006 expectations than adjusting QBs performance due to scheduling inequities.

Two of the four outliers -- Collins and Brooks -- have already left their 2005 team. And while Brooks replaces Collins, Art Shell is now the head coach. I'm guessing that change far outweights the impact of different schedules in 2005 vs. 2006.

Favre has a new coach, but I'm dismissing his "value added" due to the late game points I documented in the previous post. Granted, that could happen this year again, but if we accept that possibility, then we should also accept the possibility that the 2006 schedule could be similar to 2005.

That leaves Delhomme. And I have taken notice of his underrated 2005 performance and I am bumping him up my QB listing for 2006. So to me, the only significant insight of 2005 rearview SOS is that Delhomme is likely underrated heading into 2006 FF drafts.

2004 did indeed show more variance than 2005, and clearly you believe in the utility of rearview SOS. I respect the work done to perform this study. All I'm doing is trying to give a contrary opinion on how useful this 2005 rearview SOS study is compared to the feedback of the "best article of the year" crowd. It IS a good study, and there is useful information to be found, but it's just one of a myriad of factors impacting 2006 QB expectations, at least to me. And I think that respectful differences of opinion are an essential element of these forums.

I appreciate your insight -- it always frustrates me though when I'm unable to get my point across clearly. Brooks is a good example here.You think Brooks leaving the Saints makes most of the analysis on him useless. And that's the part I disagree with. I'll agree, that the difference between Brooks' "value added" rank his FP is going to be less important about his 2006 fantasy prospects than where he is going to play. If I know how many FPs he scored last year and I could only choose to know his 2006 team or his 2005 value added rank, I'd certainly prefer his 2006 team.

But the point is that the value added rank is a starting point. If Peyton Manning left the Colts and went to the Raiders, you probably would think it's more important knowing that he's in Oakland than his value added rank last year. But that's because you already know Peyton Manning. And if he went to Oakland, you'd project him with more FPs than you're currently projecting for Brooks.

The point of this study is to say "despite what you may think, Aaron Brooks is a real good QB." So the Raiders added a better QB than the raw numbers indicated. And Brooks' ADP will be based on the raw numbers, not how good he really is. And that's how I see using this study best.

I've had Brooks on my teams multiple times. I believe he is underrated mostly due to being in New Orleans, both based on his supporting cast and the small media market. Chase, your point is getting across. I completely understand what you did here and how the analysis reveals Brooks to be underappreciated. Where we differ is on exactly how much emphasis to place on rearview SOS vs. other cogent information. Perhaps I'm more of a "system" and "surrounding personnel" guy. I remember going after Leonard Russell, then Curtis Martin, then Robert Edwards just because Parcells was coaching in New England -- all to good success. I remember winning a league in 1997 with a mid-round selection of Karim Abdul-Jabbar because I knew Jimmy Johnson teams score a lot of rushing TDs. I can also remember riding Elvis Grbac to a title in 2000 once it became obvious that KC just couldn't run the ball at all. Even though rearview SOS has its value, I don't think it helps me in any of these cases.

I'm an electrical engineer, so I don't mind running numbers. It's just that I believe there is a tipping point when it comes to numerical analysis, and that mathematical formulas can be overdone in the FF world. I think we can both agree that there is both luck and skill in FF, and that there is both a science and an art to projections and executing a successful draft based on these projections.

Great article. Good discussion. Thanks for replying to my thoughts.

Agreed. I was waiting to see what you'd write because you always have thought provoking posts. Have a good one.

Thanks for the kind words, Chase. Hope you have a great weekend -- the last weekend without football until after Valentine's Day!!

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

A fair chunk of the "value added" by a QB is the # of attempts he had/adjusted games played. 50% correlation between attempts/game and added FP/G.

In other words, at least 25% of Bulger's added value just moved to Detroit.

 

[Chase Stuart]

A fair chunk of the "value added" by a QB is the # of attempts he had/adjusted games played. 50% correlation between attempts/game and added FP/G.

In other words, at least 25% of Bulger's added value just moved to Detroit.

I'm with you wdcrob. This is as good a time as any to remind everyone of how important pass attempts are to FPs.Correlation Coefficient of pass attempts to FPs for...

All QBs: 0.973

Top 50 QBs: 0.945

Top 40 QBs: 0.907

Top 30 QBs: 0.813

Top 24 QBs: 0.737

Top 12 QBs: 0.312

Top 8 QBs: 0.142

Top 5 QBs: 0.235

Correlation Coefficient of pass attempts to PASSING FPs only (1/20, 4, -1)

All QBs: 0.973

Top 50 QBs: 0.949

Top 40 QBs: 0.920

Top 30 QBs: 0.836

Top 24 QBs: 0.768

Top 12 QBs: 0.595

Top 8 QBs: 0.098

Top 5 QBs: 0.153

The top 8 QBs (and top 5) might seem to not be correlated much to pass attempts, and that's what we'd expect. The top guys should have lots of attempts and be extremely talented, so what's most important is their talent and not their attempts. If you remove Palmer and Peyton from the top 8 -- they both scored a ton on relatively few attempts -- the CC for the remaining 6 QBs is 0.473.

Top 3 QBs in PassFP/Attempt:

1. Roethlisberger - 0.666

2. Manning - 0.639

3. Palmer - 0.605

Notables: McNabb (14th), Eli (15th), Warner (18th), Simms (26th), Culpepper (29th)

 

[Chase Stuart]

Love the article! Here is my question:

If my league awards 6pts per passing TD and -3 per interception, how does that affect my use of these rankings? Is Favre downgraded a bit since he throws more picks vs Plummer who had a great TD/Int ratio last year?

Love to see an online application that let's us input our scoring system and get this data!!

Thanks in advance for your input.

Thanks for the PM ExtremeFajita. I ran the numbers for you, and the results were abit surprising. Remember the key here though that this system is to help you beat ADP/normal perception -- so even though Favre will drop from 24th in adjusted FP/G to 28th in adjusted FP/G with your scoring system, your leaguemates already know this. Favre "only" rises back up to 24th when you factor in SOS based on your system though, which makes him undervalued -- but not tremendously undervalued.Three guys get big boosts: Brad Johnson goes from 23rd to 14th, Culpepper from 22nd to 13th, and Delhomme from 19th to 11th. The first number is their rank in adjusted FP/G with your scoring system, and the second number is their rank in value added based on SOS, still using your scoring system.

Guys to avoid: Josh McCown (13th to 22nd), Kerry Collins (11th to 17th) and Steve McNair (14th to 18th).