AVT and you (1 Viewer)

[Sack-Religious]

What is AVT you say? Here is an article from days gone by that explains it. AVT

The discussion has come up recently on whether or not AVT is useful as method of making projections or using VBD. I started thinking about it and it piqued my interest.

Does anyone still use AVT?

Do you use AVT or Average projections?

If you use AVT or Average projections, how many years do you use for averaging?

I guess what I want to know is if people still use AVT, how do they use it?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

My criticisms of using AVT to do projections for individual players have been stated in countless other threads.

But one thing I do think it's useful for is calculating your VBD baseline. When coming up with a baseline, you are not really doing a projection for an individual player, such as Curtis Martin, but for "the 25th best RB" (or whatever) in the abstract. That is exactly the sort of projection that AVT does well with.

 

[BrutalPenguin]

As hard as it is to guess how many fantasy points any particular player would earn, I thought it was exponentially harder to guess the exact finishing order of all of the players. Add to that the doubt that the average of the last n years distributions might not predict this year's and there was way too much uncertainty for me to consider it. But I might have misunderstood AVT.

 

[radballs.]

Using AVT is a good way to make sure your upcoming projections aren't too far out of whack when compared to league wide historical results. Without using AVT as a check of your projections, I think people tend to have a slight upside bias in their projections. If there hasn't historically been that many FP scored league wide when you total of all your projections, then you know that you likely have some inflated numbers in there.

 

[Muahahaha]

I used AVT last year and had my best ever performance in FF.

 

[BrutalPenguin]

Using AVT is a good way to make sure your upcoming projections aren't too far out of whack when compared to league wide historical results. Without using AVT as a check of your projections, I think people tend to have a slight upside bias in their projections. If there hasn't historically been that many FP scored league wide when you total of all your projections, then you know that you likely have some inflated numbers in there.

But doesn't that amount to predicting injuries? Every season, several players capable of scoring a large number of fantasy points get injured and don't score that many. Does that mean they should have been projected lower? I don't think you can meaningfully compare leaguewide scoring history to future projections without predicting injuries. Or maybe I misunderstand.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Using AVT is a good way to make sure your upcoming projections aren't too far out of whack when compared to league wide historical results. Without using AVT as a check of your projections, I think people tend to have a slight upside bias in their projections. If there hasn't historically been that many FP scored league wide when you total of all your projections, then you know that you likely have some inflated numbers in there.

But doesn't that amount to predicting injuries? Every season, several players capable of scoring a large number of fantasy points get injured and don't score that many. Does that mean they should have been projected lower? I don't think you can meaningfully compare leaguewide scoring history to future projections without predicting injuries. Or maybe I misunderstand.

1. If radballs is saying that if the leaguewide total for passing TDs tends to be about 1000, and therefore anyone who's projecting 800 or 1200 for the year 2006 ought to reconsider . . . I agree with him.2. If radballs is saying that if the QB1 typically throws for about 36 TDs, and therefore anyone who's projecting 45 TDs for his highest-rated QB better have a good specific reason for projecting so many more than the typical QB1 . . . I agree with him.

3. If radballs is saying that if the QB1 typically throws for about 36 TDs, and therefore anyone who's projecting 26 TDs for his highest-rated QB better have a good specific reason for projecting so many fewer than the typical QB1 . . . I disagree with him.

Ten points for the first person who explains why #2 and #3 above both make sense, and are not inconsistent with each other (even apart from potential injuries).

 

[GregR_2]

Using AVT is a good way to make sure your upcoming projections aren't too far out of whack when compared to league wide historical results. Without using AVT as a check of your projections, I think people tend to have a slight upside bias in their projections. If there hasn't historically been that many FP scored league wide when you total of all your projections, then you know that you likely have some inflated numbers in there.

But doesn't that amount to predicting injuries? Every season, several players capable of scoring a large number of fantasy points get injured and don't score that many. Does that mean they should have been projected lower? I don't think you can meaningfully compare leaguewide scoring history to future projections without predicting injuries. Or maybe I misunderstand.

1. If radballs is saying that if the leaguewide total for passing TDs tends to be about 1000, and therefore anyone who's projecting 800 or 1200 for the year 2006 ought to reconsider . . . I agree with him.2. If radballs is saying that if the QB1 typically throws for about 36 TDs, and therefore anyone who's projecting 45 TDs for his highest-rated QB better have a good specific reason for projecting so many more than the typical QB1 . . . I agree with him.

3. If radballs is saying that if the QB1 typically throws for about 36 TDs, and therefore anyone who's projecting 26 TDs for his highest-rated QB better have a good specific reason for projecting so many fewer than the typical QB1 . . . I disagree with him.

Ten points for the first person who explains why #2 and #3 above both make sense, and are not inconsistent with each other (even apart from potential injuries).

#2 is pretty obvious and doesn't require much explanation. If someone is going to go over by a large margin what the best players at a position historically do, you should have a reason to believe that will happen.#3 is because we're predicting numbers for a QB who we think is most likely to be the top QB. We're not trying to predict the top QB's numbers.

In short... it is very likely that the top QB will throw about 36 TDs (using the example numbers), and if we were asked to predict what the top QB would throw that's about what we should say. But when we're asked to predict Peyton Manning or Donovan McNabb or Tom Brady's numbers as an individual, there is a chance the player won't be the top QB. So even though we think he is more likely to be the top QB than any other QB, our expectation of how many TDs he will score should reflect the chance that he may not be the top QB.

 

[Tiger Fan]

Using AVT is a good way to make sure your upcoming projections aren't too far out of whack when compared to league wide historical results. Without using AVT as a check of your projections, I think people tend to have a slight upside bias in their projections. If there hasn't historically been that many FP scored league wide when you total of all your projections, then you know that you likely have some inflated numbers in there.

But doesn't that amount to predicting injuries? Every season, several players capable of scoring a large number of fantasy points get injured and don't score that many. Does that mean they should have been projected lower? I don't think you can meaningfully compare leaguewide scoring history to future projections without predicting injuries. Or maybe I misunderstand.

1. If radballs is saying that if the leaguewide total for passing TDs tends to be about 1000, and therefore anyone who's projecting 800 or 1200 for the year 2006 ought to reconsider . . . I agree with him.2. If radballs is saying that if the QB1 typically throws for about 36 TDs, and therefore anyone who's projecting 45 TDs for his highest-rated QB better have a good specific reason for projecting so many more than the typical QB1 . . . I agree with him.

3. If radballs is saying that if the QB1 typically throws for about 36 TDs, and therefore anyone who's projecting 26 TDs for his highest-rated QB better have a good specific reason for projecting so many fewer than the typical QB1 . . . I disagree with him.

Ten points for the first person who explains why #2 and #3 above both make sense, and are not inconsistent with each other (even apart from potential injuries).

Quit being so smart

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

GregR is exactly right.

 

[Kleck.]

Using AVT is a good way to make sure your upcoming projections aren't too far out of whack when compared to league wide historical results. Without using AVT as a check of your projections, I think people tend to have a slight upside bias in their projections. If there hasn't historically been that many FP scored league wide when you total of all your projections, then you know that you likely have some inflated numbers in there.

But doesn't that amount to predicting injuries? Every season, several players capable of scoring a large number of fantasy points get injured and don't score that many. Does that mean they should have been projected lower? I don't think you can meaningfully compare leaguewide scoring history to future projections without predicting injuries. Or maybe I misunderstand.

1. If radballs is saying that if the leaguewide total for passing TDs tends to be about 1000, and therefore anyone who's projecting 800 or 1200 for the year 2006 ought to reconsider . . . I agree with him.2. If radballs is saying that if the QB1 typically throws for about 36 TDs, and therefore anyone who's projecting 45 TDs for his highest-rated QB better have a good specific reason for projecting so many more than the typical QB1 . . . I agree with him.

3. If radballs is saying that if the QB1 typically throws for about 36 TDs, and therefore anyone who's projecting 26 TDs for his highest-rated QB better have a good specific reason for projecting so many fewer than the typical QB1 . . . I disagree with him.

Ten points for the first person who explains why #2 and #3 above both make sense, and are not inconsistent with each other (even apart from potential injuries).

I'll take a stab at it. If #2 is true, that one player who throws 45 TD's does not necessarily have an effect on the average number of total TD's (#1) as #1 can also remain true. It could be just one individual average that is affected and not all of the averages.

If #3 is true, it would have to either be many QB's averages being lower which would cause the average number of total TD's (#1) to be lower, or the majority of starting starting QBs have extremely similar TD projections would go against any individual averages and therefor make AVT useless. #1 could not be achievable if #3 is true, unless the all the individual averages are off my large margins.

Took too long on the proofread and looks like I was not on the same page as Greg and MT.

 

[LHUCKS]

Useless.

It's a lazy way of assisting your projections(or for me, projection ranges)

The devil is in the details.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'll just repeat what GregR said, but in a slightly different way.

Assume we have Peyton Manning ranked as our top QB -- i.e., even though we know he doesn't have a 100% chance of finishing the year as the best fantasy QB, we think he's more likely to finish #1 than anyone else is.

Let A = the number of fantasy points we expect Manning to score if he finishes the year as the top fantasy QB.

Let B = the number of fantasy points we expect Manning to score if he does not finish the year as the top fantasy QB.

Let C = the probability that Manning will finish the year as the top fantasy QB.

Here is how AVT would do projections:

Manning's projected fantasy points = A

Here is a much more accurate projection:

Manning's projected fantasy points = A * C + B * (1 - C)

Since A > B and 0 < C < 1, note that A > A * C + B * (1 - C).

Therefore, your projection for your highest-rated QB should be less than your projection for the typical QB1 (generally speaking). So going back to my post above, if the typical QB1 scores X points, it is (usually) goofy to project your highest-rated QB to score more than X, but it (usually) correct to project your highest-rated QB to score less than X (reflecting a non-zero chance that your highest-rated QB will not finish as the QB1).

 

[radballs.]

Using AVT is a good way to make sure your upcoming projections aren't too far out of whack when compared to league wide historical results. Without using AVT as a check of your projections, I think people tend to have a slight upside bias in their projections. If there hasn't historically been that many FP scored league wide when you total of all your projections, then you know that you likely have some inflated numbers in there.

But doesn't that amount to predicting injuries? Every season, several players capable of scoring a large number of fantasy points get injured and don't score that many. Does that mean they should have been projected lower? I don't think you can meaningfully compare leaguewide scoring history to future projections without predicting injuries. Or maybe I misunderstand.

1. If radballs is saying that if the leaguewide total for passing TDs tends to be about 1000, and therefore anyone who's projecting 800 or 1200 for the year 2006 ought to reconsider . . . I agree with him.2. If radballs is saying that if the QB1 typically throws for about 36 TDs, and therefore anyone who's projecting 45 TDs for his highest-rated QB better have a good specific reason for projecting so many more than the typical QB1 . . . I agree with him.

3. If radballs is saying that if the QB1 typically throws for about 36 TDs, and therefore anyone who's projecting 26 TDs for his highest-rated QB better have a good specific reason for projecting so many fewer than the typical QB1 . . . I disagree with him.

Ten points for the first person who explains why #2 and #3 above both make sense, and are not inconsistent with each other (even apart from potential injuries).

I agree with points 1 and 2, but was more specifically referring to number 1 with what I said. I'm all for doing one's own projections, but incorporating AVT to keep the boundaries of all your projections in check is useful.

 

[radballs.]

Using AVT is a good way to make sure your upcoming projections aren't too far out of whack when compared to league wide historical results. Without using AVT as a check of your projections, I think people tend to have a slight upside bias in their projections. If there hasn't historically been that many FP scored league wide when you total of all your projections, then you know that you likely have some inflated numbers in there.

But doesn't that amount to predicting injuries? Every season, several players capable of scoring a large number of fantasy points get injured and don't score that many. Does that mean they should have been projected lower? I don't think you can meaningfully compare leaguewide scoring history to future projections without predicting injuries. Or maybe I misunderstand.

1. If radballs is saying that if the leaguewide total for passing TDs tends to be about 1000, and therefore anyone who's projecting 800 or 1200 for the year 2006 ought to reconsider . . . I agree with him.2. If radballs is saying that if the QB1 typically throws for about 36 TDs, and therefore anyone who's projecting 45 TDs for his highest-rated QB better have a good specific reason for projecting so many more than the typical QB1 . . . I agree with him.

3. If radballs is saying that if the QB1 typically throws for about 36 TDs, and therefore anyone who's projecting 26 TDs for his highest-rated QB better have a good specific reason for projecting so many fewer than the typical QB1 . . . I disagree with him.

Ten points for the first person who explains why #2 and #3 above both make sense, and are not inconsistent with each other (even apart from potential injuries).

#2 is pretty obvious and doesn't require much explanation. If someone is going to go over by a large margin what the best players at a position historically do, you should have a reason to believe that will happen.#3 is because we're predicting numbers for a QB who we think is most likely to be the top QB. We're not trying to predict the top QB's numbers.

In short... it is very likely that the top QB will throw about 36 TDs (using the example numbers), and if we were asked to predict what the top QB would throw that's about what we should say. But when we're asked to predict Peyton Manning or Donovan McNabb or Tom Brady's numbers as an individual, there is a chance the player won't be the top QB. So even though we think he is more likely to be the top QB than any other QB, our expectation of how many TDs he will score should reflect the chance that he may not be the top QB.

 

[radballs.]

I'll just repeat what GregR said, but in a slightly different way.

Assume we have Peyton Manning ranked as our top QB -- i.e., even though we know he doesn't have a 100% chance of finishing the year as the best fantasy QB, we think he's more likely to finish #1 than anyone else is.

Let A = the number of fantasy points we expect Manning to score if he finishes the year as the top fantasy QB.

Let B = the number of fantasy points we expect Manning to score if he does not finish the year as the top fantasy QB.

Let C = the probability that Manning will finish the year as the top fantasy QB.

Here is how AVT would do projections:

Manning's projected fantasy points = A

Here is a much more accurate projection:

Manning's projected fantasy points = A * C + B * (1 - C)

Since A > B and 0 < C < 1, note that A > A * C + B * (1 - C).

Therefore, your projection for your highest-rated QB should be less than your projection for the typical QB1 (generally speaking). So going back to my post above, if the typical QB1 scores X points, it is (usually) goofy to project your highest-rated QB to score more than X, but it (usually) correct to project your highest-rated QB to score less than X (reflecting a non-zero chance that your highest-rated QB will not finish as the QB1).

Great explanation.

 

[Kleck]

My opinions have not changed since I wrote this article: Realistic Projections 8/21/01

Conclusions from the article:

Using average statistics from the past are not a good determining basis for predicting how top players at each position will perform, but its probably not a bad place to start when trying to come up with your own projections.

Using average statistics from the past appear to be a fairly stable basis for predicting players’ statistics father down on your cheatsheets. However, adjustment may need to be made depending on how you think breakout players and injuries may affect this.

 

[Red Herring]

Ten points for the first person who explains why #2 and #3 above both make sense, and are not inconsistent with each other (even apart from potential injuries).

Thought I would add for #3: This is fantasy football, so your QB1 may be at that spot because of other statistics, not just TDs. This would mostly apply to running QBs or a QB that is expected to be throwing a lot, but not for scores (i.e. the RB tends to vulture TDs or a bad team thats often playing from behind)

 

[radballs.]

Ten points for the first person who explains why #2 and #3 above both make sense, and are not inconsistent with each other (even apart from potential injuries).

Thought I would add for #3: This is fantasy football, so your QB1 may be at that spot because of other statistics, not just TDs. This would mostly apply to running QBs or a QB that is expected to be throwing a lot, but not for scores (i.e. the RB tends to vulture TDs or a bad team thats often playing from behind)

I think MT was just using that as an example. You are correct though that AVT is about total FP, but it doesn't change any of his arguments.

 

[Red Herring]

Ten points for the first person who explains why #2 and #3 above both make sense, and are not inconsistent with each other (even apart from potential injuries).

Thought I would add for #3: This is fantasy football, so your QB1 may be at that spot because of other statistics, not just TDs. This would mostly apply to running QBs or a QB that is expected to be throwing a lot, but not for scores (i.e. the RB tends to vulture TDs or a bad team thats often playing from behind)

I think MT was just using that as an example. You are correct though that AVT is about total FP, but it doesn't change any of his arguments.

Oh agreed. I'm right with MT on this one. Was just my on why #2 and #3 can co-exist

 

[radballs.]

Ten points for the first person who explains why #2 and #3 above both make sense, and are not inconsistent with each other (even apart from potential injuries).

Thought I would add for #3: This is fantasy football, so your QB1 may be at that spot because of other statistics, not just TDs. This would mostly apply to running QBs or a QB that is expected to be throwing a lot, but not for scores (i.e. the RB tends to vulture TDs or a bad team thats often playing from behind)

I think MT was just using that as an example. You are correct though that AVT is about total FP, but it doesn't change any of his arguments.

Oh agreed. I'm right with MT on this one. Was just my on why #2 and #3 can co-exist

I see what you're saying.

 

[radballs.]

By the way, AVT, in and of itself, is very limited imo. But, I think certain aspects of it can be very useful, especially when finalizing your projections and determining the most appropriate VBD baselines.

LHUCKS, is your opinion that it is just a complete waste of time? If the "devil is in the details", I would think you'd want to add one more component to finalizing your projections unless you feel it has zero value.

 

[LHUCKS]

LHUCKS, is your opinion that it is just a complete waste of time? If the "devil is in the details", I would think you'd want to add one more component to finalizing your projections unless you feel it has zero value.

No, I pretty much think it is useless because the data is so general.It's interesting to look at, but in terms of actually applying it to your projections...you're wasting your time.

 

[Bri]

What is AVT you say?  Here is an article from days gone by that explains it.  AVT

The discussion has come up recently on whether or not AVT is useful as method of making projections or using VBD.  I started thinking about it and it piqued my interest.

Does anyone still use AVT?

Do you use AVT or Average projections?

If you use AVT or Average projections, how many years do you use for averaging? 

I guess what I want to know is if people still use AVT, how do they use it?

I still use the same system I used when I had no computer and USA Today and fantasy rags were "studied" word for word err...stat for stat.It works very well for me, always has.

IMO people keep searching for a system because they haven't found one they're completely satisfied with or can't accept that it's an imperfect exercise to predict a player's production.

I thought AVT was passe amongst "you guys".

I used to think cheatsheets were used too literally(with no input from some) and for a few they ruined the human element risk/reward. I wonder if draft dominator will have that negative effect.

We're humans we're lazy at times. Most of us work long hours and have families to spend time with and here's this product put out by guys that they trust their FF knowledge.

FWIW I hate the guy that drafts player #130 on his cheatsheet and has no clue whom he is. Probably some of that hatred is jealousy that he's getting a good pick and spent little time researching but....

to clarify, that's a backhanded compliment for DD not an insult.

 

[bagger.]

If your projections of players are not within a standard deviation or so of the AVT value of their positional rank, your projection of that player will be off, and off significantly. If you are going into a draft with projections that are knowingly off and are using VBD to calculate point differential, your VBD values will even be more off.

AVT is best used as a projection check, and people who don't use AVT as a projection check will have worse rankings than those who do. This is something I stated way back on the yellow board when this discussion originally took place when we had the VBD vs. AVT debates. They aren't opposing schools of thought per se, but rather tools to use in conjunction with each other.

I think people who use AVT as their projections of players are about on the same level of people who use magazines as their rankings. If you are not coming up with rankings via a quantitative method (projecting stats) you are slotting players into their AVT slots purely on your perceptions as you are not doing the work to understand why player x will or will not have more receptions.

 

[Bri]

If you are not coming up with rankings via a quantitative method (projecting stats) you are slotting players into their AVT slots purely on your perceptions as you are not doing the work to understand why player x will or will not have more receptions.

Isn't ranking a quantitative method?

 

[bagger.]

But doesn't that amount to predicting injuries? Every season, several players capable of scoring a large number of fantasy points get injured and don't score that many. Does that mean they should have been projected lower? I don't think you can meaningfully compare leaguewide scoring history to future projections without predicting injuries. Or maybe I misunderstand.

In a way yes. If you want your projections more accurate you have to look at trends of players consistantly not getting a certain % of team stats at that position.Easy example is Chad Pennington. If you projected Jets' passing stats you absolutely had to give Chad a discount on those stats. Some people refuse to project injuries so they gave Chad all those stats. Those people were more wrong than people who adjusted Chad's stats for a clear pattern of never getting allocated anywhere near the total of Jets passing yards.

Projections is a zero sum game. If Chad's ranking goes down, someone else's ranking goes up which means that person will be expected to score more points. This is where being within a STD DEV of AVT comes in handy. You can tie your rankings to historic points scored of the player at that ranking. Some positions and rankings have varying STD DEVs so it is not that tight or as tight as directly saying Manning is my QB1 so he gets x points from the AVT value. After you rank all your players and start making adjustments to get players aligned with AVT, you start making tough decisions of who gets ranked above whom and why, and certain players you may have initially ranked higher, drop significantly with the risks associated with them compared to other players.

When doing projections, if you remember that there are constraints in both team stats and league stats, you will prevent yourself from over-valuing players and your rankings and projections will be more accurate.

 

[bagger.]

If you are not coming up with rankings via a quantitative method (projecting stats) you are slotting players into their AVT slots purely on your perceptions as you are not doing the work to understand why player x will or will not have more receptions.

Isn't ranking a quantitative method?

No. You are assigning players AVT ranks based on qualitative factors.

 

[radballs.]

If your projections of players are not within a standard deviation or so of the AVT value of their positional rank, your projection of that player will be off, and off significantly. If you are going into a draft with projections that are knowingly off and are using VBD to calculate point differential, your VBD values will even be more off.

AVT is best used as a projection check, and people who don't use AVT as a projection check will have worse rankings than those who do. This is something I stated way back on the yellow board when this discussion originally took place when we had the VBD vs. AVT debates. They aren't opposing schools of thought per se, but rather tools to use in conjunction with each other.

I think people who use AVT as their projections of players are about on the same level of people who use magazines as their rankings. If you are not coming up with rankings via a quantitative method (projecting stats) you are slotting players into their AVT slots purely on your perceptions as you are not doing the work to understand why player x will or will not have more receptions.

 

[LHUCKS]

and people who don't use AVT as a projection check will have worse rankings than those who do.

How can you say that with certainty? Rankings are basically a way to organize all players' relative value. They do not have to be based on actual projection totals.

 

[Bri]

If you are not coming up with rankings via a quantitative method (projecting stats) you are slotting players into their AVT slots purely on your perceptions as you are not doing the work to understand why player x will or will not have more receptions.

Isn't ranking a quantitative method?

No. You are assigning players AVT ranks based on qualitative factors.

the quality of the players is what you're putting in an order, quantitative method.

 

[LHUCKS]

When doing projections, if you remember that there are constraints in both team stats and league stats, you will prevent yourself from over-valuing players and your rankings and projections will be more accurate.

It doesn't matter if you are overprojecting or under projecting for players as long as you are consistent in your methodology from one player to the next.We're looking to relate one player to all othe players in rankings, whether or not you have 79 players projected for 2000 Rushing yards is irrelevant...until you start taking VBD into account, then you must make sure you are equally overprojecting for all other positions as well.

 

[Bri]

as you are not doing the work to understand why player x will or will not have more receptions.

Sorry but no matter how much research you do or how many theories you run your stats thru, you still can't predict who will or will not have more receptions

 

[LHUCKS]

as you are not doing the work to understand why player x will or will not have more receptions.

Sorry but no matter how much research you do or how many theories you run your stats thru, you still can't predict who will or will not have more receptions

You can't predict anything with certainty, but FF is about playing odds.I'll give you 2/1 odds that Steve Smith has more receptions per game than Keary Colbert...do you want some of that action?

 

[bagger.]

and people who don't use AVT as a projection check will have worse rankings than those who do.

How can you say that with certainty? Rankings are basically a way to organize all players' relative value, they do not have to be based on actual projection totals.

You determine value based on projected point totals, not rankings. If you are drafting and take WR3 because he is the third ranked WR have you really gained any value if WRs4-8 all are projected to have the same stats and have an opportunity to grab one of those guys next round?Relative value from WR4-WR5 is not the same as WR5-WR6.

Now if you can rank players accurately without projections you'll still do well, you'll just make some mistakes on grabbing value players in the mid rounds of the draft.

My comment though was more directed at rankings of players from someone who does projections without incorporating AVT compared to someone who does projections who does.

 

[bagger.]

as you are not doing the work to understand why player x will or will not have more receptions.

Sorry but no matter how much research you do or how many theories you run your stats thru, you still can't predict who will or will not have more receptions

I can't? Why?

 

[bagger.]

as you are not doing the work to understand why player x will or will not have more receptions.

Sorry but no matter how much research you do or how many theories you run your stats thru, you still can't predict who will or will not have more receptions

You can't predict anything with certainty, but FF is about playing odds.I'll give you 2/1 odds that Steve Smith has more receptions per game than Keary Colbert...do you want some of that action?

Bri's argument is the typical one who tries to justify why he doesn't have to put the time in to get the most out of his projections/rankings.

 

[radballs.]

... then you must make sure you are equally overprojecting for all other positions as well.

That would never happen. You'll be much more likely to overvalue certain positions, like RB and WR, much more so than K and D. AVT is just a tool to make sure that your projections are within historical reason. It serves its purpose.

 

[Bri]

as you are not doing the work to understand why player x will or will not have more receptions.

Sorry but no matter how much research you do or how many theories you run your stats thru, you still can't predict who will or will not have more receptions

I can't? Why?

because you're not NostradamusYou only come up with what you feel is a strong prediction based upon a program, research, or whatever. It's a sad reality but in FF the person doing little work has as much of a chance as you in predicting how many receptions a WR will get.

 

[Red Herring]

I used to think cheatsheets were used too literally(with no input from some) and for a few they ruined the human element risk/reward. I wonder if draft dominator will have that negative effect.

We're humans we're lazy at times. Most of us work long hours and have families to spend time with and here's this product put out by guys that they trust their FF knowledge.

FWIW I hate the guy that drafts player #130 on his cheatsheet and has no clue whom he is. Probably some of that hatred is jealousy that he's getting a good pick and spent little time researching but....

Very valid points. I think hard work pays out in the end though. DD will become just one more tool, like cheatsheets, AVT, VBD, ADP, etc. The more you use them, the better you do. I tweaked the projections that came w/ the DD and had a great 05, even though I saw more laptops than ever before. The guy that does more homework will almost always come out on top. I'm with ya on the guy grabbing #130, Bri. That really used to drop lobster in my boxers, so to speak. (I'll never forget one of my first drafts where some old guy makes his pick with the comment "McCaffery? never heard of im. Must be white") Now I just try to figure out why dude-with-a-magazine has a tool that works as well as mine, so I can tweak mine to once again out-shine his.

 

[Bri]

as you are not doing the work to understand why player x will or will not have more receptions.

Sorry but no matter how much research you do or how many theories you run your stats thru, you still can't predict who will or will not have more receptions

You can't predict anything with certainty, but FF is about playing odds.I'll give you 2/1 odds that Steve Smith has more receptions per game than Keary Colbert...do you want some of that action?

You're using an extreme example which isn't fair IMO because the casual fan could also have predicted Smith to have more catches. So you're not proving that your(bagger's, whatever) research reaped any reward.How about Fitz or Boldin, who will have more receptions?

 

[bagger.]

When doing projections, if you remember that there are constraints in both team stats and league stats, you will prevent yourself from over-valuing players and your rankings and projections will be more accurate.

It doesn't matter if you are overprojecting or under projecting for players as long as you are consistent in your methodology from one player to the next.We're looking to relate one player to all othe players in rankings, whether or not you have 79 players projected for 2000 Rushing yards is irrelevant...until you start taking VBD into account, then you must make sure you are equally overprojecting for all other positions as well.

It does matter because not all STD DEVs are the same within positional ranks, and are definitely not the same when comparing positions.You do not evenly overproject for everyone. You (not you specifically, but the general you) overproject in a haphazard way that makes any VBD methodology you use worthless. I have my own thoughts about how worthless VBD is anyway but that's a different discussion.

That is the typical fallback of people who project stats for players without any regard to constraints. Your projections have to be constrained in a way that is consistent with league history. This means players on the same team have to be within team constraints. This means that players across the league cannot as a group all be higher than what players have been in years past.

There will only be so many 1,000 yard rushers in 2006. It is easy to justify why double the amount backs that typically rush for 1,000 yards could do it, but you'll be wrong overpaying for marginal backs letting value at other positions go.

This is the typical trap that people fall into with the RB "landgrab" that occurs in the first three rounds. People continually get burned on that next breakout player because they are hoping that RB X will hit the 1,000 yard rushing projection, even though they have already ranked more than the historical amount of 1,000 yard rushers already.

If you don't overproject you see the diminishing return of that marginal back in the 3rd round and all of a sudden there are some players at another position that stand out as a clearly better alternative.

 

[bagger.]

as you are not doing the work to understand why player x will or will not have more receptions.

Sorry but no matter how much research you do or how many theories you run your stats thru, you still can't predict who will or will not have more receptions

I can't? Why?

because you're not NostradamusYou only come up with what you feel is a strong prediction based upon a program, research, or whatever. It's a sad reality but in FF the person doing little work has as much of a chance as you in predicting how many receptions a WR will get.

While I may not be 100% accurate, I will be more accurate, especially in the middle rounds.A person could draft out of a magazine in the first couple rounds and probably wouldn't be that much worse off than me. But as the draft goes on they will make more and more mistakes.

I have seen this time and time again.

 

[Bri]

Bri's argument is the typical one who tries to justify why he doesn't have to put the time in to get the most out of his projections/rankings.

Did you not see my original post?About the guy drafting player #130 on his cheatsheet who he doesn't even know and getting a "steal" there? While you and me consider this a problem or a grrr sorta thing, that may very well be why that guy likes this hobby; because all he's gotta do is buy FBGs cheatsheet for 20 bucks and Joe's #130 will help him win his league followed by the WW pickup emails.

I don't think we have different feelings about "that guy" except for what appears to be a complete lack of respect you have for him.

 

[Bri]

as you are not doing the work to understand why player x will or will not have more receptions.

Sorry but no matter how much research you do or how many theories you run your stats thru, you still can't predict who will or will not have more receptions

I can't? Why?

because you're not NostradamusYou only come up with what you feel is a strong prediction based upon a program, research, or whatever. It's a sad reality but in FF the person doing little work has as much of a chance as you in predicting how many receptions a WR will get.

While I may not be 100% accurate, I will be more accurate, especially in the middle rounds.A person could draft out of a magazine in the first couple rounds and probably wouldn't be that much worse off than me. But as the draft goes on they will make more and more mistakes.

I have seen this time and time again.

that is hopefully true

 

[radballs.]

as you are not doing the work to understand why player x will or will not have more receptions.

Sorry but no matter how much research you do or how many theories you run your stats thru, you still can't predict who will or will not have more receptions

You can't predict anything with certainty, but FF is about playing odds.I'll give you 2/1 odds that Steve Smith has more receptions per game than Keary Colbert...do you want some of that action?

You're using an extreme example which isn't fair IMO because the casual fan could also have predicted Smith to have more catches. So you're not proving that your(bagger's, whatever) research reaped any reward.How about Fitz or Boldin, who will have more receptions?

That and the fact to get any action, the appropriate odds would have to be more like 7 or 8 to 1 which would reflect Smith's odds against injury which is the only way that the Colbert bettor would win.

 

[radballs.]

When doing projections, if you remember that there are constraints in both team stats and league stats, you will prevent yourself from over-valuing players and your rankings and projections will be more accurate.

It doesn't matter if you are overprojecting or under projecting for players as long as you are consistent in your methodology from one player to the next.We're looking to relate one player to all othe players in rankings, whether or not you have 79 players projected for 2000 Rushing yards is irrelevant...until you start taking VBD into account, then you must make sure you are equally overprojecting for all other positions as well.

It does matter because not all STD DEVs are the same within positional ranks, and are definitely not the same when comparing positions.You do not evenly overproject for everyone. You (not you specifically, but the general you) overproject in a haphazard way that makes any VBD methodology you use worthless. I have my own thoughts about how worthless VBD is anyway but that's a different discussion.

That is the typical fallback of people who project stats for players without any regard to constraints. Your projections have to be constrained in a way that is consistent with league history. This means players on the same team have to be within team constraints. This means that players across the league cannot as a group all be higher than what players have been in years past.

There will only be so many 1,000 yard rushers in 2006. It is easy to justify why double the amount backs that typically rush for 1,000 yards could do it, but you'll be wrong overpaying for marginal backs letting value at other positions go.

This is the typical trap that people fall into with the RB "landgrab" that occurs in the first three rounds. People continually get burned on that next breakout player because they are hoping that RB X will hit the 1,000 yard rushing projection, even though they have already ranked more than the historical amount of 1,000 yard rushers already.

If you don't overproject you see the diminishing return of that marginal back in the 3rd round and all of a sudden there are some players at another position that stand out as a clearly better alternative.

Couldn't have explained it better myself.

 

[bagger.]

as you are not doing the work to understand why player x will or will not have more receptions.

Sorry but no matter how much research you do or how many theories you run your stats thru, you still can't predict who will or will not have more receptions

You can't predict anything with certainty, but FF is about playing odds.I'll give you 2/1 odds that Steve Smith has more receptions per game than Keary Colbert...do you want some of that action?

You're using an extreme example which isn't fair IMO because the casual fan could also have predicted Smith to have more catches. So you're not proving that your(bagger's, whatever) research reaped any reward.How about Fitz or Boldin, who will have more receptions?

Hey Bri,Nobody is going to "prove" to you that doing projections is worthwhile. It is something you have to do for yourself in order for you to understand that the process as much as the result is what gives you the benefit. What we are discussing is only one facet of the draft as projections/rankings mean nothing if you don't have a clear strategy to build the best team (something VBD does not do).

Have a great offseason.

-ß

 

[Bri]

as you are not doing the work to understand why player x will or will not have more receptions.

Sorry but no matter how much research you do or how many theories you run your stats thru, you still can't predict who will or will not have more receptions

You can't predict anything with certainty, but FF is about playing odds.I'll give you 2/1 odds that Steve Smith has more receptions per game than Keary Colbert...do you want some of that action?

You're using an extreme example which isn't fair IMO because the casual fan could also have predicted Smith to have more catches. So you're not proving that your(bagger's, whatever) research reaped any reward.How about Fitz or Boldin, who will have more receptions?

That and the fact to get any action, the appropriate odds would have to be more like 7 or 8 to 1 which would reflect Smith's odds against injury which is the only way that the Colbert bettor would win.

I didn't say the Colbert bettor would win, simply that the unresearching fan would also know Smith would catch more

 

[bagger.]

Bri's argument is the typical one who tries to justify why he doesn't have to put the time in to get the most out of his projections/rankings.

Did you not see my original post?About the guy drafting player #130 on his cheatsheet who he doesn't even know and getting a "steal" there? While you and me consider this a problem or a grrr sorta thing, that may very well be why that guy likes this hobby; because all he's gotta do is buy FBGs cheatsheet for 20 bucks and Joe's #130 will help him win his league followed by the WW pickup emails.

I don't think we have different feelings about "that guy" except for what appears to be a complete lack of respect you have for him.

mehThere is luck in fantasy football. It doesn't really bother me as over the long run I'll make money from those kind of players.

What Joe & the crew do here is a great service for people who don't put in the time that some of the more hardcore people do. They pay $20, get a great value of services and tools that are head and shoulders above drafting from a cheatsheet.

I think if you personally put in the time you can outperform the FBG projections and have a better draft based on theories other than VBD.

To me the evolution was one of:

magazine drafter-->static VBD-->dynamic VBD-->hybrid strategy that incorporates many theories in one and allows you to not be told who to draft from a VBD value #, but allows you to form your own draft strategy ahead of time.