Beating opponents by position (1 Viewer)

[bigdaddydave]

So prior to this year starting I'm sure just like the rest of you I read a ton from these "experts."

Many of them were claiming that in order to win or be successful at fantasy football you need to focus on beating your opponent by position.

For an example, your WR1 needs to score more than their WR1 or QB vs QB.

I see fantasy football as drafting players that have the opportunity (no matter what position) to put up a ton of points. In my opinion you beat other players by having your guys "pop" off.

Am I the only one that completely disagrees with this view on winning fantasy football?

 

[chinawildman]

I somewhat agree with this in that players that can significantly outperform other players at their position should be valued more. Probably why people this year were so high on the TEs because Graham and Gronk gave teams almost a 10pt spot last year since they were in a completely different echelon.

This was also the reason why Vick was so dominant in 2010 because he was providing essentially bonus pts as a premium passer and also rushing tds and yds. It was like having an extra guy that you could start.

The stickler is of course while these things are easy to analyze in retrospect, it's tough to draft and have it work out exactly the way you plan it because not only does your guy have to perform to expectation, his peers at the position have to also remain average. Obviously this year the TE and QB positions have been much more muddled. However in a close decision during draft day, this factor does influence my decision.

 

[Shutout]

I agree with the theory and also the above poster and his take that it is difficult to draft with the theory. An example of the theory "working" is a guy like J.J. Watt. If you play IDP and you have him right now, you basically have a bonus RB1 in your lineup right now and that WILL win you games because your opponents can't match that, all things being equal across the rest of your and your opponent's lineup. On the other hand, an example of the theory being difficult to make work is, let's say you play IDP and you wanted the difference making DE this year. You probably drafted JPP or Jared Allen. Good choices, certainly, but you're not getting that advantage right now.

 

[ffchamp1]

So prior to this year starting I'm sure just like the rest of you I read a ton from these "experts."Many of them were claiming that in order to win or be successful at fantasy football you need to focus on beating your opponent by position.For an example, your WR1 needs to score more than their WR1 or QB vs QB.I see fantasy football as drafting players that have the opportunity (no matter what position) to put up a ton of points. In my opinion you beat other players by having your guys "pop" off.Am I the only one that completely disagrees with this view on winning fantasy football?

Value Based DraftingBeat your opponent at more positions that he beats you, but the empasis is on the group. So if your LB1 is rock solid but your 2-4 are weak, you can lose the grouping. Same principle holds for all positions

 

[eric rymer]

I agree with the theory and also the above poster and his take that it is difficult to draft with the theory. An example of the theory "working" is a guy like J.J. Watt. If you play IDP and you have him right now, you basically have a bonus RB1 in your lineup right now and that WILL win you games because your opponents can't match that, all things being equal across the rest of your and your opponent's lineup. On the other hand, an example of the theory being difficult to make work is, let's say you play IDP and you wanted the difference making DE this year. You probably drafted JPP or Jared Allen. Good choices, certainly, but you're not getting that advantage right now.

 

[DoubleG]

I somewhat agree with this in that players that can significantly outperform other players at their position should be valued more. Probably why people this year were so high on the TEs because Graham and Gronk gave teams almost a 10pt spot last year since they were in a completely different echelon.This was also the reason why Vick was so dominant in 2010 because he was providing essentially bonus pts as a premium passer and also rushing tds and yds. It was like having an extra guy that you could start. The stickler is of course while these things are easy to analyze in retrospect, it's tough to draft and have it work out exactly the way you plan it. However in a close decision during draft day, this factor does influence my decision.

Back in "magazine days" they used to call that "X-factor". Basically, it was the amount of points that a given elite player would score above the average player your opponents would field at the given position. Gates used to be a huge for that reason. Most TEs would up 6-10 points, while Gates would score like a borderline WR1 in his prime. He, in effect, gave you another player, as it was like having a TE + another WR2/3 playing. I think there are three issues that have clouded "X-factors" recently. 1) The idea of a 6' 5" 250 lb. TE that is fast and can catch is more common in todays NFL. Gates and Gonzo were ahead of the curve (and probably Sharpe before them). Now several teams feature them - so the "X" isn't nearly as large, as your opponent likely has someone that will at least come close. 2) Defensive philosophies. Many defesnive minded-coaches have started to work harder to develop schemes based on doing two things: Generating a pass rush with as few as possible and dropping many in coverage - with a focus on "taking away" the opponents best offensive weapon. Now surely, this has been done before - but with more teams going after more athletic players, the idea of a LB dropping into coverage isn't as bad as it used to be.3) At the RB position, there simply aren't as many 3 down backs (or "bellcow" backs) - those are the ones that used to have the higher X values. In today's day and age of RBBC, third down and short yardage specialists, etc. you dont have guys with 25+ carries and 30+ touches every week. Those few guys that are, are usually drafted way high (Ray Rice, Foster, ADP to an extent)

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Many of them were claiming that in order to win or be successful at fantasy football you need to focus on beating your opponent by position.For an example, your WR1 needs to score more than their WR1 or QB vs QB.I see fantasy football as drafting players that have the opportunity (no matter what position) to put up a ton of points. In my opinion you beat other players by having your guys "pop" off.

What's the difference?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

So prior to this year starting I'm sure just like the rest of you I read a ton from these "experts."

Many of them were claiming that in order to win or be successful at fantasy football you need to focus on beating your opponent by position.

For an example, your WR1 needs to score more than their WR1 or QB vs QB.

I see fantasy football as drafting players that have the opportunity (no matter what position) to put up a ton of points. In my opinion you beat other players by having your guys "pop" off.

Am I the only one that completely disagrees with this view on winning fantasy football?

if the bolded was truly your strategy, then your first 10 picks would probably be QB's....obviously exaggerating but you were the one that said (no matter what position).....

it's really all about VBD and your scoring rules and most importantly starting lineup requirements/options....

the best teams are solid everywhere and usually the difference in winning and losing is hitting on your mid round picks....most every draft will look the same through the first 5 rounds or so.....your bread is buttered (IMO) in rounds 6-12.....

not sure I have ever beat anybody at every position during a week....

 

[Modog814]

Many of them were claiming that in order to win or be successful at fantasy football you need to focus on beating your opponent by position.For an example, your WR1 needs to score more than their WR1 or QB vs QB.I see fantasy football as drafting players that have the opportunity (no matter what position) to put up a ton of points. In my opinion you beat other players by having your guys "pop" off.

What's the difference?

Exactly, what makes you think they are mutually exclusive?

 

[Sam Quentin]

I think that theory is a losing strategy.

The last thing you want to do in a draft is leave value on the board in order to "chase" a position.

 

[DoubleG]

I think that theory is a losing strategy.The last thing you want to do in a draft is leave value on the board in order to "chase" a position.

I don't think that's what the OP's "experts" are suggesting. Those "experts" opinions are actually pretty obvious - if you score more points at each position, you'll win the game. It reminds of a baseball coach I know that says "win every inning and you win the game" - not exactly earth-shattering. That said, the OP's alternative seems to be what I would call "high weekly upside" guys. Guys like DJax or Richardson, for example. They might put up some "meh" games - but if you keep plugging them in, you're going to get those "I WIN THIS WEEK" games out of them.I think a good FF team needs balance. Sure it's nice to have "boom or bust" guys. But if week 1 of the playoffs, they're all quiet, you're done. You need some unsexy, solid point producers - which position doesn't matter. Reggie Wayne at WR3 - that type of player. Or at RB guys like BJGE or Benson - prolly wont put up 20+, but a solid bet for 10-14 to cover byw weeks or as s decent RB2 in a pinch.

 

[sporthenry]

So prior to this year starting I'm sure just like the rest of you I read a ton from these "experts."

Many of them were claiming that in order to win or be successful at fantasy football you need to focus on beating your opponent by position.

For an example, your WR1 needs to score more than their WR1 or QB vs QB.

I see fantasy football as drafting players that have the opportunity (no matter what position) to put up a ton of points. In my opinion you beat other players by having your guys "pop" off.

Am I the only one that completely disagrees with this view on winning fantasy football?

if the bolded was truly your strategy, then your first 10 picks would probably be QB's....obviously exaggerating but you were the one that said (no matter what position).....

it's really all about VBD and your scoring rules and most importantly starting lineup requirements/options....

the best teams are solid everywhere and usually the difference in winning and losing is hitting on your mid round picks....most every draft will look the same through the first 5 rounds or so.....your bread is buttered (IMO) in rounds 6-12.....

not sure I have ever beat anybody at every position during a week....

Well I think VBD is getting exposed for some holes in its theory mainly b/c it uses one year of past performance to predict future values. Perhaps it would be better to use more years to average out the numbers but the problem is VBD said drafting Rodgers or Brees or Gronk or Graham would get you great value. Problem is they have both regressed to the mean. Graham/Gronk probably finish 1-2 and would be safe picks but last year Gronk gave you 6.5 points/game over the #3 TE while Graham gave you 3.75 points/game. This year the difference is about 1 point/game (and Graham/Gronk aren't in top 4). But your point about round 6-12 is well made. I think the key to fantasy football is having the handful of guys who blow up in any given year. This lends to the guys who are on a % of championship teams like last year that list was littered with Stafford, Cam, Gronk, and Graham owners b/c they had decent picks in the first few rounds but got extreme value in later rounds. As long as your first few round picks tread water, Gronk and Cam together probably got you 20 points a week over the marginal (#12) starter last year.

 

[pizzatyme]

VBD-you have 9 position players who outscore my 9 position players by 15 total points, but my 10th player beats your 10th player by 16 points. I win!

 

[sporthenry]

I think that theory is a losing strategy.

The last thing you want to do in a draft is leave value on the board in order to "chase" a position.

I don't think that's what the OP's "experts" are suggesting. Those "experts" opinions are actually pretty obvious - if you score more points at each position, you'll win the game. It reminds of a baseball coach I know that says "win every inning and you win the game" - not exactly earth-shattering. That said, the OP's alternative seems to be what I would call "high weekly upside" guys. Guys like DJax or Richardson, for example. They might put up some "meh" games - but if you keep plugging them in, you're going to get those "I WIN THIS WEEK" games out of them.

I think a good FF team needs balance. Sure it's nice to have "boom or bust" guys. But if week 1 of the playoffs, they're all quiet, you're done. You need some unsexy, solid point producers - which position doesn't matter. Reggie Wayne at WR3 - that type of player. Or at RB guys like BJGE or Benson - prolly wont put up 20+, but a solid bet for 10-14 to cover byw weeks or as s decent RB2 in a pinch.

But at the same time, if you have a solid week, you could very well be done if he has MJD go off for 37 points. The playoffs are a bit of a crap shoot b/c in one trial, it will probably come down to 1 guy going off for an owner. Therefore, it is tough to predict a good playoff team but getting to the playoffs should be the goal. I would agree you need a combination of boom/bust with solid type players but I think consistency is overrated while boom/bust guys are often neglected b/c they cost an owner at some point. I don't know if anybody knows where to find numbers about average winning score but I'd do a study if they were available. I'd assume it is something like a bell curve (probably less of an equal distribution) and we'll say 100 points are the mean with a standard deviation of 10 points. So lets say you can either have a WR who consistently gets 10 points or you can have someone like V Jax who goes 20-10-0 all the time. Every time you score 100 points, you have a 50% chance of winning, 110 gives you a 68% chance of winning and 90 points is 34% chance of winning. So with the consistent receiver, you have a 12.5% chance of being 3-0 or 0-3 and a 37.5% chance of being 2-1 and 1-2. If you had a boom or bust guy, your chance of being 0-3 or 3-0 are 11.56% and a 38.44% chance of being 2-1 or 1-2. So ultimately, our goal is to make the playoffs so the boom or bust player gives us a lower % of being 0-3 which is I think the goal. There isn't a huge benefit to going undefeated so I'll sacrifice a few weeks of bad output to make the playoffs.

And as I said, I would think that the distribution is less than normal distribution and going 1 standard deviation will probably be higher than 68% chance of winning.

 

[Psychopav]

WALDMAN...CRANK...



I've said too much.

 

[Chaka]

Well I think VBD is getting exposed for some holes in its theory mainly b/c it uses one year of past performance to predict future values. Perhaps it would be better to use more years to average out the numbers but the problem is VBD said drafting Rodgers or Brees or Gronk or Graham would get you great value. Problem is they have both regressed to the mean. Graham/Gronk probably finish 1-2 and would be safe picks but last year Gronk gave you 6.5 points/game over the #3 TE while Graham gave you 3.75 points/game. This year the difference is about 1 point/game (and Graham/Gronk aren't in top 4).

But your point about round 6-12 is well made. I think the key to fantasy football is having the handful of guys who blow up in any given year. This lends to the guys who are on a % of championship teams like last year that list was littered with Stafford, Cam, Gronk, and Graham owners b/c they had decent picks in the first few rounds but got extreme value in later rounds. As long as your first few round picks tread water, Gronk and Cam together probably got you 20 points a week over the marginal (#12) starter last year.

It does?Using your "Draft the players who score the most points" strategy how exactly to you determine which players will score the most?

The basis of the VBD strategy is pretty solid. Using your example the point is not to choose Aaron Rogers or Drew Brees the point is to choose the the QB who will finish #1 overall. I think most people believed that Rogers had the best likelihood to be that player but that is only a prediction not a theory. Using VBD if you thought Matt Ryan (or RGIII) would finish as the #1 QB then that is the guy you should have chosen. It doesn't matter if you could get that player later in the draft the point was to grab the #1 QB.

And I can't speak for your league but Brees is the #3 QB in my league so far.

 

[Biabreakable]

Well I think VBD is getting exposed for some holes in its theory mainly b/c it uses one year of past performance to predict future values.

Most people I know who do projections use the last 3 years as a foundation for those projections. The most recent year being the most relevant, but I do not think people making projections are usually this short sighted. There is a lot of research that goes into projections.

 

[Psychopav]

Well I think VBD is getting exposed for some holes in its theory mainly b/c it uses one year of past performance to predict future values.

Most people I know who do projections use the last 3 years as a foundation for those projections. The most recent year being the most relevant, but I do not think people making projections are usually this short sighted. There is a lot of research that goes into projections.

The strategy discussion is different than the projection discussion. Last year vs. last 3 years muddies the waters. The theory behind how to draft should not be impacted by how the projections are determined imo.

 

[sporthenry]

Well I think VBD is getting exposed for some holes in its theory mainly b/c it uses one year of past performance to predict future values. Perhaps it would be better to use more years to average out the numbers but the problem is VBD said drafting Rodgers or Brees or Gronk or Graham would get you great value. Problem is they have both regressed to the mean. Graham/Gronk probably finish 1-2 and would be safe picks but last year Gronk gave you 6.5 points/game over the #3 TE while Graham gave you 3.75 points/game. This year the difference is about 1 point/game (and Graham/Gronk aren't in top 4).

But your point about round 6-12 is well made. I think the key to fantasy football is having the handful of guys who blow up in any given year. This lends to the guys who are on a % of championship teams like last year that list was littered with Stafford, Cam, Gronk, and Graham owners b/c they had decent picks in the first few rounds but got extreme value in later rounds. As long as your first few round picks tread water, Gronk and Cam together probably got you 20 points a week over the marginal (#12) starter last year.

It does?Using your "Draft the players who score the most points" strategy how exactly to you determine which players will score the most?

The basis of the VBD strategy is pretty solid. Using your example the point is not to choose Aaron Rogers or Drew Brees the point is to choose the the QB who will finish #1 overall. I think most people believed that Rogers had the best likelihood to be that player but that is only a prediction not a theory. Using VBD if you thought Matt Ryan (or RGIII) would finish as the #1 QB then that is the guy you should have chosen. It doesn't matter if you could get that player later in the draft the point was to grab the #1 QB.

And I can't speak for your league but Brees is the #3 QB in my league so far.

I understand the VBD strategy but the point being, most people that I saw used last year which didn't take into account regression to the mean. So as you mention, it dictated selecting the #1 QB in the first round which so far hasn't given much value. And secondly, if you had the foresight to see RGIII and Matt Ryan being this good, taking them in the first round left way too much value on the board which is why I don't think you should just follow VBD blindly.

 

[Biabreakable]

Well I think VBD is getting exposed for some holes in its theory mainly b/c it uses one year of past performance to predict future values.

Most people I know who do projections use the last 3 years as a foundation for those projections. The most recent year being the most relevant, but I do not think people making projections are usually this short sighted. There is a lot of research that goes into projections.

The strategy discussion is different than the projection discussion. Last year vs. last 3 years muddies the waters. The theory behind how to draft should not be impacted by how the projections are determined imo.

Agreed. No intent to hijack the thread I just wanted to correct what may be another misunderstanding.The OP still needs to grasp why value based drafting is useful. How to formulate projections to be used for VBD is another topic in itself.

 

[Quibbler]

So prior to this year starting I'm sure just like the rest of you I read a ton from these "experts."

Many of them were claiming that in order to win or be successful at fantasy football you need to focus on beating your opponent by position.

For an example, your WR1 needs to score more than their WR1 or QB vs QB.

I see fantasy football as drafting players that have the opportunity (no matter what position) to put up a ton of points. In my opinion you beat other players by having your guys "pop" off.

Am I the only one that completely disagrees with this view on winning fantasy football?

if the bolded was truly your strategy, then your first 10 picks would probably be QB's....obviously exaggerating but you were the one that said (no matter what position).....

Positions matter enormously when it comes to determining value. Just look at the difference between QBs in standard leagues vs. 2QB leagues.

 

[sporthenry]

Well I think VBD is getting exposed for some holes in its theory mainly b/c it uses one year of past performance to predict future values.

Most people I know who do projections use the last 3 years as a foundation for those projections. The most recent year being the most relevant, but I do not think people making projections are usually this short sighted. There is a lot of research that goes into projections.

The strategy discussion is different than the projection discussion. Last year vs. last 3 years muddies the waters. The theory behind how to draft should not be impacted by how the projections are determined imo.

Agreed. No intent to hijack the thread I just wanted to correct what may be another misunderstanding.The OP still needs to grasp why value based drafting is useful. How to formulate projections to be used for VBD is another topic in itself.

I'm not saying VBD is completely useless but I also think it has some shortcomings that you must be aware of and aren't a slave to the numbers.

 

[Chaka]

Well I think VBD is getting exposed for some holes in its theory mainly b/c it uses one year of past performance to predict future values. Perhaps it would be better to use more years to average out the numbers but the problem is VBD said drafting Rodgers or Brees or Gronk or Graham would get you great value. Problem is they have both regressed to the mean. Graham/Gronk probably finish 1-2 and would be safe picks but last year Gronk gave you 6.5 points/game over the #3 TE while Graham gave you 3.75 points/game. This year the difference is about 1 point/game (and Graham/Gronk aren't in top 4).

But your point about round 6-12 is well made. I think the key to fantasy football is having the handful of guys who blow up in any given year. This lends to the guys who are on a % of championship teams like last year that list was littered with Stafford, Cam, Gronk, and Graham owners b/c they had decent picks in the first few rounds but got extreme value in later rounds. As long as your first few round picks tread water, Gronk and Cam together probably got you 20 points a week over the marginal (#12) starter last year.

It does?Using your "Draft the players who score the most points" strategy how exactly to you determine which players will score the most?

The basis of the VBD strategy is pretty solid. Using your example the point is not to choose Aaron Rogers or Drew Brees the point is to choose the the QB who will finish #1 overall. I think most people believed that Rogers had the best likelihood to be that player but that is only a prediction not a theory. Using VBD if you thought Matt Ryan (or RGIII) would finish as the #1 QB then that is the guy you should have chosen. It doesn't matter if you could get that player later in the draft the point was to grab the #1 QB.

And I can't speak for your league but Brees is the #3 QB in my league so far.

I understand the VBD strategy but the point being, most people that I saw used last year which didn't take into account regression to the mean. So as you mention, it dictated selecting the #1 QB in the first round which so far hasn't given much value. And secondly, if you had the foresight to see RGIII and Matt Ryan being this good, taking them in the first round left way too much value on the board which is why I don't think you should just follow VBD blindly.

I am not certain you do understand VBD. The discussion of projections for specific players isn't related to the theory of VBD.You could certainly have grabbed RGIII and Matt Ryan later than Rogers the point of VBD is that if you take that player you are ahead of the game regardless of where you grab them. People who drafted RGIII and Ryan got a double whammy for nabbing a top 2 QB later in the draft AND possibly getting a top RB and/or WR in front of them (assuming their projections for RB and WR were correct, which is no guarantee). Then again either RGII or Ryan could suffer a regression to the mean this season. And considering Aaron Rogers finished as the #1 fantasy QB (or very close to it depending on your scoring season) each of the last 4 seasons he was still the safest bet and could still easily turn this season around.

The principle is correct and I am still waiting to hear how your "Draft the guys that score the most" theory deals with projections. Your example of only using one year of history when making projections (again projections are not VBD) is not exclusive to any drafting strategy and I doubt it is the norm.

 

[sporthenry]

Well I think VBD is getting exposed for some holes in its theory mainly b/c it uses one year of past performance to predict future values. Perhaps it would be better to use more years to average out the numbers but the problem is VBD said drafting Rodgers or Brees or Gronk or Graham would get you great value. Problem is they have both regressed to the mean. Graham/Gronk probably finish 1-2 and would be safe picks but last year Gronk gave you 6.5 points/game over the #3 TE while Graham gave you 3.75 points/game. This year the difference is about 1 point/game (and Graham/Gronk aren't in top 4).

But your point about round 6-12 is well made. I think the key to fantasy football is having the handful of guys who blow up in any given year. This lends to the guys who are on a % of championship teams like last year that list was littered with Stafford, Cam, Gronk, and Graham owners b/c they had decent picks in the first few rounds but got extreme value in later rounds. As long as your first few round picks tread water, Gronk and Cam together probably got you 20 points a week over the marginal (#12) starter last year.

It does?Using your "Draft the players who score the most points" strategy how exactly to you determine which players will score the most?

The basis of the VBD strategy is pretty solid. Using your example the point is not to choose Aaron Rogers or Drew Brees the point is to choose the the QB who will finish #1 overall. I think most people believed that Rogers had the best likelihood to be that player but that is only a prediction not a theory. Using VBD if you thought Matt Ryan (or RGIII) would finish as the #1 QB then that is the guy you should have chosen. It doesn't matter if you could get that player later in the draft the point was to grab the #1 QB.

And I can't speak for your league but Brees is the #3 QB in my league so far.

I understand the VBD strategy but the point being, most people that I saw used last year which didn't take into account regression to the mean. So as you mention, it dictated selecting the #1 QB in the first round which so far hasn't given much value. And secondly, if you had the foresight to see RGIII and Matt Ryan being this good, taking them in the first round left way too much value on the board which is why I don't think you should just follow VBD blindly.

I am not certain you do understand VBD. The discussion of projections for specific players isn't related to the theory of VBD.You could certainly have grabbed RGIII and Matt Ryan later than Rogers the point of VBD is that if you take that player you are ahead of the game regardless of where you grab them. People who drafted RGIII and Ryan got a double whammy for nabbing a top 2 QB later in the draft AND possibly getting a top RB and/or WR in front of them (assuming their projections for RB and WR were correct, which is no guarantee). Then again either RGII or Ryan could suffer a regression to the mean this season. And considering Aaron Rogers finished as the #1 fantasy QB (or very close to it depending on your scoring season) each of the last 4 seasons he was still the safest bet and could still easily turn this season around.

The principle is correct and I am still waiting to hear how your "Draft the guys that score the most" theory deals with projections. Your example of only using one year of history when making projections (again projections are not VBD) is not exclusive to any drafting strategy and I doubt it is the norm.

How are projections not related to VBD? Where do you get the actual value, the V, without some type of projections or at least previous differences between the players and the replacement (marginal) player? Is VBD not the equivalent of WAR in baseball? I don't recall where I said I used a "Draft the guys that score the most" theory? I use VBD to derive some value but it isn't the end all be all as some people champion it as. VBD is irrelevant to consistency which is something else I was talking about.

I'm interested to know how you handle VBD without some use of previous stats or projections.

 

[Quibbler]

I'm interested to know how you handle VBD without some use of previous stats or projections.

It's not that VBD doesn't use projections, it's that projections aren't a unique problem for VBD. All drafting systems use some sort of projections. If your projections suck, then your draft method is going to suck, regardless of whether you try to incorporate VBD principles or not. Yet people often suggest that VBD is somehow flawed because it relies on projections, while ignoring that the same can be said of all drafting methods.I get that that wasn't your point exactly--you first objection was that that VBD systems only look at one year's worth of data in making the projections, and your second one was that pure VBD would lead you to take guys "early" insofar as you could have got them later.Re. the 1st objection: I just don't think that's really true. I think most people who use VBD do look at more than 1 year.Re. the 2nd objection: I agree with you. VBD won't tell you about things like league tendencies, or how other owners perceive a player. For example, if you know owners in your league always wait on TE, then you wouldn't need to jump on a Gronk or Graham in the late 1st round, even if by your calculations that's good value for them.

 

[DoubleG]

WALDMAN...CRANK... I've said too much.

My only issue with crank is that over time a player's role can change. Look at S. Moss as an example. There was a period where his weekly scores looked like a heart rhythym - then he became more stable. The same could be said of Roddy White - but had to do with his QB. Don't get me wrong - I think there is some value in crank, but as many have pointed out - it takes both kinds of players.

 

[Psychopav]

WALDMAN...CRANK... I've said too much.

My only issue with crank is that over time a player's role can change. Look at S. Moss as an example. There was a period where his weekly scores looked like a heart rhythym - then he became more stable. The same could be said of Roddy White - but had to do with his QB. Don't get me wrong - I think there is some value in crank, but as many have pointed out - it takes both kinds of players.

I agree, which is why using spreadsheets (or DD) is SO important. Start with the vbd, tweak with the crank and role, and you've got a winning combination!Now, add in dynasty and it's a whole 'nother discussion...

 

[Chaka]

Well I think VBD is getting exposed for some holes in its theory mainly b/c it uses one year of past performance to predict future values. Perhaps it would be better to use more years to average out the numbers but the problem is VBD said drafting Rodgers or Brees or Gronk or Graham would get you great value. Problem is they have both regressed to the mean. Graham/Gronk probably finish 1-2 and would be safe picks but last year Gronk gave you 6.5 points/game over the #3 TE while Graham gave you 3.75 points/game. This year the difference is about 1 point/game (and Graham/Gronk aren't in top 4).

But your point about round 6-12 is well made. I think the key to fantasy football is having the handful of guys who blow up in any given year. This lends to the guys who are on a % of championship teams like last year that list was littered with Stafford, Cam, Gronk, and Graham owners b/c they had decent picks in the first few rounds but got extreme value in later rounds. As long as your first few round picks tread water, Gronk and Cam together probably got you 20 points a week over the marginal (#12) starter last year.

It does?Using your "Draft the players who score the most points" strategy how exactly to you determine which players will score the most?

The basis of the VBD strategy is pretty solid. Using your example the point is not to choose Aaron Rogers or Drew Brees the point is to choose the the QB who will finish #1 overall. I think most people believed that Rogers had the best likelihood to be that player but that is only a prediction not a theory. Using VBD if you thought Matt Ryan (or RGIII) would finish as the #1 QB then that is the guy you should have chosen. It doesn't matter if you could get that player later in the draft the point was to grab the #1 QB.

And I can't speak for your league but Brees is the #3 QB in my league so far.

I understand the VBD strategy but the point being, most people that I saw used last year which didn't take into account regression to the mean. So as you mention, it dictated selecting the #1 QB in the first round which so far hasn't given much value. And secondly, if you had the foresight to see RGIII and Matt Ryan being this good, taking them in the first round left way too much value on the board which is why I don't think you should just follow VBD blindly.

I am not certain you do understand VBD. The discussion of projections for specific players isn't related to the theory of VBD.You could certainly have grabbed RGIII and Matt Ryan later than Rogers the point of VBD is that if you take that player you are ahead of the game regardless of where you grab them. People who drafted RGIII and Ryan got a double whammy for nabbing a top 2 QB later in the draft AND possibly getting a top RB and/or WR in front of them (assuming their projections for RB and WR were correct, which is no guarantee). Then again either RGII or Ryan could suffer a regression to the mean this season. And considering Aaron Rogers finished as the #1 fantasy QB (or very close to it depending on your scoring season) each of the last 4 seasons he was still the safest bet and could still easily turn this season around.

The principle is correct and I am still waiting to hear how your "Draft the guys that score the most" theory deals with projections. Your example of only using one year of history when making projections (again projections are not VBD) is not exclusive to any drafting strategy and I doubt it is the norm.

How are projections not related to VBD? Where do you get the actual value, the V, without some type of projections or at least previous differences between the players and the replacement (marginal) player? Is VBD not the equivalent of WAR in baseball? I don't recall where I said I used a "Draft the guys that score the most" theory? I use VBD to derive some value but it isn't the end all be all as some people champion it as. VBD is irrelevant to consistency which is something else I was talking about.

I'm interested to know how you handle VBD without some use of previous stats or projections.

Sorry that was the OP not you, my bad.Everyone uses projections Quibbler pretty much nailed it on that front.

 

[sporthenry]

Well I think VBD is getting exposed for some holes in its theory mainly b/c it uses one year of past performance to predict future values. Perhaps it would be better to use more years to average out the numbers but the problem is VBD said drafting Rodgers or Brees or Gronk or Graham would get you great value. Problem is they have both regressed to the mean. Graham/Gronk probably finish 1-2 and would be safe picks but last year Gronk gave you 6.5 points/game over the #3 TE while Graham gave you 3.75 points/game. This year the difference is about 1 point/game (and Graham/Gronk aren't in top 4).

But your point about round 6-12 is well made. I think the key to fantasy football is having the handful of guys who blow up in any given year. This lends to the guys who are on a % of championship teams like last year that list was littered with Stafford, Cam, Gronk, and Graham owners b/c they had decent picks in the first few rounds but got extreme value in later rounds. As long as your first few round picks tread water, Gronk and Cam together probably got you 20 points a week over the marginal (#12) starter last year.

It does?Using your "Draft the players who score the most points" strategy how exactly to you determine which players will score the most?

The basis of the VBD strategy is pretty solid. Using your example the point is not to choose Aaron Rogers or Drew Brees the point is to choose the the QB who will finish #1 overall. I think most people believed that Rogers had the best likelihood to be that player but that is only a prediction not a theory. Using VBD if you thought Matt Ryan (or RGIII) would finish as the #1 QB then that is the guy you should have chosen. It doesn't matter if you could get that player later in the draft the point was to grab the #1 QB.

And I can't speak for your league but Brees is the #3 QB in my league so far.

I understand the VBD strategy but the point being, most people that I saw used last year which didn't take into account regression to the mean. So as you mention, it dictated selecting the #1 QB in the first round which so far hasn't given much value. And secondly, if you had the foresight to see RGIII and Matt Ryan being this good, taking them in the first round left way too much value on the board which is why I don't think you should just follow VBD blindly.

I am not certain you do understand VBD. The discussion of projections for specific players isn't related to the theory of VBD.You could certainly have grabbed RGIII and Matt Ryan later than Rogers the point of VBD is that if you take that player you are ahead of the game regardless of where you grab them. People who drafted RGIII and Ryan got a double whammy for nabbing a top 2 QB later in the draft AND possibly getting a top RB and/or WR in front of them (assuming their projections for RB and WR were correct, which is no guarantee). Then again either RGII or Ryan could suffer a regression to the mean this season. And considering Aaron Rogers finished as the #1 fantasy QB (or very close to it depending on your scoring season) each of the last 4 seasons he was still the safest bet and could still easily turn this season around.

The principle is correct and I am still waiting to hear how your "Draft the guys that score the most" theory deals with projections. Your example of only using one year of history when making projections (again projections are not VBD) is not exclusive to any drafting strategy and I doubt it is the norm.

How are projections not related to VBD? Where do you get the actual value, the V, without some type of projections or at least previous differences between the players and the replacement (marginal) player? Is VBD not the equivalent of WAR in baseball? I don't recall where I said I used a "Draft the guys that score the most" theory? I use VBD to derive some value but it isn't the end all be all as some people champion it as. VBD is irrelevant to consistency which is something else I was talking about.

I'm interested to know how you handle VBD without some use of previous stats or projections.

Sorry that was the OP not you, my bad.Everyone uses projections Quibbler pretty much nailed it on that front.

Well it seems VBD uses more prior history than projections. I'll concede you don't have to use just 1 year, that is just what I used as it is very difficult to find data past a year or two ago and even harder to find lists that separate by position. I'd imagine a 5 year rolling average with more emphasis on recent years would be best. That way you take into account recent trends like less 300 carry RBs and more pass heavy teams without using one year like last year to inflate QB's VBD b/c of record performances. I'm not sure how everyone uses VBD, I use it to find which positions are relatively scarce and for flex but don't follow it to the extent that taking TE5 instead of waiting for TE7 will give me a VBD of 1.7 points per week or I need a TE6 or else it falls off a lot.

I think it is another tool to use and perhaps in more intense leagues, you need to use VBD to draft guys way ahead of their projection b/c others are using similar VBD and you can't rely on your leagues to follow the rankings given by the site. I just don't need projections much to think Percy Harvin is going to have a good year so I'll reach on him a bit.

 

[chinawildman]

Speaking of the "X factor", I thought about this while posting in the Zuerlein thread...

It's silly to think that a kicker can give you some kind of weekly advantage, but Fisher has shown no qualms about sending the kid out to boom 50,60 yd FGs and he's been money. If your team awards bonus points for long fgs (my league gives 5pts for 50+), that is like having an average kicker who gets an occasional TD vulture opportunity, scoring-wise. Dome kicker, and Rams are 31st in TD efficiency in the redzone thusfar.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Well I think VBD is getting exposed for some holes in its theory mainly b/c it uses one year of past performance to predict future values. Perhaps it would be better to use more years to average out the numbers but the problem is VBD said drafting Rodgers or Brees or Gronk or Graham would get you great value. Problem is they have both regressed to the mean. Graham/Gronk probably finish 1-2 and would be safe picks but last year Gronk gave you 6.5 points/game over the #3 TE while Graham gave you 3.75 points/game. This year the difference is about 1 point/game (and Graham/Gronk aren't in top 4).

But your point about round 6-12 is well made. I think the key to fantasy football is having the handful of guys who blow up in any given year. This lends to the guys who are on a % of championship teams like last year that list was littered with Stafford, Cam, Gronk, and Graham owners b/c they had decent picks in the first few rounds but got extreme value in later rounds. As long as your first few round picks tread water, Gronk and Cam together probably got you 20 points a week over the marginal (#12) starter last year.

It does?Using your "Draft the players who score the most points" strategy how exactly to you determine which players will score the most?

The basis of the VBD strategy is pretty solid. Using your example the point is not to choose Aaron Rogers or Drew Brees the point is to choose the the QB who will finish #1 overall. I think most people believed that Rogers had the best likelihood to be that player but that is only a prediction not a theory. Using VBD if you thought Matt Ryan (or RGIII) would finish as the #1 QB then that is the guy you should have chosen. It doesn't matter if you could get that player later in the draft the point was to grab the #1 QB.

And I can't speak for your league but Brees is the #3 QB in my league so far.

I understand the VBD strategy but the point being, most people that I saw used last year which didn't take into account regression to the mean. So as you mention, it dictated selecting the #1 QB in the first round which so far hasn't given much value. And secondly, if you had the foresight to see RGIII and Matt Ryan being this good, taking them in the first round left way too much value on the board which is why I don't think you should just follow VBD blindly.

I am not certain you do understand VBD. The discussion of projections for specific players isn't related to the theory of VBD.You could certainly have grabbed RGIII and Matt Ryan later than Rogers the point of VBD is that if you take that player you are ahead of the game regardless of where you grab them. People who drafted RGIII and Ryan got a double whammy for nabbing a top 2 QB later in the draft AND possibly getting a top RB and/or WR in front of them (assuming their projections for RB and WR were correct, which is no guarantee). Then again either RGII or Ryan could suffer a regression to the mean this season. And considering Aaron Rogers finished as the #1 fantasy QB (or very close to it depending on your scoring season) each of the last 4 seasons he was still the safest bet and could still easily turn this season around.

The principle is correct and I am still waiting to hear how your "Draft the guys that score the most" theory deals with projections. Your example of only using one year of history when making projections (again projections are not VBD) is not exclusive to any drafting strategy and I doubt it is the norm.

How are projections not related to VBD? Where do you get the actual value, the V, without some type of projections or at least previous differences between the players and the replacement (marginal) player? Is VBD not the equivalent of WAR in baseball? I don't recall where I said I used a "Draft the guys that score the most" theory? I use VBD to derive some value but it isn't the end all be all as some people champion it as. VBD is irrelevant to consistency which is something else I was talking about.

I'm interested to know how you handle VBD without some use of previous stats or projections.

Sorry that was the OP not you, my bad.Everyone uses projections Quibbler pretty much nailed it on that front.

Well it seems VBD uses more prior history than projections. I'll concede you don't have to use just 1 year, that is just what I used as it is very difficult to find data past a year or two ago and even harder to find lists that separate by position. I'd imagine a 5 year rolling average with more emphasis on recent years would be best. That way you take into account recent trends like less 300 carry RBs and more pass heavy teams without using one year like last year to inflate QB's VBD b/c of record performances. I'm not sure how everyone uses VBD, I use it to find which positions are relatively scarce and for flex but don't follow it to the extent that taking TE5 instead of waiting for TE7 will give me a VBD of 1.7 points per week or I need a TE6 or else it falls off a lot.

I think it is another tool to use and perhaps in more intense leagues, you need to use VBD to draft guys way ahead of their projection b/c others are using similar VBD and you can't rely on your leagues to follow the rankings given by the site. I just don't need projections much to think Percy Harvin is going to have a good year so I'll reach on him a bit.

I'm with Chaka here, it's not very clear that you know what VBD is.The problems you're highlighting are problems of projections. For example, taking into account recent trends like "less 300 carry RBs" has nothing really to do with VBD. It has everything to do with projections. If you think there will be fewer 300-carry RBs this year than there were last year, or five years ago, or whatever, then you build those assumptions into your projections for RBs.

VBD is just a method of drafting once you already have your projections done. You don't "adjust" VBD to account for fewer 300-carry RBs, you adjust your projections.

I'd also totally dispute the notion that "it is very difficult to find data past a year or two ago and even harder to find lists that separate by position." This is the internet. It's extremely easy to find this kind of data.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Many of them were claiming that in order to win or be successful at fantasy football you need to focus on beating your opponent by position.For an example, your WR1 needs to score more than their WR1 or QB vs QB.I see fantasy football as drafting players that have the opportunity (no matter what position) to put up a ton of points. In my opinion you beat other players by having your guys "pop" off.

What's the difference?

Exactly, what makes you think they are mutually exclusive?

Doesn't look like OP will be back to address this.

 

[acarey50]

Well it seems VBD uses more prior history than projections. I'll concede you don't have to use just 1 year, that is just what I used as it is very difficult to find data past a year or two ago and even harder to find lists that separate by position. I'd imagine a 5 year rolling average with more emphasis on recent years would be best. That way you take into account recent trends like less 300 carry RBs and more pass heavy teams without using one year like last year to inflate QB's VBD b/c of record performances.

I'm not sure how everyone uses VBD, I use it to find which positions are relatively scarce and for flex but don't follow it to the extent that taking TE5 instead of waiting for TE7 will give me a VBD of 1.7 points per week or I need a TE6 or else it falls off a lot.

I think it is another tool to use and perhaps in more intense leagues, you need to use VBD to draft guys way ahead of their projection b/c others are using similar VBD and you can't rely on your leagues to follow the rankings given by the site. I just don't need projections much to think Percy Harvin is going to have a good year so I'll reach on him a bit.

Raw VBD does not take past history into account at all. VBD takes your projections, your scoring system and your lineup requirements into account to baseline each player, not just within a position, but then across positions.The only way you could really link VBD to past projections is by how much you use past performance to determine your current year projections. I would venture to guess that the heavier your reliance on past performance for current year projections without factoring in current situation, the more volatile your projections will be.

Now, one thing I do like to do that uses past data is to use a 3-5 year average of actual performance to see how positionally the value generally tends to shake out (I do this by removing names from the performance, and the top scoring QB is QB1, #2 QB is QB2, etc. and then average the QB1 performance across the years, etc.). This gives me a sort of spot check to see how far off my current year's projection and valuations are from the recent history means. I don;t expect to match exactly of course, but if I spot areas with major differences from history, it provides a place for me to focus my attention on looking at why I projected certain players for what I did vs. the statistical norms for the position/rank.

 

[taylorj99]

Without getting into the "look how awesome my team is" aspect, I've been in a keeper league for 16 years. I've built quite the team over the years using the VBD method of drafting and deciding who my keepers will be from year to year. My teams have been competitive every year although I've only won one championship in that amount of time, even though I've finished many years as the top scorer or have had multiple positions be top scorers throughout our league.

In every year where I was the clear favorite to win, the team that ultimately won had one thing in common. They hit big on a late round pick or a WW pickup. I often thought it didn't matter who they picked up because my starting 13 were better than there's from top to bottom. One thing I didn't take into account was the difference in the scoring from my backups vs. their new, shiny WW acquisition. I may be outscoring them in 9/13 positions, but their new pickup often times put up numbers comparable to a starter.

This only goes to emphasize the importance of in-season management as well as good drafting. Hope this adds something.

 

[DoubleG]

Speaking of the "X factor", I thought about this while posting in the Zuerlein thread...It's silly to think that a kicker can give you some kind of weekly advantage, but Fisher has shown no qualms about sending the kid out to boom 50,60 yd FGs and he's been money. If your team awards bonus points for long fgs (my league gives 5pts for 50+), that is like having an average kicker who gets an occasional TD vulture opportunity, scoring-wise. Dome kicker, and Rams are 31st in TD efficiency in the redzone thusfar.

It's not a big enough "X" - in one league I'm in, there are 8 kickers within 10 total points of him (some depends on scoring) - that's only 2.5 point per game. Is it and advantage? Maybe - but not a strong one.

 

[belljr]

So the experts suggest in order for me to win, I should have guys on my team outscore guys on the other team..

GENIUS!!

 

[Psychopav]

So the experts suggest in order for me to win, I should have guys on my team outscore guys on the other team..GENIUS!!

Real fantasy geeks play for the love of the game. It's not about W's and L's.

 

[thatguy]

Speaking of the "X factor", I thought about this while posting in the Zuerlein thread...It's silly to think that a kicker can give you some kind of weekly advantage, but Fisher has shown no qualms about sending the kid out to boom 50,60 yd FGs and he's been money. If your team awards bonus points for long fgs (my league gives 5pts for 50+), that is like having an average kicker who gets an occasional TD vulture opportunity, scoring-wise. Dome kicker, and Rams are 31st in TD efficiency in the redzone thusfar.

It's not a big enough "X" - in one league I'm in, there are 8 kickers within 10 total points of him (some depends on scoring) - that's only 2.5 point per game. Is it and advantage? Maybe - but not a strong one.

2.5 point is pretty significant, assuming it's something that can be maintained (and in this particular case, I doubt it can). Let's say you start 10 players, if each of your players gave you a 2.5 point advantage over your opponent's respective players, you'd be favored to win by 25 points. That's huge. That means, if all other numbers hold true to form, you could suffer a complete clunker from your QB and likely still be victorious. Or, to put it another way, it would be like having an extra QB in your lineup every week.

 

[Psychopav]

Speaking of the "X factor", I thought about this while posting in the Zuerlein thread...It's silly to think that a kicker can give you some kind of weekly advantage, but Fisher has shown no qualms about sending the kid out to boom 50,60 yd FGs and he's been money. If your team awards bonus points for long fgs (my league gives 5pts for 50+), that is like having an average kicker who gets an occasional TD vulture opportunity, scoring-wise. Dome kicker, and Rams are 31st in TD efficiency in the redzone thusfar.

It's not a big enough "X" - in one league I'm in, there are 8 kickers within 10 total points of him (some depends on scoring) - that's only 2.5 point per game. Is it and advantage? Maybe - but not a strong one.

2.5 point is pretty significant, assuming it's something that can be maintained (and in this particular case, I doubt it can). Let's say you start 10 players, if each of your players gave you a 2.5 point advantage over your opponent's respective players, you'd be favored to win by 25 points. That's huge. That means, if all other numbers hold true to form, you could suffer a complete clunker from your QB and likely still be victorious. Or, to put it another way, it would be like having an extra QB in your lineup every week.

That's it, I'm starting a kicker thread. Thanks for the inspiration!

 

[DoubleG]

Speaking of the "X factor", I thought about this while posting in the Zuerlein thread...

It's silly to think that a kicker can give you some kind of weekly advantage, but Fisher has shown no qualms about sending the kid out to boom 50,60 yd FGs and he's been money. If your team awards bonus points for long fgs (my league gives 5pts for 50+), that is like having an average kicker who gets an occasional TD vulture opportunity, scoring-wise. Dome kicker, and Rams are 31st in TD efficiency in the redzone thusfar.

It's not a big enough "X" - in one league I'm in, there are 8 kickers within 10 total points of him (some depends on scoring) - that's only 2.5 point per game. Is it and advantage? Maybe - but not a strong one.

2.5 point is pretty significant, assuming it's something that can be maintained (and in this particular case, I doubt it can). Let's say you start 10 players, if each of your players gave you a 2.5 point advantage over your opponent's respective players, you'd be favored to win by 25 points. That's huge. That means, if all other numbers hold true to form, you could suffer a complete clunker from your QB and likely still be victorious. Or, to put it another way, it would be like having an extra QB in your lineup every week.

But by definition, to gain the edge at one area, you typically have to give up that edge at another - so extraplotaing a 2.5 point advantage to all 10 positions makes no sense. Of course if your team is 2.5 point better than everybody else at every postion, you are going to win most of the time. That's not what I am arguing. In on league I'm in he and Hanson are tied - so against the Hanson owner, no such advantage even exsists. There are several other that are within a handful of points. And that's kind of the point. Gates in his prime was significantly above every other TE...consistantly. Not for a 4 week stretch, and not ahead of most - ahead of all...by a lot.

 

[thatguy]

Speaking of the "X factor", I thought about this while posting in the Zuerlein thread...

It's silly to think that a kicker can give you some kind of weekly advantage, but Fisher has shown no qualms about sending the kid out to boom 50,60 yd FGs and he's been money. If your team awards bonus points for long fgs (my league gives 5pts for 50+), that is like having an average kicker who gets an occasional TD vulture opportunity, scoring-wise. Dome kicker, and Rams are 31st in TD efficiency in the redzone thusfar.

It's not a big enough "X" - in one league I'm in, there are 8 kickers within 10 total points of him (some depends on scoring) - that's only 2.5 point per game. Is it and advantage? Maybe - but not a strong one.

2.5 point is pretty significant, assuming it's something that can be maintained (and in this particular case, I doubt it can). Let's say you start 10 players, if each of your players gave you a 2.5 point advantage over your opponent's respective players, you'd be favored to win by 25 points. That's huge. That means, if all other numbers hold true to form, you could suffer a complete clunker from your QB and likely still be victorious. Or, to put it another way, it would be like having an extra QB in your lineup every week.

But by definition, to gain the edge at one area, you typically have to give up that edge at another - so extraplotaing a 2.5 point advantage to all 10 positions makes no sense. Of course if your team is 2.5 point better than everybody else at every postion, you are going to win most of the time. That's not what I am arguing. In on league I'm in he and Hanson are tied - so against the Hanson owner, no such advantage even exsists. There are several other that are within a handful of points. And that's kind of the point. Gates in his prime was significantly above every other TE...consistantly. Not for a 4 week stretch, and not ahead of most - ahead of all...by a lot.

I hear you loud and clear, and agree with most everything you said. But I'm simply saying that a 2.5 point advantage above league average or even replacement level players is significant, and at most positions (QB notwithstanding), all you can really hope for. There are the outliers that have been mentioned like Gronk and Graham last season, Vick in 2010, Jared Allen for most of the last decade, J.J. Watt so far this season, but they are rare.

 

[thatguy]

Speaking of the "X factor", I thought about this while posting in the Zuerlein thread...It's silly to think that a kicker can give you some kind of weekly advantage, but Fisher has shown no qualms about sending the kid out to boom 50,60 yd FGs and he's been money. If your team awards bonus points for long fgs (my league gives 5pts for 50+), that is like having an average kicker who gets an occasional TD vulture opportunity, scoring-wise. Dome kicker, and Rams are 31st in TD efficiency in the redzone thusfar.

It's not a big enough "X" - in one league I'm in, there are 8 kickers within 10 total points of him (some depends on scoring) - that's only 2.5 point per game. Is it and advantage? Maybe - but not a strong one.

2.5 point is pretty significant, assuming it's something that can be maintained (and in this particular case, I doubt it can). Let's say you start 10 players, if each of your players gave you a 2.5 point advantage over your opponent's respective players, you'd be favored to win by 25 points. That's huge. That means, if all other numbers hold true to form, you could suffer a complete clunker from your QB and likely still be victorious. Or, to put it another way, it would be like having an extra QB in your lineup every week.

That's it, I'm starting a kicker thread. Thanks for the inspiration!

Word.

 

[Psychopav]

Speaking of the "X factor", I thought about this while posting in the Zuerlein thread...

It's silly to think that a kicker can give you some kind of weekly advantage, but Fisher has shown no qualms about sending the kid out to boom 50,60 yd FGs and he's been money. If your team awards bonus points for long fgs (my league gives 5pts for 50+), that is like having an average kicker who gets an occasional TD vulture opportunity, scoring-wise. Dome kicker, and Rams are 31st in TD efficiency in the redzone thusfar.

It's not a big enough "X" - in one league I'm in, there are 8 kickers within 10 total points of him (some depends on scoring) - that's only 2.5 point per game. Is it and advantage? Maybe - but not a strong one.

2.5 point is pretty significant, assuming it's something that can be maintained (and in this particular case, I doubt it can). Let's say you start 10 players, if each of your players gave you a 2.5 point advantage over your opponent's respective players, you'd be favored to win by 25 points. That's huge. That means, if all other numbers hold true to form, you could suffer a complete clunker from your QB and likely still be victorious. Or, to put it another way, it would be like having an extra QB in your lineup every week.

But by definition, to gain the edge at one area, you typically have to give up that edge at another - so extraplotaing a 2.5 point advantage to all 10 positions makes no sense. Of course if your team is 2.5 point better than everybody else at every postion, you are going to win most of the time. That's not what I am arguing. In on league I'm in he and Hanson are tied - so against the Hanson owner, no such advantage even exsists. There are several other that are within a handful of points. And that's kind of the point. Gates in his prime was significantly above every other TE...consistantly. Not for a 4 week stretch, and not ahead of most - ahead of all...by a lot.

I hear you loud and clear, and agree with most everything you said. But I'm simply saying that a 2.5 point advantage above league average or even replacement level players is significant, and at most positions (QB notwithstanding), all you can really hope for. There are the outliers that have been mentioned like Gronk and Graham last season, Vick in 2010, Jared Allen for most of the last decade, J.J. Watt so far this season, but they are rare.

I agree.In that kicker example, these two are running about a point and a half better than the average per game thus far.

It's not the point-and-a-half that I'm interested in so much as it is the 14.5% (and the consistency). If my starter can consistently be 14.5% higher than the average starter at a position, I'm happy.

Is it the most important position? Probably not. Same league:

Starting QB average = 24.7

Leading QB average = 28.75

Advantage = 4.05 ppg (16.4% above average)

50th Percentile Starting QB (QB5) average = 24.25 (-0.45 ppg, 1.8% below ave.)

Starting RB average = 13.6

Leading RB average = 18

Advantage = 4.4 ppg (32.4% above ave.)

RB 10 ave. = 13.5 ppg (-0.1 ppg, 0.7% below ave.)

Starting WR average = 11

Leading WR average = 16.5

Advantage = 5.5 ppg (50% above ave.)

WR 15 ave. = 10.75 (-0.25 ppg, 2.2% below ave.)

Starting TE average = 9.4

Leading TE average = 11

Advantage = 1.6 ppg (17% above ave.)

TE 5 ave. = 10 (+0.6 ppg, 6.4% above ave.)

Starting PK average = 11.575

Leading PK average = 13.25

Advantage = 1.675 ppg (14.5% above ave.)

PK 5 ave. = 9 (-2.575 ppg, 22.2% below ave.)

Based on these numbers (and excluding consistency and bye weeks from the discussion), looks like it's most important to get an elite WR and RB than it is to get an elite QB, TE, or PK, but assuming you get your share of good players, it's almost as important to get an above median starter at PK.

I concede that 4 games are statistically pretty useless, this was more or less just an exercise in playing with spreadsheets. But this is the type of thing that VBD attempts to simplify. Also note that, as we drop below the VBD baseline, the method kind of breaks down. IMO, that's where consistency becomes especially important, and I would personally usually shift to a mix of consistently solid players and potential breakout players.

Even before that, though, if I have players with similar X-values in my sights, consistency plays as much a role in decision-making as recent trends. And in that, I am definitely guilty of only looking back to the more recent history (even more recent than the last full year - I usually look at the last 6 games or so of the regular season).

 

[DiStefano]

I've found that when I outscore my opponent, I win more than 96.77% of the time.

 

[thatguy]

I've found that when I outscore my opponent, I win more than 96.77% of the time.

I think you forgot to carry the 2 when you plugged the x and y variables into the z-score formula. This in turn threw off the max-win algorithm on the internet machine, thus producing an irrational number in the denominator which confused the s-predict program just enough to make your prediction slightly high. By my calculations, it's closer to 95.43%. Still good, but meaningful nonetheless.

 

[ratbast]

This is scarcity/tiering really everyone uses it.

 

[thatguy]

WALDMAN...CRANK... I've said too much.

Can someone explain this "CRANK" to me. I've never heard of it but the discussion of it in this thread has me interested. Or, if easier, perhaps provide a link to a site/webpage that explains it. My curiosity is piqued...

 

[sporthenry]

WALDMAN...CRANK... I've said too much.

Can someone explain this "CRANK" to me. I've never heard of it but the discussion of it in this thread has me interested. Or, if easier, perhaps provide a link to a site/webpage that explains it. My curiosity is piqued...

Consistency RANKRanks players based on how many times they reach their baseline.

 

[bigdaddydave]

Many of them were claiming that in order to win or be successful at fantasy football you need to focus on beating your opponent by position.For an example, your WR1 needs to score more than their WR1 or QB vs QB.I see fantasy football as drafting players that have the opportunity (no matter what position) to put up a ton of points. In my opinion you beat other players by having your guys "pop" off.

What's the difference?

Exactly, what makes you think they are mutually exclusive?

Doesn't look like OP will be back to address this.

Sorry, I've been really busy and haven't had time to reply. I will admit that I am not familiar with value based drafting. I guess what I got from listening to the experts was that you take the player that falls in your draft that is supposed to have "value" As opposed to when I draft, I look for the most explosive player that I can find that will get touches/ thrown the ball. Maybe I'm just confused but I guess I just draft based on perceived skill and talent.

 

[thatguy]

Many of them were claiming that in order to win or be successful at fantasy football you need to focus on beating your opponent by position.For an example, your WR1 needs to score more than their WR1 or QB vs QB.I see fantasy football as drafting players that have the opportunity (no matter what position) to put up a ton of points. In my opinion you beat other players by having your guys "pop" off.

What's the difference?

Exactly, what makes you think they are mutually exclusive?

Doesn't look like OP will be back to address this.

Sorry, I've been really busy and haven't had time to reply. I will admit that I am not familiar with value based drafting. I guess what I got from listening to the experts was that you take the player that falls in your draft that is supposed to have "value" As opposed to when I draft, I look for the most explosive player that I can find that will get touches/ thrown the ball. Maybe I'm just confused but I guess I just draft based on perceived skill and talent.

The crux of VBD is quite simple. You pick the player, regardless of position, who, based on your projections, will outscore the next best remaining player at his position by more points than any other remaining player will outscore the next best at his respective position. So, you are picking purely based on the most value added, regardless of position. Generally, drafters will use it to fill their starting lineup, but once that has been done, it can be abandoned, at least to some degree in favor of picking high upside players/backups/handcuffs etc.