FBG! Top 250 Issue? TE values off? (1 Viewer)

[Concept Coop]

Why is Vernon Davis, your #4 projected TE, less valuable than Pierre Thomas, your #30 projected RB? Why do you value a guy below baseline, more than a guy above it?

How is Tony Gonzales' value equal to WR2's providing half as much VBD?

Gronkowski is only as valuable as guys like Andrew Luck and Michael Bush?

Is there something off with the calculations, or do you expect TEs to drastically underperform their current VBD, from here on out (ETA: I guess this doesn't make sense - an entire position can't take equal hits to VBD. My bad.?)

 

[Concept Coop]

Bump. I am hoping someone sees this, hopefully before subscribers potentially use it to trade away TEs.

 

[Run It Up]

I disagree with that as well, but Davis still has Alex Smith throwing him the ball. Im sure it was overlooked, not much weight in the top 250 anyway - in my opinion at least.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Going back to previous weeks yields the same results for me too.

It depends a lot on starting roster positions, i.e. if can you start 3 or 4 RBs but only 1 or 2 TEs.

I think RB quality really thins out in the 15-20 range, so you are correct, it doesn't seem right.

 

[Concept Coop]

I disagree with that as well, but Davis still has Alex Smith throwing him the ball. Im sure it was overlooked, not much weight in the top 250 anyway - in my opinion at least.

The thing is, if you take their projected point, it doesn't add up. They project Davis to score more points overall, and to score more points over baseline, by a lot (Davis is well above, Thomas is below) it just doesn't add up.Another example: They project Graham to provide 41 VBD from here on out, but he is worth less than Jackson, who they project to score 7 VBD from here on out.I really just think there is an equation error somewhere.

 

[firstseason1988]

I know some like to see a quantitative value on a player. I just use my head, kinda like you are doing. But I do appreciate what FBG does and they need to get this corrected. I haven't looked at this myself, just taking OP's word that what he says is correct.

 

[northwoods]

I use the consensus ROS rankings from Fantasypros.com. Includes Footballguys and many others...

 

[LittlePhatty]

The thing is, if you take their projected point, it doesn't add up.

It's based more on the gap between TE4 and TE5, etc. and not just points scored.And RBs exhibit a huge dropoff in production down the list, while TEs are more evenly spaced.

The list still seems a bit off though.

 

[Concept Coop]

The thing is, if you take their projected point, it doesn't add up.

It's based more on the gap between TE4 and TE5, etc. and not just points scored.And RBs exhibit a huge dropoff in production down the list, while TEs are more evenly spaced.

The list still seems a bit off though.

It's way off - I did the VBD math, using their projections.

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

it's straight math. VDavis has a value of 11, PThomas has a value of 12. So, VDavis ranks below PThomas. No, I'm not saying this makes sense or that this is a good way to do anything. There was another thread within the past year that talked about this IIRC, the top 250 list doesn't work very well across positions. like you said, the fact that VDavis is the 4th highest valued TE according to the ranking should tell you he should not be traded for a RB ranked in the 30s unless it is not a mandatory TE league. It's a pretty big statement about the falloff from the top TE or two down to the next group as compared to the falloff at the RB position.

 

[RUSF18]

it's straight math. VDavis has a value of 11, PThomas has a value of 12. So, VDavis ranks below PThomas. No, I'm not saying this makes sense or that this is a good way to do anything. There was another thread within the past year that talked about this IIRC, the top 250 list doesn't work very well across positions. like you said, the fact that VDavis is the 4th highest valued TE according to the ranking should tell you he should not be traded for a RB ranked in the 30s unless it is not a mandatory TE league. It's a pretty big statement about the falloff from the top TE or two down to the next group as compared to the falloff at the RB position.

If this is the case, why the hell would they have an "all positions" chart where the positions are intermixed in value order?

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

it's straight math. VDavis has a value of 11, PThomas has a value of 12. So, VDavis ranks below PThomas. No, I'm not saying this makes sense or that this is a good way to do anything. There was another thread within the past year that talked about this IIRC, the top 250 list doesn't work very well across positions. like you said, the fact that VDavis is the 4th highest valued TE according to the ranking should tell you he should not be traded for a RB ranked in the 30s unless it is not a mandatory TE league. It's a pretty big statement about the falloff from the top TE or two down to the next group as compared to the falloff at the RB position.

If this is the case, why the hell would they have an "all positions" chart where the positions are intermixed in value order?

I don't know why FBGs do what they do, but it is next to impossible to quantify the value of players as compared to each other across positions in a way that works for everyone. The top 250 list is technically a draft list, as in this is how you should draft if you were drafting today for the rest of the year. Vernon Davis right now sits at pick #72 as the 4th Tight End, behind a RB30 and ahead of a WR28 (trying not to give away too much subscriber info just in case). If I buy into the projection being used, then the TE4 sitting after a RB30 and before WR28 is not that far fetched.If you apply that list to trades and player by player analysis to decide whether a trade is good enough or even to decide who I can drop off my bench as I have tried in the past, it just doesn't work.

 

[avina1]

I've looked over the Top 250 and while I get what they do math-wise, it just doesn't seem very helpful at all. In fact it gives people the wrong idea.

 

[firstseason1988]

Kids these days... don't get the essence of fantasy football.

Use your head, use the tools good or bad that these guys give you and use your head. Read between the lines, but make your decisions be your decisions, not what a computer screen tells you to think. It's what it is all about... that way you only have yourself to blame and take into account you are going to have good luck and bad luck... Do the things you can control and have fun with it... that's all.

 

[nyy45]

I like the rankings each week but am always confused by how TE is equated into these rankings. Maybe because it's so deep this year? I can tell you from personal experience, I have been trying to trade Vernon Davis or Jason Witten and I cant get anything for either of them. 14 team league. A lot of owners seem complacent to run with the Pitta's and Greg Olsen's of the world. It just doesn't make sense to me either but maybe the value rankings are spot on but I just don't get it..

 

[firstseason1988]

I like the rankings each week but am always confused by how TE is equated into these rankings. Maybe because it's so deep this year? I can tell you from personal experience, I have been trying to trade Vernon Davis or Jason Witten and I cant get anything for either of them. 14 team league. A lot of owners seem complacent to run with the Pitta's and Greg Olsen's of the world. It just doesn't make sense to me either but maybe the value rankings are spot on but I just don't get it..

Yeah, I got extra TEs in my dynatsy leagues, same thing...

 

[LittlePhatty]

it's straight math. VDavis has a value of 11, PThomas has a value of 12.

That's obvious, but the question is what type of calculations gave PThomas a 12 and VDavis a 11?Part of the answer is that positions are weighted differently so the number of RBs and TEs you can start each week factors in.Just to see what happened I changed my custom league scoring to 2RB, 2WR and 2TE (no flex). Vernon Davis moved up to just behind RB23 because every team would need to have two starting TEs. My normal setting was 2RB, 2WR, 1TE and 2Flex (RB/WR/TE), which accurately reflects my league.It seems that RBs are just weighted very heavily in their calculations. I'd say if you think the list is off, the easiest thing to do is to play around with the starting roster positions in your custom league settings until the list makes more sense to you (even if the league setting isn't accurate).

 

[Short Corner]

I disagree with that as well, but Davis still has Alex Smith throwing him the ball. Im sure it was overlooked, not much weight in the top 250 anyway - in my opinion at least.

The thing is, if you take their projected point, it doesn't add up. They project Davis to score more points overall, and to score more points over baseline, by a lot (Davis is well above, Thomas is below) it just doesn't add up.Another example: They project Graham to provide 41 VBD from here on out, but he is worth less than Jackson, who they project to score 7 VBD from here on out.I really just think there is an equation error somewhere.

This depends on what you are using as your VBD baseline.

 

[LittlePhatty]

There's also the possibility that the list is more accurate than we think.

In a WR/RB/TE Flex spot, most people are more likely to choose a WR or RB to start instead of a TE. I think there is still a perception that a low-quality running back is more likely to go off in a game as opposed to a lower-tier TE. Whether or not that is true, I don't know. For this year and last year I've been more likely to start a WR over a RB at flex.

 

[Concept Coop]

I disagree with that as well, but Davis still has Alex Smith throwing him the ball. Im sure it was overlooked, not much weight in the top 250 anyway - in my opinion at least.

The thing is, if you take their projected point, it doesn't add up. They project Davis to score more points overall, and to score more points over baseline, by a lot (Davis is well above, Thomas is below) it just doesn't add up.Another example: They project Graham to provide 41 VBD from here on out, but he is worth less than Jackson, who they project to score 7 VBD from here on out.I really just think there is an equation error somewhere.

This depends on what you are using as your VBD baseline.

The same VBD they use for displaying their stats.

 

[Concept Coop]

There's also the possibility that the list is more accurate than we think.In a WR/RB/TE Flex spot, most people are more likely to choose a WR or RB to start instead of a TE. I think there is still a perception that a low-quality running back is more likely to go off in a game as opposed to a lower-tier TE. Whether or not that is true, I don't know. For this year and last year I've been more likely to start a WR over a RB at flex.

They also include projections - using their own projections these are very wrong.

 

[Short Corner]

I disagree with that as well, but Davis still has Alex Smith throwing him the ball. Im sure it was overlooked, not much weight in the top 250 anyway - in my opinion at least.

The thing is, if you take their projected point, it doesn't add up. They project Davis to score more points overall, and to score more points over baseline, by a lot (Davis is well above, Thomas is below) it just doesn't add up.Another example: They project Graham to provide 41 VBD from here on out, but he is worth less than Jackson, who they project to score 7 VBD from here on out.I really just think there is an equation error somewhere.

This depends on what you are using as your VBD baseline.

The same VBD they use for displaying their stats.

So you don't know.

 

[Concept Coop]

So you don't know.

There is no scenario in which these make sense. Do the math yourself - change them to QRRRWWWT - still, Vernon Davis is much more valuable than Pierre Thomas. There is very clearly something off, and I assume it's just a minor error that they can fix.

 

[Doug Drinen]

I think it's just been a strange year for TEs. There is parity and depth at the position that we are not used to. Here are the fantasy points per game for the last few years:

Year TE1 TE10 TE20-----------------------------2012 11.2 7.1 5.22011 15.1 7.0 5.22010 13.8 6.4 4.72009 10.9 7.2 4.32008 10.4 5.7 3.9
The method hasn't changed. It's the same algorithm that had Jimmy Graham ranked #15 overall after week 1. I'm not saying it couldn't be improved, but I think it's possible that TE4=RB30 is something that wouldn't have seemed that strange in draft rooms for most of the last 20 years. Graham and Gronk reset our expectations over the last two years, but they seem to have come back to the pack, and the pack has gotten bigger.

 

[Concept Coop]

I think it's just been a strange year for TEs. There is parity and depth at the position that we are not used to. Here are the fantasy points per game for the last few years:

Year     TE1     TE10    TE20-----------------------------2012    11.2      7.1     5.22011    15.1      7.0     5.22010    13.8      6.4     4.72009    10.9      7.2     4.32008    10.4      5.7     3.9

The method hasn't changed. It's the same algorithm that had Jimmy Graham ranked #15 overall after week 1. I'm not saying it couldn't be improved, but I think it's possible that TE4=RB30 is something that wouldn't have seemed that strange in draft rooms for most of the last 20 years. Graham and Gronk reset our expectations over the last two years, but they seem to have come back to the pack, and the pack has gotten bigger.

Here is the thing, you can do the math, with their own projections, and it shows that the rankings don't match their projections. It matches for the other positions, but not TE. So it isn't a matter of the TEs coming back to the pack - they very clearly project Gonzo and Graham to put up big numbers - their ranking just don't display that.

 

[Short Corner]

So you don't know.

There is no scenario in which these make sense. Do the math yourself - change them to QRRRWWWT - still, Vernon Davis is much more valuable than Pierre Thomas. There is very clearly something off, and I assume it's just a minor error that they can fix.

Where you set your baseline makes all of the difference in the world. If you want me to do the math then send me your projections and your league history for the last 3 seasons. For my main league, TE10 is roughly equivalent to RB40, so given the parity at the position this season, TE4 = QB30 is not really a stretch. A lot of things to consider with VD as far as the changes in SF personnel and his non-fantasy skills as they pertain to the position...and Alex Smith.

 

[Concept Coop]

So you don't know.

There is no scenario in which these make sense. Do the math yourself - change them to QRRRWWWT - still, Vernon Davis is much more valuable than Pierre Thomas. There is very clearly something off, and I assume it's just a minor error that they can fix.

Where you set your baseline makes all of the difference in the world. If you want me to do the math then send me your projections and your league history for the last 3 seasons. For my main league, TE10 is roughly equivalent to RB40, so given the parity at the position this season, TE4 = QB30 is not really a stretch. A lot of things to consider with VD as far as the changes in SF personnel and his non-fantasy skills as they pertain to the position...and Alex Smith.

I did QRRRWWWT, and it still doesn't add up - Davis is more valuable than Thomas, and Graham is still more valuable than Jackson.And how many leagues start 3 RBs and 3 WRs.You do the math - I have. They give you the projections, good luck finding baselines that make them add up. There is nothing to consider about VD - we are using their projections. We are using the assumption that they are 100% accurate. Again, I am using THEIR projections.

 

[Concept Coop]

I don't use the top 200/250 going foward, and have no reason to trash them - they are fine, with one exeption.

I simply think they made a small calculation error and should fix it.

I don't really want to debate it anymore. The math is there. Compare TE X points to TE12; RBX points to RB24, and WR X to WR 36. Change those numbers if you'd like. But how many leagues do you have to start more than 2 RBs and 3 WRs? Certainly not enough to justify using those baselines without a disclaimer.

Hopefully they see this and tell me I'm an idiot, or get it fixed.

 

[BroadwayG]

I'd rather have Pierre.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Compare TE X points to TE12; RBX points to RB24, and WR X to WR 36. Change those numbers if you'd like. But how many leagues do you have to start more than 2 RBs and 3 WRs? Certainly not enough to justify using those baselines without a disclaimer.

Hopefully they see this and tell me I'm an idiot, or get it fixed.

Not an idiot. But keep in mind it's not straight "points minus baseline points" VBD. The lists are generated from a VBD process very similar to the one outlined here by Maurile Tremblay.

 

[Concept Coop]

Compare TE X points to TE12; RBX points to RB24, and WR X to WR 36. Change those numbers if you'd like. But how many leagues do you have to start more than 2 RBs and 3 WRs? Certainly not enough to justify using those baselines without a disclaimer.

Hopefully they see this and tell me I'm an idiot, or get it fixed.

Not an idiot. But keep in mind it's not straight "points minus baseline points" VBD. The lists are generated from a VBD process very similar to the one outlined here by Maurile Tremblay.

The article suggests minor changes to simply points - baseline, but not much, at all. Certainly not enough to justify the TE rankings here. Can anyone give an example of VBD baselines, or equation, that would make Pierre Thomas - who is BARELY startable as a flex, and BELOW baseline using any reasonable equation - is worth more than a guy who is top 4 at his position, score more than PT (more flex value) and is way above baseline, no matter what equation we use.

I understand that certain elements beyond simple VBD can come into play. But, again, these are very clearly off. Nobody in their right mind would trade Vernon for Pierre Thomas IF FBG's projections are accurate. Unless you think Pierre helps you win more (he doesn't using FBG's projections) why is he more valuable?

 

[Concept Coop]

3 User(s) are reading this topic

3 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Concept Coop,Saeniph,David Dodds

 

[Short Corner]

So you don't know.

There is no scenario in which these make sense. Do the math yourself - change them to QRRRWWWT - still, Vernon Davis is much more valuable than Pierre Thomas. There is very clearly something off, and I assume it's just a minor error that they can fix.

Where you set your baseline makes all of the difference in the world. If you want me to do the math then send me your projections and your league history for the last 3 seasons. For my main league, TE10 is roughly equivalent to RB40, so given the parity at the position this season, TE4 = QB30 is not really a stretch. A lot of things to consider with VD as far as the changes in SF personnel and his non-fantasy skills as they pertain to the position...and Alex Smith.

I did QRRRWWWT, and it still doesn't add up - Davis is more valuable than Thomas, and Graham is still more valuable than Jackson.And how many leagues start 3 RBs and 3 WRs.You do the math - I have. They give you the projections, good luck finding baselines that make them add up. There is nothing to consider about VD - we are using their projections. We are using the assumption that they are 100% accurate. Again, I am using THEIR projections.

I haven't seen any math in your argument. It looks to me like you are just changing the settings, taking what they spit out, and regurgitating it here. Until you have some projections and a VBD baseline, you don't have an argument. If you want to blindly use their projections that is fine, ut they are useless if you don't have a sound baseline VBD.

 

[Concept Coop]

I haven't seen any math in your argument. It looks to me like you are just changing the settings, taking what they spit out, and regurgitating it here. Until you have some projections and a VBD baseline, you don't have an argument. If you want to blindly use their projections that is fine, ut they are useless if you don't have a sound baseline VBD.

I very clearly spelled out my baselines. Here:QB12RB24WR36TE12They have the projections on their top 200 moving forward - you can look at them yourself. How about this: ANYONE give me a set of baselines that says Thomas is more valuable than Davis. Instead of attacking me - you show me your math.

 

[Short Corner]

I haven't seen any math in your argument. It looks to me like you are just changing the settings, taking what they spit out, and regurgitating it here. Until you have some projections and a VBD baseline, you don't have an argument. If you want to blindly use their projections that is fine, ut they are useless if you don't have a sound baseline VBD.

I very clearly spelled out my baselines. Here:QB12RB24WR36TE12They have the projections on their top 200 moving forward - you can look at them yourself. How about this: ANYONE give me a set of baselines that says Thomas is more valuable than Davis. Instead of attacking me - you show me your math.

Your problem is you are using flawed baselines.

 

[Concept Coop]

Your problem is you are using flawed baselines.

There is no perfect baseline, but please, enlighten me.Give me ANY baseline that says Thomas is more valuable than Davis.ETA: And how can you call a baseline flawed without lineup specifics?

 

[Short Corner]

Your problem is you are using flawed baselines.

There is no perfect baseline, but please, enlighten me.Give me ANY baseline that says Thomas is more valuable than Davis.

True about no perfect baseline, but worst starter is pretty bad. I play one redraft league and adjust it from year to year. 12 teams start Q/R/R/W/W/W/T. My baselines are QB15/RB40/WR43/TE10. Not sure where that puts VD in relation to Pierre in terms of FBG projections but surely it is closer that what numbers you were using.

 

[Concept Coop]

Your problem is you are using flawed baselines.

There is no perfect baseline, but please, enlighten me.Give me ANY baseline that says Thomas is more valuable than Davis.

True about no perfect baseline, but worst starter is pretty bad. I play one redraft league and adjust it from year to year. 12 teams start Q/R/R/W/W/W/T. My baselines are QB15/RB40/WR43/TE10. Not sure where that puts VD in relation to Pierre in terms of FBG projections but surely it is closer that what numbers you were using.

I don't like - or at least understand the logic behind - these baselines.Help me understand why I should compare a RB to a baseline that isn't starable, even as a flex. You only need to start 2 RB in your league, no flexes, yet Mark Ingram is the baseline, scoring 4.7 points a game.And why is Regie Bush worth more than Aaron Rodgers? Using FBG's projections, and your baselines, he is...in a start 2, standard, no flex league? No thanks. Give me Aaron Rodgers, please.

 

[Short Corner]

Your problem is you are using flawed baselines.

There is no perfect baseline, but please, enlighten me.Give me ANY baseline that says Thomas is more valuable than Davis.

True about no perfect baseline, but worst starter is pretty bad. I play one redraft league and adjust it from year to year. 12 teams start Q/R/R/W/W/W/T. My baselines are QB15/RB40/WR43/TE10. Not sure where that puts VD in relation to Pierre in terms of FBG projections but surely it is closer that what numbers you were using.

I don't like - or at least understand the logic behind - these baselines.Help me understand why I should compare a RB to a baseline that isn't starable, even as a flex. You only need to start 2 RB in your league, no flexes, yet Mark Ingram is the baseline, scoring 4.7 points a game.

Well position scarcity and they are more likely to get injured for one. Do you really think the 12th best TE is equal in value to the 24th best RB?

 

[Concept Coop]

Well position scarcity and they are more likely to get injured for one. Do you really think the 12th best TE is equal in value to the 24th best RB?

Of course not. But you are severly reducing the value of top end players like Graham, Gronk, Rodgers, RG3, Brees, simply to account for the difference bewteen a baseline RB and a baseline QB.Regardless of QB12's value in relation to RB24's - there is no reason to have a baseline that suggests QB1 or TE1, is equal to RB15, in a start 2, no flex league. That is a lot worse than the least performing starter baseline.

 

[Short Corner]

Well position scarcity and they are more likely to get injured for one. Do you really think the 12th best TE is equal in value to the 24th best RB?

Of course not. But you are severly reducing the value of top end players like Graham, Gronk, Rodgers, RG3, Brees, simply to account for the difference bewteen a baseline RB and a baseline QB.Regardless of QB12's value in relation to RB24's - there is no reason to have a baseline that suggests QB1 or TE1, is equal to RB15, in a start 2, no flex league. That is a lot worse than the least performing starter baseline.

I had QB1 slotted at 1.04-1.05 and TE1 slotted at 1.12-2.01 this year. TE1 was valued around RB8 and QB1 was above RB4.

 

[Concept Coop]

I had QB1 slotted at 1.04-1.05 and TE1 slotted at 1.12-2.01 this year. TE1 was valued around RB8 and QB1 was above RB4.

I think that was a pretty standard ranking for the top TE/QB this year. It doesn't seem to match up with your baseline though. But, without seeing your projections, I can's say that for sure.

 

[glock]

Top 250 mini hijack:

QB- Vick to outscore Brady ROS? Srsly?

As a matter of fact- Newton and Peyton will supposedly do so as well, yet are ranked behind Brady. Eli has the least points ROS of them all, yet is listed atop all but Brady.

 

[glock]

Bumpski

Someone care to offer their take on this??

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Top 250 mini hijack:QB- Vick to outscore Brady ROS? Srsly?As a matter of fact- Newton and Peyton will supposedly do so as well, yet are ranked behind Brady. Eli has the least points ROS of them all, yet is listed atop all but Brady.

I think you're missing something very important here.

 

[cdubz]

BumpskiSomeone care to offer their take on this??

When do these players have bye weeks? You may want to look at more than just 1 column in that tool.

 

[glock]

BumpskiSomeone care to offer their take on this??

When do these players have bye weeks? You may want to look at more than just 1 column in that tool.

Did that. Brady and Vick are still way to close ROS IMHO. Just few points separate them after this week.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

BumpskiSomeone care to offer their take on this??

When do these players have bye weeks? You may want to look at more than just 1 column in that tool.

Did that. Brady and Vick are still way to close ROS IMHO. Just few points separate them after this week.

I think you're missing something very important here.

 

[Short Corner]

I had QB1 slotted at 1.04-1.05 and TE1 slotted at 1.12-2.01 this year. TE1 was valued around RB8 and QB1 was above RB4.

I think that was a pretty standard ranking for the top TE/QB this year. It doesn't seem to match up with your baseline though. But, without seeing your projections, I can's say that for sure.

You're right, I'm lying.

 

[Concept Coop]

I had QB1 slotted at 1.04-1.05 and TE1 slotted at 1.12-2.01 this year. TE1 was valued around RB8 and QB1 was above RB4.

I think that was a pretty standard ranking for the top TE/QB this year. It doesn't seem to match up with your baseline though. But, without seeing your projections, I can's say that for sure.

You're right, I'm lying.

My apologies if that is how my statement came off - I didn't intend to question your honestly.I am simply pointing out that your baseline is more RB heavy, TE light, than most - yet your rankings, at least at the top, seem to be pretty standard.Again, my apologies. I enjoyed looking at your baselines - gave me something to ponder, which is always a good thing.