Formulation of Dynasty Rankings (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Pasquino]

I was asked the following question(s) in another thread....

I start by ranking how many Fantasy Points that player will score in Year 1, then adjust for other factors related to Dynasty (age, situation, injury history, team, coaches, etc.).

To go back to the math analogy - as the # of years shrinks and approaches 1, the rankings should == redraft rankings.

So why not start from there and work towards Dynasty?

Rank Year 1, add factors for Years 2-4.

As Ruffrodys05 would say, "wa-la". (That's his best French for "Voila").

Perhaps this is another method that should be added to my question here http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=296123&hl= if it could be more clearly defined?It does seem to be another way of creating rankings than the win now, 3 year, 4 year and 5 year methods. Which also have different approaches. Some use projections others do not. Some use projections based off of averages of past performance and other based on a players age in a curve.

Your method does appear to use a projection at least for year one. Then you say "adjust for other factors related to Dynasty (age, situation, injury history, team, coaches, etc.)."

What kind of adjustment(s)?

Do you adjust the year one projection? Create a new projection for the following year? Or do you adjust by making year one projections for all players, then ranking all players before adjusting them for dynasty?

also, it's about how you start your rankings. i start by ranking guys based on talent and then move them up or down a bit on situations. i think this helps me avoid confusion, because when you're breaking down situations, you can talk yourself in circles. i've done that before, haven't you? but when you focus first and primarily on talent, i believe you become a clearer FF thinker, especially in dynasty. and i think that helps you win.

Maybe this is another way of ranking. Do you use projections when ranking players by talent? I am curious about how to rank players purely based on talent before moving them up or down based on situation. Not sure exactly how you do that.

I can see ranking rookies based purely on talent. They do not have any NFL stats to use as comparison or for a projection yet. And I know people rank rookies compared to veteran players without any statistical information to draw upon yet especialy before those rookies have a NFL team for some basis of a projection.

I rank rookies based on percieved talent before the NFL draft and for rookie players only I give much more empasis on this ranking than I give my considerations of thier situation once drafted. And I do keep that ranking in mind regardless of how those rookies perform in thier 1st year in the NFL. However once those players do have a year of performance in the NFL to draw upon I then will factor that performance into a 3 year projection for them. Or you could apply one of the other methods. A lot of differing factors go into a projection such as the 18 factors listed 1st by Driver that I added to. The pre-NFL draft ranking of talent is an important one and that can lead to a projection that does not have a lot of basis in terms of thier 1st year performance. However it still will have to fit into the team projection for me.

Not saying my method or any other is the best or better than other methods. Just curious if you can expand upon your method of ranking that uses talent as the primary basis?

I guess neither want to expand on the methodology they use.I at least have some understanding of how Jeff is creating his rankings. 4 year projection based off of year one. What weighting he uses or other factors I am still unsure of.

As far as Marc ranking based on "talent" I am much less clear how this is done. The only time I do that is when players are rookies before I have any data to draw upon.

Answers to follow.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Biabreakable has asked me this on several occasions, and The Audible crew (myself, Lammey and Bloom) agree that it is a good topic.

I may be reading into Bia's question, but I think he is looking for methods to quantify rankings.

I'll admit this - I don't quantify my rankings.

My ranking "system" is more qualitative than quantitative. To use an offbeat analogy, great cooks don't often measure out ingredients - they just seem to throw things together and it turns out fantastic. Truth is, they have been doing it for years and they just "know" or "feel" how to put it all together and don't need a cookbook. Another comparasion is that artists don't paint by numbers -they just paint.

Are my Dynasty Rankings a work of art? No. I don't think that would ever be a comparision made at all. Nor is it a great recipe. But I'm being asked about how I take many factors and mix them together and "whip up" my lists.

The truth is that I have a ton of exposure to football, and I've been watching / covering / analyzing this game for years. My perspective is honed to be - remarkably - my perspective. I rank guys as to who I would take in a new Dynasty League, using FBG scoring, in that approximate order. I may tweak them now and then, but for the most part these lists reflect my opinion. The basis of which are formulated by my feelings on talent (based on many factors and levels - college, previous NFL / football experience), opportunity, situation, coaches, depth charts, offensive scheme, age, contract status, supporting cast (offensive line, WR2 for a WR1, TEs vs. WRs, RBBC status, etc.), injury history, prior performances, and prospects for the future. I may have missed a few intangibles along the way, but you can see that much more goes into it for me than talent alone. The best football player in the world will be bad on a terrible team, but the most average player will be well above average on a great team.

As for a timeline and the boundary conditions:

Timeline is the next 4 seasons.

Teams - 12. Roster - FBG standard, with no PPR scoring. Start 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1K, 1D.

Roster size is a good question and does matter. I base it on a relatively standard concept that I've found in leagues over the years, and that's teams normally (should) have rosters sizes = 3x starters, minus 1 each for a K and D. That would mean 9 starters here, so start with 27 spots, and take 2 away for K and D - that leaves me with a roster size of 25.

Those of you who have tried out the Dynasty Draft Pick Calculator (see the signature) and the article know about the "Dynasty Factor". Most leagues have DF's between 3 and 4.

A 1/2/3/1/1/1 league with 25 roster spots and 12 teams has a DF of 3.744, so I'm in the ballpark.

As for a starting point, I'll project what a player will do next year and then start tweaking and adjusting for all the factors (most, if not all) for the 3 years afterward. I'll slide older guys down, younger guys up, guys on a new team in a better situation up, etc.

Do I / can I quantify that? No. It's subjective. But that's my methodology. I don't think you can quantify all those different variables down into one number, and even if you could it wouldn't apply across the board. Some players have more talent than good situation, others have better situations than talent. No need for examples, I'm sure you can think of plenty for both scenarios.

Hope that helps.

 

[Couch Potato]

Quit yapping and reply to my 5 day old trade offer in Hyper.

By the way, folks, a bit of education for you. From Wikipedia --

Pasquinade refers to an anonymous lampoon, whether in verse or in prose.

The word pasquinade originates from Pasquin (Italian Pasquino), the name ordinary Romans gave to a battered ancient statue dug up in the course of paving the Parione district and erected at the corner of Piazza di Pasquino and Palazzo Braschi, on the west side of Piazza Navona in 1501, for Saint Mark's Day, April 25. The marble torso was draped in a toga and epigrams in Latin were attached to it. The decorous event quickly got out of hand when it became the custom for those who wanted to criticize the Pope or individuals in his government—for a pasquinade is first and foremost a personal attack— to write satirical poems in broad Roman dialect (called "pasquinades" from the Italian "pasquinate") and attach them to this statue. Thus Pasquino became the first talking statue of Rome.

---------------------------------------------

So, pasquinade comes from Pasquino. Pasquinade means to lampoon. To lampoon means to parody, and a parody is a work that imitates another work in order to ridicule, ironically comment on, or poke some affectionate fun.

Couch Potato Conclusion -- a Pasquino set of rankings is a parody of real rankings. Remember what Otter said to Flounder in National Lampoon's Animal House after his brother's car got trashed? "Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You ####ed up - you trusted us!"

Who's gonna trust a Pasquino?

(Just playing with ya Jeff... now go accept my trade offer.)

 

[Couch Potato]

Wow, rejected in less than 10 minutes.

Was it something I said?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Wow, rejected in less than 10 minutes.Was it something I said?

Thought I declined it days ago. Just because I like the Eagles doesn't mean I want to collect them all.

 

[Couch Potato]

Wow, rejected in less than 10 minutes.Was it something I said?

Thought I declined it days ago. Just because I like the Eagles doesn't mean I want to collect them all.

I was counting on you wanting the whole set. And I know it's not true that you automatically bump all Eagles up 20 spots in your rankings. It's only 10.

 

[Biabreakable]

Okay so a one year projection for all players then ranked by FPS.

After that the one year ranking is adjusted looking at a 4 year window (no projection) moving players up and down.