Peyton "M" as in Mistake (1 Viewer)

[Peyton Marino]

There are some things to be learned by reading his book. Quite a few with regards to legitimate reasons for tweaking the VBD baselines for various reasons. That's what I enjoyed the most about the book because they made sense and a lot of it are things that most of us will discount with our gut but it helps quantify those things. Rob's got some great ideas but I would suggest him allowing someone else to handle his PR the next time around. You definitely don't want to come off as cocky or too headstrong among a crowd of people who would be most likely interested in the book by consciously or subconsciously demeaning their own respective accomplishments. Honestly, I think Rob means well, knows quite a bit about FF, but just has a hard time communicating those ideas effectively and humbly while promoting the book.

At the same time, it sounds like a lot of the bashing against him really isn't warranted and almost comes off as sour grapes sounding. Don't mock until you give his book a read. It's a quick read. If your problem is with his posts, I don't blame you to a certain extent but he's trying to promote his lifeblood. There's a slight sense of desperation but again, it is very enjoyable information that reads fairly well.

Just my two ####### cents. I'm on the fence but I've actually taken the time to read the book before I bash. Good job Rob. It takes big balls to take ideas in this context and put them into a finished, published product.

I don't discount that his book is a good read. Furthermore, I'm not trying to bash him. Frankly, he's funny.

 

[Jason Wood]

After doing some lengthy VBD analysis and studies, and I'll say it here: Peyton Manning will disappoint all those who take him in the first round. And, by golly, there are millions out there it seems who have him chalked for the first round.

Here's my backup:

Manning will in no way put up the same numbers as he did last year. Dream seasons like that just don't happen two years in a row. When Dan Marino broke the TD record in ’84 with 48 TDs he followed that up with only 30 TDs the next season. Furthermore, I've noticed Manning going in the first round by many experts and fantasy footballers in mock drafts; I believe this to be a mistake. Manning will be a first round bust and not because of bad play. It'll be because of not-as-good-play as 2004 and, more pertinent, Manning’s relative value is not high enough. Opponents will gain too much ground on whoever takes Manning in the first round by taking another decent QB like Aaron Brooks or Brett Favre in the middle rounds. The best value in the first round will come from the RB and WR positions, as always.

-z-

Where have I seen that before?http://www.footballguys.com/05spotlight-MannPe00.php

 

[B-Deep]

Where have I seen that before?

http://www.footballguys.com/05spotlight-MannPe00.php

you should write a book!

 

[jcjets]

If you apply your Manning theory about repeating to yourself, your due for a losing season.Have you ever thought of that.Try this out. Do your projections, then enter a mock draft. After round 5 add up all the points you would get if your projections are accurate. Take Manning in round 1 of one of them. You may surprise yourself as to which team scores more points.QB-RB-RB-WR-WRRB-RB-WR-WR-QBRB-WR-RB-WR-QBAdd other scenarios if you likeNote: The WR picked in round 4, can be eliminated as it should be the same player in each draft.I choose 5 rounds as thats 5 starters. Sure you may draft 3 RBs by round 5, but most likely your league will only allow you to start 2.

 

[DeepOut]

As usual it seems, I'm bucking the crowd on Manning's overall value based in material part on his "durability" coming from the protection he gets from his line. I say this because at least one reputable source of valuation(our own FBG's) this year rates the Indy line the 30th worst out of 32, with a tie for third worst grade( C+) specifically assigned to pass blocking. A the same time the same source rates Indy's strength of schedule for quarterbacks a tie for 2nd worst, beating out only Atlanta. One other discordant note though, oddly the Indy receiver's SOS is rated as one of highest. ( see FBGs home page for these references) So, I suppose if Manning's apparently poor line can give him some more time than FBGs thinks it will, and Manning can overcome the tough defenses he'll have to go against, owners of Indy's receivers can have pretty good confidence that they can beat the guys trying to cover them. Just some grist for the mill. Personally, for irrational reasons I can't articulate, I wouldn't take Manning anywhere in first, even if the above weren't so.

 

[Chaka]

Regression to the mean, yes indeed.

Brilliant! I have been telling people this for a month and nobody gets it. Of course, not many people take statistics either and of those who do, not many pass it.

This is great. One quarter of freshman Introduction to basic statistics 101 at "Middle-of-Nowhere-Directional-School-Community-College". Watch out boys we's gots an educated shark come in from the kiddie pool.

 

[Z-Men]

Z, just be balanced on your approach and let those who have read your book do the word-of-mouth PR for you.

I appreciate the suggestions and comments guys. I will admit in retrospect I seem arrogant and cocky on the boards, which is totally not me in person, but that's the way it goes on message boards (and email). It's tough to portray a proper personality when there are no visual or verbal cues. Not to play psychologist, but people read things with a voice of their own, and I have no control over what that voice is.I agree I should point out more of my mistakes because I've made many of them. Also, for what it's worth, I do admit that I've been lucky in the WCOFF. Luck always plays a part and I've been fortunate.

Bottom line, I'm confident in my ways, enjoy exposing many of my ideas, and so I'm not afraid to be blunt or write things exactly as I see them. That will get me in trouble with many but so be it. I'm not afraid to throw myself out there in these shark infested waters -- and these waters are the toughest on the net.

Sure, maybe I'm over-promoting the book a bit, but after 16 months of sitting in a shoe box writing and editing the damn thing I wouldn't forgive myself if I didn't try my best to sell it, even if that means trying too hard.

I have a lot to learn and I'm humbled each day on these boards. One thing I did recently learn (from a few "high up folk") is that the higher someone gets the more and LOLs they'll receive, so if you're getting that then take it as a strange-but-sincere sign of respect. -z-

 

[jurb26]

I wouldn't worry about it Z-men. In case you haven't noticed by now, this board is filled with Sheppard’s, not sheep. There is always going to be a power struggle and heated debates. People have strong opinions and normally have spent a lot of time and work forming them around here. These opinions collide and well... you have seen the results. Everyone here can come off as arrogant in a way because they are confident in their research. You will get used to it. Tempers flare routinely, but at the end of the day we all respect each other because you know the person you so adamantly disagree with has spent just as much time and work forming a solid opinion and argument as you, maybe more. On top of that, everyone wants to be the best and be right. It's why we are all here at this message board in the 1st place, often times in the dead heat of summer, to gain yet another competitive advantage. Those same desires to compete trickle down to the board itself at times. You have seemed to create a target on yourself not just by posting, but by being who you are in the 1st place with your reputation (which you are not afraid to let us know about). It's nice to see that you understand that you can learn from the people around here as I'm sure even those ragging you know that they can learn from yourself as well. Best of luck with your book, hope it does well.

 

[Z-Men]

One thing I did recently learn (from a few "high up folk") is that the higher someone gets the more and LOLs they'll receive, so if you're getting that then take it as a strange-but-sincere sign of respect. -z-

Well said Jurb on prior post.Oh yeah, let me beat others to the punch on the above quote with a

 

[DeepOut]

This ehread started out as a dixcussion about the sense of takung Manning in rhe first roind.When we stayed on ropic I thought that discussion was interesting. Unfortunately we've been hijacked into Zarnicki oblivion. Anyone feel like getting back on topic?

 

[Dhamon ShadowHawk]

This ehread started out as a dixcussion about the sense of takung Manning in rhe first roind.When we stayed on ropic I thought that discussion was interesting. Unfortunately we've been hijacked into Zarnicki oblivion.

Anyone feel like getting back on topic?

Is Manning the main point of this thread? I thought it was just a clever way to try to sell more copies.

 

[CalBear]

This ehread started out as a dixcussion about the sense of takung Manning in rhe first roind.When we stayed on ropic I thought that discussion was interesting. Unfortunately we've been hijacked into Zarnicki oblivion.

Anyone feel like getting back on topic?

Is Manning the main point of this thread? I thought it was just a clever way to try to sell more copies.

Not particularly clever.

 

[Double Agent]

Regression to the mean, yes indeed.

Brilliant! I have been telling people this for a month and nobody gets it. Of course, not many people take statistics either and of those who do, not many pass it.

This is great. One quarter of freshman Introduction to basic statistics 101 at "Middle-of-Nowhere-Directional-School-Community-College". Watch out boys we's gots an educated shark come in from the kiddie pool.

Wow, that's amazing! You can tell from just two lines of text where someone went to school? I didn't realize what name recognition MNDSCC carried. You'd think with the incredible powers of perception you've got you might notice the rest of the fairly interesting discussion going on in here. I realize flaunting my education may very well threaten those of you who couldn't get into MNDSCC but I figured it wouldn't hurt to mention one course. I guess I was wrong. Being so highly educated has apparently hindered my feel for the common man.Speaking of "the fairly interesting discussion going on in here", what Peyton did last year is a statistical anomaly. Chaka, that means it doesn't jive with his career stats. Darn, there I go showing my lack of feel for the common man again. Sorry.

 

[Chaka]

As usual it seems, I'm bucking the crowd on Manning's overall value based in material part on his "durability" coming from the protection he gets from his line.

I say this because at least one reputable source of valuation(our own FBG's) this year rates the Indy line the 30th worst out of 32, with a tie for third worst grade

( C+) specifically assigned to pass blocking. A the same time the same source rates Indy's strength of schedule for quarterbacks a tie for 2nd worst, beating out only Atlanta. One other discordant note though, oddly the Indy receiver's SOS is rated as one of highest. ( see FBGs home page for these references)

So, I suppose if Manning's apparently poor line can give him some more time than FBGs thinks it will, and Manning can overcome the tough defenses he'll have to go against, owners of Indy's receivers can have pretty good confidence that they can beat the guys trying to cover them.

Just some grist for the mill. Personally, for irrational reasons I can't articulate, I wouldn't take Manning anywhere in first, even if the above weren't so.

Funny thing is Pastabelli's Tip Sheet this week discusses the fact that Indy has entered each the past four seasons with a different starting guard tandem, 11 different starting guards total and 12 different starting guard combinations. Yet Manning is the least sacked quarterback in the league over that span. Dude sets, reads the defense and delivers the ball faster than anyone since Marino in his prime. I wouldn't be overly concerned about his line this year. (Note: Favre has also been remarkably unsackable during his career too).I also am not particularly worried about Manning's SOS either. SOS projections are very dynamic from one year to the next. Personally I think that SOS is more of a factor for in-season WDIS decisions rather than for between season player rankings. Even with difficult SOS rankings talent will prevail e.g. Rudi finished as the #12 RB in my league (through 16 weeks - #8 through 17 weeks) in 2004 despite far-and-away the most difficult SOS v the run I have ever seen.

 

[Z-Men]

[Personally I think that SOS is more of a factor for in-season WDIS decisions rather than for between season player rankings.

-z-

 

[Cixelsyd]

Frankly, I don't think anyone could ever justify taking a QB or a WR based on VBD.

I justify taking a WR via VBD, and I might be the only one who found a way. The WR position is very underappreciated by traditional VBD'ers. It's an error in the VBD systems people are using. Here's a clip from page 189 on the results of my RV Method:Note there’s a WR ranked in the top five overall. This probably seems crazy to most folks, considering I’ve witnessed every competing WCOFF manager draft a RB in the first six picks each season. However, the RV Method tells me to strongly look at the WR position in the middle of the first round. It says that a WR should be considered with the fifth pick of the draft assuming the top four RBs are already taken, and that’s exactly what I did in the 2002 WCOFF; I drafted Randy Moss with the fifth overall pick. I remember the managers smiling behind me when I passed up on RBs Priest Holmes, Edgerrin James, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Deuce McCallister, all taken by those same managers in the next four picks. Of course, I had the last laugh after reaching my league’s championship game and taking 2nd place overall among all 46 WCOFF leagues, a nice $22,000 payday.

-z-

That is so stupid... your example has nothing to do with your theory... just because you drafted a WR and took 2nd, didn't mean the WR was the correct choice... you don't decide you season on your first round pick. I took Fred Taylor at 1.12 last year.... and won it all... ohhhhh.... There's more then 1 player on a fantasy squad, and many weeks of trading and FA pickups to tune your roster.And then, not only that... Randy Moss wasn't the best WR that year anyway... Harrison had a boatload of receptions that year... Congrats on taking 2nd... had nothing to do with Moss at 5... it is probally what kept you from 1st.

 

[cobalt_27]

You can't really find any player who for six years has put up the kind of consistent, injury-free, extraordinary production that Manning has. Part of the selection process in any draft/auction has to factor in questions that ask "what can I expect?" and "what chance can I expect it?" With Manning, it's a lock for 4200 yards and 30 TDs. There's no risk at all--that's who he is. That's his baseline. Unlike the RB position, where there are three very high quality backs, the dropoff from Manning to everyone else is extraordinary. The only guy even close is Culpepper who isn't going to get any better without Moss. You selling McNabb? I ain't buying, particularly with the holdout headcase flanking him. You selling Bulger or Green? Kerry Collins? Please. The only one in the argument is Culpepper.And, yet, his Moss+:Moss- split from last year is a bit disturbing. In weeks 7-12 when Moss wasn't playing, C'pepp didn't produce near to the level when Moss was in there. In those weeks, he passed for only 235 yards/game and threw 1.7 TDs/game (only one of those games did he get more than 2 passing scores). Now, that still makes for a nice 3700 yard, 26-27 TD season. But, that's the best you can expect out of Culpepper this season and, arguably, it could be worse.With Manning, throw out his 49 TDs and 4500 yards and assume he takes a dive to his baseline...he still throws for 500 more yards and more TDs on a BAD year--a baseline year.But, last year did happen, and if anyone who got the chance to enjoy the Sunday Ticket can attest, it wasn't by accident. This, maybe, is where statistics, sampling, and making predictions off of trends of small sample sizes really can't measure up to what your eyes can tell you--that offense with him at the helm is just a machine. I think there's the possibility it could get even nastier than last year. Maybe not 49 TDs, but I don't see why 5000 yards is out of the question.And, as to our new football guru who's been prostituting himself on the board these days as some fantasy messiah and his claim that "Dream seasons like that just don't happen two years in a row"...what stupid hyperbole. Maybe he missed the early-80s and Marino's run. Or, maybe he's just missed the last 5-6 years with Manning who's effortlessly tossing around 4000-yd seasons. Maybe the bar has been set so high by Manning that 4000 yards is ho-hum. Indeed, others are doing it. But, not at a predictable rate.Since 2000, there have been 16 passers who have thrown for 4000 yards. Thirteen are one-year wonders. Trent Green and Brett Favre did it twice. But, Manning's name appears each and every one of those five seasons.Now, if by "Dream" season, this guy means record-breaking, then sure...Manning might disappoint. I happen to think there's not such a bad chance of the guy busting out another incredible statistical year that approximates last season. But, whatever...let's just bring him back to baseline: 4200/30. I'll take that in the first round because (a) it's a lock he gets there, (b) there's good reason to believe he exceeds his baseline, and © I can't see another guy who's guaranteed to eclipse those numbers at the QB position like Manning is. Frankly, I'd consider taking him #1 overall--and over Ladanian--because the dropoff isn't nearly as steep from LT to his next 3 or 4 peers (of course, if you're in a league where QBs are valued like dirt, this probably wouldn't be the best strategy). Whatever the case, the difference between Manning this year and everyone else at the QB position is going to be much wider than those at the top of any other position and their peers below them. But, hey, if you want to listen to the new Matthew Lesko of fantasy football, by all means, don't let any of this stop you.(And, please, I hope that one of my friends will put a cap in my skull if I EVER start quoting myself. "I'm a Professional Fantasy Football Player, and here on page 149 you'll find my eloquent thesis on the topic of How to Be the Biggest ####### in the Known History of Mankind.")

 

[NYG Endzone]

 

[cstu]

It says that a WR should be considered with the fifth pick of the draft assuming the top four RBs are already taken, and that’s exactly what I did in the 2002 WCOFF; I drafted Randy Moss with the fifth overall pick. I remember the managers smiling behind me when I passed up on RBs Priest Holmes, Edgerrin James, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Deuce McCallister, all taken by those same managers in the next four picks. Of course, I had the last laugh after reaching my league’s championship game and taking 2nd place overall among all 46 WCOFF leagues, a nice $22,000 payday.

-z-

Gee, looks like in hindsight, your choice was completely wrong. Randy Moss ended up as the #5 WR in 2002, while Priest Holmes scored 24 TDs, LT2 went for 2150 total yards and 15 TDs, and McAllister reeled off 1700 yards and 16 TDs. I'm sure Randy Moss' 1350 yards and 7 TDs were the key to your season. If you're going to try to come up with reasons why you're so great...you should at least find an example where one of your decisions was correct. I assume, since you did well, that you made at least one decent decision.

 

[DropKick]

Regression to the mean, yes indeed.

Brilliant! I have been telling people this for a month and nobody gets it. Of course, not many people take statistics either and of those who do, not many pass it.

This is great. One quarter of freshman Introduction to basic statistics 101 at "Middle-of-Nowhere-Directional-School-Community-College". Watch out boys we's gots an educated shark come in from the kiddie pool.

Wow, that's amazing! You can tell from just two lines of text where someone went to school? I didn't realize what name recognition MNDSCC carried. You'd think with the incredible powers of perception you've got you might notice the rest of the fairly interesting discussion going on in here. I realize flaunting my education may very well threaten those of you who couldn't get into MNDSCC but I figured it wouldn't hurt to mention one course. I guess I was wrong. Being so highly educated has apparently hindered my feel for the common man.Speaking of "the fairly interesting discussion going on in here", what Peyton did last year is a statistical anomaly. Chaka, that means it doesn't jive with his career stats. Darn, there I go showing my lack of feel for the common man again. Sorry.

Are the career stats completely relevant when you factor in changes to the game? Last year's enforcement of illegal contact rules opened up the game more. I suspect that Culpepper could have challenged Marino's mark as well with a healthy Randy Moss. I think the rule enforcement was a factor in Isaac Bruce's rebound as well as the (perceived?) emergence of TEs in the passing game.

 

[cobalt_27]

If you ask me, he is a better selection at the end of the first than a bottom first tier RB. Why? He doesn't really have any question marks, and every running back at that point does.

But my mantra has always been to aim for the stars.

I'm losing track of all these mantras.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Peter]

Regression to the mean, yes indeed.

Brilliant! I have been telling people this for a month and nobody gets it. Of course, not many people take statistics either and of those who do, not many pass it.

This is great. One quarter of freshman Introduction to basic statistics 101 at "Middle-of-Nowhere-Directional-School-Community-College". Watch out boys we's gots an educated shark come in from the kiddie pool.

Wow, that's amazing! You can tell from just two lines of text where someone went to school? I didn't realize what name recognition MNDSCC carried. You'd think with the incredible powers of perception you've got you might notice the rest of the fairly interesting discussion going on in here. I realize flaunting my education may very well threaten those of you who couldn't get into MNDSCC but I figured it wouldn't hurt to mention one course. I guess I was wrong. Being so highly educated has apparently hindered my feel for the common man.Speaking of "the fairly interesting discussion going on in here", what Peyton did last year is a statistical anomaly. Chaka, that means it doesn't jive with his career stats. Darn, there I go showing my lack of feel for the common man again. Sorry.

Are the career stats completely relevant when you factor in changes to the game? Last year's enforcement of illegal contact rules opened up the game more. I suspect that Culpepper could have challenged Marino's mark as well with a healthy Randy Moss. I think the rule enforcement was a factor in Isaac Bruce's rebound as well as the (perceived?) emergence of TEs in the passing game.

If you're comparing all the seasons shouldn't you compare all the main differences? If the illegal contact rules are still enforced like last year and Edge is as lousy with goal line carries Manning has an incredibly great shot to be good value for a first round pick. Peyton might not be as efficient this year as he was last but that doesn't mean he can't/won't have ANOTHER phenomenal year.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

You can't really find any player who for six years has put up the kind of consistent, injury-free, extraordinary production that Manning has. Part of the selection process in any draft/auction has to factor in questions that ask "what can I expect?" and "what chance can I expect it?" With Manning, it's a lock for 4200 yards and 30 TDs. There's no risk at all--that's who he is. That's his baseline.

Unlike the RB position, where there are three very high quality backs, the dropoff from Manning to everyone else is extraordinary. The only guy even close is Culpepper who isn't going to get any better without Moss. You selling McNabb? I ain't buying, particularly with the holdout headcase flanking him. You selling Bulger or Green? Kerry Collins? Please. The only one in the argument is Culpepper.

And, yet, his Moss+:Moss- split from last year is a bit disturbing. In weeks 7-12 when Moss wasn't playing, C'pepp didn't produce near to the level when Moss was in there. In those weeks, he passed for only 235 yards/game and threw 1.7 TDs/game (only one of those games did he get more than 2 passing scores). Now, that still makes for a nice 3700 yard, 26-27 TD season. But, that's the best you can expect out of Culpepper this season and, arguably, it could be worse.

With Manning, throw out his 49 TDs and 4500 yards and assume he takes a dive to his baseline...he still throws for 500 more yards and more TDs on a BAD year--a baseline year.

But, last year did happen, and if anyone who got the chance to enjoy the Sunday Ticket can attest, it wasn't by accident. This, maybe, is where statistics, sampling, and making predictions off of trends of small sample sizes really can't measure up to what your eyes can tell you--that offense with him at the helm is just a machine. I think there's the possibility it could get even nastier than last year. Maybe not 49 TDs, but I don't see why 5000 yards is out of the question.

And, as to our new football guru who's been prostituting himself on the board these days as some fantasy messiah and his claim that "Dream seasons like that just don't happen two years in a row"...what stupid hyperbole. Maybe he missed the early-80s and Marino's run. Or, maybe he's just missed the last 5-6 years with Manning who's effortlessly tossing around 4000-yd seasons. Maybe the bar has been set so high by Manning that 4000 yards is ho-hum. Indeed, others are doing it. But, not at a predictable rate.

Since 2000, there have been 16 passers who have thrown for 4000 yards. Thirteen are one-year wonders. Trent Green and Brett Favre did it twice. But, Manning's name appears each and every one of those five seasons.

Now, if by "Dream" season, this guy means record-breaking, then sure...Manning might disappoint. I happen to think there's not such a bad chance of the guy busting out another incredible statistical year that approximates last season. But, whatever...let's just bring him back to baseline: 4200/30. I'll take that in the first round because (a) it's a lock he gets there, (b) there's good reason to believe he exceeds his baseline, and © I can't see another guy who's guaranteed to eclipse those numbers at the QB position like Manning is.

Frankly, I'd consider taking him #1 overall--and over Ladanian--because the dropoff isn't nearly as steep from LT to his next 3 or 4 peers (of course, if you're in a league where QBs are valued like dirt, this probably wouldn't be the best strategy).

Whatever the case, the difference between Manning this year and everyone else at the QB position is going to be much wider than those at the top of any other position and their peers below them.

But, hey, if you want to listen to the new Matthew Lesko of fantasy football, by all means, don't let any of this stop you.

(And, please, I hope that one of my friends will put a cap in my skull if I EVER start quoting myself. "I'm a Professional Fantasy Football Player, and here on page 149 you'll find my eloquent thesis on the topic of How to Be the Biggest ####### in the Known History of Mankind.")

 

[Unlucky]

The best value in the first round will come from the RB and WR positions, as always.

This is where I have to disagree. I really need to store this info somewhere so I don't have to keep looking it up. Anyway, here is the OVERALL VBD ranking of the #1 QB over the past years: (from Drinen's www.pro-football-reference.com)2004: Culpepper - #1 Overall

2003: Culpepper - #25 Overall

2002: Culpepper - #13 Overall

2001: Warner - #7 Overall

2000: Culpepper - #3 Overall

1999: Warner - #3 Overall

1998: Young - #2

1997: Favre - #4

1996: Favre - #1

1995: Favre - #3

1994: Young - #2

1993: Young - #3

1992: Young - #5

As we can see, from 2001 to 2003, the top QBs lost a lot of their overall value. This, combined with Warner, Garcia, Culpepper, and a few other top QBs being overlooked in their breakout seasons, led to many savy FFers to declare that drafting a QB early was a bad move. In those seasons, it was. The question is, with Culpepper and Manning returning to the top overall last year, will we continue to see the top QB rank highly overall? I think that 2001 to 2003 was an abberation. It sure seems that way when looking at the data.

Still, we have to apply this to the players this year. Manning likely will see a drop in his numbers. I expect a big drop from Culpepper with the loss of Moss. So, perhaps there are enough question marks to avoid a QB in round 1. But to say, "The best value in the first round will come from the RB and WR positions, as always." may be a mistake.

Final note: Favre and Young were predictably the top QBs, which only adds to value of drafting a top QB early - you know what you are getting. With Manning, you know you are getting an elite player, which adds to his value.

 

[Z-Men]

Anyway, here is the OVERALL VBD ranking of the #1 QB over the past years: (from Drinen's www.pro-football-reference.com)

Interesting. I like Drinen a lot, probably no other better mathematician in the hobby. Although I have to question the VBD system he's using. Do you know what system he uses? -z-

 

[Z-Men]

I definetely have to question Drinen's VBD system if it keeps spitting out QBs as in the top 3. -z-

 

[CalBear]

I definetely have to question Drinen's VBD system if it keeps spitting out QBs as in the top 3. -z-

It's simple worst-starter baseline. It spits out QBs in the top 3 when they score enough points over the baseline. What is there to question?

 

[Z-Men]

It's simple worst-starter baseline.

Worst starter is a very lacking baseline system. That explains how QBs find their way too high in overall rankings. -z-

 

[CalBear]

It's simple worst-starter baseline.

Worst starter is a very lacking baseline system. That explains how QBs find their way too high in overall rankings. -z-

Here are overall rankings of the top two QBs in 2004 based on different baselines and FBG scoring:Average starter: Culpepper #1, Manning #3

Worst starter: Culpepper #1, Manning #2

Worst backup: Culpepper #1, Manning #2

I'm sure if you look at any of the Young or Favre years posted above that you'll see the same thing with any of these baselines; the top QB was worth a first-round pick, probably a high first-round pick, almost every year except for 2002-2003.

What is your magic baseline formula that proves this wrong?

 

[cstu]

I'm not sure why the relative health of QB's is always ignored when discussing taking them in the 1st round. If you can get a play that is almost guaranteed to be in the top 5 at his position then I don't think it's a bad play since you can get 2 very good RB's on 2nd/3rd round turn. Injuries happen quite often to RB's and if you take a RB like LT, Priest, or SA early than an injury to your guy would seriously wreck your team. A lot has to do with league size, roster size and tendencies of the people in your league, but I don't think would be making a mistake take Manning if you drafted well the rest of the way.

 

[Z-Men]

What is your magic baseline formula that proves this wrong?

Well, let's look at a sytem we're both familiar with: Bryant and Dodds 100 Pick method. That is head and shoulders abovoe worst starter method. (btw, don't even get me going on the average starter method because that's the worst system of all).I'd bet silver dollars to jelly donuts that the 100 Pick Method doesn't have QBs ranked so high. In fact I know because I tested it out (see below).

I have a system called the RV Method. It's an improved system on the 100 Pick Method and goes very deep (54 pages of material). It covers general baseline theory and delves into answering questions such as: Why isn't it good to draft a QB in the first round? Why shouldn't we rank Ks and D/STs very high? Why do many people feel they have to draft stricly RB/WR in first several rounds? And is this feeling correct?

A year ago I did a test comparing worst starter (WS) , average starter (AS), 100 Pick, and RV Method on the outcome of overall rankings. I found the WS resulted in the top QBbeing ranked 11th overall, AS 9th, 100 pick gave top QB a 15th overall ranking, and my RV method resulted in a 25th ranking. -z-

 

[Z-Men]

Important note: my test was conducted using WCOFF scoring and WCOFF starting lineup (1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 D/ST, 1 Flex). -z-

 

[cobalt_27]

What is your magic baseline formula that proves this wrong?

Well, let's look at a sytem we're both familiar with: Bryant and Dodds 100 Pick method. That is head and shoulders abovoe worst starter method. (btw, don't even get me going on the average starter method because that's the worst system of all).I'd bet silver dollars to jelly donuts that the 100 Pick Method doesn't have QBs ranked so high. In fact I know because I tested it out (see below).

I have a system called the RV Method. It's an improved system on the 100 Pick Method and goes very deep (54 pages of material). It covers general baseline theory and delves into answering questions such as: Why isn't it good to draft a QB in the first round? Why shouldn't we rank Ks and D/STs very high? Why do many people feel they have to draft stricly RB/WR in first several rounds? And is this feeling correct?

A year ago I did a test comparing worst starter (WS) , average starter (AS), 100 Pick, and RV Method on the outcome of overall rankings. I found the WS resulted in the top QBbeing ranked 11th overall, AS 9th, 100 pick gave top QB a 15th overall ranking, and my RV method resulted in a 25th ranking. -z-

Yeah, well, if you're going to the Jose Canseco card and saying, "It's in the book," then you're not really answering the question. Your method may produce different rankings than the WS and AS methods, but that doesn't say anything about the external validity of the method.Hey, I've got a method of my own. Put all everybody FBG member in alphabetical order, with As ranking hightest and Zs ranking last. I keep getting the same result:

You have the worst Q-rating on this board.

You're offering nothing here except this sad self-promotion routine that ranks more on the Unintentional Comedy Scale than it does add to any discussion. You blather all these mindless theories and then back it up with, "well, I discuss that on page 149 of my book, pick it up."

It's coming off really bad, brah.

 

[Z-Men]

I'll humor Cobalt with some "validity." Let's also forget about my book and just concentrate on the material I post. RV Method entails the following steps:

Step 1) Determine Initial set of R values (R value is the rank of the baselines. For instance, if the 11th ranked QB's projection is used as the baseline then the R value of the QB position = 11).

I recommend using the worst starter method in determining the initial set. WS method is a basic system and provides a good clean slate to start adjusting the R values.

Step 2) Adjust R values to account for flex position (if necessary)

Here I recommend a method to divvy the R value of flex position to other positions.

Step 3) Increase each position's R value if its starting fantasy players are projected to miss a lot of NFL games.

The reasoning is as follows:

When a fantasy starter misses an NFL game, a back-up player becomes necessary. The more games your starter misses, the more backup support you need. The more backup support you need, the more players you need to draft. The more players you need to draft, the higher the R value needs to be so you don’t dip into negative X values.

Step 4) Decrease the R value when a position offers sleepers

Sleepers should trigger a decrease in the R value in a position.

The reasoning is two-fold: First, by reducing a position’s R value we are also lowering the X values of the players in the position. By lowering the X values in a position, we make ourselves more likely to draft from other positions since they have higher X values, essentially stalling ourselves from drafting from a position when we lower its R value. This method of “stalling” is a great strategy because there is a lot of good value (sleepers) available to be had later on, and we tend to be rewarded by drafting more players later than earlier when sleepers are likely to be sitting around.

Secondly, as sleepers move up the rankings they force the pre-existing top-ranked players to slide down, consequently lowering the effective value of the top-ranked players. Reducing a position’s R value acts as a hedge against this downfall because it appropriately lowers the X values of those top-ranked players. The remaining material within this section will focus on how to optimally achieve this hedge.

. ... alright. Let me see the response to these before I go any further with the rest of the steps. For all I know you guys don't wanna hear it. -z-

 

[cstu]

Important note: my test was conducted using WCOFF scoring and WCOFF starting lineup (1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 D/ST, 1 Flex). -z-

There's little doubt that taking Manning in WCOFF is stupid, but you should have said that you were basing your argument on that in your original post.

 

[Z-Men]

There's little doubt that taking Manning in WCOFF is stupid, but you should have said that you were basing your argument on that in your original post.

U r right. League scoring and lineup is important. May I ask what kind of league you assumed I was referring to? (or anyone else for that matter). WCOFF seems to be a nice, general scoring system these days so I make most of my analysis based on this generalization. It'd be impossible to cover every kind of scoring rule and variable out there.But again, CSTU makes a great point in that I should of made this clear from the start. For isntance, my opinion changes on Manning, albeit sometimes only slightly, if you are talking about a league that allows up to two starting QBs, or if QB TD passes are more points than WCOFF scoring rules. -z-

 

[cobalt_27]

. ... alright. Let me see the response to these before I go any further with the rest of the steps. For all I know you guys don't wanna hear it. -z-

No, we can humor you for a bit. It's not as if we haven't been doing it for a while recently, anyway.So, basically, your novel system sets up baseline ratings of each of the positions. And, I'm sure there's a methodologically- and statistically-standardized way in which to select the R-value for each position. Or, do I just select the numbers randomly out of my ####?

Ok, then what? I'm with you, man. This'll be fun.

 

[Z-Men]

Yes, each step of the RV method entails a systematic way for adjusting R values, systems based on mathematical models and equations.

I need not bore you with the equations and all the analysis since that would take tons of pages. So, in just keeping things on target let me finish the remaining steps just for you Cobalt:

STEP 5) Increase the R value of shallow positions.

This step has us increasing the R value of certain positions that are deemed “shallow.” Shallow indicates that the position offers a very limited number of serviceable fantasy players. By “serviceable” I mean any player that consistently garners at least a few fantasy points each week. RB Antowain Smith in 2003 and TE Chad Lewis in 2004 are prime examples of players who were just inside the bubble of serviceability. They don’t have to be top point scorers or even average scorers, but they must avoid getting shut out in most weeks to be considered serviceable. Of course, any player that scores a lot of points is definitely serviceable.

Let’s take a look at the nature of a shallow position to understand why its R value should be increased.

Shallow positions are liable of being “sold out” on draft day. In other words, managers are at risk of not being able to draft enough serviceable players before it’s too late, presenting a unique now-or-never drafting situation. Managers who don’t properly account for this situation will end up not having enough serviceable players to fill a starting line up throughout the season – a predicament that could be detrimental to winning fantasy games due to a plethora of dreaded goose eggs. This potential disaster obviously puts a lot of pressure on a manager to draft from a position, which is exactly why the R value needs to be increased (Remember the pressure gauge analogy described in Step Three?). An increase in the R value will increase the X values of the players in the position, naturally pushing the position and its players upward in the overall rankings list. Thus, the sooner, faster, and more often that position will be drafted. This aggressive drafting approach is the exact remedy for a shallow position; it avoids the risk of not drafting enough serviceable players in time.

Step 6) Reduce the R value of deep positions.

This concept is the mirror image of Step Five because everything is essentially reversed. Here you want to reduce the R values of positions that are deep. “Deep” indicates that the position has more than enough serviceable players (surplus). The need to draft serviceable players early and often doesn’t exist in deep positions because they’ll be available later in the draft. In fact, one can even consider picking up serviceable players after the draft as needed in free agency. As we already know, without much pressure to draft from a position, its R value should be decreased.

The cool part about this step is that most of the work and analysis is already completed from the prior step. We already know which positions have a surplus of players and which ones don’t (Figure 44). It’s just a simple matter of translating the surplus levels into R value adjustments.

Basically, the more value a surplus offers, the more we should reduce a position’s R value. This concept relates to Step Four where we reduced the R value based on sleepers. The premise there was to reduce the R value in order to stall ourselves from drafting a position. This method of stalling is a great strategy if there is a lot of good value, whether it’s sleepers or serviceable players, waiting for us. ...

Step 7) Round R values to nearest whole numbers

Congratulations! You’ve finished tweaking, adjusting, and customizing the R values. The last step is to round the R values to the nearest whole number, allowing you to determine exactly who the baseline player is for each position. Round up if the fraction is 0.5 or greater, otherwise round down.

 

[cobalt_27]

Yes, each step of the RV method entails a systematic way for adjusting R values, systems based on mathematical models and equations.

I need not bore you with the equations and all the analysis since that would take tons of pages. So, in just keeping things on target let me finish the remaining steps just for you Cobalt:

STEP 5) Increase the R value of shallow positions.

This step has us increasing the R value of certain positions that are deemed “shallow.” Shallow indicates that the position offers a very limited number of serviceable fantasy players. By “serviceable” I mean any player that consistently garners at least a few fantasy points each week. RB Antowain Smith in 2003 and TE Chad Lewis in 2004 are prime examples of players who were just inside the bubble of serviceability. They don’t have to be top point scorers or even average scorers, but they must avoid getting shut out in most weeks to be considered serviceable. Of course, any player that scores a lot of points is definitely serviceable.

Let’s take a look at the nature of a shallow position to understand why its R value should be increased.

Shallow positions are liable of being “sold out” on draft day. In other words, managers are at risk of not being able to draft enough serviceable players before it’s too late, presenting a unique now-or-never drafting situation. Managers who don’t properly account for this situation will end up not having enough serviceable players to fill a starting line up throughout the season – a predicament that could be detrimental to winning fantasy games due to a plethora of dreaded goose eggs. This potential disaster obviously puts a lot of pressure on a manager to draft from a position, which is exactly why the R value needs to be increased (Remember the pressure gauge analogy described in Step Three?). An increase in the R value will increase the X values of the players in the position, naturally pushing the position and its players upward in the overall rankings list. Thus, the sooner, faster, and more often that position will be drafted. This aggressive drafting approach is the exact remedy for a shallow position; it avoids the risk of not drafting enough serviceable players in time.

Step 6) Reduce the R value of deep positions.

This concept is the mirror image of Step Five because everything is essentially reversed. Here you want to reduce the R values of positions that are deep. “Deep” indicates that the position has more than enough serviceable players (surplus). The need to draft serviceable players early and often doesn’t exist in deep positions because they’ll be available later in the draft. In fact, one can even consider picking up serviceable players after the draft as needed in free agency. As we already know, without much pressure to draft from a position, its R value should be decreased.

The cool part about this step is that most of the work and analysis is already completed from the prior step. We already know which positions have a surplus of players and which ones don’t (Figure 44). It’s just a simple matter of translating the surplus levels into R value adjustments.

Basically, the more value a surplus offers, the more we should reduce a position’s R value. This concept relates to Step Four where we reduced the R value based on sleepers. The premise there was to reduce the R value in order to stall ourselves from drafting a position. This method of stalling is a great strategy if there is a lot of good value, whether it’s sleepers or serviceable players, waiting for us. ...

Step 7) Round R values to nearest whole numbers

Congratulations! You’ve finished tweaking, adjusting, and customizing the R values. The last step is to round the R values to the nearest whole number, allowing you to determine exactly who the baseline player is for each position. Round up if the fraction is 0.5 or greater, otherwise round down.

So, apparently the idea of standard deviation and variance in statistics wasn't working, and we replaced it with this. Okay, I'm all for reinventing the wheel. Please continue.

 

[Z-Men]

let me offer my closing thoughts on the subject, then I'll sit back and take all the punches.

The RV Method is my bread and butter as far as static VBD systems go. Before this I used Bryant and Dodds' 100 Pick Method, which is great but has some minor problems I eventually found through the RV Method.

Here's a little anecdote that shows you:

1) How stupid I was in ranking players.

2) How I was able to overcome that inability using the RV Method.

In the summer of 2003 I was invited to compete in the Fantasy Football Pro Forecast magazine's experts' poll. Not sure if Footballguys was in this one, but I do know other industry standouts participated including MVP Sportsbook, Red Eye Sports, KFFL, FF Champs, CBSSPortsline, Sandlot Shrink, Fantasy Guru, Grandslam, DRaft Sharks, and FAntasy Insights. All in all there were 13 of us ranking players.

Cutting to the chase, here were my season ending standing in ranking the positions:

1) QB 12th place

2) WR 12th place

3) TE 10th place

I remind you, this is out of 13. Yes, horrendous. I'm not this bad every year Let's continue. ...

4) D/ST 13th place

5) K 5th place (wooohooooeey!)

Here's the kicker. We had to also do an overall rankings. I used the RV Method and finished with the 2nd best set of overall rankings. So, the RV method enabled me to turn the absolute worst set of player rankings into the 2nd best set of overall rankings. I never fully realized it's worth until that day.

btw, that was my worst season ever ranking players and I still won that year in a few leagues. Tis why I preach strategy is more important than ranking. -z-

 

[cobalt_27]

Over on another board, I found this to be quite interesting. From June 15, 2005

NFFC Forums

I've met Footballguys co-founders Joe Bryant and David Dodds at WCOFF in Vegas, very nice guys. They even hired me in 2003 to do some player rankings and articles for their cool site Footballguys.com. In fact, I mention them in the acknowledgement section of my new book Drafting To Win.

So what's do I get in return? Banishment from Footballguys.com!

Today they deleted three different posts on their Footballguys forum within three minutes, each post mentioning my new book. Their response to me was that I couldn't advertise or promote anything on their forum.

Fair enough. Understandable.

So then I took the politically correct approach and posted the following:

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

We all know there are tons of quality magazines out there, but has any1 out there purchased any FF books and, if so, what book did you buy, what did you think of it, did it help you, and was it worth it?

Thanks, -z-

Disclaimer: By no means is this an advertisement or promotion for any particular book. If people respond with an opinion on any book it is that of their experiences after already purchasing a book. This forum is not made to sell anything. It's sole purpose is to hear the opinions and feedback of people.

----------

DELETED WITHIN TWO MINUTES!!!

I don't get it. If elwayfan446 can post a question on the Footballguy forum about which FF high stakes tournament is best

see http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=159118

then it's fair that I should be able to post a question about which FF book people think is best. Right?

WRONG!

Personally, I believe Footballguys is afraid of what's in my book and that the theories and strategies contained inside threaten their own.

How do I come up with this thought process?

Well, about a month ago they requested a manuscript before deciding on whether or not they wanted to promote it. A day after receiving the manuscript they told me they didn't want to promote or advertise it in any way.

To Joe and David, I'm not going to be quiet on this issue. -z-

 

[cobalt_27]

let me offer my closing thoughts on the subject, then I'll sit back and take all the punches.

The RV Method is my bread and butter as far as static VBD systems go. Before this I used Bryant and Dodds' 100 Pick Method, which is great but has some minor problems I eventually found through the RV Method.

Here's a little anecdote that shows you:

1) How stupid I was in ranking players.

2) How I was able to overcome that inability using the RV Method.

In the summer of 2003 I was invited to compete in the Fantasy Football Pro Forecast magazine's experts' poll. Not sure if Footballguys was in this one, but I do know other industry standouts participated including MVP Sportsbook, Red Eye Sports, KFFL, FF Champs, CBSSPortsline, Sandlot Shrink, Fantasy Guru, Grandslam, DRaft Sharks, and FAntasy Insights. All in all there were 13 of us ranking players.

Cutting to the chase, here were my season ending standing in ranking the positions:

1) QB 12th place

2) WR 12th place

3) TE 10th place

I remind you, this is out of 13. Yes, horrendous. I'm not this bad every year Let's continue. ...

4) D/ST 13th place

5) K 5th place (wooohooooeey!)

Here's the kicker. We had to also do an overall rankings. I used the RV Method and finished with the 2nd best set of overall rankings. So, the RV method enabled me to turn the absolute worst set of player rankings into the 2nd best set of overall rankings. I never fully realized it's worth until that day.

btw, that was my worst season ever ranking players and I still won that year in a few leagues. Tis why I preach strategy is more important than ranking. -z-

In closing? Dude, you haven't even gotten started. All you've done here is describe a process of ranking POSITIONS. You haven't even begun to address how the spread in each of these positions relates to relative player value and whom to choose when.If this, in any way, represents the descriptive quality found in your book, then you've done a wonderful job ensuring that no one here on this board will waste their money on it. If they do, it's their own damn fault, and they get what they pay for.

Anyway, I've enjoyed your unfettered narcissism throughout. That you think the FBGs are afraid of what you have to say in your book...omg, I cannot begin to tell you how funny and absurd that is. I don't want to buy your book--I just want you to keep posting. Priceless stuff.

 

[cobalt_27]

That's a low blow. I've already apologized to them BIG TIME. -z-

Low blow? Are you kidding me? You said it. It's out in the public domain and your words, nothing else. Nothing low about it. All you can do is take ownership of it. If you're going to spend your time here pimping your book (and, let's face it, you've offered nothing here that resembles anything more than a sales pitch), it's probably in the best interests of all to know exactly where you stand on certain items. I imagine this audience that you've been selling to recently would like to know how you regard the curators of the site that facilitates this audience.

 

[radballs.]

For the future Z, standard FBG scoring is 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, and 1 Defense. No 1 ppr and no flex. All other scoring is the same as WCOFF. That is why Drinen's numbers have QBs so much higher than WCOFF scoring would. So, generalizing about Manning's value is very dependent on not only the scoring rules but starting lineup requirements.

 

[Z-Men]

For the future Z, standard FBG scoring is 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, and 1 Defense. No 1 ppr and no flex. All other scoring is the same as WCOFF. That is why Drinen's numbers have QBs so much higher than WCOFF scoring would. So, generalizing about Manning's value is very dependent on not only the scoring rules but starting lineup requirements.

Thanks! -z-

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Scoring system is clearly an important variable to include whenever you want to make a statement like "drafting Manning in the 1st round will be a mistake".FBG standard scoring doesn't include 1pt/rec like WCOFF does. Clearly, that can have a major impact on the relative values of players. RBs and WRs score more across the board in these leagues, but the pool of productive RBs is also made much deeper so the scarcity effects may not be as devastating.Whether a league awards 4pts or 6pts per passing TD is also hugely important in determining the value of Manning and other QBs.The addition of a flex spot also makes non-QBs more valuable as most leagues don't allow a QB to be used there.

 

[Z-Men]

 

[FightingWombat]

Over on another board, I found this to be quite interesting. From June 15, 2005

NFFC Forums

I've met Footballguys co-founders Joe Bryant and David Dodds at WCOFF in Vegas, very nice guys. They even hired me in 2003 to do some player rankings and articles for their cool site Footballguys.com. In fact, I mention them in the acknowledgement section of my new book Drafting To Win.

So what's do I get in return? Banishment from Footballguys.com!

Today they deleted three different posts on their Footballguys forum within three minutes, each post mentioning my new book. Their response to me was that I couldn't advertise or promote anything on their forum.

Fair enough. Understandable.

So then I took the politically correct approach and posted the following:

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

We all know there are tons of quality magazines out there, but has any1 out there purchased any FF books and, if so, what book did you buy, what did you think of it, did it help you, and was it worth it?

Thanks, -z-

Disclaimer: By no means is this an advertisement or promotion for any particular book. If people respond with an opinion on any book it is that of their experiences after already purchasing a book. This forum is not made to sell anything. It's sole purpose is to hear the opinions and feedback of people.

----------

DELETED WITHIN TWO MINUTES!!!

I don't get it. If elwayfan446 can post a question on the Footballguy forum about which FF high stakes tournament is best

see http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=159118

then it's fair that I should be able to post a question about which FF book people think is best. Right?

WRONG!

Personally, I believe Footballguys is afraid of what's in my book and that the theories and strategies contained inside threaten their own.

How do I come up with this thought process?

Well, about a month ago they requested a manuscript before deciding on whether or not they wanted to promote it. A day after receiving the manuscript they told me they didn't want to promote or advertise it in any way.

To Joe and David, I'm not going to be quiet on this issue. -z-

Funny, when I follow the link, most of the post you quote is gone. Edited right out. Minutes ago.

 

[cobalt_27]

Over on another board, I found this to be quite interesting. From June 15, 2005

NFFC Forums

I've met Footballguys co-founders Joe Bryant and David Dodds at WCOFF in Vegas, very nice guys. They even hired me in 2003 to do some player rankings and articles for their cool site Footballguys.com. In fact, I mention them in the acknowledgement section of my new book Drafting To Win.

So what's do I get in return? Banishment from Footballguys.com!

Today they deleted three different posts on their Footballguys forum within three minutes, each post mentioning my new book. Their response to me was that I couldn't advertise or promote anything on their forum.

Fair enough. Understandable.

So then I took the politically correct approach and posted the following:

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

We all know there are tons of quality magazines out there, but has any1 out there purchased any FF books and, if so, what book did you buy, what did you think of it, did it help you, and was it worth it?

Thanks, -z-

Disclaimer: By no means is this an advertisement or promotion for any particular book. If people respond with an opinion on any book it is that of their experiences after already purchasing a book. This forum is not made to sell anything. It's sole purpose is to hear the opinions and feedback of people.

----------

DELETED WITHIN TWO MINUTES!!!

I don't get it. If elwayfan446 can post a question on the Footballguy forum about which FF high stakes tournament is best

see http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=159118

then it's fair that I should be able to post a question about which FF book people think is best. Right?

WRONG!

Personally, I believe Footballguys is afraid of what's in my book and that the theories and strategies contained inside threaten their own.

How do I come up with this thought process?

Well, about a month ago they requested a manuscript before deciding on whether or not they wanted to promote it. A day after receiving the manuscript they told me they didn't want to promote or advertise it in any way.

To Joe and David, I'm not going to be quiet on this issue. -z-

Funny, when I follow the link, most of the post you quote is gone. Edited right out. Minutes ago.

No kidding?! That's really funny. I just checked it out, and you're right...he did delete it.I'm guessing it's not good to be trashing the founders of the website that's giving him a forum to promote his book. Oh well, at least we all know where he stands now.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

Can someone please provide a coherent explanation of the VBD baseline of using the 100th ranked player? Thanks. I understand the statistical rationale behind Worst Starter or Average Starter (admit, it ain't rocket science). As an aside, I always thought the each position should be treated seperately for baseline purposes. In other words, in a start 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 K, 1 D, 1 TE, No Flex system, RB1, RB 2, WR 1, WR2 and WR3 should have seperate baselines. When you draft your 1st RB compare his baseline to (for a 12 team league) to the 13th best RB and when you draft your 2nd RB compare his baseline to the 25th best RB (same with WRs -- your 3rd WR compares vs. WR #37, while your 1st WR compares vs WR #13). Using this baseline approach measeure your advantage vs. the matched slots of your opponents.Z-Man. I ordered your book for the heck of it. Don't like black boxes. Again please provide a simple one paragraph explanation on what your RV method measures. Thanks