Quick Question for Staff (1 Viewer)

[Hear-the-Footsteps]

Just a quick question for the staff regarding rankings.

Just need help understanding something. How come the rankings don't matchup?

Meaning, within the redraft rankings - overall vs by position - they don't properly parallel each other.

For instance, in the Redraft - Overall: Delhomme is listed as the 12th QB overall.

But in the Redraft - by QB position: Delhomme is listed as the 7th QB overall.

Meanwhile, in the Redraft - Overall: Brees is listed as the 8th QB overall.

But in the Redraft - by QB position: Brees is listed as the 14th QB overall.

Shouldn't their be a direct correlation - thereby making them the same in both lists?

Thanks!

 

[Knowlt]

I've asked the same question before. The answer is, all the same staff members do not rank by position, some only rank overall. That is why there may be some discrepancies.

 

[Capt Hook]

I've asked the same question before. The answer is, all the same staff members do not rank by position, some only rank overall. That is why there may be some discrepancies.

If they don't rank by position as well as overall, then their overall rankings should not be used - could be posted separately but I agree there should be correlation between the lists

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

A few points about the rankings.

1. I use an overall list where I shuffle my Top 60-75 players and also have all my RB/WR/QB/TE on the same list so that the lists are consistent with each other.

2. The overall will likely never quite match the positional rankings due to a different mixture of valuations. It is because we all have our players in different ranks - for example I have 9 QBs in my Top 60, whereas Bloom has only 7.

After the first 5-6 QBs, the overall QBs and the individual QB lists will start to not match due to math.

We drop the high and low rank for a player, so if I have Big Ben at 57 overall (which I do) but no one else has him in their Top 60 (they do not), he gets dropped from the rankings.

The example you site about Delhomme is a bit more extreme, but that's bound to happen near the bottom of our overall lists.

Some staff have him in their Top 60 (3 of them), and many do not. As a result, he is listed as the 12th overall QB to go off the board on that list. That's inconsistent with the QB list not necessarily because of inaccuracy, but because some staff have 10+ QBs in their Top 60.

After the first 6 QBs it stops being self-consistent due to the above reasons.

 

[John Mamula]

I've asked the same question before. The answer is, all the same staff members do not rank by position, some only rank overall. That is why there may be some discrepancies.

How do you not rank by position but rank overall?

 

[Mystery Achiever]

I've asked the same question before.  The answer is, all the same staff members do not rank by position, some only rank overall.  That is why there may be some discrepancies.

How do you not rank by position but rank overall?

if i'm understanding the responses correctly, the issue is that the universe of people ranking a given player may be different for the overall and "by position" rankings.

 

[Jason Wood]

It's a byproduct of how the overall rankings are computed...we each give our overall top 60. For me, that includes six QBs currently...so my 7th through 40th QBs theoretically get ranked the same in our system (say, for the sake of this conversation, 61st). Thus, if you start looking at positions overall that fall outside of the top 60 in a normalized distribution, they're not going to appear to add up. That's why, personally, I think it's better to use our positional rankings...check out the Top 200 for a more detailed overall perspective.

My $0.02

 

[John Mamula]

It's a byproduct of how the overall rankings are computed...we each give our overall top 60. For me, that includes six QBs currently...so my 7th through 40th QBs theoretically get ranked the same in our system (say, for the sake of this conversation, 61st). Thus, if you start looking at positions overall that fall outside of the top 60 in a normalized distribution, they're not going to appear to add up. That's why, personally, I think it's better to use our positional rankings...check out the Top 200 for a more detailed overall perspective.

My $0.02

Why don't you rank more people, which would solve this issue, or actually factor in the projected rank of the player who is out of the top 60.

 

[Jason Wood]

It's a byproduct of how the overall rankings are computed...we each give our overall top 60. For me, that includes six QBs currently...so my 7th through 40th QBs theoretically get ranked the same in our system (say, for the sake of this conversation, 61st). Thus, if you start looking at positions overall that fall outside of the top 60 in a normalized distribution, they're not going to appear to add up. That's why, personally, I think it's better to use our positional rankings...check out the Top 200 for a more detailed overall perspective.

My $0.02

Why don't you rank more people, which would solve this issue, or actually factor in the projected rank of the player who is out of the top 60.

Fair question...not sure I'm the guy with an answer, but I'll bring it up and see if there's a workaround.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

This is conjecture on my part, but IIRC the VBD / DD recommends drafting for positional need after 50-60 players go off the board.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

From the VBD app:

Maximize Draft Value by:

1. Use Overall list to maximize Top 50 players

2. Use 51-60 picks with caution

3. Use Positional Lists to fill in need (51-end of draft)

4. Draft a kicker after 6 to 8 have been taken.

5. Draft a defense after 6-8 have been taken

 

[John Mamula]

This is conjecture on my part, but IIRC the VBD / DD recommends drafting for positional need after 50-60 players go off the board.

Really? I tend to think there is still plenty of value opportunity that trumps positional need after the 5th round.I have never used the draft dominator so I have no idea if what you are saying is the case or not.

 

[John Mamula]

From the VBD app:

Maximize Draft Value by:

1. Use Overall list to maximize Top 50 players

2. Use 51-60 picks with caution

3. Use Positional Lists to fill in need (51-end of draft)

4. Draft a kicker after 6 to 8 have been taken.

5. Draft a defense after 6-8 have been taken

The VBD app basically only works for 5 rounds and then you are on your own?

I thought the VBD app used dynamic based drafting which should work throughout the entire draft based on an ADP mock by positional rank and adjusting on the fly to specific runs that deviate from the ADP mock?

Is it FBG's position that VBD does not apply to kickers and defenses? While I do not necessarily disagree with points 4 or 5, it seems that the principals of VBD still apply to PKs and DTs and there is a point in the draft where your #1 ranked player at each position would have enough value to take as the first player picked (if for example all players in the league used the DD and nobody was drafting either of those positions).

I guess it seems strange that for as much as the DD seems to quantify value for people to draft off of, after round 5 they are going after positional need when there is still a TON of VBD related decisions still to be made in the next 4 rounds or so.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

The Draft Dominator does Dynamic VBD (DVBD) throughout the draft.

I was just throwing my in as to why the rankings go to about 60.

I don't definitively have that answer, and I agree with Woodrow that it is a fair question.

 

[John Mamula]

The Draft Dominator does Dynamic VBD (DVBD) throughout the draft.

that's what my understanding was. so why doesn't it work after pick 60 (or am i reading this wrong)?not trying to be a pain, just curious on the reasoning here.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Again, I'm not the authoritative voice on this, but I'll give my opinion.

I believe that you can use the VBD spreadsheet as a guide to draft your first 50-60 players. After that the dynamics of your draft (who drafted what, needs, etc.) takes you away from a stagnant spreadsheet to something more dynamic - which is why the DD uses DVBD.

So - put another way - printing a cheatsheet such as VBD gives you only so much.

After 5-6 rounds or so, you should have a feel of what to draft on your own (such as everyone has a QB, I can let one slip a round even though he's good value here), etc.

 

[Jason Wood]

The key to the Draft Dominator is that it's DYNAMIC VBD...so bagger, what that means (as you suspected) is that it keeps optimizing your draft board with each and every pick, based on both your needs and the needs/drafting trends of the others in your league. And, as you know, you can tweak any of those parameters on the fly if you feel like layering in some of your own strategy.

What Jeff is referencing is BASIC VBD. If you're simply plugging projections into a VBD excel app and getting a draft list, we've always maintained that you should follow VBD for 50/60 picks and then transition toward focusing on your team needs and trends of your other owners, versus staying with static VBD. That's because static VBD fails to adjust for trends (unlike Dynamic VBD).

If you're using your own DVBD method OR the Dominator...disregard Jeff's comment

If you're printing a VBD cheat sheet, consider what Jeff's saying

 

[John Mamula]

that clarifies my confusion.

thanks woodrow.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

The key to the Draft Dominator is that it's DYNAMIC VBD...so bagger, what that means (as you suspected) is that it keeps optimizing your draft board with each and every pick, based on both your needs and the needs/drafting trends of the others in your league. And, as you know, you can tweak any of those parameters on the fly if you feel like layering in some of your own strategy.

What Jeff is referencing is BASIC VBD. If you're simply plugging projections into a VBD excel app and getting a draft list, we've always maintained that you should follow VBD for 50/60 picks and then transition toward focusing on your team needs and trends of your other owners, versus staying with static VBD. That's because static VBD fails to adjust for trends (unlike Dynamic VBD).

If you're using your own DVBD method OR the Dominator...disregard Jeff's comment

If you're printing a VBD cheat sheet, consider what Jeff's saying

Thanks Woodrow.

 

[ravnzfan]

Just a quick question for the staff regarding rankings.

Just need help understanding something. How come the rankings don't matchup?

Meaning, within the redraft rankings - overall vs by position - they don't properly parallel each other.

:H-t-F reconsiders "tough questions", after reading this thread:

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

From the VBD app:

Maximize Draft Value by:

1. Use Overall list to maximize Top 50 players

2. Use 51-60 picks with caution

3. Use Positional Lists to fill in need (51-end of draft)

4. Draft a kicker after 6 to 8 have been taken.

5. Draft a defense after 6-8 have been taken

The VBD app basically only works for 5 rounds and then you are on your own?

I thought the VBD app used dynamic based drafting which should work throughout the entire draft based on an ADP mock by positional rank and adjusting on the fly to specific runs that deviate from the ADP mock?

Is it FBG's position that VBD does not apply to kickers and defenses? While I do not necessarily disagree with points 4 or 5, it seems that the principals of VBD still apply to PKs and DTs and there is a point in the draft where your #1 ranked player at each position would have enough value to take as the first player picked (if for example all players in the league used the DD and nobody was drafting either of those positions).

I guess it seems strange that for as much as the DD seems to quantify value for people to draft off of, after round 5 they are going after positional need when there is still a TON of VBD related decisions still to be made in the next 4 rounds or so.

DD had me pick a kicker (1st) in a mock draft, I used it with.