STAFF: Are your dynasty rankings archaic? (1 Viewer)

[Concept Coop]

I have had a long series of conversations regarding the value of RBs in dynasty settings. Most seem to argue that running backs are less valuable than WRs, QBs, and even TEs, in general.

The arguments all revolve around the lifespan and consistency of today's running back. I have tried to explain that any variable that only applies to one position, only affects the value of those within the position. Meaning that the turnover, threat of RBBC, and so on, do not lessen the value of the RB position, in comparison to the other positions.

Seeing as how I can't seem to explain why, when using VORP, you use different baseline values for every factor. Meaning, a longevity baseline for RBs would be different than the longevity baseline for WRs. The consistency baseline for RBs would only apply to RBs, and the TEs would have their own. I.e. - 3 years of RB1 production is worth more than 10 years of QB8 production.

I have tried to explain that the trend of today's running backs only widens the gap between elite RB options and the rest; giving more VORP to the top RB options.

It seems I have failed. So, why do you rank the top RBs at the top of your rankings? Did you not realize that RBs don't last as long, get hurt more often, and repeat their success less often?

 

[gandalas]

 

[Go deep]

I have had a long series of conversations regarding the value of RBs in dynasty settings. Most seem to argue that running backs are less valuable than WRs, QBs, and even TEs, in general.

The arguments all revolve around the lifespan and consistency of today's running back. I have tried to explain that any variable that only applies to one position, only affects the value of those within the position. Meaning that the turnover, threat of RBBC, and so on, do not lessen the value of the RB position, in comparison to the other positions.

Seeing as how I can't seem to explain why, when using VORP, you use different baseline values for every factor. Meaning, a longevity baseline for RBs would be different than the longevity baseline for WRs. The consistency baseline for RBs would only apply to RBs, and the TEs would have their own. I.e. - 3 years of RB1 production is worth more than 10 years of QB8 production.

I have tried to explain that the trend of today's running backs only widens the gap between elite RB options and the rest; giving more VORP to the top RB options.

It seems I have failed. So, why do you rank the top RBs at the top of your rankings? Did you not realize that RBs don't last as long, get hurt more often, and repeat their success less often?

They did? There is a reason you are having a hard time convincing others of your point. It certainly didnt need another thread.

 

[squistion]

I have had a long series of conversations regarding the value of RBs in dynasty settings. Most seem to argue that running backs are less valuable than WRs, QBs, and even TEs, in general. The arguments all revolve around the lifespan and consistency of today's running back. I have tried to explain that any variable that only applies to one position, only affects the value of those within the position. Meaning that the turnover, threat of RBBC, and so on, do not lessen the value of the RB position, in comparison to the other positions. Seeing as how I can't seem to explain why, when using VORP, you use different baseline values for every factor. Meaning, a longevity baseline for RBs would be different than the longevity baseline for WRs. The consistency baseline for RBs would only apply to RBs, and the TEs would have their own. I.e. - 3 years of RB1 production is worth more than 10 years of QB8 production. I have tried to explain that the trend of today's running backs only widens the gap between elite RB options and the rest; giving more VORP to the top RB options. It seems I have failed. So, why do you rank the top RBs at the top of your rankings? Did you not realize that RBs don't last as long, get hurt more often, and repeat their success less often?

Not being presumptuous enough to speak for the staff, I will just offer my own opinion.Dynasty 101 - the only year you can win is the one you are currently competing in. The top RBs are more likely to give you the most fantasy points on a weekly basis versus any other position player - and this is likely to hold true for the near future. Over the next couple years, I figure that Chris Johnson and ADP will probably give me more points than Andre Johnson, Calvin or Fitzgerald. And while I may be short sighted or archaic in my views, I have turned a profit every year since 2005, which is better than most of the visonaries here that think that the top RBs are not that good of an investment.

 

[Concept Coop]

I have had a long series of conversations regarding the value of RBs in dynasty settings. Most seem to argue that running backs are less valuable than WRs, QBs, and even TEs, in general.

The arguments all revolve around the lifespan and consistency of today's running back. I have tried to explain that any variable that only applies to one position, only affects the value of those within the position. Meaning that the turnover, threat of RBBC, and so on, do not lessen the value of the RB position, in comparison to the other positions.

Seeing as how I can't seem to explain why, when using VORP, you use different baseline values for every factor. Meaning, a longevity baseline for RBs would be different than the longevity baseline for WRs. The consistency baseline for RBs would only apply to RBs, and the TEs would have their own. I.e. - 3 years of RB1 production is worth more than 10 years of QB8 production.

I have tried to explain that the trend of today's running backs only widens the gap between elite RB options and the rest; giving more VORP to the top RB options.

It seems I have failed. So, why do you rank the top RBs at the top of your rankings? Did you not realize that RBs don't last as long, get hurt more often, and repeat their success less often?

They did? There is a reason you are having a hard time convincing others of your point. It certainly didnt need another thread.

Looking at the startup draft thread - plenty agree. I am very interested in having this conversation with others. The other thread title did not fit, so many could miss it. I understand if you don't want to continue it, however. I am looking for insight from those not active in that thread.

 

[Go deep]

I have had a long series of conversations regarding the value of RBs in dynasty settings. Most seem to argue that running backs are less valuable than WRs, QBs, and even TEs, in general.

The arguments all revolve around the lifespan and consistency of today's running back. I have tried to explain that any variable that only applies to one position, only affects the value of those within the position. Meaning that the turnover, threat of RBBC, and so on, do not lessen the value of the RB position, in comparison to the other positions.

Seeing as how I can't seem to explain why, when using VORP, you use different baseline values for every factor. Meaning, a longevity baseline for RBs would be different than the longevity baseline for WRs. The consistency baseline for RBs would only apply to RBs, and the TEs would have their own. I.e. - 3 years of RB1 production is worth more than 10 years of QB8 production.

I have tried to explain that the trend of today's running backs only widens the gap between elite RB options and the rest; giving more VORP to the top RB options.

It seems I have failed. So, why do you rank the top RBs at the top of your rankings? Did you not realize that RBs don't last as long, get hurt more often, and repeat their success less often?

They did? There is a reason you are having a hard time convincing others of your point. It certainly didnt need another thread.

Looking at the startup draft thread - plenty agree. I am very interested in having this conversation with others. The other thread title did not fit, so many could miss it. I understand if you don't want to continue it, however. I am looking for insight from those not active in that thread.

There is a reason those people were not active in that thread. Plus, unless they read that thread they wont get the full picture of what everyone else was debating.

 

[Go deep]

I have had a long series of conversations regarding the value of RBs in dynasty settings. Most seem to argue that running backs are less valuable than WRs, QBs, and even TEs, in general.

The arguments all revolve around the lifespan and consistency of today's running back. I have tried to explain that any variable that only applies to one position, only affects the value of those within the position. Meaning that the turnover, threat of RBBC, and so on, do not lessen the value of the RB position, in comparison to the other positions.

Seeing as how I can't seem to explain why, when using VORP, you use different baseline values for every factor. Meaning, a longevity baseline for RBs would be different than the longevity baseline for WRs. The consistency baseline for RBs would only apply to RBs, and the TEs would have their own. I.e. - 3 years of RB1 production is worth more than 10 years of QB8 production.

I have tried to explain that the trend of today's running backs only widens the gap between elite RB options and the rest; giving more VORP to the top RB options.

It seems I have failed. So, why do you rank the top RBs at the top of your rankings? Did you not realize that RBs don't last as long, get hurt more often, and repeat their success less often?

Not being presumptuous enough to speak for the staff, I will just offer my own opinion.Dynasty 101 - the only year you can win is the one you are currently competing in. The top RBs are more likely to give you the most fantasy points on a weekly basis versus any other position player - and this is likely to hold true for the near future. Over the next couple years, I figure that Chris Johnson and ADP will probably give me more points than Andre Johnson, Calvin or Fitzgerald. And while I may be short sighted or archaic in my views, I have turned a profit every year since 2005, which is better than most of the visonaries here that think that the top RBs are not that good of an investment.

I dont think anyone would argue that taking AD or Chris Johnson first overall is a bad move, and thats not what was being debated in the other thread.

As far as your "the only year you can win is the current one" thoery, it seems more like a redraft mentality. Your a good poster, and i know you dont mean it literally, but if you dont take future years into account when drafting, trading, etc, you are going to suffer for it in the future.

 

[ZWK]

The argument I was making in the other thread is that RBs are less valuable in dynasty leagues than they are in redraft leagues. The longer that you expect a good player to keep putting up good numbers, the more value you can accumulate from him over the years. Since RBs tend to get beat up and have shorter careers, with pretty much any good RB you're going to expect him to have a shorter career than a WR or QB whose career has been comparable so far. Chris Johnson probably has fewer good years left than Calvin Johnson or Aaron Rodgers, McCoy fewer than Nicks, and Michael Turner fewer than Roddy White or Philip Rivers. In redrafts you'd generally take the RB over the WR or QB (except for Turner vs. White), since RBs score more over baseline, but in dynasty the RBs have less of an advantage over the players at other positions since they tend to provide fewer years of value.

You don't use different baselines for every factor - there's no need for a "longevity baseline." The simplest way to calculate VORP (or VBD) in redraft leagues is to take the number of points that a player scores and subtract the baseline for his position (which is the number of points scored by the last starter at that position). The simplest way to calculate VORP for dynasty leagues is to take the player's redraft VORP for each future season and add them all together. There's no "baseline" needed for longevity - longevity has value because the longer a player lasts, the more seasons of value you add together. His position doesn't come into play in that part of the analysis; you already accounted for it when you calculated each year's VORP.

Let's say that you expect Michael Turner to score 70 points over baseline for each of the next 2 years (210 pts for him minus a baseline of 140 for RB 24), and then to fall apart and be worthless. And you expect Reggie Wayne to score 70 points over baseline for each of the next 2 years (180 points for him minus a baseline of 110 for WR 36), and then to fall apart and be worthless. Then Michael Turner and Reggie Wayne are equally valuable to you, since each is worth 70 points to your team for each of the next 2 seasons. Their position doesn't matter when considering their longevity; 2 years is short for a RB and very short for a WR but that doesn't matter.

And maybe you expect Roddy White to also score 70 points over baseline (180 pts), but to do it for each of the next 4 seasons. Then he's twice as valuable as Turner or Wayne, since he gives you twice as many years of that value. And a RB who you expect to score 70 points over the RB baseline for 4 years (Matt Forte?) is just as valuable as White, as is a QB (Peyton Manning?) who you expect to score 70 points over the QB baseline for 4 years. And if you expect a player to score 35 points over baseline for each of the next 4 years - maybe Ahmad Bradshaw at RB (175 pts) or Wes Welker at WR (145 pts), then he's half as valuable as Forte or Manning, and just as valuable as Turner or Wayne.

If you're actually basing your picks on this kind of analysis you'll want to do something a little more complicated than these illustrative examples. You'll want to consider a range of possibilities for each player and weight by their probabilities instead pretending that you know exactly what a player will do. And you may want to discount future years to give them less weight than closer seasons (so Bradshaw & Welker would be a little less valuable than Turner or Wayne). But hopefully that gets the basic idea across - you compare points scored with a position baseline, and longevity is valuable regardless of position because value adds up over the years.

 

[zilladog]

I love how this debate has taken up 2 threads. Sorry I'll keep my opinions to the other thread cuz you said you wanted to hear from others so I'll respect that. I just wanted to say that one thing real quick.

Its a great debate by the way. This is what makes the FBG forum so awsome.

 

[SpineDoc]

I would rather have a player that scores 50 pts over the average for just 2 years than a player that scores 10 pts over the average for 10 years eventhough from what you say they are worth the same.

 

[Hoosier16]

I would rather have a player that scores 50 pts over the average for just 2 years than a player that scores 10 pts over the average for 10 years eventhough from what you say they are worth the same.

That suggests that you think the lower player is too easily replaced or that the current year is much more important then future years. If one of those is the case, you just need to adjust your baselines or adjust your weighting (weigh current and near years more than future years) to match your philosophy.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Can I get a summary of whatever this debate is, and how that might be applicable to staff dynasty rankings?

TIA.

 

[gandalas]

Can I get a summary of whatever this debate is, and how that might be applicable to staff dynasty rankings?

TIA.

The age-old argument of taking RBs early (limited shelf-life/higher injury risk/greater risk and possible reward) or QB/WR (longer shelf life/less injury risk/more stable, but lower ceiling) early in Dynasty start-ups.Many are on both sides of the debate in the other thread, which is located here: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=589238

The majority of the posters in the other thread are coming down on the side of drafting WRs/QBs in the first few rounds, and then looking for RB value later. Thus, the OP here, who has the opposite view, is apparently wanting to validate his point by using the staff rankings as evidence that RBs are more valuable, and thus a better strategy.

 

[Concept Coop]

Can I get a summary of whatever this debate is, and how that might be applicable to staff dynasty rankings?TIA.

The debate is how to apply VORP to the running back position in dynasty formats.One side of the argument feels that Running backs are less consistent, more injury prone, and RBBC prone - thus, their value is less in dynasty formats than in re-draft. This side of the argument feels, that in general, WRs are more valuable because of the short comings of today's RB. Some have suggested that QBs and TEs are more valuable as well. This side of the argument also thinks that it is easier to hit on a RB via waiver wire/draft picks/late round fliers, et cetera. Examples being Arian Foster, Danny Woodhead, and Chris Ivory, among others.The other side of the argument feels that the shortcomings of today's RB only widens the gap between elite options and the rest. This side believes that this creates more VORP for the top RB, in comparison to other positions. The RB advocates feel that any baseline we use, when considering VBD would vary between positions. Meaning, a RB would have a different baseline for consistency, longevity, risk of being replaced, et cetera. For example, if we assume that the average lifespan of a RB is 5 years, and the average span for a WR is 10 years - a RB that lasted 7 years gives you VORP, while a WR that lasts 10 years (longer than the RB) does not. Same thing for consistency, health, et cetera. This argument ultimately feels that elite RB options get a major boost from the changes. Because RBs are so injury prone, don't last as long, and often split time, the RBs that buck that trend, or that you project to buck that trend, offer you an advantage that very few players of other positions can.Essentially, they think that the top RBs are more valuable in dynasty formats than they are in re-draft formats.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Can I get a summary of whatever this debate is, and how that might be applicable to staff dynasty rankings?TIA.

The debate is how to apply VORP to the running back position in dynasty formats.One side of the argument feels that Running backs are less consistent, more injury prone, and RBBC prone - thus, their value is less in dynasty formats than in re-draft. This side of the argument feels, that in general, WRs are more valuable because of the short comings of today's RB. Some have suggested that QBs and TEs are more valuable as well. This side of the argument also thinks that it is easier to hit on a RB via waiver wire/draft picks/late round fliers, et cetera. Examples being Arian Foster, Danny Woodhead, and Chris Ivory, among others.The other side of the argument feels that the shortcomings of today's RB only widens the gap between elite options and the rest. This side believes that this creates more VORP for the top RB, in comparison to other positions. The RB advocates feel that any baseline we use, when considering VBD would vary between positions. Meaning, a RB would have a different baseline for consistency, longevity, risk of being replaced, et cetera. For example, if we assume that the average lifespan of a RB is 5 years, and the average span for a WR is 10 years - a RB that lasted 7 years gives you VORP, while a WR that lasts 10 years (longer than the RB) does not. Same thing for consistency, health, et cetera. This argument ultimately feels that elite RB options get a major boost from the changes. Because RBs are so injury prone, don't last as long, and often split time, the RBs that buck that trend, or that you project to buck that trend, offer you an advantage that very few players of other positions can.Essentially, they think that the top RBs are more valuable in dynasty formats than they are in re-draft formats.

After reading all of the arguments, I'm calling it a draw.

 

[Andrew Garda]

Well, I'll have fresh Dynasty rankings a bit after the Draft (where my attention has been for - longer than i'd like to admit at this point) but I'd say that with the creeping mass of RBBC, if you can't hit a stud early, getting a stud WR/QB is definitely a solid way to go. Depending upon scoring of course, but once you hit the middle of the first, grabbing a Brees/Rodgers or a Johnson/White is just as valuable.

again, once i really start redoing my rankings, I can give better examples, but I think there is a good point that getting a solid RB later on while stocking up on other positions can work very well.

I don't think one is 100% end all be all right. I think it can depend not only on your league but your strengths as an owner.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

A quick response to some of this - I'm sure it'd take more time than I currently have to go deeper into it, but:

1. Staff dynasty rankings are non-PPR, which adds to RB value.

2. Staff dynasty rankings are aggregations of personal beliefs, rankings of players and also "what I could get for Player X" rankings. That is to say, I may love or hate a guy, but I know he's worth more or less than Player Y - so he should be ranked here.

3. Proven stud RBs are worth a great deal due to their scarcity and their difficulty of getting in a trade. With RBBC that makes RB2s/3s/4s easier to find, which thus elevates WR1s between RB1s and RB2s (generalizing feature RBs as "RB1s").

4. Backup RBs - especially those for studs - are inflated in value by the owner of the RB1. Usually they matter more in Dynasty for those owners, but that's hard to generalize to say that they are worth more here than in redraft. Most injuries that sideline RB1s are one-year events (or less) so the value should be comparable in Dynasty and redraft. It is noteworthy that in Dynasty the RB1 owner should want the handcuff/backup more, but that's just one of 12 or more owners - and backups often change faster over time. It's debatable if Ringer is more valuable in redraft or dynasty.

Not sure if that helps the debate.

 

[Dragon1952]

Can I get a summary of whatever this debate is, and how that might be applicable to staff dynasty rankings?TIA.

Gee...you mean you don't want to read the other entire thread?

 

[Instinctive]

Can I get a summary of whatever this debate is, and how that might be applicable to staff dynasty rankings?TIA.

The debate is how to apply VORP to the running back position in dynasty formats.One side of the argument feels that Running backs are less consistent, more injury prone, and RBBC prone - thus, their value is less in dynasty formats than in re-draft. This side of the argument feels, that in general, WRs are more valuable because of the short comings of today's RB. Some have suggested that QBs and TEs are more valuable as well. This side of the argument also thinks that it is easier to hit on a RB via waiver wire/draft picks/late round fliers, et cetera. Examples being Arian Foster, Danny Woodhead, and Chris Ivory, among others.The other side of the argument feels that the shortcomings of today's RB only widens the gap between elite options and the rest. This side believes that this creates more VORP for the top RB, in comparison to other positions. The RB advocates feel that any baseline we use, when considering VBD would vary between positions. Meaning, a RB would have a different baseline for consistency, longevity, risk of being replaced, et cetera. For example, if we assume that the average lifespan of a RB is 5 years, and the average span for a WR is 10 years - a RB that lasted 7 years gives you VORP, while a WR that lasts 10 years (longer than the RB) does not. Same thing for consistency, health, et cetera. This argument ultimately feels that elite RB options get a major boost from the changes. Because RBs are so injury prone, don't last as long, and often split time, the RBs that buck that trend, or that you project to buck that trend, offer you an advantage that very few players of other positions can.Essentially, they think that the top RBs are more valuable in dynasty formats than they are in re-draft formats.

The other side of the argument is that while all of the above is true...the nature of the RB position makes it nearly impossible to predict who those elite RB options will be. It is thus a smarter plan to go for elite options at all the other positions and just shotgun RBs...because there's a decent chance that then you end up with an "elite option RB" anyway.

 

[Concept Coop]

Can I get a summary of whatever this debate is, and how that might be applicable to staff dynasty rankings?TIA.

The debate is how to apply VORP to the running back position in dynasty formats.One side of the argument feels that Running backs are less consistent, more injury prone, and RBBC prone - thus, their value is less in dynasty formats than in re-draft. This side of the argument feels, that in general, WRs are more valuable because of the short comings of today's RB. Some have suggested that QBs and TEs are more valuable as well. This side of the argument also thinks that it is easier to hit on a RB via waiver wire/draft picks/late round fliers, et cetera. Examples being Arian Foster, Danny Woodhead, and Chris Ivory, among others.The other side of the argument feels that the shortcomings of today's RB only widens the gap between elite options and the rest. This side believes that this creates more VORP for the top RB, in comparison to other positions. The RB advocates feel that any baseline we use, when considering VBD would vary between positions. Meaning, a RB would have a different baseline for consistency, longevity, risk of being replaced, et cetera. For example, if we assume that the average lifespan of a RB is 5 years, and the average span for a WR is 10 years - a RB that lasted 7 years gives you VORP, while a WR that lasts 10 years (longer than the RB) does not. Same thing for consistency, health, et cetera. This argument ultimately feels that elite RB options get a major boost from the changes. Because RBs are so injury prone, don't last as long, and often split time, the RBs that buck that trend, or that you project to buck that trend, offer you an advantage that very few players of other positions can.Essentially, they think that the top RBs are more valuable in dynasty formats than they are in re-draft formats.

The other side of the argument is that while all of the above is true...the nature of the RB position makes it nearly impossible to predict who those elite RB options will be. It is thus a smarter plan to go for elite options at all the other positions and just shotgun RBs...because there's a decent chance that then you end up with an "elite option RB" anyway.

I don't think it is nearly impossible at all. Maurile Tremblay did a hell of job with his projections. The only guys in his top 11 (which included Foster) that bombed (Thomas/Williams), were injured.

 

[Steed]

Can I get a summary of whatever this debate is, and how that might be applicable to staff dynasty rankings?TIA.

The debate is how to apply VORP to the running back position in dynasty formats.One side of the argument feels that Running backs are less consistent, more injury prone, and RBBC prone - thus, their value is less in dynasty formats than in re-draft. This side of the argument feels, that in general, WRs are more valuable because of the short comings of today's RB. Some have suggested that QBs and TEs are more valuable as well. This side of the argument also thinks that it is easier to hit on a RB via waiver wire/draft picks/late round fliers, et cetera. Examples being Arian Foster, Danny Woodhead, and Chris Ivory, among others.The other side of the argument feels that the shortcomings of today's RB only widens the gap between elite options and the rest. This side believes that this creates more VORP for the top RB, in comparison to other positions. The RB advocates feel that any baseline we use, when considering VBD would vary between positions. Meaning, a RB would have a different baseline for consistency, longevity, risk of being replaced, et cetera. For example, if we assume that the average lifespan of a RB is 5 years, and the average span for a WR is 10 years - a RB that lasted 7 years gives you VORP, while a WR that lasts 10 years (longer than the RB) does not. Same thing for consistency, health, et cetera. This argument ultimately feels that elite RB options get a major boost from the changes. Because RBs are so injury prone, don't last as long, and often split time, the RBs that buck that trend, or that you project to buck that trend, offer you an advantage that very few players of other positions can.Essentially, they think that the top RBs are more valuable in dynasty formats than they are in re-draft formats.

The other side of the argument is that while all of the above is true...the nature of the RB position makes it nearly impossible to predict who those elite RB options will be. It is thus a smarter plan to go for elite options at all the other positions and just shotgun RBs...because there's a decent chance that then you end up with an "elite option RB" anyway.

I don't think it is nearly impossible at all. Maurile Tremblay did a hell of job with his projections. The only guys in his top 11 (which included Foster) that bombed (Thomas/Williams), were injured.

I'd like to see MT's RB projections for 2012 and 2013.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

VORP U.

WTF if VORP is just VBD why not only use one acronym TIA GLLLLL PEAS

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

sounds like B Marshall needs to go to http://www.vorp.org

 

[zilladog]

VORP U.WTF if VORP is just VBD why not only use one acronym TIA GLLLLL PEAS

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you need accurate projections for VORP to be valuable? Aren't most projections way off base?

 

[Instinctive]

VORP U.WTF if VORP is just VBD why not only use one acronym TIA GLLLLL PEAS

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you need accurate projections for VORP to be valuable? Aren't most projections way off base?

YES!