Staff Dynasty Rankings (1 Viewer)

[-OZ-]

So to everyone explaining away passing on your 16th overall player at the 44 spot, doesn't this beg the question of how useful rankings are? I mean, if dozens of variables are constantly at play, isn't it naive to think we'd ever run into a draft scenario where the player REMAINED our 16th most valued player?Or maybe I'm just taking it all a step to far.

FWIW, I barely even look at the overall list. I like the position lists, but my leagues differ too widely in the values of positions and some players (for example, in one, good WRs >> good RBs, in the other IDPs are almost worthless, QBs are worth a little bit more than normal, and big-play guys have extra value).

 

[jurb26]

So to everyone explaining away passing on your 16th overall player at the 44 spot, doesn't this beg the question of how useful rankings are? I mean, if dozens of variables are constantly at play, isn't it naive to think we'd ever run into a draft scenario where the player REMAINED our 16th most valued player?Or maybe I'm just taking it all a step to far.

This is why IMHO, other peoples rankings are useless. Sure it is fun to debate and carry on about. You learn more about guys you may have concerns about or questions. In the end however, everyone should make their own rankings for each specific league and ignore what others have. Including the "experts."

 

[FantasyTrader]

So to everyone explaining away passing on your 16th overall player at the 44 spot, doesn't this beg the question of how useful rankings are? I mean, if dozens of variables are constantly at play, isn't it naive to think we'd ever run into a draft scenario where the player REMAINED our 16th most valued player?

Or maybe I'm just taking it all a step to far.

FWIW, I barely even look at the overall list. I like the position lists, but my leagues differ too widely in the values of positions and some players (for example, in one, good WRs >> good RBs, in the other IDPs are almost worthless, QBs are worth a little bit more than normal, and big-play guys have extra value).

I think you're totally right. Instead of overall top 300, you're better served by having all of the positional rankings. I shouldn't say "you're", what I mean is I feel like I'm better served by just having positions. I find that overall rankings leaves me with too much sorting and scrambling mid-draft.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

You and others are missing some important points:

I don't think I'm really missing anything though. I think you're helping lend credence to my question.

The FBG dynasty rankings are NOT PPR, while the league that is the basis of this thread is a PPR league. BIG difference.

Big - I agree...but from 16th to 44th big?

The FBG rankings are based on starting 2 RB, 3 WR, and 1 TE, while this particular league starts 1 RB, 1 WR, 1 TE, and 3 flex (RB/WR/TE). Again, BIG difference.

Very good point you make here. I can see how this would have a huge impact.

If you can start 4 WRs in a PPR league in which you only are required to start 1 RB, and when you consider the average length of career between a RB and a WR, a WR has much more value than they would in a standard league that starts 2 RBs.

Wrong. The average length of both the RB's career and the WR's career should be taken into account in your rankings. This in no way explains the difference between staff's rankings and their thoughts "in draft".

Jeff T, the staff member in question, has a certain strategy he uses when he is in an initial dynasty draft, as he has explained.

Yes. And shouldn't this be reflected in his rankings? Strategy which he believes is most beneficial to helping customers win their leagues?

All of the above are part of the answer, but the key thing is the rankings are very generic and once you change lineups and scoring from those used in the rankings, the value of players can change dramatically. This doesn't even factor in the minute by minute changes in the draft as it proceeds nor does it factor in a persons specific strategy. As mentioned in a previous post, overall rankings also can't factor in position runs and roster breakdown.

There are too many variables in rankings even before you factor in difference scoring systems and different lineup requirements. The difference in FBG lineup used in rankings and the lineup requirements in Jeff's league are night and day different.

So you and I are in agreement. We're both questioning how helpful generic rankings even are to begin with when it looks like a customer has to hit quite the parlay of events just to make the staff's rankings applicable to the person's rules, scoring, team makeup, etc. etc. etc.

The 16th overall player in FBG scoring and FBG lineup requirements is definitely not the same as the 16th overall player in other scoring systems with different lineup requirements.

Already a very well established point throughout the thread. So we come full circle. Is the 16th player overall at least worth being taken 44th overall in other scoring systems with different lineup requirements?

Since it is me, there are some things you point out that are not how I see them. There is no way you can say rankings (thus, player values) are the same for startups and existing leagues. I know that sounds like it should be true, but it is not. There are player runs, team/roster distribution, etc. Also, there are some teams I have where player X is my WR2 and some where same is WR4. I sold Coles in two identical leagues for two different amounts because each league has its own economy. It is one of those things that is tough to explain but most understand it. On to career length: The length of the career might be similar, but in PPR leagues WRs have a longer viable career ... if that makes sense. Take Joey Galloway versus a RB like Dunn, Bettis, or other over 30 RB. Galloway is able to produce viable numbers for many more years in PPR than most RBs. Yes, the total career length is similar, but the length that you can start said player is much different. This is also why there can be a strategy to acquire a certain distribution among positions and differing ages.

Now, to the rankings. Those rankings are for a certain scoring/starting lineup league. There are great advantages to seeing rankings even if the scoring is different. You can see whether certain players are moving up or down. Also, the rankings are great to see if there is a consensus. In addition, the rankings are a very good way gauge general value. There are so many variables that make things very tough to take literally.

Anyone that knows me knows that I will gladly answer all PMs or posts in wannabee thread about specific questions in a timely manner. If someone wants to ask how my rankings would change given scoring system X, all anyone would have to do is ask.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Thanks for clarifying Jeff. I totally understand what you're saying and I agree with several points you made. You brought up some leagues where player X is your WR2 but in other leagues he's your WR4. What I can't understand is why, in this league which is a startup, (where subjective values and league norms are yet to be developed) would you not fall back on your "base" rankings even more?

I have to disagree with you that in PPR, WR's have a longer viable career. Viable in NFL terms? Yes. But not in fantasy generally speaking. Galloway wasn't a startable WR last year because of PPR. In my own non-PPR, TD Heavy, bonus for benchmarks league he finished 19th overall. He was viable across the board.

Now I understand what you're saying about the PPR guys and (in theory) it's true. Take for example Ike Hilliard in '07 - 62 rec. 722 yds and 1 TD finished 44th in PPR but he wasn't even a blip on the radar in some other league formats. Yes, once you get way down to 4th, 5th, 6th WR's, PPR can lengthen a guy's rosterability (yeah, I know that's not a word) but I wouldn't consider him "viable". Many would argue with that and I'm not saying they'd be wrong. Just a different opinion than mine.

What I'm trying to say (and not doing very well at it) is I can see how all of these subtle complexities in scoring, league norms, etc. could take a guy from 4th WR in one league and make him undraftable in another. But way up at 16th overall those same factors could make him passable at 44th?! I mean, I believe you - there's no reason to doubt you. But for me personally, it couldn't be true.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

Thanks for clarifying Jeff. I totally understand what you're saying and I agree with several points you made. You brought up some leagues where player X is your WR2 but in other leagues he's your WR4. What I can't understand is why, in this league which is a startup, (where subjective values and league norms are yet to be developed) would you not fall back on your "base" rankings even more?I have to disagree with you that in PPR, WR's have a longer viable career. Viable in NFL terms? Yes. But not in fantasy generally speaking. Galloway wasn't a startable WR last year because of PPR. In my own non-PPR, TD Heavy, bonus for benchmarks league he finished 19th overall. He was viable across the board. Now I understand what you're saying about the PPR guys and (in theory) it's true. Take for example Ike Hilliard in '07 - 62 rec. 722 yds and 1 TD finished 44th in PPR but he wasn't even a blip on the radar in some other league formats. Yes, once you get way down to 4th, 5th, 6th WR's, PPR can lengthen a guy's rosterability (yeah, I know that's not a word) but I wouldn't consider him "viable". Many would argue with that and I'm not saying they'd be wrong. Just a different opinion than mine. What I'm trying to say (and not doing very well at it) is I can see how all of these subtle complexities in scoring, league norms, etc. could take a guy from 4th WR in one league and make him undraftable in another. But way up at 16th overall those same factors could make him passable at 44th?! I mean, I believe you - there's no reason to doubt you. But for me personally, it couldn't be true.

Well, look at my team. I have four stud wrs (fitz, steve smith, chad johnson, welker) and brady. I also have two 09 1sts, 2nds, 3rds, 4ths and two 2010 1sts.My goal is to take stud wrs in ppr startups, and acquire future picks to be used on RBs. Also, trying to compare Willis McGahee or LJ in non-ppr to Welker in ppr is a futile exercise. This is what this thread is about. You are looking too rigidly at those ranking numbers (16 and 44), imo. Take a look at the goal of the team instead just the rankings, which are non even ppr rankings anyway.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I can buy that. That WR corp is killer! You look to be really poised for the future in this league.

You are looking too rigidly at those ranking numbers (16 and 44), imo.

I think you're right. The gap between 16-44 is so huge to me, maybe I'm just not seeing the whole picture clearly. Also, I missed the fact that you traded down to acquire more picks - two '09 1sts and two '10 1sts - that's tough to mess with. Nice work.