Study on Value and ADP (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

For those that think the FBG staff hibernates in the winter and the fantasy offseason . . . well, you'd be wrong.

Here are some blurbs on an article I am writing looking at ADP and comparing it to year end value performance. I only have positional ADP data since 2000, so it's not the most comprehensive look at things.

Overall, here is a breakdown of how players fared in terms of value in that time. For those unfamiliar with what value means, READ THIS and poke around the rest of the PFR site.

Since 2000 . . .

Players by position that had at least a value of 200 or more:

RB: 8

Players by position that had at least a value of 150 or more:

QB: 3

RB: 17

WR: 1

Players by position that had at least a value of 100 or more:

QB: 7

RB: 39

WR: 12

TE: 2

Here is how they did based on their POSITIONAL ADP--NOT their overall ADP. The % listed reflects the percentage of time that a pick in that range hit that performance milestone. For example, 7 years of Top 5 picks equals 35 total picks. 17/35 = 49% for the first RB listing. Remember, players are grouped by their ADP and NOT by their year end rankings.

Value of 100+

Top 5 QB: 5 (14%)

Top 5 RB: 17 (49%)

Top 5 WR: 7 (20%)

Top 5 TE: 1 (3%)

Value of 100+

Top 10 QB: 7 (10%)

Top 10 RB: 25 (36%)

Top 10 WR: 8 (11%)

Top 10 TE: 2 (3%)

Value of 50+

Top 5 QB: 13 (37%)

Top 5 RB: 23 (66%)

Top 5 WR: 24 (69%)

Top 5 TE: 9 (26%)

Value of 50+

Top 10 QB: 23 (33%)

Top 10 RB: 41 (59%)

Top 10 WR: 35 (50%)

Top 10 TE: 12 (17%)

No Value

Top 5 QB: 17 (49%)

Top 5 RB: 5 (14%)

Top 5 WR: 3 (9%)

Top 5 TE: 6 (17%)

No value

Top 10 QB: 29 (41%)

Top 10 RB: 13 (19%)

Top 10 WR: 15 (21%)

Top 10 TE: 22 (31%)

This pretty much confirms that taking a QB somewhat early is an ***EXTREMELY*** risky pick if his name is not Peyton Manning. And even so, there are years where QBs held very little value at all. In 2003 and 2005, the #1 QB had value scores of 60 and 58.

I'll have much more data and analysis on this in the actual article, but I figured that the hardcore guys will be interested in this.

 

[Rounders]

Looking forward to it!

 

[Gr00vus]

Looks like good work.

However it also looks like it'll reconfirm the RB dominance bias, and my own personal theory that the place to gamble/slough is WR.

I think I may just give you folks my $24.99 American cash money again next year.

 

[Duckboy]

Definitely will be watching for this.

 

[David Yudkin]

Looks like good work.However it also looks like it'll reconfirm the RB dominance bias, and my own personal theory that the place to gamble/slough is WR.I think I may just give you folks my $24.99 American cash money again next year.

I suspect that RBs overall hit more home runs and WRs hit more singles and doubles. I think the real issue in redraft drafting starts after say the first 10 RBs are off the board.Based on that and the numbers I already posted, if we assumed that the Top 10 picks were indeed all RBs, here's what happened from there:REMAINING PLAYERS LEFT AT VALUE INCREMENTS BASED ON ACTUAL PRODUCTION:QB:150: 3100: 775: 1450: 33RBs DRAFTED 11+:150: 3100: 1475: 2550: 41WR:150: 1100: 1275: 3150: 73TE:150: 0100: 275: 550: 16So even with 10 RBs off the board, there still is a decent hit rate for guys int he 100+ and 150+ value range compared to other positions but there is also a greater risk of missing on 50 point value guys (41 for RBs vs 73 for WRs). Remember, all players at all other positions were in the player pool but the Top 10 drafted RBs were already picked at that point.

 

[mlball77]

Awesome stuff here, David; simply awesome.

Looks like outside of Manning, early QBs are a big gamble (as you've stated) and the same could be said for TEs in recent years (with Tgonz/Gates). Looks like the 6-10 ADP WRs are a bit risky as well (which is sort of intuitive as well, imo).

 

[Rounders]

Any idea when this eagerly anticipated article will be released?

 

[David Yudkin]

Any idea when this eagerly anticipated article will be released?

Soon . . . but not days away -- more like a few more weeks.It's taken on a life of it's own and had to be broken into a series instead of a single article.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Wait a minute, weren't you just telling me the other day that you thought it was very important to get one of the top QBs?

Thanks to Rounders for bumping this.

 

[David Yudkin]

Wait a minute, weren't you just telling me the other day that you thought it was very important to get one of the top QBs? Thanks to Rounders for bumping this.

It still is. But they are risky picks. IMO, there's Manning and then wait until the next batch goes and then consider one in or around Round 5. I can't format to save my life, but here is the grid for QBs . . .Value of 200, 150, 100, 75, 50, 25, 1+, 0, % w/+ ValueTop 5: 0, 3, 3, 6, 6, 3, 24, 21, 53%Top 10: 0, 1, 1, 1, 9, 9, 29, 16, 64%Top 15: 0, 0, 0, 0, 7, 8, 19, 26, 42%Top 20: 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 7, 38, 16%Top 25: 0, 0, 0, 2, 1, 1, 6, 39, 13%Top 30: 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 6, 39, 13%31+: 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 4, N/A Total: 0, 5, 6, 11, 23, 23, 95, 179 This is based on ADP and yearend value data over the past 9 seasons. As you can see, most of the big hitters were Top 5 picks . . . even if almost half of them ended up with no value (usually because they got hurt).Again as you can see, drafting QBs after QB15 has not been a great proposition.