Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
My immediate take is that you set something up wrong in the scoring.
Sure, either post your opinion or a smiley face and a camera...good call.
Sure, either post your opinion or a smiley face and a camera...good call.
Just wanted to mark the thread for reference purposes. I'm not on staff.
Is that what the camera does? I always wondered why people did that...Sure, either post your opinion or a smiley face and a camera...good call.
That's what will happen when you use last starter as a baseline. Remember, by doing this, RB24 will have the same VBD value as WR36, so WRs will have to cross RBs pretty early. Seeing 12 WRs/6 RBs isn't too surprising when using last starter; the difference between WR10 and WR36 is a little bigger than the difference between RB6 and RB24. But WR36 will go at pick 84 or so, while RB24 will go at roughly pick 46. If you could get the last starter at RB and at WR at the same point in your draft, then it would make sense to use last starter for your VBD. Since you can't, you should use Joe's secret formula.
It's supposed to be a thread envelope. The black dot in the middle used to indicate you replied in the thread, but now there's a white corner in the envelope. I haven't kicked the : blackdot : habit yet.
It's not a camera, but a "black dot". When you're in any forum (Shark Pool, FFA, etc.), threads that you have posted in used to have a black dot next to them. Now they have the white mark in the lower right corner of the envelope.Is that what the camera does? I always wondered why people did that...Sure, either post your opinion or a smiley face and a camera...good call.
That makes sense but wouldn't we really just be tweaking the "value" so it fits closer into the ADP?
The fundamental question is, is RB24 more valuable than WR36, and if so, by how much? I think Joe's Secret Formula overstates the value of crappy RBs.
starting a new trend! unfortunately no one will get it.
Not really but RB3 is a ton better than WR3.
A good bit. By about how much pick 46 is worth more than pick 84.
How do you come to that conclusion? You can't look at ADP to determine value.
Why not?
It's half the equation. What you think the player will produce is important, but when you have to draft the player determines how much "value" you got from your draft selection.
Is this a joke or is there an article I can read?
It's built into the Draft Dominator.
ADP measures expected cost, not expected value. VBD is a tool to examine where the expected cost of a player (where you'd have to draft him or what you'd have to pay at auction) exceeds the expected value of that player. If you try to map VBD directly onto ADP, you lose the reason to use VBD in the first place.
Let's say you had 120 VBD believers do 10 drafts, 12 drafters each.Would the ADP from those 10 drafts not tell you a great deal about the value of each player?The specific question you asked is how much more valuable is RB24 to have on your team than WR36. I think looking at ADP answers this, just like looking at ADP would answer the question of how much more valuable QB1 is than PK1, and RB10 than DT10. While everyone knows draft strategy/VBD comes out of ADP (you wait on players with low ADPs even if YOU value them highly), people often forget that the direction arrow goes both way. Draft strategy/VBD informs ADP, too.How much more valuable, if any, do you think RB24 is than WR36?
It would tell you a lot about the perceived value of each player. It also would tell you a lot about what VBD baselines people are using. In the staff vs. MB auction, it was clear to me that I was using different DD parameters than the majority of the drafters. This was particularly notable in the mid-range of the RB and WR curves, where RBs were consistently going for $5 more than my projections, and WRs were consistently going for $5 under my projections.
Your argument only works if you believe that fantasy drafts/auctions are "efficient" in the economic sense, which I personally think is untrue. I think every draft and auction has inefficiencies, and in many cases those inefficiencies are systematic--for example, in leagues with scoring which favors WRs or TEs, RBs are severely overvalued by drafters. See the Anarchy leagues where WRs and TEs routinely get passed over for RBs who are projected to score 100 fewer points and 50+ fewer VBD points. If you move your baseline for the Anarchy leagues so that Ronnie Brown has more VBD points than Jeremy Shockey, because that's what ADP suggests, you are hiding the fact that Jeremy Shockey is more likely to help you win that league, which is the true definition of value.Obviously, the value of RB24 vs. WR36 depends on the league setup. RB23-25 are Ahman Green, Thomas Jones, and Jamal Lewis by Dodds' projections; WR35-37 are Jennings, Stallworth, and Curry. I think it's clear that in typical scoring leagues, the first group is more valuable than the second group, so there is some merit to having a baseline other than "worst starter" in a 1/2/3 league. But Joe's Secret Formula places those RBs as having more value than players like Burress, Santana Moss, Randy Moss, Hines Ward, Chris Chambers, and I'm not at all sure that the value is still there. Not to mention RB vs. QB value, where Ahman Green in Houston is valued above Brees and Bulger.
Thanks. I see they've tweaked VBD a bit from the old days and I'm out of the loop.However, it seems to me that this is a way to shift value to match your preconceived ideas of what value should be. That is, Joe thinks RBs should be more valuable, so he shifts his baseline to make it so. Further, since that shift is based on who will be taken in the draft, it's circular. You're looking at when people are drafted to determine when people should be drafted. That just doesn't make sense to me.
I don't see how this is true. Value is relative. Of course, you would like to get positive value for your backups if possible, but it's just as valid to get the least negative value you can.
Exactly what I was thinking. If theBaseline is the last starter, and all your backups have a "Negative" Value, isn't the amount of that negative value simply relative to your baseline? In the DD, it uses a DVBD, which adjusts that baseline according to waht you have and need right?Big Pink Monkey said:
Big Pink Monkey said:
What else do you use? I mean, at some point you have to measure something--without projections how do you determine the difference between QB3 and QB4?
Could use AVT.Big Pink Monkey said:What else do you use? I mean, at some point you have to measure something--without projections how do you determine the difference between QB3 and QB4?
AVT doesn't solve anything; it just reverse-engineers your projections based on some sketchy assumptions.Could use AVT.Big Pink Monkey said:
I do projections, but only to get a sense of how I personally value a player. IOW, I want to know whether I would rather have Steven Jackson or LT. I want to know whether I would rather have Marion Barber or Jerious Norwood. It's the order that is critical and I know successful people who do it without projections. They just rank them based on whatever criteria they find relevant.To construct my board, I use a weighted average of historical fantasy points. That sets up my draft slots. It tells me where my 12th most wanted RB should go, what kind of pick I'm willing to spend on him.What else do you use? I mean, at some point you have to measure something--without projections how do you determine the difference between QB3 and QB4?
Player evaluation is the most important factor in fantasy success, whatever your method.But I don't see how your method could realistically determine whether you'd rather have Marion Barber or Todd Heap.I do projections, but only to get a sense of how I personally value a player. IOW, I want to know whether I would rather have Steven Jackson or LT. I want to know whether I would rather have Marion Barber or Jerious Norwood. It's the order that is critical and I know successful people who do it without projections. They just rank them based on whatever criteria they find relevant.To construct my board, I use a weighted average of historical fantasy points. That sets up my draft slots. It tells me where my 12th most wanted RB should go, what kind of pick I'm willing to spend on him.
Not at all. The original VBD article frames value in terms of "if we knew how the players would score, the team with the highest value would win." Historical, weighted averages are going to be much better approximations than projections will be.
I totally agree that player evaluation trumps everything else. If you think that Lendale White is going to be the #1 RB this year, you're screwed.My method can tell me whether I'd rather have Todd Heap or Marion Barber because I've slotted them in their positional ranking and used averages to set up the overall draft board. If the TE3 is on average more valuable than RB16 (disclaimer: rankings made up), I'm going with TE3.
You think so? I really don't see how it's possible that the average score for the #28 RB over the past N years is a good predictor for Marion Barber's production. Ranking Barber as #28 without doing projections is essentially a wild guess.
That's why I don't just make random guesses. I know people who do and they are very good at it, but I'm not. I do a lot of projections, so I have a reason to slot him 28th.In fact, I do multiple projections for most players based on different scenarios. If Lendale White (or Chris Brown, or Chris Henry) is the starter in TEN all season, he might be an okay player to have. However, if he's on the bench, he's useless. I assign percentage chances to each scenario and come up with an aggregate projection. It's not what the player will actually score, but it is a composite of his actual value. Or take Michael Turner. If LT went down, he would be great. But LT never goes down, so the handcuff could easily be a wasted pick. Or Cleo Lemon. Trent Green is probably one hit away from assisted living behind a crappy line. You need a composite of Lemon's production if he plays and the chance that he will actually play to tell you what kind of pick you really want to spend on him.
If historical (and I'm not sure why you want to use weighted, but it's irrelevant) averages were better approximations than projections, that's what people would use. But they don't, for good reason. The fallacy of using AVT or a system like it has been exposed several times on these boards
So you do do projections, then you slot the guys in order, then you erase the projections and assign them AVT values?
That's the point I was going to end up with, but I see we can skip the middle step. I believe fantasy drafts are efficient in the economic sense. I think the ADP market for money leagues is really good, and difficult to consistently beat a significant percentage of the time. There are some things the market isn't great at, but for the most part, ADP is better than the projections for lots of websites. Obviously I think Footballguys has better projections than any other website, including ADP, but I'm biased. We could debate whether or not you believe the fantasy market to be efficient, but I'm not sure I could change your mind. More to the point...Assume 0PPR, 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 0 Flex league. How much more valuable is RB24 than WR36? Using Joe's secret formula, RB24 is given 40 more points in VBD than WR36. Using word starter, RB24 is equal to WR36. Let's try and figure out what the "right" answer is:WR48 is 17.2 points behind WR36. RB36 is 45.2 points behind RB24. Obviously, the dropoff at WR is a lot steeper than the dropoff at RB. Someone is going to be stuck with RB36 as their RB3, or worse. Being stuck with WR48 as your WR4 isn't too bad, relatively speaking. By passing on RB24 for WR36, you're going to severely hurt your team's depth.Now the question is, what WR should you not pass on for RB24? Mostly it's going to depend on who you can draft in the next few rounds. And it depends on how many RBs you already have. If you go RB-RB-RB, you shouldn't pass on WR24 for RB24. If you go WR-WR-WR, you should pass on WR4 (i.e., any WR) to take RB24. If you started QB-RB-WR, or RB-WR-RB, it's a bit more complicated. If you went WR-RB-WR, I think it's pretty clear that you grab RB24 now.At a basic level, let's say you take a RB when WR36 should go and WR15 when RB24 would go. RB40 is projected to score 68 fewer points than RB24; WR 15 is projected at 57 more points than WR36. So certainly, if you're going to be starting RB24 (i.e., you didn't take 2 RBs in the first three rounds), it seems like the wise move to grab your second RB over WR15. Unless you think there's some great RB value in the middle rounds there, which I don't believe to be true. In between, let's assume you take 1 QB and 2 WRs. What if you went RB-WR-RB? Now you've "filled" your starting RB positions, and have only one of three RB spots filled. So you can go:4th round: RB245th round: ~WR206th round: ~QB107th round: ~WR298th round: ~WR36or4th round: WR155th round: ~RB30 or ~WR206th round: ~QB107th round: WR29 or RB348th round: RB40 or ~WR36Which team is better, assuming you started RB-WR-RB? Having WR15 and WR20 instead of WR20 and WR29 as your starters is a nice upgrade, and you'll also have WR29 instead of WR36 as your backup WR. But, your top backup RB is now RB40 instead of RB24.We can assume a 28 point drop from WR15/WR20 to WR20/WR29, since WR15 is projected at 28 more points than WR29. Is that 28 point drop worth a 68 point at your backup RB spot?Roughly speaking, RBs miss about 3 weeks a year -- 2 due to injury and 1 for the bye week. RB24 averages 10.2 FP/G, RB40 scores about 5.9 FP/G. So when your RB1 and RB2 are out, you'll be losing about 25 points (do you see why?). At WR, you go from a guy scoring 9.8 FP/G (WR15) to 8.1 FP/G (WR29). Over fourteen games, that's a 25 point gain. You'll also pick up about 15 points over the course of the season by having a better 4th WR.So it looks like RB24 over WR15 is probably a bad move. But it's close. I don't think it's a slam dunk either way, but if you go take two RBs and one WR in the first three rounds, I'd probably pull the trigger on a WR in the fourth. If you have only one RB through three rounds, you better grab that 2nd RB in round four. So as always, it depends on who will be available later in your draft, and who you've taken so far. And if each of your RBs miss 3 games instead of 2, then you will gain 40 points from having a better third RB, and then the two scenarios will be perfectly equal.CalBear said:
Let's look at another domain; do you think that the broad population is efficient at a game like blackjack? The values and percentages are much more clear in blackjack than in fantasy football, and there's a lot of money at stake, but I think it's very likely that if you were looking at the overall population, that people inefficiently invest their money at the blackjack table.Similarly, I think the broad population is very unlikely to be efficient at choosing values for players in drafts. Some people may be very good at it, but I can tell you that my main league isn't efficient top to bottom, and the Anarchy leagues certainly aren't, even if you leave out DonnyT.
RB40, though, isn't an abstract concept that will give you a certain number of points, it's an actual player whose value is mapped to a probability function, not to a single number. Right now, it so happens that RB40 is Kevin Jones by FBG projections, RB24 is Thomas Jones, WR15 is Andre Johnson, WR20 is Deion Branch, WR29 is Vincent Jackson, and WR36 is Donte Stallworth.Personally, I would much rather have K.Jones (as top backup), A.Johnson, Branch and Jackson than T.Jones, Branch, Jackson and Stallworth. K.Jones could easily outscore T.Jones this year; he's RB40 because of his risk profile, not because T.Jones is a better runner or in a better situation.
I use weighted because things were getting really skewed at the top because of some outlier years. But it probably is irrelevant.Anyway, I don't think it's valid to say that people would use averages if it was better. People in the aggregate don't always make the best decisions. More importantly, it depends on how you use it.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it's good to build dropoffs into the model. I think it's better to use a standard baseline and adjust on the fly. The point is to get the team with the overall best value. I think part of the art of drafting is making those judgment calls as the draft develops.When I'm drafting, if I see that there is about to be a big dropoff, or scarcity at a position, it makes me lean a certain way, but I'm still not going to take a player with lower value than my expectation for the slot.
Not exactly. The projection gives me my expectation for that player. The AVT value gives me the expectation for that slot. I always want to pick players whose expectation is equal to or better than the expectation for the slot. Essentially, the AVT value for the slot is the cost and the VBD for the player is the expected return.
This is probably the only thing I've understood in the last 25 posts and I agree with it completely. Carry on.
Why? How many weeks do you expect your WR3 to play? How many weeks for your RB3?
