What's the rule of thumb for this? (VBD question) (1 Viewer)

[Hagger]

I've been using VBD the past couple of years and have had a lot of success. However, I keep running into this situation. As I start filling out my roster, for example let's say I have my starting lineup nearly complete, 1 QB, 2 RB's and 1 WR. Next on my VBD list another RB comes up as the best value, but I still need a WR to complete my starting lineup. Do you go with the RB based on value and knowing that he'll fill in on bye weeks and may likely fill in for injuries, too. Or do you skip down your list to the next best WR to complete your starting lineup? What's the best play here?

Edit to add: Can this be moved to the Assistant Coach's forum? Thanks.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

FWIW. we came across this issue when coding the Draft GM app.

The approach we took was to detect when there's no space left on your starting roster for a player. When this was detected the app multiplies their VBD through a constant (I think we settled on 0.7) and marks them with a "bench" icon on the players list.

IMO, the constant you use should be dependent on how trade happy your league is. For instance, say you take Rodgers in round 2 but Brees is still there in round 5. If no-one ever trades in your league, you shouldn't pick him - but if it's a trade happy league, you can have confidence you'll get value for him.

I guess the next step in terms of being more advanced would be to inspect the guys who have the starting spots blocking the player out, and see how much risk they have. The higher the risk, the higher the constant.

 

[Bcubed2355]

personally I take the RB because they premium and you can get solid WRs later

 

[We Tigers]

I think it largely depends on what's left on your draft board. If an RB offers the best VBD, but there are only 2-3 WRs left in a given tier of yours, I'd consider scarcity and my confidence in the RBs/WRs that'll be left after I make either pick.

In larger leagues (14 teams or more) I tend to fill out starting lineups first, sometimes with the exception of TE. In smaller leagues, there's less urgency and you can still get a week 1 starting quality WR in the 7th or 8th round.

 

[Warrior]

As your question is a very general one, there's no right answer. Some people prefer the bench RB, some prefer the starting WR, it's all based on how you value players.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I've been using VBD the past couple of years and have had a lot of success. However, I keep running into this situation. As I start filling out my roster, for example let's say I have my starting lineup nearly complete, 1 QB, 2 RB's and 1 WR. Next on my VBD list another RB comes up as the best value, but I still need a WR to complete my starting lineup. Do you go with the RB based on value and knowing that he'll fill in on bye weeks and may likely fill in for injuries, too.

I would never draft a running back in that situation to fill in for byes and injuries.

The reason to draft an RB there is that he might be a top ten player at his position and help you win your league as an every-week starter. (Nobody drafted Alfred Morris as one of their top two RBs last season, but that didn't stop him from being a heck of a lot more than a bye-week fill-in.)

The WR you're considering could be a top-ten WR, but in many leagues a top-ten RB is worth more than a top-ten WR. When choosing between your third RB and your second WR, it's appropriate to consider that WR is your bigger need. But it's also appropriate to consider the full upside potential of any player you might draft there, which for RBs is absolutely not limited to filling in for bye weeks or injuries.

 

[GregR]

One answer I frequently give to questions like this is "try it and see which is better".

By which I mean, figure out what your team is likely to be if you go RB-WR-WR with your next few picks. Then look at what you'd have if you went WR-RB-WR, or WR-WR-RB. There are a lot of general things that methods like VBD can show you that make it worthwhile. But it doesn't show you everything and so you need to check more. For example, it might be that you think the WR tiers won't drop off much over the next 2 rounds while RB will plummet, in which case you should take the RB since your starting WR lineup is as good either way.

By the way, testing it like I said, another name for looking at how the positions will drop off in future rounds is dynamic VBD.

 

[Hagger]

Thanks for all of the input. Just to clarify, the league I'm in doesn't trade a lot. The guys I play with tend to hold onto their players like they've each found the next Arian Foster stashed on their bench. The "VBD" I use is a very simple list that I generate myself. I've not put a lot of work into putting my players into tiers, which may help. But from what I can tell, even amongst the staff here, it's mostly a matter of opinion. I appreciate all of your feedback.

 

[johnadams]

Usually by that point in the draft, there are a ton of WRs who fit are similar, which is why your VBD is probably indicating a RB. Even if you don't trade the RB, you get some valuable items. Injury/poor production protection, bye week filler, creating an even higher value on RBs by contributing to their scarcity, and preventing your league mates from getting him. I'd take the RB.

 

[Hagger]

Usually by that point in the draft, there are a ton of WRs who fit are similar, which is why your VBD is probably indicating a RB. Even if you don't trade the RB, you get some valuable items. Injury/poor production protection, bye week filler, creating an even higher value on RBs by contributing to their scarcity, and preventing your league mates from getting him. I'd take the RB.

For some reason I hadn't thought about it this way before. Going RB takes away another RB for my opponents to have to compete against me with. I've always just looked at it in terms of my own team needs. Interesting point. It looks like I need to work on creating tiers to make sure I'm not about to have the WR's have a major drop, but also strongly consider the value of that 3rd RB from all angles.

 

[hauser42]

Personally I would go with the WR it seems to early in the draft to take a backup.

The agruement that injuries will allow for trades is pretty solid. But injuries will also allow for other RBs to be picked up and used that are on the waiver wire. If there are some real heavy trading owners in the league than taking the RB is less of a risk as you should be able to get a WR from your gamble. Maybe by the end of the draft you will have the guy traded also. think about your league before you make that choice so you know what the future could hold for you,

 

[Seven Costanza]

I've been using VBD the past couple of years and have had a lot of success. However, I keep running into this situation. As I start filling out my roster, for example let's say I have my starting lineup nearly complete, 1 QB, 2 RB's and 1 WR. Next on my VBD list another RB comes up as the best value, but I still need a WR to complete my starting lineup. Do you go with the RB based on value and knowing that he'll fill in on bye weeks and may likely fill in for injuries, too. Or do you skip down your list to the next best WR to complete your starting lineup? What's the best play here?

Edit to add: Can this be moved to the Assistant Coach's forum? Thanks.

Hey Hagger...check out Joe Bryants article on the FBG homepage titled Principles of Value Based Drafting. In bullet point 6 he discusses adjusting your X values by your need factor. Joe offers a simple formula based on how many of a position you start versus how many of that position you currently have drafted. For example, if you start 1 RB and you currently have 1 RB on your roster, multiply all your RBs X valus by .8 then resort your X values. If the RBs adjusted X value is still higher than the next WR, maybe you stick with the RB, but if the adjusted X value of the RB drops below the next WR, maybe you take the WR.

Not saying this is the only way, but Joes article is definitely worth a read or two!!

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I looked at a league last year and found that there were 72 RBs who started at least one game for their team. And third and fourth+ RBs each ended up making roughly 1/6th of all RB starts.

IOW about 1/3rd of total RB starts were from guys other than the top two backs on the roster. Some of those starts were flex (I had Willis McGahee as my 3rd in this league for example), but all teams are pressed into starting a third back pretty frequently, and several are going to give a fair number of starts to a 4th back.

 

[GregR]

I looked at a league last year and found that there were 72 RBs who started at least one game for their team. And third and fourth+ RBs each ended up making roughly 1/6th of all RB starts.

IOW about 1/3rd of total RB starts were from guys other than the top two backs on the roster. Some of those starts were flex (I had Willis McGahee as my 3rd in this league for example), but all teams are pressed into starting a third back pretty frequently, and several are going to give a fair number of starts to a 4th back.

I believe Maurile's article on his auction pricing method from a few years ago includes a study of how many fantasy games a player from a given positional ranking starts on average.

 

[plastik]

I looked at a league last year and found that there were 72 RBs who started at least one game for their team. And third and fourth+ RBs each ended up making roughly 1/6th of all RB starts.

IOW about 1/3rd of total RB starts were from guys other than the top two backs on the roster. Some of those starts were flex (I had Willis McGahee as my 3rd in this league for example), but all teams are pressed into starting a third back pretty frequently, and several are going to give a fair number of starts to a 4th back.

I believe Maurile's article on his auction pricing method from a few years ago includes a study of how many fantasy games a player from a given positional ranking starts on average.

Do you happen have a link to that article? I love this site, but the search function on the main page is pretty much useless.

 

[GregR]

I looked at a league last year and found that there were 72 RBs who started at least one game for their team. And third and fourth+ RBs each ended up making roughly 1/6th of all RB starts.

IOW about 1/3rd of total RB starts were from guys other than the top two backs on the roster. Some of those starts were flex (I had Willis McGahee as my 3rd in this league for example), but all teams are pressed into starting a third back pretty frequently, and several are going to give a fair number of starts to a 4th back.

I believe Maurile's article on his auction pricing method from a few years ago includes a study of how many fantasy games a player from a given positional ranking starts on average.

Do you happen have a link to that article? I love this site, but the search function on the main page is pretty much useless.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2006/06tremblay_auctionpricing.php

It's right above the Putting Theory Into Practice section. He gives formulas for each position, just plug where the player ranks in his position for x to get how many games they started.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I looked at a league last year and found that there were 72 RBs who started at least one game for their team. And third and fourth+ RBs each ended up making roughly 1/6th of all RB starts.

IOW about 1/3rd of total RB starts were from guys other than the top two backs on the roster. Some of those starts were flex (I had Willis McGahee as my 3rd in this league for example), but all teams are pressed into starting a third back pretty frequently, and several are going to give a fair number of starts to a 4th back.

I believe Maurile's article on his auction pricing method from a few years ago includes a study of how many fantasy games a player from a given positional ranking starts on average.

Do you happen have a link to that article? I love this site, but the search function on the main page is pretty much useless.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2006/06tremblay_auctionpricing.php

It's right above the Putting Theory Into Practice section. He gives formulas for each position, just plug where the player ranks in his position for x to get how many games they started.

Thanks Greg, I missed that one and it's exactly what I was looking for.