What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

Dynasty Rankings (7 Viewers)

The week he plays Kyle Rudolph, he's going to facestomp.
Norv Turner may not agree with you here.

You also say VBD numbers are flawed. There is nothing flawed with the numbers only how people use them. For example your average QB in the league (QB 16 aprox) baseline.

 
First off, PPR doesn't make a huge difference. I just ran the numbers including a point per reception, and Aaron Rodgers still came out ahead.

Second off, I'm not using QB12 as a baseline.

Third off, are you familiar with the concept of "multiple endpoints" in statistics?
It does make a big difference. Rodgers may have come out ahead in your measurement of choice. But it does make a difference.

You are using QB12 as a baseline. Again, I understand you're capturing the mean advantage over all 12 guys--but QB12 is still your baseline; that's why you picked the 12 that you did. I understand the logic behind it. I understand that it's not only QB12 that you're using in your calculation. It's it the cutoff for your baseline population.

Yes.

I don't see much coming from the conversation. if you value Rodgers more, or par with Graham--that's fine. We obviously have very different philosophies on QB value in the current market.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Really strongly disagreed with the bolded. Aaron Rodgers (and Peyton and Brees) provide a huge advantage over the 2nd-tier producers. Unless Stafford, Griffin, Cam, or Luck make a big jump up to the elite production level (Stafford flirted with it in 2011, and Cam has been the next rung down his entire career), Aaron Rodgers is going to represent a couple PPG advantage over even those guys, and a huge PPG advantage over the rest of the pack.
RG3 and Cam don't need to make big jumps. They simply need to reach their rookie numbers. Rodgers has outscored Cam's rookie season once in his career. RG3 was on pace to best them as a rookie, before being slowed by injuries. Rodgers' 2011 season is an anomoly, when looking at his entire career. It's 50 fatnasy points higher than his 2nd best season. In fact, Nick Fole's 2013 season was better than Rodgers', ppg.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Really strongly disagreed with the bolded. Aaron Rodgers (and Peyton and Brees) provide a huge advantage over the 2nd-tier producers. Unless Stafford, Griffin, Cam, or Luck make a big jump up to the elite production level (Stafford flirted with it in 2011, and Cam has been the next rung down his entire career), Aaron Rodgers is going to represent a couple PPG advantage over even those guys, and a huge PPG advantage over the rest of the pack.
RG3 and Cam don't need to make big jumps. They simply need to reach their rookie numbers. Rodgers has outscored Cam's rookie season once in his career. RG3 was on pace to best them as a rookie, before being slowed by injuries. Rodgers 2011 season is an anomoly, when looking at his entire career. It's 50 fatnasy points higher than his 2nd best season.
I think this is part of the problem we're runing into here. We are treating Rodgers 2011 or Manning 2013 as if those were normal years for them, and that the advantage over baseline gained in those seasons will be maintained. It's silly to assume that Rodgers will give you a 6 ppg advantage over the average QB1 year in and year out. A better assumption is that he will perform at some point above the baseline year in and out, but that some years might only offer a 2 or 3 ppg advantage. I think the safety and upside of Rodgers justifies a thrid round startup pick, but QB1s in general simply aren't all that safe as QB1s year in and out, and are more easily replaced, making the typical RB2 a better pick- not because the specific player is safer, but because despite the recent proliferation of RBBC, it's still easier to aquire QB10-12 then it is to aquire RB20-24.

 
Really strongly disagreed with the bolded. Aaron Rodgers (and Peyton and Brees) provide a huge advantage over the 2nd-tier producers. Unless Stafford, Griffin, Cam, or Luck make a big jump up to the elite production level (Stafford flirted with it in 2011, and Cam has been the next rung down his entire career), Aaron Rodgers is going to represent a couple PPG advantage over even those guys, and a huge PPG advantage over the rest of the pack.
RG3 and Cam don't need to make big jumps. They simply need to reach their rookie numbers. Rodgers has outscored Cam's rookie season once in his career. RG3 was on pace to best them as a rookie, before being slowed by injuries. Rodgers' 2011 season is an anomoly, when looking at his entire career. It's 50 fatnasy points higher than his 2nd best season. In fact, Nick Fole's 2013 season was better than Rodgers', ppg.
Cam's and RGIII's absurd rookie rushing TD totals are just as likely as Rodgers' absurd 2011 passing TD total to be career outliers, though. Moreso, actually, because we've now seen Peyton Manning do it twice through the air.

 
Cam's and RGIII's absurd rookie rushing TD totals are just as likely as Rodgers' absurd 2011 passing TD total to be career outliers, though. Moreso, actually, because we've now seen Peyton Manning do it twice through the air.
I'd agree. Both parties came back down to earth (Cam(RG3),Rodgers). I don't know that Peyton's 2013 season has much to do with the conversation, though. It was the best season by a QB in NFL history.

 
Cam's and RGIII's absurd rookie rushing TD totals are just as likely as Rodgers' absurd 2011 passing TD total to be career outliers, though. Moreso, actually, because we've now seen Peyton Manning do it twice through the air.
I'd agree. Both parties came back down to earth (Cam(RG3),Rodgers). I don't know that Peyton's 2013 season has much to do with the conversation, though. It was the best season by a QB in NFL history.
Yeah it was a reach -- but we've seen the same guy break the passing TD record twice at least -- not that is has any bearing whatsoever on anything -- the chances of Rodgers repeating 2011 are small enough that they really shouldn't be accounted for IMO.

 
I have Luck in quite a few leagues and I've had a couple different owners try to make Rodgers for Luck + value trades with me. It wasn't something that interested me at all. I rank Rodgers #1 like everyone else, but with a gun to my head it would be tough to accept even a straight up offer. The stats to date don't support that stance, but I just think Luck is a prodigy and a no-brainer lock for greatness. I think he's still just scratching the surface of what he'll be in time. I'd feel a little better if it didn't seem like the Colts want to become a Stanford ball control style offense, but overall I feel like Luck has a reasonable chance to outscore Rodgers in future seasons. Add in the age gap and he's possibly the more attractive commodity, at least if he comes at a cheaper price.

Rodgers has a pretty standard height/weight ratio for an NFL QB, but he's on the shorter side of the scale and he looks a little thin to my eyes. More importantly, he ranks near the bottom of all active quarterbacks in career sack %. A very unusual trait for such a good QB. Brees, Brady, and Peyton are near the top of the list. It's not something that would factor into my long term thinking very much, but he could be a guy who wears down a little earlier than expected. He seems to take a lot of abuse and unlike Roethlisberger, he's not huge like a DE or TE to compensate.

 
EBF said:
I have Luck in quite a few leagues and I've had a couple different owners try to make Rodgers for Luck + value trades with me. It wasn't something that interested me at all. I rank Rodgers #1 like everyone else, but with a gun to my head it would be tough to accept even a straight up offer. The stats to date don't support that stance, but I just think Luck is a prodigy and a no-brainer lock for greatness. I think he's still just scratching the surface of what he'll be in time. I'd feel a little better if it didn't seem like the Colts want to become a Stanford ball control style offense, but overall I feel like Luck has a reasonable chance to outscore Rodgers in future seasons. Add in the age gap and he's possibly the more attractive commodity, at least if he comes at a cheaper price.

Rodgers has a pretty standard height/weight ratio for an NFL QB, but he's on the shorter side of the scale and he looks a little thin to my eyes. More importantly, he ranks near the bottom of all active quarterbacks in career sack %. A very unusual trait for such a good QB. Brees, Brady, and Peyton are near the top of the list. It's not something that would factor into my long term thinking very much, but he could be a guy who wears down a little earlier than expected. He seems to take a lot of abuse and unlike Roethlisberger, he's not huge like a DE or TE to compensate.
Has he not also already had multiple concussions?

 
Biabreakable said:
The week he plays Kyle Rudolph, he's going to facestomp.
Norv Turner may not agree with you here.

You also say VBD numbers are flawed. There is nothing flawed with the numbers only how people use them. For example your average QB in the league (QB 16 aprox) baseline.
VBD is a flawed metric for plenty of reasons. For starters, it only uses end-of-season numbers and not per-game numbers. Imagine two receivers: one guy plays 16 games and scores exactly 4 points every week. The other guy only played four weeks before getting injured, but he scored 15 points in each of those four weeks. According to VBD, the first guy was more valuable, because he scored 64 points instead of 60 points... but the first guy gave you 16-weeks of well-below-baseline production, while the first guy gave you four weeks of well-above-baseline production and 12 weeks of an extra roster spot (because you cut him after he suffered a season-ending injury). Clearly the second guy was way, way more valuable.

Another example: imagine a position where the top 10 players scored 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, and 50 points. Now imagine another position where the top 10 players scored 100, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, and 51 points. VBD tells us the top player in the first group was more valuable- 50 VBD > 49 VBD. Common sense tells us the top guy in the second group was light years ahead of the first guy. The first guy gave you less than 10 points against 88% of your competition. The second guy gave you 40+ points against everyone else in the league.

The core concept of VBD is sound- it's not how much you score, it's how much you outscore the competition by- but in execution, VBD is a flawed statistic. Instead of "final points - baseline", it should be "(PPG - baseline PPG) * games played". Instead of a single fixed baseline (say, QB12), it should use a baseline that encompasses the entire league, rather than just the owner with the worst starter.

Again, in theory, VBD is a great idea... but the stat is 15+ years old now, and it's showing its age. It's a little bit creaky around the joints. It has the advantage of being quick and easy to calculate, making it a convenient jumping-off point for conversations, but it's a flawed statistic because it paints an incomplete and in some cases entirely misleading picture.

 
renesauz said:
Concept Coop said:
Adam Harstad said:
Really strongly disagreed with the bolded. Aaron Rodgers (and Peyton and Brees) provide a huge advantage over the 2nd-tier producers. Unless Stafford, Griffin, Cam, or Luck make a big jump up to the elite production level (Stafford flirted with it in 2011, and Cam has been the next rung down his entire career), Aaron Rodgers is going to represent a couple PPG advantage over even those guys, and a huge PPG advantage over the rest of the pack.
RG3 and Cam don't need to make big jumps. They simply need to reach their rookie numbers. Rodgers has outscored Cam's rookie season once in his career. RG3 was on pace to best them as a rookie, before being slowed by injuries. Rodgers 2011 season is an anomoly, when looking at his entire career. It's 50 fatnasy points higher than his 2nd best season.
I think this is part of the problem we're runing into here. We are treating Rodgers 2011 or Manning 2013 as if those were normal years for them, and that the advantage over baseline gained in those seasons will be maintained. It's silly to assume that Rodgers will give you a 6 ppg advantage over the average QB1 year in and year out. A better assumption is that he will perform at some point above the baseline year in and out, but that some years might only offer a 2 or 3 ppg advantage. I think the safety and upside of Rodgers justifies a thrid round startup pick, but QB1s in general simply aren't all that safe as QB1s year in and out, and are more easily replaced, making the typical RB2 a better pick- not because the specific player is safer, but because despite the recent proliferation of RBBC, it's still easier to aquire QB10-12 then it is to aquire RB20-24.
2011 was a total aberration for Rodgers, but the point I've been making is that he never again needs to reach those heights to justify a premium pick. Aaron Rodgers has been a starter for 6 years. In 2011, Aaron Rodgers was the #1 player at any position in terms of VBD (despite sitting a game). Aberration. In his other 5 years, though, if you pro-rate his stats, Rodgers would have ranked 19th, 11th, 5th, 4th, and 11th in season-ending VBD (regardless of position). So even if we pretend that 2011 was all a magical mushroom-inspired hallucination and delete all records of it from existence, Aaron Rodgers is still far and away the #1 dynasty QB in the land by a significant margin.

Even if we wipe the 2011 season off the map entirely, Aaron Rodgers has consistently provided a 5+ PPG advantage over a QB12 baseline. His worst- his WORST, very worst, absolute worst-in-history season- was "only" a 4.7 PPG advantage over a QB12 baseline.

And yes, I know it's ironic that I'm using VBD numbers one post after I bashed VBD, but like I said, it's quick, it's easy to calculate (actually, it's freely available on PFR, no calculations necessary), and it's a good place to start the discussion.

 
Concept Coop said:
Adam Harstad said:
First off, PPR doesn't make a huge difference. I just ran the numbers including a point per reception, and Aaron Rodgers still came out ahead.

Second off, I'm not using QB12 as a baseline.

Third off, are you familiar with the concept of "multiple endpoints" in statistics?
It does make a big difference. Rodgers may have come out ahead in your measurement of choice. But it does make a difference.

You are using QB12 as a baseline. Again, I understand you're capturing the mean advantage over all 12 guys--but QB12 is still your baseline; that's why you picked the 12 that you did. I understand the logic behind it. I understand that it's not only QB12 that you're using in your calculation. It's it the cutoff for your baseline population.

Yes.

I don't see much coming from the conversation. if you value Rodgers more, or par with Graham--that's fine. We obviously have very different philosophies on QB value in the current market.
What non-arbitrarily-chosen, non multiple-endpoint-begging baseline would you rather I use? I'd be happy to re-run the numbers.

I don't think this is about whether Rodgers is more valuable or equally valuable or less valuable compared to Jimmy Graham going forward. I think there are reasonable arguments to be made in that debate, and I agree that neither of us are changing the others' mind. I think this is about answering a specific question- did Aaron Rodgers provide a bigger positional advantage in 2011 than Jimmy Graham did in 2011 or 2013? I don't think that's a matter of opinion, I think that's a question with a right answer and a wrong answer. I think the numbers are clear that Aaron Rodgers provided a bigger positional advantage than Jimmy Graham, but if you believe otherwise, I'd be interested in discussing what baselines you're using that are giving you different results.

 
2013

1 Jamaal Charles RB 308 182
2 LeSean McCoy RB 279 152
3 Peyton Manning QB 410 151
4 Matt Forte RB 263 137
5 Jimmy Graham TE 218 124
6 Marshawn Lynch RB 239 113
7 Knowshon Moreno RB 237 110
8 Josh Gordon WR 227 108
9 Demaryius ThomasWR 225 105 5 RB 2 WR 1 QB 1 TE

10 Calvin Johnson WR 219 99
11 Drew Brees QB 358 99
12 A.J. Green WR 209 89
13 Brandon MarshallWR 206 86
14 Eddie Lacy RB 208 81
15 Dez Bryant WR 199 80
16 Antonio Brown WR 199 79
17 DeMarco Murray RB 205 79
18 Adrian Peterson RB 204 77
19 Alshon Jeffery WR 195 75
20 Eric Decker WR 193 73
21 Chris Johnson RB 198 72
22 Vernon Davis TE 161 68
23 DeSean Jackson WR 187 68
24 Fred Jackson RB 188 61
25 Jordy Nelson WR 179 60
26 Reggie Bush RB 185 59
27 Ryan Mathews RB 184 58
28 Julius Thomas TE 149 56
29 Andre Johnson WR 171 51 12 RB 12 WR 2 QB 3 TE

30 Frank Gore RB 175 49
31 Le'Veon Bell RB 172 46
32 Pierre Garcon WR 165 45
33 Vincent Jackson WR 164 45
34 Alfred Morris RB 169 43
35 Tony Gonzalez TE 136 43
36 Anquan Boldin WR 161 41
37 Jordan Cameron TE 134 41
38 Jason Witten TE 133 40
39 Cam Newton QB 298 39
40 Giovani Bernard RB 165 39
41 Joique Bell RB 164 37
42 Larry FitzgerarlWR 154 34
43 Andrew Luck* QB 293 34
44 Zac Stacy RB 157 31
45 Keenan Allen WR 149 29
46 Philip Rivers QB 287 29
47 Andy Dalton QB 286 27
48 Julian Edelman WR 147 27
49 Charles Clay TE 119 26
50 Greg Olsen TE 118 25

2012

1 Adrian Peterson RB 307 191
2 Doug Martin RB 263 146
3 Arian Foster RB 262 145
4 Marshawn Lynch RB 247 130
5 Alfred Morris RB 241 124
6 Ray Rice RB 222 105
7 Calvin Johnson WR 220 102 6 RB 1 WR

8 Brandon MarshallWR 217 98
9 C.J. Spiller RB 212 96
10 Drew Brees QB 346 95
11 Aaron Rodgers QB 344 93
12 Tom Brady QB 340 90
13 Dez Bryant WR 208 89
14 Jamaal Charles RB 205 88
15 Trent RichardsonRB 204 87
16 A.J. Green WR 203 84
17 Stevan Ridley RB 199 83
18 Frank Gore RB 197 80
19 Demaryius ThomasWR 197 79
20 Cam Newton QB 323 73
21 Vincent Jackson WR 188 70
22 Andre Johnson WR 186 67
23 Robert Griffin QB 318 67
24 Eric Decker WR 184 66
25 Julio Jones WR 183 64
26 Matt Forte RB 177 61
27 Peyton Manning QB 311 60
28 Chris Johnson RB 176 59
29 Roddy White WR 177 59
30 Jimmy Graham TE 152 55
31 Reggie Bush RB 172 55
32 Matt Ryan QB 305 54
33 Wes Welker WR 171 53
34 Marques Colston WR 171 53
35 Victor Cruz WR 169 51
36 Shonn Greene RB 167 51 14 RB 13 WR 7 QB 1TE

37 Michael Crabtre WR 165 47
38 Rob Gronkowski TE 143 46
39 Steven Jackson RB 162 46
40 Reggie Wayne WR 163 45
41 Tony Gonzalez TE 141 44
42 James Jones WR 162 44
43 Michael Turner RB 157 40
44 Ahmad Bradshaw RB 156 39
45 Mike Williams WR 155 36
46 Randall Cobb WR 155 36
47 BenJarvus Green-RB 152 35
48 Heath Miller TE 132 35
49 Mikel Leshoure RB 149 33
50 LeSean McCoy RB 145 29
51 Tony Romo QB 279 28
52 Russell Wilson QB 278 27
53 Andrew Luck QB 276 26
54 Jason Witten TE 122 25
55 Matthew StaffordQB 276 25
56 Darren Sproles RB 141 24
57 Steve Smith WR 142 24

2011

1 Aaron Rodgers QB 397 171
2 Drew Brees QB 396 169
3 Ray Rice RB 301 152
4 Calvin Johnson WR 265 149
5 Cam Newton QB 373 147
6 Tom Brady QB 370 144
7 Rob Gronkowski TE 241 143
8 LeSean McCoy RB 282 134
9 Matthew StaffordQB 345 119
10 Maurice Jones RB 264 115
11 Arian Foster RB 256 108
12 Jordy Nelson WR 216 100 4 RB 2 WR 5 QB 1 TE

13 Jimmy Graham TE 197 99
14 Wes Welker WR 214 98
15 Victor Cruz WR 208 92
16 Larry FitzgeraldWR 189 73
17 Steve Smith WR 189 73
18 Marshawn Lynch RB 220 71
19 Michael Turner RB 217 68
20 Percy Harvin WR 179 63
21 Eli Manning QB 289 62
22 Roddy White WR 178 62
23 Mike Wallace WR 173 57
24 Tony Romo QB 282 55
25 Vincent Jackson WR 170 54
26 Matt Ryan QB 279 53 6 RB 10 WR 8 QB 2 TE

27 Marques Colston WR 162 46
28 Hakeem Nicks WR 161 45
29 Brandon MarshallWR 159 43
30 Ryan Mathews RB 191 42
31 Adrian Peterson RB 189 40
32 Aaron Hernandez TE 138 40
33 Michael Bush RB 188 39
34 Darren Sproles RB 187 39
35 Philip Rivers QB 265 38
36 A.J. Green WR 153 37
37 Laurent RobinsonWR 152 36
38 Steven Jackson RB 184 35
39 Nate Washington WR 151 35
40 Julio Jones WR 150 34
41 Greg Jennings WR 149 33
42 Frank Gore RB 181 32
43 Tony Gonzalez TE 130 32
44 Reggie Bush RB 180 32
45 Dez Bryant WR 147 31
46 Dwayne Bowe WR 147 31
47 Jermichael FinleTE 125 27
48 Jason Witten TE 124 27
49 Mark Sanchez QB 253 26
50 Steve Johnson WR 142 26
51 Fred Jackson RB 174 25
52 Matt Forte RB 173 24

2010

1 Arian Foster RB 330 192
2 Peyton Hillis RB 244 106
3 Adrian Peterson RB 242 104
4 Jamaal Charles RB 242 103 4 RB

5 Chris Johnson RB 233 95
6 Brandon Lloyd WR 209 91
7 Dwayne Bowe WR 207 89
8 Darren McFadden RB 226 88
9 Roddy White WR 203 85
10 Michael Vick QB 316 85
11 Rashard Mendenh RB 222 84
12 LeSean McCoy RB 221 83
13 Greg Jennings WR 198 81
14 Michael Turner RB 218 80
15 Matt Forte RB 218 80
16 Ray Rice RB 214 76
17 Aaron Rodgers QB 306 75
18 Mike Wallace WR 190 72
19 Calvin Johnson WR 189 71
20 Tom Brady QB 301 70
21 Ahmad Bradshaw RB 205 67
22 Maurice Jones RB 204 66
23 Steven Jackson RB 198 60
24 Jason Witten TE 156 60
25 Philip Rivers QB 290 58
26 Peyton Manning QB 288 57
27 Reggie Wayne WR 172 54
28 Hakeem Nicks WR 171 53
29 Andre Johnson WR 171 53
30 Steve Johnson WR 167 50 14 RB 10 WR 5 QB 1 TE

31 BenJarvus Green RB 187 49
32 Mike Williams WR 162 45
33 Miles Austin WR 161 44
34 Jeremy Maclin WR 160 42
35 Drew Brees QB 273 42
36 Antonio Gates TE 138 42
37 Cedric Benson RB 179 41
38 DeSean Jackson WR 158 40
39 Vernon Davis TE 135 39
40 Terrell Owens WR 152 35
41 Larry FitzgeraldWR 152 34
42 Marcedes Lewis TE 130 34
43 Josh Freeman QB 264 33
44 Mario ManninghamWR 149 31
45 Santana Moss WR 147 29
46 Matt Ryan QB 258 27
47 Marques Colston WR 144 27
48 LaDainian Tomli RB 164 26
49 Knowshon Moreno RB 163 25
50 Mike Tolbert RB 163 25

2009

1 Chris Johnson RB 349 199
2 Adrian Peterson RB 290 140
3 Maurice Jones RB 273 122
4 Aaron Rodgers QB 351 115
5 Ray Rice RB 252 102
6 Andre Johnson WR 214 102 4 RB 1 WR 1 QB

7 Randy Moss WR 206 94
8 Miles Austin WR 198 86
9 Frank Gore RB 231 80
10 Thomas Jones RB 230 80
11 DeSean Jackson WR 189 77
12 Vernon Davis TE 175 76
13 Larry FitzgeraldWR 187 75
14 Dallas Clark TE 172 73
15 Reggie Wayne WR 184 72
16 Drew Brees QB 306 70
17 Roddy White WR 182 69
18 Sidney Rice WR 179 67
19 Ricky Williams RB 217 66
20 Antonio Gates TE 164 65
21 Brandon Marshal WR 176 64
22 Ryan Grant RB 211 61
23 Vincent Jackson WR 172 60
24 Steve Smith WR 164 52
25 Brett Favre QB 287 50
26 Wes Welker WR 162 50
27 Marques Colston WR 162 50
28 Chad Johnson WR 162 50 8 RB 14 WR 3 QB 3 TE

29 Joseph Addai RB 199 49
30 Matt Schaub QB 285 48
31 Steven Jackson RB 198 48
32 Brent Celek TE 145 47
33 Tony Romo QB 282 46
34 Santonio Holmes WR 155 43
35 Jonathan StewartRB 193 43
36 Peyton Manning QB 279 43
37 Jamaal Charles RB 192 42
38 Hines Ward WR 153 41
39 Philip Rivers QB 275 39
40 Tom Brady QB 274 38
41 Ben RoethlisbergQB 273 37
42 Rashard MendenhaRB 185 35
43 Derrick Mason WR 145 33
44 Steve Smith WR 144 32
45 Donald Driver WR 143 31
46 DeAngelo WilliamRB 181 31
47 Greg Jennings WR 139 27
48 Tony Gonzalez TE 123 24
49 Visanthe ShiancoTE 123 24
50 Calvin Johnson WR 136 24

2008

1 DeAngelo WilliamRB 286 137
2 Michael Turner RB 276 128
3 Adrian Peterson RB 249 100 3 RB

4 Larry FitzgeraldWR 215 98
5 Matt Forte RB 244 95
6 Thomas Jones RB 242 94
7 Andre Johnson WR 208 91
8 Calvin Johnson WR 207 90
9 Drew Brees QB 305 87
10 Tony Gonzalez TE 166 83
11 Aaron Rodgers QB 296 78
12 Steve Slaton RB 226 78
13 LaDainian TomlinRB 226 77
14 Clinton Portis RB 225 76
15 Maurice Jones RB 223 75
16 Brian Westbrook RB 218 70
17 Philip Rivers QB 287 69
18 Greg Jennings WR 185 68
19 Steve Smith WR 182 65
20 Roddy White WR 181 64
21 Jay Cutler QB 281 63
22 Chris Johnson RB 209 61
23 Anquan Boldin WR 177 60
24 Kurt Warner QB 277 59
25 Brandon Jacobs RB 203 54
26 Antonio Bryant WR 169 52
27 Terrell Owens WR 169 52
28 Randy Moss WR 167 50 12 RB 10 WR 5 QB 1 TE

29 Brandon MarshallWR 162 45
30 Frank Gore RB 191 43
31 Vincent Jackson WR 159 42
32 Steven Jackson RB 190 42
33 Marshawn Lynch RB 188 39
34 Jason Witten TE 121 38
35 Dallas Clark TE 121 38
36 Peyton Manning QB 254 36
37 Antonio Gates TE 118 36
38 Marion Barber RB 184 36
39 Reggie Wayne WR 153 36
40 Donovan McNabb QB 253 35
41 Matt Cassel QB 253 35
42 Ronnie Brown RB 183 34
43 Lance Moore WR 151 34
44 Hines Ward WR 147 30
45 Dwayne Bowe WR 144 27
46 Santana Moss WR 143 26
47 Kevin Smith RB 174 26
48 Bernard Berrian WR 141 24
49 Eddie Royal WR 141 24

2007

1 Tom Brady QB 398 180
2 Randy Moss WR 287 170
3 LaDainian TomlinRB 308 166
4 Brian Westbrook RB 282 141
5 Terrell Owens WR 226 109
6 Braylon Edwards WR 225 108 2 RB 3 WR 1 QB

7 Adrian Peterson RB 239 97
8 Reggie Wayne WR 211 94
9 Clinton Portis RB 236 94
10 Joseph Addai RB 236 94
11 Larry FitzgeraldWR 201 84
12 Tony Romo QB 299 81
13 Chad Johnson WR 197 80
14 Jamal Lewis RB 221 79
15 Jason Witten TE 157 78
16 Antonio Gates TE 152 74
17 T.J. HoushmandzaWR 188 71
18 Marques Colston WR 186 69
19 Tony Gonzalez TE 147 69
20 Kellen Winslow TE 143 64
21 Brandon MarshallWR 180 63
22 Peyton Manning QB 277 59
23 Plaxico Burress WR 175 57
24 Marion Barber RB 198 56
25 Dallas Clark TE 131 52
26 Wes Welker WR 169 52
27 Chris Cooley TE 129 50
28 Willis McGahee RB 192 50 8RB 11 WR 3 QB 6TE

29 Ben Roethlisber QB 267 48
30 Frank Gore RB 190 48
31 Drew Brees QB 265 47
32 Greg Jennings WR 164 47
33 Torry Holt WR 163 46
34 Edgerrin James RB 185 43
35 Earnest Graham RB 182 40
36 Matt Hasselbeck QB 258 39
37 Roddy White WR 156 39
38 Derek Anderson QB 256 38
39 Marshawn Lynch RB 178 36
40 Bobby Engram WR 151 34
41 Steve Smith WR 149 32
42 Brett Favre QB 249 31
43 Kevin Curtis WR 147 30
44 Maurice Jones RB 172 30
45 Santonio Holmes WR 146 29
46 Steven Jackson RB 167 26
47 Anquan Boldin WR 141 24

2006

1 LaDainian TomlinRB 427 266
2 Larry Johnson RB 334 173
3 Steven Jackson RB 329 168
4 Peyton Manning QB 313 122
5 Frank Gore RB 272 111
6 Willie Parker RB 268 107 5 RB 1 QB

7 Brian Westbrook RB 258 97
8 Marvin Harrison WR 211 94
9 Tiki Barber RB 243 82
10 Terrell Owens WR 198 81
11 Michael Vick QB 269 77
12 Drew Brees QB 266 74
13 Reggie Wayne WR 187 70
14 Maurice Jones RB 228 67
15 Marc Bulger QB 258 67
16 Antonio Gates TE 146 65
17 Chad Johnson WR 181 65
18 Donald Driver WR 179 63
19 Torry Holt WR 179 62
20 Lee Evans WR 177 61
21 Steve Smith WR 177 60
22 Carson Palmer QB 251 59
23 Javon Walker WR 175 58
24 Roy Williams WR 173 57
25 Rudi Johnson RB 215 54 9 RB 10 WR 5 QB 1 TE

26 T.J. Houshmandz WR 163 46
27 Alge Crumpler TE 126 45
28 Jon Kitna QB 236 44
29 Plaxico Burress WR 159 42
30 Tony Gonzalez TE 122 41
31 Darrell Jackson WR 156 39
32 Tom Brady QB 227 36
33 Marques Colston WR 152 35
34 Joey Galloway WR 149 32
35 Todd Heap TE 113 31
36 Laveranues ColesWR 147 31
37 Anquan Boldin WR 147 31
38 Chris Cooley TE 111 30
39 Andre Johnson WR 146 30
40 Ladell Betts RB 190 29
41 Mike Furrey WR 145 28
42 Joseph Addai RB 189 28
43 Chester Taylor RB 186 25
44 Terry Glenn WR 142 25
45 Deuce McAllisterRB 186 25
46 Kellen Jr. WinslTE 106 24

2005

1 Shaun Alexander RB 364 221
2 Larry Johnson RB 335 192
3 LaDainian TomlinRB 317 174
4 Tiki Barber RB 307 164
5 Edgerrin James RB 268 125
6 Steve Smith WR 237 120
7 Clinton Portis RB 246 103 6 RB 1 WR

8 Antonio Gates TE 170 93
9 Larry FitzgeraldWR 205 88
10 Santana Moss WR 202 85
11 Chad Johnson WR 201 84
12 LaMont Jordan RB 227 84
13 Rudi Johnson RB 227 84
14 Joey Galloway WR 189 72
15 Anquan Boldin WR 189 72
16 Torry Holt WR 187 71
17 Chris Chambers WR 187 70
18 Marvin Harrison WR 187 70
19 Carson Palmer QB 270 60
20 Thomas Jones RB 202 59
21 Mike Anderson RB 201 58
22 Jeremy Shockey TE 133 56
23 Steven Jackson RB 197 54
24 Todd Heap TE 128 51 11 RB 9 WR 1 QB 2 TE

25 Hines Ward WR 165 48
26 Plaxico Burress WR 163 47
27 Tom Brady QB 255 45
28 Warrick Dunn RB 188 45
29 Terry Glenn WR 161 45
30 Alge Crumpler TE 120 43
31 Chris Cooley TE 119 42
32 Peyton Manning QB 248 38
33 Donald Driver WR 153 37
34 Jason Witten TE 112 35
35 T.J. Houshmandz WR 150 33
36 Randy Moss WR 149 32
37 Rod Smith WR 147 31
38 Keenan McCardellWR 146 30
39 Willis McGahee RB 173 29
40 Reuben Droughns RB 172 29
41 Willie Parker RB 172 29
42 Eddie Kennison WR 145 28
43 Corey Dillon RB 169 26
44 Tony Gonzalez TE 103 26
45 Matt Hasselbeck QB 235 25
46 Domanick WilliamRB 167 24
47 Brian Westbrook RB 167 24

2004

1 Shaun Alexander RB 307 149
2 Daunte CulpepperQB 381 149
3 Tiki Barber RB 300 142
4 LaDainian TomlinRB 287 130
5 Peyton Manning QB 362 129
6 Curtis Martin RB 278 121
7 Muhsin Muhammad WR 238 111
8 Antonio Gates TE 174 105
9 Domanick Willia RB 262 104
10 Edgerrin James RB 259 102 6 RB 1 WR 2 QB 1 TE

11 Tony Gonzalez TE 168 99
12 Corey Dillon RB 254 96
13 Javon Walker WR 210 83
14 Joe Horn WR 208 81
15 Terrell Owens WR 204 76
16 Marvin Harrison WR 201 74
17 Donovan McNabb QB 303 70
18 Torry Holt WR 197 70
19 Drew Bennett WR 197 70
20 Rudi Johnson RB 226 68
21 Jason Witten TE 136 67
22 Reggie Wayne WR 193 65
23 Chad Johnson WR 185 58
24 Willis McGahee RB 208 50
25 Donald Driver WR 177 50 9 RB 10 WR 3 QB 3 TE

26 Brian Westbrook RB 206 48
27 Alge Crumpler TE 113 44
28 Clinton Portis RB 202 44
29 Priest Holmes RB 198 41
30 Brandon Stokley WR 168 40
31 Ahman Green RB 197 39
32 Reuben Droughns RB 196 39
33 Isaac Bruce WR 165 38
34 Michael Clayton WR 164 37
35 Warrick Dunn RB 194 37
36 Darrell Jackson WR 164 37
37 Randy McMichael TE 105 36
38 Trent Green QB 268 35
39 Michael Pittman RB 192 34
40 Nate Burleson WR 162 34
41 Jeremy Shockey TE 103 33
42 Eddie Kennison WR 160 33
43 Rod Smith WR 160 32
44 Derrick Mason WR 159 31
45 Deuce McAllisterRB 184 27
46 Randy Moss WR 154 27
47 Jerry Porter WR 153 26
48 Jake Delhomme QB 259 26
49 Jimmy Smith WR 153 26
50 Jermaine WigginsTE 95 25
51 Eric Johnson TE 95 25
52 Jake Plummer QB 258 25
53 Brett Favre QB 257 24
54 Andre Johnson WR 151 24
55 Jerome Bettis RB 181 24
56 Ashley Lelie WR 151 24

I only listed these 504 players who had 24 or more VBD which is akmost a 2pt/game advantage. I likely should have done 32 instead. Oh well. 2004 had 56 players represented but the average was right around 50 players who gave teams an advantage each season. Players who can give you at least a 2pt/game advantage over replacement level players.

Now 2pt/game is not that much of an advantage, the main players who make a difference for teams are the players scoring above 50 VBD. I could see this being 64 instead which would be a 4pt/game advantage. But I set it at 50. This data uses 12 QB 24 RB 30 WR 12 TE baselines. I think using 15 QB 30 RB 36 WR 15 TE would better represent worst starter, when one takes into consideration byes and injuries, particularly at RB, I think fantasy owners are starting at least 30 different RB over the course of a season. But at least this data is balanced. From 2004-2006 there were 24, 25 and 25 players who had 50+ VBD then that number climbs to 28,28,28,30, 26 (2011) then 36 before falling back to 29. The average number of players finishing that high each season for the past 10 years has been 28 players. Those players were 103RB 109WR 42QB 23TE.

For players who scored over 100 VBD there were 80 players. 45 RB 11 WR 11 QB 3 TE

I looked at 2003 and there were 30 players who finished with 50+ VBD that season. VBD numbers in 2011 were not only strong for multiple QB, but overall there were only 26 players who scored over 50 VBD that season as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
2011 was a total aberration for Rodgers, but the point I've been making is that he never again needs to reach those heights to justify a premium pick. Aaron Rodgers has been a starter for 6 years. In 2011, Aaron Rodgers was the #1 player at any position in terms of VBD (despite sitting a game). Aberration. In his other 5 years, though, if you pro-rate his stats, Rodgers would have ranked 19th, 11th, 5th, 4th, and 11th in season-ending VBD (regardless of position). So even if we pretend that 2011 was all a magical mushroom-inspired hallucination and delete all records of it from existence, Aaron Rodgers is still far and away the #1 dynasty QB in the land by a significant margin.

Even if we wipe the 2011 season off the map entirely, Aaron Rodgers has consistently provided a 5+ PPG advantage over a QB12 baseline. His worst- his WORST, very worst, absolute worst-in-history season- was "only" a 4.7 PPG advantage over a QB12 baseline.

And yes, I know it's ironic that I'm using VBD numbers one post after I bashed VBD, but like I said, it's quick, it's easy to calculate (actually, it's freely available on PFR, no calculations necessary), and it's a good place to start the discussion.
I do think Rogers is worth a premium pick. While someone has always liked him more than me--so it hasn't mattered to this point--I'd spend a late 2nd round startup pick on him. That's at least a round earlier than I'd touch another QB (Cam).

Also, I'm not so concerned with having my opinion validated by a single number. My claim was never that Rodgers' best season didn't provide an advantage on par with Gronk/Graham. My claim was that he doesn't provide an advantage over his peers in terms of dynasty value. Yes, fantasy points are a huge part of that, and I do think Gronk/Graham will have the edge there most healthy seasons. But I don't need to prove that Rodgers' best season--by far!--wasn't better than a single season of Gronk/Graham (save 2011 Gronk), to feel comfortable with my stance.

The depth at QB does show up in the VBD numbers, but it goes beyond that, too. Unlike the top TEs, Rodgers shares his tier with two young foundation pieces in Luck and Newton. Until the Panthers made it clear that Newton won't be the GL back, he was my top QB. I see a valid argument for liking Luck more, too. In addition, there are 2 players in Peyton and Brees who match Rodgers' short-term production. If the QB depth dropped of there--I think there could be reason to treat Rodgers as a late first round startup pick, but it doesn't. Stafford, Ryan, Wilson, Kaepernick, Rivers, and a major wildcard in Foles. People have cooled on both players, but I like the chances of Manziel and Teddy being fantasy relevant. Looking ahead, I love Mariota and Winston seems to be very safe, too. On top of all of this, Brady, Romo, Ben, and maybe even Dalton are the worst case scenarios for owners who don't invest much at the spot. And, perhaps my favorite value in all of fantasy football is a QB currently going in the 6th round of startup drafts--a QB that you and I were both very early in treating as a tier 1 player, on par with Rodgers and Cam, as a rookie: Bobby Three Sticks.

The QB spot is less divided by situation than the TE spot is, right now. For the most part, the best QBs are allowed to throw the ball around. At TE, while the number is increasing--there are only 5 or so situations which would allow one to compete with Gronk and Graham, even if one was a like talent.

I love Jordan Reed, but he has questions. All of the young guys after the top tier have questions. Thomas is likely the 3rd most valuable TE right now and I don't know anyone that thinks he's the 3rd most talented TE in the NFL. Cameron is a major question mark with Norv and Chud gone, and after tailing off last season. Eifert is a solid prospect, but is still a coinflip, as is Ebron and Ertz. Davis is solid, but doesn't provide much of an advantage over his peers. Witten's getting older, Gonzo's gone. I just see a VERY clear path to VORP for both top TEs--both in points (VBD) and the other things we measure our dyansty assets by (talent, age, security, etc).

Aaron Rodgers hasn't come close to his 2011 numbers in his last two tries, and I don't expect him to on a year-by-year basis. My expectations are much closer to his baseline than his peak. That is a very solid part, worth building around. But not quite the special advantage that Gronk and Graham are when healthy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
VBD is a flawed metric for plenty of reasons. For starters, it only uses end-of-season numbers and not per-game numbers. Imagine two receivers: one guy plays 16 games and scores exactly 4 points every week. The other guy only played four weeks before getting injured, but he scored 15 points in each of those four weeks. According to VBD, the first guy was more valuable, because he scored 64 points instead of 60 points... but the first guy gave you 16-weeks of well-below-baseline production, while the first guy gave you four weeks of well-above-baseline production and 12 weeks of an extra roster spot (because you cut him after he suffered a season-ending injury). Clearly the second guy was way, way more valuable.

Another example: imagine a position where the top 10 players scored 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, and 50 points. Now imagine another position where the top 10 players scored 100, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, and 51 points. VBD tells us the top player in the first group was more valuable- 50 VBD > 49 VBD. Common sense tells us the top guy in the second group was light years ahead of the first guy. The first guy gave you less than 10 points against 88% of your competition. The second guy gave you 40+ points against everyone else in the league.

The core concept of VBD is sound- it's not how much you score, it's how much you outscore the competition by- but in execution, VBD is a flawed statistic. Instead of "final points - baseline", it should be "(PPG - baseline PPG) * games played". Instead of a single fixed baseline (say, QB12), it should use a baseline that encompasses the entire league, rather than just the owner with the worst starter.

Again, in theory, VBD is a great idea... but the stat is 15+ years old now, and it's showing its age. It's a little bit creaky around the joints. It has the advantage of being quick and easy to calculate, making it a convenient jumping-off point for conversations, but it's a flawed statistic because it paints an incomplete and in some cases entirely misleading picture.
I agree with all of this. The biggest issue I have is that there is nothing functionally baseline about the proposed and standard baselines. That's a problem. I don't like measuring my WR1 against WR24 or 36. If my WR1 isn't in the top 5--he only provides an advantage if I have the luxury of starting him at my WR2 spot. That luxury should be accounted for, but not assumed.

Aslo, the baselines are not well balanced, except for measuring blanket production. There is really no such thing as a baseline RB. After the 15 or so guys that can be counted on, the rest of the production comes in spurts and can't be projected or assumed. At QB, WR, and TE, I think it can, for the most part. Roethlisberger, Hartline, and Bennett can be had for next to nothing, and can be counted on for baseline production for a solid duration. At RB, "baseline" options are rarely safe in 3 to 4 game stretches, let alone the season, and forget about anything beyond that.

There are a lot of holes in the calculation, but--as you said--it's the theory that is sound and valuable. We just have to take it for what it is, or find our own balance. My understanding and practice of it has constantly been changing, especially when trying to account for dynasty value.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aslo, the baselines are not well balanced, except for measuring blanket production. There is really no such thing as a baseline RB. After the 15 or so guys that can be counted on, the rest of the production comes in spurts and can't be projected or assumed. At QB, WR, and TE, I think it can, for the most part. Roethlisberger, Hartline, and Bennett can be had for next to nothing, and can be counted on for baseline production for a solid duration. At RB, "baseline" options are rarely safe in 3 to 4 game stretches, let alone the season, and forget about anything beyond that.
This is the big one IMO. Using PPG gets around one of Adam's problems and figuring out your specific advantage at WR1 or WR2, etc is mostly semantic IMO.

But the problem with how to value RBs -- where 70 different guys were started in many of my leagues last year -- is damn stubborn.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
figuring out your specific advantage at WR1 or WR2, etc is mostly semantic IMO.
Mind going a bit deeper on this one? If Gronk is TE1 and Dez is WR7, yet the VBD is close--I don't think that's accurate. Assuming Dez is in the WR1 spot--only one of the two provided an advantage over the league.

 
figuring out your specific advantage at WR1 or WR2, etc is mostly semantic IMO.
Mind going a bit deeper on this one? If Gronk is TE1 and Dez is WR7, yet the VBD is close--I don't think that's accurate. Assuming Dez is in the WR1 spot--only one of the two provided an advantage over the league.
It's semantic because points aren't segregated out like that. You don't get "WR1 points" and "WR2 points" and "WR3 points". If Dez Bryant is the 7th best WR, you could say he's your #1 receiver and gives you no advantage, or he's your #3 receiver and he gives you a massive advantage, but you're operating at a bigger disadvantage at WR1 as a result. Neither is accurate, because your WRs score as a unit.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I only listed these 504 players who had 24 or more VBD which is akmost a 2pt/game advantage. I likely should have done 32 instead. Oh well. 2004 had 56 players represented but the average was right around 50 players who gave teams an advantage each season. Players who can give you at least a 2pt/game advantage over replacement level players.

Now 2pt/game is not that much of an advantage, the main players who make a difference for teams are the players scoring above 50 VBD. I could see this being 64 instead which would be a 4pt/game advantage. But I set it at 50. This data uses 12 QB 24 RB 30 WR 12 TE baselines. I think using 15 QB 30 RB 36 WR 15 TE would better represent worst starter, when one takes into consideration byes and injuries, particularly at RB, I think fantasy owners are starting at least 30 different RB over the course of a season. But at least this data is balanced. From 2004-2006 there were 24, 25 and 25 players who had 50+ VBD then that number climbs to 28,28,28,30, 26 (2011) then 36 before falling back to 29. The average number of players finishing that high each season for the past 10 years has been 28 players. Those players were 103RB 109WR 42QB 23TE.

For players who scored over 100 VBD there were 80 players. 45 RB 11 WR 11 QB 3 TE

I looked at 2003 and there were 30 players who finished with 50+ VBD that season. VBD numbers in 2011 were not only strong for multiple QB, but overall there were only 26 players who scored over 50 VBD that season as well.
Your per-game numbers are off. 24 VBD = 1.5 points per game. 32 VBD = 2 points per game. 48 VBD = 3 points per game. 64 VBD = 4 points per game.

 
It's semantic because points aren't segregated out like that. You don't get "WR1 points" and "WR2 points" and "WR3 points". If Dez Bryant is the 7th best WR, you could say he's your #1 receiver and gives you no advantage, or he's your #3 receiver and he gives you a massive advantage, but you're operating at a bigger disadvantage at WR1 as a result. Neither is accurate, because your WRs score as a unit.
It depends on what we're trying to measure. Using this logic, a WR group consisting of WR21, WR22, WR23 provides an advantage to the owner starting them. That's not the case.

I am not talking about "WR1" as a title, but as a function. If WR7 is your best WR, you don't have an advantage at that (single) position.

ETA: Does Victor Cruz (any WR in the 12-20 range) provide an advantage at WR? It's impossible to answer that with a blanket yes or no. So his value shouldn't be tied to a blanket yes or no. In traditional VBD calculations--it is.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aslo, the baselines are not well balanced, except for measuring blanket production. There is really no such thing as a baseline RB. After the 15 or so guys that can be counted on, the rest of the production comes in spurts and can't be projected or assumed. At QB, WR, and TE, I think it can, for the most part. Roethlisberger, Hartline, and Bennett can be had for next to nothing, and can be counted on for baseline production for a solid duration. At RB, "baseline" options are rarely safe in 3 to 4 game stretches, let alone the season, and forget about anything beyond that.
This is the big one IMO. Using PPG gets around one of Adam's problems and figuring out your specific advantage at WR1 or WR2, etc is mostly semantic IMO.

But the problem with how to value RBs -- where 70 different guys were started in many of my leagues last year -- is damn stubborn.
There are ways to get around this. The problem is that all of the ways are labor-intensive.

One way would be to take Dodds' pre-game rankings, calculate how many points every RB in his top 24 (or 36, or whatever) scored, and then average all that out as a baseline for guys you'd realistically be starting in any given week. Jordan Todman might only average X points per game, but you're not going to start him most games- in games you'd actually consider starting him, he'd be expected to average more than X points (likely because MJD is out and he's taking on a bigger role, or he's facing a particularly weak defense, or else you'd never consider starting him).

Another way would be to create a baseline on games played. If a 12-team league starts 2 RBs a week, that means there will be 408 starts by running backs (24 a week x 17 weeks). Sort the RB pool by points per game, take the top X running backs (where X is the number necessary for "games played" to equal or exceed 408), and there's your baseline.

And, in reality, both baselines should be increased by a certain "fudge factor" (10-20%) to account for the fact that most teams are forced to start below-baseline options from time to time, because talent is never evenly distributed. Neither of these methods would be perfect, but they'd certainly be an improvement. Again, though, they would strip VBD of the one advantage it really has- it's quick and easy to calculate.

If we're not worried about valuing RBs in the abstract, we can always go to our specific leagues, add up the total points scored by all RBs, divide by the number of starts given to RBs, and use that as our baseline. It'll vary from league to league, but it has the advantage of being grounded in actual events.

Another way to measure value would be to look at how many points a player's owner scored above or below league average. If all A.J. Green owners averaged 1050 points for the season, and all non-A.J. Green owners averaged 1000 points for the season, then we can conclude Green was "worth" 50 points. Of course, this method doesn't measure inherent value by itself, it measures value above ADP. Teams that drafted Alshon Jeffery should be expected to outscore teams that drafted Dez Bryant, even though Bryant scored more points, just because the Alshon Jeffery teams had an extra high draft pick (because they didn't have to spend it on Dez Bryant).

Lots of different ways to measure player value, each with their own advantages and disadvantages, but there are no "magic bullets".

 
It's semantic because points aren't segregated out like that. You don't get "WR1 points" and "WR2 points" and "WR3 points". If Dez Bryant is the 7th best WR, you could say he's your #1 receiver and gives you no advantage, or he's your #3 receiver and he gives you a massive advantage, but you're operating at a bigger disadvantage at WR1 as a result. Neither is accurate, because your WRs score as a unit.
It depends on what we're trying to measure. Using this logic, a WR group consisting of WR21, WR22, WR23 provides an advantage to the owner starting them. That's not the case.

I am not talking about "WR1" as a title, but as a function. If WR7 is your best WR, you don't have an advantage at that (single) position.
But it's all semantics. If I have Dez Bryant on my team, does he provide me with an advantage? You say no, unless I also have Calvin Johnson. But what does Calvin Johnson have to do with Dez Bryant? Why was Dez Bryant more valuable if I also owned Demaryius Thomas than he was if I also owned Julio Jones? If anything, I'd say exactly the opposite- the Julio Jones owner got more value out of Dez Bryant, because he was a needed anchor to a weakened corps, while Dez was more of a luxury for a team that already had Demaryius Thomas locking up one of the weekly starting spots.

 
because your WRs score as a unit.
This is where I was going with it.

I have VBD at QB, RB, WR, TE. If my VBD is poor at QB or TE I can only fix it by upgrading one player (mostly).

But at RB or WR I can fix it by upgrading three or even four different players.

I don't have to turn RB12 into RB5, I could also turn RB25 into RB13. Or add WR20 and WR22 to WR13 and WR15 instead of buying a top five guy. As long as my cumulative VBD is solid I don't really care how it breaks out.

(All #s completely made up, but you get the point.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If we're not worried about valuing RBs in the abstract, we can always go to our specific leagues, add up the total points scored by all RBs, divide by the number of starts given to RBs, and use that as our baseline. It'll vary from league to league, but it has the advantage of being grounded in actual events.
This is exactly what I've done.

Then I went back to the league's player results for the year and did a rolling PPG average from RB1 to RBX where X is the marginal RB that gets you to the actual PPG average for starting RBs in that league.

EG. in one of my HAs X was RB34/35 give or take. But in a Backyard Brawl league X was more like 44/45.

But I'm not sure whether I like that or not to be honest.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is where I was going with it.

I have VBD at QB, RB, WR, TE. If my VBD is poor in one of those areas I can only fix it by upgrading one player at QB and TE (mostly).

But at RB or WR I can fix it by upgrading three or even four different players. I don't have to turn RB12 into RB5, I could also turn RB25 into RB13. Or add WR20 and WR22 to WR13 and WR15 instead of buying a top five guy. As long as my cumulative VBD is solid I don't really care how it breaks out.
But we're trying to measure an individual player's value. The bolded is true regardless of what baseline we use--so you could justify ignoring VBD all together, right?

 
This is where I was going with it.

I have VBD at QB, RB, WR, TE. If my VBD is poor in one of those areas I can only fix it by upgrading one player at QB and TE (mostly).

But at RB or WR I can fix it by upgrading three or even four different players. I don't have to turn RB12 into RB5, I could also turn RB25 into RB13. Or add WR20 and WR22 to WR13 and WR15 instead of buying a top five guy. As long as my cumulative VBD is solid I don't really care how it breaks out.
But we're trying to measure an individual player's value. The bolded is true regardless of what baseline we use--so you could justify ignoring VBD all together, right?
Huh? I think you're switching gears here.

You were arguing that you had to do a calculation for WR1 and for WR2 and for WR3. I was just saying you don't have to break it out like that.

Within positions the baseline doesn't matter anyway -- any baseline you pick will get you the same results relative to each other. The baseline only matters across positions.

 
But it's all semantics. If I have Dez Bryant on my team, does he provide me with an advantage? You say no, unless I also have Calvin Johnson. But what does Calvin Johnson have to do with Dez Bryant? Why was Dez Bryant more valuable if I also owned Demaryius Thomas than he was if I also owned Julio Jones? If anything, I'd say exactly the opposite- the Julio Jones owner got more value out of Dez Bryant, because he was a needed anchor to a weakened corps, while Dez was more of a luxury for a team that already had Demaryius Thomas locking up one of the weekly starting spots.
It's not semantics at all. If Dez is your WR1 (we assuming he's WR7 in a 12 tm league) he did not provide you an advantage. If you have Calvin, and Dez is your WR2, he did provide an advantage. His production didn't change, and that's not what I'm arguing. But the advantage that he provided--whether he provided an advantage at all, even--does depend where he starts (fucntionally).

Is WR12 and advantage? If he's your best WR, the answer is no. If he's your second best, the answer is yes.

 
Huh? I think you're switching gears here.

You were arguing that you had to do a calculation for WR1 and for WR2 and for WR3. I was just saying you don't have to break it out like that.

Within positions the baseline doesn't matter anyway -- any baseline you pick will get you the same results relative to each other. The baseline only matters across positions.
Perhaps I'm not being clear, but I'm not switching gears.

Within positions VBD doesn't matter at all. I am not suggesting otherwise.

I am not suggesting a solution, even, only fingering a potential problem. I am not saying the answer is to break it out; I dont' know what the answer is. But it should be accounted for.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you have WR have Dez at WR1 and assume his benefit over other WR1s is 0, this baseline production still allows your WR2 and WR3 to be an advantage.

 
Wdcrob and SSOG, you both said that your WRs should be measured as a unit. In a start 3 league with no flex spots, how would you grade a unit of WR22,WR23,WR24? Because standard VBD suggests it's an above baseline unit.

We'd be much closer by some how using WR12/WR24/WR36 as a baseline. And closer still by using WR6/WR18/WR30. If our goal is to measure advantage over the league, that is.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you have WR have Dez at WR1 and assume his benefit over other WR1s is 0, this baseline production still allows your WR2 and WR3 to be an advantage.
Absolutely. Dez shouldn't be measured against a WR baseline the same way we would a QB or TE. There is major value in Dez's ability to line up at WR2 or WR3. Also, the advantage he provides in your example; allowing any advantage your WR2 and WR3 provide to be an advantage, rather than makeup for a disadvantage.

 
figuring out your specific advantage at WR1 or WR2, etc is mostly semantic IMO.
Mind going a bit deeper on this one? If Gronk is TE1 and Dez is WR7, yet the VBD is close--I don't think that's accurate. Assuming Dez is in the WR1 spot--only one of the two provided an advantage over the league.
It's semantic because points aren't segregated out like that. You don't get "WR1 points" and "WR2 points" and "WR3 points". If Dez Bryant is the 7th best WR, you could say he's your #1 receiver and gives you no advantage, or he's your #3 receiver and he gives you a massive advantage, but you're operating at a bigger disadvantage at WR1 as a result. Neither is accurate, because your WRs score as a unit.
Even if we did slot separate positions for WR1, WR2, etc., something seems wrong or misleading to me in saying that the 7th best WR like Dez Bryant provides no advantage at the WR1.

For one, this assumes that every team will have one of each of WRs 1 through 12. Even if it that were so, look at it this way. Lets say we had a perfectly distributed set of WRs across all teams, with your team having the WR7, WR18, WR31, etc.

If Dez were slotted in your WR1 position and you traded him for Jimmy Graham, think of the ripple effect that would have on each of your WR positions. You would be creating a big disadvantage at WR1 (since you only have WR18 in that slot), a big disadvantage at WR2 (since now you only WR31 in that slot), and so on all the way down the line. In that way, having or not having Dez has a significant effect on multiple slots, not just the WR1.

As such, in my estimation, losing Dez has every bit of the impact on your team as gaining Jimmy Graham. You can also think of it as having Dez allows a team to avoid as big of a disadvantage as the advantage that Jimmy Graham provides. This is not lessened by the fact that there are other WRs that can match or even beat Dez’s production.

There is a disparity between Graham and the 2nd and 3rd best TEs, a disparity much greater than Dez and the next best WR. That is true. I think that has to be considered somewhat when looking at value. However, that fact has much less of an impact (very little impact) on your overall week to week score than most are attributing to it imo.

This is one of the reasons why I always seek to acquire the top WRs (moreso than Jimmy Graham outside of a 1.5PPR TE league) - the enormous "advantage" having them provides over the rest of the league. It is reflected in the overall scores at years end despite weak production elsewhere (including at TE).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wdcrob and SSOG, you both said that your WRs should be measured as a unit. In a start 3 league with no flex spots, how would you grade a unit of WR22,WR23,WR24? Because standard VBD suggests it's an above baseline unit.

We'd be much closer by some how using WR12/WR24/WR36 as a baseline. And close still by using WR6/WR18/WR30. If our goal is to measure advantage over the league, that is.
Going back to my last post...

I'd look at the average points scored for WR starts in my league.

I'd grab the data from MFL that showed the top 64? WRs for 2013.

I'd clean it up.

I'd count weekly scores with a number in them for each player to get a games played total for each player.

Then I'd calculate (total points scored) / (total games played) for WR1 + WR2 + WR3 + etc until my PPG total matched my league's average for the year. That WR would become my baseline.

Then I'd calculate the VBD for each player assuming a 16-game season (ETA: and divide that by actual games played.)

Then I'd sum the VBD to the baseline player and divide by the number of teams in my league.

Then I'd try to make sure that my cumulative WR VBD was at least that number. There are many ways to do that, including not doing it at all except at the team (QB+RB+WR+TE) level.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
One more way to look at it.

Lets say my team has Jimmy Graham (300 points) and a TE that scores 150 points (i.e., the replacement or baseline TE). My WR4 is the baseline/replacement WR at 150 points (in a league that permits 4 WR to start due to flex for example). My team scores a total of 2000 points over the year.

Now, let me replace Jimmy Graham's 300 points with Dez Bryant's 300 points. I now have to start a 150 point TE. I lose my weekly "advantage" over all TEs. Dez Bryant provides no advantage at WR1. And yet, my total score at year's end is still 2000 points.

All that mattered here was the difference between Jimmy Graham and the baseline TE and Dez Bryant and the baseline WR. The huge disparity between TE1 and TE2 had zero effect in this example. Now you can argue that the baseline WR scores more than the baseline TE, making a 300 point Jimmy Graham more valuable than a 300 point Dez Bryant, but then we are not dealing with equal VBDs anymore and still, all that mattered was the baseline, not the differences between TE1 and TE3 or TE1 and TE4, etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Going back to my last post...

I'd look at the average points scored for WR starts in my league.

I'd grab the data from MFL that showed the top 64? WRs for 2013.

I'd clean it up.

I'd count weekly scores with a number in them for each player to get a games played total for each player.

Then I'd calculate (total points scored) / (total games played) for WR1 + WR2 + WR3 + etc until my PPG total matched my league's average for the year. That WR would become my baseline.

Then I'd calculate the VBD for each player assuming a 16-game season (ETA: and divide that by actual games played.)

Then I'd sum the VBD to the baseline player and divide by the number of teams in my league.

Then I'd try to make sure that my cumulative WR VBD was at least that number. There are many ways to do that, including not doing it at all except at the team (QB+RB+WR+TE) level.
I like this. Much better than the standard VBD cald. Let me chew on it.

 
I only listed these 504 players who had 24 or more VBD which is akmost a 2pt/game advantage. I likely should have done 32 instead. Oh well. 2004 had 56 players represented but the average was right around 50 players who gave teams an advantage each season. Players who can give you at least a 2pt/game advantage over replacement level players.

Now 2pt/game is not that much of an advantage, the main players who make a difference for teams are the players scoring above 50 VBD. I could see this being 64 instead which would be a 4pt/game advantage. But I set it at 50. This data uses 12 QB 24 RB 30 WR 12 TE baselines. I think using 15 QB 30 RB 36 WR 15 TE would better represent worst starter, when one takes into consideration byes and injuries, particularly at RB, I think fantasy owners are starting at least 30 different RB over the course of a season. But at least this data is balanced. From 2004-2006 there were 24, 25 and 25 players who had 50+ VBD then that number climbs to 28,28,28,30, 26 (2011) then 36 before falling back to 29. The average number of players finishing that high each season for the past 10 years has been 28 players. Those players were 103RB 109WR 42QB 23TE.

For players who scored over 100 VBD there were 80 players. 45 RB 11 WR 11 QB 3 TE

I looked at 2003 and there were 30 players who finished with 50+ VBD that season. VBD numbers in 2011 were not only strong for multiple QB, but overall there were only 26 players who scored over 50 VBD that season as well.
Your per-game numbers are off. 24 VBD = 1.5 points per game. 32 VBD = 2 points per game. 48 VBD = 3 points per game. 64 VBD = 4 points per game.
Yeah my mistake (posting at 1 in the morning) I was going by 12 for some reason. I suppose my habit with dealing with inches. :)

I just wanted to lay the data out there to hopefully make the discussion clearer.

I agree the PPG can be more useful than just the raw VBD for the season. Even doing it by dividing by 16 to approximate PPG will have flaws because not all players played 16 games.

 
Wdcrob and SSOG, you both said that your WRs should be measured as a unit. In a start 3 league with no flex spots, how would you grade a unit of WR22,WR23,WR24? Because standard VBD suggests it's an above baseline unit.

We'd be much closer by some how using WR12/WR24/WR36 as a baseline. And close still by using WR6/WR18/WR30. If our goal is to measure advantage over the league, that is.
Going back to my last post...

I'd look at the average points scored for WR starts in my league.

I'd grab the data from MFL that showed the top 64? WRs for 2013.

I'd clean it up.

I'd count weekly scores with a number in them for each player to get a games played total for each player.

Then I'd calculate (total points scored) / (total games played) for WR1 + WR2 + WR3 + etc until my PPG total matched my league's average for the year. That WR would become my baseline.

Then I'd calculate the VBD for each player assuming a 16-game season (ETA: and divide that by actual games played.)

Then I'd sum the VBD to the baseline player and divide by the number of teams in my league.

Then I'd try to make sure that my cumulative WR VBD was at least that number. There are many ways to do that, including not doing it at all except at the team (QB+RB+WR+TE) level.
Noting as a pretty clean process to try at some point.

 
Wdcrob and SSOG, you both said that your WRs should be measured as a unit. In a start 3 league with no flex spots, how would you grade a unit of WR22,WR23,WR24? Because standard VBD suggests it's an above baseline unit.

We'd be much closer by some how using WR12/WR24/WR36 as a baseline. And closer still by using WR6/WR18/WR30. If our goal is to measure advantage over the league, that is.
Picking one of my leagues at random... the average amount of points per WR start in that league was 18.25. WRs 22, 23, and 24 (by points per game) produced 18.4, 18.2, and 17.6 points per game. So, pretending I had another WR of exactly equal quality to cover all byes and injuries, I would say that WR22/23/24 would be pretty dang close to a league-average unit.

Now, let's say I replaced WR22 with WR12. In theory, WR12 is the absolute worst WR1. In practice, the swap upgrades one of my receivers to 21.9 PPG, or more than three and a half points above the baseline. So suddenly I go from a perfectly average WR unit to a slightly above average WR unit. Why? Because starting WR12 provides me with an advantage, whether he's my WR1 or my WR3.

My WR3 shouldn't be measured against a different baseline than my WR1. That's silly. If I'm starting Jerricho Cotchery every week, then that's what it is. He doesn't magically become a better, more valuable asset if I pair him with Calvin Johnson than if I pair him with Kendall Wright. Jerricho Cotchery is a fixed point, he provides a fixed amount of production, and his value depends only on himself. Every time I start a receiver I pay a cost (one of my precious WR starts, of which I only get three a week), and I receive a reward (however many points that receiver scores). Whether he's worth it or not depends only on those two variables- the cost paid to start him, and the production received in return. And the cost to start is equal at all three of my starting receiver positions. It's not higher at one and lower at another.

If I drafted Jerricho Cotchery in the 18th round, it's not like that's a better draft pick if I also grabbed Josh Gordon in the 10th. Josh Gordon being amazing only made Josh Gordon a great draft pick, it didn't magically make Jerricho Cotchery a great draft pick, too.

 
Picking one of my leagues at random... the average amount of points per WR start in that league was 18.25. WRs 22, 23, and 24 (by points per game) produced 18.4, 18.2, and 17.6 points per game. So, pretending I had another WR of exactly equal quality to cover all byes and injuries, I would say that WR22/23/24 would be pretty dang close to a league-average unit.

Now, let's say I replaced WR22 with WR12. In theory, WR12 is the absolute worst WR1.

My WR3 shouldn't be measured against a different baseline than my WR1.

If I drafted Jerricho Cotchery in the 18th round, it's not like that's a better draft pick if I also grabbed Josh Gordon in the 10th. Josh Gordon being amazing only made Josh Gordon a great draft pick, it didn't magically make Jerricho Cotchery a great draft pick, too.
I think you're taking my statements too literally. My stance was not that we need 3 different numbers, or that Dez Bryant has more value at WR3 than WR1. My issue was with using worst projected starter as baseline production. Functionally, there is nothing "baseline" about it.

ETA: I'd like to see a league in which WR22,WR23,WR24 is a baseline unit, if you don't mind sharing the link.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What would be fair trade value right now for Percy Harvin? In terms of draft picks only? Would you trade Harvin away for the right to draft Watkins? I just acquired him and I'm not sure i would do that. I can't think of a more likely Fantasy Comeback Player of the year candidate than Harvin. I'm thinking he's got a nice crack at Top 5 and even number one overall receiver depending on his health. He looked so electrifying in the Super Bowl. Just owned the Broncos

This video was fun to watch after acquiring Harvin straight up for Arian Foster this morning. :clyde:

http://www.seahawks.com/videos-photos/videos/Super-Bowl-XLVIII-Percy-Harvin-highlights/9019049e-c7a0-4bce-9dde-67c1121c9326

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd personally take Harvin over any rookie pick this year. But thinking he's going to push for WR1 overall is probably expecting too much. Seattle isn't going to suddenly start slinging the ball downfield 50 times / game like Detroit.

 
Absolutely best case scenario for Watkins (like, Detroit trades up and drafts him in the top three), I think he and Harvin will wind up close in value. Otherwise, I would prefer Harvin in all formats.

 
Concept Coop said:
Adam Harstad said:
Picking one of my leagues at random... the average amount of points per WR start in that league was 18.25. WRs 22, 23, and 24 (by points per game) produced 18.4, 18.2, and 17.6 points per game. So, pretending I had another WR of exactly equal quality to cover all byes and injuries, I would say that WR22/23/24 would be pretty dang close to a league-average unit.

Now, let's say I replaced WR22 with WR12. In theory, WR12 is the absolute worst WR1.

My WR3 shouldn't be measured against a different baseline than my WR1.

If I drafted Jerricho Cotchery in the 18th round, it's not like that's a better draft pick if I also grabbed Josh Gordon in the 10th. Josh Gordon being amazing only made Josh Gordon a great draft pick, it didn't magically make Jerricho Cotchery a great draft pick, too.
I think you're taking my statements too literally. My stance was not that we need 3 different numbers, or that Dez Bryant has more value at WR3 than WR1. My issue was with using worst projected starter as baseline production. Functionally, there is nothing "baseline" about it.

ETA: I'd like to see a league in which WR22,WR23,WR24 is a baseline unit, if you don't mind sharing the link.
I'll PM you the link, but honestly, it's not as surprising as you'd think when you think about what I'm measuring. It was a 10 team league that started 3 WRs a week for 16 weeks, good for 480 WR-Starts. Those WRs scored 8763.6 points, good for 18.26 points per WR-Start. In this particular league, 23 WRs produced a higher PPG average than 18.26. Which makes total sense, because a lot of those WRs with higher PPG averages didn't play a full 16 games (Blackmon, Julio), and a lot more of them spent some time on the bench before their owners trusted them enough to start them (Gordon, Jeffery), and some teams had terrible WR corps and brought down the average (one guy's best receivers were Julian Edelman, Reggie Wayne, Victor Cruz, and Nate Washington).

 
Harvin's market value is very fragile right now. The Superbowl helped (see major ADP spike), but that increase can very easily be undone--by injury or slow start.

On top of his fragile market value, his utilization is a big question, too. He's not a plug-n-play NFL WR1; he has a unique skillset that requires a unique game plan to support WR1 fantasy numbers. He could end up being a better NFL player than fantasy player moving foward. Would anyone be surprised by 80/880/4 with next to nothing on the ground? His 2011 rushing totals weren't the norm and came with Peterson dealing with injuries; not something I'd count on.

I can certainly see the upside. He's a young talent paired with another young talent at the QB spot. He's the only major weapon at the WR/TE spots right now. I just think there's risk and a concerning floor.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Harvin's market value is very fragile right now. The Superbowl helped (see major ADP spike), but that increase can very easily be undone--by injury or slow start.

On top of his fragile market value, his utilization is a big question, too. He's not a plug-n-play NFL WR1; he has a unique skillset that requires a unique game plan to support WR1 fantasy numbers. He could end up being a better NFL player than fantasy player moving foward. Would anyone be surprised by 80/880/4 with next to nothing on the ground? His 2011 rushing totals weren't the norm and came with Peterson dealing with injuries; not something I'd count on.

I can certainly see the upside. He's a young talent paired with another young talent at the QB spot. He's the only major weapon at the WR/TE spots right now. I just think there's risk and a concerning floor.
Not going to get into market value as it's not a huge factor for me when discussing the value of a cornerstone player which is how I see Percy Harvin. Obviously, that's personal perspective, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides.

Re: the bolded, though, yeah, I'd be HUGELY surprised if that was Harvin's stat line over 16 games next year. Pete Carroll and John Schneider are smart, and I very much doubt that they traded a 1st, a 3rd, and a 7th for Percy Harvin and then paid him like a top 5 WR planning to get under 900 YFS from him. He'll be a huge focal point of their offense IMO, which is a better offense than he played in in Minnesota, and Wilson is by far the best QB he's ever had. I'd be absolutely stunned if his numbers are anywhere near that low assuming health moving forward.

 
Harvin's market value is very fragile right now. The Superbowl helped (see major ADP spike), but that increase can very easily be undone--by injury or slow start.

On top of his fragile market value, his utilization is a big question, too. He's not a plug-n-play NFL WR1; he has a unique skillset that requires a unique game plan to support WR1 fantasy numbers. He could end up being a better NFL player than fantasy player moving foward. Would anyone be surprised by 80/880/4 with next to nothing on the ground? His 2011 rushing totals weren't the norm and came with Peterson dealing with injuries; not something I'd count on.

I can certainly see the upside. He's a young talent paired with another young talent at the QB spot. He's the only major weapon at the WR/TE spots right now. I just think there's risk and a concerning floor.
Not going to get into market value as it's not a huge factor for me when discussing the value of a cornerstone player which is how I see Percy Harvin. Obviously, that's personal perspective, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides.

Re: the bolded, though, yeah, I'd be HUGELY surprised if that was Harvin's stat line over 16 games next year. Pete Carroll and John Schneider are smart, and I very much doubt that they traded a 1st, a 3rd, and a 7th for Percy Harvin and then paid him like a top 5 WR planning to get under 900 YFS from him. He'll be a huge focal point of their offense IMO, which is a better offense than he played in in Minnesota, and Wilson is by far the best QB he's ever had. I'd be absolutely stunned if his numbers are anywhere near that low assuming health moving forward.
Minny passed the ball 120 times more than Seattle last year, and 80 more times the season before. With so much of Harvin's value coming from receptions--that should be concerning to his owners.

As for those numbers--they're very close to his career average (81/965/5(PPG*16)). He's never reached 1,000 rec yards or 7 rec TDs in a season.

I think you're right about the organization; they are smart. They're not going to measure Harvin's value to the team in raw numbers. That's what I mean when I suggest he could be a better NFL player than fantasy asset; he could greatly help the team and still not be a fantasy WR1.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top