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.

Customizable Dynasty Trade Value App (1 Viewer)

Also, we've been crashing the server with this today. If you get a 503 error, please try again in a bit as we get it sorted. 

 
Has everyone been able to access this ok? Seems like we're seeing fewer people not able to access it.

 
I'm able to access it also. The only thing I see that might be different are the links at the bottom where you can move to the "next" category. They're bunched together, if workable. Great tool.

 
This is great Joe and Dan has done fantastic work with this.

I disagree with some of the rankings and therefore value of certain players of course but I do agree with the majority of that as well.

 
Overall, I think it is a great beginning for the tool.

I'm sure more customization will come as it is further developed.

One thing I think would be beneficial is incorporating Rookie Pick values in the app so you can easily make comparisons between picks and players.

 
Quick question...besides price and DFS content, is there anything you don't get from FBG with the RotoPass that you would get with a regular FBG sub?  

 
Great job!

Suggestion for future upgrade: allow people to select "win now" (values immediate performance over youth) or "building for future" (higher value for youth / future performance).  Could even be a slider to adjust based on how soon you want to compete... 2021, 2022, 2023, etc.  Would be even better if future draft picks and devy players were incorporated.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great job!

Suggestion for future upgrade: allow people to select "win now" (values immediate performance over youth) or "building for future" (higher value for youth / future performance).  Could even be a slider to adjust based on how soon you want to compete... 2021, 2022, 2023, etc. 
Love this suggestion!

 
Great job!

Suggestion for future upgrade: allow people to select "win now" (values immediate performance over youth) or "building for future" (higher value for youth / future performance).  Could even be a slider to adjust based on how soon you want to compete... 2021, 2022, 2023, etc.  Would be even better if future draft picks and devy players were incorporated.
That is a great idea!

 
Great job!

Suggestion for future upgrade: allow people to select "win now" (values immediate performance over youth) or "building for future" (higher value for youth / future performance).  Could even be a slider to adjust based on how soon you want to compete... 2021, 2022, 2023, etc.  Would be even better if future draft picks and devy players were incorporated.
Thanks. Not sure how possible that is but I'll ask our guys about it. Thanks for the suggestion. No doubt that would be cool. 

 
Thanks for the feedback!

Anyone want to test version 2.0 before I put it up on FBG?

https://danhi.shinyapps.io/dynasty-trade-value2/

I incorporated the idea of win now versus future value and added a column that calculates 2021 value separately based on the league/scoring settings and using the FBG consensus projections.

Let me know what you guys think. Also working on a trade calculator with rookie picks included.

Someone mentioned devy players, that may be possible but probably not in the next few weeks. 

 
I like the adjustments. Not seeing much in the way of change number wise with the future vs win now toggle at least at the top but that’s about as expected.  Thanks for this. 

 
Thanks for the feedback!

Anyone want to test version 2.0 before I put it up on FBG?

https://danhi.shinyapps.io/dynasty-trade-value2/

I incorporated the idea of win now versus future value and added a column that calculates 2021 value separately based on the league/scoring settings and using the FBG consensus projections.

Let me know what you guys think. Also working on a trade calculator with rookie picks included.

Someone mentioned devy players, that may be possible but probably not in the next few weeks. 
Love the look of this.

I didn't see much difference in win now vs rebuild either, but really dig this tool, many thanks.

 
I like the adjustments. Not seeing much in the way of change number wise with the future vs win now toggle at least at the top but that’s about as expected.  Thanks for this. 
The change would be in the far right column with the timeframe adjustment. Are you looking at that or the trade value column?

 
And if it is not clear the way it is now, should I make the slider just adjust the trade value column directly and completely get rid of the time adjusted trade value column?

Edit: I think I am just going to go ahead and do this. It is probably too confusing currently.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And if it is not clear the way it is now, should I make the slider just adjust the trade value column directly and completely get rid of the time adjusted trade value column?

Edit: I think I am just going to go ahead and do this. It is probably too confusing currently.
I think that would be better. Most won’t look at that as opposed to the “absolute value.”  

 
It looks like this isn't boosting TEs enough in TE premium, and it's boosting them too uniformly.

Switching to 2 PPR for TEs (with 1 flex spot) appears to give every TE about a 1.5x boost (or slightly less) compared to 1 PPR. It should generally be more than that - last year the total TE value with 2 PPR (and 1 flex spot) was about 2.2x as much as with 1 PPR. The highest scoring TEs get the smallest boost (as a ratio) - 1.5x basically matches Kelce's boost from last year, while Hockenson was worth more like 2.6x as much with 2 PPR vs 1 PPR. But the trade value calculator is just giving them both about a 1.45x increase in value (which I switch from 1 PPR for TEs to 2), and it isn't narrowing the gap at all.

Things are different without a flex spot - in that case the calculator looks about right. TEs score about 1.35x more with 2 PPR as with 1, and it's still just the same 12 guys starting, so TEs should be worth 1.35x as much in 2 PPR with no flex spot as they are with 1 PPR and no flex spot. That is basically what the calculator does. But with a flex spot, you have more TEs starting each week, which means more guys accruing value and also a lower baseline (last starter is TE19ish rather than TE12). So TE premium matters more.

A simple-ish check you could run is to calculate the total VBD last year for each position, in each scoring system, and see if the relative values of the positions in last year's VBD roughly match their relative values in total trade value. More ambitiously, you could go back to (say) the 2000 offseason, where you know each player's future, and calculate the actual future value of every player in each format, and see if the shape of things there basically matches the shape of things in the app.

 
It looks like this isn't boosting TEs enough in TE premium, and it's boosting them too uniformly.

Switching to 2 PPR for TEs (with 1 flex spot) appears to give every TE about a 1.5x boost (or slightly less) compared to 1 PPR. It should generally be more than that - last year the total TE value with 2 PPR (and 1 flex spot) was about 2.2x as much as with 1 PPR. The highest scoring TEs get the smallest boost (as a ratio) - 1.5x basically matches Kelce's boost from last year, while Hockenson was worth more like 2.6x as much with 2 PPR vs 1 PPR. But the trade value calculator is just giving them both about a 1.45x increase in value (which I switch from 1 PPR for TEs to 2), and it isn't narrowing the gap at all.

Things are different without a flex spot - in that case the calculator looks about right. TEs score about 1.35x more with 2 PPR as with 1, and it's still just the same 12 guys starting, so TEs should be worth 1.35x as much in 2 PPR with no flex spot as they are with 1 PPR and no flex spot. That is basically what the calculator does. But with a flex spot, you have more TEs starting each week, which means more guys accruing value and also a lower baseline (last starter is TE19ish rather than TE12). So TE premium matters more.

A simple-ish check you could run is to calculate the total VBD last year for each position, in each scoring system, and see if the relative values of the positions in last year's VBD roughly match their relative values in total trade value. More ambitiously, you could go back to (say) the 2000 offseason, where you know each player's future, and calculate the actual future value of every player in each format, and see if the shape of things there basically matches the shape of things in the app.
The uniformity within position is something I'm still working through. It is adjusting on a positional level. 

I am not sure how you are calculating the 2.2 multiplier. I am using weekly stats from the last four seasons (68 weeks) and comparing weekly scores to the replacement level scoring that week. Then determining how the change in scoring/lineup/league size impacts the relative value of each position based upon those weekly results. 

 
The 2.2x is based on end-of-year stats, VBD with a last starter baseline using ppg. Sort guys by ppg, set the baseline as "last starter" (with no flex you need to include enough starters to have 17 x 12 games played by TEs, with a flex you need (2+3+1+1) x 17 x 12 games played by RB/WR/TE). Then each player's value is his [(ppg) - (baseline ppg)] x (games played). Calculation is in the spreadsheet I linked - last year TEs had 563 VBD in 1 PPR vs. 1260 VBD in 2 PPR TEP, which is 2.2x.

 
The 2.2x is based on end-of-year stats, VBD with a last starter baseline using ppg. Sort guys by ppg, set the baseline as "last starter" (with no flex you need to include enough starters to have 17 x 12 games played by TEs, with a flex you need (2+3+1+1) x 17 x 12 games played by RB/WR/TE). Then each player's value is his [(ppg) - (baseline ppg)] x (games played). Calculation is in the spreadsheet I linked - last year TEs had 563 VBD in 1 PPR vs. 1260 VBD in 2 PPR TEP, which is 2.2x.
I am not sure if it is just one outlier year or what the difference is. My method is almost identical to yours for figuring out PPG above replacement for 2021 using FBG Consensus Projections.

Using normal PPR, I get 32.6 total PPG above replacement for all TE. (multiply by games played for VBD)

Using 2 PPR for TE, I get 47.4 PPG above replacement for all TE.

That's almost exactly what by backward looking weekly method got me in terms of a multiplier. 

If you have the time, I am curious what you get using your method for the FBG 2021 projections.

 
I get a 1.75x multiplier using the 2021 FBG projections.

1 PPR: 1 starting TE per team per week, with a total 662 VBD
2 PPR for TE: 1.5 starting TE per team per week, with a total of 1161 VBD

Spreadsheet

 
@Dan Hinderyand @ZWK

I don’t understand most of your back and forth ;) but this kind of work going into projections, values and tools is exactly why I pay for my subscription every year for going on...2 decades? Who knows anymore.

I don’t have the time or energy to do this kind of stuff so I’m thankful guys like you and many others on this site do the work you do. Thanks!

 
I am not sure if it is just one outlier year or what the difference is. My method is almost identical to yours for figuring out PPG above replacement for 2021 using FBG Consensus Projections.

Using normal PPR, I get 32.6 total PPG above replacement for all TE. (multiply by games played for VBD)

Using 2 PPR for TE, I get 47.4 PPG above replacement for all TE.

That's almost exactly what by backward looking weekly method got me in terms of a multiplier. 

If you have the time, I am curious what you get using your method for the FBG 2021 projections.
Let me see if I'm following your two methods.

Your first method, for each week you looked at the actual points scored by TEs, WRs, and RBs. You defined the baseline as whichever was lower, the points scored that week by TE12 or the points scored by RB/WR/TE #84 (with normal PPR this is usually TE12, with 2 PPR for TE it's usually the 84th RB/WR/TE). Then each player got credited with his points that week minus the baseline points for that week. Add up the total points by TEs (for a single week, or summed over all 68 weeks), and you found that this number was about 1.5x bigger with 2 PPR for TEs than with normal PPR. Is that right?

Your second method, for each week in the upcoming season you took the projected points for each TE, WR, and RB and did the same thing, setting the baseline as the 12th highest projected TE that week or the 84th projected highest RB/WR/TE (whichever is lower - again, generally this will be the flex value only if it's TE premium). And in the average week, you got TEs scoring 32.6 points over baseline in normal PPR vs. 47.4 points over baseline with 2 PPR for TEs.

I have a hunch that I'm misdescribing something here but I'm not sure what.

If the methods are as described, I'd trust the second method more than the first, since each week's leaderboard in actual scoring includes a bunch of spike weeks from random players who aren't in anyone's lineup (unless it's best ball). And maybe WRs are overrepresented in those?

I was thinking of doing something similar to these two methods, except using the final projections for each week (from during the week just before the game) rather than the actual scores (which have this randomness) or the preseason weekly projections.

 
I thought you were saying no flex? 
No, I'm mainly talking about leagues with 1 flex spot. (There was 1 paragraph in my first comment about how the app seems correct for TE premium leagues with no flex, and the issue is just about leagues that do have a flex spot.)

 
No, I'm mainly talking about leagues with 1 flex spot. (There was 1 paragraph in my first comment about how the app seems correct for TE premium leagues with no flex, and the issue is just about leagues that do have a flex spot.)
Gotcha, just ran with flex and I got 50.5 for 2-PPR and 32.6 for 1-PPR.

1.54X multiplier. Not that far off where you're at. I'm gettin 19 TEs between starters, flex, and a 2-player buffer that I use.

 
Gotcha, just ran with flex and I got 50.5 for 2-PPR and 32.6 for 1-PPR.

1.54X multiplier. Not that far off where you're at. I'm gettin 19 TEs between starters, flex, and a 2-player buffer that I use.
So your baseline is TE14 or the #86 RB/WR/TE (whichever is lower)? If so, that would reduce the gap a bit (compared to using TE12 or flex84), because moving the baseline from TE12->TE14 is a larger drop than flex84->flex86. Doesn't seem like it would be a big enough effect to account for the gap in the multipliers that we're finding.

 
@Dan Hinderyand @ZWK

I don’t understand most of your back and forth ;) but this kind of work going into projections, values and tools is exactly why I pay for my subscription every year for going on...2 decades? Who knows anymore.

I don’t have the time or energy to do this kind of stuff so I’m thankful guys like you and many others on this site do the work you do. Thanks!
Agree with this 1000%. That other team managers are able togo to these depths on their own is the reason I am only an above average fantasy player over the years. 

 
@Dan Hinderyand @ZWK

I don’t understand most of your back and forth ;) but this kind of work going into projections, values and tools is exactly why I pay for my subscription every year for going on...2 decades? Who knows anymore.

I don’t have the time or energy to do this kind of stuff so I’m thankful guys like you and many others on this site do the work you do. Thanks!
Thank you @joey That's exactly the "product" we offer with the Footballguys Premium Subscription. Saving folks time is a big part of it. Thanks for supporting us for so long. Without folks like you, this forum doesn't exist. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So your baseline is TE14 or the #86 RB/WR/TE (whichever is lower)? If so, that would reduce the gap a bit (compared to using TE12 or flex84), because moving the baseline from TE12->TE14 is a larger drop than flex84->flex86. Doesn't seem like it would be a big enough effect to account for the gap in the multipliers that we're finding.
I'm going to DM you with the exact details of how it is getting calculated to get some more in-depth feedback. 

 
Great job!

Suggestion for future upgrade: allow people to select "win now" (values immediate performance over youth) or "building for future" (higher value for youth / future performance).  Could even be a slider to adjust based on how soon you want to compete... 2021, 2022, 2023, etc.  Would be even better if future draft picks and devy players were incorporated.
I would love to see something like this incorporated into the Draft Dominator (for Dynasty purposes) as well.  

 
I believe Adam Harstad had an article on general production of RB, TE, QB, and WR over the course of career.  This could be used to calculate VBD for a period of time ("win now", what does my team look like in three yrs, etc.).  Of course, with any long term projection the noise level gets high but I could see this as a useful tool.

I use draft dominator in a keeper league (keep 10), I have to adjust the rookie value to reflect league tendencies and "keeper value" but overall works pretty well.  I think draft dominator could be modified for dynasty via a VBD based calculation and have it adjustable for win now, rebulld, etc.  Might have been useful in my last draft at 1.05 superflex, could not decide as I have a fairly balanced team with depth (I think) so just decided to "Bloom it" and drafted Pitts.

 
@Dan Hinderyfor an atypical scoring system, I don't get intuitive results.

12 team Superflex dynasty. Start 1Q 1R 2W 1T 4F 1SF 1K 1DST. PPR by position: 0.75 RB, 1 WR, 1.25 TE. QB scoring drastically reduced: 1/30 passing yards, 2.67/passing TD, 1/15 rushing yards, 4/rushing TD. All other scoring not noted is normal.

WIth the slider on 5 (balanced), here is the top 20:

  1. QB Mahomes
  2. QB Allen
  3. QB Murray
  4. QB Jackson
  5. QB Herbert
  6. QB Prescott
  7. TE Pitts
  8. QB Burrow
  9. QB Lawrence
  10. TE Kittle
  11. QB Lance
  12. QB Wilson
  13. WR Jefferson
  14. TE Kelce
  15. WR Hill
  16. TE Waller
  17. QB Fields
  18. WR Metcalf
  19. WR Brown
  20. RB McCaffrey
I believe the problem is that I set the lineup as 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, and 5 Flex, and it must be assuming that all flex positions are Superflex, which is not the case. I got much more intuitive results by changing the settings to 3 RBs, 4 WRs, 1 TE, and 1 Flex, allocating two of the regular flex positions as RBs and two as WRs.

Recommend adding another enhancement to your list to handle number of Superflex (QB-eligible) positions separately from the number of flex (RB/WR/TE only) positions. If you do it that way, you can also eliminate the checkbox for SF.

I like the app concept!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Joe Bryant
Sorry if this is the wrong thread for this, but will the dynasty trade value chart get an update soon? Looks like it was last updated in-season.

I’ve been seeing an updated chart every single month. It’s a GREAT dynasty feature, @Joe Bryant and team. Plus great to see the staff rookie rankings, both on their own and ESPECIALLY interleaved into the Dynasty Rankings.
 
@Joe Bryant
Sorry if this is the wrong thread for this, but will the dynasty trade value chart get an update soon? Looks like it was last updated in-season.

I’ve been seeing an updated chart every single month. It’s a GREAT dynasty feature, @Joe Bryant and team. Plus great to see the staff rookie rankings, both on their own and ESPECIALLY interleaved into the Dynasty Rankings.
I don't mean Hindery article on the 1st of each month, which might be what you mean and yes I agree that is great.

I'm talking about this tool:
 
@Joe Bryant
Sorry if this is the wrong thread for this, but will the dynasty trade value chart get an update soon? Looks like it was last updated in-season.

I’ve been seeing an updated chart every single month. It’s a GREAT dynasty feature, @Joe Bryant and team. Plus great to see the staff rookie rankings, both on their own and ESPECIALLY interleaved into the Dynasty Rankings.
I don't mean Hindery article on the 1st of each month, which might be what you mean and yes I agree that is great.

I'm talking about this tool:
Ah yes. That stil looks like last year‘s rookies under the rookie tab. Good catch.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top