Value of QB in a 1 QB league

[Valhalla]

Actually it is that simple. Too many people are stuck on qb1, wr1, wr2, wr3, rb1, etc. that crap is misleading. What is far more important is the total expected points of your starting lineup. If my best rb is Carlos Hyde, I'm not going to profess he's my rb1. I don't have a rb1, I have a rb 2-3. If you pass on elite qbs, you don't have a qb1....if you are going to be insistent on using those terms

[Goirish374]

i'm a little surprised there were no responses to the Gallo article.

it specifically addressed some of the points that have been since i posted it. it seems silly to rely on "what i think" or "in my one league at band camp" when we have looked into this over 1800+ head to head matchups.

it leads me to conclude no one read it, which...

[Valhalla]

i'm a little surprised there were no responses to the Gallo article.

it specifically addressed some of the points that have been since i posted it. it seems silly to rely on "what i think" or "in my one league at band camp" when we have looked into this over 1800+ head to head matchups.

it leads me to conclude no one read it, which...

I meant to read it and forgot.......don't be sad
I'll read it tonight

[Goirish374]

don't be sad

the best part is i picture your randy moss icon saying this...

[bruiser]

Google value drafting, baseline method, points over worst starter, etc. there seems to be few that understand any of this... it's just about making low-risk, high percentage shots.

I could post the entire science behind it, but that doesn't matter if you're just not into that kind of thing. Everyone calling for hard evidence, facts, etc. just need to seek it themselves. I have a draft with 95 other owners this week scouring this forum for tips.

[akbfrosty]

I'd caution throwing out season long numbers for players and treating them as all things equal.

I've seen Jules post the "variability in scoring doesn't matter" article, and I believe that's true for the most part. The part that I don't believe in is that that ultra-variable player is going to be in the lineup to begin with. Ted Ginn scored 133 points (standard, which I don't play in very often so it's hard for me to debate). Great year, tied for WR24 in standard. But in reality...it was a great 3 games. He averaged less than 6 points from week 1-12. Not many people would be betting on Ginn in week 13 based on his previous 12 weeks.

We can now look at it, and say Ted Ginn's EV was this for the entire season. Well, great, but that didn't help the guys who sat Ted Ginn in week 13 and missed out on the playoffs.

As I tried saying before...post-hoc analysis is fine, but sometimes the conclusions drawn from it don't mesh up with reality.

[Valhalla]

Google value drafting, baseline method, points over worst starter, etc. there seems to be few that understand any of this... it's just about making low-risk, high percentage shots.

I could post the entire science behind it, but that doesn't matter if you're just not into that kind of thing. Everyone calling for hard evidence, facts, etc. just need to seek it themselves. I have a draft with 95 other owners this week scouring this forum for tips.

Don't be such a condescending bleep. I suppose I better apologize for possibly doing the same, but seriously you should consider trying not to post how ignorant you think people are.

By the way, I understand value drafting and if you read my posts you would see that it was this same philosophy that makes me value Rodgers way up there. It's not for his total points, but his reliable dominance over his own position. If he dominates the average opposing QB at a higher ppg than a 2nd round wr dominates another team's wr, then he is the pick for me.

I respect your right to mistrust one of the most consistently dominant players in ffb though after getting burned by him twice (other obvious ones being Gronk and Antonio). These guys don't just dominate by being #1 but by scoring way higher than the average #1. That is Rodgers too, if you average out QB seasons.

[Valhalla]

I'd caution throwing out season long numbers for players and treating them as all things equal.

I've seen Jules post the "variability in scoring doesn't matter" article, and I believe that's true for the most part. The part that I don't believe in is that that ultra-variable player is going to be in the lineup to begin with. Ted Ginn scored 133 points (standard, which I don't play in very often so it's hard for me to debate). Great year, tied for WR24 in standard. But in reality...it was a great 3 games. He averaged less than 6 points from week 1-12. Not many people would be betting on Ginn in week 13 based on his previous 12 weeks.

We can now look at it, and say Ted Ginn's EV was this for the entire season. Well, great, but that didn't help the guys who sat Ted Ginn in week 13 and missed out on the playoffs.

As I tried saying before...post-hoc analysis is fine, but sometimes the conclusions drawn from it don't mesh up with reality.

That's a great point. No way I start Ginn in a 3wr set.

[ArrylT]

I'm no math scientist. I just say things, light them on fire and run in the opposite direction. Who in their right mind would listen to me? I just heard there was free pizza so I showed up with some opinions

I just started reading this thread - any chance I can nominate this for comment of the year - or has that already been done?

[bruiser]

Don't be such a condescending bleep. I suppose I better apologize for possibly doing the same, but seriously you should consider trying not to post how ignorant you think people are.

Look, forgive me. I offer my opinion in a very Mike and Mike tone. We are all 'talking heads' here and do not have any real angst toward eachother. Don't get your feelings hurt because I hold my ground and make fun of your plaid pants in the process.

Sure, some personalities here understand value-based drafting. You'd also understand how variable the different formats are, and this is why all of us have a differing replacement value on QB1. My formats have too many players more valuable than QB1.

Maybe you are correct about your QB1 being elite in value because you have a unique scoring system.

[ericanadian]

I'd caution throwing out season long numbers for players and treating them as all things equal.

I've seen Jules post the "variability in scoring doesn't matter" article, and I believe that's true for the most part. The part that I don't believe in is that that ultra-variable player is going to be in the lineup to begin with. Ted Ginn scored 133 points (standard, which I don't play in very often so it's hard for me to debate). Great year, tied for WR24 in standard. But in reality...it was a great 3 games. He averaged less than 6 points from week 1-12. Not many people would be betting on Ginn in week 13 based on his previous 12 weeks.

We can now look at it, and say Ted Ginn's EV was this for the entire season. Well, great, but that didn't help the guys who sat Ted Ginn in week 13 and missed out on the playoffs.

As I tried saying before...post-hoc analysis is fine, but sometimes the conclusions drawn from it don't mesh up with reality.

Even after the first big week, how confident could you be in starting Ted Ginn? Unless you were desperate at the position, Ginn offered very little to most owners.

[bruiser]

I rode Ginn every week with great success as my starting WR5 in two leagues. His value was awesome since I found him on waivers.

[dlf_jules]

I'd caution throwing out season long numbers for players and treating them as all things equal.

I've seen Jules post the "variability in scoring doesn't matter" article, and I believe that's true for the most part. The part that I don't believe in is that that ultra-variable player is going to be in the lineup to begin with.

Very good point, and Ginn is a good example. Doug Baldwin is another. Actually, that reminds me ...

https://twitter.com/julesdynasty/status ... 5117337601

[bruiser]

If you only start 3 WRs, then Ginn is possibly staying on the bench. Just like if you only start 1 QB, then Mariota is likely staying on the bench. That's not a difficult concept.

Ted Ginn gets huge credit for my championship in a 32-team league this year. We start four WRs, so that is the qualifying criteria.

[dlf_jules]

Sure, I was starting Ted Ginn on a title team in my 10-team league with 5WR + flex starters. But even I'm not sure whether I got all of his good games in my lineup. Doubt it, actually.