IDPSteve wrote:Valhalla wrote:Goirish374 wrote:
weeeeeeell, not everyone shares your interpretation of that.
Gallo's conclusiong was that if you win 61% of your games with no QB but use a high draft pick on a QB to win 50.4%, then you are absolutely constructing a competitive disadvantage by giving up a high pick that could have gone to a position with more favorable miss rate and differential in point distribution.
ETA: i understand your objections to the way he uses those as presented in your prior post.
No, that is a flat out LIE OF STATISTICAL REPRESENTATION. Teams don't win 61% with no QB. WINNING SCORES STILL WIN 61% WITHOUT THE QB. (btw winning scores will win an even higher percentage without their #1 wr....what!?!?). All that percentage shows is that there is often a large gap in scores in ffb. A large enough gap to sustain the loss of a player. It is nothing but anti-QB bias that drives him to say it's the QB that can be subtracted.
The 50.4% I won't even go into again. I explained how he misrepresented that number already. All the 50% indicates is that you drafted a player in that ADP range that was offering nearly equal contribution to wins as other players in that ADP range.
One can disagree with my research or even my methods, but one thing should be clear, I did not write that article with an anti-QB bias (actually, I didn't research with an anti-QB bias, since it was written after research and I knew the outcome I guess you could say it was written with an anti-QB bias, but not in the way you infer), and intimating that I wrote something as a "flat out LIE OF STATISTICAL REPRESENTATION." is an unfair characterization and attach against my integrity. I saw something years ago that made me want to research how individual positions impacted fantasy results. Did I think that QB was less valuable than other positions? Yes, but did I write that article with an anti-QB bias? No and saying as much is a dig at my integrity and isn't something I take kindly too. But hey, I guess it is what it is. I've been asked tons of times why QB, why not RB or why not WR. And the answer has always been the same, because that's what the numbers dictated. By numbers I'm speaking of the metrics (pR and mR). The 61% and QB winz were used to help paint a picture. If I painted the picture incorrectly it wasn't intentional.
At the end of the day, we all are entitled to our own opinions but what someone can't say is what I was thinking, say I was wrong, sure, but what I was thinking, not possible.
Lastly, fwiw, I didn't say/write that 61% of teams win without their QB, I said, to paraphrase, 61% of teams that win do so without their QB. There is a difference and I understood that when writing the article. Here's exactly what I wrote, " The Win % column is the
percentage of games that a team still won once their points at quarterback were zeroed out. The next column shows the average points a winning team lost by after their quarterback points were zeroed out." Considering that QBs are the highest scoring players in FF it goes without saying that zeroing out other positions would return similar if not better numbers. But the numbers didn't dictate to say it was another position. Also, fwiw, it took me months to research things and to work thru different calculations etc. My goal, was to to see what the numbers said, nothing more, nothing less.
One more thing, this article was written about re-draft leagues, not dynasty leagues or 2QB leagues.
Hey Steve,
Sorry to call out your article so harshly. In the above quoted post, I was moreso calling out GoIrish for misrepresenting your article (sorry goirish
) when I said a flat out lie, because I had read your article carefully and knew that wasn't what you had said.....but yes I do think your article has some rather large flaws
, which I pointed out in an earlier post. I wasn't meaning to call out your integrity, saying you intentionally were misleading people. I was moreso saying that I believe you misunderstood your own findings....not sure you will take that any better though.
If you look at those numbers again, I think you would have to agree that the two percentages you compared are not comparable as they represent entirely different things. You could just as easily say the average losing percentage of a losing team is 38% (just made that up but probably not far off) and top 3 drafted QBs have a win contribution % at 50.4%, so they help your team......and that statement would be just as flawed with percentages that have nothing to do with each other.
Another thing....you just said "it goes without saying that zeroing out other positions would return similar if not better numbers. But the numbers didn't dictate to say it was another position."
Seems you agree with the flaw there, but never addressed it in your article. I don't think it's a good defense to say that the reader should just realize that so you don't need to write it. The point of your article was to convince the reader that the QB is a replaceable position, and the way you wrote this convinced many casual readers that their teams could survive without the QB even playing. That is true, but they could even more easily survive without a #1 WR (which you just agreed with in your quote). I'm not sure how you can claim no bias when you realize this. Based on the exact same research methods, you could write the same article titled Zero #1WR Theorem, Zero #1RB Theorem, and Zero TE Theorem, and every one of them would see an even bigger value than the 61%, so they would be more heavily supported....
Sorry for being a dick. I'm just pointing out the flaws. I DO THINK YOU HAVE SOMETHING VALUABLE HERE. I think you could write some really interesting articles using that win percentage correlation for positional ADP (where top three drafted QBs got 50.4% win contribution). If you studied this for all positions in a round by round basis, you may get some really interesting results. I would guess that top round RBs bust more often over the years than the WRs. The WRs would probably give you around 50% and the RBs below 50% due to the busts. TE in the first round would be almost purely Gronk recently, because even Jimmy Graham dropped in ADP start-up once dealt to the Seahawks. So TE round 1 would probably be above 50%, whereas someone taking a TE in round 2 would probably see that as below 50% (as anyone other than Gronk is a reach in round 2 and likely weakens those teams, on average). If you did this position by position, round by round, you could deliver a pretty damn good study (and a reproducible, annual article update) showing a decent team construction strategy for start-up drafters. A position over 50% for a round means that's the round to take that position. If a position is continuously failing to live up to the round ADP (say you find 3rd round RBs falling in at 35%, and 3rd round QBs fall in at 50%) you can shown that it is safer to draft a QB in round 3 than a RB. 50% is safety at that ADP, or positional worth (supported by a history of stats) for the ADP round. Over 50% and it's a likely value. Under 50% means avoid. Some of it I can guess what it would look like ahead of time (like Gronk being the only round 1 TE and since he has been historically a stud he will hold up at likely 50%+, but any round 2 TEs drafted (Jimmy, maybe Julius Thomas) were busts so the round 2 TE would be a low percentage, or a big no-no according to a study like this. It would be easy to show drafters to consider TE in round 1, then not again until whenever that number hits 50%+. That is common knowledge in FFB, but it isn't for all positions, and a study like this could give some real insight as to the average bust rates or success rates of, say, drafting RBs in rounds 4-5 vs rounds 6-8 and what that (on average) does to a team's win %. Basically, you could show how teams that grab RBs in rounds 5-7 fare in comparison to teams that nab them rounds 3-5, for example.
Sorry, this is way more long-winded than I intended. I meant to just say sorry for being a dick. I really do think you have something interesting though if you used those percentages in another manner.
