Value of QB in a 1 QB league

General talk about Dynasty Leagues.
User avatar
Valhalla
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5360
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:26 pm

Re: "QBs are replaceable"

Postby Valhalla » Sat Feb 27, 2016 2:43 pm

Goirish374 wrote:
there is a voluminous body of work on this subject. it isn't just opinions posted on message boards (though, certainly, it is that, too). i think to really have any understanding of the point, you have to read Steve Gallo's "Dissecting QB value in fantasy football." i've linked it here:

http://www.thehuddle.com/2013/articles/ ... otball.php
It's an interesting article, but honestly had me cringing a lot. I was in a club in undergrad that basically just critiqued research methods and found their flaws....so I'm sort of a critic. Sorry.

Zero QB Theorem – If you zero out the quarterback’s points on a winning fantasy team, they still win a majority of head-to-head matchups.
From this he draws the conclusion that you are wasting picks on elite qbs.

I can see how that article would convince many, because he throws a lot of numbers out and it all sounds good. On top of it, all those numbers can get confusing so you just trust the man that seems to know what they mean. Unfortunately, like a lot of theorems out there, the hypotheses itself is inherently flawed for searching out the conclusion he seeks. His methodology is also flawed. Here's why:

1. On a winning fantasy team, it isn't just the QB slot that you can zero out and still win. This is going to be more true the larger the starting requirements get, ESPECIALLY with massive IDP rosters. I'm not about to take on the venture of putting up a study, as it's not my job to do so, but what would happen if you canceled out a wr, rb or te from every winning score? They still win the majority of those games!! Why can I say that so confidently? Because if you can zero out the highest scoring position, then you can put him back in and zero out the best WR too and still win the majority of your wins (even more!). The reality in ffb is that there's often a big discrepancy in average team scores across the league, due in part to rebuilding teams actually trying to sell off their good but older point accumulators. Because they are in a way purposefully short-handing themselves, it should make it easier for a winning roster to absorb a zero from ANY position.

2. He is not studying the impact of elite qbs. He is taking any QB, at all, on a winning roster, and eliminating their points. How can you say you are studying the impact of avoiding drafting top end qbs if you are not selecting for those teams that roster those qbs? By grouping all the other qbs in, of course it lowers the average QB contribution and makes their loss more sustainable.

3. The one stat he does use for the top 3 ADP QBs, actually supports that drafting a top 3 QB is NOT detrimental and rather safe. The average win percentage in your league will always be 50%, just like the average loss percentage will always be 50% (excluding ties). If you are looking at win % data from the entire league, and then studying how an ADP range of a position influences that percentage, a % over 50% means a good value at that ADP and any player below 50% is a detriment at that ADP. To make this more understandable, first round picks are expected to be elite. They need to put up elite numbers or they are a detriment to your team, as other teams hit on their picks and got their stud that you missed on. Even if Antonio scores as a top 3 WR, it isn't a huge benefit over the 50% because you spent the ADP cost for it (unless he scores way above the other WRs in this ADP range). This is why many say you can't win big with your first pick, but you CAN lose with it. Antonio is a safe bet to not let down his ADP value. Could he exceed the value of his top round ADP? Actually yes, if he outperforms the other WRs drafted around that ADP. Leagues are won by not messing up the early studs and finding studs in the later rounds (or for less trade value than they ended up being worth). That's why the guys commonly found on winning teams are the guys that over-performed, like Tim Hightower or Doug Baldwin. They will have percentages over 50% because they helped a team beyond their cost of acquisition, essentially giving those teams an advantage other teams don't have. Put simply, if a player is at 50% win contribution across multiple leagues for their adp, they are neither beneficial nor detrimental to their team at that ADP. They are living up to that ADP, yet not outperforming it. They are simply worth that pick. Top 3 QBS are at 50.4% in his study, so they are worth that ADP range. He does not state this.

He then took the AVERAGE WIN % OF WINNING TEAMS (can win anywhere from 7 to 13 games out of 13 to be included) and that win percentage of winning teams was 61%, or just about 8 games won. No surprise there.

He misinterprets his own stats by comparing these two different percentage representations. These percentages have nothing to do with each other, yet he used them to say that since winning teams won 61% and top 3 drafted QBs had an ADP to win correlation of 50.4% QBs in that ADP are a detriment to your team. This isn't just a flawed interpretation. It's flat out wrong to associate these percentages, yet it's the basis for his devaluation article.

4.........I'm not going to continue with this critique anymore. This is getting too long. I just hope that, if you are basing your anti-QB views on this study....you may want to rethink that......and maybe rethink what you are putting your faith in. *that goes for the pharmaceutical industry, too.....

User avatar
Goirish374
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1396
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:31 am

Re: "QBs are replaceable"

Postby Goirish374 » Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:05 pm

Valhalla wrote:It's an interesting article, but honestly had me cringing a lot. I was in a club in undergrad that basically just critiqued research methods and found their flaws....so I'm sort of a critic. Sorry.
there's no need to apologize--anyone with any background in journal clubs or peer reviewed publication submission and evaluation knows that it can quickly become an exercise in "what's wrong with this paper" --- and that's just for the ones we agree with!
Dynasty League Football Premium League Almanac:
2020 Champ: me again! (no, for reals!)
2019 Champ: me!
2018 Champ: Qazxswedcvfrtgbnhyuj
2017 Champ: Irishdoom
2016 Champ: DDT(wakelawyer)
2015 Champ: BigChiefBC

User avatar
bruiser
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:37 am

Re: Value of QB in a 1 QB league

Postby bruiser » Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:08 pm

I haven't read his study because I believe in the science of the baseline. There really is no need to read anyone else's study once you grasp the baseline. If you can use an Excel sheet to sort the baselines across all positions, you will never care to read anyone else's theory.
Just a guy who loves fantasy football - specifically defense.

BuckeyeNation
GOAT
GOAT
Posts: 11314
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:27 am

Re: "QBs are replaceable"

Postby BuckeyeNation » Sat Feb 27, 2016 9:33 pm

PhadedCN wrote:QB is the position you're most likely to find a top 6-8 player on the wire? What? Maybe if you play with infants. I'm pretty sure you can find high performing RBs & TEs at a much more frequent rate than QBs.

Not to mention you're saying you can get top 5 QB production in the 13th round, where are you coming up with these awful numbers and ideas? A top 5 QB in round 13? What?? Once again, playing with infants?

But really - what's so bad about the price of the elite QB?

I saw in another thread that several people agreed a mid-1st is a fair price for ARod. If they are that cheap, how can anyone complain about the price? I would give that up for ARod any day.

It keeps being brought up that there are players who score more than Rodgers and are more valuable. Fine. However, show me where anyone is saying to take him in the 1st round of your startup?

Why is a player like Gurley (even more replaceable than ARod) valued so much higher than ARod?

In the most recent ADP report - there are 45 players being taken on average ahead of Rodgers.

Are you really going to tell me there are 45 players you would rather have than Rodgers? And by getting Rodgers, you don't really have to worry about QB going forward.

On top of that, you could go WR/WR/WR/Rodgers based on that data. What is so bad about that?

Are you kidding me? Where exactly do you think players like Palmer/Brady/Brees/ were being drafted in startups last year? Maybe you might want to take a look at the actual information before touting the numbers as horrible. Brees was being drafted a bit higher but Palmer/Brady were absolutely being drafted that late, if not later in dynasty startups. Go look at ADP data then take a look at a large sample size of startups. To find these guys taken anywhere before the double digit rounds in a 1QB startup was very rare. Redraft, that's a different story. We're talking about dynasty here.
-TEAM 1. Year 5 '15/'16 Champ
Ben
Freeman/Cook/Hyde/Crowell/AP/Rawls/JWill(GB)/Gallman/Vereen/Smallwood/Clement
Julio/Jordy/Crowder/Enunwa/JuJu/Zay/Treadwell/JJNelson/Anderson/Switzer
Olsen/Graham/Gathers/Kittle

-TEAM 2- Year 5 '13/'16 Champ-'14/'15 R/U
Luck/Cousins
Bell/Hunt/Gillislee/Henry/Charles/Rawls/Burkhead
Brown/Jordy/Tate/Moncrief/Enunwa/Meredith/Zay/JJNelson/Anderson/Stewart
Olsen/Ebron/Henry

-TEAM 3- Year 5
'13-'15 R/U
Cam/Smith/Trubisky
Zeke/CJA/Montgomery/Ware/Charles/Booker/Burk/Smallwood/Cohen
Brown/Hilton/Diggs/Marvin/Pryor/Parker/Maclin/Meredith/JJNelson
Reed/Doyle/Miller/Gathers

-TEAM 4- Year 3
Wilson/Mariota
Ajayi/Howard/Hyde/Riddick/Vereen/Burk/Clement
OBJ/ARob/MThomas/Landry/Adams/Crowder/MJones/White/Lee/Samuel
Olsen/Rudolph/Swoope/Barnidge

pokerface40
All Pro
All Pro
Posts: 1768
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:27 am

Re: "QBs are replaceable"

Postby pokerface40 » Sun Feb 28, 2016 4:16 am

ArrylT wrote:
a_yeti wrote: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? :D
×2. This deserves some kind of recognition

User avatar
dlf_jules
Degenerate
Degenerate
Posts: 9040
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:15 pm

Re: "QBs are replaceable"

Postby dlf_jules » Sun Feb 28, 2016 5:24 am

BuckeyeNation wrote:Where exactly do you think players like Palmer/Brady/Brees/ were being drafted in startups last year?
Based on DLF's July ADP ...

Brees: 9.10
Brady: 13.10
Palmer: 19.06
Download the 2019 Cohort Report for free today!

User avatar
bruiser
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:37 am

Re: "QBs are replaceable"

Postby bruiser » Sun Feb 28, 2016 5:44 am

dlf_jules wrote:
BuckeyeNation wrote:Where exactly do you think players like Palmer/Brady/Brees/ were being drafted in startups last year?
Based on DLF's July ADP ...

Brees: 9.10
Brady: 13.10
Palmer: 19.06
And Cam? He was 12th QB selected in my 16-team startup last June. Yet he's been made into the example of how taking QB early would have paid off. If you went with QB early last year, you got smoked at the position and your competition would have Cam right now.
Just a guy who loves fantasy football - specifically defense.

User avatar
Valhalla
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5360
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:26 pm

Re: "QBs are replaceable"

Postby Valhalla » Sun Feb 28, 2016 7:14 am

Bruiser wrote:
dlf_jules wrote:
BuckeyeNation wrote:Where exactly do you think players like Palmer/Brady/Brees/ were being drafted in startups last year?
Based on DLF's July ADP ...

Brees: 9.10
Brady: 13.10
Palmer: 19.06
And Cam? He was 12th QB selected in my 16-team startup last June. Yet he's been made into the example of how taking QB early would have paid off. If you went with QB early last year, you got smoked at the position and your competition would have Cam right now.
One year's results is hardly convincing. If you want to go on one year's results, you could claim, based off of 2015, that you should never draft veteran Rb's. Just rookies. Based off of 2014, don't spend big on vet wrs when you can just load up on rookie wrs late.
Also, I'm mostly advocating for Rodgers, not Cam, due to his near guaranteed ~320+ finish (dominance over other qb1s).

Using that study goirish linked for its research across many matchups over a few years (better than a year of stats), it shows that te top 3 drafted qbs, on average, lived up to their ADP.

User avatar
bruiser
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:37 am

Re: "QBs are replaceable"

Postby bruiser » Sun Feb 28, 2016 7:28 am

Valhalla wrote:One year's results is hardly convincing. If you want to go on one year's results, you could claim, based off of 2015, that you should never draft veteran Rb's. Just rookies.
Uh, yeah, that's pretty close. You've heard of the 'zero runningbacks' strategy, right? For over 10 years, the top drafted RBs are an annual bust. The bust rate among the top 3 ADP RBs is probably higher than any other position. I grabbed a handful of fliers in the mid-late rounds last year named: Devonta Freeman, Doug Martin, Chris Ivory, Lance Dunbar, Theo Riddick. If you had a stable of these RBs this year, you'd be the big man on campus. Trade partners lining up.
Just a guy who loves fantasy football - specifically defense.

User avatar
Valhalla
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5360
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:26 pm

Re: "QBs are replaceable"

Postby Valhalla » Sun Feb 28, 2016 7:54 am

Bruiser wrote:
Valhalla wrote:One year's results is hardly convincing. If you want to go on one year's results, you could claim, based off of 2015, that you should never draft veteran Rb's. Just rookies.
Uh, yeah, that's pretty close. You've heard of the 'zero runningbacks' strategy, right? For over 10 years, the top drafted RBs are an annual bust. The bust rate among the top 3 ADP RBs is probably higher than any other position. I grabbed a handful of fliers in the mid-late rounds last year named: Devonta Freeman, Doug Martin, Chris Ivory, Lance Dunbar, Theo Riddick. If you had a stable of these RBs this year, you'd be the big man on campus. Trade partners lining up.
I don't entirely disagree with you, bruiser. I think we operate on the same methods. The only difference is I believe you are just as risk-averse and position dominant by drafting Rodgers in the 2nd as you are by drafting Antonio in the first. You think he's risky because you've been burned twice. Look at all the qbs over the last 8 years that have been throwing up numbers in the 320+ range (massively above your lower QB1 range) and maybe you'll agree with me. Sure there is variance, but it's a lot of the same. A lot more the same than any other position. And one name is always there, like an Adrian Peterson. Rodgers dominates qbs consistently and reliably and is not as likely to fall off as soon as Brady and Palmer. As was said, this is dynasty. They fell because of ageism, not positional dominance.

I suppose you can just draft Brady cheap though and also Winston with a mid-level pick to cover you in a couple years. I mean, Winston's a near lock to be dominant at QB year, after year, after year, or maybe it's Bortles......or Carr.....or last year's gem Tannehill. Those highly successful QBs grow on trees. Super rare trees that grow one fruit per decade......

User avatar
Goirish374
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1396
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:31 am

Re: "QBs are replaceable"

Postby Goirish374 » Sun Feb 28, 2016 7:57 am

Valhalla wrote:Using that study goirish linked for its research across many matchups over a few years (better than a year of stats), it shows that te top 3 drafted qbs, on average, lived up to their ADP.
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.

(ETA #2: valhalla is correct on this point, i conflated two separate statements here. winning scores vs winning games.)
Last edited by Goirish374 on Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dynasty League Football Premium League Almanac:
2020 Champ: me again! (no, for reals!)
2019 Champ: me!
2018 Champ: Qazxswedcvfrtgbnhyuj
2017 Champ: Irishdoom
2016 Champ: DDT(wakelawyer)
2015 Champ: BigChiefBC

User avatar
georgetown
Starter
Starter
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:47 pm

Re: Value of QB in a 1 QB league

Postby georgetown » Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:01 am

As the OP of this thread, I am shocked as far as to how far the discussion has gone on this topic. And honestly, a lot of it is way over my head. But what I have picked up on is how my original question of "Why is it that QBs aren't valued more in a start 1 QB, 12 team league that awards 6 pts per passing TD?" somehow always reverts back to ADP data of start up drafts. Right now the best QBs on the waiver wire in my league are Fitzpatrick and Alex Smith (who were end of season roster cuts). But outside of those two, my options would be Hoyer, McCown, Gabbert and Foles.

So maybe I should've clarified in my original post that I'm looking at the value of QBs in established leagues. Because I don't have the option of waiting until rounds 10-15 to get an older QB who will end up in the top 7-12 overall season rankings.

I agree with the people who said they wouldn't trade Rodgers for the 1.08 (Sterling Shepard according to ADP). I was looking for an answer to where the line is trading Rodgers in this sort of format. Because I believe Rodgers to be way more valuable than Shepard and would need a lot more to deal Rodgers.
Team 1
12 team PPR, 6pts/passing TD
22 roster spots, 2 IR spots
Start:QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, TE, FLEX (RB/WR/TE), D/ST, K

QB: A. Rodgers, M. Mariota, J. Garoppolo
RB: K. Hunt, S. Barkley, M. Gordon, J. McKinnon, M. Breida, M. Mack, M. Murphy, R. Burkhead
WR: D. Hopkins, S. Watkins, K. Allen, T. Hilton, D. Jackson, C. Sutton, C. Kirk
TE: R. Gronkowski, J. Smith, R. Seals-Jones, C. Brate
K: D. Bailey
DEF: LA Rams

2019: 4th, 5th

Team 2
12 team PPR Superflex 4pts/passing TD, -1.5/ INT
28 roster spots, 2 IR spots
Start:QB, WR, RB, TE, Superflex, 4 Flex

QB: C. Newton, D, Prescott, J. Winston, L. Jackson
WR: O. Beckham, J. Jones, B. Cooks, C. Godwin, J. Crowder, DJ Moore, C. Kirk, D. Hamilton, K. Coutee, Tre’Quan Smith, R. Foster
RB: N. Chubb, K. Johnson, A. Jones, A. Ekeler, J.Adams,
TE: E. Ebron, A. Hooper, J. Reed, T. Burton, G. Everett

2019: 1.03, 2.03, 2.04, 2.05
2020: 3rd, 4th, 5th

User avatar
bruiser
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:37 am

Re: "QBs are replaceable"

Postby bruiser » Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:15 am

Valhalla wrote:You think he's risky because you've been burned twice.
Nope, you missed it. He's risky because the format has devalued the QB.
radioactiveshark wrote:As the OP of this thread,... what I have picked up on is how my original question of "Why is it that QBs aren't valued more in a start 1 QB, 12 team league that awards 6 pts per passing TD?" ...
This thread has been merged with another thread and title. I would have replied differently to that question.
Just a guy who loves fantasy football - specifically defense.

User avatar
Valhalla
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5360
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:26 pm

Re: "QBs are replaceable"

Postby Valhalla » Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:37 am

Goirish374 wrote:
Valhalla wrote:Using that study goirish linked for its research across many matchups over a few years (better than a year of stats), it shows that te top 3 drafted qbs, on average, lived up to their ADP.
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.

User avatar
Valhalla
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5360
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:26 pm

Re: "QBs are replaceable"

Postby Valhalla » Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:56 am

Bruiser wrote:
Valhalla wrote:You think he's risky because you've been burned twice.
Nope, you missed it. He's risky because the format has devalued the QB.
radioactiveshark wrote:As the OP of this thread,... what I have picked up on is how my original question of "Why is it that QBs aren't valued more in a start 1 QB, 12 team league that awards 6 pts per passing TD?" ...
This thread has been merged with another thread and title. I would have replied differently to that question.
Ok so maybe in your format QBs aren't worth it so you are right to avoid them. Your format isn't the norm, though.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shcritters and 33 guests