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.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
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.....