Value of QB in a 1 QB league

[bruiser]

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.

I don't play in any 6pt pass TD leagues. They are all 4pt pass TDs. I have no statistical info on what is the norm, but I'm guessing it's something like: 12-team, 1 QB, 4pt pass TD

[ArrylT]

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.

I don't play in any 6pt pass TD leagues. They are all 4pt pass TDs. I have no statistical info on what is the norm, but I'm guessing it's something like: 12-team, 1 QB, 4pt pass TD

Not sure if this helps but of the 12 leagues I am in the ratio is 9-3 in favor of 6 pt QB Pass TDs - of course that could be influenced by the fact that I prefer 6 Pt over 4-5 Pt because it seems silly to reward 1 player more than another for the same act (of scoring a TD)*. It could easily be said another owner with 12 leagues has a 9-3 ratio in favor of 4 Pts per TD.

* - But that is a whole different argument / discussion

[Goirish374]

It is nothing but anti-QB bias that drives him to say it's the QB that can be subtracted.

as i said, i understand your objection.

the entire second half deals with why the QB is more easily subtracted than, say, the wr.

[Goirish374]

Teams don't win 61% with no QB. WINNING SCORES STILL WIN 61% WITHOUT THE QB.

you're certainly right about that! that's what i get for posting at a stoplight. i've slapped an edit on my prior post to indicate my conflation.
my apologies.

[dlf_jules]

FYI, here's the full article. As I said earlier, this addresses only a small part of the issue. http://dynastyleaguefootball.com/2016/0 ... -matchups/

[Valhalla]

Teams don't win 61% with no QB. WINNING SCORES STILL WIN 61% WITHOUT THE QB.

you're certainly right about that! that's what i get for posting at a stoplight. i've slapped an edit on my prior post to indicate my conflation.
my apologies.

Ha! No need to apologize Goirish. You are a solid contributor and congenial with your arguments.....more so than me. I should be the one apologizing, and would if not for bruiser's authoritative approach I just didn't want people to misunderstand what that study truly looked at or where those percentages came from. As I said before (in different words), throw out enough numbers and you can confuse people enough to just blindly trust the interpreter.

[bruiser]

bruiser's authoritative approach

I'll own that. Your plaid pants still look ridiculous! You can't convince me otherwise

[Pac_Eddy]

Overall I'm a little surprised at how much action this thread has generated and the strong arguments for both "sides" of the issue.

Good stuff.

[Valhalla]

Overall I'm a little surprised at how much action this thread has generated and the strong arguments for both "sides" of the issue.

Good stuff.

I like a good debate way too much to let a topic like this just drift away to page two without some healthy arguments

[dlf_jules]

Overall I'm a little surprised at how much action this thread has generated and the strong arguments for both "sides" of the issue.

Good stuff.

I think the timing is right. When Luck was going in the first round, the obvious answer to me was to wait and grab a couple vets in the 10th-15th. Now that Luck and Cam are going in the third and Rodgers and Wilson are falling to the fourth in some leagues, it's a much tougher question for me. And the people who were drafting Luck in the first have to be losing it. (I haven't seen any QB trades lately in established leagues, but I doubt they have shifted nearly as much as ADP would indicate.)

[maxhyde]

Overall I'm a little surprised at how much action this thread has generated and the strong arguments for both "sides" of the issue.

Good stuff.

I think the timing is right. When Luck was going in the first round, the obvious answer to me was to wait and grab a couple vets in the 10th-15th. Now that Luck and Cam are going in the third and Rodgers and Wilson are falling to the fourth in some leagues, it's a much tougher question for me. And the people who were drafting Luck in the first have to be losing it. (I haven't seen any QB trades lately in established leagues, but I doubt they have shifted nearly as much as ADP would indicate.)

Exactly.
It really is where you can get value...drafting or trading a QB makes sense at a certain point and that point will vary for everyone. I don't pursue QB's as a general rule but I don't turn down offers for top QB's I think are good deals either

[Valhalla]

bruiser's authoritative approach

I'll own that. Your plaid pants still look ridiculous! You can't convince me otherwise

Actually I'm wearing my corduroys today

[bruiser]

So, fair timing for me to disclose that I am currently in a startup where the format is 16teams and 5pt pass TDs. Also, the customary PPR has been halved, making the top 12 QBs the top scoring players in the league. I really like this setup as it does give serious credit to the QBs.

So last night, I decided to target an early AAron with my 2.03 and got him. A little early, but the QB1-5 are worth the same as WR3-8 and RB2-5. At 2.03 I was basically passing on DT, Landry, among others. I just don't give them the same chance at hitting the mark as Rodgers.

Just some context as to why this makes sense here, but not in my other leagues. Aaron may be traded, I don't know at this point, but I definitely am not anti-QB or feel burned by AAron to take him with an early 2nd in a startup. Know your format.

[Valhalla]

So, fair timing for me to disclose that I am currently in a startup where the format is 16teams and 5pt pass TDs. Also, the customary PPR has been halved, making the top 12 QBs the top scoring players in the league. I really like this setup as it does give serious credit to the QBs.

So last night, I decided to target an early AAron with my 2.03 and got him. A little early, but the QB1-5 are worth the same as WR3-8 and RB2-5. At 2.03 I was basically passing on DT, Landry, among others. I just don't give them the same chance at hitting the mark as Rodgers.

Just some context as to why this makes sense here, but not in my other leagues. Aaron may be traded, I don't know at this point, but I definitely am not anti-QB or feel burned by AAron to take him with an early 2nd in a startup. Know your format.

[IDPSteve]

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.

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.