Value based drafting

[kujerry 9]

Does the draft buddy do value based drafting?

[Mike MacGregor 20]

Hi kujerry. Yes, it does. That is the basis for the overall rankings.

[BigBBlue 0]

I think I understand the big idea of VBD, and am wondering if there are changes as players are picked live in a draft?

 

Does DB take that into consideration? I'm going to be using an iPad and OnLiveDesktop, which may or may have all the functions as a desktop or full laptop.

 

I've got some time to figure it out, drafts are in a few weeks. Two the same day (morning and afternoon). Sounds like I can upload 2 different sheets (one for each league) as they have different settings.

 

Meant to grab DB before today (when it was on sale), but haven't done so yet (grrr).

 

I've been a fan of the BigBoard, this seems like a much better idea than taking the BB and tweaking each year

 

Thanks.

[Mike MacGregor 20]

There are no changes during the draft to the overall rankings - no altering of the rankings. So, I don't think there should be any issues in that respect with using Buddy on your iPad because the cheatsheets are static. Yes, you can definitely upload different copies of Draft Buddy, one for each league, to OnLive for each of your drafts.

[BigBBlue 0]

I noticed different rankings when the makeup of the bench changes. This year, I'm in 3 leagues, 2 that I didn't play in last year, one brand new. I went with a guess as to how many bench players would be drafted at each position (expected most teams to draft a 2nd qb and te, no backup k or def.

 

 

I got different results/rankings when I changed bench RBs from 2 to 3, and WRs from 3 to 2. Also changes with bench QB and TE (changed from 0 to .5 to 1). I didn't think VBD would have changes based on the anticipated bench size, and perhaps I don't understand it as I previously thought.

 

Yesterday was 2 drafts, a PPR in the am, where I took a lot of RBs early, and watched the WRs fly off the board. I suppose we'll see how the season shakes out to see if that was a mistake. The non-PPR at night was full of surprise picks, and keeping the lessons learned in the am draft, was able to hop positionally, instead of by the numbers to draft a strong team (I hope). The pm draft was also done via printed sheets, the wifi was bad and onlivedesktop connection kept stopping.

 

One more draft after Labor Day, will print sheets again as backup.

 

 

Back to VBD... is it dynamic based on what others select? In an extreme case, assume that people go PPR crazy and draft WRs and QBs almost exclusively in the first 5/6 rounds. At what point do I stop stocking up on stud RBs?

[Mike MacGregor 20]

The backups do impact the overall rankings because the baseline is beyond just the starters. It is Median Player Drafted, with some adjustments, and median meaning middle player drafted at each position, starters + backups. I think this is much better than using strictly starters as the baseline, because it drives home the importance of drafting a deep team. Quality depth is a good thing, because I've never seen a fantasy football team in my life that used its starters from the draft the entire season except for byes. Injuries and poor performance are too common an occurrence.

 

There is definitely a point to stop stockpiling RBs. I like to try to draft a balanced team myself. It keeps things flexible in later rounds when a player falls in the draft and represents really good value that you couldn't have expected. If that player is a RB, and you already have 4 RB rostered, then that pick isn't as helpful. Remember, while the bench is important, it isn't better than solid starters across the board, which is where you get the points every week.

 

Have you heard of tiering, Triplle-B? Here is an old article I wrote way back in 2004 that I referred someone to recently. I put more emphasis on this than the overall rankings, as I believe it will help you more later in the draft when you want to look at particular positions vs. continuing to follow the overall list.

 

Tiering

 

The players mentioned are old but the concepts I find are still very relevant today.

[BigBBlue 0]

Mike,

 

Thanks. The median player drafted must be the part I don't like. I agree that there is merit to drafting a deep bench, but I'd prefer to focus on the starters. Is there a setting that is user changeable? Should I consider setting it up once for no bench?

 

In novice/newbie leagues, I've gorged on RBs to start, but never past starters before filling out the rest of the team.

 

Yes, in the past, I created an excel sheet, with the FFT projections, created my own tiers and used that to draft. It was ugly, but the same format as the sheets in DB. I made decisions and placed the tiers in order to create a basic draft order for myself. It was worth the investment in DB, not to have to do all the copying and pasting, and to have the benefits on tracking the draft, at least during the draft I had wifi.

 

One more draft in just over a week. 12 teams and deciding PPR status soon. I'll check the makeup of the other drafts to setup my bench stats closer to correct. I may also try setting it up for no bench to see how that changes things.

 

I guess I'll check to see the impact of an expanded bench, although we won't draft that deep, it will list more players and perhaps a different top of the board look?

 

I do appreciate the personal responses and help, as well as the product. Maybe I need to find a laptop to avoid the iPad problems.

 

Thank you,

 

Mark

BB

[Mike MacGregor 20]

You can definitely set it to starters only and see how it looks. What you want to change is the overall ranking method. Choose Last Starter, and then hit Compile Cheatsheets to see the results.

[BigBBlue 0]

A quick check of changed settings.

ESPN Standard PPR settings

Top 20 (position only listed)

 

First with only half the teams drafting a backup QB and TE, standard DB settings.

Second with same roster lineups, but using Last Starter Drafted setting.

Third with all teams drafting a backup QB and TE, Last Starter Drafted.

Fourth with all teams drafting a backup QB and TE, standard settings.

 

In the top 20 spots: RB/WR/QB/TE

 

11 / 8 / 0 / 1

6 / 11 / 1 / 2

6 / 11 / 1 / 2

10 / 8 / 1 / 1

 

 

Results for LSD identical for the top 20 (at least) even with bench makeup changes.

 

Results for DB Standard close to each other, way different from LSD though.

 

 

.5 backup QB/TE Standard RB RB WR WR RB WR RB WR RB WR WR RB RB TE RB WR RB RB WR RB 11/8/0/1

 

 

LSD RB WR WR RB WR TE RB WR WR WR QB RB WR RB WR WR WR WR TE RB 6/11/1/2

 

 

 

 

Lower RB/WR Standard RB RB WR WR RB WR RB WR TE WR WR RB QB RB RB RB WR RB WR RB 10/8/1/1

[annebradsmith 0]

Glad i came across this post.

 

Mike - Do you have a description for each of the 7 ranking methods available in DB? I would like to understand these better.

 

Based on what i read here, I switched the ranking method from "Compiler Draft Pick Recommended" to "Last Starter Drafted" to see how different it is. What i realize is that (a) the "Last Starter Drafted" technique aligns more closely with what i was expecting (relative value-based drafting based on number of starters at each position) and ( the rankings are way different between these two methods at least when applied in my league where the scoring rules are pretty unusual.

 

For example in my league with 2 starting QBs and 1 starting Def, Compiler Draft Pick has 14 QBs and 1 Def with value>0 (out of ~105 players) whereas Last Starter has 23 QBs and 11 Def with value>0 (out of 218 players). I'm not so concerned with the absolute number of players >0, but the ratio of QBs:Def (and all other positions) is substantially different through the first 100 picks.

 

Another question --- how do Flex players impact the Rankings?

[Mike MacGregor 20]

There is a section in the instructions that describes the different methods. You can find it here:

 

http://fftoday.com/draftbuddy/instructions.html#8

 

For the flex positions, essentially Draft Buddy figures out what players should be included at each position to cover the flex, and then adjusts the baseline at that point to mark them as a starter or backup. Say you had a league with 10 teams, start 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 RB/WR/TE flex. If out of the 10 flex players for the league, 4 were RB, then the last starter baseline (for example) should be the 24th RB (20 regular starters + 4 to fill the flex spot).

[annebradsmith 0]

Thanks. I understand the mechanics of each option and I would like to understand the theory of the various options beyond Last Starter. Is there a convincing study that demonstrates why median or the Compiler Recommend is a better strategy than Last Starter. I'm not yet convinced and when I read that certain strategies don't work well for 2QB leagues then I am suspicious that they are fundamentally flawed. In any event, this decision is crucial decision in the whole draft and since the different methods provide wildly different strategies for this 2QB league, I want to get it right. (Median vs Last Starter shows 3 vs 8 QBs drafted in 1st round of my 2QB league)

 

"Generally, the Compiler Draft Pick Recommended tends to provide the best result for most leagues with a pick style draft . . . If you want to go with a traditional method, Median Drafted is a good one to start with. It tends to emphasize building a strong, deeper team with quality backups at key positions, which is better in the long run than the results from using the Last Starter method, the most common method people use.

"Compiler Draft Pick Recommended may not be as suitable for leagues that must start 2 QB. For start 2 QB leagues, try Median Drafted as a base method, test the resulting overall rankings, and then include adjustments as appropriate across all positions to tailor the overall rankings to your league.

[Mike MacGregor 20]

Short answer: No, I don't think there is a convincing study I can reference you to. This is all subjective, subject to opinion which method is considered "better", and the opinions expressed here are based on my experience playing fantasy football for many years.

[groooveman 0]

With the trend of more passing over the last couple years coupled with more RBBC, do you think it's time to revisit the baseline rank values for Compiler Draft Pick Recommended ranking method? I've used your product for at least a decade now and usually do very well in my 3 leagues, but was curious if it's time RBs aren't valued as high as years past.

[Mike MacGregor 20]

I think it is a fair comment groooveman, for sure. In fact I thought I did change it a few years back to slightly more weight to WR, less to RB, but I could be mistaken. Probably something considered, not necessarily carried through on.

 

Ultimately what would be ideal for me - and this is just my opinion of course - is if you guys put less emphasis on the overall rankings and more emphasis on the positional rankings utilizing the tiering. I personally don't use the overall rankings to a great extent. I review it to get an idea how different positions are valued, and maybe have a top 24-36 for first 2-3 rounds, but then pretty much focus on the positional rankings.

 

Admittedly, many of my leagues scoring and structures do not sway very much from the norm, so I feel I have a pretty good understanding of how different positions are valued going in.

 

I just feel using the positional rankings with tiering is more flexible to what is happening in the draft while it unfolds, and in the end a better team is constructed that way. However I am not sure how to communicate that or alter Draft Buddy to reflect it without a public outcry Feedback is generally people want a longer overall ranking list, not shorter.

[groooveman 0]

I actually draft the same way...I use the overall rankings for the first couple rounds and then stick with the tiers. Your tool easily allows people to make adjustments to the baseline (via the factor row), and you very well may have tweaked the compiler recommended values. I only have back to 2014 on the cloud.

 

I just wanted to check in and see where you were in relation to the trend/hype on WRs being more valued than RBs.

 

P.S. I tried out another site's draft software the other day and it pales in comparison to yours. Congrats on such a long run with a great product.

[Mike MacGregor 20]

Thanks!