Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

"Dissecting QB Value In Fantasy Football -- The Zero QB Theorem"


keggerz
 Share

Recommended Posts

Damn it I'm behind, I only got through half on my way to work this morning, you guys better not ruin the ending in this thread before I get there, no spoilers!

 

Sorry, but...

 

 

Bruce Willis is a ghost.

 

 

 

 

 

Finkel is Einhorn.

Einhorn is a man.

You kissed a man.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK just did a mock draft: drafting 7th

 

15th rd: Carson Palmer, (Cutler, Freeman, Rivers, Schaub not drafted)

 

QB: Palmer

RBs: David Wilson, D. McFadden, Chris Ivory, Giovani Bernard, J Stewart, D Richardson

WRs: Calvin Johnson, Steve Smith, Cecil Shorts, Steve Johnson, Kenny Britt,

TE: Jimmy Graham

D: Steelers

K: Bryant

 

My first 2 picks were Calvin Johnson and Jimmy Graham. I don't usually draft WR, TE but that's seemed best at the time

Edited by chiroacademy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tried another mock draft picking 6th:

 

QBs: Freeman and Schaub (15 & 16th rd)

RBs: M Lynch, S Jackson, R Bush, G Bernard, Daryl Richardson

WRs: Roddy White, M Colston, Mike Wallace, Steve Smith, Lance Moore

TE: Olsen and J Cook

K Gostkowski

D Denver

 

Are these teams I can win with?

Edited by chiroacademy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By zeroing out only the wins, the data is badly skewed. You're not saying zero QB teams will win 61% of their games, you are saying they still win 61% of the 50% of the games they originally won. If a team plays 13 games and wins 8, and you zero out their QB and get a 61% success rate, that's just 61% of 8, or ~4.8. That's not a 7.9 win season. So you are no longer measuring the value of an "elite" QB vs. the 16th QB, you are measuring the overall strength of the winning team at any moment and demonstrating that, if the rest of your team is good enough you can get by with any donkey. If you want to truly understand the Top 3 impact, do a data set where you zero out only their wins (not all games) and see what % of their games were still won once zeroed.

 

 

See, this is exactly what I was saying (before some coding glitch relegated my excellent peer review of this article into the internet ether, since I'm sure this is not the kind of a site that would engage in the censorship of legitimate debate simply because someone disagrees with something)!

 

The overall win percentage in every league is always exactly 50%--no more and no less. In a 12 team league, there are 6 games each week--6 teams win and 6 teams lose, every week. If you zero out every player's score except for the kickers, then the overall win percentage is still 50%. Does that mean you will win 50% of your games if you only start a kicker? Of course not.

 

So to say that you would win 61% of your games without a QB is entirely misleading. What this data shows is that you would win 61% of the games that you would have won WITH a QB--just over half. So you would only win 8 games on the season without a QB IF you would have won 13 games on the season with your QB. If you would have gone 10-3 with a QB, then you would go 6-7 without one. I think this is far from demonstrating that a QB is not important.

 

If you want to demonstrate the value of an elite QB, then you have to show how many of the wins obtained with an elite QB were by the 6 points or so that an elite QB scores over a middle-12 type QB. You'd probly still lose a game or two on every season by 6 points or less. Even that wouldn't really demonstrate that an elite QB isn't important, because someone like Brees or Rodgers has the capability of throwing for 4-6 TDs a couple of times a year, thus winning your game for you all by themselves. Ben Roethlisberger might average 6 points per week less than Aaron Rodgers, but he's not going to throw 2 Ws in your column all by himself.

 

Anyway, I'm glad someone else was able to notice and describe this flaw in the ointment better than I was, apparently. It saves me from having to try to reconstruct my entire review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this is exactly what I was saying (before some coding glitch relegated my excellent peer review of this article into the internet ether, since I'm sure this is not the kind of a site that would engage in the censorship of legitimate debate simply because someone disagrees with something)!

 

The overall win percentage in every league is always exactly 50%--no more and no less. In a 12 team league, there are 6 games each week--6 teams win and 6 teams lose, every week. If you zero out every player's score except for the kickers, then the overall win percentage is still 50%. Does that mean you will win 50% of your games if you only start a kicker? Of course not.

 

So to say that you would win 61% of your games without a QB is entirely misleading. What this data shows is that you would win 61% of the games that you would have won WITH a QB--just over half. So you would only win 8 games on the season without a QB IF you would have won 13 games on the season with your QB. If you would have gone 10-3 with a QB, then you would go 6-7 without one. I think this is far from demonstrating that a QB is not important.

 

If you want to demonstrate the value of an elite QB, then you have to show how many of the wins obtained with an elite QB were by the 6 points or so that an elite QB scores over a middle-12 type QB. You'd probly still lose a game or two on every season by 6 points or less. Even that wouldn't really demonstrate that an elite QB isn't important, because someone like Brees or Rodgers has the capability of throwing for 4-6 TDs a couple of times a year, thus winning your game for you all by themselves. Ben Roethlisberger might average 6 points per week less than Aaron Rodgers, but he's not going to throw 2 Ws in your column all by himself.

 

Anyway, I'm glad someone else was able to notice and describe this flaw in the ointment better than I was, apparently. It saves me from having to try to reconstruct my entire review.

 

 

Hate to say it, but I have to agree w/ the first bolded 100%.... thought of this while reading last night. But, can't the same hold true for ANY position?

 

And, psst, it's "FLY in the ointment", not flaw. :pc:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK just did a mock draft: drafting 7th

 

15th rd: Carson Palmer, (Cutler, Freeman, Rivers, Schaub not drafted)

 

QB: Palmer

RBs: David Wilson, D. McFadden, Chris Ivory, Giovani Bernard, J Stewart, D Richardson

WRs: Calvin Johnson, Steve Smith, Cecil Shorts, Steve Johnson, Kenny Britt,

TE: Jimmy Graham

D: Steelers

K: Bryant

 

My first 2 picks were Calvin Johnson and Jimmy Graham. I don't usually draft WR, TE but that's seemed best at the time

 

Tried another mock draft picking 6th:

 

QBs: Freeman and Schaub (15 & 16th rd)

RBs: M Lynch, S Jackson, R Bush, G Bernard, Daryl Richardson

WRs: Roddy White, M Colston, Mike Wallace, Steve Smith, Lance Moore

TE: Olsen and J Cook

K Gostkowski

D Denver

 

Are these teams I can win with?

 

 

I like the second team much more than the first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to say it, but I have to agree w/ the first bolded 100%.... thought of this while reading last night. But, can't the same hold true for ANY position?

 

And, psst, it's "FLY in the ointment", not flaw. :pc:

 

QB is the highest scoring overall position...so yes, you could in theory take and use any position....but there was more to it and proving value was a huge part of it....as for those games where those QBs go off and win a game on their own...give me a point total that people would consider "going off"...19pts?, 22pts? 25pts? 30pts? 35pts? 40pts? I am 100% being serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB is the highest scoring overall position...so yes, you could in theory take and use any position....but there was more to it and proving value was a huge part of it....as for those games where those QBs go off and win a game on their own...give me a point total that people would consider "going off"...19pts?, 22pts? 25pts? 30pts? 35pts? 40pts? I am 100% being serious.

 

 

I would say that "going off" would be a 50% addition to their average. So for a 20ppg guy, a 30+ point game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that "going off" would be a 50% addition to their average. So for a 20ppg guy, a 30+ point game.

 

OK, so for those that are on the QB goes off side of things...how many times do you think that happened for a winning team in the 1805 games I researched? Because I think it's safe to say if a QB went off for points like that and still lost then it doesn't matter and shouldn't factor in. I'll be home in a few hours so until then let people guess how many 30+ pt efforts by QBs led their teams to wins.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only place I could find with ready data on each game for each QB was in a slightly different scoring system (1 pt per 20 yards passing), but I'll put it out there for what it's worth.

 

The top 10 QBs in that system averaged 24.39 points per game. A 15 point game is typically considered the minimum acceptable score from the QB position, so, since that is about 9.5 points under the top 10 QB average, 9.5pts above their average would be 34 points. So "going off" is 34 points or more, and tanking is under 15 points. Here are the top 20 QBs "Going Off" games and "Tank" games (in parentheses).

 

1. Brady 2 (1)

2. Brees 2 (1)

3. Rodgers 2 (3)

4. Newton 2 (3)

5. Ryan 1 (3)

 

6. Griffin 1 (2) (out 1 game)

7. PManning 0 (2)

8. Romo 1 (3)

9. Stafford 1 (4)

10. Luck 0 (3)

 

11. Dalton 0 (6)

12. Wilson 1 (6)

13. Freeman 1 (4)

14. Flacco 0 (6)

15. Palmer 0 (4)

 

16. Schaub 1 (6)

17. Bradford 0 (7)

18. EManning 0 (7)

19. Roethlisberger 1 (2) (out 3 games)

20. Fitzpatrick 0 (7)

So here it seems that the value in having a top-tier QB is not AS much about them winning one or two games for you all by themselves (which all of the top 5 will do), but in NOT having a QB that is going to make the rest of your team work that much harder to take up their slack in half your games (which most of the second 10 will do).

 

So then I thought maybe I was being too stringent in my guideline of 34 points. So I tallied again, this time making the "Going Off" standard 30 points or more, and the "Tanking" standard less than 17 points.

 

1. Brady 4 (1)

2. Brees 5 (2)

3. Rodgers 3 (5)

4. Newton 4 (5)

5. Ryan 3 (3)

 

6. Griffin 4 (4) (out 1 game)

7. PManning 0 (2)

8. Romo 2 (5)

9. Stafford 2 (4)

10. Luck 3 (5)

 

11. Dalton 3 (6)

12. Wilson 1 (7)

13. Freeman 1 (6)

14. Flacco 1 (8)

15. Palmer 1 (5)

 

16. Schaub 1 (6)

17. Bradford 0 (11)

18. EManning 1 (7)

19. Roethlisberger 1 (4) (out 3 games)

20. Fitzpatrick 0 (9)

 

So again, your top 5 or 6 QBs are going to win you a couple of games by themselves, but the bottom 10 are going to give you much more in the way of deficits to overcome than they are in headstarts to victories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only place I could find with ready data on each game for each QB was in a slightly different scoring system (1 pt per 20 yards passing), but I'll put it out there for what it's worth.

 

The top 10 QBs in that system averaged 24.39 points per game. A 15 point game is typically considered the minimum acceptable score from the QB position, so, since that is about 9.5 points under the top 10 QB average, 9.5pts above their average would be 34 points. So "going off" is 34 points or more, and tanking is under 15 points. Here are the top 20 QBs "Going Off" games and "Tank" games (in parentheses).

 

1. Brady 2 (1)

2. Brees 2 (1)

3. Rodgers 2 (3)

4. Newton 2 (3)

5. Ryan 1 (3)

 

6. Griffin 1 (2) (out 1 game)

7. PManning 0 (2)

8. Romo 1 (3)

9. Stafford 1 (4)

10. Luck 0 (3)

 

11. Dalton 0 (6)

12. Wilson 1 (6)

13. Freeman 1 (4)

14. Flacco 0 (6)

15. Palmer 0 (4)

 

16. Schaub 1 (6)

17. Bradford 0 (7)

18. EManning 0 (7)

19. Roethlisberger 1 (2) (out 3 games)

20. Fitzpatrick 0 (7)

So here it seems that the value in having a top-tier QB is not AS much about them winning one or two games for you all by themselves (which all of the top 5 will do), but in NOT having a QB that is going to make the rest of your team work that much harder to take up their slack in half your games (which most of the second 10 will do).

 

So then I thought maybe I was being too stringent in my guideline of 34 points. So I tallied again, this time making the "Going Off" standard 30 points or more, and the "Tanking" standard less than 17 points.

 

1. Brady 4 (1)

2. Brees 5 (2)

3. Rodgers 3 (5)

4. Newton 4 (5)

5. Ryan 3 (3)

 

6. Griffin 4 (4) (out 1 game)

7. PManning 0 (2)

8. Romo 2 (5)

9. Stafford 2 (4)

10. Luck 3 (5)

 

11. Dalton 3 (6)

12. Wilson 1 (7)

13. Freeman 1 (6)

14. Flacco 1 (8)

15. Palmer 1 (5)

 

16. Schaub 1 (6)

17. Bradford 0 (11)

18. EManning 1 (7)

19. Roethlisberger 1 (4) (out 3 games)

20. Fitzpatrick 0 (9)

 

So again, your top 5 or 6 QBs are going to win you a couple of games by themselves, but the bottom 10 are going to give you much more in the way of deficits to overcome than they are in headstarts to victories.

 

Are your "Go Off" games just times they scored that many points? If so did you look to see how many of those games ended in losses? My guess is no...also, you are looking at just ONE year...I looked at 7 yrs for 3 different leagues...the equivalent of 21 years. Edited by keggerz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be home in a few hours so until then let people guess how many 30+ pt efforts by QBs led their teams to wins.

 

 

Based on the stats posted above, there were 40 such opportunities for the top 20 QBs to post a 30+ effort last year. Probly about a quarter of them were posted by QBs who weren't even starting for their teams, i.e., the second 10 QBs listed above. There are about a dozen of those games that went over 34 points by QBs likely to be starting, so I'm going to guess that at least 10 of those were in game-winning efforts. I'll split the difference for the other 20 games or so, and guess that there were about 18-20 efforts of 30 points or more by game-winning QBs in every league, on average, in 2012.

 

In a normal league of 12 teams playing 13 games, that would be about a quarter of the 78 total games in which the QB played a key role in the victory for the winning team.

 

Maybe we should look at how many games were LOST by teams when their QB scored less than 15 points, since all of the top 5 QBs listed above did that a combined 10 times, while the bottom 10 QBs combined for 55 such games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So again, your top 5 or 6 QBs are going to win you a couple of games by themselves, but the bottom 10 are going to give you much more in the way of deficits to overcome than they are in headstarts to victories.

 

I'll save this post to respond in a couple of hours...but until then can you supply me with a link to the league you are referencing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are your "Go Off" games just times they scored that many points?

 

 

Yes.

 

If so did you look to see how many of those games ended in losses? My guess is no...

 

 

You are correct--But I thought you said you were going to do that when you got home, so we will find out soon enough.

 

you are looking at just ONE year...I looked at 7 yrs for 3 different leagues...the equivalent of 21 years.

 

 

Correct again--just a starting point here, but given the flaws in your initial article, it's research that begs to be conducted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the stats posted above, there were 40 such opportunities for the top 20 QBs to post a 30+ effort last year. Probly about a quarter of them were posted by QBs who weren't even starting for their teams, i.e., the second 10 QBs listed above. There are about a dozen of those games that went over 34 points by QBs likely to be starting, so I'm going to guess that at least 10 of those were in game-winning efforts. I'll split the difference for the other 20 games or so, and guess that there were about 18-20 efforts of 30 points or more by game-winning QBs in every league, on average, in 2012.

 

In a normal league of 12 teams playing 13 games, that would be about a quarter of the 78 total games in which the QB played a key role in the victory for the winning team.

 

Maybe we should look at how many games were LOST by teams when their QB scored less than 15 points, since all of the top 5 QBs listed above did that a combined 10 times, while the bottom 10 QBs combined for 55 such games.

 

I am not dealing in assumptions...I did my homework...if you want to question it and try to disprove it then I suggest you actually do the work instead of making assumptions and using the word probably.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

 

 

You are correct--But I thought you said you were going to do that when you got home, so we will find out soon enough.

 

 

 

Correct again--just a starting point here, but given the flaws in your initial article, it's research that begs to be conducted.

 

My theorem and article are not flawed...if you feel that it is then you can go ahead and do the research to disprove it, but as I said above...do so with facts, not assumptions and probably
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not dealing in assumptions...I did my homework...if you want to question it and try to disprove it then I suggest you actually do the work instead of making assumptions and using the word probably.

 

 

I'll be home in a few hours so until then let people guess how many 30+ pt efforts by QBs led their teams to wins.

 

 

Hey, you axed us to guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

 

 

You are correct--But I thought you said you were going to do that when you got home, so we will find out soon enough.

 

 

 

Correct again--just a starting point here, but given the flaws in your initial article, it's research that begs to be conducted.

 

the response to your YES is: what good is it if a QB goes off for 30+ and your team still loses? For the second answer: I am going to post my info...but your numbers are disingenuous at best...Until you can disprove my theorem it is true and not flawed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, you axed us to guess.

 

I did, you didn't just guess a number...you put forth numbers in an attempt to support your argument...however, those numbers, as I already pointed out...don't tell the entire story. Oh and you did guess, you said a "couple" of games...I'll take that to mean TWO. Edited by keggerz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My theorem and article are not flawed...if you feel that it is then you can go ahead and do the research to disprove it, but as I said above...do so with facts, not assumptions and probably

 

 

I did... and though my review mysteriously disappeared, Fleming posted basically the same thing I had--that you can't say that teams without a QB would win 61% of their games OVERALL when your evidence only shows that they would still earn 61% of the wins they gained WITH a QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information