Can someone please explain VBD?

[iloveny18]

I read the thing on footballguys, I still need an explanation in laments(sp?) terms as to what is VBD and how you go about doing a VBD? Also, has this strategy proven usefull?

[Matthias]

vbd = value based drafting

the idea is that you compare a player's production to the last player in that position that should play in your league, i.e. if you start 1 qb in a 10-person league, you compare the points of the qb you're looking at to the points you expect the 10th best qb to get. that is the player's added value. ideally, you should make each pick based on how much extra value you're getting... make sense?

[MeShawn]

This article pretty much summarizes the principles of VBD.

http://footballguys.com/05vbdrevisited.htm

[iloveny18]

This article pretty much summarizes the principles of VBD.

http://footballguys.com/05vbdrevisited.htm

yes, that was the article I read, but i'm still kinda confused. Can someone please give me an example from a draft as to how you can use VBD?

[J2thez929]

This article pretty much summarizes the principles of VBD.

http://footballguys.com/05vbdrevisited.htm

yes, that was the article I read, but i'm still kinda confused. Can someone please give me an example from a draft as to how you can use VBD?

I'll give you a quick example,

If you are in a 10 team league,
Take the #1 QB and the #11 QB. Subtract their total fantasy points(You can use projections or last year's stats)

Now, take the #1 RB and the #21st RB. Subtract their total fantasy points.

As you will see, there will be a major difference in points between the #1 RB and the #21st RB as opposed to the QBs

This makes drafting a top RB much more "valuable" than drafting a top QB b/c their is less drop at that position. Hence, value based drafting..

Hope this helps

[Plindsey88]

The premise behind value based drafting is to draft players based on how they compare with players of their own position, rather than how they compare to players at different positions.... In other words, you decide how early to draft a player based on how much better he is than the other players at his position rather than how many points he scores compared to players at the other positions....



Let's look at a real life example.... Let's say it's the 4th round of your draft, and you are left with the following guys to choose from.... I will list their names, projected stats, and projected fantasy points:

Nate Burleson (1300 yards, 9 TDs) - 184 FFP

Michael Clayton (1200 yards, 10 TDs) - 180 FFP

Hines Ward (1200 yards, 8 TDs) - 168 FFP

Steve Smith (1200 yards, 7 TDs) - 162 FFP

Tony Gonzalez (1100 yards, 8 TDs) - 158 FFP

Jason Witten (900 yards, 6 TDs) - 126 FFP

Todd Heap (800 yards, 5 TDs) - 110 FFP

Alge Crumpler (700 yards, 6 TDs) - 106 FFP


Now, at first glance it would seem like the best pick on this board is Nate Burleson, because he scores the most points.... HOWEVER, lets compare position to position....

Average FFPs scored by these 4 WR's is 173.5 FFP....

Average FFPs scored by these 4 TE's is 125 FFP.....


So, now let's look at how each of the players faired in comparison with the average from the other players at their position....

Nate Burleson: 184 - 173.5 = +10.5

Michael Clayton: 180 - 173.5 = +6.5

Hines Ward: 168 - 173.5 = -5.5

Steve Smith: 162 - 173.5 = -11.5

Tony Gonzalez: 158 - 125 = +33.0

Jason Witten: 126 - 125 = +1.0

Todd Heap: 110 - 125 = -15.0

Alge Crumpler: 106 - 125 = -19.0


Now, let's rank the players according to their "x numbers," which are the numbers I just calculated:

1) Tony Gonzalez (33.0)
2) Nate Burleson (10.5)
3) Michael Clayton (6.5)
4) Jason Witten (1.0)
5) Hines Ward (-5.5)
6) Steve Smith (-11.5)
7) Todd Heap (-15.0)
8) Alge Crumpler (-19.0)


This is the order in which VBD dictates you should draft these players....

Despite the fact that the total points scored yields a very different ranking....


Does that help?

[iloveny18]

yeah that does help alot, thanks guys.

So it's basically taking guys that are scarce at their position first. That's why guys like Tony G go in round 3-4. That's a pretty simple concept to grasp being that some of us are already drafting that way. And yet that article made it sound so difficult......

[Mercer Boy]

Yeah, it's all about a player having worth over another player at a different position.

Let's take TE's (up until last year anyway)...Tony Gonzalez has been a 3rd round selection for a few years now. The reason why he is taken there is that by that point in the draft, his worth is more over the worth of having the next best WR or RB or QB. That means your total scoring ability is higher by taking the TE over another position because you will have a higher point advantage at that position.

Another good example is the QB position. Before Manning and Culpepper blew up last year, their value drafting position was at the end of the 2nd round. The reason was because most QB's score relatively the same amount of points...a far closer amount than RB's. So, once you ran out of top RB's and top WR's to take, the advantage became better to take the best QB's off the board. Now this year people are banking on Manning to destroy all other QB's in scoring, and that is why he is being taken at the middle of the first round (or earlier...). People believe that his value over other QB's makes it better to take him at that position instead of a RB.

As far as all other QB's go, they can be taken much later because the point spread is so close. That's why QB's #6-12 are generally taken all around the same place in rounds 7-8.

[hardboiled]

Does a VBD strategy incorporate positional scarcity? I did a test using projections from a reputable fantasy source, calculating "X numbers" and then putting together a draft list from highest X number to lowest. Then I compared this list to the site's Top 200 for Drafting list (which is fairly close to the results of the most recent 12 team mock draft posted here at the Cafe, at least for the first 100 picks).

The results were surprising--among some of the early discrepancies, my VBD list showed Daunte as a late first round pick. I also had Randy Moss and the other top receivers going earlier in the first and second rounds than usual. Basically, my VBD list placed a higher premium on the top players of other positions compared to the second tier of RBs.

Despite the fact that many if not all serious fantasy players seem to endorse VBD, it remains that about 18-20 of the first 24 picks in a 12 team are RBs.

So what gives? My first guess is the familiar positional scarcity argument for loading up on running backs, but this seems to fly in the face of VBD analysis. Obviously any draft strategy should consider ADP in order to maximize the value of any pick, but this doesn't seem to explain the problem as I see it.

Anyone have any insight on this?

[Matthias]

Does a VBD strategy incorporate positional scarcity? I did a test using projections from a reputable fantasy source, calculating "X numbers" and then putting together a draft list from highest X number to lowest. Then I compared this list to the site's Top 200 for Drafting list (which is fairly close to the results of the most recent 12 team mock draft posted here at the Cafe, at least for the first 100 picks).

The results were surprising--among some of the early discrepancies, my VBD list showed Daunte as a late first round pick. I also had Randy Moss and the other top receivers going earlier in the first and second rounds than usual. Basically, my VBD list placed a higher premium on the top players of other positions compared to the second tier of RBs.

Despite the fact that many if not all serious fantasy players seem to endorse VBD, it remains that about 18-20 of the first 24 picks in a 12 team are RBs.

So what gives? My first guess is the familiar positional scarcity argument for loading up on running backs, but this seems to fly in the face of VBD analysis. Obviously any draft strategy should consider ADP in order to maximize the value of any pick, but this doesn't seem to explain the problem as I see it.

Anyone have any insight on this?

vbd analysis does take into account positional scarcity to an extent. when you're calculating your x-number, you're comparing it against the lowest-scoring starter in your league. however, it doesn't move beyond that to ask what are the bench alternatives. as an extreme example, assume that every one of the quarterbacks out of the top 5 scored exactly the same... vbd would figure into drafting the top 5, but you would have no premium placed on capable backups. and when you're talking capable backups, your list runs short much quicker in rb's than it does in qb's.

i would explain your discrepency as a result of two factors.

the first is that a vbd analysis is conducted either on numbers from last year or projected for this year. with a few notable exceptions, even if a wr has a higher vbd number, they also have a higher variance game-to-game and year-to-year. so their (with probably 5-10 exceptions) vbd number is less reliable. but that doesn't explain your first few rounds results.

those, i would explain as people hammering, hammering, hammering away at the adage that to succeed, you have to go rb-rb if not rb-rb-rb. it's nearly a religion for some people and religion makes you sometimes hold unreasonable beliefs. so if you've run the numbers, and come up with different results, draft accordingly and let us know how you do!