NFBC Message Boards

Hey folks, just a heads up that we have begun running an ADP list at FantasySportsMag.com. The list comes courtesy of our friends at MockDraftCentral.com and is currently based on info gathered from more than 500 drafts. The list will be udpated weekly until the start of the season.



To check out the list click this link:



http://fb.fwpublications.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1532



Thanks to Jason and the gang at MockDraftCentral for supplying the info and hopefully it provide nice value and info as everyone prepares for their drafts in the weeks to come.



[ March 02, 2006, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Tom Kessenich ]

When a "mocker" doesn't make a selection, the mockdraftcentral AI selects a player. Are those AI selections included in the ADP? Thanks.

also, are all of these adp based on a 15 team league? thanks again.

Here are the answers to your questions from MDC, Gordon:



The answer to the first is yes, but we minimize the impact. We eliminate drafts from consideration where the majority of picks are made by the computer. As the number of drafts we run increases, we keep raising the threshold for what drafts we include in the ADP reports. It's a balancing act between having a really sizeable pool of drafts to look at (a statistically significant sample) and quality (which is very much subjective - if the computer selects Vlad with the 5th pick, does that mean it's a bad pick or does it mean that the people drafting in 1-4 are idiots? To the computer's credit, it never commits homerism, by drafting a home team guy two rounds early One other thing to note, we keep a close eye on computer related anomalies. If we see a player being repeatedly selected by the computer, we simply lower that player in the rankings until people are selecting that player before the computer, most of the time.



No, this was a composite of all mock drafts. I can specify it only be run against 15 team drafts. That obviously reduces the sample size substantially, but also improves the realism for someone participating in a 15-teamer.

[ March 02, 2006, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: UFS ]

Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:

Here are the answers ... from MDC, ... I can specify it only be run against 15 team drafts. That obviously reduces the sample size substantially, but also improves the realism for someone participating in a 15-teamer. That would be a good thing!

I would also find it more valuable at 15 team mixed results only even with the small sample size.

Enjoyed the ADP report, however after reviewing it IMO data from 15 member drafts would be more beneficial.

Mock Draft Central also keeps tabs on the NFBC only drafts as part of their statistics. Perhaps they can modify the report to highlight only NFBC related drafts.



That would narrow it down for our league(s) anyway.

IF you log on there you can get 15 team NFBC drafts only. The problem is the sample size is too small and based on mock drafts for the most part. Many people use mock drafts to try things out. Its not the "A" game. So you can use it but don't bet the farm on it.

now if they could post the adp for ALL of the nfbc Satellite leagues, that would help everyone out, esp newbies afraid to enter the main event.



[ March 03, 2006, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

now if they could post the adp for ALL of the nfbc Satellite leagues, that would help everyone out, esp newbies afraid to enter the main event. It sure would be great to take a look at Satellite ADP data--kind of regretting not jumping into a few of these leagues.



You know, I'll bet that everyone would LOVE to get their hands on information like that. The folks at MDC could even make some $$$ for themselves by selling NFBC Satellite data. That said, I seriously doubt that Greg would allow it.

Originally posted by King of Queens:

I seriously doubt that Greg would allow it. who woulda ever thought that the standard for draft slot allocation (random) would be changed by Greg?



patience my friend.



[ March 03, 2006, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

lol You have to pay to see the cards I play!



But I don't think they will help anyone much, a lot of rookies in those satellite leagues. I would say they are a good warm up at best. Then again I'm cheap and I was in the the $100 leagues.



If I could only get my NFBC team to look like my 2 satellite leagues I would be a happy man!



Cheap Seat Chuggers

Team RamRod

Yellow Mafia

If it gets the approval of Greg and/or Tom, I can post some satellite league averages.



There's no program to pull the data directly from those drafts, so I'd just have you guys post a certain player name and I'd give you their spot selected in the four drafts.



[ March 04, 2006, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Geoffrey Stein ]

Originally posted by Geoffrey Stein:

I'd just have you guys post a certain player name and I'd give you their spot selected in the four drafts. felix hernandez



thanks Geoffrey

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Geoffrey Stein:

I'd just have you guys post a certain player name and I'd give you their spot selected in the four drafts. felix hernandez



thanks Geoffrey [/QUOTE]Gordon,



Let me get the okay from the guys in charge. Then, I'll be happy to answer the questions.

Greg and Tom,

As a guy who joined (and paid for) a couple of Satellite Drafts with the expectation that the results would be held CONFIDENTIALLY, I would oppose the release of satellite draft results, even if summarized, by MDC.



If NFBC wants to offer a "pay per view" feature of some sort in 2007, then that's a future business idea to pursue, but for 2006 the satellite participants have a legitimate claim to privacy, as promised, don't they?



[ March 04, 2006, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: GoldenEagle ]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle:

Greg and Tom,

As a guy who joined (and paid for) a couple of Satellite Drafts with the expectation that the results would be held CONFIDENTIALLY, I would oppose the release of satellite draft results, even if summarized, by MDC.



If NFBC wants to offer a "pay per view" feature of some sort in 2007, then that's a future business idea to pursue, but for 2006 the satellite participants have a legitimate claim to privacy, as promised, don't they? That answers the question. The data will be kept shut. Sorry fellas.



[ March 04, 2006, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Geoffrey Stein ]

Your Right and of course we do. As Greg had already stated in the early stages, the results will not be made public and they should not be.



Those wanted to know, should have paid up and played. This is the big league boyzzzzzz...

Thank you very much, Geoffrey! And the other satellite drafters thank you as well.

Tom, wondering if/when this list will be updated. Still showing the Feb 18-28 data with 511 drafts. Will this link change or will there be a different link? Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by GoldenEagle:

Tom, wondering if/when this list will be updated. Still showing the Feb 18-28 data with 511 drafts. Will this link change or will there be a different link? Thanks in advance. I got the info from Jason yesterday but we're having some IT issues on our end which is preventing me from putting them on the page. I'm hoping to get that resolved today but right now I need the IT people to work with it and I'm waiting for them. Sorry for the delay.

No sweat, Tom. Just checked it and "after the Satellites" seemed like a good juncture to revisit. Thanks for the timely response!

Originally posted by Geoffrey Stein:

quote:Originally posted by GoldenEagle:

Greg and Tom,

As a guy who joined (and paid for) a couple of Satellite Drafts with the expectation that the results would be held CONFIDENTIALLY, I would oppose the release of satellite draft results, even if summarized, by MDC.



If NFBC wants to offer a "pay per view" feature of some sort in 2007, then that's a future business idea to pursue, but for 2006 the satellite participants have a legitimate claim to privacy, as promised, don't they? That answers the question. The data will be kept shut. Sorry fellas. [/QUOTE]Hmmmmm, if only more of you would put your teams up for critique....