30 Mocks in 3 Days_ 1st Pick_PPR

30 Mocks in 3 Days_ 1st Pick_PPR

We have been busy the last three days. We did 30 mock drafts.See Tables 1, 2 and 3 for our picks. I highlighted the QB and TE. We if we could were late QB and TE pickers. 

The first hypothesis we had was if we had the 1st pick and varied the order of the type of players, we would on average not see a difference in mock ratings. 

The second hypothesis was since this was PPR pick WRs early would have a higher ranking vs early RB or Early RB and QB. 

Third hypothesis was that Early RBs in a PPR would be lower ranked than Early WRs.

Fourth hypothesis was that the Early RB and QB PPR mocks would have the worst rankings of the three mock picking patterns.

Table 1. 10 Early WRs Biased PPR Mocks.

 photo Slide2_zpst2c9bqbr.jpg
Table 2. 10 Early RBs Biased PPR Mocks.

 photo Slide3_zpsunf7msmf.jpg
Table 3. 10 Early RB QB Biased PPR Mocks.

 photo Slide4_zpsd59wywd6.jpg
We used a algorithmic ranking of each of our Mock results. We scaled the score rankings from 0 to 100 (top). We also noted our mock team rank out of 12 teams. We also noted the next team score and ranking and recorded that. If we were ranked less than 2nd the "next" team was the winner and it was assigned a 100 score and 1st ranking. 

Table 4. Summary of our Scores and Rankings

 photo Slide1_zps7zr19nbx.jpg

The results were not as expected as seen in Table 4. The early WR pattern had 6/10 winners with an average rank of 99.26 score and a rank of 1.7 out of 12. The next team had an average of 98.14 scoring and 1.6 ranking. The Early RB had a sweep of 10/10 winners and a ranking of 1 and the second team was 93.95 and a 2 ranking. Finally the RB/QB pattern had 9/10 winners and 1.1 ranking while the second team was ranked 96.01 and 1.9 ranking.

The best was the early RBs, next RB/QB and early WRs was last. The interesting finding was the second ranked team in the early RB was at 93.95. So we won the mocks 100% and achieved the best separations from the 2nd ranked team. We were surprised but know that this is a mock and the "N" number was only 10. We will keep this data to develop a data set that maybe have 100s of mocks to increase our confidence levels around our averages. 

Table 5. Average Team built using the ADP and Our FFP mock using the same locked in ADP current as of today.

Note the two different teams are similar in some picks. Note the Early QB pick in the average team. We looked at the same list and made avoidance picks reaching down to get  our bargain players  

Round By Round Points

1) In PPR first pick we picked JC instead of AP.

2/3) We agree on picks 2 and 3. 

4) We past on J Stewart and picked up K Allen as a solid WR. 

5) We avoided the early QB of Big Ben and picked Todd Gurley

6) We did not wish to draft K White at that round instead we grabbed solid R White.

7) We did not support D Freeman RB and instead took R Bush as a solid mid-round play.

8) Agree on LFitz

9) D Williams RB was too high instead we picked A Robinson WR. Sleeper.

10) D Parker as a WR could be a winner but we chose here to go to M Colston as a bargain that late. Brees got to throw to someone.

11) D G-B as a rookie is risky and if this was a dynasty then ok. We went with old Fred J. He always seems to have a positive season. He is good bye week winner for us. 

12) We agree on D Allen as a good late TE. If he does not work out then grab another one or stream TE week to week. 

13) M Jones is an another surprising rookie that could be producing at the end of the season. We went with our late QB Palmer and hope the injury gremlins stay away. We could grab another or stream QBs if needed. 

14 15) Pk and Defs who knows at this point. 

Table 5. Average Team built using the ADP and Our FFP mock using the same locked in ADP current as of today.


 photo Slide5_zpsldi6gtvm.jpg

Popular posts from this blog

Early MFL10s 2017 ADPs with rankings and risk analysis.

Running Backs and their 2016 Passing Targets and Rushing Attempts. Scaled Numbers with Rushing to Pass Ratios, Bias Analysis

Week 15 Rankings With Risk Analysis ___ PPR and NON PPR Positional Breakdown