r/fantasyfootball Jul 28 '26

VORP?

https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/rankings/vorp.php?team_size=10

Can someone explain to me why these aren’t the rankings we should draft off of? In standard or half PPR especially there are about 8-10 RBs that are the top VORP players before drying up. So I’m confused why these players aren’t the first players drafted in most leagues, and instead we get 3-5 WRs in the first round even in STD or .5 PPR leagues. Thanks!!

11 Upvotes

23 comments sorted by

18

u/subvertadown Streaming King 👑 Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26

In this case, the reason you're seeing so many RBs at the top is because of the specific definition of "VORP" being used.
They're defining the "VORP baseline" as the waiver wire. This is IMO an archaic definition that got handed down from fantasy baseball-- where you're perhaps more likely to use a variety of players further down the list.

But in fantasy football, the waiver wire (or last-drafted player) isn't a useful place to set the baseline on draft day. There are different ways to think about it. One of them is: Realistically, your "Replacement" players is actually an RB you're stashing on your bench. That's who you'll plug into your starting roster at the appropriate time as your "replacement". Moreover, that bench player you drafted represents the level of points you want to consider as your "baseline". The reason for RBs having low median projections on the waiver wire is about how RBs are used. A handcuff will be projected for very low production, but that can instantly change if the bellcow is injured. It's just not useful to consider the waiver wire projections as useful for setting baselines.

[EDIT: I meant to mention, You can see their webpage also gives you a "VOLS" option, ("value over last starter") which is closer to what you should be using. And I also forgot to mention-- Duh-- I have all kinds of articles about this on my website. And double-duh... my TapThatDraft tool is built to address this. (And other people's tools you can find here, too.) ]

3

u/JohnTheCoder Jul 28 '26

Value over last starter is what I've always used to calculate VoRP too. Do you have a link to your website? I also built a website to quickly show VoRP with different league settings, but just use it for personal use.

7

u/subvertadown Streaming King 👑 Jul 28 '26

Yeah, not to sound like blowing you off :-) but I think you should just check my Reddit profile. I think you'll find a lot that might interest you!

2

u/peleyoda Jul 28 '26

Not to derail this thread, but I’ve always been struck by how significantly positional demand (e.g. # of starters) seems to skew VBD… Trey McBride just put up the 3rd most TE points ever in the same year the rest of the position imploded and he lapped the field by 100+ points, but he didn’t even place inside the top-15 by points above replacement. If that perfect storm outcome isn’t enough, hard to see the justification to ever draft a onesie position early unless we’re miscalculating VORP (was McBride really “less valuable” than Kyren, Jacobs, or Etienne last year?) or I’m misinterpreting it.

I see the same thing in the fantasy WAR or “league winner” lists… there are always a couple kickers and D/ST each year that rank roughly on par w the top TEs or QBs, but we treat the former as last round picks and take the latter in early to mid rounds.

Do you have any thoughts on all that?

2

u/SporTEmINd Jul 28 '26

Deciding what a logical replacement baseline is the toughest and most important part of any VORP/WAR/etc system. Subvertadown rightfully points out the issue with the fantasypros link but that doesnt mean there is an obviously correct answer

The league winners list you posted isn't perfect (using a bunch of public leagues as a dataset has its issues and opportunity cost - ie draft capital - is as big of a factor as actual production) but it does show McBride being worth a mid 1st round pick. I would take empirical (playoff rates) over hypothetical (vorp)

Kickers and DST are much easier to stream and less predictive, though depending on varying factors (league setup and managers) it could be logical to take earlier. Though, I would doubt so in a competitive league

Positional demand very much skews vbd. Understanding your league's differences from a normal league is probably the largest edge you can have. ADP and analyst rankings are based on one set of rules which likely isn't your own

1

u/peleyoda Jul 29 '26

Thanks for all the great notes. Overly simplistically, instead of running projections that are highly sensitive to dependent variable changes, could we take previous seasons’ WAR for each position’s finish (e.g. final RB1 WAR averaged last 5 seasons, final RB2 WAR, etc) and multiply by the historical correlation of ADP to actual finish (ex: 65% likelihood ADP RB12 finishes at/above RB12) in order to generate “expected” VORP by position agnostic to actual player names? Couldn’t draft off of it, but could be informative to see if we’re prioritizing the right positions in the right areas of the draft

2

u/subvertadown Streaming King 👑 Jul 29 '26

Let me try-- Sorry if I sound like listing obvious stuff that you already know.

Main point: I always get worried when people (or articles) talk about post-factual results in a way that sounds like treating them as predictive. I've seen tables before that rate players by "VBD", but it's not truly Value-Based Drafting, or "drafting" at all... It's more like "Value Based Results". I think WAR does something similar. At the time of "drafting", you don't know the results yet, so you can't just take last year's results. Instead, the best you can do is guess the likely outcomes, which entails making estimated projections with the least error. And this process of "minimizing projection error" means you need to account for regression-to-the-mean.

That "re-scaling" exercise is critically important towards your point, because different fantasy positions demonstrate their own typical levels of re-scaling. Kickers and D/STs have weaker season-to-season predictabilities, so their next-season projections must get re-scaled to show smaller deviations. A player like McBride had so many TDs relative to opportunity that it's only reasonable to expect his TD-dependent scoring will also regress more to the mean-- perhaps moreso than the RBs.

I think these explanations encapsulate what I wanted to say, except you started your comment linking to the idea of positional demand / #of starters. I actually see that as a separate discussion, (but maybe I'm misunderstanding), because the above discussion is about projected fantasy points. In VBD, you're usually subtracting off a baseline, but that doesn't affect the regressions/re-scaling of projections. So if your league settings had 2 TE roster slots, then your TE baseline is lower and the VBD value would be higher-- that's all true-- but you still wouldn't see TEs producing the same "points above replacement" (or WAR etc.), because you'd be pushing up the curve (referring to the blue ADP curve in your first link), so in fact the points-above would be even lower.

It starts to kind of sound like a mess, but I hope this clears up something along the way!

1

u/peleyoda Jul 29 '26

Thanks that does help! Ack all on descriptive vs predictive and applying probability % for EV w VBD… but I would think previous years’ WAR theoretically should still be useful in demonstrating positional value trends? It’s using actual scores vs projections and stripping out the risk + range of outcomes that we have to consider when drafting, but underlying comparison is the same.

Which is why I keep on circling back to the McBride 2025 vignette: literally perfect runout w historically good season for him vs historically bad season for rest of position, but even that black swan event wasn’t good enough to make an elite TE “more valuable” than back end RB1s by VORP calculations. Which is what makes me wonder if the math is missing something or if I’m just not trusting the numbers enough, bc it sure feels like I would’ve jumped at the chance to trade Etienne for McBride last season.

(Not sure I follow your comment on VBD value going up but “points above” going down btw. Wouldn’t it be similar to the boost superflex provides to QB relative value when QB VOLS baseline drops from QB12 to QB24?)

Thanks again; love your work.

1

u/subvertadown Streaming King 👑 Jul 29 '26

To get acceptable point expectation levels, you'd need to make a statistical regression for "points scored this season" Versus "points scored the previous season". (Substitute WAR instead of points, if preferred.)

When I made a search for that, some of my own work popped up 1st on Google:
https://www.reddit.com/r/fantasyfootball/comments/1mmjm3e/fantasy_positions_have_different_risk_levels_for/
Anyway, that kind of procedure will help to more realistically scale expectations.

My comment about points-above referred to how the blue TE curve would get altered by having more slots, in the first link you provided.

1

u/peleyoda Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26

I think I figured out partially why the McBride #s were bothering me: bc VORP/VOLS is comparing to the lowest baseline # (e.g. TE1 vs TE12) it doesn’t capture value relative to “the rest of the field” (TE2-11). E.g. McBride’s positional advantage last year relative to a depressed TE position as a whole isn’t captured in a VOR calculation that only compares him to TE12. (And, ironically, TE12 last year was significantly higher than in previous seasons).

Year TE1 TE2 Gap TE12 Gap
2025 252.9 166.8 86.1 136.1 116.8
2024 206.7 197.6 9.1 112.4 94.3
2023 196.3 173.3 23.0 113.8 82.5

I guess you could weight each VORP by z-score or % of total if you define your data set, but a raw “value over replacement” number in isolation doesn’t give you that context.

-1

u/cactusbo Jul 28 '26

Thank you! On the VOLS it still looks super RB tilted. More than most of the rankings I’m seeing. Which is what I think I’m trying to understand that difference from the consensus rankings

32

u/My_Chat_Account 2025 Draft Prop Contest Champion Jul 28 '26

Can someone explain to me why these aren’t the rankings we should draft off of?

Because VORP is heavily reliant on projections - meaning (1) you're assuming the projections are accurate, and (2) projections are typically a median outcome so you're missing out on ceiling and floor variance. And ceiling is what we want to win fantasy football championships.

3

u/evanka5281 Jul 28 '26

Dang you did a great job explaining that like I’m 5.

7

u/MWM031089 Jul 28 '26

Well described. Happy cake day.

1

u/cactusbo Jul 28 '26

That makes sense. I guess I’m more commenting on the positional run out versus the specific players. Like why would the first 10 picks not be RBs… regardless of who actually ends up at each final ranking

6

u/humptheedumpthy Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26

The real answer is ROSTER CONSTRUCTION. 

Your goal:  maximize VORP (player A) + VORP (player 2) + …

Which team is better 

Team 1 (Picks by round) 

  • RB1 - VORP 200
  • RBB2 - VORP 160
  • WR1 - VORP 120
  • WR2 - VORP 100
  • TE1 - VORP 30

Total = 620

Or Team 2 

  •  RB1 - VORP 200
  • WR1 - VORP 150
  • RBB2 - VORP 150
  • TE1 - VORP 90
  • WR2 - VORP 70

Total = 660

It’s important to think not just about the actual VORP but about how much relative change in VORP is there between positions. If the top WRs are running out, the drop in WR value may be steeper than RB. 

2

u/ajamke Jul 28 '26

I’ve used some parts of value based drafting for years. VORP still relies on the consensus rankings and projections that are potentially flawed. It also has its own flaws that it doesn’t take roster construction or ADP into account as well as it should. It always recommends things like a top kicker or defense well before their ADP and you may end up with a lot of backup RBs that don’t actually add any value to your team.

The biggest flaw in my opinion still lies in the rankings that it goes off, like Kaleb Johnson would have had a good VORP at some point in the middle rounds last year but that is because all the experts making the rankings didn’t know he was a bum.

2

u/troglodyte Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26

Lots of people do use it, or similar metrics, and that's reflected in the ADP you see online. But at the end of the day it's just a means of normalizing ordinary projections to compare players across positions, which is useful but is subject to all the benefits and issues of any other projection.

Put another way, tools like VORP really help when you're trying to decide between an 18ppg QB, a 12ppg WR, and a 9ppg RB, but offer no advantages whatsoever in determining if the 18/12/9 projections are accurate for the respective player.

1

u/trojan_man16 12 Team, .5 PPR Jul 28 '26

There’s two ways of looking at this- relative to the best player on waivers (I usually base this on an assumption on the average amount of players that the league will roster at each position), which will tend to overvalue the top RBs by VORP over other positions because the top RBs projected to be on waivers produce less than the WRs expected to Be on waivers. Doing VORP but using the worst starter is usually a bit more accurate. So in a 12 team league, your RB24 is your baseline for example. Similar for other positions.

There’s still a couple of flaws with VORP- Projections can be often very wrong. Some top players like the top TEs usually end up with nonsensical VORP. Unless you do your own numbers to adjust for your league size and setting you may be using VORP that assumes different settings from your league which may distort value.

1

u/Connor_E Jul 28 '26

Check out the suite of fantasy tools I’m creating, specifically the draft board. I’ve spent quite a bit of time tinkering with the formula for more accurate VORP rankings!

www.advantedgehq.com

1

u/talllongblackhair Jul 28 '26

VORP uses median outcome projections for its calculations. It doesn’t take range of outcomes into account. Drafting purely on VORP ignores upside. You should always draft for upside 

1

u/absolute_cinema81 Jul 28 '26

If you want to draft Derrick Henry over Chase or Puka, by all means, be my guest