What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

FBG Staff 2005 Preseason Rankings - RBs (1 Viewer)

Islander

Footballguy
I compared the 2005 preseason FBG staff rankings for RBs to the 2005 final results, both on a point per game basis (PPG) and total points scored to see who of all FBG staff had the best rankings. So far I only looked at RBs since they are the bread & butter of most leagues. If I find time, I will move on to WRs and QBs.

I wanted to have some indication of who makes good rankings in the staff, and who makes bad rankings. It might help me in my projection weightings for the Projections Dominator. I also want to build my own FBG consensus by weighting different guys differently (the current consensus gives equal weight to everybody). I will tweak this a little.

Here is what I did to evaluate the FBG staff. First I used the 2005 preseason rankings (RBs 2005 Preseason Rankings). As you can see, the names do not show up on top, so at first I did not know whose rankings these were. I got the names only after my analysis was done. For each RB, I looked at which rankings were off the most from the consensus, and whether it was a good call or bad call. For example, the consensus for Tiki was #9, so the guy who ranked him lowest at #17 made a bad call. Same for the guy who ranked him #13 (2nd lowest). The three guys that ranked Tiki #6 made a good call. I tried to keep injuries in mind, which is why I looked at both PPG and total points scored during 2005. Ahman Green was horrible before his injury, so I think those who ranked him high were wrong. Larry Johnson was decent before Priest’s injury, so those who ranked LJ low were wrong. Etc. It’s the combination of being far off from consensus (or being the one with the highest/lowest ranking of all staff) and how much the player was good/bad relative to consensus that mattered the most to me. Tiki, McGahee, K Jones, J Lewis, etc. are amongst the RBs that made or broke our 2005 seasons. I used my judgment, which you could question in some instances, but since I did this without knowing who the rankings were from, you cannot accuse me of being biased! I did the best I could.

In addition, I want to point out that my evaluation is meant to be friendly and constructive! No bashing :D

Here are the results of my analysis.

Best Rankings – Bob Henry

Bob nailed his RB rankings last year and had the best RB rankings in my opinion :clap: . First of all he had the 2nd lowest ranking for McGahee at #11, compared to a consensus of #6 which he knew was too high. He correctly predicted that J Lewis would struggle out of jail with the lowest ranking of all staff with #18 (consensus #13). He expected L Jordan to have a good year with the Raiders and got the 2nd highest ranking for him at #13. He had the 2nd highest ranking on LJ at #23. Of course LJ greatly benefited from Priest’s injury, but even before the injury, LJ was outscoring his consensus #31 (after 7 weeks, LJ had 10.1 PPG which was about 25th in the league). I generally don’t try to predict injuries, but some could be said about the higher probability of Priest to get injured than some other RBs. Bob had the highest ranking on Mike Anderson at #17. C Mart got injured but his consensus #17 can be compared to his PPG #28. Bob had the lowest ranking on C Mart at #20 so he deserves some credit for that. Ranking JJ Arrington #26 (consensus #22) prevented Bob from wasting a roster spot. Ranking F Taylor at #32 (consensus #23) was pretty good even if we ignore injuries (PPG #31). Bob’s mistakes were S-Jax at #8, that was a tad too high. S-Jax FBG consensus was #15 and he finished #16 PPG and #11 total, so it’s not like Bob lost the leagues were he grabbed S-Jax too early. His other mistake was Cadillac at #29 where he had the lowest ranking of all staff. The consensus was #20 and Cadillac finished #20 PPG and #19 total. Bob had Dillon at #7 compared to consensus #12, and Dillon finished #11 PPG so not too horrible, but Bob was too high regardless. Rudi #19 (consensus #16) was a bit too low. Bob was one of the FBG staff who diverged the most frequently from consensus, and he hit on a lot more than 50% of them. Here are Bob’s final preseason top 30 RB rankings, notice that for players where I did not discuss above as “good call” or “bad call”, there are more instances where Bob was slightly on the “good side” than the “bad side”.

1 LaDainian Tomlinson, SD

2 Shaun Alexander, SEA

3 Edgerrin James, IND

4 Deuce McAllister, NO (was not doing well before injury, consensus was #5 so not far off, but Bob was on the bad side nonetheless)

5 Priest Holmes, KC (only one notch below consensus #4, Priest finished #7 PPG so Bob was on the good side especially considering injury risk which was higher than other top RBs)

6 Tiki Barber, NYG (discussed above)

7 Corey Dillon, NE (discussed above)

8 Steven Jackson, STL (discussed above)

9 Kevin Jones, DET (consensus #7, Bob was on the good side)

10 Clinton Portis, WAS (consensus #8, Bob was on the bad side because Portis finished #6 PPG and #8 total)

11 Willis McGahee, BUF (discussed above)

12 Brian Westbrook, PHI (consensus was #18, and he finished #12 PPG, #18 total, hard to tell if ranking was right or wrong)

13 Lamont Jordan, OAK (discussed above)

14 Domanick Davis, HOU (finished #17 total and #9 PPG, hard to judge if right or wrong here because we all knew of DD’s injury risk so we cannot totally ignore that he missed games, consensus was #10).

15 Julius Jones, DAL (consensus #11, finished #19 PPG, so Bob was on the good side)

16 Ahman Green, GB (consensus #14, Bob was on the good side, Green was bad before injury)

17 Mike Anderson, DEN (discussed above)

18 Jamal Lewis, BAL (discussed above)

19 Rudi Johnson, CIN (discussed above)

20 Curtis Martin, NYJ (discussed above)

21 Chris Brown, TEN (consensus #25, PPG #24, total #20, hard to tell)

22 Warrick Dunn, ATL (consensus #21 so difference not significant)

23 Larry Johnson, KC (discussed above)

24 Thomas Jones, CHI (consensus #28 so Bob was on the good side)

25 Kevan Barlow, SF (consensus #27, on bad side)

26 J.J. Arrington, ARI (discussed above)

27 Tatum Bell, DEN (consensus #32, on good side)

28 Ronnie Brown, MIA (consensus #26, PPG #29, total #23, hard to tell)

29 Cadillac Williams, TB (discussed above)

30 Michael Bennett, MIN (equal to consensus)

Note: Bob did not pay me to say he had the best rankings! :D

Runner Up – Jason Wood

Jason had very few rankings that were far off from the consensus and was generally pretty solid. McGahee at #10 was the 3rd lowest of the staff, J Lewis at #17 was the 3rd lowest, and JJ Arrington at #27 was 2nd lowest :thumbup: . I also noted some players a little off from consensus (but not as much as the previous three players) but good calls: Tiki #7 (consensus #9), Rudi #13 (consensus #16). However, Ju Jones at #9 (consensus #11) and K Jones at #6 (consensus #7) were a little on the bad side. If Jason had ranked KJ one spot below Tiki instead of one above, I might have called Jason's rankings to be the best instead of Bob since overall I saw no major flaw in Jason’s rankings, unlike Bob. But KJ > Tiki was costly last year. Bob also made more good calls (that were :moneybag: ) than Jason.

Honorable Mention – Colin Dowling

Colin’s rankings were pretty solid overall. Tiki at #6 was a nice call. LJ at #21 was the highest ranking and as discussed above, I count this as a good call despite Priest’s injury. J Lewis at #17 was a good call as well, compared to consensus #13. Colin correctly avoided Ju Jones (#16 vs consensus #11) and F Taylor (#33 vs consensus 23). Colin missed the boat on Mike Anderson at #40 but that’s the only one that stands out. By the way, no rankings from Colin this year? I don’t see his rankings. It would be nice to get them.

You might disagree with me as to who did better between Bob, Jason, and Colin, but almost everybody would agree that the three of them as a group did a very good job overall :thumbup:

Rankings Very Similar to Consensus – Aaron Rudnicki

Aaron’s rankings were very similar to consensus, so with the way I evaluated the staff, Aaron can’t be right or wrong very much. Jamal Lewis at #18 (consensus #13) and JJ Arrington at #26 (consensus #22) were correctly avoided. Rudi at #13 (consensus #16) was good. Missed out on Tiki at #12 however. Other than that, no major mistake since Aaron’s rankings were pretty close to consensus. All in all, Aaron did above average.

Worse Performance –John Norton

John Norton made several rankings that were off from the consensus by quite a bit, and unfortunately he got them wrong frequently. I can partially excuse John on his RB rankings since he does a good job on IDP and that’s his expertise. So I would not beat him up. John correctly smelled RBBC in KC by ranking Priest #9, but instead of drafting Priest in the first round, John probably got McGahee at #4, Dillon at #5, Ju Jones at #6, or S Jackson at #7 who were all too high :X . Portis at #16 and Tiki at #17 were the lowest rankings of all staff and John was wrong :bag: . Dunn at #28 was the lowest of all staff – wrong again. Westbrook at #24 was the lowest of all staff, and he finished #12 PPG and #18 total. Since he did not play in the playoffs, Westbrook’s owners were not happy, but all in all I don’t think this was a good ranking. John had the highest ranking of all staff for Barlow at #21. John did not see Droughns coming with a ranking of #46. John had three nice calls that gave him value however: L Jordan at #12 (highest of all staff), T Jones at #23 (2nd highest), and W Parker at #38 (highest). Avoiding JJ Arrington (#26 vs consensus #22) was good too. But overall John missed on so many top 10 RBs, it’s hard to recover from that.

Needs Improvement #1 – Marc Levin

None of Marc L’s rankings sank him, but almost everywhere he digressed from the consensus, he was wrong. Cadillac at #29 and T Jones at #44 were the lowest of all staff. F Taylor at #19 and M Bennett at #25 were too high. Tiki at #16, Mike Anderson at #31, and LJ #45 were all too low. Ju Jones at #8 (vs consensus #11) was a bit too high. The main good call I saw is A Green at #18 where Marc L was the 2nd lowest of all staff. McGahee #9 (vs consensus #6) and Portis #6 (consensus #8) were good, but not off the consensus by a lot. In the top 15, Marc L was significantly off the consensus only for one player (Tiki), which is why he was not that bad for where it counts the most, but yet I saw a lot more bad calls than good calls.

Needs Improvement #2 – Mark Wimer

Several fantasy teams got killed last year because of Kevin Jones. It probably happened to Mark W in several leagues because he ranked KJ the highest of all staff at #5 :X . Equally damaging to his teams was A Green at #7 (highest of all staff) and Jamal Lewis at #9 (2nd highest of all staff). Mark W probably ended up with JJ Arrington as a backup on a few teams as his ranking of #17 was the highest of all staff, so he failed to see that this guy did not have NFL talent. Mark W’s man-love for D Foster is well documented, and although Foster did not have a horrible season (#30 PPG and #24 total), Mark W’s ranking of #21 was a little too high. Mark W missed out on Portis’ adequate season with his ranking of #14. And Mark W probably did not have L Jordan on any of his teams with a ranking of #24, the lowest of all staff by far (2nd lowest was #21). Mark W’s ranking of #50 for Larry Johnson was the worst of all staff, even if Priest had been healthy all year, Mark W was wrong. And his ranking of #45 for Tatum Bell was too low. Mark W diverged from the consensus pretty frequently, and he did not get it wrong everywhere. He had a few good calls. Rudi at #12 was the second highest ranking of all staff. Thomas Jones at #22 was the highest ranking, and Droughns at #31 was 2nd highest. Mark W knew M Bennett would have a bad year with the lowest ranking at #39. Ju Jones at #18 (vs consensus #11) was correct. Mike Anderson #19 was a good call as well (consensus #24). These good calls were nice, but they probably did not have the same impact to his teams as the bad calls.

Needs Improvement #3 – Andy Hicks

Andy probably ended up with McGahee (#4) and K Jones (#5) on many teams because he had the highest ranking of all staff on them :yucky: . C Martin #8 was extremely off from the consensus of #17 and far above anyone else (2nd highest ranking for C Mart was #13). C Mart had a bad season even if we ignore games missed to injuries. Ok, he played in other games while affected by injuries, but things did not turn out too well. If Andy had not been so far off from consensus, I could have dismissed that one from the bad call column. Warrick Dunn #28 and M Bennett at #24 were wrong. In the top 10, Andy missed out on Edge #7, Portis #12, and Tiki #10, all three he ranked a little below consensus. But one or two spots too low in the top 10 can be huge when those guys have good seasons. Andy correctly avoided A Green with the lowest ranking at #21 and had the 2nd highest ranking on W Parker.

Others not mentioned who were middle of the road: Grant, Brown, Anderson, C Smith, Shick, Tremblay, David&Joe, and Gray. It was hard to evaluate Lammey and Baker because the rankings I got were from September 13th = after the season started. I don’t know to what extent I should give them credit for good calls like W Parker for example, knowing the kind of week #1 he had.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Better than interesting, this is great stuff. Please keep it up. Would love to see averages over a 3 year span as well :) But hey always wanted the cake and eat it too ;)

 
Actually, Kevin Jones did give me fits, especially in the Footballguys Expert Staff League. Happily, I grabbed Samkon Gado during free agency in time to power my team into the playoffs, but did not advance to the championship round.

I was also in the playoffs in my longtime (since 1989) redraft league, again despite having K. Jones.

I am still stuck with JJ Arrington in my IDP dynasty league - I am hoping to trade him to the Edgerrin James owner for a rookie pick in the 2007 lottery.

I will point out that this study is actually a very small sample - I have been doing rankings here at FBGs since we've been doing the staff consensus, so I'd be interested to see a larger sample - but this is a good starting place.

My .02.

P.S. Not that I'm super sensitive, but it's Mark. Thanks

 
P.S. Not that I'm super sensitive, but it's Mark. Thanks
:lmao: :lmao: Classic.

Great info...I put 35 for Bob, 35 for David, and 30 for Wood. Not to discount Maurile (sp?), but his rankings just look off to me. Hope he's not "super sensitive".

 
Of course the real comparison should be how did the experts do compared to your own personal rankings....

Personally I had Jordan @ RB 9 (PPR) after seeing him in the pre season. Problem is, I also bought the farm in my other main league with Kevin Jones @RB6.

Let us not forget your bound to make some mistakes if your going to make some great calls.

 
Is Bob Henry posting at another site now?
I know he's still doing the FBG depth charts. We emailed each other just a couple of days ago.
If you look at the rankings and set "rankings submitted within the last " to 21 days, you will see his rankings. Can't seem to find Colin's though.
 
A great thread, as part of getting the most out of footballguys is figuring out who's opinion(s) to heed the most. But I do agree with Mark Wimer, that a bigger sample is crucial.

Great work.

 
Great analysis, very helpful. It would be interesting to see an anlysis of the FBG consensus staff rankings. It would seem that that approach would even out the highs and lows and give a very solid ranking.

 
I wanted to have some indication of who makes good rankings in the staff, and who makes bad rankings. It might help me in my projection weightings for the Projections Dominator. I also want to build my own FBG consensus by weighting different guys differently (the current consensus gives equal weight to everybody). I will tweak this a little.
Yea, great stuff. I also agree with 'bicycle seat sniffer' in that FBGs should be doing this. They have all the data at their easy disposal. I proposed a similar idea last year where we can check off a checkbox next to the FBGs name if we want to include their rankings in the consensus. If their name is not checked off, they would not be calculated into the 'average'. So, if you really don't agree with someone's rankinigs, you can easily ignore them. They can also have a function that automatically removes the highest and lowest rankings (if you so choose) to get a less skewed representation.

 
I proposed a similar idea last year where we can check off a checkbox next to the FBGs name if we want to include their rankings in the consensus. If their name is not checked off, they would not be calculated into the 'average'. So, if you really don't agree with someone's rankinigs, you can easily ignore them. They can also have a function that automatically removes the highest and lowest rankings (if you so choose) to get a less skewed representation.
Copy and paste the table into Excel. Piece of cake
 
I proposed a similar idea last year where we can check off a checkbox next to the FBGs name if we want to include their rankings in the consensus. If their name is not checked off, they would not be calculated into the 'average'. So, if you really don't agree with someone's rankinigs, you can easily ignore them. They can also have a function that automatically removes the highest and lowest rankings (if you so choose) to get a less skewed representation.
Copy and paste the table into Excel. Piece of cake
Even easier still, this is available in Projections Dominator, its an awesome tool. More than justifies the subscription fee on its own.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would love to see an analysis done by the staff of their accuracy over the past 5 years.
Me too. FWIW I tend to like Chris Smith's analysis of RB's and it would be helpful to see how he has stood up over the years.
 
:blackdot:

The staff should be doing this and releasing it themselves.
:thumbup: Accountability/Competition breeds better analysts.

Should compare to the FBG forum consensus rankings... would like to see where they rank.

This is the first year I'll be officially ranking skill players, so it'll be fun to compare them to staff next season.

Regardless of how poor any member did though, I don't come here to get cheat sheets. The information here provided by the staff members and some of the more key posters here is consistently unique and beneficial....

keep up the solid work :thumbup:

 
Others not mentioned who were middle of the road: Grant, Brown, Anderson, C Smith, Shick, Tremblay, David&Joe, and Gray. It was hard to evaluate Lammey and Baker because the rankings I got were from September 13th = after the season started. I don’t know to what extent I should give them credit for good calls like W Parker for example, knowing the kind of week #1 he had.
Click here for an article from the 2nd week in preseason where I wrote about Willie Parker. Click here for an article from June 20th of 2005, where i was pimping Willie Parker.

What does all this mean? It means I was correct on WP, on some others (Kevin Jones, etc.) not so much. :bag:

My rankings are not always with the conventional thinking. I like all the different opinions by the staff, and the SP is a great place to debate players' value.

big :thumbup:

Excellent work Islander.

 
Yeah - I had a hard time with the RBs this past year, but I was much better with my TE and WR rankings. I was middle of the road at QB - but I am usually very much on top of the QB sitch. I think injuries to some key QBs - and my unwillingness to project good years for Eli and Drew - had a lot to do with that.

We tracked this internally last year on a weekly basis, noting weekly changes and listing "three greatest helpers and three greatest hurters" to the average. It is the first year we have done so (after conversion to different, easier to keep tabs on, software)

I have no idea what the powers intend to do with that info.

(my first post in the Pool since, like, mid-May! been a busy summer)

 
Others not mentioned who were middle of the road: Grant, Brown, Anderson, C Smith, Shick, Tremblay, David&Joe, and Gray.  It was hard to evaluate Lammey and Baker because the rankings I got were from September 13th = after the season started.  I don’t know to what extent I should give them credit for good calls like W Parker for example, knowing the kind of week #1 he had.
Click here for an article from the 2nd week in preseason where I wrote about Willie Parker. Click here for an article from June 20th of 2005, where i was pimping Willie Parker.

What does all this mean? It means I was correct on WP, on some others (Kevin Jones, etc.) not so much. :bag:
Joe Bryant's been a WP pimp for a world and a day - i think since training camp 2004. But, we were not in consensus enough to place him on any kinda "pimp list." Joe mentioned him quite a few times in the daily e-mails last year, though.He mentioned him enough that a friend who I gave a FBGuy subscription to last year drafted him in the first 12 rounds of our draft and rode him to quite a few victories (including the league title).

I give Joe props on fast willie.

 
Others not mentioned who were middle of the road: Grant, Brown, Anderson, C Smith, Shick, Tremblay, David&Joe, and Gray. It was hard to evaluate Lammey and Baker because the rankings I got were from September 13th = after the season started. I don’t know to what extent I should give them credit for good calls like W Parker for example, knowing the kind of week #1 he had.
Middle of the road after a new addition to the family June 20th last year... I'll take that :P Nice work putting this together.

What I like about our staff rankings is when two of us see a player in a completely different light than the other staffer... It leads to good debate in the face-offs and good discussion in the Shark Pool...

Hopefully I'll climb that ladder in 2006... I am feeling quite confident with my rankings this season but we all are until the season begins.

Agree or disagree with Mark, he'll never be accused of group-think and that is very refreshing! Big :thumbup: Mark.

 
Worse Performance –John Norton
According to our grading system, which IMO is the most accurate way to grade these things, Norton's RB rankings were among the best. (Out of 20 staff members, the top three for RBs were Henry, Rudnicki, and Norton.)Norton's particularly good calls were Michael Bennett (51), Thomas Jones (23), and Deuce McAllister (10). His worst misses were Tiki Barber (17), Clinton Portis (16), and Kevan Barlow (21).

Here's the grading system that Doug came up with:

I decided to grade these rankings with the following procedure, using WRs as an example:

1. Find all WRs who were ranked in the top 30* by somebody, plus all WRs who finished in the top 30. There are 50 WRs that meet this criteria.

2. Given 50 WRs, there are 1225 pairs of WRs, which means there are 1225 WDID decisions.

3. For each staff member, look at each of those 1225 pairs. If you picked the right guy (as measured by total fantasy points), you get a point. If not, you don't.

* - why top 30 when you ranked 60 WRs? It's a long story. I used top 12 for QB, top 24 for RB, and top 12 for TE.
I don't know what Joe and David want to do with all the results, but maybe somebody will write them up into an article. If so, it would be after the site goes pay, I imagine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is Bob Henry posting at another site now?
I'm here, JoeT... just not as prevelant with articles until the Camp Updates. I've been working in the shadows on the back end of the LD/DD/etc with projections and, of course, keeping the depth charts updated. I think my last player rankings were around the end of June, but will be updated this weekend.

Thanks to Islander, your check is in the mail. :D

 
Thanks for the feedback all.

If you were in Birmingham I would buy you a beer.
I will drink a cold one for you! :banned:
I will point out that this study is actually a very small sample - I have been doing rankings here at FBGs since we've been doing the staff consensus, so I'd be interested to see a larger sample - but this is a good starting place.
I agree that one year is a small sample. Anybody could be off in their rankings in any one year. But that's all I had. If someone has the staff rankings from previous years, I am very interested - please PM me. I will do a similar analysis for 2003-2005.
Here's the grading system that Doug came up with:I decided to grade these rankings with the following procedure, using WRs as an example:1. Find all WRs who were ranked in the top 30* by somebody, plus all WRs who finished in the top 30. There are 50 WRs that meet this criteria.2. Given 50 WRs, there are 1225 pairs of WRs, which means there are 1225 WDID decisions.3. For each staff member, look at each of those 1225 pairs. If you picked the right guy (as measured by total fantasy points), you get a point. If not, you don't.* - why top 30 when you ranked 60 WRs? It's a long story. I used top 12 for QB, top 24 for RB, and top 12 for TE.
Maurile, I agree it's a pretty good systematic way to evaluate rankings. But I would not go as far as saying it's the most accurate way. My main issues with this method:1. Let's say you rank someone as RB8 and consensus is RB13. The guy has never been injured in his career so he is considered a lower injury risk than average. After 7 weeks, he ranks RB4 on PPG so you nailed it. However he gets injured in week #8 and is done for the year. Obviously he will finish the season something like RB30. The person who ranked him RB20 will do much better than you in this evaluation system, but I would say that you were right with RB8 and he was wrong with RB20. 2. Your evaluation system assumes that being right/wrong in the top 15 is equally good/bad as being right/wrong in the range RB16-RB30. This is not true. Being off by three spots in the top 10 will do more harm than being off three spots for RB26. 3. Your evaluation system gives similar credit to the two following teams:Team A: ranks player XXX as RB40 while consensus is RB20. XXX finishes the season RB40. Team B: ranks player YYY as RB29 while consensus is RB19. Season finish RB29. Ranks player ZZZ as RB28 while consensus is RB18. Season finish RB28.In my book, it is better to be off on more players (situation B) by less of a spread off consensus rather than being extremely off from consensus for few players (situation A). When you are off from consensus by 4+ (on the downside for example), it does not matter whether you are off by 6 spots or 14 spots, in both cases, you correctly avoid that guy during your draft. So I think it's better to have several players where you are off by 5 spots rather than just one with a ranking extremely off. I tried to consider these three factors in my analysis, and they are not included in your systematic evaluation system, which might explain the differences in rankings. However your system correctly rewards guys who were correct by moving off consensus by 1 or 2 spots, whereas I generally did not consider such minor differences in opinion, even though they should not be discarded.
Thanks to Islander, your check is in the mail.
Great! I always heard that you pay well :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Accountability is a good thing. We need to have more watch dogs lurking in the forums here. I truly appreciate the ammount of work and content FBG's does, but in order for them to proclaim themselves experts and ask for money for their knowledge, then it's more than fair to hold them accountable for what they publish.

Great work and keep it up.

 
FWIW, in the ranking contest I did here last season Wood was the best staff performer of the 6-8 staff guys I looked at.

 
why was this thread bumped? this is a year old. someone should do this for last year's stats.

 
FWIW, in the ranking contest I did here last season Wood was the best staff performer of the 6-8 staff guys I looked at.
Are you going to do that again? I dominated that thing last year, nobody was even close to my point totals. :topcat:
 
fortunatley no one was close to H.K's point totals, IIRC he was by far the worst of the bunch.
He was scared of me stealing his guys in our CHUG league so he bombed the rankings on purpose. Of course, he won the CHUG league last year, so maybe he's on to something. But no, I'm going to pass on it this year. My main theory wasn't proven, so no need to do all that work again.
 
Although this is good, we really need to see how everyone's picks perform year after year. There is too much variance to put too much faith into a single year's results. If you put a bunch of people in a room and tell them to predict the RB's, of course someone is going to end up with some pretty good results, whether they are truely an expert or not. I would like to see how everyone has performed each year they have made predictions.

 
GreenNGold said:
Although this is good, we really need to see how everyone's picks perform year after year. There is too much variance to put too much faith into a single year's results. If you put a bunch of people in a room and tell them to predict the RB's, of course someone is going to end up with some pretty good results, whether they are truely an expert or not. I would like to see how everyone has performed each year they have made predictions.
Exactly - which is why bobg bumped this thread. You have to start a baseline somewhere. Islander looked at the 2005 predictions and Jayman started a look at the 2006 predictions which was never followed up. I asked for the same thing in this thread.The real FBG value here is in being able to customize the Projections Dominator.

Joel

 
I will try to do the 2006 version of this in the next few days or weeks. Been real busy at work - this is my first post on the forum for a long time!

I agree that we need several seasons to judge who is good. But having 2 seasons of those "grades" will not be too bad.

 
Looking at RB rankings for just one year is a worthwhile venture, but may not be very indicative of how good a person's rankings are year in and year out. I know last year was a particularly bad year for me at WR, whereas most years I have excelled at that position.

I always respect Henry's rankings though...he is IMHO one of the best here at FBG when it comes to rankings.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top