2008 $35,000 Subscriber Contest (1 Viewer)

[SeniorVBDStudent]

So, if you put most of your dollars in your starters (2RB's, 3 WR's) and spent little on the rest, you are likely to be rated higher in the rankings.

I'd amend that a little bit. It has nothing to do with dollars. It has to do with whether your top players look good going forward. There is only one team in the top 10 that spent more than $25 on a WR. There are a lot of teams near the top that have Kevin Walter and Santana Moss and DeSean Jackson. Whether the exact weights I'm using are optimal or not, I don't know. But I definitely still think that the ratings should weight your best players more heavily than your depth players.

I disagree. High dollars generally mean better players. A $25 player is a relatively high dollar player when the average player is around $12. The weightings shouldn't necessarily weight the best players. They are already weighted by having the best projections. The weightings should correspond to the number of players at each position who are likely to be relevant. For example, your weightings directly match the number of starters required at each position. Yet, it has been shown that teams with 7 WRs advance at the highest rate and teams with 8 are roughly equal to teams with 6. The weightings assign very little strength to the 5th, 6th, and 7th WR even though they obviously are relevant in a best ball format.

Has your power ranking ever been below the cut line for that week?

I don't know. Maybe once. I don't think anymore than that. But, it doesn't matter. If I'm at the bottom in week 2, that means I have passed many of the teams above me. If I was around 7900 at week 2 and 1900 week 9, I have passed about 6000 teams who were considered more powerful. The change in projections can't account for that.

The rankings are based on forward projections. An alternate model predicting high score probabilities certainly sounds like a research project....The limitations of the rankings are clearly defined, so if you feel strongly about a better model, you should do all the leg work and volunteer to help maintaining it next year...Not trying to rip on ya; just sayin...

 

[Doug Drinen]

The weightings shouldn't necessarily weight the best players.

I just ran a quick experiment.I gave TEAM A six wide receivers, and I assumed their per-week averages were: 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10.

I gave TEAM B seven wide receivers, all with per-week averages of 12.86.

If I weighted the top 7 WRs equally (including a zero for Team A's seventh slot), both teams would have the same projection: 90 points per week.

First I assumed that each WR's scoring was normally distributed with standard deviation equal to half his expected point totals. Then I ran 100,000 simulated weeks and looked at the total score of each team's top 3 WRs:

Team A: 63

Team B: 55

If you count the top 4 WRs, you get this:

Team A: 76

Team B: 68

If you use a lognormal distribution instead of a normal, which I think is probably a little more realistic, you get very similar results. If you mess around with the standard deviations, it doesn't change the conclusion.

Even if you take away Team A's last WR, so that Team A is playing with 5 and Team B is playing with 7, Team A's top 3 WRs are still expected to outscore Team B's top 3 WRs. If you take away Team A's last two WRs, so that Team A is playing with 4 and Team B has 7 WRs with a total point expectation 22 points higher than Team A's, Team A still has a higher point expectation than Team B.

Has your power ranking ever been below the cut line for that week?

I don't know. Maybe once. I don't think anymore than that. But, it doesn't matter. If I'm at the bottom in week 2, that means I have passed many of the teams above me. If I was around 7900 at week 2 and 1900 week 9, I have passed about 6000 teams who were considered more powerful. The change in projections can't account for that.

Well, first of all, if some teams didn't pass some other teams with higher power rankings, then there wouldn't be any need to play out the contest.Maybe Dodds' projections have simply been less accurate on your players than on others'. Maybe you managed bye weeks better than most of the other contestants. Maybe you've just gotten a little lucky with the particular point distributions of your players (i.e. some players having big weeks while others had down weeks).

 

[BuckeyeArt]

So, if you put most of your dollars in your starters (2RB's, 3 WR's) and spent little on the rest, you are likely to be rated higher in the rankings.

I'd amend that a little bit. It has nothing to do with dollars. It has to do with whether your top players look good going forward. There is only one team in the top 10 that spent more than $25 on a WR. There are a lot of teams near the top that have Kevin Walter and Santana Moss and DeSean Jackson. Whether the exact weights I'm using are optimal or not, I don't know. But I definitely still think that the ratings should weight your best players more heavily than your depth players.

I disagree. High dollars generally mean better players. A $25 player is a relatively high dollar player when the average player is around $12. The weightings shouldn't necessarily weight the best players. They are already weighted by having the best projections. The weightings should correspond to the number of players at each position who are likely to be relevant. For example, your weightings directly match the number of starters required at each position. Yet, it has been shown that teams with 7 WRs advance at the highest rate and teams with 8 are roughly equal to teams with 6. The weightings assign very little strength to the 5th, 6th, and 7th WR even though they obviously are relevant in a best ball format.

Has your power ranking ever been below the cut line for that week?

I don't know. Maybe once. I don't think anymore than that. But, it doesn't matter. If I'm at the bottom in week 2, that means I have passed many of the teams above me. If I was around 7900 at week 2 and 1900 week 9, I have passed about 6000 teams who were considered more powerful. The change in projections can't account for that.

The rankings are based on forward projections. An alternate model predicting high score probabilities certainly sounds like a research project....The limitations of the rankings are clearly defined, so if you feel strongly about a better model, you should do all the leg work and volunteer to help maintaining it next year...Not trying to rip on ya; just sayin...

No offense taken. I would absolutely love to do this. It would be a great thing play with in the off season. Of course, I would need the team data but if it were available, I'd love to research it.

 

[Slider]

New power rankings

It looks like everyonoe in the top 25 has this combo: Slaton & Marshall.24 of the top 25 also have Warner.

count me in the slayton/marshall/warner crowd too...

Me too but I have the unique combo of Wayne/Andre Johnson also. They clearly need to do well.

 

[ctriopelle]

So, if you put most of your dollars in your starters (2RB's, 3 WR's) and spent little on the rest, you are likely to be rated higher in the rankings.

I'd amend that a little bit. It has nothing to do with dollars. It has to do with whether your top players look good going forward. There is only one team in the top 10 that spent more than $25 on a WR. There are a lot of teams near the top that have Kevin Walter and Santana Moss and DeSean Jackson. Whether the exact weights I'm using are optimal or not, I don't know. But I definitely still think that the ratings should weight your best players more heavily than your depth players.

I disagree. High dollars generally mean better players. A $25 player is a relatively high dollar player when the average player is around $12. The weightings shouldn't necessarily weight the best players. They are already weighted by having the best projections. The weightings should correspond to the number of players at each position who are likely to be relevant. For example, your weightings directly match the number of starters required at each position. Yet, it has been shown that teams with 7 WRs advance at the highest rate and teams with 8 are roughly equal to teams with 6. The weightings assign very little strength to the 5th, 6th, and 7th WR even though they obviously are relevant in a best ball format.

Has your power ranking ever been below the cut line for that week?

I don't know. Maybe once. I don't think anymore than that. But, it doesn't matter. If I'm at the bottom in week 2, that means I have passed many of the teams above me. If I was around 7900 at week 2 and 1900 week 9, I have passed about 6000 teams who were considered more powerful. The change in projections can't account for that.

What is your roster makeup for your team (not the exact players, but how many at each position)? If you overfill at some postions, and therefore underfill at others, your strength gets knocked just for that.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

So, if you put most of your dollars in your starters (2RB's, 3 WR's) and spent little on the rest, you are likely to be rated higher in the rankings.

I'd amend that a little bit. It has nothing to do with dollars. It has to do with whether your top players look good going forward. There is only one team in the top 10 that spent more than $25 on a WR. There are a lot of teams near the top that have Kevin Walter and Santana Moss and DeSean Jackson. Whether the exact weights I'm using are optimal or not, I don't know. But I definitely still think that the ratings should weight your best players more heavily than your depth players.

I disagree. High dollars generally mean better players. A $25 player is a relatively high dollar player when the average player is around $12. The weightings shouldn't necessarily weight the best players. They are already weighted by having the best projections. The weightings should correspond to the number of players at each position who are likely to be relevant. For example, your weightings directly match the number of starters required at each position. Yet, it has been shown that teams with 7 WRs advance at the highest rate and teams with 8 are roughly equal to teams with 6. The weightings assign very little strength to the 5th, 6th, and 7th WR even though they obviously are relevant in a best ball format.

Has your power ranking ever been below the cut line for that week?

I don't know. Maybe once. I don't think anymore than that. But, it doesn't matter. If I'm at the bottom in week 2, that means I have passed many of the teams above me. If I was around 7900 at week 2 and 1900 week 9, I have passed about 6000 teams who were considered more powerful. The change in projections can't account for that.

What is your roster makeup for your team (not the exact players, but how many at each position)? If you overfill at some postions, and therefore underfill at others, your strength gets knocked just for that.

Without naming specific players, the optimum roster makeup for max points in the power rankings would be 3QB's, 5RB's, 6WR's, 3TE's, 2K's, and 3D's. The only goose egg you'd be taking is your 3rd kicker, and kickers are projected to score the least amount.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

The weightings shouldn't necessarily weight the best players.

I just ran a quick experiment.I gave TEAM A six wide receivers, and I assumed their per-week averages were: 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10.

I gave TEAM B seven wide receivers, all with per-week averages of 12.86.

If I weighted the top 7 WRs equally (including a zero for Team A's seventh slot), both teams would have the same projection: 90 points per week.

First I assumed that each WR's scoring was normally distributed with standard deviation equal to half his expected point totals. Then I ran 100,000 simulated weeks and looked at the total score of each team's top 3 WRs:

Team A: 63

Team B: 55

If you count the top 4 WRs, you get this:

Team A: 76

Team B: 68

If you use a lognormal distribution instead of a normal, which I think is probably a little more realistic, you get very similar results. If you mess around with the standard deviations, it doesn't change the conclusion.

Even if you take away Team A's last WR, so that Team A is playing with 5 and Team B is playing with 7, Team A's top 3 WRs are still expected to outscore Team B's top 3 WRs. If you take away Team A's last two WRs, so that Team A is playing with 4 and Team B has 7 WRs with a total point expectation 22 points higher than Team A's, Team A still has a higher point expectation than Team B.

I appreciate the work you've done and love the idea of running the simulation. That helps simulate the best ball aspect. I don't think there is any way to simulate the weekly distribution of points by a WR but would probably agree it doesn't make much difference. Your results help illustrate my point. The results favor Team A by a 63-55 margin, roughly 15% higher. Your Power Rating formula would give

Team A: 73 points

Team B: 57.87 points

which is about 26% higher. The Power Rating formula assigns too much relevance to the top 3 WR's and not enough to the others.

I also think there is a flaw in your original assumption. The teams you chose were not equal teams and do not reflect the contest values. Team A would cost more than Team B, probably by about 25%. Even though they have equal production, they do not have equal cost. A team of 7 equal WRs that is equivalent in cost to Team A would likely be close to 15 ppg per player. This would change the outcome of your results. In the original contest values, the ppg were not proportional to the dollar cost. There is a baseline. A projected 20 ppg WR would cost about $40. A $10 WR would have been projected to produce 10-11 ppg. The 4 WRs you could get for the $40 would bet 10 ppg, not 5 ppg (the $ should be equal, not the ppg). I don't have the original preseason projections from when the player values were posted but it looks to me like Team B should be more like 15 ppg per player to be equivalent to Team A and it would more accurately reflect the contest.

Has your power ranking ever been below the cut line for that week?

I don't know. Maybe once. I don't think anymore than that. But, it doesn't matter. If I'm at the bottom in week 2, that means I have passed many of the teams above me. If I was around 7900 at week 2 and 1900 week 9, I have passed about 6000 teams who were considered more powerful. The change in projections can't account for that.

Well, first of all, if some teams didn't pass some other teams with higher power rankings, then there wouldn't be any need to play out the contest.Maybe Dodds' projections have simply been less accurate on your players than on others'. Maybe you managed bye weeks better than most of the other contestants. Maybe you've just gotten a little lucky with the particular point distributions of your players (i.e. some players having big weeks while others had down weeks).

I looked at the last place team in the contest and their rankings are similar to mine. Here are the weekly rankings:

WEEK							 2		 3		 4		 5		 6		 7		 8		 9	 		 My team		   7915	  7053	  6878	  5657	  4288	  3134	  2326	  1909		 Last place team   6182	  6137	  6110	  5919	  5156	  4977	  3977	  3106		 Total teams	  12029	 10026	  8524	  7271	  6118	  5010	  4011	  3106

Now, I'm not saying that either of our teams should be ranked higher at this point but we both should have been ranked higher earlier in the year. We are both continuously ranked at the low end because our teams are constructed similarly - only 2 players at each position of QB, TE, K, and D and 6 and 8 at RB and WR. It would be interesting to see where we ranked (early in the year) if the weights were changed and more weight was given deeper into those positions.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Without naming specific players, the optimum roster makeup for max points in the power rankings would be 3QB's, 5RB's, 6WR's, 3TE's, 2K's, and 3D's. The only goose egg you'd be taking is your 3rd kicker, and kickers are projected to score the least amount.

In addition, you can optimize it further by having the highest production (spending the most) on the players at the spots which allocate a weighting of '1' - 1st QB, 1st 2 RBs, 1st 3 WRs, 1st TE, 1st K, and 1st D.The optimum makeup based upon the highest rate of advance at each position is 3 QB, 6 RBs, 7 WRs, 2 TEs, 2 Ks, and 2 Ds.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Another thing to consider in the power rankings is players with remaining bye weeks. For example, Drew Brees has a power ranking of 207 this week, which is tied with Aaron Rodgers for 5th place among QB's. But next week Drew's ranking will be roughly 230. The only QB's even close to the top that still have a bye are Rivers and Campbell. They are in 13th and 14th place, behind the likes of Chad Pennington and David Garrard. Week 9's top QB is Jay Cutler with 249 (give or take a point). But next week his ranking will be around 221. This is because he is given 48 ranking points for week 8, and those will be gone after this week. He will be left with 201 points, and to that number you add his projected points for week 10, which will be around 20. Only after week 10 will the fluctuations subside, unless Dodds changes his projections drastically based on injuries, etc.

 

[Doug Drinen]

OK, so I have a lot more to say about the comments from BuckeyeArt and others. But what I'm about to show you might change the nature of the conversation somewhat, so I'll hold off.

I spent some time working on a simulation engine that will "play" the week's games 1000 times and then figure out how many of those 1000 weeks result in advancement for each contest team.

Note that, unlike the other set of power rankings, these are for this week only, and completely ignore future weeks.

Here it is.

I'll probably keep tweaking it in the coming weeks, so it should probably be considered beta, but I think it's solid enough to get your thoughts on it.

 

[Sol D]

OK, so I have a lot more to say about the comments from BuckeyeArt and others. But what I'm about to show you might change the nature of the conversation somewhat, so I'll hold off.

I spent some time working on a simulation engine that will "play" the week's games 1000 times and then figure out how many of those 1000 weeks result in advancement for each contest team.

Note that, unlike the other set of power rankings, these are for this week only, and completely ignore future weeks.

Here it is.

I'll probably keep tweaking it in the coming weeks, so it should probably be considered beta, but I think it's solid enough to get your thoughts on it.

I'm McLovin my 98.3% survival rating!Team Surv% AvScore MAX 80 60 40 20 MIN

--------+--------+-------+------------------------------

106236 | 98.3 | 181 | 278 203 186 174 157 112

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

From the Fantasy Roundtable's Midseason Fantasy Awards, I noticed that there's only one team with all 3 MVP nominations (only 4 teams left have these 3), along with the consensus Best Value Pick and the unanimous Waiver Wire pickup of the year.

Good luck to the rest of you next year...

 

[Das Boot]

OK, so I have a lot more to say about the comments from BuckeyeArt and others. But what I'm about to show you might change the nature of the conversation somewhat, so I'll hold off.

I spent some time working on a simulation engine that will "play" the week's games 1000 times and then figure out how many of those 1000 weeks result in advancement for each contest team.

Note that, unlike the other set of power rankings, these are for this week only, and completely ignore future weeks.

Here it is.

I'll probably keep tweaking it in the coming weeks, so it should probably be considered beta, but I think it's solid enough to get your thoughts on it.

So you're saying this team has a chance... http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2008/109432.php

 

[Grid71]

OK, so I have a lot more to say about the comments from BuckeyeArt and others. But what I'm about to show you might change the nature of the conversation somewhat, so I'll hold off.

I spent some time working on a simulation engine that will "play" the week's games 1000 times and then figure out how many of those 1000 weeks result in advancement for each contest team.

Note that, unlike the other set of power rankings, these are for this week only, and completely ignore future weeks.

Here it is.

I'll probably keep tweaking it in the coming weeks, so it should probably be considered beta, but I think it's solid enough to get your thoughts on it.

Mad props to you for another tool to drive us crazy. I'm getting flashbacks of playing an entire NFL season simulated by the com to see who makes the playoffs and wins the super bowl.93% survival rate for this week only.

 

[Sol D]

OK, so I have a lot more to say about the comments from BuckeyeArt and others. But what I'm about to show you might change the nature of the conversation somewhat, so I'll hold off.

I spent some time working on a simulation engine that will "play" the week's games 1000 times and then figure out how many of those 1000 weeks result in advancement for each contest team.

Note that, unlike the other set of power rankings, these are for this week only, and completely ignore future weeks.

Here it is.

I'll probably keep tweaking it in the coming weeks, so it should probably be considered beta, but I think it's solid enough to get your thoughts on it.

So you're saying this team has a chance... http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2008/109432.php

I believe he said it has a .04% chance of advancing.

 

[Das Boot]

OK, so I have a lot more to say about the comments from BuckeyeArt and others. But what I'm about to show you might change the nature of the conversation somewhat, so I'll hold off.

I spent some time working on a simulation engine that will "play" the week's games 1000 times and then figure out how many of those 1000 weeks result in advancement for each contest team.

Note that, unlike the other set of power rankings, these are for this week only, and completely ignore future weeks.

Here it is.

I'll probably keep tweaking it in the coming weeks, so it should probably be considered beta, but I think it's solid enough to get your thoughts on it.

So you're saying this team has a chance... http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2008/109432.php

I believe he said it has a .04% chance of advancing.

Correct.So he's got that going for him.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

OK, so I have a lot more to say about the comments from BuckeyeArt and others. But what I'm about to show you might change the nature of the conversation somewhat, so I'll hold off.

I spent some time working on a simulation engine that will "play" the week's games 1000 times and then figure out how many of those 1000 weeks result in advancement for each contest team.

Note that, unlike the other set of power rankings, these are for this week only, and completely ignore future weeks.

Here it is.

I'll probably keep tweaking it in the coming weeks, so it should probably be considered beta, but I think it's solid enough to get your thoughts on it.

You rule, Doug. Hats off to you. Will be very curious to see how accurate this list is.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

OK, so I have a lot more to say about the comments from BuckeyeArt and others. But what I'm about to show you might change the nature of the conversation somewhat, so I'll hold off.

I spent some time working on a simulation engine that will "play" the week's games 1000 times and then figure out how many of those 1000 weeks result in advancement for each contest team.

Note that, unlike the other set of power rankings, these are for this week only, and completely ignore future weeks.

Here it is.

I'll probably keep tweaking it in the coming weeks, so it should probably be considered beta, but I think it's solid enough to get your thoughts on it.

Unbelievable. I love it. I think this more accurately represents the best ball aspect of the contest.Plus, It feels a lot better being in the top third rather than the bottom third.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

If you look up 800 teams from the bottom, this should be the cut line. The median score at this point is around 148. That would be the highest cut yet but then there are probably not a lot of players in the contest on their bye weeks from the Bengals, Bucs, and Redskins.

 

[Frank Costanza's Lawyer]

If you look up 800 teams from the bottom, this should be the cut line. The median score at this point is around 148. That would be the highest cut yet but then there are probably not a lot of players in the contest on their bye weeks from the Bengals, Bucs, and Redskins.

Carolina, New Orleans, San Diego, and San Francisco are off this week.

 

[ctriopelle]

OK, so I have a lot more to say about the comments from BuckeyeArt and others. But what I'm about to show you might change the nature of the conversation somewhat, so I'll hold off.

I spent some time working on a simulation engine that will "play" the week's games 1000 times and then figure out how many of those 1000 weeks result in advancement for each contest team.

Note that, unlike the other set of power rankings, these are for this week only, and completely ignore future weeks.

Here it is.

I'll probably keep tweaking it in the coming weeks, so it should probably be considered beta, but I think it's solid enough to get your thoughts on it.

Way cool Doug! I just have one request though, can you add a "ranking" next to the team ID? It would make it easier than copy/pasting it into excel to see where we stand...

 

[BuckeyeArt]

If you look up 800 teams from the bottom, this should be the cut line. The median score at this point is around 148. That would be the highest cut yet but then there are probably not a lot of players in the contest on their bye weeks from the Bengals, Bucs, and Redskins.

Carolina, New Orleans, San Diego, and San Francisco are off this week.

You're right. Looks like I was looking at week 10.

 

[Slider]

Whoa! 97.5.

 

[nzranger]

If you look up 800 teams from the bottom, this should be the cut line. The median score at this point is around 148. That would be the highest cut yet but then there are probably not a lot of players in the contest on their bye weeks from the Bengals, Bucs, and Redskins.

Carolina, New Orleans, San Diego, and San Francisco are off this week.

You're right. Looks like I was looking at week 10.

Which has Dallas off too..Romo,TO,Witten,Barber,JCampbell,Portis,Cooley,Moss,TJ,Ocho Cinco.

 

[ctriopelle]

From a mathematical standpoint, this will not effect your expected point total, but it could potentially bias your survival probability one way or the other. However, if your team doesn't have too many same-NFL-team QB/WR or QB/TE pairs, I don't think it will affect your survival percentage estimate much if at all. Even if you do, I think this program's survival probability estimate for your team shouldn't be too far off.

I plucked this from the new link, but I'm not sure what to take away from the comment. I have both Cutler/Marshall and Warner/Fitz. Does this mean I am at greater risk of elimination than the estimate shows, because they tend to do poorly together? I somewhat pick paired combos because when the WR goes off, his QB benefits too. Having 2 pairs like this seemed like a good strategy to improve the opportunity for a big day.

 

[Grid71]

From a mathematical standpoint, this will not effect your expected point total, but it could potentially bias your survival probability one way or the other. However, if your team doesn't have too many same-NFL-team QB/WR or QB/TE pairs, I don't think it will affect your survival percentage estimate much if at all. Even if you do, I think this program's survival probability estimate for your team shouldn't be too far off.

I plucked this from the new link, but I'm not sure what to take away from the comment. I have both Cutler/Marshall and Warner/Fitz. Does this mean I am at greater risk of elimination than the estimate shows, because they tend to do poorly together? I somewhat pick paired combos because when the WR goes off, his QB benefits too. Having 2 pairs like this seemed like a good strategy to improve the opportunity for a big day.

Nothing wrong with this strategy. Mr. Obvious would tell us that if both Cutler and Warner have bad games, then your team will be in a big steaming pile. If you have Brees/Marshall/Warner/AJ then the hit is spread out. Your overall score should be more consistent.I like the flip side of this though, in the $$$ stretch your team is looking pretty if Fitz and Marshall have big games. My big play is the Boldin/Warner combo.

 

[Sheriff66]

How do you search the power rankings for you team ?

TIA

 

[ctriopelle]

From a mathematical standpoint, this will not effect your expected point total, but it could potentially bias your survival probability one way or the other. However, if your team doesn't have too many same-NFL-team QB/WR or QB/TE pairs, I don't think it will affect your survival percentage estimate much if at all. Even if you do, I think this program's survival probability estimate for your team shouldn't be too far off.

I plucked this from the new link, but I'm not sure what to take away from the comment. I have both Cutler/Marshall and Warner/Fitz. Does this mean I am at greater risk of elimination than the estimate shows, because they tend to do poorly together? I somewhat pick paired combos because when the WR goes off, his QB benefits too. Having 2 pairs like this seemed like a good strategy to improve the opportunity for a big day.

Nothing wrong with this strategy. Mr. Obvious would tell us that if both Cutler and Warner have bad games, then your team will be in a big steaming pile. If you have Brees/Marshall/Warner/AJ then the hit is spread out. Your overall score should be more consistent.I like the flip side of this though, in the $$$ stretch your team is looking pretty if Fitz and Marshall have big games. My big play is the Boldin/Warner combo.

What I was getting at is whether it is more likely to be a good thing to have QB/WR combos, or a bad thing. With the explanation of the lognormal concept, I would expect there is more upside for teams pairing dependent players.

 

[BassNBrew]

How do you search the power rankings for you team ?TIA

Very carefullyor control F

 

[Grid71]

From a mathematical standpoint, this will not effect your expected point total, but it could potentially bias your survival probability one way or the other. However, if your team doesn't have too many same-NFL-team QB/WR or QB/TE pairs, I don't think it will affect your survival percentage estimate much if at all. Even if you do, I think this program's survival probability estimate for your team shouldn't be too far off.

I plucked this from the new link, but I'm not sure what to take away from the comment. I have both Cutler/Marshall and Warner/Fitz. Does this mean I am at greater risk of elimination than the estimate shows, because they tend to do poorly together? I somewhat pick paired combos because when the WR goes off, his QB benefits too. Having 2 pairs like this seemed like a good strategy to improve the opportunity for a big day.

Nothing wrong with this strategy. Mr. Obvious would tell us that if both Cutler and Warner have bad games, then your team will be in a big steaming pile. If you have Brees/Marshall/Warner/AJ then the hit is spread out. Your overall score should be more consistent.I like the flip side of this though, in the $$$ stretch your team is looking pretty if Fitz and Marshall have big games. My big play is the Boldin/Warner combo.

What I was getting at is whether it is more likely to be a good thing to have QB/WR combos, or a bad thing. With the explanation of the lognormal concept, I would expect there is more upside for teams pairing dependent players.

Doug will know more than me by far, but I'd say your standard deviation will be higher when you link the combo thus making you more susceptible to a lower score than the player with Brees/Marshall/Warner/AJ

 

[sinatravolta]

Yes - standard deviation will be higher with a QB/WR pair - so your odds of surviving are a bit lower than a similar level non-paired combo. On the plus side - once you're past the eliminations - if your pair does really well in 2 of 3 weeks or 3 of 3 weeks during 14-16 - you are essentially doubling down your bet. Kinda like blackjack - doubling down doesn't up your odds of beating the dealer in that given hand, but it ups how much you can expect to win.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

I chose to go with 3 QB/WR pairs - Cutler/Marshall, Delhomme/Smith, and Warner/Breaston. Sure, each combo is likely to tank if the other one sux, but the reward is quite good, so I tried to minimize by selecting 3 pairs, with at least 2 sets playing every week.

 

[Doug Drinen]

What I was getting at is whether it is more likely to be a good thing to have QB/WR combos, or a bad thing. With the explanation of the lognormal concept, I would expect there is more upside for teams pairing dependent players.

Doug will know more than me by far, but I'd say your standard deviation will be higher when you link the combo thus making you more susceptible to a lower score than the player with Brees/Marshall/Warner/AJ

Correct. Pairs like Cutler/Marshall will indeed increase your week-to-week variance. I.e. more upside and more downside. One of the diabolical things about this contest is that increased variance is a bad thing when you're trying to simply not be at the bottom (i.e. weeks 1--13), but it's a good thing when you're trying to land at the very top (weeks 14--16). So the short answer is: if you have a QB/WR pair and your survival probability is high, it's probably slightly lower than my simulation indicates. If you have a QB/WR pair and your survival probability is very low, then your actual survival chances are probably a little better than the sim indicates. That answer is theoretical and is complicated by the fact that a whole lot of entries have Cutler and/or Marshall, so a bad week by your pair also means a potentially bad week for a lot of other teams. The best-ball aspect, combined with the fact that you have two separate combos, further complicates matters. My hunch is that all these various factors pushing in all these various directions will, on net, not amount to a whole lot. But that's just a hunch.And as I mentioned, I know how to build this QB/WR correlation into the simulation, but I'm not sure how long it'll take me to get it implemented.Handcuffs (e.g. Portis/Betts) have the opposite effect. They should tend to decrease your variance. All my research indicates that combos like Rivers/Tomlinson or Peterson/Berrian or Portis/Cooley don't in general make any difference one way or the other variance-wise.EDIT: in other words, what those two guys above me said.

 

[FUBAR]

I chose to go with 3 QB/WR pairs - Cutler/Marshall, Delhomme/Smith, and Warner/Breaston. Sure, each combo is likely to tank if the other one sux, but the reward is quite good, so I tried to minimize by selecting 3 pairs, with at least 2 sets playing every week.

I have the same 3 combos, but until now hadn't even thought about the fact that I have the Warner/Breaston combo

 

[Das Boot]

I'm just spitballin here, but so far it seems like a lot of the scoring is coming from players who probably aren't on a lot of teams.

So at the moment, I'd guess the cutoff is trending to the low side.

But it's early.

 

[OU#1]

I'm just spitballin here, but so far it seems like a lot of the scoring is coming from players who probably aren't on a lot of teams.So at the moment, I'd guess the cutoff is trending to the low side.But it's early.

My team's off to a great start!It's definately early though...not even 1/2 time for the early games.

 

[Sheriff66]

How do you search the power rankings for you team ?TIA

Very carefullyor control F

 

[Sheriff66]

I need Toomer and Nate Washington to have good weeks...

 

[Robbie Cooper]

Hello, Ray Rice!

 

[Grid71]

OK, so I have a lot more to say about the comments from BuckeyeArt and others. But what I'm about to show you might change the nature of the conversation somewhat, so I'll hold off.

I spent some time working on a simulation engine that will "play" the week's games 1000 times and then figure out how many of those 1000 weeks result in advancement for each contest team.

Note that, unlike the other set of power rankings, these are for this week only, and completely ignore future weeks.

Here it is.

I'll probably keep tweaking it in the coming weeks, so it should probably be considered beta, but I think it's solid enough to get your thoughts on it.

Mad props to you for another tool to drive us crazy. I'm getting flashbacks of playing an entire NFL season simulated by the com to see who makes the playoffs and wins the super bowl.93% survival rate for this week only.

149 pts half way through the 2nd games.

 

[Sheriff66]

I need Toomer and Nate Washington to have good weeks...

I needed that TD!

 

[fasteddie_21]

174.8.

Owen Daniels is a beast. As is Little Blue Jesus, MEGATRON, and Warner.

See y'all next week!

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Marshall is not helping me this week...

CJ3

Rice

Slaton

That was almost 70 points

Eli is looking good, could use another 3 TDs from him...

Was hoping to see a lot of mediocre scores posted but as Bentley pointed out weeks back, no one posts typically unless they are pounding it that week.

 

[favrefan1062]

Gotta believe that Cutler/Marshall (0 catches into the 4th) struggling today, that the cut will be lower than expected. Here's hoping so....Michael Jenkins might save my butt!!! :(

 

[OU#1]

179.25 with DeSean (-13) and Ben Watson (-4.9). Looks like I'm going to make it throuh all of my byes! See you all next week!

 

[cosjobs]

someone please post a link to OC's fantasy star contest-tracking website. I went thru 14 pages and did n0t see it

 

[BuckeyeArt]

someone please post a link to OC's fantasy star contest-tracking website. I went thru 14 pages and did n0t see it

http://thefantasystar.com/

 

[Sheriff66]

someone please post a link to OC's fantasy star contest-tracking website. I went thru 14 pages and did n0t see it

http://thefantasystar.com/

 

[Dirty Weasel]

166.40 and likely not much more...

QB - Kurt Warner (29.10) - Still have Jay Cutler

RB - Ray Rice (19.10)

RB - Steve Slaton (15.80)

WR - Derrick Mason (28.60)

WR - Jerricho Cotchery (13.00)

WR - Steve Breaston (5.90) - Still have Brandon Marshall, but hoping he stays low to whittle the field

Flex - Maurice Jones-Drew (13.20)

TE - Tony Gonzalez (16.70)

K - Jason Hanson (8.00)

D - NY Jets (17.00) - Still have the Dolphins

Only player yet to play is Clinton Portis. Would prefer a subpar game since I am pretty safe this week.

 

[Sol D]

147 pts with some guys still going. This should be enough to move on... see ya next week. 98.3% chance to win the whole thing?