mr roboto
Footballguy
An owner in our dynasty league did some research and wrote a big essay on why head-to-head matchups for FF is possibly the worst and most random way of determining the best team. Without going into his statistical analysis, his clear conclusion was that the randomness of the matchups was a larger determiner of success than anything else an owner can control.
Basically, if you score 150 pts (in our league this is somewhat common) and the opponent scores 155, you lose, but may have had the 2nd best week out of the 10 teams.
We play 117 all-play matches per year, but only 13 head-to-head matchups. So the sample size is tiny in comparison to the potential.
Is all-play or total points scored a more fair way to figure out the best FF owner?
For the record, although this analysis is factually true, most owners don't want to change. They like the head-to-head matchups for smack talking, rooting against your opponent's players, and having divisions and rivalries.
In our league though, the objective 'best' team has only won 1 of the last 5 championships.
Basically, if you score 150 pts (in our league this is somewhat common) and the opponent scores 155, you lose, but may have had the 2nd best week out of the 10 teams.
We play 117 all-play matches per year, but only 13 head-to-head matchups. So the sample size is tiny in comparison to the potential.
Is all-play or total points scored a more fair way to figure out the best FF owner?
For the record, although this analysis is factually true, most owners don't want to change. They like the head-to-head matchups for smack talking, rooting against your opponent's players, and having divisions and rivalries.
In our league though, the objective 'best' team has only won 1 of the last 5 championships.
Last edited by a moderator: