firstseason1988
Footballguy
Nice job on the New Math article. I have always drafted for the best team never that forward thinking, I am currently tweaking my thinking. Good read. Thanks DD.
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.
New Math article (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter firstseason1988
- Start date
amphibianbri
Footballguy
I also really liked the article but I do have a question. Did you determine the offense part of the math going by last years stats or what logic? I just have a hard time believing a team like Pittsburgh losing its starting QB the first 5-6 weeks is going to be 2 tiers above a team like Cincinnati. If you go position by position it almost looks like it should be flip flopped to me. Just my two cents worth. I really love the concept though and appreciate the time and effort you put into it.
Steve in Minneapolis
Footballguy
I took a quick look and didn't see this article under the list of articles, and the search function doesn't work yet... Can you post a link?
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Captain Hook
Footballguy
Homepage, LH column shows articles, newest ones first and then backwards (not sure how many)
Steve in Minneapolis
Footballguy
Thank you
Steve in Minneapolis
Footballguy
I looked on the articles page... Even tried to search the page for 'math' and got nothing... I didnt think to look on the front page...
kip stabone
Footballguy
I can definitely see this being used on draft day. Thanks. Interesting to see how this changed the rankings for guys like C. Wells, Crabtree, Breaston, and Ocho.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rovers
Footballguy
Interesting study in math. I wonder however, if there are too many other variables at play that don't get taken into account.
Take a team with a tier 6 offense like the Jets. The passing attack is anemic, but the rush offense was... at least in yardage (and attempts) tops in the NFL last year. So, While the Jets offense is rated as a teir 6, if it were broken down into rush offense and pass offense, what tiers would the Jets fall into repectively? Perhaps tier 2 at worst in rushing, and tier 7 or 8 in passing?
Then, on the defensive side, some defenses are better at defending the pass vs. the run and vice-versa on paper. But this can also be misleading sometimes. The Jets play the Vikings in week 5. Last year MIN was ranked 19 in passing D and 2nd in rush D. The problem here is that the Viking offense was putting up over 29 pts a game (avg) and teams had to throw to stay in the game. The Viking defense gave up an avg YPC of 3.9. Hardly stellar.
In fact, of the other 4 teams the Jets face in weeks 1 to 5, three of them (NE, MIA, BUF) gave up YPC's of 4.2 or more. Only Baltimore has a truely balanced defense playing opposite a relatively low scoring offense.
NE is somewhat similar. They score points and teams throw the ball to stay in the game, but their defences YPC is a whopping 4.4 even though the rush D was ranked 13 last year.
In seperating the Jets RB's (rushing attack) from the WR's and QB (passing attack), and looking only at Jets RB's, Balt is given a -5, agreed. NE gets a -1 rating, which I would disagree with (with the Jets at home), MIA gets a 0 rating, but with a YPC of 4.2 I have to wonder, BUF gets a +1, but they were the 30th ranked rush D in the NFL and gave up a YPC of 4.7, So I'd call that a +5 even if it is a road game for the Jets. I simply can't give the Vikings rush D the same tier ranking as the Ravens here.
1) The Jets have an outstanding O line that can run block;
2) The Jets will remain commited to the run;
3) The Jets defense should keep them in most games where they will not be forced to throw the ball to stay in the game.
I suppose the other variables could simply be called "matchups". How do teams matchup, strength vs. strength and strength vs. weakness. For instance, the Jets offensive line going against the Vikings rush defense. Clearly, a Jets' strength, but it is really a Minnesota strength? Minnesota's defense faced an NFL low 357 rushing attempts, but they were 26th in the NFL in YPC. Who wins that matchup? If the Jets defense can keep the game close, they will continue to run the ball and try to wear down the Viking front 7.
I'm not bashing this article, or the "remove the suck" article here at all. I just don't know if there is an algorythim that can capture all the variables. I think it is another good tool, more solid content and stuff that can add to draft decision making, but I think it always pays to look just a bit past the numbers.
Aside from that, I have an admitted propensity for flying by the seat of my pants and going with gut feel fairly often, so take my stuff with a grain of salt.
Editted for correction: MIN D YPC was actually 6th, looked the stats in reverse. Still, a 3.9 YPC is not the Ravens' 3.4.
Take a team with a tier 6 offense like the Jets. The passing attack is anemic, but the rush offense was... at least in yardage (and attempts) tops in the NFL last year. So, While the Jets offense is rated as a teir 6, if it were broken down into rush offense and pass offense, what tiers would the Jets fall into repectively? Perhaps tier 2 at worst in rushing, and tier 7 or 8 in passing?
Then, on the defensive side, some defenses are better at defending the pass vs. the run and vice-versa on paper. But this can also be misleading sometimes. The Jets play the Vikings in week 5. Last year MIN was ranked 19 in passing D and 2nd in rush D. The problem here is that the Viking offense was putting up over 29 pts a game (avg) and teams had to throw to stay in the game. The Viking defense gave up an avg YPC of 3.9. Hardly stellar.
In fact, of the other 4 teams the Jets face in weeks 1 to 5, three of them (NE, MIA, BUF) gave up YPC's of 4.2 or more. Only Baltimore has a truely balanced defense playing opposite a relatively low scoring offense.
NE is somewhat similar. They score points and teams throw the ball to stay in the game, but their defences YPC is a whopping 4.4 even though the rush D was ranked 13 last year.
In seperating the Jets RB's (rushing attack) from the WR's and QB (passing attack), and looking only at Jets RB's, Balt is given a -5, agreed. NE gets a -1 rating, which I would disagree with (with the Jets at home), MIA gets a 0 rating, but with a YPC of 4.2 I have to wonder, BUF gets a +1, but they were the 30th ranked rush D in the NFL and gave up a YPC of 4.7, So I'd call that a +5 even if it is a road game for the Jets. I simply can't give the Vikings rush D the same tier ranking as the Ravens here.
1) The Jets have an outstanding O line that can run block;
2) The Jets will remain commited to the run;
3) The Jets defense should keep them in most games where they will not be forced to throw the ball to stay in the game.
I suppose the other variables could simply be called "matchups". How do teams matchup, strength vs. strength and strength vs. weakness. For instance, the Jets offensive line going against the Vikings rush defense. Clearly, a Jets' strength, but it is really a Minnesota strength? Minnesota's defense faced an NFL low 357 rushing attempts, but they were 26th in the NFL in YPC. Who wins that matchup? If the Jets defense can keep the game close, they will continue to run the ball and try to wear down the Viking front 7.
I'm not bashing this article, or the "remove the suck" article here at all. I just don't know if there is an algorythim that can capture all the variables. I think it is another good tool, more solid content and stuff that can add to draft decision making, but I think it always pays to look just a bit past the numbers.
Aside from that, I have an admitted propensity for flying by the seat of my pants and going with gut feel fairly often, so take my stuff with a grain of salt.
Editted for correction: MIN D YPC was actually 6th, looked the stats in reverse. Still, a 3.9 YPC is not the Ravens' 3.4.
Last edited by a moderator:
David Dodds
Administrator
I used this year's projections I have for each team. I had started this article before I tweaked for Owens though. That possibly could have changed The Bengals tiers a little. I still have some more thoughts on this article. I felt by publishing now (maybe even before it was fully vetted), I would be in a better position to rewrite this in the middle of August when the camp battles better define themselves.
Last edited by a moderator:
David Dodds
Administrator
Yes stuff always appears here first then I migrate it over to the articles and Page 2 pages.
David Dodds
Administrator
I definitely hear you regarding teams that have stellar rush but not pass defenses, etc. I originally started this exercise looking at Clayton Gray's extensive SOS calculations. But I have found those numbers to be a bit misleading early as they are based heavily (to start the season until we see games played) on what happened last year. I know you are rooting for your Jets, but you have to admit they are likely going to struggle to put up big fantasy points out of the gate playing these 5 opponents:Interesting study in math. I wonder however, if there are too many other variables at play that don't get taken into account.
Take a team with a tier 6 offense like the Jets. The passing attack is anemic, but the rush offense was... at least in yardage (and attempts) tops in the NFL last year. So, While the Jets offense is rated as a teir 6, if it were broken down into rush offense and pass offense, what tiers would the Jets fall into repectively? Perhaps tier 2 at worst in rushing, and tier 7 or 8 in passing?
Then, on the defensive side, some defenses are better at defending the pass vs. the run and vice-versa on paper. But this can also be misleading sometimes. The Jets play the Vikings in week 5. Last year MIN was ranked 19 in passing D and 2nd in rush D. The problem here is that the Viking offense was putting up over 29 pts a game (avg) and teams had to throw to stay in the game. The Viking defense gave up an avg YPC of 3.9. Hardly stellar.
In fact, of the other 4 teams the Jets face in weeks 1 to 5, three of them (NE, MIA, BUF) gave up YPC's of 4.2 or more. Only Baltimore has a truely balanced defense playing opposite a relatively low scoring offense.
NE is somewhat similar. They score points and teams throw the ball to stay in the game, but their defences YPC is a whopping 4.4 even though the rush D was ranked 13 last year.
In seperating the Jets RB's (rushing attack) from the WR's and QB (passing attack), and looking only at Jets RB's, Balt is given a -5, agreed. NE gets a -1 rating, which I would disagree with (with the Jets at home), MIA gets a 0 rating, but with a YPC of 4.2 I have to wonder, BUF gets a +1, but they were the 30th ranked rush D in the NFL and gave up a YPC of 4.7, So I'd call that a +5 even if it is a road game for the Jets. I simply can't give the Vikings rush D the same tier ranking as the Ravens here.
1) The Jets have an outstanding O line that can run block;
2) The Jets will remain commited to the run;
3) The Jets defense should keep them in most games where they will not be forced to throw the ball to stay in the game.
I suppose the other variables could simply be called "matchups". How do teams matchup, strength vs. strength and strength vs. weakness. For instance, the Jets offensive line going against the Vikings rush defense. Clearly, a Jets' strength, but it is really a Minnesota strength? Minnesota's defense faced an NFL low 357 rushing attempts, but they were 26th in the NFL in YPC. Who wins that matchup? If the Jets defense can keep the game close, they will continue to run the ball and try to wear down the Viking front 7.
I'm not bashing this article, or the "remove the suck" article here at all. I just don't know if there is an algorythim that can capture all the variables. I think it is another good tool, more solid content and stuff that can add to draft decision making, but I think it always pays to look just a bit past the numbers.
Aside from that, I have an admitted propensity for flying by the seat of my pants and going with gut feel fairly often, so take my stuff with a grain of salt.
Editted for correction: MIN D YPC was actually 6th, looked the stats in reverse. Still, a 3.9 YPC is not the Ravens' 3.4.
vs Bal, vs NE, @ Mia, @ Buf, vs Min. and then they finish the fantasy playoffs with these teams: vs Mia, @ Pit, @ Chi. That looks hard to me. Consider a team like the Chargers who open up with: @ KC, vs Jac, @ Sea, vs Ari, @ Oak and then finish with vs KC, vs SF, @ Cin. That looks easy to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayrod
Footballguy
Great article.
Needs to be tweaked, but you basically said as much in the opening statement. I think it was a nice read this early in the offseason and it is beneficial to be thinking about at this point.
I don't like what you did to my dynasty QB trio of Cutler/Kolb/Stafford, though.
Needs to be tweaked, but you basically said as much in the opening statement. I think it was a nice read this early in the offseason and it is beneficial to be thinking about at this point.
I don't like what you did to my dynasty QB trio of Cutler/Kolb/Stafford, though.
firstseason1988
Footballguy
Yeah, something to think about more than anything, yeah tiebreaker, ranking within tier adjuster.
You can always take the concept and tweak the numbers and plug it in to a spreadsheet yourself to swap the value of start and finish. Or swap teams in the different tiers as one poster was talking about (Steelers vs Bengals).My question/concern is about how much of these additional factors are already taken into consideration when the initial projections are created....I guess only the people creating these projections can answer this question (and it may vary from person to person). There's a chance that you are already accounting for these factors and then end up double-counting it.One take-away for me that I may personally try to use against the original projections is to try to group players into safe/proven but low ceiling player vs more risky higher ceiling player. When I'm drafting in the middle to late rounds and looking for backups I would like to add in a factor to give a riskier high ceiling player an advantage over a safer low ceiling player....if their projections are similar.
Rovers
Footballguy
I picked the Jets because they are an extreme example of a very imbalanced offense, the good rushing game and a paltry passing attack, coupled with a very good defense. SD may b e another example, but with a good passing attack and a weak rushing attack. SD still has some un answered questions on their O line which was banged up last year. Looking at both of these offenses and their schedules, I'd easilly draft Rivers and either SD starting WR or Gates over any Jets counterpart, even more so with the first five and end of season matchups. I still think I'd rather have Greene (assuming he stays healthy) over Mathews. Rushing is a weakness in the SD offense, while it is a stregnth of ther Jets offense. I don't think the Jets are a team will put up big fantasy points in these matchups at all, but I think the Jets rushing attack is likely to put up more FF points in the running game than SD is going to. The Jets in this case are an even more extreme example becasuse with their defense it is unlikely that they will have to play catch up and abandon the running game. SD's defense on the other hand can be scored upon, and perhaps they could be forced to throw just as much as they did last year.I definitely hear you regarding teams that have stellar rush but not pass defenses, etc. I originally started this exercise looking at Clayton Gray's extensive SOS calculations. But I have found those numbers to be a bit misleading early as they are based heavily (to start the season until we see games played) on what happened last year. I know you are rooting for your Jets, but you have to admit they are likely going to struggle to put up big fantasy points out of the gate playing these 5 opponents:Interesting study in math. I wonder however, if there are too many other variables at play that don't get taken into account.
Take a team with a tier 6 offense like the Jets. The passing attack is anemic, but the rush offense was... at least in yardage (and attempts) tops in the NFL last year. So, While the Jets offense is rated as a teir 6, if it were broken down into rush offense and pass offense, what tiers would the Jets fall into repectively? Perhaps tier 2 at worst in rushing, and tier 7 or 8 in passing?
Then, on the defensive side, some defenses are better at defending the pass vs. the run and vice-versa on paper. But this can also be misleading sometimes. The Jets play the Vikings in week 5. Last year MIN was ranked 19 in passing D and 2nd in rush D. The problem here is that the Viking offense was putting up over 29 pts a game (avg) and teams had to throw to stay in the game. The Viking defense gave up an avg YPC of 3.9. Hardly stellar.
In fact, of the other 4 teams the Jets face in weeks 1 to 5, three of them (NE, MIA, BUF) gave up YPC's of 4.2 or more. Only Baltimore has a truely balanced defense playing opposite a relatively low scoring offense.
NE is somewhat similar. They score points and teams throw the ball to stay in the game, but their defences YPC is a whopping 4.4 even though the rush D was ranked 13 last year.
In seperating the Jets RB's (rushing attack) from the WR's and QB (passing attack), and looking only at Jets RB's, Balt is given a -5, agreed. NE gets a -1 rating, which I would disagree with (with the Jets at home), MIA gets a 0 rating, but with a YPC of 4.2 I have to wonder, BUF gets a +1, but they were the 30th ranked rush D in the NFL and gave up a YPC of 4.7, So I'd call that a +5 even if it is a road game for the Jets. I simply can't give the Vikings rush D the same tier ranking as the Ravens here.
1) The Jets have an outstanding O line that can run block;
2) The Jets will remain commited to the run;
3) The Jets defense should keep them in most games where they will not be forced to throw the ball to stay in the game.
I suppose the other variables could simply be called "matchups". How do teams matchup, strength vs. strength and strength vs. weakness. For instance, the Jets offensive line going against the Vikings rush defense. Clearly, a Jets' strength, but it is really a Minnesota strength? Minnesota's defense faced an NFL low 357 rushing attempts, but they were 26th in the NFL in YPC. Who wins that matchup? If the Jets defense can keep the game close, they will continue to run the ball and try to wear down the Viking front 7.
I'm not bashing this article, or the "remove the suck" article here at all. I just don't know if there is an algorythim that can capture all the variables. I think it is another good tool, more solid content and stuff that can add to draft decision making, but I think it always pays to look just a bit past the numbers.
Aside from that, I have an admitted propensity for flying by the seat of my pants and going with gut feel fairly often, so take my stuff with a grain of salt.
Editted for correction: MIN D YPC was actually 6th, looked the stats in reverse. Still, a 3.9 YPC is not the Ravens' 3.4.
vs Bal, vs NE, @ Mia, @ Buf, vs Min. and then they finish the fantasy playoffs with these teams: vs Mia, @ Pit, @ Chi. That looks hard to me. Consider a team like the Chargers who open up with: @ KC, vs Jac, @ Sea, vs Ari, @ Oak and then finish with vs KC, vs SF, @ Cin. That looks easy to me.
I like the article, and think it is a great tool for seperating players one may have ranked very closely and because there aren't a lot of teams as imbalanced as the Jets are both between the rushing and passing offense coupled with a very good defense. For teams like the Jets, I think a deeper look is helpful.
Blutarsky
Footballguy
Good read. Besides what was already mentioned about accounting for the strengths and weaknesses of an offense a couple of other considerations:
The home/away values ignore travel distance. It seems teams that have a long travel distance often have disappointing performances.
Playing from behind. Teams that fall behind will resort to a chuck and duck offense that often inflates passing and receiving stats.
But overall a strong take.
The home/away values ignore travel distance. It seems teams that have a long travel distance often have disappointing performances.
Playing from behind. Teams that fall behind will resort to a chuck and duck offense that often inflates passing and receiving stats.
But overall a strong take.
Hoart Petterson
Footballguy
Great article but I beg you David...From The Gut! We need some From The Gut! It came out after most drafts were done last year and I say this is your best article. New Math was great but it's From The Gut time!
