Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Ignoratio Elenchi

Members
  • Content Count

    12,616
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Ignoratio Elenchi

  1. being able to overwrite the values in the points column is cool but there needs to be a way to reset them to their original values.
  2. "IVC" vs. "Optimizer"? Don't see why the names have to change. You have a product people obviously like, unless there's a really compelling reason to get rid of it I don't see why you would.
  3. Not sure "Single" and "Multi" reflects an understanding of the differences between the two products though. I've used a lineup optimizer to build a single lineup, and I've used IVC to build multiple lineups.
  4. i think IVC and a full-featured lineup optimizer serve two different purposes / target two different types of users. the people who like using IVC to manually tinker with lineup construction don’t want a lineup optimizer. don’t try to cram all the functionality into one tool, just offer both. i don’t play DFS any more but when i did, fantasycruncher was the gold standard of lineup optimizers. not sure if that’s still the case but i’m guessing it is, if you want an optimizer that higher-volume DFS players would pay to use, copy as much of what they’re doing as possible.
  5. I agree that those teams were at a moderate disadvantage in weeks 2 and 3. I do think if you know there's no week 1 cut, however, the optimal strategy is to completely stack two Super Bowl teams and roll the dice in weeks 2 and 3. When there is a week 1 cut, that's a losing strategy unless both of your SB teams play wild card weekend. So whether or not there's a week 1 cut does fundamentally change the winning strategy for the contest, which is kinda wonky. I originally didn't think it was that big of a deal (and I was certain there were years when there was no cut, but either I misremembered or they were 12+ years ago), but I'm coming around to the idea that something should change for next year if this is a possibility again.
  6. How many RBs in the last 25 years or so would you say have been a top-5 PPR RB for 5 years? According to my numbers there have been two, Tomlinson and Faulk. Maybe McCaffrey's career will end up like Tomlinson's, in which case I'd obviously take McCaffrey over Manning without a second thought. But we don't know that yet. McCaffrey's career may also end up like the dozens of other RBs who briefly peaked and just as quickly fell off. That's why it's an absurd comparison. Has nothing to do with devaluing how good he was this year.
  7. Not sure where we disagree. Tomlinson's season alone is proof that McCaffrey's season wasn't literally once in a lifetime.
  8. In what ways am I not fully aware of just how dominant a season McCaffrey had? Of course he did. It doesn't change my answer to the OP for reasons that have already been explained.
  9. That's obviously an entirely different debate, and it's unclear how it's relevant to this thread.
  10. You're probably right, he had a great year. But by definition if I need more than one finger to count them, it wasn't a once in a lifetime performance. I've been playing fantasy football since the early 1990s. If this was a debate between, say, Peyton Manning and LaDanian Tomlinson or something, it's a lot more clear cut that you take the RB. But Manning's career vs. the career of a guy who's been dominant for the last 4 months? Yes, that's some recency bias.
  11. It'll vary by league and whatnot. The Manning owner won my league a few times, but obviously that may not have been the case in every league. The reality is, a single player doesn't usually win you any titles. McCaffrey's performance this year wasn't great enough to do it in my league. You need a good team all around. If you can lock up top-5 QB production for 15 years and never have to worry about it, most people will find a way to win a handful of championships in that span.
  12. Last year's winner had 7 players, 6 Pats and 1 Ram. IIRC historically that's about as many as you'd need if you picked two top-2 seeds in the SB, since you'd need to backfill with more players from other teams to survive the week 1 cut.
  13. Feel like there's a lot of recency bias going on here. McCaffrey had a great year, no doubt, but the McCaffrey owner didn't win my league this year (he lost to the Lamar Jackson owner). Let's not overstate how good he was/is/might be going forward. I don't even understand the basis for the comparison between him and Manning, it's not like he had a once-in-a-lifetime dominating performance, and it's also not like he's been great for a long time. He's had 2 great years so far and he was only RB1 in one of them. How many great fantasy RBs came and went during Peyton Manning's entire career? Every couple of years there's a new one. There's no way I'd trade 15 years of top-5 QB production for the latest hot hand at RB. I'll just grab the next one. How many league championships do you think CMC gets you? I'll give you one for this year, although as I pointed out that was not necessarily the case. Whatever reasonable number you pick, I guarantee I can take Manning's entire career and win at least as many.
  14. Eh, give me a top-5 QB for 15 straight years and I'll find some difference-making RBs along the way.
  15. lol this just reminded me that we used to cough excessively on purpose to annoy a teacher in middle school. plausible deniability and all that. kids are dumb.
  16. It's pretty self-evident that doing a little bit is better than doing nothing. Whether or not that little bit is worth it to you probably isn't something science can answer.
  17. Some of the best sports bettors I know know very little about sports.
  18. To me it seems most natural to rank them in terms of their ability to be disproven, so in order from most dumb to least: 1. Flat earthers. This is easily disproven and I doubt there are many people who actually believe it. 2. Young earthers. Not quite as easily disproven and not the kind of thing you can just go outside and check, but the age of the earth (in terms of magnitude) is well-established science. 3. Anti-vaxxers. Feel bad for these folks as they most likely mean well but are doing harm by ignoring medical science. 4. Psychics, etc. Personally believe this is really dumb and there’s no evidence that it works but like many things, it’s basically impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist. I can actively disprove the first three beliefs in ways that I can’t for this one. 5. Chem trails. Again, personally don’t believe in any conspiracy theories but would not at all be surprised if some of them are true. I’d actually be surprised if none of them were true, honestly. Could this be one that's real? Seems plausible that governments might be running some super-secret science experiments on people because we know they’ve done it in the past.
  19. Another vote for LastPass here. It's a lifechanger. Get the browser extension and the app for your phone, I haven't remembered or typed a password in ages.
  20. They 100% could not and should not do this or anything like it. This isn't the first time there have been fewer entries than the week 1 cutoff. It's a known feature of the contest, can't be changing the rules just because they got fewer entries than everyone expected this year.