Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ignoratio Elenchi

***Official*** 2012 FBG Subscriber Contest Thread

Recommended Posts

I blame it on the junk entries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year, the top three finishers had totals of 641.5, 621.95, 620.25 in the finals. I can see that total jumping up this year to around the 675-700 range. I get this feeling that there are a lot of teams over the 200 mark this week. I'm one of those teams and other than my kicker (Cundiff) and Defense (Jets), the rest of my team had average days. IMO scores will be higher this year.

The rule change at RB to full PPR with lower "stud" costs could explain the trend.
Didn't the kicker scoring bump up also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anybody thinks they can top this squad, I would be interested in seeing it. I pretty much hit all on all of my key guys based on week 1 action.

Your depth is crap, but more importantly you underestimate the value of having 2 QBs. Stafford is overrated as hell. I'll be surprised if you make it past week 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anybody thinks they can top this squad, I would be interested in seeing it. I pretty much hit all on all of my key guys based on week 1 action.

Your depth is crap, but more importantly you underestimate the value of having 2 QBs. Stafford is overrated as hell. I'll be surprised if you make it past week 6.
my test will be getting past Stafford's bye week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anybody thinks they can top this squad, I would be interested in seeing it. I pretty much hit all on all of my key guys based on week 1 action.

Your depth is crap, but more importantly you underestimate the value of having 2 QBs. Stafford is overrated as hell. I'll be surprised if you make it past week 6.
my test will be getting past Stafford's bye week.
Fun fact: Last year, 223 entries had only one QB. 150 of them were eliminated before their QB's bye week. 46 more were eliminated on their QB's bye week. 23 more were eliminated prior to the final 250. The four that made it to the finals finished 66th, 79th, 199th, and 220th overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pricing/scoring changes may throw all data and trends out the window. It's a new revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SIZE	COUNT	AVG SCORE18	4633	177.119	1813	177.620	1377	177.421	1146	176.322	966	177.123	814	175.724	627	175.025	484	173.826	384	174.627	312	175.828	230	172.529	193	173.230	339	171.7
Interesting that the average scores decrease with increasing roster size. IIRC it's usually the other way around. So either I have to fix something in my database, or we saw a complete reversal of trend this week. I'll be interested to see if this keeps up.
I think you will see the bigger rosters do better when it comes to bye weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SIZE	COUNT	AVG SCORE18	4633	177.119	1813	177.620	1377	177.421	1146	176.322	966	177.123	814	175.724	627	175.025	484	173.826	384	174.627	312	175.828	230	172.529	193	173.230	339	171.7
Interesting that the average scores decrease with increasing roster size. IIRC it's usually the other way around. So either I have to fix something in my database, or we saw a complete reversal of trend this week. I'll be interested to see if this keeps up.
I think you will see the bigger rosters do better when it comes to bye weeks.
Oh, I'm certain they will, that's when the small rosters really start to get hurt. But in the past, larger rosters have pretty much always had higher average scores than smaller rosters, even on the non-bye weeks. I may be misremembering that, but I definitely feel like Week 1's results are upside down from what we're used to seeing. Even though I'm a larger-roster proponent, part of me wants it to be a real reversal of trend, just so we have something new and interesting to track and discuss throughout the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anybody thinks they can top this squad, I would be interested in seeing it. I pretty much hit all on all of my key guys based on week 1 action.

Your depth is crap, but more importantly you underestimate the value of having 2 QBs. Stafford is overrated as hell. I'll be surprised if you make it past week 6.
my test will be getting past Stafford's bye week.
Fun fact: Last year, 223 entries had only one QB. 150 of them were eliminated before their QB's bye week. 46 more were eliminated on their QB's bye week. 23 more were eliminated prior to the final 250. The four that made it to the finals finished 66th, 79th, 199th, and 220th overall.
Interesting, thanks.I wonder how many of them had a week 5 bye or earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SIZE	COUNT	AVG SCORE18	4633	177.119	1813	177.620	1377	177.421	1146	176.322	966	177.123	814	175.724	627	175.025	484	173.826	384	174.627	312	175.828	230	172.529	193	173.230	339	171.7
Interesting that the average scores decrease with increasing roster size. IIRC it's usually the other way around. So either I have to fix something in my database, or we saw a complete reversal of trend this week. I'll be interested to see if this keeps up.
I think you will see the bigger rosters do better when it comes to bye weeks.
Oh, I'm certain they will, that's when the small rosters really start to get hurt. But in the past, larger rosters have pretty much always had higher average scores than smaller rosters, even on the non-bye weeks. I may be misremembering that, but I definitely feel like Week 1's results are upside down from what we're used to seeing. Even though I'm a larger-roster proponent, part of me wants it to be a real reversal of trend, just so we have something new and interesting to track and discuss throughout the year.
agreed....my choice in going with 1 QB (Brees week 6 bye) and 2 stud RB's with the same bye (Foster and Rice week 8) were based loosely on the cut lines from last year. I expected the cut lines to be higher this year, but I'm starting to think I did not adjust them high enough. Unless I get lucky those two weeks, I feel like I will be making an early exit from the contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anybody thinks they can top this squad, I would be interested in seeing it. I pretty much hit all on all of my key guys based on week 1 action.

Your depth is crap, but more importantly you underestimate the value of having 2 QBs. Stafford is overrated as hell. I'll be surprised if you make it past week 6.
my test will be getting past Stafford's bye week.
Fun fact: Last year, 223 entries had only one QB. 150 of them were eliminated before their QB's bye week. 46 more were eliminated on their QB's bye week. 23 more were eliminated prior to the final 250. The four that made it to the finals finished 66th, 79th, 199th, and 220th overall.
Interesting, thanks.I wonder how many of them had a week 5 bye or earlier.
I don't know, but cut lines will be higher this year since most everyone was able to accumulate better talent with the cheaper prices. Small rosters won't be hit as hard during the bye weeks. I think the junk entires will be jettisoned sooner.As far as your team goes, you really will need to root against Ryan in week 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SIZE	COUNT	AVG SCORE18	4633	177.119	1813	177.620	1377	177.421	1146	176.322	966	177.123	814	175.724	627	175.025	484	173.826	384	174.627	312	175.828	230	172.529	193	173.230	339	171.7
Interesting that the average scores decrease with increasing roster size. IIRC it's usually the other way around. So either I have to fix something in my database, or we saw a complete reversal of trend this week. I'll be interested to see if this keeps up.
I think you will see the bigger rosters do better when it comes to bye weeks.
Oh, I'm certain they will, that's when the small rosters really start to get hurt. But in the past, larger rosters have pretty much always had higher average scores than smaller rosters, even on the non-bye weeks. I may be misremembering that, but I definitely feel like Week 1's results are upside down from what we're used to seeing. Even though I'm a larger-roster proponent, part of me wants it to be a real reversal of trend, just so we have something new and interesting to track and discuss throughout the year.
i tried to tell you :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SIZE	COUNT	AVG SCORE18	4633	177.119	1813	177.620	1377	177.421	1146	176.322	966	177.123	814	175.724	627	175.025	484	173.826	384	174.627	312	175.828	230	172.529	193	173.230	339	171.7
Interesting that the average scores decrease with increasing roster size. IIRC it's usually the other way around. So either I have to fix something in my database, or we saw a complete reversal of trend this week. I'll be interested to see if this keeps up.
I think you will see the bigger rosters do better when it comes to bye weeks.
Oh, I'm certain they will, that's when the small rosters really start to get hurt. But in the past, larger rosters have pretty much always had higher average scores than smaller rosters, even on the non-bye weeks. I may be misremembering that, but I definitely feel like Week 1's results are upside down from what we're used to seeing. Even though I'm a larger-roster proponent, part of me wants it to be a real reversal of trend, just so we have something new and interesting to track and discuss throughout the year.
i tried to tell you :rolleyes:
Huh? I remember you going on about how a stud and a scrub (2 players) would outscore a mid-tier and a mid-tier (2 players). I don't remember you ever saying anything along the lines that smaller rosters would post higher average scores than larger rosters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SIZE	COUNT	AVG SCORE18	4633	177.119	1813	177.620	1377	177.421	1146	176.322	966	177.123	814	175.724	627	175.025	484	173.826	384	174.627	312	175.828	230	172.529	193	173.230	339	171.7
Interesting that the average scores decrease with increasing roster size. IIRC it's usually the other way around. So either I have to fix something in my database, or we saw a complete reversal of trend this week. I'll be interested to see if this keeps up.
I think you will see the bigger rosters do better when it comes to bye weeks.
Oh, I'm certain they will, that's when the small rosters really start to get hurt. But in the past, larger rosters have pretty much always had higher average scores than smaller rosters, even on the non-bye weeks. I may be misremembering that, but I definitely feel like Week 1's results are upside down from what we're used to seeing. Even though I'm a larger-roster proponent, part of me wants it to be a real reversal of trend, just so we have something new and interesting to track and discuss throughout the year.
i tried to tell you :rolleyes:
Huh? I remember you going on about how a stud and a scrub (2 players) would outscore a mid-tier and a mid-tier (2 players). I don't remember you ever saying anything along the lines that smaller rosters would post higher average scores than larger rosters.
that was my initial point. selective memory i guess.could you post your roster btw? no reason, i would just like to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that was my initial point. selective memory i guess.

Could be. Or it could be the fact that you never mentioned it. :shrug:

could you post your roster btw? no reason, i would just like to see.

It's in the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spot 10000 last year in week 1 had 137.95

This year: 163.45

Going to be some high cut numbers this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that was my initial point. selective memory i guess.

Could be. Or it could be the fact that you never mentioned it. :shrug:
i get it now, this is your little shtick playing off your username. :thumbup:

Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis or fallacy of distraction, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. Arguments which shift the focus of debate to "safer" but less relevant ground fall into this category.

i wrote a 2 page story disscussing it mostly with you, which you can also find in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spot 10000 last year in week 1 had 137.95This year: 163.45Going to be some high cut numbers this year.

If the cut lines average 25 points higher this year, I'm in big trouble...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A frw thoughts:

Overall happy with my team, but have a couple post week 1 regrets:

Fred Davis. Wish I would have done Rudolph and another WR.

Jacoby Ford. Um, yeah.

There are going to be some high scores this year for sure, but no one matched Blue Thunder's week 15 this week.

Also, bye weeks will thin the herd. I think if you planned well for them, you'll make it through but then will need your guys to be the right ones from week 12 on.

I mentioned this earlier, but I can't wait to see season long effects of Roddy vs Julio teams since both were same price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My last minute changes that I regret are changing Harvin into Nelson (reason for was because I had too many byes week 11 with my lower level fillers) and changing Bennett into Dreessen (bought into some last minute hype). But who knows....both could work out fine in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we can make any conclusions about the whole season from Week 1 (AND I'M PRETTY SURE WE CAN) I'm shocked that McCluster went from $2 last year, when he was already insanely valuable in this contest, to only $3 this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never too early to do a 2nd look after the week 1 games...

Okay, the moment I'm sure you all have been waiting for...QB - 3 for $34. While it was only preseason, it was clear that the Falcons change in OC is going to have a great beneficial effect for Ryan. It's a little dangerous of course but that division also shapes up as one that will have a fair number of shootout type games. I'm a 3 QB guy, I just hate the risk of injury too much to go with just 2. Locker seems to have the goods and is good value as a #2. Gabbert's at least talking the talk and as a cheap flier was worh the risk (and I figured less would take him that the $4 Tannehill). Matt Ryan $19 <---- :moneybag:Jake Locker $9 <---- This looks good, as long as he's not hurt.Blaine Gabbert $6 <---- Glad I switched to him from Tannehill and glad I got 3 with the Locker siuation.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RB - 6 for $73. I usually roll with a group similar to this. Hope I don't regret picking Foster with his injury issues. I grabbed Lynch in place of Doug Martin (and spent the additional $2 on Gabbert) largely because of how the bye-weeks were shaking out - I wanted to diversify. Amazing to think that Ced Benson is a no-brainer, but he is. He's not all that good but has the benefit of being a perfect fit for what GB likes to do. Royster and Jones had good projection numbers and seemed reasonable gambles. Kinda fear the Detroit RB situation, but took a shot on Smith.Arian Foster $34 <---- Have to say :moneybag: here - injury stuff meant nothing.Marshawn Lynch $19 <---- A little concerned about the team around him now.Kevin Smith $12 <---- Pleasant surprise. Hope week 1 is the rule not the exception.Cedric Benson $3 <---- Won't panic yet. I think he'll be hot and cold all year.Evan Royster $3 <---- Anything is possible with Shanahan of course, but looking like a waste barring injury.Taiwan Jones $2 <---- Looks like a waste of $2 at this point. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------WR - 9 for $77. I'm sure the Ryan-Jones combo is quite common, but value-wise I think it just makes sense. There's too many other good options to see Julio to get as much coverage as teams would like. Dez is a bargain as long as he doesn't get stupid again :unsure:. Young as a usual #3 seemed like a nice price in that offense. I like to have a bunch of back-end guys that can do stuff and put up the occasional solid game. I think this accomplishes that - Blackmon being a total boom/bust choice IMO. Would have liked to have sneaked a Bronco WR in here as I think they'll benefit from having a real QB (with a HOF pedigree at that).Julio Jones $23 <---- :moneybag: I definitely think he's the choice over Roddy.Dez Bryant $18 <---- He's the kind of streaky guy that helps in these situation. Just stay out of trouble/doghouse.Titus Young $10 <---- :unsure: - he's gotta not do stupid things, concerned this was a mistake.Justin Blackmon $7 <---- Seems to be coming along slowly so far, but it's early.Danny Amendola $6 <---- Looks like I'll get something out of him.Mario Manningham $4 <---- I think Moss is eating his lunch and that I wasted $4.Jonathan Baldwin $4 <---- Concerning that he got no action even when the team was a zillion points behind.Harry Douglas $3 <---- They were using him a decent amount. I think this $3 expenditure was fine.Ryan Broyles $2 <---- Looks like a waste of another $2.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TE - 3 for $47. Oops. This is what happens when you are traveling and trying to put together one of these teams. Don't get me wrong, I expect to get solid production and have 2 of these guys count almost every week, but this was overkill. Really love the upside of Gresham this year and couldn't take him out - he's the real #2 option in Cincinnati. I should've bought a $4/$5 guy like M Bennett and used the $6 elsewhere.Aaron Hernandez $23 <---- :moneybag: I think he's the guy to own compared to Gronk this year.Jermaine Gresham $13 <---- Very very worried now. He blew his route and it led to a pick 6. Still, he's too important a young player.Greg Olsen $11 <---- Was my flex so that looks good. Using the $13 from Gresham and $8 from wasted guys above and I'd have another stud RB :(---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PK - 3 for $9. Variance, variance, variance. I always go 3 for PK and Defense. And there's really a lot of value with all 3 of these guys as well as they all have strong legs that can lead to big points week. I wish I had done everything else as well as this.Rob Bironas $3 <---- He's the kicker, so fine.Matt Prater $3 <---- He's the kicker, so fine.Mike Nugent $3 <---- He's the kicker, so fine.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DEF - 3 for $10. Again, this is a case of diversify and conquer. The Jets seem really cheap at $4, especially with how much the defense will probably be on the field (and since scoring defense doesn't matter this is okay). The Bengals and Saints both should play above their $3 price tag as well. I just don't see spending the top $ on this position - more is better here.New York Jets $4 <---- Possibly the best value in the whole contest since PA don't matter.Cincinnati Bengals $3 <---- I'll worry more if that can't put up a decent number against Weedman this week.New Orleans Saints $3 <---- Shootouts mean lots of passes mean chances for sacks and INTs so I'm still hopeful here.So there you go, I'm a 27-man roster guy this season. Big rosters may be out of fashion but I still feel good rolling this way.:boxing:-QG

Still kicking myself for going 3 TE. Really shoulda put $8 wasted plus Gresham and spent the $21 on Doug Martin I think.-QG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SIZE	COUNT	AVG SCORE18	4633	177.119	1813	177.620	1377	177.421	1146	176.322	966	177.123	814	175.724	627	175.025	484	173.826	384	174.627	312	175.828	230	172.529	193	173.230	339	171.7
Interesting that the average scores decrease with increasing roster size. IIRC it's usually the other way around. So either I have to fix something in my database, or we saw a complete reversal of trend this week. I'll be interested to see if this keeps up.
I think you will see the bigger rosters do better when it comes to bye weeks.
Oh, I'm certain they will, that's when the small rosters really start to get hurt. But in the past, larger rosters have pretty much always had higher average scores than smaller rosters, even on the non-bye weeks. I may be misremembering that, but I definitely feel like Week 1's results are upside down from what we're used to seeing. Even though I'm a larger-roster proponent, part of me wants it to be a real reversal of trend, just so we have something new and interesting to track and discuss throughout the year.
i tried to tell you :rolleyes:
:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spot 10000 last year in week 1 had 137.95This year: 163.45Going to be some high cut numbers this year.

If the cut lines average 25 points higher this year, I'm in big trouble...
I won't be as we progress. Also, IIRC there were approx 2500 more entires this year than last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SIZE	COUNT	AVG SCORE18	4633	177.119	1813	177.620	1377	177.421	1146	176.322	966	177.123	814	175.724	627	175.025	484	173.826	384	174.627	312	175.828	230	172.529	193	173.230	339	171.7
Interesting that the average scores decrease with increasing roster size. IIRC it's usually the other way around. So either I have to fix something in my database, or we saw a complete reversal of trend this week. I'll be interested to see if this keeps up.
I think you will see the bigger rosters do better when it comes to bye weeks.
And when players start getting hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anybody thinks they can top this squad, I would be interested in seeing it. I pretty much hit all on all of my key guys based on week 1 action.

Your depth is crap, but more importantly you underestimate the value of having 2 QBs. Stafford is overrated as hell. I'll be surprised if you make it past week 6.
my test will be getting past Stafford's bye week.
You'll have many more tests than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Week 1: My contest strategy of Jimmy Graham vs. the field at the TE position was a win, now about that bye week...

Sort by:Fantasy Points/Receiving Yardage

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rush Rush Rush Num Rec Rec Fum Fan

# Tight End NFL GP Att Yds TDs Rec Yds TDs Lost Pts

--- ---------------------------- --- -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

1 Graham, Jimmy NO 1 0 0 0 6 85 1 0 14.5

2 Pitta, Dennis BAL 1 0 0 0 5 73 1 0 13.3

3 Hernandez, Aaron NE 1 1 5 0 6 59 1 0 12.4

4 Gronkowski, Rob NE 1 0 0 0 6 60 1 0 12.0

5 Gonzalez, Tony ATL 1 0 0 0 5 53 1 0 11.3

6 Lewis, Marcedes JAX 1 0 0 0 5 52 1 0 11.2

7 Miller, Heath PIT 1 0 0 0 4 50 1 0 11.0

8 Finley, Jermichael GB 1 0 0 0 7 47 1 0 10.7

9 Tamme, Jacob DEN 1 0 0 0 5 43 1 0 10.3

10 Davis, Vernon SF 1 0 0 0 3 43 1 0 10.3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anybody thinks they can top this squad, I would be interested in seeing it. I pretty much hit all on all of my key guys based on week 1 action.

Your depth is crap, but more importantly you underestimate the value of having 2 QBs. Stafford is overrated as hell. I'll be surprised if you make it past week 6.
my test will be getting past Stafford's bye week.
Fun fact: Last year, 223 entries had only one QB. 150 of them were eliminated before their QB's bye week. 46 more were eliminated on their QB's bye week. 23 more were eliminated prior to the final 250. The four that made it to the finals finished 66th, 79th, 199th, and 220th overall.
Interesting, thanks.

I wonder how many of them had a week 5 bye or earlier.

Well, week 5 was the earliest bye week last year, due to all the lockout nonsense. 22 of them had a QB on bye week 5. 14 of them were eliminated before week 5 even arrived. 3 more were eliminated during week 5. Then two went out in week 6, one went out in week 7, one went out in week 8, and the last one miraculously made it to week 11 before getting cut. ETA: If he hadn't been cut in week 11, he would've made it to the final 250, where he would have finished in 200th place, right behind one of the other 1 QB teams to make the finals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Week 1: My contest strategy of Jimmy Graham vs. the field at the TE position was a win, now about that bye week...Sort by:Fantasy Points/Receiving Yardage----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rush Rush Rush Num Rec Rec Fum Fan # Tight End NFL GP Att Yds TDs Rec Yds TDs Lost Pts--- ---------------------------- --- -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 Graham, Jimmy NO 1 0 0 0 6 85 1 0 14.5 2 Pitta, Dennis BAL 1 0 0 0 5 73 1 0 13.3 3 Hernandez, Aaron NE 1 1 5 0 6 59 1 0 12.4 4 Gronkowski, Rob NE 1 0 0 0 6 60 1 0 12.0 5 Gonzalez, Tony ATL 1 0 0 0 5 53 1 0 11.3 6 Lewis, Marcedes JAX 1 0 0 0 5 52 1 0 11.2 7 Miller, Heath PIT 1 0 0 0 4 50 1 0 11.0 8 Finley, Jermichael GB 1 0 0 0 7 47 1 0 10.7 9 Tamme, Jacob DEN 1 0 0 0 5 43 1 0 10.310 Davis, Vernon SF 1 0 0 0 3 43 1 0 10.3

I suspect the guy who spent $5 on Pitta and $24 on Murray instead of taking Graham was happy to give up 1.2 points to you at TE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anybody thinks they can top this squad, I would be interested in seeing it. I pretty much hit all on all of my key guys based on week 1 action.

Matthew Stafford $26

LeSean McCoy $32

Darren McFadden $26

Stevan Ridley $16

Jonathan Dwyer $4

Cedric Benson $3

Larry Fitzgerald $25

Julio Jones $23

Brandon Marshall $22

Pierre Garcon $14

Justin Blackmon $7

Danny Amendola $6

Antonio Gates $20

Martellus Bennett $4

Kellen Davis $4

Adam Vinatieri $3

Matt Prater $3

Rian Lindell $3

Jacksonville Jaguars $3

Carolina Panthers $3

Washington Redskins $3

If you're looking for a squad similar to your own, there's this one. He has a significant week 7 bye issue if he manages to make it that far, but otherwise it stacks up against your team pretty well.

PLAYER	PRICEMatthew Stafford              	$26Arian Foster                  	$34LeSean McCoy                  	$32Darren McFadden               	$26Cedric Benson                 	$3Evan Royster                  	$3Justin Forsett                	$2Calvin Johnson                	$29Julio Jones                   	$23Brandon Marshall              	$22Josh Gordon                   	$3Eddie Royal                   	$2Jimmy Graham                  	$29Kevin Boss                    	$2Randy McMichael               	$2Matt Bryant                   	$4Houston Texans                	$5Carolina Panthers             	$3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some other generic week 1 info...

Across the board, TE was the most flexed position in week 1 - not surprising, partly due to owners actively trying to take advantage of the 1.5 PPR, as well as the fact that nearly half of all the TEs available in the contest scored 10+ points this week (compared to 27% of all RBs and 36.2% of all WRs). Here's the breakdown of flex position by roster size for this week (the 33 teams that don't have a flex player at all were credited for flex at RB, I'm not going to go back and adjust for that now, though):

Size	RB	WR	TE18	1564	1170	189919	531	452	83020	382	346	64921	264	301	58122	218	277	47123	156	223	43524	111	158	35825	90	136	25826	54	113	21727	49	73	19028	36	48	14629	31	44	11830	51	89	199
Here's a chart showing the breakdown of average points scored by position and roster size. The fact that smaller rosters had higher average scores than larger rosters this week seems to be driven mostly by the RB2, RB1, TE, and WR1 positions (approximately in that order). Larger rosters partially made up the difference at defense, kicker, and WR3 but it obviously was not enough to close the gap overall. None of this is especially surprising. Pretty much without exception, the heavily owned "stud" RBs all performed as expected, which disproportionately benefits the smaller rosters.

Speaking of which, here is the average amount of money spent on starting RBs by roster size:

SIZE	COUNT	RB1	RB218	4633	$29.87	$23.2819	1813	$28.59	$22.1920	1377	$28.03	$21.4721	1146	$27.64	$20.9622	966	$27.12	$20.7123	814	$26.32	$19.8924	627	$25.96	$19.6125	484	$25.38	$19.0526	384	$25.16	$18.7127	312	$24.26	$17.8128	230	$24.59	$17.4929	193	$23.02	$16.4730	339	$22.33	$16.01
Obviously there's a great disparity there - on average, an 18-man roster's RB2 is more expensive than a 30-man roster's RB1. So when all the expensive RB's do well, the small rosters get the benefit. The flip side of this is that when some of those expensive RB's do have a bad week (or go on bye, or get injured), the smaller rosters are less equipped to handle the damage.

To illustrate the potential impact, here are the week 1 average scores again, and I've added a column showing what the average scores would have been this week if I change just one thing - reduce Ray Rice's score to 10.00 points. Everything else remains exactly the same as it was:

SIZE	AVG	ADJ AVG18	177.1	173.919	177.6	175.020	177.4	175.121	176.3	174.122	177.1	175.123	175.7	174.124	175	173.325	173.8	172.426	174.6	173.327	175.8	174.928	172.5	170.929	173.2	172.730	171.7	170.7
The gap has been significantly closed, simply by changing the score of a single stud RB (and not even changing it to zero or anything, just giving him 10 points, which is a reasonable and realistic score for a week). So I might suggest that while the "upside down" results this week may actually be signaling a new trend, it can also largely be attributed to the simple fact that there was really not a single bust among the expensive skill players this week. The only expensive players that didn't perform this week are really Jason Witten, Wes Welker, and Ryan Matthews, but hardly anyone owns Witten and Matthews and Welker is owned by fewer than 5% of the entries. It's not often we see a week where literally every expensive player lives up to expectations, and I think that has a lot to do with the results for this week. But as I said, it will be interesting to follow as the year goes on. :popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when can we set our week 2 lineup? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gap has been significantly closed, simply by changing the score of a single stud RB (and not even changing it to zero or anything, just giving him 10 points, which is a reasonable and realistic score for a week). So I might suggest that while the "upside down" results this week may actually be signaling a new trend, it can also largely be attributed to the simple fact that there was really not a single bust among the expensive skill players this week. The only expensive players that didn't perform this week are really Jason Witten, Wes Welker, and Ryan Matthews, but hardly anyone owns Witten and Matthews and Welker is owned by fewer than 5% of the entries. It's not often we see a week where literally every expensive player lives up to expectations, and I think that has a lot to do with the results for this week. But as I said, it will be interesting to follow as the year goes on. :popcorn:

Good info Iggy. The bolded is the reason I gave for the higher scores for the smaller rosters this week. I'd be interested to see what % of starters (scores that counted) came from players that were bought to start. Specifically, out of their top QB choice, top 2 RB's, top 3 WR's and top TE, how many ended up counting. I bet it was pretty high compared to last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gap has been significantly closed, simply by changing the score of a single stud RB (and not even changing it to zero or anything, just giving him 10 points, which is a reasonable and realistic score for a week). So I might suggest that while the "upside down" results this week may actually be signaling a new trend, it can also largely be attributed to the simple fact that there was really not a single bust among the expensive skill players this week. The only expensive players that didn't perform this week are really Jason Witten, Wes Welker, and Ryan Matthews, but hardly anyone owns Witten and Matthews and Welker is owned by fewer than 5% of the entries. It's not often we see a week where literally every expensive player lives up to expectations, and I think that has a lot to do with the results for this week. But as I said, it will be interesting to follow as the year goes on. :popcorn:

Good info Iggy. The bolded is the reason I gave for the higher scores for the smaller rosters this week. I'd be interested to see what % of starters (scores that counted) came from players that were bought to start. Specifically, out of their top QB choice, top 2 RB's, top 3 WR's and top TE, how many ended up counting. I bet it was pretty high compared to last year.

I think this is what you're looking for:

SIZE	COUNT	QB1	RB1	RB2	WR1	WR2	WR3	TE118	4633	69.1%	87.4%	67.6%	88.8%	71.8%	60.3%	80.9%19	1813	69.0%	85.5%	65.6%	86.7%	70.0%	57.4%	74.3%20	1377	70.2%	84.0%	66.4%	86.3%	69.9%	55.5%	71.5%21	1146	70.9%	85.3%	64.2%	83.9%	66.9%	53.6%	68.6%22	966	73.0%	83.0%	64.4%	83.2%	62.9%	51.0%	63.3%23	814	74.3%	82.8%	63.6%	79.6%	63.9%	52.2%	63.3%24	627	70.2%	83.6%	61.2%	82.5%	61.1%	48.6%	58.1%25	484	71.1%	84.7%	56.6%	79.5%	60.1%	46.7%	58.1%26	384	71.9%	83.3%	56.5%	76.8%	54.2%	49.7%	58.3%27	312	75.6%	84.6%	59.6%	76.9%	57.1%	48.4%	54.5%28	230	70.0%	80.9%	59.1%	75.7%	56.5%	46.5%	48.3%29	193	66.3%	76.2%	53.4%	69.9%	49.2%	49.2%	51.3%30	339	62.8%	78.8%	48.7%	71.1%	51.9%	42.5%	46.3%TOT	13318	70.1%	85.1%	64.4%	84.6%	66.9%	55.2%	70.6%
So according to this, 69.1% of 18-man rosters actually started their most expensive QB this week, 55.5% of 20-man rosters actually started their third-most expensive WR this week, etc.

This is potentially susceptible to some flaws - specifically, if a team's 3rd and 4th WRs both cost $19, my database picks one of them as WR3 and one of them as WR4 (I'm not sure if it's alphabetical or whatever, but it would be in the same order they're displayed on the contest page). So if WR4 started, it wouldn't be counted in this table, even though technically he is (tied for) the third-most expensive WR on the roster. I also didn't attempt to incorporate flex here as it's not even clear how I'd try to interpret that (e.g. someone might pay $15 for a second TE, fully expecting them to be the flex most weeks, even though their 4th WR cost more than $15).

But in any case, I think this is what you were looking for. Unfortunately I don't have a similar table for week 1 of last year or anything else to compare it to. I still have the info so I suppose I could go back and create it, though. It's also not exactly clear what to make of these numbers on their own. Is it a bad thing that only 42.5% of 30-man rosters started their third-most expensive WR this week? On the one hand, you might say it's a bad indicator that a majority of big rosters had an "underperforming" third WR; on the other hand, you might argue that, by design, these teams loaded up on a lot of cheaper WRs, and a majority of these large rosters actually hit on a cheap WR and had him crack their starting lineup - whereas small rosters are presumably much more dependent on their most expensive players performing well every week.

ETA: Couldn't help myself. Here's the same table from Week 1 of 2011:

SIZE	COUNT	QB1	RB1	RB2	WR1	WR2	WR3	TE118	3568	65.9%	61.8%	44.9%	82.1%	77.2%	65.9%	65.8%19	1393	59.5%	54.9%	40.1%	77.2%	77.3%	63.5%	60.2%20	1059	58.6%	52.8%	36.3%	72.5%	76.9%	57.6%	56.1%21	836	52.0%	48.0%	36.1%	74.6%	75.7%	53.3%	51.7%22	766	54.6%	46.5%	37.5%	72.8%	74.9%	53.7%	48.6%23	641	54.0%	42.7%	37.9%	74.3%	73.3%	48.2%	48.4%24	547	48.1%	38.4%	37.8%	70.6%	68.4%	44.1%	49.2%25	396	52.8%	36.1%	39.9%	70.5%	64.6%	42.2%	47.2%26	415	52.0%	36.4%	43.1%	66.7%	63.6%	41.4%	43.9%27	296	54.7%	30.7%	47.3%	66.2%	59.5%	45.6%	45.6%28	269	53.5%	30.5%	53.5%	66.5%	58.0%	34.2%	43.1%29	214	50.5%	29.4%	50.0%	65.4%	47.2%	39.3%	43.9%30	375	43.2%	37.9%	54.4%	63.5%	54.7%	38.7%	38.4%TOT	10775	58.2%	50.5%	41.9%	75.4%	72.9%	56.1%	55.9%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gap has been significantly closed, simply by changing the score of a single stud RB (and not even changing it to zero or anything, just giving him 10 points, which is a reasonable and realistic score for a week). So I might suggest that while the "upside down" results this week may actually be signaling a new trend, it can also largely be attributed to the simple fact that there was really not a single bust among the expensive skill players this week. The only expensive players that didn't perform this week are really Jason Witten, Wes Welker, and Ryan Matthews, but hardly anyone owns Witten and Matthews and Welker is owned by fewer than 5% of the entries. It's not often we see a week where literally every expensive player lives up to expectations, and I think that has a lot to do with the results for this week. But as I said, it will be interesting to follow as the year goes on. :popcorn:

Good info Iggy. The bolded is the reason I gave for the higher scores for the smaller rosters this week. I'd be interested to see what % of starters (scores that counted) came from players that were bought to start. Specifically, out of their top QB choice, top 2 RB's, top 3 WR's and top TE, how many ended up counting. I bet it was pretty high compared to last year.

I think this is what you're looking for:

SIZE	COUNT	QB1	RB1	RB2	WR1	WR2	WR3	TE118	4633	69.1%	87.4%	67.6%	88.8%	71.8%	60.3%	80.9%19	1813	69.0%	85.5%	65.6%	86.7%	70.0%	57.4%	74.3%20	1377	70.2%	84.0%	66.4%	86.3%	69.9%	55.5%	71.5%21	1146	70.9%	85.3%	64.2%	83.9%	66.9%	53.6%	68.6%22	966	73.0%	83.0%	64.4%	83.2%	62.9%	51.0%	63.3%23	814	74.3%	82.8%	63.6%	79.6%	63.9%	52.2%	63.3%24	627	70.2%	83.6%	61.2%	82.5%	61.1%	48.6%	58.1%25	484	71.1%	84.7%	56.6%	79.5%	60.1%	46.7%	58.1%26	384	71.9%	83.3%	56.5%	76.8%	54.2%	49.7%	58.3%27	312	75.6%	84.6%	59.6%	76.9%	57.1%	48.4%	54.5%28	230	70.0%	80.9%	59.1%	75.7%	56.5%	46.5%	48.3%29	193	66.3%	76.2%	53.4%	69.9%	49.2%	49.2%	51.3%30	339	62.8%	78.8%	48.7%	71.1%	51.9%	42.5%	46.3%TOT	13318	70.1%	85.1%	64.4%	84.6%	66.9%	55.2%	70.6%
So according to this, 69.1% of 18-man rosters actually started their most expensive QB this week, 55.5% of 20-man rosters actually started their third-most expensive WR this week, etc.

This is potentially susceptible to some flaws - specifically, if a team's 3rd and 4th WRs both cost $19, my database picks one of them as WR3 and one of them as WR4 (I'm not sure if it's alphabetical or whatever, but it would be in the same order they're displayed on the contest page). So if WR4 started, it wouldn't be counted in this table, even though technically he is (tied for) the third-most expensive WR on the roster. I also didn't attempt to incorporate flex here as it's not even clear how I'd try to interpret that (e.g. someone might pay $15 for a second TE, fully expecting them to be the flex most weeks, even though their 4th WR cost more than $15).

But in any case, I think this is what you were looking for. Unfortunately I don't have a similar table for week 1 of last year or anything else to compare it to. I still have the info so I suppose I could go back and create it, though. It's also not exactly clear what to make of these numbers on their own. Is it a bad thing that only 42.5% of 30-man rosters started their third-most expensive WR this week? On the one hand, you might say it's a bad indicator that a majority of big rosters had an "underperforming" third WR; on the other hand, you might argue that, by design, these teams loaded up on a lot of cheaper WRs, and a majority of these large rosters actually hit on a cheap WR and had him crack their starting lineup - whereas small rosters are presumably much more dependent on their most expensive players performing well every week.

Thanks. Sort of what I was looking for, but enough info that I can take it the rest of the way. Although, like you said, I'm not sure how much it's worth without the numbers from last year, but no need to run those if it isn't readily available...

This is what I was looking for:

SIZE			18	 24,365 	 32,431.00 	75.13%19	 9,219 	 12,691.00 	72.64%20	 6,937 	 9,639.00 	71.97%21	 5,654 	 8,022.00 	70.49%22	 4,645 	 6,762.00 	68.69%23	 3,905 	 5,698.00 	68.53%24	 2,917 	 4,389.00 	66.47%25	 2,211 	 3,388.00 	65.26%26	 1,731 	 2,688.00 	64.39%27	 1,425 	 2,184.00 	65.24%28	 1,005 	 1,610.00 	62.43%29	 802 	 1,351.00 	59.36%30	 1,363 	 2,373.00 	57.44%TOT	 66,179 	 93,226 	70.99%
Where the first column is the number of starters that came from a teams top 7 (QB, RBx2, WRx3, TE), the 2nd column is the maximum number of starters possible (teams x 7) and the last column is Column A / Column B.

Still trying to determine what this means, if anything. But my initial reaction is that 75% success rate for 18 man rosters and a 70.99% for all rosters, seems very high.

ETA: Since you posted Week 1 of last year. Here are the numbers:

SIZE			18	 16,541 	 24,976.00 	66.23%19	 6,028 	 9,751.00 	61.81%20	 4,350 	 7,413.00 	58.69%21	 3,272 	 5,852.00 	55.91%22	 2,977 	 5,362.00 	55.51%23	 2,428 	 4,487.00 	54.11%24	 1,951 	 3,829.00 	50.94%25	 1,399 	 2,772.00 	50.47%26	 1,440 	 2,905.00 	49.59%27	 1,035 	 2,072.00 	49.94%28	 913 	 1,883.00 	48.47%29	 697 	 1,498.00 	46.53%30	 1,241 	 2,625.00 	47.26%TOT	 44,271 	 75,425 	58.70%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shot my load week 1/no cut week... :kicksrock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when can we set our week 2 lineup? :confused:

:unsure: deadline was 5:00 et today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Brady $30

Matt Ryan $19

Andrew Luck $11

Doug Martin $21

Jacquizz Rodgers $10

LeGarrette Blount $6

Jonathan Dwyer $4

Dexter McCluster $3

Cedric Benson $3

Taiwan Jones $2

Julio Jones $23

Eric Decker $17

Nate Washington $12

Justin Blackmon $7

Jerome Simpson $7

David Nelson $6

Kevin Ogletree $3

Juron Criner $3

Louis Murphy $2

Kyle Rudolph $11

Greg Olsen $11

Lance Kendricks $9

Scott Chandler $6

Mason Crosby $5

Alex Henery $4

Rob Bironas $3

New England Patriots $5

Seattle Seahawks $4

Kansas City Chiefs $3

Wish I had spent a little less on QB & a little more on RB\WR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when can we set our week 2 lineup? :confused:

:unsure: deadline was 5:00 et today
What? Damn! I can't belive I survived week 1 only to missed the week 2 line-up deadline! :wall:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anybody thinks they can top this squad, I would be interested in seeing it. I pretty much hit all on all of my key guys based on week 1 action.

Matthew Stafford $26

LeSean McCoy $32

Darren McFadden $26

Stevan Ridley $16

Jonathan Dwyer $4

Cedric Benson $3

Larry Fitzgerald $25

Julio Jones $23

Brandon Marshall $22

Pierre Garcon $14

Justin Blackmon $7

Danny Amendola $6

Antonio Gates $20

Martellus Bennett $4

Kellen Davis $4

Adam Vinatieri $3

Matt Prater $3

Rian Lindell $3

Jacksonville Jaguars $3

Carolina Panthers $3

Washington Redskins $3

See if you beat this over the next 4 weeks. : 199.250 last Sunday.

Cam Newton $28 17.55

Jake Locker $9 16.55

Ryan Tannehill $4 4.85

-------------------------------------

Arian Foster $34 20.50

LeSean McCoy $32 19.60

David Wilson $9 0.40

Kendall Hunter $6 4.10

Evan Royster $3 1.00

Taiwan Jones $2 0.00

-------------------------------------

Julio Jones $23 28.80

Jordy Nelson $20 11.40

Mike Wallace $16 13.70

Justin Blackmon $7 5.40

Andre Roberts $3 17.90

Kevin Ogletree $3 31.40

-------------------------------------

Vernon Davis $17 14.80

Jared Cook $11 12.40

Marcedes Lewis $7 18.70

-------------------------------------

Matt Bryant $4 20.00

Steve Hauschka $3 13.00

-------------------------------------

Green Bay Packers $6 10.00

Kansas City Chiefs $3 1.00

-------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having mostly all the stud players score appropriately to their costs week 1 is bound to hurt in the upcoming weeks since week 1 had no cuts. Since those players will roughly score X amount of the year, one of their sub par weeks was not gotten out of the way in the no cut week 1...

Should be interesting to see how that plays out. I'd be betting there will be some huge small roster drop offs in one of the next couple weeks due to that as a number of studs will probably dud all in the same week...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having mostly all the stud players score appropriately to their costs week 1 is bound to hurt in the upcoming weeks since week 1 had no cuts. Since those players will roughly score X amount of the year, one of their sub par weeks was not gotten out of the way in the no cut week 1... Should be interesting to see how that plays out. I'd be betting there will be some huge small roster drop offs in one of the next couple weeks due to that as a number of studs will probably dud all in the same week...

no, that's not how it works. ray rice is not more likely to have a bad week in the future because he had a good week this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having mostly all the stud players score appropriately to their costs week 1 is bound to hurt in the upcoming weeks since week 1 had no cuts. Since those players will roughly score X amount of the year, one of their sub par weeks was not gotten out of the way in the no cut week 1... Should be interesting to see how that plays out. I'd be betting there will be some huge small roster drop offs in one of the next couple weeks due to that as a number of studs will probably dud all in the same week...

no, that's not how it works. ray rice is not more likely to have a bad week in the future because he had a good week this week.
:goodposting: The fact that anyone thinks this boggles my mind. There is not set number of good/bad weeks or absolute end of season total for each player to hit out to. If you expected Rice to score 320 points on the season and 20 week 1. If he actually scored 25 in week one, you should now expect him to score 325 points on the season, not for him to score 295 points for the rest of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having mostly all the stud players score appropriately to their costs week 1 is bound to hurt in the upcoming weeks since week 1 had no cuts. Since those players will roughly score X amount of the year, one of their sub par weeks was not gotten out of the way in the no cut week 1... Should be interesting to see how that plays out. I'd be betting there will be some huge small roster drop offs in one of the next couple weeks due to that as a number of studs will probably dud all in the same week...

no, that's not how it works. ray rice is not more likely to have a bad week in the future because he had a good week this week.
:goodposting: The fact that anyone thinks this boggles my mind. There is not set number of good/bad weeks or absolute end of season total for each player to hit out to. If you expected Rice to score 320 points on the season and 20 week 1. If he actually scored 25 in week one, you should now expect him to score 325 points on the season, not for him to score 295 points for the rest of the season.
Trying to get my brain around this...and I think I disagree with this line of thinking. I'm leaning more towards reversion to the mean.If Player X is expected to score 20 points/week for the season and comes out in week 1 over that number that would leave me to believe that future weeks should average below 20/week...unless you think that 25/week is the new normal which would change the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.....

Projection: Gonzo should score 8 TDs for the year. 8/16

Week 1 Gonzo scores so now basically he has 7 left 7/15 a regression to the mean.

or as modog was possibly insinuating that he still has 8/15 left which will equal 9 TDs. 10 if he scores week 2.

Projection does not equal fact so i believe that is where this discussion loses it's luster.

answer: Undefinable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.