Didn't the kicker scoring bump up also?The rule change at RB to full PPR with lower "stud" costs could explain the trend.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.
I just realized he doesn't even have a flex.And he outscored me this week.
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.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.
my test will be getting past Stafford's bye week.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.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.
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.my test will be getting past Stafford's bye week.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.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.
He outscored me, too. And I've got Kaeding... Wouldn't have made the hypothetical cut without Kaeding either... Going to be an interesting yearI just realized he doesn't even have a flex.And he outscored me this week.
I think you will see the bigger rosters do better when it comes to bye weeks.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.Code: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
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 think you will see the bigger rosters do better when it comes to bye weeks.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.Code: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, thanks.I wonder how many of them had a week 5 bye or earlier.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.my test will be getting past Stafford's bye week.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.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.
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.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 think you will see the bigger rosters do better when it comes to bye weeks.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.Code: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
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.Interesting, thanks.I wonder how many of them had a week 5 bye or earlier.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.my test will be getting past Stafford's bye week.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.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.
i tried to tell youOh, 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 think you will see the bigger rosters do better when it comes to bye weeks.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.Code: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
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.i tried to tell youOh, 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 think you will see the bigger rosters do better when it comes to bye weeks.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.Code: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
that was my initial point. selective memory i guess.could you post your roster btw? no reason, i would just like to see.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.i tried to tell youOh, 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 think you will see the bigger rosters do better when it comes to bye weeks.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.Code: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
Could be. Or it could be the fact that you never mentioned it.that was my initial point. selective memory i guess.
It's in the thread.could you post your roster btw? no reason, i would just like to see.
i get it now, this is your little shtick playing off your username.Could be. Or it could be the fact that you never mentioned it.that was my initial point. selective memory i guess.
i wrote a 2 page story disscussing it mostly with you, which you can also find in this thread.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.
If the cut lines average 25 points higher this year, I'm in big trouble...spot 10000 last year in week 1 had 137.95This year: 163.45Going to be some high cut numbers this year.
Still kicking myself for going 3 TE. Really shoulda put $8 wasted plus Gresham and spent the $21 on Doug Martin I think.-QGOkay, 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 <---- 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 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 . 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 <---- 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 <---- - 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 <---- 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. -QG
i tried to tell youOh, 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 think you will see the bigger rosters do better when it comes to bye weeks.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.Code: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
I won't be as we progress. Also, IIRC there were approx 2500 more entires this year than last.If the cut lines average 25 points higher this year, I'm in big trouble...spot 10000 last year in week 1 had 137.95This year: 163.45Going to be some high cut numbers this year.
Doesn't ring a bell.i wrote a 2 page story disscussing it mostly with you, which you can also find in this thread.
And when players start getting hurt.I think you will see the bigger rosters do better when it comes to bye weeks.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.Code: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
You'll have many more tests than that.my test will be getting past Stafford's bye week.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.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.
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.Interesting, thanks.I wonder how many of them had a week 5 bye or earlier.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.my test will be getting past Stafford's bye week.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.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.
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.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
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.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
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
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
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.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.
I think this is what you're looking for: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.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.
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%
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...I think this is what you're looking for: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.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.
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.
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%
deadline was 5:00 et todaywhen can we set our week 2 lineup?
What? Damn! I can't belive I survived week 1 only to missed the week 2 line-up deadline!deadline was 5:00 et todaywhen can we set our week 2 lineup?
See if you beat this over the next 4 weeks. : 199.250 last Sunday. Cam Newton $28 17.55If 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
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.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...
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.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.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...
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.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.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.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...