Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Ignoratio Elenchi

2018 FBG Subscriber Contest

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Widbil83 said:

In 4th place after a down week #2.  Don't see how I can catch 1st place but who the hell knows with the way things have bee going!

WOW....  you might have had a down Week 15 game, but you scrapped by in Week 5 (advanced by 0.15)

Congrats on making it this far!!  And who knows... Ballage & Kelly could separate you! 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No shot for anything good but it has been a great contest this year.    Last week was my worst week of the season by around 50 points. Dropped from 60th to 161st , totally went the wrong direction.  At least the next season package will be paid for.  Good luck to those fighting at the top. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jps said:

No shot for anything good but it has been a great contest this year.    Last week was my worst week of the season by around 50 points. Dropped from 60th to 161st , totally went the wrong direction.  At least the next season package will be paid for.  Good luck to those fighting at the top. 

Not unless you move up at least 11 spots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW: I've gone through the FBG Helpdesk (as per the section of the rules covering stat changes) to notify the Turk that the NFL changed one of Goff's interceptions to a fumble. If they follow up on it, the Goff owners should get another point (Whoopee!).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2018 at 9:40 AM, Birdie048 said:

WOW....  you might have had a down Week 15 game, but you scrapped by in Week 5 (advanced by 0.15)

Congrats on making it this far!!  And who knows... Ballage & Kelly could separate you! 

 

Thanks!  I had a few weeks where I snuck by, so much luck.  Gonna be a fun weekend!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, apalmer said:

FWIW: I've gone through the FBG Helpdesk (as per the section of the rules covering stat changes) to notify the Turk that the NFL changed one of Goff's interceptions to a fumble. If they follow up on it, the Goff owners should get another point (Whoopee!).

This would be an interesting point.... but the rules identify all scores final as of Tuesday evening at 11:59 pm.  

Otherwise, there could be issues going back to other changes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Birdie048 said:

This would be an interesting point.... but the rules identify all scores final as of Tuesday evening at 11:59 pm.  

Otherwise, there could be issues going back to other changes. 

Not exactly

Quote

All scoring is determined final at 11:59pm ET on Tuesdays. Preliminary weekly results will be published on Tuesday morning following the completion of all games.

Users have until 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday to report possible scoring errors or discrepancies. The standings posted on Thursday morning are considered official, even if an error (by the league, by Footballguys, or by anyone or anything else) is later discovered, or a change later reported.

(Clarification issued 10/21/2018) Users have until 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday to report possible scoring errors or discrepancies for that week's games. All errors reported via the FBG help desk before that time will be corrected as soon as possible. Any error not reported by 5:00 Eastern on Wednesday (including, but not limited to, errors retroactively introduced by official league stat changes) will stand as posted.

Goff contest scores have been corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Broncos-Raiders tomorrow night feels like an anti-climax to this contest.

Anyway ghost entry would been in the 230s - need to be less speculative with my WRs - at least in terms of all of them being speculative.

-QG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BillyJoeBob said:

Currently in 2nd overall (http://calcomatic.com/EntryLive/101275) with nobody left on Monday night.  Gonna be a good finish, but cant win it all.

Good luck to those still in contention.

Love this contest.

Congrats man.  Great run.  I only saw one guy with a chance to pass you and didn't think it was likely IMO.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think I need to rename my team "The Steelers" -- averaged 200 pts/week for the first 14 weeks of the contest and was in 12th place after the first week of the finals. Scored an awful 150 last week (my lowest score of the year) with only 140 plus Cook -9.4 left this week. That noise you hear in the background is 27 guys on my team choking.

Edited by apalmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s big time, those of you in top 5. Looks like I’ll be top 30, maybe top 25. Can’t imagine there’s much movement from tonight’s game. 

Pretty cool feeing to be in the top 1% of this whole thing. Wish the prize was a little more though! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, houston said:

That’s big time, those of you in top 5. Looks like I’ll be top 30, maybe top 25. Can’t imagine there’s much movement from tonight’s game. 

Pretty cool feeing to be in the top 1% of this whole thing. Wish the prize was a little more though! 

No kidding! I finished #10 a few years back and started looking through the rules to see how much of that $35,000.00 I had won. Wait, what?? $75 for finishing 10th :shock:???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, mcd said:

No kidding! I finished #10 a few years back and started looking through the rules to see how much of that $35,000.00 I had won. Wait, what?? $75 for finishing 10th :shock:???

That’s why playing it safe doesn’t pay off

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

That’s why playing it safe doesn’t pay off

Got that right.....figured this out after I finished top 100 two of three years a few years back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maggot Brain said:

Got that right.....figured this out after I finished top 100 two of three years a few years back

That’s why I’ve been a 2 an proponent in most years. Chose right and use those $ elsewhere. One of the top 5 guys took a zero at the this week. Ouch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, strawb said:

Finished #109.  Fun year!

http://calcomatic.com/EntryLive/108973

 

 

I finished right behind you at #111.  Definitely a fun year, albeit a disappointing final three weeks.  Connor/Gurley injuries hurt my chances, plus my year-long weakness at WR/TE besides Nuk.

http://calcomatic.com/EntryLive/103125

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just snuck into the winner list at 144. terrible week 16. 

 

super fun. I'm just happy to have something to participate in weekly! congrats to all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

193rd.

After a decade of doing this, I made the playoffs (top .1 percent just to get in,) for the first time ever, and still didn't cash. Conner carried me, played zero snaps, and here I am, a loser again. So tired of this hobby... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2018 at 9:10 AM, apalmer said:

Think I need to rename my team "The Steelers" -- averaged 200 pts/week for the first 14 weeks of the contest and was in 12th place after the first week of the finals. Scored an awful 150 last week (my lowest score of the year) with only 140 plus Cook -9.4 left this week. That noise you hear in the background is 27 guys on my team choking.

Your own fault for letting Mike Tomlin coach your entry.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry been away for holidays.... so, now that this rat race is over, what have we learned??

Roster size critical?  Maybe not as much as we thought during season...

Value Players Critical?  Well, players like James Connor & Patrick Mahone’s were, but could others have “offered quality replacement”?  Not to the same value IMO.

Avoiding Injury? Absolutely important but not in your control.  Fate will hit you when destined!  

Depth of “Hits”?  This might be the single most difficult item to qualify but it separates the winners from “those who tried”.... like me!

 

Congrats to all who made it to the finals!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Birdie048 said:

Roster size critical

This is my biggest takeaway.  I always fluctuate between a small roster and a large roster before they lock and always settle on the large roster.  My thinking has always been that the larger roster gives you a better chance to make the finals and once there anything can happen.  Well, that's never worked as I have never made the finals (missed this year by a few points during the cut to 250)... so next year I'm going to have at most 20 people and shooting for 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Steeler said:

This is my biggest takeaway.  I always fluctuate between a small roster and a large roster before they lock and always settle on the large roster.  My thinking has always been that the larger roster gives you a better chance to make the finals and once there anything can happen.  Well, that's never worked as I have never made the finals (missed this year by a few points during the cut to 250)... so next year I'm going to have at most 20 people and shooting for 18.

Please do and convince 12000 others to do the same

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steeler said:

I have never made the finals

Most people don't.  Only a small percentage of entries makes it to the finals, it's really hard to do.  And of all the takeaways from a decade+ of picking apart the contest on this forum, the one thing that is true every single year is that larger rosters survive at a much higher rate than small rosters.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ignoratio Elenchi said:

the one thing that is true every single year is that larger rosters survive at a much higher rate than small rosters.  

What is the make-up of teams that finish in the top 10? 

I always wanted to survive as long as possible, especially since I started running the calcomatic, but missing the final 250 in week 13 by a couple points sucked pretty bad :lol:  I figured the smaller rosters have a better chance to win if you get to the 250 so why not go that route since the larger rosters have only had netted me getting eliminated later in the season with little hope of winning anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steeler said:

What is the make-up of teams that finish in the top 10? 

I always wanted to survive as long as possible, especially since I started running the calcomatic, but missing the final 250 in week 13 by a couple points sucked pretty bad :lol:  I figured the smaller rosters have a better chance to win if you get to the 250 so why not go that route since the larger rosters have only had netted me getting eliminated later in the season with little hope of winning anyway.

I don't have the data handy on top 10.  The theory of course is that smaller rosters that do make the finals are more well-suited to finish at the top of the standings, but I'm not sure the data bear that out.  I was just pointing out that if your goal is to make the final 250, larger rosters have always done better than small rosters, that's always been true in theory and in the actual results.  I understand the argument you're making, I just don't agree with it as a strategy (but I think that's mostly a matter of opinion, not that one is "right" and the other "wrong"). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Steeler said:

What is the make-up of teams that finish in the top 10? 

I always wanted to survive as long as possible, especially since I started running the calcomatic, but missing the final 250 in week 13 by a couple points sucked pretty bad :lol:  I figured the smaller rosters have a better chance to win if you get to the 250 so why not go that route since the larger rosters have only had netted me getting eliminated later in the season with little hope of winning anyway.

Please don't quote and I'll delete this later.  18, 23, 23, 27, 30, 27, 20, 18, 24, 24.  Pretty close to the distribution in the finals?  Strange finish to the year.  Conner being a stud most of the year and then sitting out the playoff weeks flipped things upside down.  I hope more people switch to smaller lineups.  It was much easier to survive and place when 80% of the rosters were 18 players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2018 at 5:20 PM, Steeler said:

What is the make-up of teams that finish in the top 10? 

I always wanted to survive as long as possible, especially since I started running the calcomatic, but missing the final 250 in week 13 by a couple points sucked pretty bad :lol:  I figured the smaller rosters have a better chance to win if you get to the 250 so why not go that route since the larger rosters have only had netted me getting eliminated later in the season with little hope of winning anyway.

Decided to dig back the last 5 years and answer this for you.  It's the least I can do for your time with the calcomatic!

Top 10 finishers, with amounts of players:

2018 - 18, 22, 23, 27, 30, 27, 20, 18, 24, 24 - average is 23.3 (3 QB's, 6.4 RB's, 6.2 WR's, 2.8 TE's, 2.6 K's, and 2.4 D's)

2017 - 23, 23, 30, 20, 22, 25, 21, 30, 23, 25 - average is 24.2 (2.7 QB's, 6.6 RB's, 7 WR's, 2.8 TE's, 2.5 K's, and 2.6 D's)

2016 - 18, 28, 21, 20, 25, 25, 23, 21, 27, 30 - average is 23.8 (3 QB's, 6.2 RB's, 6.8 WR's, 3.1 TE's, 2.3 K's, and 2.4 D's)

2015 - 28, 26, 29, 27, 24, 30, 24, 29, 20, 28 - average is 26.5 (3.7 QB's, 6.1 RB's, 7.3 WR's, 4 TE's, 2.6 K's, and 2.8 D's)

2014 - 24, 27, 18, 24, 22, 18, 20, 21, 20, 20 - average is 21.4 (2.5 QB's, 5.1 RB's, 6.9 WR's, 2.8 TE's, 2 K's, and 2.1 D's)

Overall 5 yr average is 23.8 (3 QB's, 6.1 RB's, 6.8 WR's, 3.1 TE's, 2.4 K's, and 2.5 D's)

Observations

- If you consider 18-21 small, 22-26 medium, and 27-30 large, it's very even (16 small, 19 medium, and 15 large)

- 2014 & 2015 were the extremes; the last 3 years have been very even

- In the last 3 years, 3 teams had 18, 4 teams had 30 

- In the last 3 years, every team had 2-4 QB's

- In the last 3 years, every team but 1 had 2-4 TE's (the 1 outlier had 5, and a 30-player roster)

- In the last 3 years, every team but 1 had 2-3 K's (the 1 outlier had 4, and a 27-player roster)

- In the last 3 years, every team but 1 had 2-3 D's (the 1 outlier had 4, and a 30-player roster)

Final thought - Since smaller rosters are way more common than larger rosters, the math says larger rosters are the way to go, and can have the firepower to take it all.

 

Once again, thanx for all you do with the calcomatic, Steeler.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TheWinz said:

Decided to dig back the last 5 years and answer this for you.  It's the least I can do for your time with the calcomatic!

Top 10 finishers, with amounts of players:

2018 - 18, 22, 23, 27, 30, 27, 20, 18, 24, 24 - average is 23.3 (3 QB's, 6.4 RB's, 6.2 WR's, 2.8 TE's, 2.6 K's, and 2.4 D's)

2017 - 23, 23, 30, 20, 22, 25, 21, 30, 23, 25 - average is 24.2 (2.7 QB's, 6.6 RB's, 7 WR's, 2.8 TE's, 2.5 K's, and 2.6 D's)

2016 - 18, 28, 21, 20, 25, 25, 23, 21, 27, 30 - average is 23.8 (3 QB's, 6.2 RB's, 6.8 WR's, 3.1 TE's, 2.3 K's, and 2.4 D's)

2015 - 28, 26, 29, 27, 24, 30, 24, 29, 20, 28 - average is 26.5 (3.7 QB's, 6.1 RB's, 7.3 WR's, 4 TE's, 2.6 K's, and 2.8 D's)

2014 - 24, 27, 18, 24, 22, 18, 20, 21, 20, 20 - average is 21.4 (2.5 QB's, 5.1 RB's, 6.9 WR's, 2.8 TE's, 2 K's, and 2.1 D's)

Overall 5 yr average is 23.8 (3 QB's, 6.1 RB's, 6.8 WR's, 3.1 TE's, 2.4 K's, and 2.5 D's)

Observations

- If you consider 18-21 small, 22-26 medium, and 27-30 large, it's very even (16 small, 19 medium, and 15 large)

- 2014 & 2015 were the extremes; the last 3 years have been very even

- In the last 3 years, 3 teams had 18, 4 teams had 30 

- In the last 3 years, every team had 2-4 QB's

- In the last 3 years, every team but 1 had 2-4 TE's (the 1 outlier had 5, and a 30-player roster)

- In the last 3 years, every team but 1 had 2-3 K's (the 1 outlier had 4, and a 27-player roster)

- In the last 3 years, every team but 1 had 2-3 D's (the 1 outlier had 4, and a 30-player roster)

Final thought - Since smaller rosters are way more common than larger rosters, the math says larger rosters are the way to go, and can have the firepower to take it all.

 

Once again, thanx for all you do with the calcomatic, Steeler.

Based on your post, more teams in the top 10 were small teams.  You said smaller rosters are more common, so the math says larger rosters are the way to go. 

Based on2018, it seems a smaller roster is the way to go 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chocula said:

Based on your post, more teams in the top 10 were small teams.  You said smaller rosters are more common, so the math says larger rosters are the way to go. 

Based on2018, it seems a smaller roster is the way to go 

I read it as more teams being medium teams (avg roster size of 23.3, 24.2 and 23.8 over the past 3 years. Am I misreading that?

 

this is great info, btw, Winz. Thanks for that useful info!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, chocula said:

Based on your post, more teams in the top 10 were small teams.  You said smaller rosters are more common, so the math says larger rosters are the way to go. 

Based on2018, it seems a smaller roster is the way to go 

Wrong.  In 2018, here were the number of submissions for each roster size: 18 (4051), 19 (1741), 20 (1390), 21 (1189), 22 (1104), 23 (1008), 24 (895), 25 (785), 26 (670), 27 (562), 28 (470), 29 (440), 30 (810)

That's a total of 8371 small, 4462 medium, and 2282 large

The top 10 were 18, 18, 20 (3 small), 22, 23, 24, 24 (4 medium), 27, 27, 30 (3 large)

So, when you consider there were nearly 4 times as many small submissions as large ones, yet large submissions kept pace, it favors large submissions.

Take a minute to digest this...  Out of the 15,115 submissions, 4051 were 18-player rosters.  That was 27% of all submissions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TheWinz said:

Wrong.  In 2018, here were the number of submissions for each roster size: 18 (4051), 19 (1741), 20 (1390), 21 (1189), 22 (1104), 23 (1008), 24 (895), 25 (785), 26 (670), 27 (562), 28 (470), 29 (440), 30 (810)

That's a total of 8371 small, 4462 medium, and 2282 large

The top 10 were 18, 18, 20 (3 small), 22, 23, 24, 24 (4 medium), 27, 27, 30 (3 large)

So, when you consider there were nearly 4 times as many small submissions as large ones, yet large submissions kept pace, it favors large submissions.

Take a minute to digest this...  Out of the 15,115 submissions, 4051 were 18-player rosters.  That was 27% of all submissions.

The overall percentage of surviving Large teams vs the Small teams is the key. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Birdie048 said:

The overall percentage of surviving Large teams vs the Small teams is the key. 

Correct, Sir.  I expect more larger submissions as the years progress, but am hoping for more smaller rosters.  Hopefully many people see that 2018's winner only had 18, and don't actually look at the results and realize that 1 RB, who had an overall disappointing season, was the key to his win.  For me, I will stick to larger rosters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TheWinz said:

Correct, Sir.  I expect more larger submissions as the years progress, but am hoping for more smaller rosters.  Hopefully many people see that 2018's winner only had 18, and don't actually look at the results and realize that 1 RB, who had an overall disappointing season, was the key to his win.  For me, I will stick to larger rosters.

Please drop this route and post more about how the winner had 18 and that's the best way to go.  Maybe find some stats on how 8 kickers is a shark approach.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

Please drop this route and post more about how the winner had 18 and that's the best way to go.  Maybe find some stats on how 8 kickers is a shark approach.

 

You don’t have to worry about me. My challenge (being just over 50) is simply remembering that I learned some useful info here by the time next year's contest rolls around. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, joey said:

 

You don’t have to worry about me. My challenge (being just over 50) is simply remembering that I learned some useful info here by the time next year's contest rolls around. 

Wait...there was contest this year?  What are you talking about, kid?

(asks the even older guy)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.