Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

SSOG

Staff
  • Content Count

    12,376
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SSOG

  1. Has he won anything of significance since the Patriots were caught cheating?

    Not if you define "anything of significance" as "anything the Patriots lost". He's got two SB appearances, 3 AFCCG appearances, and the first 16-0 team in history. We can argue about whether those are as significant as a SB championship, but you can't argue they aren't significant.
  2. BB is a tremendous coach, with or without spygate, but he looks like he's 'lost his fastball'..as a Giants' fan,I've appreciated his defenses, and he even made the Jets look good..his run with the Pats is one of, if not the best head coaching runs of all time..the amount of games he has won is staggering..

    I understand about the weak schedule and the 6 games/yr against subpar teams in the AFC East, and that is a big part of his success, but you have beat who is on your schedule..

    isn't the def coordinator Matt Patricia to blame for the weak secondary play of the Pats? isn't he the guy to blame for the lack of in-game adjustments? who gets the blame for the lack of pass rusher? ( why'd he trade away Seymour?)..Giants secondary wasn't the strong point of the defense,it was the defensive line, capable of sacking and disrupting any offense..a line like that enables the secondary to better do its job... a sack-happy line limits the amount of time the opposing QB's have to throw the ball..you get more hurry-up passing, chances for more ints, more sacks usually means more 3rd and long,etc..Pats don't have a physical front 7..they were second in the league in sacks in 2007,in the 5 years since then,they haven't finished better than 14th. so they're not getting after opposing QB's..

    Phil Simms alluded to the big problem with the hurry-up offense the Pats are so fond of: it wears out a defense, but it also wears out your own offensive line..I think Indy was the only team to win a SB that featured a true hurry-up, no huddle offense..Hurry-up offense also doesn't allow much time for your defense to rest,so they become tired late in games..

    but perhaps certain teams just matchup well against NE, physical teams like SF, NYG, Baltimore, etc..perhaps others have just watched a lot of video on the Pats and have copied what has been successful against them in the past..:shrug:

    the dink-n-dunk screen pass ,bunch formation shenanigans are getting old and they lack new offensive creativity, they truly lack a speed demon WR on the outside( Sorry , Brandon Lloyd is an also-ran, second rate WR as evidenced by his 74-911-4 2012 season), and the oft-injured Gronkowski has once again killed them in the post-season..

    Fire Patricia, hire Crennel ( too bad they missed the boat on Ray Horton), and I'd probably drop Joshy McDaniels and his one-trick pony bunch formation screen pass to Welker offense, for a Greg Roman type OC, i.e., a highly skilled coordinator with fantastic in-game adjustments and amazingly new offensive schemes..I think the Pats offense has become stale..or worse, frumpy. :P

    Indy ran a no-huddle, but not a hurry-up. Peyton milked every play clock all the way down making calls at the line.

    Josh McDaniels and his "one trick pony" offense owns pretty much every offensive record worth owning, including setting the record this year for first downs (by a pretty decent amount, iirc). It also led the league in scoring by a sizeable margin. Not bad for a stale, frumpy offense.

  3. It's a real shame how infrequently Paul Brown's name has come up in this thread. Forget the wins (5th all time), winning percentage (12th), and games above .500 (3rd behind Shula and the as-of-yet-unmentioned Halas). Forget about the 10 straight championship game appearances and 7 championships in 10 years. All those feats are slightly diluted by the competition level in the AAFC (pathetic) and the size of the NFL (12 teams means a sixth of the league makes the championship every year). Talking strictly about his influence on the game, he is possibly the greatest innovator in NFL history. He essentially invent the concept of pass blocking and a pocket- prior to Brown, teams blocked passing plays like they blocked running plays, with each lineman being assigned a defender and told to physically dominate him. He invented the draw play. Most importantly, pretty much every organizational aspect of modern football teams is owed to Brown, from the heirarchy and delegation among assistants to practice schedules to the way teams study and prepare. Oh yeah, his coaching tree ain't half bad, either. Don Shula, Chuck Noll, and Bill Walsh, just for starters.

  4. Curious what everyone's doing with guys like Rice, Mccoy, Chris Johnson - Is Chris Johnson worth dealing for say a David Wilson?

    I have Pierce as well as Rice, and plan on riding Ray Rice into the ground. When that times comes, I'll have his replacement ready.
    McCoy is like 24 and Rice turned 26 yesterday. I guess that's old now. Doug Martin is 24 BTW.
    rice: 1600 touchesmartin: 300 touchesthey are the same to you?
    A few pages back, we had a discussion on how much workload matters when projecting decline (spoilers: little to nothing). You can read the discussion and draw your own conclusions if you like- it starts right here.
  5. Oh, I guess you did say next. So you can take credit for non-PPR. But I still think it was close.

    Of course it was close. It was always going to be close. I agreed at the time that I expected Wayne and VJax to score comparable points going forward, with Wayne having a slight edge in the short term (2009 and 2010) while Jackson would pull away later (2011 and 2012). I talked a lot about exit value, saying even if Wayne and VJax scored identically over the next 3 years (and they did, with VJax getting the edge in PPG but missing 11 games to holdout), at the end of that 3 year span, one of those guys would be 30 and the other would be 34 and they'd both be coming off of a comparably productive 3-year stretch.I agree that it's surprising how highly Wayne is still valued (and equally surprising how low VJax is valued). With that said, I wouldn't touch Wayne in a dynasty, while I'd still be grabbing VJax wherever I could.
  6. Serious challenge: I want to hear some reasons from everyone else why VJax shouldn't be the #4 dynasty WR going forward. Who would you all rank #4 instead?

    I would expect Reggie Wayne to score more points this year, next year, and the year after.
    Wayne's only topped double-digit TDs twice (12 and 10). He's only topped 1200 yards three times (1210, 1310, 1510). Wayne's 12 TD season came in Manning's 800-TD year. He's got an incredibly high floor, and he might manage to top VJax this year, but no way does he top VJax in each of the next 3 seasons. In fact, I'd bet on VJax to top him in 2 of the next 3 seasons. After that, the fact that Jackson is 4 years younger, has radically more potential, and is more talented as of today gives him the edge for me.
    :goodposting:

    Sorry, discussion in the dynasty buy low thread inspired me to go back and revisit the Great VJax Debate of Aught Nine.

    Wayne outscored V Jax in 2010 and 2012 in PPR leagues.
    The original debate spanned several pages and several weeks, but I did specify that I was only talking about non-PPR.
  7. Serious challenge: I want to hear some reasons from everyone else why VJax shouldn't be the #4 dynasty WR going forward. Who would you all rank #4 instead?

    I would expect Reggie Wayne to score more points this year, next year, and the year after.
    Wayne's only topped double-digit TDs twice (12 and 10). He's only topped 1200 yards three times (1210, 1310, 1510). Wayne's 12 TD season came in Manning's 800-TD year. He's got an incredibly high floor, and he might manage to top VJax this year, but no way does he top VJax in each of the next 3 seasons. In fact, I'd bet on VJax to top him in 2 of the next 3 seasons. After that, the fact that Jackson is 4 years younger, has radically more potential, and is more talented as of today gives him the edge for me.
    :goodposting:

    Sorry, discussion in the dynasty buy low thread inspired me to go back and revisit the Great VJax Debate of Aught Nine.

  8. I understand that you feel that way, but we're naturally biased towards overconfidence in our own beliefs. For instance, you talk about only doing it for guy's you're "99% certain about", but I guarantee you that your success rate on guys you're "99% certain about" is a lot less than 99%. Hell, Reggie Bush was once one of your 99% guys, and you haven't made 99 more correct calls since then to offset that miss. Stewart's another example. I know, unprecedented situation, unanticipated circumstances, no way you could have predicted it. I agree, I'm just pointing out there are a lot of ways for a pick to go wrong even if you nail the talent evaluation. I can't even list all of them, because some of them are undoubtedly "unanticipated" or "unprecedented".

    The reality is even "sure things" like Richardson are maybe 75% plays at best. Even if you're extremely confident in him, his EV will never be double Peterson's. his upside is, sure, but not his EV. I think his upside makes him worth the risk, and I'd trade Peterson for him in a heartbeat, but I also temper my rankings enough that I don't think the gap is all that colossal. Richardson is a top 5 pick, but I've still got Peterson in the top 15.

    By and large, I've almost never regretted it when I made a big preemptive move to get a top young talent before his value really blew up. I've actually made a lot of my best picks that way over the years. These are my five most recent startup drafts:

    2008 - Calvin Johnson with the 19th pick. http://football4.myfantasyleague.com/2008/options?L=60795&O=17

    2009 - Hakeem Nicks at 5.06 and Percy Harvin at 6.01. http://football22.myfantasyleague.com/2009/options?L=13679&O=17&DISPLAY=CONFERENCE01

    2009 - Trent Richardson with the 73rd pick. Andrew Luck with the 152nd pick. http://football15.myfantasyleague.com/2009/options?L=42903&O=17

    2010 - Demaryius Thomas with the 39th pick. http://football4.myfantasyleague.com/2010/options?L=74815&O=17

    2012 - Doug Martin with the 64th pick. http://football27.myfantasyleague.com/2011/options?L=74696&O=17

    There are some duds in there too and some mediocre picks, but there would be busts even if I had only been drafting established veterans. Some times those guys inexplicably fall off a cliff too (as any Fitzgerald owner could tell you). The fact that Reggie Bush and Jonathan Stewart are used as the worst case scenario examples actually indicates why this strategy can be so solid. I took Bush at 1.03 in one league before he was drafted and while some of the other players taken in that round have clearly outshined him since then, he has given me quite a few good ppg seasons over the years and is still on my roster after all this time. And that's a guy who has definitely not lived up to his billing. I took Stewart high in a couple league and he's been a disappointment, but there's still plenty of time for him to repay my faith and he's sustained pretty decent trade value throughout his whole career even if the production hasn't warranted it.

    I am not saying that I always get it right, but in general when I have an extremely high level of confidence in a draft prospect or young player, it's pretty rare that he becomes a major disappointment. One of the only reliable ways to acquire top talent at reasonable prices in dynasty leagues is to pounce before the player reveals the extent of his talent to the entire FF community. The fact that some owners need to wait and see before they make a big investment in a prospect is really exploitable IF you are able to consistently make good calls about which prospects are legit. I have some leaks as an FF player, but overconfidence in draft prospects or unproven young players is actually not something that has been a big problem in my drafts in recent years. In fact, getting in early on guys like Martin, Thomas, and Harvin is almost the sole reason why some of my teams have been competitive.

    We aren't talking about acquiring young talent at a reasonable price, though. We're talking about taking Richardson in the top 5. I think he's worth it, but it's not like you're getting him on the cheap. I'm a huge fan of spending 3rd or 4th round startup picks on "unproven" players, but the top 5 is a different animal.
  9. I am guessing this is part of why SSOG has Rice so high relative to Peterson because of the PPR. In non PPR Peterson has a 3-6 PPG advantage over every other RB because of the yardage that is otherwise mitigated by the 20-30 more receptions.

    I actually don't play ppr. I'd even go so far as to say I am hugely ANTI-ppr. I do play yardage-heavy, though. I don't have Rice "so high" relative to Peterson, I have him a couple of spots ahead. This year was an outlier, but Rice usually scores just a hair behind Peterson- close enough for the 2 year age difference to come into play.
  10. Sometimes the % play is not the correct play, sometimes you just have to trust your eyes and your gut. If you always do, yeah, you'll get into trouble, but if I feel that strongly about something I would rather be wrong with the player on my team than wrong with him dominating on someone else's.

    Of course sometimes the percentage play is not the correct play. Sometimes in poker, the best thing you could have possibly done was fold those pocket rockets pre-flop, because the other guy was destined to hit that inside straight draw. The term "percentage play" makes it pretty explicit that it's no guarantee. Of course, as any poker player will tell you, playing the percentages is the only way to win in the long run. Sure, sometimes you might want to just take a shot, but if you stray too far from the percentage plays, you'll soon find yourself broke. To translate into dynasty terms... you might love Crabtree, but you don't draft him in the first of a startup. You might be totally convinced on Richardson, but you don't trade two Adrian Peterson's worth of value to acquire him. Years from now, it might turn out that those two moves were, in fact, the right ones... but the percentages say you're better off playing it straight and just making a steady string of good, sound decisions.Edit: actually, that's one of the biggest rules of roster construction- don't be a hero. You're better off hitting a long string of singles than going for a single home run.
  11. When I've talked about this stuff, I've always acknowledged that there's risk. That's why I really only recommend this kind of deal when you're 99% certain about what you're getting. I've also pointed out on numerous occasions that the risk of getting a bust or disappointment is offset by the upside of getting a longer career. If you're right about Peterson, you get 3-4 years max of great production. If you're right about Richardson, you potentially get 6-10 years of great production. This illustrates why a team that is able to consistently identify the right young players to target can accumulate such a staggering amount of value. If you're always taking the young player and you're always right about your calls, you're going to crush a risk-averse team that plays it safe and pays full price for players who are 50-75% through their prime. The flipside is that if you're consistently wrong about your calls, you're going to get dominated by those same risk-averse teams. Managing a dynasty team is an endless series of decisions that test your ability to assess player value. The reason that I favor the Richardson side of the Richardson/Peterson debate is precisely because I'm completely sold on the player in question. Right or wrong, my personal opinion is that Richardson isn't Reggie Bush or Charles Rogers. You might not believe that Trent Richardson is a superstar, but anyone would have to concede that a 21 year old superstar is worth more than a 27 year old superstar. The general principles are beyond refutation even if people disagree about a specific application.

    I understand that you feel that way, but we're naturally biased towards overconfidence in our own beliefs. For instance, you talk about only doing it for guy's you're "99% certain about", but I guarantee you that your success rate on guys you're "99% certain about" is a lot less than 99%. Hell, Reggie Bush was once one of your 99% guys, and you haven't made 99 more correct calls since then to offset that miss. Stewart's another example. I know, unprecedented situation, unanticipated circumstances, no way you could have predicted it. I agree, I'm just pointing out there are a lot of ways for a pick to go wrong even if you nail the talent evaluation. I can't even list all of them, because some of them are undoubtedly "unanticipated" or "unprecedented". The reality is even "sure things" like Richardson are maybe 75% plays at best. Even if you're extremely confident in him, his EV will never be double Peterson's. his upside is, sure, but not his EV. I think his upside makes him worth the risk, and I'd trade Peterson for him in a heartbeat, but I also temper my rankings enough that I don't think the gap is all that colossal. Richardson is a top 5 pick, but I've still got Peterson in the top 15.
  12. You keep bringing up Tomlinson vs. Peterson. That's great. People who traded Tomlinson straight up for Peterson are no doubt thrilled. How about you ask the guys who traded Tomlinson for Reggie Bush. Or the guys who swapped Harrison, Moss, or Owens for Charles Rodgers. Again, I agree with you that there's no way I'd take Peterson in the top 5. I just think your cherry picked examples are absurd and non-representative of the full range of possible outcomes here.

  13. This team has gone 63-28-2 over six seasons making the playoffs every year, the championship game three times and winning it twice. No wheeling and dealing, no amassing picks, no searching for "value." Just drafting best player available.

    In other words, your team wins because you consistently find value in the draft. You don't need to make a lot of trades if your team crushes it every year in the draft. Likewise, you don't need to make any draft picks if you're constantly crushing it every year in trades and waivers. Doesn't change the fact that building a winning team is mainly a matter of accumulating value.
    So we're at the point where your definition of "value" is anything that works. :rolleyes:
    I'm not changing the definitions. There are really only two kinds of value that we need to worry about.Functional Value - The actual advantage that a player gives you. The kind of thing that VBD attempts to quantify. Trade Value - The trade value that a player carries. When you say that you win because you consistently draft the best player available, it's just another way of saying that you excel at finding players with a high functional value. When I say that winning is all about value, it's because teams win games by having players with a high functional value and by acquiring players with a high trade value that they can then convert into functional value. Functional value is the only thing that actually impacts the box scores, but trade value is one of the primary means by which you acquire functional value. This is where the "pretty roster" critics really have a blind spot. A good owner doesn't acquire a pretty roster because he likes the way it looks on paper. He does so because he knows that having the most total trade value on his roster gives him the flexibility to build whatever team that he desires.
    The problem is that trade value only matters when you convert it into functional value. If you don't do that, the trade value was completely meaningless. And typically the people with pretty rosters aren't all that interested in cashing in on the trade value of their assets, because they believe the trade value is commensurate to the functional value, and no advantage is to be gained by making the trade. It's like buying a house, or investing in a 401k. It doesn't matter what happens to it's "perceived value" 99% of the time. All that matters is what it cost when you bought it, what it was worth when you sold it, and what actual value it provided to you in between. Or, in other words, it doesn't matter whether Trent Richardson's trade value is higher than Peterson's, since no one is trading Trent Richardson. The fact that his trade value will be higher 3 years from now is only relevant if I plan on trading him in 3 years. If he lives up to the hype, then I won't feel like trading him. If he doesn't live up to the hype, then his trade value won't be off the charts, anyway. That's the problem with factoring trade value into rankings. Most of the players being ranked highly won't get traded while they are ranked highly.
  14. Peterson

    Richardson

    Rice

    McCoy

    Martin

    Spiller

    Foster

    Lynch

    Charles

    Morris

    :unsure:
    Perhaps he is one of those Dynasty owners that you call "short sighted" who looks at a 2-3 year timeline and is more concerned with winning in the next couple years rather than having the prettiest team in his league.

    I can't remember specifically Chris Wesseling's Dynasty philosopy, but the above would be an indication that it is more shorter term (2-3 years) than longer term (3-5+ years).

    Wesseling doesn't really focus on windows. He focuses on difference makers and talent, but he gets far more heat for overvaluing rooks than he does for overvaluing vets. Peterson, Calvin, Luck, Griffin, and others of their ilk have all debuted in the top 5 of his positional rankings before ever playing a down.

    With that said, I'm with EBF on this one. I own Peterson, and in my eyes, he's arguably the third most valuable RB on my own team (Rice, Charles).

  15. Wesseling threw some quick rankings up on Twitter. RodgersLuckCamBreesGriffinStaffordRyanBradyKaepWilsonPetersonRichardsonRiceMcCoyMartinSpillerFosterLynchCharlesMorrisCalvinGreenDezJulioDemaryiusHarvinFitzCruzMarshallCrabtreeNicksCobbGronkGrahamHernandezCrapshootHe also said the backs from Rice to Foster were "pretty much interchangeable", that Griffin would be #1 or 2 if not for the knee injury, and that Charles was lower before Reid arrived in KC.

  16. Buy or sell: Kaepernick top 5?He went in the 3rd in a start-up I'm in; 1 pick after Newton and before RG3, Ryan, and Stafford.

    This is a fascinating question. On one hand, that Green Bay performance was a dominating, spectacular fantasy performance. But I wonder just how much Kaepernick will need to have those games next year. SF has a good defense and a good offensive line. While we all agree that Kaepernick is a fine talent, it occurs to me that SF can win a lot of games next year without anything spectacular from Kaepernick.
    I think it comes down to talent. If Kaepernick is a future top talent at QB in the NFL, the 49ers will lean on him for more production. They'll be forced to; the team will likely get worse around him, especially once they are forced to commit a good deal of money to their young talented QB. He is in a situation like Big Ben was years ago; solid young QB not forced to carry his team. Eventually, they were forced to lean on him and did.
    Forced has nothing to do with it. If Kaep is the goods, his team will lean on him whether they're forced to or not. They'll do it because doing so gives them their best chance of winning.
  17. Buy or sell: Kaepernick top 5?He went in the 3rd in a start-up I'm in; 1 pick after Newton and before RG3, Ryan, and Stafford.

    That's clearly a reach any way you slice it. He isn't reasonably in the higher tier with Rodgers, Cam, Luck, RGIII, and Brees. And even if you have him at the top of the next group, he isn't a round plus better than Stafford, Ryan, Wilson, etc.I like the guy, but he didn't put up close to top-5 numbers after taking over. And the 49ers are going to continue to win games by beating opponents into submission with their ground game and defense, regardless of Kaep's development.
    I didn't see this before I started my last post, but it looks like our QB rankings are down-the-line identical. One minor nit, though. In my scoring system, Kaep's ppg average since he took over to the end of the season would have ranked him 10th (nowhere near the top 5). His ppg average including the playoffs, though, would leave him essentially tied with Manning for 5th. Obviously having the second best game in fantasy football history is going to jump your per-game average up a ton.
  18. Buy or sell: Kaepernick top 5?He went in the 3rd in a start-up I'm in; 1 pick after Newton and before RG3, Ryan, and Stafford.

    Sell. The minute his game ended. I offered him straight up for RG3 (haven't heard back yet). I was hoping the Griffin owner would overreact to injury. If this is actually where people are valuing him, though, I might just have to shoot an offer to the Luck and Newton owners, too. I'd offer him for Brees if I didn't already own Brees, and I'd consider offering him for Ryan of I didn't already own Brees (meaning I'm looking for youth, since my starting position is set for the next 3 years). I think Rodgers, Cam, and Griffin are the first tier, Brees and Luck are the second tier, and Kaep is in the third tier with Ryan, Wilson, Brady, maybe Stafford. So somewhere in the 6-10 range.
  19. Good stuff guys, I apologize if my questions are so elementary, but this is groundbreaking stuff (for me, at least). A lot is being said, so to distill/organize this for the more simple minded (me), SSOG and wdcrob, would you say then that the answer to my questions above (now numbered) are:1. Yes, the subject has been adequately tested to conclude with high level of confidence that there is no relationship between number of carries and decline in effectiveness. 2. Yes, even if the relationship in Doug’s (by the way, who is Doug) study holds, that indicated 800 carries = 1 year, it is still true that we should assume that a 26 year old with 1800 carries is equally close to decline (in effectiveness, which is what is most important imo) as a 26 year old with 900 carries (i.e., I am not interpreting what SSOG or Doug is saying correctly about a 1 year difference).3. Yes, if talent is no question, it makes no difference (in a positive way) if a player has 800 fewer carries in any evaluation (i.e., if you own the player, you wouldn’t prefer that your player has very few carries vs. a ton of carries).4. Yes, the fact that CJ Spiller, a wildly talented but previously underused back, has so few carries (and intuitively to some, less wear on his tires) due to non-use is irrelevant (in a positive way) to his overall outlook. Last question:Do you believe (A) that the number of carries over time (not including ridiculous loads like Larry Johnson) does not increase the wear and tear on the player (i.e., number of hits is irrelevant). Or, do you believe (B) that the number of hits does take a toll on players over time but that the lack of predictive value makes looking at number of carries a useless exercise?

    1. No. Again, that's not how statistical analysis works. You never prove that there's no relationship. Hell, you never prove that their IS a relationship, either- when statistical analysis returns a positive result, it's not saying "there is definitely a relationship between these two variables", it's instead saying "it's highly unlikely (but not altogether impossible) that you'd see the results you observed unless there was some sort of relationship between the two variables". The standard threshold for significance is 95%, which is essentially saying "there's only a 1-in-20 chance, based on your observations, that these two variables are unrelated". But even that isn't proof- if you find 20 statistically significant results, on average one of them will have been a false positive. If you flip 100 coins ten times each, at least one of them will come up heads enough times that statistical analysis will say, to a statistically significant degree, that the coin is likely weighted. But the coin isn't weighted, of course- it's just the nature of random events. You'll see results that look meaningful to our pattern-seeking brains, but truly random results will frequently look meaningful when they're not. And even if statistical analysis identifies a meaningful relationship, it offers no insight into the relationship. For instance, one of the biggest predictors of a child's intelligence is how many books could be found in their home growing up (this is a true relationship, by the way). Identifying the relationship is nice, but what does it mean? Do children who are exposed to a lot of books wind up becoming more intelligent (the nurture story)? Or are parents who are intelligent more likely to own books, and parents who are intelligent also more likely to have smart babies (the nature story)? A combination of both? Something else? People who are very rich are actually less likely to be robbed than people who are very poor, but in this case there are multiple variables at work- rich people are more desirable targets (increases their chances), but they have less interaction with potential criminals, live in safer neighborhoods, and have better security systems (decreasing their chances). Sometimes when you have two competing explanations, one factor is stronger and outweighs the other. Other times, both factors cancel each other out returning a "no relationship" result when there is, in fact, a relationship- it's just complicated. So you can never be sure whether a relationship exists (even when statistical analysis suggests it does), or doesn't exist (even when statistical analysis suggests it doesn't). And even if you feel confident that a relationship exists, you can't know the nature of the relationship without running carefully controlled experiments, which is impossible for the casual fantasy owner. In short- statistics is a hard, messy, and largely unsatisfying endeavor. Can I say with certainty that there's no relationship between workload and decline? No, but I've seen enough of the numbers for me to conclude that there's no substantive reason for me to assume that there IS a relationship.2. Statistical analysis tells us two things- what is the nature of the relationship, and how likely is it that the relationship actually exists instead of just being random noise in the numbers. In Doug's study, the answer to the first question was "if the relationship is real, one year is similar to 800 carries". The answer to the second question is "we should not be at all confident that the relationship actually exists instead of just being random noise in the numbers that appears meaningful on cursory examination". 3. Worst case scenario is that there is no relationship between workload and decline. In that case, assuming all else truly is equal, preferring the low-workload player costs you nothing. Best case scenario, there is a relationship, and preferring the low workload player benefits you something. So in this hypothetical- all else truly being equal- favoring the low-workload player is rational. The problem is that all else is never equal, so the question becomes how much you weight workload compared to the other factors. Would you prefer a low-workload back over a comparably talented high-workload back a year younger? Would you prefer a low-workload back over a slightly more talented high-workload back the same age? In both cases, I would not. We aren't comparing CJ Spiller against Bizarro Spiller, who is identical in all ways except he played under Cam Cameron and had a huge workload. We're comparing your Spiller's to your Ray Rices, your Jamaal Charleses to your Marshawn Lynches, and in those comparisons, the relatively light workload is a factor that carries virtually no weight to me. 4. Yes. I love Spiller because he's an unstoppable beast with top 10 pedigree. His workload (or lack thereof) does not play a role- either positive or negative- in my evaluation. Finally, gun to my head, ignoring the stats entirely, I do think that carries cause repetitive wear... BUT, I also think that coaches are generally smart and give carries to backs capable of handling the workload, so that RBs with lots of carries are not more "worn down" than RBs with few carries. If you could somehow create an alternate universe and create a bizarro Stephen Jackson who entered the league at age 26, then sure, I'd think he'd have more left in the tank. But you can't, so for practical purposes, past carries hold little predictive value when estimating future carries.
  20. Here's Lisk trying to answer whether a huge short-term workload is a negative indicator going forward. He sums it up very nicely in the second of those two posts, clearly spelling out what is currently my opinion on workload and its impact on injuries. As for workload and its relationship to a general decline in effectiveness (most likely measured by ypc)... I haven't seen any research on that subject one way or another (although Doug's study partially captures this; future carries serves as a proxy- albeit a poor one- for future effectiveness, because teams rarely give carries to ineffective RBs). But given the very strong and easily observable relationship between age and decline, and the lack of any evidence supporting a relationship between workload and decline, I'd be loathe to blame any drop in effectiveness on workload when there is a much simpler explanation there for the taking.
  21. Disagree with the cancelling out in the evaluation process as it relates to talent.

    A fantastic player’s talent has already fully been taken into account without focusing on carries. Knowing nothing else about a player, sure, we can and probably would use carries as an indicator of talent. But in the real world of fantasy football, we don’t need carries to be an indicator of talent nor do we use it in that way. Its not like we give a fantastic player an additional bump in our talent evaluation because he happens to have a ton of carries.

    As such, any indication of wear that carries provides (and I do believe it can be an indicator) will surpass any use of those same carries as an indicator of talent.

    I'm not saying that we should use previous carries as some sort of scouting proxy. I'm saying that if you look at the numbers, carries are garbage at predicting demise. The correlations are crap. There are several possible reasons why the correlations might be crap- the first is that workload doesn't lead to decline, the second is that there are multiple confounding variables at play that both operate in opposite directions (the theory that I was advancing in my post)- but all speculation about the reasons is beside the larger point. The larger point is that if RB1 is 26 with 1800 career carries, and RB2 is 26 with 900 career carries, we should assume that both RBs are equally close to decline. Past carries, as a variable predicting decline, have virtually no predictive power. Age has a ton of predictive power. Age, not workload, is the statistic we should be looking at when trying to guess how much tread is left on the tires.

    In fact, if the idea that workload leads to decline is really that prevalent, that's a market inefficiency of which we should take advantage. If people are selling guys like Ray Rice for less than he otherwise might command because of concerns over his workload over the years, then I would be happy to make myself a buyer.

    While no study has proven a correlation (tough to do I would think across different players), has there been a study proving no correlation? I haven’t seen one, and I think you are taking a leap in concluding that garbage studies trying to prove correlation means that there is no correlation (you’re not just concluding as your own opinion/guess, but seemingly holding it out as fact).

    I think you are dismissing too quickly any effect on wear and tear that carries has. Take an individual player as an example. Marshawn Lynch, and his bruising running style. While difficult to prove, its not all that hard to conclude (correctly imo) that Marshawn Lynch at 26 years old at 1800 carries has less useful life than he would have had if he only ran the ball 900 times during that span. Hits take a toll (imo).

    The difficulty is that every player takes hits differently, so 900 carries to one may have had as much wear as 1800 to another making it difficult to compare across different players. Does it make carries useless because of that, I don’t think so.

    You haven't seen one, because that's not how statistics works. Statistics always assumes no correlation (the null hypothesis) and then looks at the data to see how likely we would be to observe that data set if the null hypothesis were correct. If you meet certain standards of confidence (typically a 95% threshold, which means there is only a 5% that you would observe numbers like these if there really is no correlation between these two statistics), then you reject the null and assert that there is a relationship between the two statistics. You don't start with a hypothesis that there IS a relationship and then try to disprove it, which is why you never have (and never will) see a study DISPROVING the existence of a relationship between two variables.

    Doug ran a regression once on the pfr blog and did find a negative workload effect. He found that for every one carry a player had in the past, you could expect 0.13 fewer carries in the future. Of course, this effect was dwarfed by the age factor (you'd need 800 more carries to equal one extra year of age). To put that 800 carries into perspective- it's roughly the diffence between Adrian Peterson and Reggie Bush, Fred Jackson, or Ryan Grant. And as for the confidence in that coefficient... the p-value was 0.22, which is the statistical equivalent of a vote of no confidence on the question of whether the two variables are actually even related at all (you need p-values below 0.05 in order to pass most tests of statistical significance). So the regression found a relationship, but it was weak both in terms of the magnitude of the effect and in terms of the actual predictive power of the relationship. Further, the results (a weak negative correlation) are perfectly consistent with what we'd expect to observe if my overall theory on workload (that workload in general is neutral, but extreme workload over a short timeline is bad) were correct.

    Doug also ran another study that I thought was particularly elegant. He gathered together several groups of RBs (all RBs in history with four top-12 finishes, for instance), and then sorted them from lowest to highest workload through age 27. He then compared the 1/3 of the group with the highest workload to the 1/3 of the group with the lowest workload and calculated how many carries the high-workload group had left, and how many the low-workload group had left. In every group, no matter how he massaged the numbers, the high-workload RBs had more carries after age 27 than the low-workload RBs.

    Edit: here's the link: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=69

    The other posts in question should be linked from there.

  22. Disagree with the cancelling out in the evaluation process as it relates to talent. A fantastic player’s talent has already fully been taken into account without focusing on carries. Knowing nothing else about a player, sure, we can and probably would use carries as an indicator of talent. But in the real world of fantasy football, we don’t need carries to be an indicator of talent nor do we use it in that way. Its not like we give a fantastic player an additional bump in our talent evaluation because he happens to have a ton of carries.As such, any indication of wear that carries provides (and I do believe it can be an indicator) will surpass any use of those same carries as an indicator of talent.

    I'm not saying that we should use previous carries as some sort of scouting proxy. I'm saying that if you look at the numbers, carries are garbage at predicting demise. The correlations are crap. There are several possible reasons why the correlations might be crap- the first is that workload doesn't lead to decline, the second is that there are multiple confounding variables at play that both operate in opposite directions (the theory that I was advancing in my post)- but all speculation about the reasons is beside the larger point. The larger point is that if RB1 is 26 with 1800 career carries, and RB2 is 26 with 900 career carries, we should assume that both RBs are equally close to decline. Past carries, as a variable predicting decline, have virtually no predictive power. Age has a ton of predictive power. Age, not workload, is the statistic we should be looking at when trying to guess how much tread is left on the tires.In fact, if the idea that workload leads to decline is really that prevalent, that's a market inefficiency of which we should take advantage. If people are selling guys like Ray Rice for less than he otherwise might command because of concerns over his workload over the years, then I would be happy to make myself a buyer.
  23. Colin Kaepernick made a lot of dynasty owners very happy tonight. I have a feeling in the next round of mocks, his adp is going to creep just a little bit higher. In my scoring system, his game tonight is the second best fantasy game of all time behind only Vick's 6 TD game in 2010. And it would have even edged that if not for the int.

    If you look at all 26 year old backs, the ones most likely to have the most carries left in their career are the ones who had the most carries to that point in their career.

    I'm not sure this supports the idea that backs with lots of mileage aren't prone to breaking down so much as it supports the idea that talented backs tend to get a lot of carries. Who gets the most carries between the ages of 21-25? The elite talents like Peterson, Tomlinson, Johnson, Jackson, and Ricky. Who gets the most carries after that? The same guys. I don't think this proves that there's no effect of mileage so much as it proves that the best players of their age group are likely to still be the best players of their age group 5 years later. And that's not all that surprising or meaningful.
    Sure, there might be confounding variables at play, but the point is... of what value is past workload in determining decline? And the answer is... little to none. On the other hand, past carries are an indication of wear, which is bad. On the other hand, past carries are an indication of talent, which is good. On the net, the two factors offset, meaning workload is useless in pinpointing decline. A guy with a ton of carries is is really worn down, and also at the same time a fantastic enough talent to overcome being worn down, which leaves him with the same value as another RB the same age with half the carries.
  24. Regarding Dynasty Rankings, has anyone been able to see the FBG ones recently? I click the link and it shows nothing for the last 14 days. I click the "here" button to see for the last 28 days and nothing happens.Back to your original programming...

    http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/viewrankings.php?viewpos=rb&type=dynasty&howrecent=90I keep that link bookmarked (the 90 days), because you can always start old and sort to newer rankings, but as you discovered, you often can't start new and sort to older. If you really want to be safe, bookmark the 200 instead of the 90.

    I'm thinking about dealing away Arian Foster, but that's not necessarily the discussion I'd like to start. Once a RB has logged in 2,3,4 or 5 very successful seasons, what are the realistic chances that it's going to happen again the next season? I think a distinction can be made between guys who are other worldly talents, and guys that are just very good. Guys like LT2, ADP, Emmitt Smith and Marshall Faulk were obvious career holds because they were just outrageously talented. I'd prefer to talk about the guys that aren't in that category. i.e 99% of the RBs out there.Here's a quick breakdown on the number of players to reach career carry plateaus in the history of the NFL.4000+ carries. 1 Player. Emmitt Smith3000+ carries. 8 Players2000+ carries. 33 Players1500+ carries. 74 Players.Further clouding this issue than it already is, is looking at a guy like Travis Henry. He's 77th on the career carry list with 1488 carries. From a fantasy perspective almost half those carries are worthless. He had 2 highly productive seasons, and one more decent one. Those three seasons are about half of his career carries though. Just wondering if anybody has thought about this and if there is a respectable formula use as a best guess. Maybe I'm just trying to define something that just can't be defined. I dunno.

    I've largely abandoned a workload-focused mindset over the years. The correlations are just too weak. If you look at all 26 year old backs, the ones most likely to have the most carries left in their career are the ones who had the most carries to that point in their career. I'm agnostic about whether huge workloads in the short term can burn out an RB (The "curse of 370" is based on really poor statistical analysis and should never be mentioned again, but I do believe some crazy seasons like Larry Johnson or Ricky Williams have had can have a deleterious effect on a back). Outside of that one area, though, I'm a believer that it's simple aging, and not the steady accumulation of carries or "mileage", that finally catches up to everyone.
  25. Isn't Antonio Gates something like 3rd all time among NFL TEs in career receiving yards? I agree that if Gronk "just" has that type of career he'll be a great commodity, but projecting a HoF career for any 23 year old is a big stretch. Gronk's numbers are unsustainable over the course of an entire career and he has an alpha dog playing style that will make him a frequent visitor to the injured list. Great talent, but I'll pass in the top 10. I'd rather have one of the top RBs, QBs, or WRs even if the options are deeper at those positions. Gonzo is the best TE in history by a pretty wide margin and he only averaged 891 yards per season. I can't reasonably expect Gronk to exceed or even match that. VBD is a nice tool, but its usefulness hinges on the accuracy of a person's projections. Anyone can make a list and throw out numbers of what a player's career will be worth, but it's pretty much guaranteed that those rankings and numbers will be damn near worthless a year or two later when the whole equation has been thrown into chaos. I think it's valuable to consider longevity potential and expected performance, but FF is quite chaotic and unpredictable. The "consensus top 10" from one season will almost never look the same as it did a year from now. That doesn't mean the whole enterprise of assigning player values is pointless, but I'd suggest that it's more important to separate the frauds from the genuine superstars than it is to obsess over thin differences in VBD derived from projections that aren't wort their weight in toilet paper.

    Projecting a HoF career for a 23 year old who is coming off the best three-season stretch by any TE in history- not the best three years to start a career, but the best three years by any one over any stretch- is not that much of a stretch. He's an all-pro who excelled in year one, absolutely DOMINATED in year 2, and repeated in year 3. As I said, from a strictly physical standpoint, Calvin is the only other guy who is simply physically impossible to cover. He looks like one of those Dominican kids without a birth certificate in the little league World Series. The writers were saying before camp last year that he looked like a man among boys, and that's been true of every game since then. Watching defenses trying to cover him is like watching teams try to cover Moss with a 5'9" CB in the late 90s. While you're right that the consensus top 10 changes a lot from one year to the next, the guys who I want to bet on are the guys who are in their early 20s, already are rewriting the record books, and look like a future top 10 pick playing in the MAC. As for the VBD... Don't focus on specific numbers. Nobody in the NFL, at any position, puts up numbers more standard deviations from the mean than Gronk. VBD is simply a numerical way of recognizing that fact.

    How do folks rank Trent Richardson vs Arian Foster?Upside vs Top 3 production???

    I'm not a Richardson fanboy (again, I'm very concerned about the possibility that the Browns turn him into Stephen Jackson- great player, but not a huge fantasy difference-maker), but give me Richardson. I'm way down on Foster- don't even have him in my top 5. I think the Houston line is showing decline, and regardless of his final numbers, Foster saw a huge decline in effectiveness. Old and on the downslope does not bode well.

    If we assume the worst and RGIII misses all of 2013 season, how does that affect his value? Where would you draft him knowing that he was going to miss the entire season with reconstructive surgery?

    The best time to buy a player is when he's missing a season. It's always been true. The reality is that a missed season, especially with so much career ahead of him, will not hugely impact his long-term fantasy value... But owners always discount future production and overrate present inconvenience, so you can get him for half of what he's worth. You could build quite the contender doing nothing but trading for injured players at a discount. Imagine a squad with Brady, Peterson, Charles, Demaryius, Harvin, and Nicks.
×
×
  • Create New...