GoBears84
Footballguy
This is part 5 in an effort to analyze the predictions from 2006 Projections Dominator as compared to the years final results. So far we’ve looked at kickers (needs to be updated with PPG data) QB's and RB's and WR’s. I still have Team D’s to do, but they should be completed by Wed. I plan on putting the Top 200 together when done to see how it all plays out.
I have the 2006 actual data from this years PD and I'm using standard FBG scoring (4 pts/PTD, 1pt/20 PYD, -1 for INT, 1 pt/10 yds rushing receiving, 6pts/R-R TD). I am also using the 2006 PD projections (projforxx.php where xx is the initials of the expert) dated 9/4/2006.
Please note, the analysis method below is that recommended to me by the statistician at my company. It is different than that recommended by ookook and Prussian. I’m sharing my dataset with them so that they can make their own analysis. I’m happy to share the data with anybody else who would like to see it. Just PM me.
I calculated the Points Per Game (PG) for each TE based on the number of games claimed to have been played in the 2006 actuals file that comes with PD (it's the last column of data).
From there I took TE Projections from Dodds, Henry, Smith, Tremblay and Wood, divided them by 16 and subtracted the predictions from the actuals to get a residual (a measure of how far off the prediction was). Then based on the suggestion of ookook, I squared the residuals.
Because TE’s are limited on the roster, I limited my analysis to the top 36, the top 24, and the bottom 12.
The means of the Points per Game residual from the predictions were:
…………..…………Top 36………Top 24………...25-36
DoddsPG…………...1.29…………..1.41…………...1.03
Henry PG…………...1.48…………...1.62…………...1.17
Smith PG…………...1.68…………...1.76…………...1.53
Tremblay PG……….1.30…………...1.43…………...0.99
Wood PG…………...1.41…………...1.54…………...1.11
The variances were:
…………..…………Top 36………Top 24………...25-36
DoddsPG…………...1.64…………...1.77…………...1.18
Henry PG…………...2.01…………...2.15…………...1.57
Smith PG…………...1.89…………...1.94…………...1.79
Tremblay PG……….1.65…………...1.77…………...1.20
Wood PG…………...1.64…………...1.77…………...1.10
The data analysis comparing the means and the variances suggests that the experts are not statistically different. Though Smith’s means do appear slightly higher than the rest.
Note that the predictions of TE’s 25-36 are nearly 0.5 points per game better than those of the Top-24 TE’s.
Following up on a comment by Chris Smith, I looked at the average number of games played by the top 12, 13-24 and 25-36 (as determined by PPG). The top TE’s played an average of 15.6 games, TE’s 13-24 played an average of 13.6 games and TE’s 25-36 played on average 13.7 games. (This trend was not observed with the WR’s). The only two top TE’s who did not play 16 were Shockey (15) and Watson (13). Of course, there were plenty of TE’s who played 16 who were not top 12.
Keep in mind, like all of the other predictions there is no statistical variance between the experts, though some might appear to be better than others...I'll address this when I'm done with all of the analysis.
Joel
I have the 2006 actual data from this years PD and I'm using standard FBG scoring (4 pts/PTD, 1pt/20 PYD, -1 for INT, 1 pt/10 yds rushing receiving, 6pts/R-R TD). I am also using the 2006 PD projections (projforxx.php where xx is the initials of the expert) dated 9/4/2006.
Please note, the analysis method below is that recommended to me by the statistician at my company. It is different than that recommended by ookook and Prussian. I’m sharing my dataset with them so that they can make their own analysis. I’m happy to share the data with anybody else who would like to see it. Just PM me.
I calculated the Points Per Game (PG) for each TE based on the number of games claimed to have been played in the 2006 actuals file that comes with PD (it's the last column of data).
From there I took TE Projections from Dodds, Henry, Smith, Tremblay and Wood, divided them by 16 and subtracted the predictions from the actuals to get a residual (a measure of how far off the prediction was). Then based on the suggestion of ookook, I squared the residuals.
Because TE’s are limited on the roster, I limited my analysis to the top 36, the top 24, and the bottom 12.
The means of the Points per Game residual from the predictions were:
…………..…………Top 36………Top 24………...25-36
DoddsPG…………...1.29…………..1.41…………...1.03
Henry PG…………...1.48…………...1.62…………...1.17
Smith PG…………...1.68…………...1.76…………...1.53
Tremblay PG……….1.30…………...1.43…………...0.99
Wood PG…………...1.41…………...1.54…………...1.11
The variances were:
…………..…………Top 36………Top 24………...25-36
DoddsPG…………...1.64…………...1.77…………...1.18
Henry PG…………...2.01…………...2.15…………...1.57
Smith PG…………...1.89…………...1.94…………...1.79
Tremblay PG……….1.65…………...1.77…………...1.20
Wood PG…………...1.64…………...1.77…………...1.10
The data analysis comparing the means and the variances suggests that the experts are not statistically different. Though Smith’s means do appear slightly higher than the rest.
Note that the predictions of TE’s 25-36 are nearly 0.5 points per game better than those of the Top-24 TE’s.
Following up on a comment by Chris Smith, I looked at the average number of games played by the top 12, 13-24 and 25-36 (as determined by PPG). The top TE’s played an average of 15.6 games, TE’s 13-24 played an average of 13.6 games and TE’s 25-36 played on average 13.7 games. (This trend was not observed with the WR’s). The only two top TE’s who did not play 16 were Shockey (15) and Watson (13). Of course, there were plenty of TE’s who played 16 who were not top 12.
Keep in mind, like all of the other predictions there is no statistical variance between the experts, though some might appear to be better than others...I'll address this when I'm done with all of the analysis.
Joel
