Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
2008 $35,000 Subscriber Contest (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Makavity
- Start date
Dirty Weasel
Footballguy
The power rankings do take injuries into account. For example, a team with Nugent as their only kicker have a zero power ranking for kicker. Also, teams with only Romo have a QB power ranking of 183, whereas a team with only Delhomme has a power rank of 207. So, yes, the computer formula is taking injuries into account...
Jayrod
Footballguy
This week will be a test, but I think I can pass it.
-I won't miss Warner too bad with Brees & Schaub playing.
-I'm at full strength at RB.
-WR is the real problem. I only have three guys going. Steve Smith
Kevin Walter 
and Nate Washington 
This is the week I'm really missing Nate Burleson.
-I have all three TE's "available", but Shockey may not play much if at all and Utecht/Keller have been very hit or miss (mostly miss)
-I am missing Rackers at kicker leaving only Kasay.
-I am down the Jaguars defense, but still have Seattle and Miami
Like I said, a bit of a test, but my RB's should be good/great and my QB's are solid. As long as Steve Smith doesn't tank and my TE, K & DEF scores aren't super low, I should be OK.
If I make it through this, week 8 I'm almost full strength and then another tough week in week 9. After that I should be solid.
-I won't miss Warner too bad with Brees & Schaub playing.
-I'm at full strength at RB.
-WR is the real problem. I only have three guys going. Steve Smith
Kevin Walter and Nate Washington This is the week I'm really missing Nate Burleson.-I have all three TE's "available", but Shockey may not play much if at all and Utecht/Keller have been very hit or miss (mostly miss)
-I am missing Rackers at kicker leaving only Kasay.
-I am down the Jaguars defense, but still have Seattle and Miami
Like I said, a bit of a test, but my RB's should be good/great and my QB's are solid. As long as Steve Smith doesn't tank and my TE, K & DEF scores aren't super low, I should be OK.
If I make it through this, week 8 I'm almost full strength and then another tough week in week 9. After that I should be solid.
ctriopelle
Footballguy
Dropped to #17 this week with the Romo hit. Time to lean on Cutler this week with Warner on bye!
I actually moved down a bit to the 170s. I thought I would climb a bit with the Romo injury. I is probably because more teams had players on bye this week and I only had 1. I am pretty sure I was out by week 6 the last 2 years, so this is just gravy. We can't all finish in the money.
Marauder
Footballguy
The formula only factors in the top 3 kickers on a team and, although he has 14 kickers, he doesn't have Prater (#1 on top 200 forward) or Carney (#1 on this weeks rankings).
apalmer
Footballguy
With no QB's this week, I dropped to #641. When (if?) I survive, maybe I'll move back up.
Johnny Rock
Footballguy
I take full responsibility for the stupidity of having 3 QB's on the same bye. I obviously have no problem opening up myself to ridicule since I posted that here. But it's silly not to list the players as:Tomlinson/9 $60johnnyrock62000 said:Is it possible to advance with a goose egg at the QB spot?
McNabb
Warner
Ryan
I probably need 5 combined TD's from LT2 and Barber in order to have a chance.
2009 Enhancement Idea:
Bye Weeks listed on the contest page. TIA
The people that spend several hours and a few sleepless nights putting their team together would rather not have bye weeks put on the contest page. Forgetting to consider bye weeks is a good way to thin the herd.I take full responsibility for the stupidity of having 3 QB's on the same bye. I obviously have no problem opening up myself to ridicule since I posted that here. But it's silly not to list the players as:Tomlinson/9 $60johnnyrock62000 said:Is it possible to advance with a goose egg at the QB spot?
McNabb
Warner
Ryan
I probably need 5 combined TD's from LT2 and Barber in order to have a chance.
2009 Enhancement Idea:
Bye Weeks listed on the contest page. TIA
#778 in the power rankings.... not sure what ultimately means, but I guess it is good for now! 
For me, the key will be Ryan Grant and Kellen Winslow, if those two guys take off at the right time, then I'll be doing well, they are not that findable on active rosters, many of their owners have been knocked out, especiallly as a combo (there are still a handful, but I think you get my point, or at least I hope you do )
For me, the key will be Ryan Grant and Kellen Winslow, if those two guys take off at the right time, then I'll be doing well, they are not that findable on active rosters, many of their owners have been knocked out, especiallly as a combo (there are still a handful, but I think you get my point, or at least I hope you do
)BuckeyeArt
Footballguy
Here are the survival rates for various numbers of players chosen at each position (overall rate = 39.60%):
Code:
# of players taken QB TE K D 2 39.67% 43.34% 43.36% 42.63% 3 43.07% 40.41% 39.64% 39.66% 4 30.98% 31.73% 29.66% 27.80% RB WR 4 31.15% 20.91% 5 41.77% 34.55% 6 45.69% 42.80% 7 40.69% 45.63% 8 34.51% 39.83% 9 38.37% 10 30.91%
Good info, BuckeyeArt. I wonder if that will change as more weeks pass.
I'll see if I can ferret out the survival rate for contestants with exactly a 3/6/7/2/2/2 mix.
I'll see if I can ferret out the survival rate for contestants with exactly a 3/6/7/2/2/2 mix.
Kleck
Footballguy
My key is probably Grant as well. I dropped from #10 to #137 in the power rankings in a couple of weeks. My WRs are stacked, but I'll need some huge weeks from them to get me through the rest of the bye weeks if Grant doesn't pick it a bit.#778 in the power rankings.... not sure what ultimately means, but I guess it is good for now!)
49.4%
Dirty Weasel
Footballguy
Doug,As I said in my next post, I enjoy the rankings. Hey, it's just fun comparing teams to other teams, and I thank FBG for posting them. Today I happen to be off work, so I'm just cruising the rankings. I do have a suggestion for the formula for kickers, although the exact math I can't say.
As we all know, kickers (and D's, to a slightly lesser degree) are unlike any other position, so the formula may need to be drastically different for them. The odds of getting a good game from a K/D increase at a much higher rate when considered in bulk vs the skilled positions.
I'll use my MFL league as an example...
Top scoring kickers after 6 weeks are:
Elam - 70
Prater - 66
Nedney - 60
Number of times in the top 5 in a given week:
Elam - 2
Prater - 3
Nedney - 2
Weekly rankings of the top 3 K's:
Elam - 2, 16, 16, 10, 8, 1 (8.8 avg)
Prater - 3, 17, 10, 1, 5, 20 (9.3 avg)
Nedney - 11, 2, 21, 11, 26, 4 (15 avg)
Overall rankings of the K's who have finished top 3 in a given week:
Elam - 1
Prater - 2
Nedney - 3
Akers - 4
Longwell - 5
Kaeding - 6
Carney - 7
Scobee - 9
Suisham - 10
Kasay - 13
Folk - 14
Gostkowski - 16
Mare - 17
J. Brown - 21
Janikowski - 23
Hanson - 26
Novak - 32
Top scoring QB's after 6 weeks are:
Rodgers - 144.1
Brees - 142.4
Rivers - 140.9
Number of times in the top 5 in a given week:
Rodgers - 4
Brees - 4
Rivers - 4
Weekly rankings of the top 3 QB's:
Rodgers - 5, 4, 10 14, 1, 5 (6.5 avg)
Rivers - 2, 17, 3, 3, 17, 1 (7.2 avg)
Brees - 3, 2, 2, 16, 19, 2 (7.3 avg)
Overall rankings of the QB's who have finished top 3 in a given week:
Rodgers - 1
Brees - 2
Rivers - 3
Cutler - 4
Romo - 5
Warner - 6
Favre - 7
McNabb - 8
Orton - 9
Schaub - 16 (off 2 weeks)
Roethlisberger - 18
I'm just throwing out all these stats to show scoring for K's is more volatile than QB's. To make a very long story short, good QB's are more consistent than good K's. It only makes sense to increase the power ranking at a higher rate for additional K's vs additional QB's. And, in the case of the 14-kicker team, no team with only 5 kickers should be anywhere close in power ranking, let alone above. I don't care who the kickers are, unless they are injured (which the 14-kicker team is not).
Perhaps increasing the power ranking for each additional healthy kicker (with differing byes, of course) by a given increasing % would work. You know, kind of how we whittle down the teams each week; increasing the percentage that gets cut. Something like that. Sure, the talent of the kicker comes into play too, but I'd bet money that 14 random healthy kickers will outscore the best 5 healthy kickers on a given week way more often.
Dirty Weasel
Footballguy
Doug,You wanna have some fun? Pick a few teams of people your know are following the power rankings, and move them way down the rankings list. I can hear it now... "WTF! I went from 100 to 3500 for no reason. This is total BS. I demand a recount!"
PatrickT
Footballguy
bonesman
Footballguy
Interesting... and what's the overall survival rate so far?
QB isn't the best example. They touch the ball every play. Even a crappy QB week of 160 yd will net you 8 pts. An average 220 yd, 1 TD wk nets you 17 pts. The other positions are show more variation like the Ks. Basically you're cherry picking the extremes to discredit the formula.Dirty Weasel said:
But the flip side of that is that kickers have a much lower ceiling on what they can produce. For all his kickers, FourteenKickerGuy is only averaging 17 points per week from the position. Taking a single random dude like Nedney or Akers or Longwell will get you over 10. Taking all three will get you 13.7.So I agree that, because they're more volatile, more kickers increases your chances of getting The #1 Kicker Of The Week a bit more than taking more QBs increases your chances of getting The #1 QB Of The Week. But it just doesn't help you all that much to get the #1 kicker compared to the #7 kicker or whatever. In fact, if you had the #1 kicker every week, you'd be averaging about 19.7 points per week from the position. If you had the top QB, you'd be averaging over 35.Ultimately, yes, I agree that FourteenKickerGuy is getting shafted on the power rankings. If I gave him 200 extra points, he'd move up from #5010 to #4950. For "normal" teams (i.e. teams that have a reasonable chance to win), I'm not necessarily convinced that monkeying with the formula would produce better results. Is the marginal value of a 4th kicker more than the marginal value of a 4th QB or TE? I'm not convinced either way. Aside: I just noticed that FourteenKickerGuy didn't take cheap kickers either. I think he took the 14 most expensive kickers. Amazing! Win or lose, he will go down as a folk hero. With the exception of Burleson, the rest of his team was constructed flawlessly.Dirty Weasel said:
and LATE bye weeks! That certainly has helped him get this far
I think he should have had 1 more player to cover the flex spot. 13 Kicker strategy is GOLD!
CrossEyed
Footballguy
Continuing my slow and steady climb. Into the top 500 this week.
ctriopelle
Footballguy
Since there are so many ways to skin the cat here, I think it is fair to say that depending on how your strategy was devised, the power rank formula being used may or may not realize your strengths. Take my team this year compared to last year for example (and I believe the power rank formula was the same). Last year for a variety of reasons I went 2 QB 3 RB 12 WR, and scored the most total points of any finalist through the first 13 weeks. My power rank wasn't anywhere near the top though, because my WR depth didn't get noticed by the formula, and I didn't fill each of the QB/RB power spots. I had a very good every week starter in Manning, 3 mostly healthy high scoring RB's with Bush, ADP and McGahee, and a pile of cheap, inconsistent, and very effective WR's that always put up 3-4 good numbers. I felt I had one of the strongest teams in the finals, but the late injuries/dropoffs for ADP and Bush killed my chances of finishing at the very top. This year I chose my individual players with the same methods as last year, but I ended up with a little more depth at QB/RB (3/4/8). Simply because my backups now count better in the formula, my team looks better in the rankings and this week's #17 is my low point for the year. I didn't change this just to improve my power rank potential, it just ended up that way when I was happy with what I saw (which remarkably only took about 3 total hours on Labor Day and I believe I got by with only 1 or maybe 2 submits). Bottom line is, if you don't form your team using the mainstream makeup, you may have a good team, but it probably won't show well in the rankings. That's not bad, just the price you pay for trying something different!As an aside, what would be super cool is if the Turk could also provide a weekly "survival predictor" based on the FBG projections for the week. This shouldn't be too tough (basically the same exercise as the power ranks minus the full forward projections), and would definitely show the current impact of bye week issues as well as injuries. I think it would also probably start a whole new pile of discussions in this thread, which would be perfect Thursday/Friday material!
Dirty Weasel
Footballguy
Very well said. I guess I just didn't see how 14K guy wasn't head and shoulders above all others in the K power rankings. And, like you said, the dude took 14 expensive kickers to boot (pun intended), only to have a guy with 5 kickers for 5 bucks ranked ahead of him.BTW, I think 14K guy will manage to make the cut for 2 more weeks, then get ousted in week 9 without Drew Brees.
Updated after week six --- Summary of my team (more for my reference than for your entertainment pleasure)
QBs - way outside the norm here
McNabb 10.2% owned and 38.4% alive - used four times 82.7 pts ave 20.68
Schaub 17.2% owned and 40.4% alive - used twice 66.2 pts ave 33.1
RBs - traveling with the herd
Clinton Portis 23.9% owned and 59.9% alive - used four times 88.2 pts ave 22.05
DeA Williams 13.6% owned and 49.3% alive - used twice 42.8 pts ave 21.4
Chris Johnson 23.5% owned and 48.8% alive - used three times 54.3 pts ave 18.1
Raster Williams 54.4% owned and 45.8% alive - used once 12.9 pts ave 12.9
Ray Rice 48.1% owned and 45.0% alive - used twice 22.0 pts ave 11.0
Steve Slaton 74.9% owned and 53.2% alive - used three times 64.1 pts ave 21.37
WRs - This line-up has been really strong
Calvin Johnson 25.4% owned and 49.2% alive - used three times 67.1 pts ave 22.37
Sant Holmes 19.6% owned and 38.8% alive - used twice 25.9 pts ave 12.95
Bran Marshall 38.9% owned and 62.1% alive - used four times 106.5 pts ave 26.63
Steve Smith 17.8% owned and 50.7% alive - used four times 65.4 pts ave 16.35
Kev Walter 27.6% owned and 56.1% alive - used twice 40.7 pts ave 20.35
DeSe Jackson 28.2% owned and 60.0% alive - used four times 71.1 pts ave 17.78
Anton Bryant 12.7% owned and 53.7% alive - used twice 36.6 pts ave 18.3
TEs - went with the unpopular guys here
Zach Miller 7.0% owned and 42.6% alive - used four times 46.9 pts ave 11.73
Todd Heap 2.3% owned and 39.1% alive - used twice 16.3 pts ave 8.15
PKs - went with three for insurance
Hanson 24.2% owned and 47.9% alive - used three times 35.0 pts ave 11.67
Lindell 13.1% owned and 40.3% alive - NOT USED - the only one on the roster
Prater 23.7% owned and 39.9% alive - used three times 48.0 pts ave 16.0
DST
Buffalo Bills 29.4% owned and 44.7% alive - used four times 36.0 pts ave 9.0
Arizona Cards 1.8% owned and 45.9% alive - used twice 30.0 pts ave 15.0
QBs - way outside the norm here
McNabb 10.2% owned and 38.4% alive - used four times 82.7 pts ave 20.68
Schaub 17.2% owned and 40.4% alive - used twice 66.2 pts ave 33.1
RBs - traveling with the herd
Clinton Portis 23.9% owned and 59.9% alive - used four times 88.2 pts ave 22.05
DeA Williams 13.6% owned and 49.3% alive - used twice 42.8 pts ave 21.4
Chris Johnson 23.5% owned and 48.8% alive - used three times 54.3 pts ave 18.1
Raster Williams 54.4% owned and 45.8% alive - used once 12.9 pts ave 12.9
Ray Rice 48.1% owned and 45.0% alive - used twice 22.0 pts ave 11.0
Steve Slaton 74.9% owned and 53.2% alive - used three times 64.1 pts ave 21.37
WRs - This line-up has been really strong
Calvin Johnson 25.4% owned and 49.2% alive - used three times 67.1 pts ave 22.37
Sant Holmes 19.6% owned and 38.8% alive - used twice 25.9 pts ave 12.95
Bran Marshall 38.9% owned and 62.1% alive - used four times 106.5 pts ave 26.63
Steve Smith 17.8% owned and 50.7% alive - used four times 65.4 pts ave 16.35
Kev Walter 27.6% owned and 56.1% alive - used twice 40.7 pts ave 20.35
DeSe Jackson 28.2% owned and 60.0% alive - used four times 71.1 pts ave 17.78
Anton Bryant 12.7% owned and 53.7% alive - used twice 36.6 pts ave 18.3
TEs - went with the unpopular guys here
Zach Miller 7.0% owned and 42.6% alive - used four times 46.9 pts ave 11.73
Todd Heap 2.3% owned and 39.1% alive - used twice 16.3 pts ave 8.15
PKs - went with three for insurance
Hanson 24.2% owned and 47.9% alive - used three times 35.0 pts ave 11.67
Lindell 13.1% owned and 40.3% alive - NOT USED - the only one on the roster
Prater 23.7% owned and 39.9% alive - used three times 48.0 pts ave 16.0
DST
Buffalo Bills 29.4% owned and 44.7% alive - used four times 36.0 pts ave 9.0
Arizona Cards 1.8% owned and 45.9% alive - used twice 30.0 pts ave 15.0
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
Ricky Williams worked with graphics APIs?
H8fulHuck
Footballguy
I think your team has a PC load-letter error.
PatrickT
Footballguy
Yeah, but what the #### does THAT mean!?!?!?
HALtheCOW
Footballguy
I have moved up to #275 in the Power Rankings. I have not posted but have really enjoyed the thread this year as I follow my team from week to week. Thanks to everyone on the chatter.
I have to confess that I made a last minute switch from Marshawn Lynch to Clinton Portis. I have really enjoyed the move all year....until week 10 when he teams up with my #1 RB (MBIII). So unless Slaton, Rice, and Ricky Williams can blow up, week 10 will be scary for me.
My other scare will come this week with Ryan and Warner off. However, Matt Schaub really could bail me out this week.
Love the contest and appreciate all the commentary
I have to confess that I made a last minute switch from Marshawn Lynch to Clinton Portis. I have really enjoyed the move all year....until week 10 when he teams up with my #1 RB (MBIII). So unless Slaton, Rice, and Ricky Williams can blow up, week 10 will be scary for me.
My other scare will come this week with Ryan and Warner off. However, Matt Schaub really could bail me out this week.
Love the contest and appreciate all the commentary
bigfishboy
Footballguy
I am at 192 on the power rankings. I am happy about that, but my uniqueness score stinks. The further I make it, it will be even more difficult than everyone else.
Speaking of that, I see that the cut-downs end after week 13. I thought that they ended after week 10 last year. Am I drunk?
If not, Doug, what was the thinking on that change?
Speaking of that, I see that the cut-downs end after week 13. I thought that they ended after week 10 last year. Am I drunk?
If not, Doug, what was the thinking on that change?
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
Footballguy
I actually think this is done on purpose so as to reward someone who puts more than 4 seconds of thought in this thing.I take full responsibility for the stupidity of having 3 QB's on the same bye. I obviously have no problem opening up myself to ridicule since I posted that here. But it's silly not to list the players as:Tomlinson/9 $60Is it possible to advance with a goose egg at the QB spot?
McNabb
Warner
Ryan
I probably need 5 combined TD's from LT2 and Barber in order to have a chance.
2009 Enhancement Idea:
Bye Weeks listed on the contest page. TIA
apalmer
Footballguy
Yep, you're drunk. I got cut week 12 last year (thanks to the Steeler-Dolphin swamp game).
Probably he just used them as references with MicroStation...
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
I actually think this is done on purpose so as to reward someone who puts more than 4 seconds of thought in this thing.I take full responsibility for the stupidity of having 3 QB's on the same bye. I obviously have no problem opening up myself to ridicule since I posted that here. But it's silly not to list the players as:Tomlinson/9 $60Is it possible to advance with a goose egg at the QB spot?
McNabb
Warner
Ryan
I probably need 5 combined TD's from LT2 and Barber in order to have a chance.
2009 Enhancement Idea:
Bye Weeks listed on the contest page. TIA
I like it the way it is. Weeds out a lot of slackers
nzranger
Footballguy
Doug can you help me out understanding this here (or someone else smarter than me..
Ok something interesting happened this week..
This is where Tm: 100933 has ranked by week:
Wk Rank PR UQ
1 3405 2702 8447
2 1604 2648 5960
3 1878 2456 5599
4 2837 2308 6284 (Placed #8th overall for the week but lost 1000 places in the rankings..)
5 1672 2201 5098
6 869 2132 2585 (Placed #110th overall for the week)
So other than my obvious mental anguish at being dissed at the power rankings though i've scored twice in the top 150 and once in the top10!, i'm more curious about the 2500 point drop in UQ last week.
Was it due to a large segment of entries that had one or two common players making one of my previously common players not so common (i.e. removing hundreds of similiar entries with thousands still remaining) or eliminating a majority of one or two rare important players making my entry even more unique. Hopefully by the end of this post I should have been able to work it out myself..
I have a lot if not most of the common players/combos that everyone is tracking already. But none of them seemed to be eliminated at a higher rate than the norm.
I have omitted entries that were eliminated at a lower than average rate and annotated ones that have not scored (and therefore should not count as much against UQ).
i.e.
Warner 63.4% owned (O), eliminated (E) at 107% against the average in wk6 (just above average)
Slaton 76%O, 111%E
Nugent 26.0%O, 118%E (has not scored)
vs. players that are getting to be or were somehat unique already
i.e.
Delhomme 14.3%O, 158%E (has not scored)
Steven Jackson 2.8%O, 186%E
Brian Leonard 6.9%O, 173%E (has not scored)
Boldin 5.1%O, 208%E
Witten 9.7%O, 134%E
Saints DST 15.4%O, 115%E
Jackson (5), Boldin (4), Witten (6) and Saints (4) are all high scoring important players on my roster that are not highly represented in the remaining field and were eliminated at a higher than normal rate this week. It surprises me that this in effect made my team twice as unique but that will be my guess.
Anyone think my reasoning is off base here?
Thanks
Ok something interesting happened this week..
This is where Tm: 100933 has ranked by week:
Wk Rank PR UQ
1 3405 2702 8447
2 1604 2648 5960
3 1878 2456 5599
4 2837 2308 6284 (Placed #8th overall for the week but lost 1000 places in the rankings..)
5 1672 2201 5098
6 869 2132 2585 (Placed #110th overall for the week)
So other than my obvious mental anguish at being dissed at the power rankings though i've scored twice in the top 150 and once in the top10!, i'm more curious about the 2500 point drop in UQ last week.
Was it due to a large segment of entries that had one or two common players making one of my previously common players not so common (i.e. removing hundreds of similiar entries with thousands still remaining) or eliminating a majority of one or two rare important players making my entry even more unique. Hopefully by the end of this post I should have been able to work it out myself..
I have a lot if not most of the common players/combos that everyone is tracking already. But none of them seemed to be eliminated at a higher rate than the norm.
I have omitted entries that were eliminated at a lower than average rate and annotated ones that have not scored (and therefore should not count as much against UQ).
i.e.
Warner 63.4% owned (O), eliminated (E) at 107% against the average in wk6 (just above average)
Slaton 76%O, 111%E
Nugent 26.0%O, 118%E (has not scored)
vs. players that are getting to be or were somehat unique already
i.e.
Delhomme 14.3%O, 158%E (has not scored)
Steven Jackson 2.8%O, 186%E
Brian Leonard 6.9%O, 173%E (has not scored)
Boldin 5.1%O, 208%E
Witten 9.7%O, 134%E
Saints DST 15.4%O, 115%E
Jackson (5), Boldin (4), Witten (6) and Saints (4) are all high scoring important players on my roster that are not highly represented in the remaining field and were eliminated at a higher than normal rate this week. It surprises me that this in effect made my team twice as unique but that will be my guess.
Anyone think my reasoning is off base here?
Thanks
Last edited by a moderator:
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
This made me chortle.
bigfishboy
Footballguy
Fair enough, thanks!
hove
Footballguy
ctriopelle
Footballguy
Not claiming to be a genius, but I think I understand the power rankings enough to comment. The power rankings are nothing more than a cumulative look at the forward projection of points for each of your players (most of them anyway). It puts heavier weights on your presumed "starters" (those at each position that are predicted to score the highest), and also awards some benefit to non starters as well, as they will likely contribute over time. I don't have the weights handy, but I'm pretty sure they drop off as you go down the bench. Because teams are not rigidly structured (i.e. you can have a different number of WR's than me), Doug somewhat arbitrarily assigned how far down the bench he would go at each position. This is why fourteenkickerguy isn't the strongest kicker rated team, since it only picks up the projections for the top 2 or 3, even though he has a nearly 50% possibility of having the highest scoring kicker each week. I believe there is also special emphasis on this week's game predictions, since they have the largest expected impact coming up.So the fact that you have scored well in the past is completely irrelevant to your ranking in this system (although I think you should be happy with how things are working!). If you get a bunch of points from players Dodds (the projection source) thinks are just fluke points, you won't see a jump in your rank. I haven't scored higher than top 60 (or lower than top 1350), yet my projections going forward have enabled me to be ranked in the top 20 for the entire season. Of course, being ranked high doesn't guarantee anything, as some untimely injuries or poor bye week spreading can kill even the most highly rated teams. With Romo likely out and Warner/Fitz/Breaston on bye, 4 of my higher scoring players are missing this week, so my depth will need to carry me if I am to advance this week. Fortunately I have Cutler as QB2, and I have 6 reasonable options still playing at WR.edited to add...With regards to uniqueness, the bigger number (not the 10-30 ish number), is just your numerical rank for the lower number as it pertains to the full field. Since every week we drop 1000 or so players, even the "least unique" surviving team will reduce its rank by at least the number we drop. If your players get eliminated at a higher than average rate than the general population in a given week yet you survived, I would fully expect for you to become more unique, since a lower % of teams now have them. In short, it's good for you when this number get's lower.Hopefully this helps!nzranger said:Doug can you help me out understanding this here (or someone else smarter than me..
Last edited by a moderator:
Dirty Weasel
Footballguy
I demand 100 points be added to my RB power ranking. Maurice Morris is back, baby!
nzranger
Footballguy
Thanks ctrio, I didn't know the part about the rankings only going down so far per position thats handy to know.So did my UQ lower by 2500 points for the reasons that I best guessed it at?Not claiming to be a genius, but I think I understand the power rankings enough to comment. The power rankings are nothing more than a cumulative look at the forward projection of points for each of your players (most of them anyway). It puts heavier weights on your presumed "starters" (those at each position that are predicted to score the highest), and also awards some benefit to non starters as well, as they will likely contribute over time. I don't have the weights handy, but I'm pretty sure they drop off as you go down the bench. Because teams are not rigidly structured (i.e. you can have a different number of WR's than me), Doug somewhat arbitrarily assigned how far down the bench he would go at each position. This is why fourteenkickerguy isn't the strongest kicker rated team, since it only picks up the projections for the top 2 or 3, even though he has a nearly 50% possibility of having the highest scoring kicker each week. I believe there is also special emphasis on this week's game predictions, since they have the largest expected impact coming up.So the fact that you have scored well in the past is completely irrelevant to your ranking in this system (although I think you should be happy with how things are working!). If you get a bunch of points from players Dodds (the projection source) thinks are just fluke points, you won't see a jump in your rank. I haven't scored higher than top 60 (or lower than top 1350), yet my projections going forward have enabled me to be ranked in the top 20 for the entire season. Of course, being ranked high doesn't guarantee anything, as some untimely injuries or poor bye week spreading can kill even the most highly rated teams. With Romo likely out and Warner/Fitz/Breaston on bye, 4 of my higher scoring players are missing this week, so my depth will need to carry me if I am to advance this week. Fortunately I have Cutler as QB2, and I have 6 reasonable options still playing at WR.Hopefully this helps!nzranger said:Doug can you help me out understanding this here (or someone else smarter than me..
ctriopelle
Footballguy
Looking quickly at your % eliminated for individual players on your team, the fact that a bunch of your players got more unique last week helped your improvement. Whether or not they specifically score a lot for you is again irrelevant, just that large numbers of their owners dropped. I would think it very difficult to have a bunch of players on a team in a given week lose a lot of popularity, since that generally means they didn't help their owners that week. I'd rather get unique one or 2 players at a time! That's why depth can be a real plus when a player goes down, like when Romo takes a few weeks off. If a large number only picked him with a Warner backup (or any other backup on bye this week), you can expect his %owned should drop a fair amount this week. As long as you can count on still having his normal slot covered, taking one week off can be beneficial (to you) in the long run. The same can be said for taking high performing late bye week players, since good backup planning minimizes your team's risk for having the late bye, yet it can kill less thoughtful owners off with the higher cut % that week.CTRSo did my UQ lower by 2500 points for the reasons that I best guessed it at?
Last edited by a moderator:
Seatown Mofos
Footballguy
I am completely suprised at how high my power ranking is. (Top 50) I thought I had a pretty good team, but I didn't think it was anything special, and after reading about all the popular combinations, I see that I have a few of them as well.
Jay Cutler $14
Matt Schaub $13
Kurt Warner $5
Marion Barber III $40
Thomas Jones $21
Chris Johnson $14
Ricky Williams $8
Ray Rice $4
Steve Slaton $1
Calvin Johnson $25
Brandon Marshall $23
Roddy White $23
Jabar Gaffney $7
Steve Smith $5
DeSean Jackson $4
Owen Daniels $19
Ben Utecht $5
Dustin Keller $2
Nick Folk $5
Josh Brown $3
New York Giants $5
Seattle Seahawks $4
Jay Cutler $14
Matt Schaub $13
Kurt Warner $5
Marion Barber III $40
Thomas Jones $21
Chris Johnson $14
Ricky Williams $8
Ray Rice $4
Steve Slaton $1
Calvin Johnson $25
Brandon Marshall $23
Roddy White $23
Jabar Gaffney $7
Steve Smith $5
DeSean Jackson $4
Owen Daniels $19
Ben Utecht $5
Dustin Keller $2
Nick Folk $5
Josh Brown $3
New York Giants $5
Seattle Seahawks $4
Jayrod
Footballguy
Our teams are very similar (11/22 the same), but I'm ranked in the 1000's somewhere.Bolded the common players. Our wide receivers are vastly different, though. I'm really hurt by losing Burleson, or else I'd be ranked much higher.
You are better at TE with Daniels over my Shockey and we are a push at QB since I have Brees instead of Cutler.
I like your team a little better. :jealous:
