Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
2022 FBG Subscriber Contest is ON - Update - 1st place is $10k + $5k to food bank of their choice (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter TheWinz
- Start date
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
I know right. 12 for 12 and 3TDs. On pace for 50 catches and 12 TDs and worth every penny he got in that new contract.
TheWinz
Footballguy
We are always trying to find the sweet spot in terms of money spent at each position, as well as number of players at each. This year, in terms of survival rate...
QB - 3 narrowly beats out 2 (59.93% to 59.33%), followed by 4, 5, then 1. You can only search in $5 increments after $10, but the dollar sweet spot is $35-$40 (62.00%), followed by $30-$35, then $40-$45. These 3 are the only ones above the average survival rate of 58.39%. $25-$30 and $45-$50 were neck and neck just under the average.
RB - All numbers 5 thru 8 were above the average survival rate, but 7 (62.01%) was first, followed by 8, 5, then 6. Money-wise, the favorite was $65-$70 (63.64%), but amazingly, all $5 increments from $50-$85 were above the survival average.
WR - 6 is the magic number (61.38%), followed by 7, 8, and 9 as the only others above average. I am shocked to see the highest survival rate (61.79%) was from $95-$100, with all $5 increments from $75 to $105 above average. $65-$70 was over, but not $70-$75.
TE - 4 beats out 3 (64.17% to 62.77%), and all others are under average. In terms of money, the numbers are all over the place, so I will use my best judgement and pick the biggest range that is over the average, and that is $30-$50.
K - As expected, 3 kickers rule (62.28%), but 2 (60.09%) are battling. All others suck. $9 & $10 spent are virtually even at 62.29% and 62.31%.
D - Just like K's, 3 D's rule (61.16%). 2 (60.20%) and 4 (58.96%) are also above average. Once again, $9 & $10 are quite close at 60.31% and 60.18%.
Based on the above, as well as known scores already, here is my dream team:
QB - Lamar Jackson, Jared Goff, Carson Wentz
RB - Clyde Edwards-Helaire, James Robinson, Dameon Pierce, Jamaal Williams, Khalil Herbert, Dontrell Hilliard, Jeff Wilson
WR - Tyreek Hill, Amon-Ra St. Brown, Christian Kirk, Chris Olave, Garrett Wilson, Corey Davis
TE - Zach Ertz, Tyler Higbee, Gerald Everett, Tyler Conklin
K - Kaimi Fairbairn, Graham Gano, Greg Zuerlein
D - ATL, CAR, TEN
Your weekly scores would be 191.35, 268.7, 235.2, and 216.2.
QB - 3 narrowly beats out 2 (59.93% to 59.33%), followed by 4, 5, then 1. You can only search in $5 increments after $10, but the dollar sweet spot is $35-$40 (62.00%), followed by $30-$35, then $40-$45. These 3 are the only ones above the average survival rate of 58.39%. $25-$30 and $45-$50 were neck and neck just under the average.
RB - All numbers 5 thru 8 were above the average survival rate, but 7 (62.01%) was first, followed by 8, 5, then 6. Money-wise, the favorite was $65-$70 (63.64%), but amazingly, all $5 increments from $50-$85 were above the survival average.
WR - 6 is the magic number (61.38%), followed by 7, 8, and 9 as the only others above average. I am shocked to see the highest survival rate (61.79%) was from $95-$100, with all $5 increments from $75 to $105 above average. $65-$70 was over, but not $70-$75.
TE - 4 beats out 3 (64.17% to 62.77%), and all others are under average. In terms of money, the numbers are all over the place, so I will use my best judgement and pick the biggest range that is over the average, and that is $30-$50.
K - As expected, 3 kickers rule (62.28%), but 2 (60.09%) are battling. All others suck. $9 & $10 spent are virtually even at 62.29% and 62.31%.
D - Just like K's, 3 D's rule (61.16%). 2 (60.20%) and 4 (58.96%) are also above average. Once again, $9 & $10 are quite close at 60.31% and 60.18%.
Based on the above, as well as known scores already, here is my dream team:
QB - Lamar Jackson, Jared Goff, Carson Wentz
RB - Clyde Edwards-Helaire, James Robinson, Dameon Pierce, Jamaal Williams, Khalil Herbert, Dontrell Hilliard, Jeff Wilson
WR - Tyreek Hill, Amon-Ra St. Brown, Christian Kirk, Chris Olave, Garrett Wilson, Corey Davis
TE - Zach Ertz, Tyler Higbee, Gerald Everett, Tyler Conklin
K - Kaimi Fairbairn, Graham Gano, Greg Zuerlein
D - ATL, CAR, TEN
Your weekly scores would be 191.35, 268.7, 235.2, and 216.2.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
May want to seek medical treatment.
lol why you editing that to make it look like i said it??? im confident in my huge 30-man rooster.
dawson knox thinks hes been lucky scoring tds.
number of players per position seems like just noise that you wont be able to draw any conclusions from. player costs go from like $3 to $40 so obviously saying something like "3 qbs" doesnt lend itself to a ton of context.
$/position is the much more important number in my mind and i absolutely think thats a great discussion to have and compare to previous years. although even that year to year could get wonky depending on the player pool. for example nobody would blame you if you looked at the pool this year and thought 'pierce is an rb2 that i can get for $10 so i can spend less on rb this year than i normally do'.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Sorry man. Hate that this board quotes a zillion posts. Tried thinning that but obviously failed. Huge respect for you big rooster guys.
Puppies
Footballguy
This is all interesting stuff.
When we look at statistics like number of players per position or dollars spent per position, I think we need to be careful not to make certain assumptions. IMHO, the most important variable in all of this is value per dollar, but the problem is value per dollar is subjective. Before the season starts, none of us can possibly know which players will perform the best, because there are too many variables. But we have opinons based on the quality of the team they play for and other factors, such as whether they have competition for carries, or for for targets, and likelihood for injury based on track record, etc. We also consider the 'next man up' theory when we consider value of backup players that may be starters when someone in front of them gets injured.
Before the season starts and we are all anticipating the contest finally going live, we are envisioning what that player list is going to look like. We have probably all done this. We are thinking about some of our favorite players and are anticipating the chance to start grabbing players and putting them on a tentative roster, and crunching cap numbers. Then, when the magic moment happens and the contest is finally live, we anxiously take our first glance at the player list, and invariably we are either pleased or disappointed with the cap numbers assigned to the players we had in mind. That "feeling" you just got of either excitement or disappointment can probably be equated to your subconscious assesment of the value per dollar for those players. I think the next phase we go through is questioning those subconscious first impressions and possibly second-guessing ourselves during the process of assembling a roster. We ultimately make roster choices based on our final assessment of the value per dollar of the players we choose. The amount of time we spend gathering information and doing research untimately shapes our assessment.
I guess my point is, when we look at stuff like dollars spent per position, we need to be careful not to assume that those dollars spent had a proportionate return in terms of fantasy points. Because if they don't, then the statistic doesn't really say what it looks like it says at first glance.
I think when looking at number of players per position, the most important statistic to apply is the expected cost per point for players at that position. This is exactly in line with what TheWinz posted earlier about the strategy of rostering more studs at TE, because due to the contest rules, TE's generally produce more points per cap dollar than WR, (and WR's produce more per dollar than RB's). I have always tried to use this reasoning in deciding how many players to choose at each position.
Maybe this makes sense, or maybe I'm just confused...
Last edited:
yeah, definitely.
ftr, i feel like both statistics are pretty useless in terms of offering any kind of predictive value. maybe i overstated it by saying that total $ spent per position was "much more important" and also suggesting that there was some value in looking over the y2y stats in that metric. really, neither are important at all. theres just so much survivorship bias and sss noise in these results that it kinda wipes out any info we could possible gain from it.
having said all that, poring over useless statistics from this contest, running queries, searching player combos, etc. is kinda how we roll in this thread and how we kill time from tuesday morning til sunday afternoon lol.
TheWinz
Footballguy
Yes, most of the yapping is just the diehards wasting time waiting for the next week to begin. But there are some basic "rules" I follow when compiling my team, and I bet just about everyone does it too, even if subconsciously. For example, would you roster 6 QB's?
Don Quixote
Footballguy
I’ve been following less closely than usual this year — happy to see still alive at least, but not sure how long. Down Trey Lance (I do have Matt Ryan going for me at QB, but oof) and Javonte Williams for the year. St. Brown may be out for me another week. Some cheaper rookies like Doubs, Pickens, and D.Pierce keeping me alive so far. Will be happy if can keep this going for another week.
lol i did actually kinda look at 6 cheap qb build, but no 99.5% of the time i wouldnt roster 6 qbs. im not sure what point youre trying to make. please elaborate.
just to follow up on the 6 qb thing:
i mentioned on the last page that i briefly toyed around with a mahomes/trubisky/pickett/ritter/mariota build. well after that i tried to see if i could swap out mahomes for 2 cheaper qbs. so for a brief second i *kinda* was looking at a 6 qb build. but then i was like 'this is dumb' and scrapped it after maybe a minute or two of moving players around. in my defense this was like 1am and i was bored out of my mind and messing around with my rooster. i know you guys all do it too...
i mentioned on the last page that i briefly toyed around with a mahomes/trubisky/pickett/ritter/mariota build. well after that i tried to see if i could swap out mahomes for 2 cheaper qbs. so for a brief second i *kinda* was looking at a 6 qb build. but then i was like 'this is dumb' and scrapped it after maybe a minute or two of moving players around. in my defense this was like 1am and i was bored out of my mind and messing around with my rooster. i know you guys all do it too...
TheWinz
Footballguy
I guess the point I was trying to make is that I pretty much know who I WON'T roster right from the start. For example, I will never, ever roster the most expensive K's or D's.
Puppies
Footballguy
Some Additional Logic and Thoughts on Statistics:
* Don't forget that an individual player's "survival rate" it is not really an indication of that player's individual skill or quality, but rather an indication of the quality of the entire roster he is a part of,
* External factors, such as how well or how poorly one has managed bye weeks, can quickly sink a strong lineup, or prolong the life of a weaker one. Survival rates do not take this into account.
* Comparing survival rates of rosters with different numbers of players at a certain positon is not really sound because it assumes that the quality of a given number of players is equal across all lineups. And obviously, it is not. For example, not all 5RB teams are created equal, and not all 5RB teams do not suck at the other positions (or may suck to varying degrees). Perhaps 5RB rosters have a high survival rate because they were able to afford to roster more TE's and WR's (which normally produce more points per cap$), and that may be as much an indicator of their success as the number of RBs on the roster. We need to be careful what assumptions we make.
* The minimum number of players to roster at each position is more or less a no-brainer based on the rules for how many players at each position and at flex will be counted in the final score. But outside of applying some common sense, figuring the optimum number at each position is a different calculation that involves so many variables that I don't think we can draw any definite conclusions or absolutes.
* It seems to me that the one single factor that has more of a bearing on the success of a particular lineup, is the degree to which that lineup is fortunate to not suffer injuries during the season.
Bottom line, imho.... to win this contest, you have to be both lucky and good, and at the same time.
Good luck to everyone this weekend. It surely did not start out very pretty in the Thursday night game... (at least not for me).
Last edited:
TheWinz
Footballguy
But we can draw some absolutes, right? I like to exaggerate to make a point, and here I go - never roster 23 kickers. Do you agree?
Puppies
Footballguy
TheWinz
Footballguy
OK, next statement - never roster 22 kickers. Do you agree? Eventually, I will get to a number that you will disagree with. What is that number for you?
rustycolts
Footballguy
I've got one. Never roster 6 $3 dollar WRs. You're welcome. Now if I can only remember that next year.OK, next statement - never roster 22 kickers. Do you agree? Eventually, I will get to a number that you will disagree with. What is that number for you?
wow you drastically misspelled 'always at least'
dude youve been on this for 2 days and i still dont understand the point youre making. yes i agree with all your baseline absolutes like dont roster all the defenses and such, but what are you getting at?? are you fighting back on what we said about the statistics not being predicitve? ive reread the conversation a few times and i still dont know what this is about or where it came from.
so, again, please elaborate.
TheWinz
Footballguy
I guess I was just trying to find that line in the sand as to:
- Minimum players at each position
- Maximum players at each position
- Minimum spent at each position
- Maximum spent at each position
Puppies
Footballguy
OK, next statement - never roster 22 kickers. Do you agree? Eventually, I will get to a number that you will disagree with. What is that number for you?
Hey! Truth be told... you and I agree on most of the factors that go into being successful at approaching contest with a sound strategy.
I've learned a few things from you that I didn't know, and I always appreciate and find interesting, the stuff you post.
My only point in my previous couple posts was we need to be careful not to mis-interpret individual player survival statistics, because other player's performances also factor in to an individual player's survival rate by being present in the same lineup. And that's it. I only pointed this out because I wondered if some people had not really thought about it. We obviously agree that good individual performances by players certainly raise their survival rate by helping the roster they are a part of. But acknowledge at the same time that their individual good performance is no guarantee that others on their roster will also perform well enough to prevent that roster from getting a visit from "the Turk". If this were not true, there would not be any statistic about who many teams with a particular player were eliminated in any given week, because every team would either be eliminated, or still be alive.
Since you asked (I presume in jest) about my opinion on stuff like number of kickers, etc, there's no reason to count down from 23 and keep asking me until a light goes off
. I agree with you and probably the majority of others here that the optimum number of kickers is probably 3. We have also both agreed that overall TEs are the most productive skill players in terms of expected point production per cap $, and this can be quantified just by looking at the cap numbers and projected stats. If you're curious, you can derermine (more or less) what I believe by simply looking at the number of players at each position on my roster. This year, although I intended to, I was not able to arrange a better group at TE, because it just didn't work out right with bye weeks and the other players I wanted on my roster. I feel slightly vindicated though, by some of the presumed studs that have so far been duds. I probably have acted on different hunches on some individual players, just as we all have. In the big picture, what we all try to do, is identify 'value' in the player list and then try to include as many value players as we can in a workable roster in the hopes of hitting on some of them.
Grid71
Footballguy
Rule changes boost TE points right now but next year if FBG botches the kicker scoring by two decimals to the right, I’ll have every kicker rostered even those without jobs.
YoUnG GuNz
Footballguy
Im without 7 of my 24 players this week. I think I'm cooked.
TheWinz
Footballguy
Great write-up! I suck at writing and getting my point across. I tend to be too literal and exaggerate all the time. Yes, we agree on just about everything. And yes, survival stats can be misleading, i.e. when a top scoring high-priced stud has a lower survival rate than some cheapie who doesn't even see the field. And yes, good performance by one player does not mean other roster players will do well.
stubby
Footballguy
ok gotcha. i think a cool study would be the playoff teams and money spent per position vs both prior year playoff teams and as a function of all the teams. i wonder if wed see anything correlative in the data.
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
Yeah waived by the Browns in 2020, now the Lions. Not good. Is there another landing spot for him this season? Unless its back on the Lions, probably not.
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
Yeah I'm down to 13.No shenault and no Pitts to go with Watkins and Seibert and Blank and suddenly my rooster is at 20
-QG
TheWinz
Footballguy
It really sucks that we cannot view previous year's data anymore. What you are asking is exactly what I used to do, but I didn't keep the results, because I assumed it would always be available. Up until this year, you literally could go back about 10 years to find trends of the teams that made the playoffs. I know I posted those results in previous year's threads, but moving forward, I will keep it in excel on my laptop.
The only stats I remember from previous playoff team studies were:
- All teams had between 18 and 30 players
- All teams spent $250 or less
BassNBrew
Footballguy
All teams had one QB
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
I have no TE that will actually play this week.
TheWinz
Footballguy
Oh, that's way worse! Best of luck
TheWinz
Footballguy
I made a fatal mistake in team selection. I decided this year I was gonna go small roster and ended up with only 19 spots. That wasn't my mistake, but who I chose at K was. I figured since I was going small roster and it's a risky practice, may as well take the take the 2 highest ranked $3 kickers with differing byes. I had done my research and considered Gano and Fairbairn the 2 with the best job security, but went with Blankenship and Seibert anyways.
A lesson learned and a mistake I will never make again. I still believe in rostering cheap kickers, but job security is the only factor I will care about.
A lesson learned and a mistake I will never make again. I still believe in rostering cheap kickers, but job security is the only factor I will care about.
Similar threads
