35k contest - which is better 20-guy or 24-guy roster? (1 Viewer)

[QuizGuy66]

With all the hot debate between 20 and 24 I figured I'd open up a message board pole on the subject.

While the 35k folks have voted with their entries, I'm curious if, when we get some of those 21-23 guys in there what the consensus will be. I'm also a bit curious if the results for message board regulars will be different than for the FBGs at large.

-QG

 

[EBF]

The more the merrier IMO. In best ball you want as many viable options on your roster as possible to cover for injuries and variance.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'd rather pay $4 less for one of my QBs and take two extra kickers and two extra defenses for $1 each.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I'd rather pay $4 less for one of my QBs and take two extra kickers and two extra defenses for $1 each.

Yeah. It's not even close. 4.00 benefit for 4 less player depth (more susceptible to off week/injury)Idea for next year to even this out/make it a debate: For every player less than 24 you keep you get another 5-10 bucks. THEN it would be interesting.

 

[[icon]]

The teams that win this are teams that get big production out of cheap (1-5 dollar) players. The more of those players you gamble on, the better your odds of hitting on the ones that blow up.

You need balance of steady mid/upper tier guys and those value plays... but the more value plays you have the better your odds in the contest.

This is not even factoring in the obvious 24 lottery tickets are better than 20 (valid analogy in best ball format).

 

[rzrback77]

24 without a doubt. You are talking about $4 for four additional opportunities to score and balance out those low weeks with some insurance.

 

[jon_mx]

It really depends. If there are GOOD cheap players available who will have BIG weeks, it is better to have more. But if there are not enough cheap players, you will be better off having better studs. Having a bunch of $2-4 players whose points hardly ever count, are doing nothing to help your team. This year there are no $4 studs at QB or $1 studs at RB. Last year there were a lot more bargains so loading up on them would have been advantageous. This year I think 22-23 players is optimum.

 

[BassNBrew]

It really depends. If there are GOOD cheap players available who will have BIG weeks, it is better to have more. But if there are not enough cheap players, you will be better off having better studs. Having a bunch of $2-4 players whose points hardly ever count, are doing nothing to help your team. This year there are no $4 studs at QB or $1 studs at RB. Last year there were a lot more bargains so loading up on them would have been advantageous. This year I think 22-23 players is optimum.

Post your lineup and I'll optimize it for you with 24 players.

 

[Sinrman]

24, no question

 

[jon_mx]

According to statistics from the actual teams submitted by contestants, this is the Optimal Team. I just took the most common players picked at each position with the most common distribution at each position. Amazingly it came out to $250. It came out to be 22 players. This is actually an awesome team in my book.

FBG's Optimal Team

Aaron Rodgers 27

Byron Leftwich 4

Matt Ryan 19

James Davis 2

Edgerrin James 1

Ryan Grant 24

Ray Rice 21

Willie Parker 16

Percy Harvin 5

Chris Henry 12

Chaz Schilens 3

Derrick Mason 9

Marques Colston 28

Greg Jennings 32

Vincent Jackson 21

Jermichael Finley 3

Greg Olsen 15

Chris Baker 1

Robbie Gould 2

Josh Brown 1

Green Bay Packers 3

New Orleans Saints 1

Total 250

 

[BassNBrew]

According to statistics from the actual teams submitted by contestants, this is the Optimal Team. I just took the most common players picked at each position with the most common distribution at each position. Amazingly it came out to $250. It came out to be 22 players. This is actually an awesome team in my book.

FBG's Optimal Team

Aaron Rodgers 27

Byron Leftwich 4

Matt Ryan 19

James Davis 2

Edgerrin James 1

Ryan Grant 24

Ray Rice 21

Willie Parker 16

Percy Harvin 5

Chris Henry 12

Chaz Schilens 3

Derrick Mason 9

Marques Colston 28

Greg Jennings 32

Vincent Jackson 21

Jermichael Finley 3

Greg Olsen 15

Chris Baker 1

Robbie Gould 2

Josh Brown 1

Green Bay Packers 3

New Orleans Saints 1

Total 250

Dump Gould for two $1 Ks and the Pack for Seattle and a $1 D. Guaranteed more points.

 

[jon_mx]

It really depends. If there are GOOD cheap players available who will have BIG weeks, it is better to have more. But if there are not enough cheap players, you will be better off having better studs. Having a bunch of $2-4 players whose points hardly ever count, are doing nothing to help your team. This year there are no $4 studs at QB or $1 studs at RB. Last year there were a lot more bargains so loading up on them would have been advantageous. This year I think 22-23 players is optimum.

Post your lineup and I'll optimize it for you with 24 players.

See the FBG's Optimal Team above and improve on it. I think it is a solid team that would be difficult to improve. I wish I could enter that team, I would love to see how it would perform. The collective logic of all the contestants looks pretty good to me.

 

[Balance]

According to statistics from the actual teams submitted by contestants, this is the Optimal Team. I just took the most common players picked at each position with the most common distribution at each position. Amazingly it came out to $250. It came out to be 22 players. This is actually an awesome team in my book.

FBG's Optimal Team

Aaron Rodgers 27

Byron Leftwich 4

Matt Ryan 19

James Davis 2

Edgerrin James 1

Ryan Grant 24

Ray Rice 21

Willie Parker 16

Percy Harvin 5

Chris Henry 12

Chaz Schilens 3

Derrick Mason 9

Marques Colston 28

Greg Jennings 32

Vincent Jackson 21

Jermichael Finley 3

Greg Olsen 15

Chris Baker 1

Robbie Gould 2

Josh Brown 1

Green Bay Packers 3

New Orleans Saints 1

Total 250

goodluck when GB is on bye.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

No need to "think" about this at all. Someone with some time and a bit of programming skill could prove which one's better.

I haven't done that, but I'd be shocked if 24 isn't the clear winner, math-wise.

 

[apalmer]

According to statistics from the actual teams submitted by contestants, this is the Optimal Team. I just took the most common players picked at each position with the most common distribution at each position. Amazingly it came out to $250. It came out to be 22 players. This is actually an awesome team in my book.

FBG's Optimal Team

Aaron Rodgers 27

Byron Leftwich 4

Matt Ryan 19

James Davis 2

Edgerrin James 1

Ryan Grant 24

Ray Rice 21

Willie Parker 16

Percy Harvin 5

Chris Henry 12

Chaz Schilens 3

Derrick Mason 9

Marques Colston 28

Greg Jennings 32

Vincent Jackson 21

Jermichael Finley 3

Greg Olsen 15

Chris Baker 1

Robbie Gould 2

Josh Brown 1

Green Bay Packers 3

New Orleans Saints 1

Total 250

Dump Gould for two $1 Ks and the Pack for Seattle and a $1 D. Guaranteed more points.

Not according to the Draft Dominator. That costs 11 points.

 

[jon_mx]

[quote name='Balance' date='Sep 9 2009, 06:42 PM' post='10779663'

goodluck when GB is on bye.

The team is deep enough and GB's bye is early enough, I would not be too concerned.

 

[LionsFan78]

The more the merrier IMO. In best ball you want as many viable options on your roster as possible to cover for injuries and variance.

 

[jon_mx]

The more the merrier IMO. In best ball you want as many viable options on your roster as possible to cover for injuries and variance.

The problem with this logic is I guess 250 $1 players would be better than 50 $5 players. Sure, there maybe a couple $1-2 players who might break out of no where and produce big. But those are the exceptions. Almost all the guys not projected to start produce nothing. I would rather have one Barry Sanders on my team than 50 Scrubs.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The teams that win this are teams that get big production out of cheap (1-5 dollar) players. The more of those players you gamble on, the better your odds of hitting on the ones that blow up. You need balance of steady mid/upper tier guys and those value plays... but the more value plays you have the better your odds in the contest. This is not even factoring in the obvious 24 lottery tickets are better than 20 (valid analogy in best ball format).

Maybe. The team that had Tom Brady and Randy Moss two years ago got their money's worth an more.I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think there is a correct answer. 24 is not better than 20 if the 20 outscore the 24.

 

[stbugs]

The more the merrier IMO. In best ball you want as many viable options on your roster as possible to cover for injuries and variance.

The problem with this logic is I guess 250 $1 players would be better than 50 $5 players. Sure, there maybe a couple $1-2 players who might break out of no where and produce big. But those are the exceptions. Almost all the guys not projected to start produce nothing. I would rather have one Barry Sanders on my team than 50 Scrubs.

Ummm, kinda. Your 250 $1 players isn't a good analogy since A) there aren't that many and B) we are talking about going from 20 $12.50 players to 24 $10.42 players. The difference of $2 per player isn't enough to outweigh the fact that 20% more people give you more chance of good weeks where guys that aren't stars play well enough to be stars a couple weeks.I agree with MT above and that is what I did. Defenses and Kickers have a lot more $1 folks that grabbing a couple more of each and dropping down a bit on your QB3 or RB4 means higher chances of good weeks out of those slots. The folks that only went with one or two of those have a good chance of sucky weeks when folks are on byes.Also, I highly disagree with your bye week statement for GB. Your team is not deep enough to survive Grant, Jennings, Rodgers and GB D being off. At least you will be out early enough to not feel like you almost won the $35k.

 

[stbugs]

The teams that win this are teams that get big production out of cheap (1-5 dollar) players. The more of those players you gamble on, the better your odds of hitting on the ones that blow up. You need balance of steady mid/upper tier guys and those value plays... but the more value plays you have the better your odds in the contest. This is not even factoring in the obvious 24 lottery tickets are better than 20 (valid analogy in best ball format).

Maybe. The team that had Tom Brady and Randy Moss two years ago got their money's worth an more.I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think there is a correct answer. 24 is not better than 20 if the 20 outscore the 24.

In 2007, you weren't paying a premium for Moss and Brady so you would have easily afforded 24 players. In 2008, you did pay a premium and not only got subpar performance, you only had 18 more players.

 

[Marauder]

goodluck when GB is on bye.

The team is deep enough and GB's bye is early enough, I would not be too concerned.

Seriously? This is the team you would have available in week five:Byron Leftwich 4Matt Ryan 19James Davis 2Edgerrin James 1Ray Rice 21Willie Parker 16Percy Harvin 5Chris Henry 12Chaz Schilens 3Derrick Mason 9Chris Baker 1Josh Brown 1

 

[tommyGunZ]

The teams that win this are teams that get big production out of cheap (1-5 dollar) players. The more of those players you gamble on, the better your odds of hitting on the ones that blow up. You need balance of steady mid/upper tier guys and those value plays... but the more value plays you have the better your odds in the contest. This is not even factoring in the obvious 24 lottery tickets are better than 20 (valid analogy in best ball format).

Maybe. The team that had Tom Brady and Randy Moss two years ago got their money's worth an more.I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think there is a correct answer. 24 is not better than 20 if the 20 outscore the 24.

In 2007, you weren't paying a premium for Moss and Brady so you would have easily afforded 24 players. In 2008, you did pay a premium and not only got subpar performance, you only had 18 more players.

Fair enough. Just pointing out that it's okay to pay for top talent if that talent actually produces big time returns. If that extra $1 kicker gets me 12 more kicking points throughout the season, but I downgraded from Brady to Brees to roster that extra kicker, and Brady throws 50 TDs to Brees 30 this year, going with the extra roster spot was a poor decision.

 

[jon_mx]

The teams that win this are teams that get big production out of cheap (1-5 dollar) players. The more of those players you gamble on, the better your odds of hitting on the ones that blow up. You need balance of steady mid/upper tier guys and those value plays... but the more value plays you have the better your odds in the contest. This is not even factoring in the obvious 24 lottery tickets are better than 20 (valid analogy in best ball format).

Maybe. The team that had Tom Brady and Randy Moss two years ago got their money's worth an more.I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think there is a correct answer. 24 is not better than 20 if the 20 outscore the 24.

In 2007, you weren't paying a premium for Moss and Brady so you would have easily afforded 24 players. In 2008, you did pay a premium and not only got subpar performance, you only had 18 more players.

That is the point though. If stud perform well, they are worth the extra bucks. If the $1 player steps up and becomes a stud, they are an incredible value a team. The optimal solution is hitting on your studs and hitting on a couple flyers. Until the end of the season, no one knows. Odds are, 8 out of the top 10 backs will be the high dollar studs and not the $1-5 flyer. If Emmitt Smith is running for 1800 yards and 25 TD's, you have better have been one of the guys who paid $45 for him if you want to win the league.

 

[rzrback77]

Its not just the points per year, its also the points per week. Andre Johnson was huge last year finishing #2 WR in FBG scoring and with 115 receptions had 321 ppr p oints on the season.

Yet, in week #2 he had zero on an unanticipated bye due to the hurricane. In week 3 he had a robust 4.9 ppr points. He followed that up with 6.8 ppr points in week 4. If you carried only six WRs and had some other bad weeks in weeks 2-4 you were out. That is how it is with most positions and especially WRs. Boom and Bust weeks. Need to have depth.

It is also especially true with kickers and DSTs. If you increase your roster to three, you add insurance that all three won't have the bust weeks together.

 

[FUBAR]

The more the merrier IMO. In best ball you want as many viable options on your roster as possible to cover for injuries and variance.

The problem with this logic is I guess 250 $1 players would be better than 50 $5 players. Sure, there maybe a couple $1-2 players who might break out of no where and produce big. But those are the exceptions. Almost all the guys not projected to start produce nothing. I would rather have one Barry Sanders on my team than 50 Scrubs.

Ummm, kinda. Your 250 $1 players isn't a good analogy since A) there aren't that many and B) we are talking about going from 20 $12.50 players to 24 $10.42 players. The difference of $2 per player isn't enough to outweigh the fact that 20% more people give you more chance of good weeks where guys that aren't stars play well enough to be stars a couple weeks.I agree with MT above and that is what I did. Defenses and Kickers have a lot more $1 folks that grabbing a couple more of each and dropping down a bit on your QB3 or RB4 means higher chances of good weeks out of those slots. The folks that only went with one or two of those have a good chance of sucky weeks when folks are on byes.

Also, I highly disagree with your bye week statement for GB. Your team is not deep enough to survive Grant, Jennings, Rodgers and GB D being off. At least you will be out early enough to not feel like you almost won the $35k.

Or more to the point IMO, we're talking about a $6 drop at one slot to add 2 $2 players and 2 $1 players. I'd easily drop from Justin Gage to Laurent Robinson to get 4 more players.

 

[FUBAR]

Its not just the points per year, its also the points per week. Andre Johnson was huge last year finishing #2 WR in FBG scoring and with 115 receptions had 321 ppr p oints on the season.Yet, in week #2 he had zero on an unanticipated bye due to the hurricane. In week 3 he had a robust 4.9 ppr points. He followed that up with 6.8 ppr points in week 4. If you carried only six WRs and had some other bad weeks in weeks 2-4 you were out. That is how it is with most positions and especially WRs. Boom and Bust weeks. Need to have depth.It is also especially true with kickers and DSTs. If you increase your roster to three, you add insurance that all three won't have the bust weeks together.

your point is solid, but using AJ and the early weeks isn't a good example.

 

[FUBAR]

The teams that win this are teams that get big production out of cheap (1-5 dollar) players. The more of those players you gamble on, the better your odds of hitting on the ones that blow up. You need balance of steady mid/upper tier guys and those value plays... but the more value plays you have the better your odds in the contest. This is not even factoring in the obvious 24 lottery tickets are better than 20 (valid analogy in best ball format).

Maybe. The team that had Tom Brady and Randy Moss two years ago got their money's worth an more.I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think there is a correct answer. 24 is not better than 20 if the 20 outscore the 24.

In 2007, you weren't paying a premium for Moss and Brady so you would have easily afforded 24 players. In 2008, you did pay a premium and not only got subpar performance, you only had 18 more players.

That is the point though. If stud perform well, they are worth the extra bucks. If the $1 player steps up and becomes a stud, they are an incredible value a team. The optimal solution is hitting on your studs and hitting on a couple flyers. Until the end of the season, no one knows. Odds are, 8 out of the top 10 backs will be the high dollar studs and not the $1-5 flyer. If Emmitt Smith is running for 1800 yards and 25 TD's, you have better have been one of the guys who paid $45 for him if you want to win the league.

Only if Emmitt does really well in weeks 13-16. That's the problem IMO, the risk is that the studs I have just won't do that well during that period.Last year, imagine your studs were Kurt Warner (I know he didn't cost much), Adrian Peterson, Lynch, Barber, Boldin, Lee Evans, Housh, Cooley, and Elam. Pretty nice over the year, you would almost certainly have made it far. No chance of winning the thing unless you had some outrageous cheap players.

 

[jon_mx]

The more the merrier IMO. In best ball you want as many viable options on your roster as possible to cover for injuries and variance.

The problem with this logic is I guess 250 $1 players would be better than 50 $5 players. Sure, there maybe a couple $1-2 players who might break out of no where and produce big. But those are the exceptions. Almost all the guys not projected to start produce nothing. I would rather have one Barry Sanders on my team than 50 Scrubs.

Ummm, kinda. Your 250 $1 players isn't a good analogy since A) there aren't that many and B) we are talking about going from 20 $12.50 players to 24 $10.42 players. The difference of $2 per player isn't enough to outweigh the fact that 20% more people give you more chance of good weeks where guys that aren't stars play well enough to be stars a couple weeks.I agree with MT above and that is what I did. Defenses and Kickers have a lot more $1 folks that grabbing a couple more of each and dropping down a bit on your QB3 or RB4 means higher chances of good weeks out of those slots. The folks that only went with one or two of those have a good chance of sucky weeks when folks are on byes.Also, I highly disagree with your bye week statement for GB. Your team is not deep enough to survive Grant, Jennings, Rodgers and GB D being off. At least you will be out early enough to not feel like you almost won the $35k.

My point about 250 wasn't a literal suggestion, it was to make a point at sometime there is a point of diminishing return where quantity is not going to do better than quality. If you take the more is always better theory, it blows up at the extreme. You are not going to win the league loaded up with only low dollar players. BTW, the team I posted was not my team, it was the team based on the most popular selections by FBG members. And I do think the bye week is covered. Byron Leftwich and Matt Ryan will cover at QB. James Davis, Edgerrin James, Ray Rice and Willie Parker will be able to cover at RB. And besides, this is week 5. You only have to be one of the top 7000 teams or whatever. Getting your bye weeks gone early is a good thing.

 

[jon_mx]

Only if Emmitt does really well in weeks 13-16. That's the problem IMO, the risk is that the studs I have just won't do that well during that period.Last year, imagine your studs were Kurt Warner (I know he didn't cost much), Adrian Peterson, Lynch, Barber, Boldin, Lee Evans, Housh, Cooley, and Elam. Pretty nice over the year, you would almost certainly have made it far. No chance of winning the thing unless you had some outrageous cheap players.

Don't have the whole season, but Emmitt did rush for 103 yards and 4 TDs in week 15.....

 

[billjohnson]

According to statistics from the actual teams submitted by contestants, this is the Optimal Team. I just took the most common players picked at each position with the most common distribution at each position. Amazingly it came out to $250. It came out to be 22 players. This is actually an awesome team in my book.

FBG's Optimal Team

Aaron Rodgers 27

Byron Leftwich 4

Matt Ryan 19

James Davis 2

Edgerrin James 1

Ryan Grant 24

Ray Rice 21

Willie Parker 16

Percy Harvin 5

Chris Henry 12

Chaz Schilens 3

Derrick Mason 9

Marques Colston 28

Greg Jennings 32

Vincent Jackson 21

Jermichael Finley 3

Greg Olsen 15

Chris Baker 1

Robbie Gould 2

Josh Brown 1

Green Bay Packers 3

New Orleans Saints 1

Total 250

It's crazy how close that is to my team! And I thought I was really picking out some winners...instead, just another sheep. Oh well, wouldn't complain if had to split the 20 large with a few other guys!Bill

 

[WisWolvrns]

You can have 24 players and Brady-Moss combo.

We never said you take $4 from your top guy. You can get that $4 anywhere. Once you hit the mid tier players, there isn't much difference between them. It still just comes down to choosing the right guy to swap with, but there is a high probability that if you swap a middle tier guy with another one to get $4 or $6 to spend on 4 more players and use them to get an extra D and extra PK so you have 3 each and a flyer on a couple WRs (or Edge/Brown/Davis this year) you will have improved your odds of making the cut in some weeks.

For those which can't see it... when you don't make the cut just look at the bottom $1 PK/D's. Would having one of them on your roster scored more than the PK/D that failed to score points and cost you making the cut? Likewise with a cheap WR. My guess is it will make a difference.

Tie in the fact many other people are doing the cheap 3-4 bottom players and if anyone one of those blows up in a week, anyone not having that player is now in trouble against all the teams which had the cheap player.

If it was a total points league for the year, yeah, going better and 20 would make sense, but in standalone best ball each week, the more chances at points you have the better your chances of scoring and making the cut will be. Most especially true at the WR/PK/D positions and during bye weeks.

 

[jon_mx]

If we assume they did their job correct, and the $4 players are really worse than the $8 player, having 2 $8 players to fill in for bye weeks could very well be better than 4 $4 players. If the $8 players end up being a WR2 for a team, versus the $4 players being a 3/4 WR, I would rather have the two $8 players out there. The $8 players will be in EVERY play, the $4 players may only be out there for half the plays. Who really has the better chance at scoring then? They put a lot of thought in assigning $$ values to players, it is not some random number generator. Granted, things happen in pre-season which propel a few of those cheap players into major bargains, but for the most part, you get what you pay for. This year I don't see a lot of the mega-bargains that we had last year. If there are mega-bargains out there, then by all means fill up all 24 spots. Trying to say 24 spots is the only way to go is not the correct answer. It really depends on the players and their relative values. I really think this year the correct answer is 22 or 23 players. I think some of the best values are in the $8 - $15 range, and only a few of the $1-$4 position players are even good enough for occasional fill ins. I don't see James Davis as being a Slator, or Leftwich being a Warner.

 

[apalmer]

You can have 24 players and Brady-Moss combo.

We never said you take $4 from your top guy. You can get that $4 anywhere. Once you hit the mid tier players, there isn't much difference between them. It still just comes down to choosing the right guy to swap with, but there is a high probability that if you swap a middle tier guy with another one to get $4 or $6 to spend on 4 more players and use them to get an extra D and extra PK so you have 3 each and a flyer on a couple WRs (or Edge/Brown/Davis this year) you will have improved your odds of making the cut in some weeks.

For those which can't see it... when you don't make the cut just look at the bottom $1 PK/D's. Would having one of them on your roster scored more than the PK/D that failed to score points and cost you making the cut? Likewise with a cheap WR. My guess is it will make a difference.

Tie in the fact many other people are doing the cheap 3-4 bottom players and if anyone one of those blows up in a week, anyone not having that player is now in trouble against all the teams which had the cheap player.

If it was a total points league for the year, yeah, going better and 20 would make sense, but in standalone best ball each week, the more chances at points you have the better your chances of scoring and making the cut will be. Most especially true at the WR/PK/D positions and during bye weeks.

And, for those who can't see the other side...when you don't make the cut, look at your six $1 PK/D's. Now look at the $3, 4 and $5 K/D's available. Would having one of them on your roster score more points than the the ones you had? Likewise with your cheap WRs--if you had used that $4-5 to upgrade one of your midrange guys, would you have scored more points? My guess is it will make a difference. Any team that gets eliminated will be able to look and find someone they could have had for the same money that would have saved them. It's the nature of the contest. If a 20-man team makes sense in a total points league as you say, how can it not make sense in a weekly points league? If you score more total points over 16 weeks than another team, you must average more points per week than that team. So, more often than not you're probably going to outscore that other team each week. Sure, some weeks the other team will score more, but would you seriously rather have the team that scores the most in fewer weeks? I don't think having gusy with a good chance of scoring 5 or 6 points is going to help me win the contest. Guys with a good chance of scoring 15-25 points do that. The winning teams last year scored over 600 points in the last 3 weeks. That's an averge of 20 points per player-position per week. That's the target I'm aiming for, and that's the type of players I tried to pick. Dropping from a guy who I think has a good chance of scoring 20 in any given week to a guy who only has a good chance of scoring 10 or 12 so that I can get more $1 kickers (or WRs) who might give me an extra point or two sometime during the contest doesn't hit that target. It may increase my chances of surving an extra week or two, but my target isn't to get to week 12 or 13.

 

[Sinn Fein]

[sittingonfenceguy]"There is no "right" answer here"[/sittingonfenceguy]

The goal was to come up with the best combination of players that accomplishes two, not necessarily related, goals: Survive to the end, and score the most points in the final weeks.

For the 24 crowd - of which I ended up being in - the lure of an extra WR/K/D or 2 in the hopes of getting 1-2 big weeks during the season was attractive. I don't have any weeks with a disproportionate number of players on bye - and my bottom 4 players - who I would have cut if I could only use 20 - cost $10.

So is the benefit of having Leinart, Britt, E. James, and Schilens worth a $10 downgrade at another position? If they never score for my team - a decent possibility - then it was a waste of money, and I should have gone after a better WR, RB or QB with that money. That is the argument for the 20 crowd.

 

[apalmer]

[sittingonfenceguy]"There is no "right" answer here"[/sittingonfenceguy]The goal was to come up with the best combination of players that accomplishes two, not necessarily related, goals: Survive to the end, and score the most points in the final weeks.For the 24 crowd - of which I ended up being in - the lure of an extra WR/K/D or 2 in the hopes of getting 1-2 big weeks during the season was attractive. I don't have any weeks with a disproportionate number of players on bye - and my bottom 4 players - who I would have cut if I could only use 20 - cost $10. So is the benefit of having Leinart, Britt, E. James, and Schilens worth a $10 downgrade at another position? If they never score for my team - a decent possibility - then it was a waste of money, and I should have gone after a better WR, RB or QB with that money. That is the argument for the 20 crowd.

Exactly. It's simply two different paths toward the same goal. Both have pros and cons.

 

[FUBAR]

And, for those who can't see the other side...when you don't make the cut, look at your six $1 PK/D's. Now look at the $3, 4 and $5 K/D's available. Would having one of them on your roster score more points than the the ones you had? Likewise with your cheap WRs--if you had used that $4-5 to upgrade one of your midrange guys, would you have scored more points? My guess is it will make a difference. Any team that gets eliminated will be able to look and find someone they could have had for the same money that would have saved them. It's the nature of the contest.

If a 20-man team makes sense in a total points league as you say, how can it not make sense in a weekly points league? If you score more total points over 16 weeks than another team, you must average more points per week than that team. So, more often than not you're probably going to outscore that other team each week. Sure, some weeks the other team will score more, but would you seriously rather have the team that scores the most in fewer weeks? I don't think having gusy with a good chance of scoring 5 or 6 points is going to help me win the contest. Guys with a good chance of scoring 15-25 points do that. The winning teams last year scored over 600 points in the last 3 weeks. That's an averge of 20 points per player-position per week. That's the target I'm aiming for, and that's the type of players I tried to pick. Dropping from a guy who I think has a good chance of scoring 20 in any given week to a guy who only has a good chance of scoring 10 or 12 so that I can get more $1 kickers (or WRs) who might give me an extra point or two sometime during the contest doesn't hit that target. It may increase my chances of surving an extra week or two, but my target isn't to get to week 12 or 13.

It doesn't really matter if you're the top scorer every week except one, that one week could kick you out. The problem I had that led me to go with 24 instead of 20 was accounting for bye weeks. I think you may be right though, a team with 20 has roughly the same chance as the team with 24 to win it once we reach 250. IMO (and we'll see if this bears out), the team with 24 is just more likely to survive the cuts.

 

[TBFL]

Just curious if there is a way to see what the %'s were for teams eliminated this week......

How many Players did they have ?

 

[Sammy B]

And, for those who can't see the other side...when you don't make the cut, look at your six $1 PK/D's. Now look at the $3, 4 and $5 K/D's available. Would having one of them on your roster score more points than the the ones you had? Likewise with your cheap WRs--if you had used that $4-5 to upgrade one of your midrange guys, would you have scored more points? My guess is it will make a difference. Any team that gets eliminated will be able to look and find someone they could have had for the same money that would have saved them. It's the nature of the contest.

If a 20-man team makes sense in a total points league as you say, how can it not make sense in a weekly points league? If you score more total points over 16 weeks than another team, you must average more points per week than that team. So, more often than not you're probably going to outscore that other team each week. Sure, some weeks the other team will score more, but would you seriously rather have the team that scores the most in fewer weeks? I don't think having gusy with a good chance of scoring 5 or 6 points is going to help me win the contest. Guys with a good chance of scoring 15-25 points do that. The winning teams last year scored over 600 points in the last 3 weeks. That's an averge of 20 points per player-position per week. That's the target I'm aiming for, and that's the type of players I tried to pick. Dropping from a guy who I think has a good chance of scoring 20 in any given week to a guy who only has a good chance of scoring 10 or 12 so that I can get more $1 kickers (or WRs) who might give me an extra point or two sometime during the contest doesn't hit that target. It may increase my chances of surving an extra week or two, but my target isn't to get to week 12 or 13.

It doesn't really matter if you're the top scorer every week except one, that one week could kick you out. The problem I had that led me to go with 24 instead of 20 was accounting for bye weeks. I think you may be right though, a team with 20 has roughly the same chance as the team with 24 to win it once we reach 250. IMO (and we'll see if this bears out), the team with 24 is just more likely to survive the cuts.

I have a 20 man team and was able to avoid having 2 players at one position (for all positions) have the same bye week. We'll see how it works. And I agree with what some are saying, there's pros and cons to both. Just have to have a little luck on your side I guess.