What's new
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!

"An Indepth Look at Accuracy of Weekly Projections" (1 Viewer)

BTW, I'm still working out my system this season, but assuming the methodology you guys settle on for this is sound, I will GUARANTEE I can outperform FBG next year. I would be willing to put my money where my mouth is as well.

Having said that, I do think this site is the best out there at this stuff for the time being.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IMO some guys need to tone down the expectation of the site. This site does well with projections, analysis etc. I was reading in this trend that some of us want to see the small things like analysis on why we should start the Dante Rosarios, Deshan Jackson or Hank Basketts of the world with confidence in week 1. You have to be kidding me if anyone thought to even play some of these guys week one. I know we already know it but this hobby we have requires a whole lot of luck too.
I started Deshaun Jackson weeks 1-3. My league is surely much different than yours so don't assume that because YOU aren't interested or willing to start what looks like a marginal player that other FFballers are as uninterested as you are.
 
First off, I would like to preface this by saying that Footballguys is worth the money whether this study proves your rankings to be accurate or otherwise. The hard work done by all staff members, the writing, the analysis etc. - those are the things that separates FBG from many other FF services out there. Honestly, FBG could have the worst weekly rankings in the industry, and I'd still gladly pony up the cash to be an FBG subscriber. I also applaud David for wanting to get his hands dirty on the accuracy side of the industry, which for the most part, has been largely ignored industry-wide. Having said that, I do question whether the end result of the study will yield enough consensus to give fantasy owners data they can hang their hat on. In my view, unless there is a wide variance from best to worst and some serious consistent trending on a weekly basis that is revealed through this study, it will be hard to really glean much from it as a fantasy owner. ie, If I'm deciding between Player A or Player B on any given week and some fantasy services were particularly accurate projecting Player A, but not Player B, and other services were more accurate projecting Player B than Player A - the data just may not have much value. But I guess that's why the study needs to be done. Until someone does it, we have no idea what it will reveal.

On a similar but separate note, what we're trying to do with WDIS.net is create an online tool that measures accuracy on a lineup call per lineup call basis. It's my feeling that this is the kind of data that could be quite valuable to fantasy owners. We're creating a site that is specifically designed to aggregate consensus on a specific lineup call, and to be able to track which site members are most accurate at picking lineup call winners by providing weekly won-loss records and lifetime stats on lineup call results. We're still very much in 'beta test' mode with this, but I'm hoping that once we're done putting all of the pieces together on WDIS.net, we'll have something unique and of value for fantasy owners and also be able to share our data with the fantasy football community at large.

Good luck with the study. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing the data and most of all, reading the FBG analysis of it! :shock:

 
davearms example is a good example of where this can be faulty, however...

Does this benefit FBG in any way?

The purpose of this exercise is that David wants to demonstrate that his projections are better than anywhere else. He can easily be at the wrong end of this as fantasymegageeksuperstars.com

If a player is projected to finish in the top third eg as a Top 4 QB and he finishes there he has done his job. It seems harsh to penalize one of the elite choices for the week if he goes crazy eg a 5 TD passing game or a 4 rushing TD game. If he's projected in the top 3rd and he exceeds his projection why should a site that advocated him as one of the best choices of the week get punished? If he fails to make that elite status he won't get a 100% and therefore be judged purely on the actuals vs projected.

I can understand the criticism of the compromise solution, I really can and it's great that you guys care enough to argue passionately about it, but we have to stick with something soon.

The whole point is to make it transparent about how we are going to score before the project begins and detail everything in advance. We need to start somewhere and if there are clear faults and you guys were right with the model, then it can be reconsidered for future years.

If there are concerns as to how this method benefits David's projections, let us know.

By the way, I'm not saying we are going to go with the Top 3rd option, it's just that it's my favored option right now.

 
Does KFFL do true week-to-week projections?

I must be some kind of an idiot because I don't see any.

ETA: I also don't see stat projections from FF Docs

 
Last edited by a moderator:
davearms example is a good example of where this can be faulty, however...Does this benefit FBG in any way?The purpose of this exercise is that David wants to demonstrate that his projections are better than anywhere else. He can easily be at the wrong end of this as fantasymegageeksuperstars.comIf a player is projected to finish in the top third eg as a Top 4 QB and he finishes there he has done his job. It seems harsh to penalize one of the elite choices for the week if he goes crazy eg a 5 TD passing game or a 4 rushing TD game. If he's projected in the top 3rd and he exceeds his projection why should a site that advocated him as one of the best choices of the week get punished? If he fails to make that elite status he won't get a 100% and therefore be judged purely on the actuals vs projected. I can understand the criticism of the compromise solution, I really can and it's great that you guys care enough to argue passionately about it, but we have to stick with something soon. The whole point is to make it transparent about how we are going to score before the project begins and detail everything in advance. We need to start somewhere and if there are clear faults and you guys were right with the model, then it can be reconsidered for future years. If there are concerns as to how this method benefits David's projections, let us know.By the way, I'm not saying we are going to go with the Top 3rd option, it's just that it's my favored option right now.
Andy --It's not really an issue of whether your method does or doesn't benefit FBG in any way.The issue is whether your method does a good job of reflecting the accuracy of the projections. Period.The example I gave shows that the method has what I would consider to be a pretty significant flaw, the result of which is a pretty poor reflection of the accuracy of the projections.As I asked at the end of that earlier post, would FBGs endorse the conclusion shown in my example if this was someone else's study? I would certainly hope not, because the conclusion stinks.As to your point about "punishing" a site despite it correctly predicting a top 4 performance -- *all* the study participants will be "punished" when a guy blows up with 5 TDs.The thing to realize is that the site that had him down for 300 and 3 will be "punished" less than those that had him down for 250 and 2, and thus the results will still reflect the fact that the site with the 300/3 projection did a better job than the rest. Proper credit will still be awarded for the best projection, even if it's way low due to a "blowup" game.And in the grand scheme, the "blowup" games will be a small fraction of all observations, and thus their impact will be minimal when they're averaged in with all the "normal" games.
 
davearms example is a good example of where this can be faulty, however...Does this benefit FBG in any way?The purpose of this exercise is that David wants to demonstrate that his projections are better than anywhere else. He can easily be at the wrong end of this as fantasymegageeksuperstars.comIf a player is projected to finish in the top third eg as a Top 4 QB and he finishes there he has done his job. It seems harsh to penalize one of the elite choices for the week if he goes crazy eg a 5 TD passing game or a 4 rushing TD game. If he's projected in the top 3rd and he exceeds his projection why should a site that advocated him as one of the best choices of the week get punished? If he fails to make that elite status he won't get a 100% and therefore be judged purely on the actuals vs projected. I can understand the criticism of the compromise solution, I really can and it's great that you guys care enough to argue passionately about it, but we have to stick with something soon. The whole point is to make it transparent about how we are going to score before the project begins and detail everything in advance. We need to start somewhere and if there are clear faults and you guys were right with the model, then it can be reconsidered for future years. If there are concerns as to how this method benefits David's projections, let us know.By the way, I'm not saying we are going to go with the Top 3rd option, it's just that it's my favored option right now.
Andy --It's not really an issue of whether your method does or doesn't benefit FBG in any way.The issue is whether your method does a good job of reflecting the accuracy of the projections. Period.The example I gave shows that the method has what I would consider to be a pretty significant flaw, the result of which is a pretty poor reflection of the accuracy of the projections.As I asked at the end of that earlier post, would FBGs endorse the conclusion shown in my example if this was someone else's study? I would certainly hope not, because the conclusion stinks.As to your point about "punishing" a site despite it correctly predicting a top 4 performance -- *all* the study participants will be "punished" when a guy blows up with 5 TDs.The thing to realize is that the site that had him down for 300 and 3 will be "punished" less than those that had him down for 250 and 2, and thus the results will still reflect the fact that the site with the 300/3 projection did a better job than the rest. Proper credit will still be awarded for the best projection, even if it's way low due to a "blowup" game.And in the grand scheme, the "blowup" games will be a small fraction of all observations, and thus their impact will be minimal when they're averaged in with all the "normal" games.
davearm, you may be right about this. I'm still not sure which is the best way forward here.I was more adamant yesterday about sticking with the proposal, but have softened after re-reading yours and other arguments.I still think that the upper echelon guys should be weighted somehow. If we have 21 QB's in someone's top 12, a good ranking for the guy who ranked 18th and isn't started in the majority of leagues is going to count more than the guy who will be started in 99.9% of leagues and finishes as a top performer and goes crazy. eg Drew Brees throws for 400 yards and 4 TD's, but is projected for 270 and 2.5 TD's is going to count less than Gus Frerotte throwing for 175 yds and 1 TD after being projected for 185 and 1 TD. Because 1 guy had Frerotte in his top 12.Frerotte will be starting in 2% of leagues, Brees 99%I know the top 1/3 thing isn't perfect, but at least it rewards guys projected as must starts. Not sure if there is an easy solution to this, but it's probably best to start simple and move forward from there in future years. We'll all be wiser once this gets put into practice.Thanks for keeping the discussion positive.
 
Getting close to the deadline for this.

I genuinely don't know which scoring method to go for.

1) The purely projections v actuals. This to my mind has negatives regarding lower ranked players being favored over the elite.

2) Favoring the elite players (Top 3rd at each position). If a correct ranking for these guys = 100%, the rest get scored as projections vs actuals.

If there are any more opinions, throw them out before we make a call.

 
Getting close to the deadline for this.I genuinely don't know which scoring method to go for.1) The purely projections v actuals. This to my mind has negatives regarding lower ranked players being favored over the elite.2) Favoring the elite players (Top 3rd at each position). If a correct ranking for these guys = 100%, the rest get scored as projections vs actuals.If there are any more opinions, throw them out before we make a call.
:thumbdown: First, kudos to you guys for doing this -- That's serious guts and accountability to put your rankings up against the other popular sites, not to mention all the extra work involved. Also, similar to a point made by an earlier poster, even if FBG weekly rankings (both Dodds & Bloom) were to finish near the bottom of the pack (unlikely, but anything is possible), I would still think that all the content FBG provides would be more than worth the price I pay as a subscriber.As to the scoring method, I'm not a statistics guru, and it's entirely possible that what I'm suggesting would be way too complicated to implement, but if you want to counteract the negatives you cite for option 1, couldn't some simple incremental weighting method be used that would apply to all players rather than having some arbitrary cutoff as method 2 uses that potentially produces the seriously skewed results described earlier? Once you translate all the sites' projections into FBG scoring, you'll have effective rankings for each site. If you average them all together to get the a priori consensus 1st - Xth rankings, couldn't you apply some sort of incremental weighting to give the accuracy of the projections for consensus QB 1 slightly greater weight than that for consensus QB 2, and so on?If that's not possible (or some other system can't be worked out), my vote is for option 1 over option 2.
 
Getting close to the deadline for this.I genuinely don't know which scoring method to go for.1) The purely projections v actuals. This to my mind has negatives regarding lower ranked players being favored over the elite.2) Favoring the elite players (Top 3rd at each position). If a correct ranking for these guys = 100%, the rest get scored as projections vs actuals.If there are any more opinions, throw them out before we make a call.
I would lean toward #1. I could make an argument that method #2 favors more conservative projectors versus chronic overprojectors. Let's say we both have Manning in our top 4 for our projections, I have him projected to throw for 300 and 3 td's, you have him at 250 and 2.2 td's. If he throws for 4 td's and finishes top 4, we both get the same score. If he does worse, I perform worse. It's a tie-lose situation. If you think footballguys are going to be toward the conservative end, then I could argue that the methodology favors footballguys.The negatives of #1 aren't necessarily that the lower ranked players are weighted more heavily--its that the players with the widest range of projections are more significant. This could be the big names, or it could be the guys where there is a difference of opinion as to whether someone is a fantasy start or not. I earlier made a reference to a Simpson's paradox problem, that's not completely accurate, because everyone will be evaluated on the same sample size of players at each position. More accurately, I meant that because there will be more WR than other positions each week, projection performance at WR might drive the overall rankings. Then again, maybe it won't, if a position like QB has more variability even if there are fewer number of QB's being evaluated. You might want to report weekly final reports by summarizing by each position, and then also overall. Heck, this way, someone could say they were best at projecting quarterbacks, even if they weren't first overall. More people happy to be involved.
 
Getting close to the deadline for this.I genuinely don't know which scoring method to go for.1) The purely projections v actuals. This to my mind has negatives regarding lower ranked players being favored over the elite.2) Favoring the elite players (Top 3rd at each position). If a correct ranking for these guys = 100%, the rest get scored as projections vs actuals.If there are any more opinions, throw them out before we make a call.
No offense, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone who has posted in this thread has been in favor of #2 except you, Andy. Why do you keep asking for more input? Are you just hoping someone else will agree with that approach? I think it has been clearly shown by others in this thread why that would be an inferior approach to #1. I'm actually pretty surprised that FBG would even be considering a method like #2, for many of the reasons already posted in this thread.
 
davearms example is a good example of where this can be faulty, however...Does this benefit FBG in any way?The purpose of this exercise is that David wants to demonstrate that his projections are better than anywhere else. He can easily be at the wrong end of this as fantasymegageeksuperstars.comIf a player is projected to finish in the top third eg as a Top 4 QB and he finishes there he has done his job. It seems harsh to penalize one of the elite choices for the week if he goes crazy eg a 5 TD passing game or a 4 rushing TD game. If he's projected in the top 3rd and he exceeds his projection why should a site that advocated him as one of the best choices of the week get punished? If he fails to make that elite status he won't get a 100% and therefore be judged purely on the actuals vs projected. I can understand the criticism of the compromise solution, I really can and it's great that you guys care enough to argue passionately about it, but we have to stick with something soon. The whole point is to make it transparent about how we are going to score before the project begins and detail everything in advance. We need to start somewhere and if there are clear faults and you guys were right with the model, then it can be reconsidered for future years. If there are concerns as to how this method benefits David's projections, let us know.By the way, I'm not saying we are going to go with the Top 3rd option, it's just that it's my favored option right now.
Andy --It's not really an issue of whether your method does or doesn't benefit FBG in any way.The issue is whether your method does a good job of reflecting the accuracy of the projections. Period.The example I gave shows that the method has what I would consider to be a pretty significant flaw, the result of which is a pretty poor reflection of the accuracy of the projections.As I asked at the end of that earlier post, would FBGs endorse the conclusion shown in my example if this was someone else's study? I would certainly hope not, because the conclusion stinks.As to your point about "punishing" a site despite it correctly predicting a top 4 performance -- *all* the study participants will be "punished" when a guy blows up with 5 TDs.The thing to realize is that the site that had him down for 300 and 3 will be "punished" less than those that had him down for 250 and 2, and thus the results will still reflect the fact that the site with the 300/3 projection did a better job than the rest. Proper credit will still be awarded for the best projection, even if it's way low due to a "blowup" game.And in the grand scheme, the "blowup" games will be a small fraction of all observations, and thus their impact will be minimal when they're averaged in with all the "normal" games.
davearm, you may be right about this. I'm still not sure which is the best way forward here.I was more adamant yesterday about sticking with the proposal, but have softened after re-reading yours and other arguments.I still think that the upper echelon guys should be weighted somehow. If we have 21 QB's in someone's top 12, a good ranking for the guy who ranked 18th and isn't started in the majority of leagues is going to count more than the guy who will be started in 99.9% of leagues and finishes as a top performer and goes crazy. eg Drew Brees throws for 400 yards and 4 TD's, but is projected for 270 and 2.5 TD's is going to count less than Gus Frerotte throwing for 175 yds and 1 TD after being projected for 185 and 1 TD. Because 1 guy had Frerotte in his top 12.Frerotte will be starting in 2% of leagues, Brees 99%I know the top 1/3 thing isn't perfect, but at least it rewards guys projected as must starts. Not sure if there is an easy solution to this, but it's probably best to start simple and move forward from there in future years. We'll all be wiser once this gets put into practice.Thanks for keeping the discussion positive.
One thing you could do is weight guys based on how many of the sites have that particular player within the cutoff (top 12 in the case of QBs).So if you've got 10 sites participating, and all 10 have Brees in their top 12 QBs that week, then everybody's score for Brees gets a weight of 1.0 (10/10).If only 2 sites in 10 have Frerotte in their top 12, then everybody's score for Frerotte counts (as before), but those scores receive a weight of just 0.2 (2/10).Take a weighted average of all projections, and voila -- the Brees projections are 5x more meaningful to the bottom line than the Frerotte projections that week.Now having said all that, I don't really think such a weighting system is necessary or desirable. Often it's the borderline starts like Frerotte that are more important to fantasy players than the no-brainers like Brees that are going to start no matter what anyone is projecting. That is, knowing which site can most accurately predict which of the Frerotte-caliber players are going to have start-worthy weeks is arguably more valuable info than knowing which site is best at pinning down the must-start studs' numbers.And one other thing. As you try and nail down the methodology, why not use Dodds' and Bloom's projections for all 17 weeks of 2007 to test the various models you've got on the drawing board? You've got the empirical data needed to evaluate whichever model constructs you think are worth considering.
 
Getting close to the deadline for this.I genuinely don't know which scoring method to go for.1) The purely projections v actuals. This to my mind has negatives regarding lower ranked players being favored over the elite.2) Favoring the elite players (Top 3rd at each position). If a correct ranking for these guys = 100%, the rest get scored as projections vs actuals.If there are any more opinions, throw them out before we make a call.
No offense, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone who has posted in this thread has been in favor of #2 except you, Andy. Why do you keep asking for more input? Are you just hoping someone else will agree with that approach? I think it has been clearly shown by others in this thread why that would be an inferior approach to #1. I'm actually pretty surprised that FBG would even be considering a method like #2, for many of the reasons already posted in this thread.
Fair enough. If we go ahead with this, we'll use option 1).It's a good base, but I imagine in future years the scoring methodology will need to become more sophisticated to weight players that most people actually start vs players that are started by few.Anyway, onto the latest. As suggested by the if comment we've hit a couple of hurdles with this.We're determining if they can be overcome or whether they make the exercise pointless.More soon...
 
David, Anything that you do that improves our chances is great. My only problem is that this is not an exact science, You can plan and plan and then a fumble can cost you dearly. This week is a good example. I am starting a RB that you have ranked lower than the one I am benching.

Who can predict Ronnie Brown scoring 5 TD's or Favre throwing 6? This is a tough game to predict because there is always something left up to chance.

Thanks for all the hard work though.

PS: This is the only site I use and I have been very happy with the results.

 
Andy Hicks said:
Fair enough. If we go ahead with this, we'll use option 1).It's a good base, but I imagine in future years the scoring methodology will need to become more sophisticated to weight players that most people actually start vs players that are started by few.Anyway, onto the latest. As suggested by the if comment we've hit a couple of hurdles with this.We're determining if they can be overcome or whether they make the exercise pointless.More soon...
Andy,I think you've made the correct decision.Just to reiterate a point that I think still keeps getting lost. If you have a Tony Romo, LT or any top 10 position player, your are generally going to play them regardless of projection. It honestly doesn't matter if your Romo projections are better than somebody else's because it's not going to change my mind to start Romo. Maybe I don't win by as much as you predicted, but it doesn't matter. Where it matters is in those RB3 vs. WR3 decisions for my flex. That is where I win/lose every week.Thanks for listening.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When will this be out and will it be called the title of this thread?? In 6 or 7 years I have used this site with probably 2 or 3 logins this by far is the most anticipated article i have looked forward to. Can't wait to see it!!

 
Fair enough. If we go ahead with this, we'll use option 1).It's a good base, but I imagine in future years the scoring methodology will need to become more sophisticated to weight players that most people actually start vs players that are started by few.Anyway, onto the latest. As suggested by the if comment we've hit a couple of hurdles with this.We're determining if they can be overcome or whether they make the exercise pointless.More soon...
Andy,I think you've made the correct decision.Just to reiterate a point that I think still keeps getting lost. If you have a Tony Romo, LT or any top 10 position player, your are generally going to play them regardless of projection. It honestly doesn't matter if your Romo projections are better than somebody else's because it's not going to change my mind to start Romo. Maybe I don't win by as much as you predicted, but it doesn't matter. Where it matters is in those RB3 vs. WR3 decisions for my flex. That is where I win/lose every week.Thanks for listening.
I always and enjoy and respect Cal Bears takes. I do want to add to this one. I agree with the Romo analogy. But if you have a top 9 and 11 QB or a 13, 19, 23 RB because you are stronger in other areas... that starter may not be so clear and you play it week by week. So i would just say maybe emphasize the middle areas more then the top 5's but still would like to see when a ADP, Romo or whomever has a tank game, why it might have occurred or why they should not have been ranked that high that particular week.
 
Andy,I think you've made the correct decision.Just to reiterate a point that I think still keeps getting lost. If you have a Tony Romo, LT or any top 10 position player, your are generally going to play them regardless of projection. It honestly doesn't matter if your Romo projections are better than somebody else's because it's not going to change my mind to start Romo. Maybe I don't win by as much as you predicted, but it doesn't matter. Where it matters is in those RB3 vs. WR3 decisions for my flex. That is where I win/lose every week.Thanks for listening.
On one hand, I get what you're saying. On the other, you don't think there are teams that ended up with Manning, Rodgers, and Cutler? Those are top 10 guys a lot of weeks and I need to know which one (or 2) to start.Same with RBs. I have Peterson, Gore, and Bush in a keeper league. There are just as many WDIS questions with top guys as there are at the bottom.In fact, I could argue the ones at the bottom are less impt, the difference between the 20th and 40th best WR is smaller than that between the 1st and 5th best.
 
john mark is a ####### stud and i am proud to know him and be competing against him in the same division of a fantasy league. best competition available and my only hope is that i can make him doubt his chances the slightest bit

 
I was thinking about how consumer reports does comparisons of products and they can display the results.

Maybe if there is a 3rd independent party that is doing this then the results of all the sites can be displayed.

Anyway good luck on this!

 
I agree that I'd like to be able to legitimately claim that FBGs rankings are the best around. However, it gets pretty tricky to assign a number to what constitutes "the best." The method that you proposed using the percent accuracy seems like it might favor those sites that avoid radical predictions and just rank the players around their current standing.

I think an easier study would take the 5 players at each position who performed well above/below their avg projection and see who called them correctly.

 
Andy...just roll with this. Just post the end results for everyone and omit the details for the pay sites. I trust you guys not to fudge the data that you can't post. Heck, I'd even be ok if you dropped the weenies from the final tally if they did well and include them if they did crappy.

 
Andy...just roll with this. Just post the end results for everyone and omit the details for the pay sites. I trust you guys not to fudge the data that you can't post. Heck, I'd even be ok if you dropped the weenies from the final tally if they did well and include them if they did crappy.
I'd definitely prefer to see the pay sites included if at all possible, but I agree 100% that I trust you guys not to fudge the data, and if you can legally get away with posting the end results for some sites even if you have to omit the details backing up those results for those particular sites, that sounds great to me.
 
Sources we are planning to track right now (but open to others):FBG (Dodds)FBG (Bloom)ESPNYahooFantasy GuruFantasy IndexThe HuddleKFFL (Free)Fantasy Sharks (Free)Draft SharksFanballFF Today (Free)FF MastermindFF Docs
You guys should also track the AVERAGE across all of these projections. I wouldn't be suprised if thats what ended up the most accurate.
 
(HULK) said:
Sources we are planning to track right now (but open to others):FBG (Dodds)FBG (Bloom)ESPNYahooFantasy GuruFantasy IndexThe HuddleKFFL (Free)Fantasy Sharks (Free)Draft SharksFanballFF Today (Free)FF MastermindFF Docs
You guys should also track the AVERAGE across all of these projections. I wouldn't be suprised if thats what ended up the most accurate.
Agree that this would be interesting. This feels a little like picking stocks where over the course of a single season (or even a few seasons), one system may prove to be better. But it would be interesting to see over a long period of time if the "index fund" performs better than most. Sticking with the mutual fund analogy, it would be helpful to understand each system's philosophy -- for example, which systems favor a "stick with your studs" strategy vs. a "matchups are everything" strategy?
 
Just to update you guys with where we are at.

We will do this for the next 4 weeks, but early signs are that Footballguys will do very well.

*A number of sites don't update on Sundays. This will hurt projections when late changes occur eg Matt Schaub & Carson Palmer in recent weeks or mistakenly assuming Willis McGahee won't play. Some sites haven't updated their projections since Thursday

*Some sites don't go deep enough to cover all players ranked as starters by at least 1 site.

*We've seen an example or 2 where there is a Sunday update, but another player has been substituted with identical stats projected for the player reported as OUT eg Carson Palmer was a late withdrawal and Ryan Fitzpatrick was projected to have identical stats as projected for Palmer.

*Some sites project numbers way over others.

*Some sites were down, meaning that no data was available for collection

In the 2 weeks we've looked at this to set the study up, most sites do well and obviously tailor projections to suit their customers. Footballguys will be advantaged because we update right until games commence and go very deep with projections. To study projections fairly we see this as a necessity.

This isn't an effort to bash other sites, as I mentioned most project fairly well, Footballguys want to be open about their projections and compare them to the best out there.

In conclusion.

We will be gathering data at the immediate commencement of the first Sunday game for at least the next 4 weeks.

We will have screen dumps

The formula used to compare actuals to projections is =MIN(I2,G2)/MAX(I2,G2) where I2 is the actual stats, and G2 is the projected stats.

Any player listed as a top 12 QB, Top 24 RB, Top 30 WR & Top 12 TE for any site will be included. The projected stats for each sites will be converted to FBGs standard scoring and the starters for each site based on that scoring. The exception to this is that Intercepts will not be counted. A number of sites do not project interceptions for Quarterbacks

Pending further updates, the sites included wil be

FBG Dodds,

FBG Bloom

ESPN

Fantasy Index

The Huddle

Fantasy Sharks

Draft Sharks

Fanball

FF Today

4for4

CBS

Other sites previously listed either don't have weekly projections or are not included for other reasons.

At the very least Footballguys will advise how they've done projection wise. As mentioned, it isn't intended to hurt other sites, just comparing ourselves against the best of the best.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looking forward to seeing the results, guys -- it should be interesting. I have subscribed to several of these services over time, and have kept track over each year with regard to accuracy. Of the ones you are rolling with, I no longer rely on any them (on the other hand, one of the ones you mentioned earlier that is not in the final list I do look at each week -- along with FBG). I look at both individually, and also look at the average of the two.

Lots of work for you guys, but thanks for doing it.

 
tytyty said:
will this be posted in the forum or in the weekly items on the main page?
Not sure yet.Depends how much time David has. Not sure if should get released week to week or at the conclusion of the season/commencement of next season.Weeks 4 & 5 when we were testing it out were pretty good for FBG.Haven't sorted through the week 6 stuff yet
 
BTW, I'm still working out my system this season, but assuming the methodology you guys settle on for this is sound, I will GUARANTEE I can outperform FBG next year. I would be willing to put my money where my mouth is as well.Having said that, I do think this site is the best out there at this stuff for the time being.
:subscribe:
 
tytyty said:
will this be posted in the forum or in the weekly items on the main page?
Not sure yet.Depends how much time David has. Not sure if should get released week to week or at the conclusion of the season/commencement of next season.Weeks 4 & 5 when we were testing it out were pretty good for FBG.Haven't sorted through the week 6 stuff yet
great thanks!
 
will this be posted in the forum or in the weekly items on the main page?
Not sure yet.Depends how much time David has. Not sure if should get released week to week or at the conclusion of the season/commencement of next season.Weeks 4 & 5 when we were testing it out were pretty good for FBG.Haven't sorted through the week 6 stuff yet
great thanks!
where can the data be found?
 
The best thing any site could do is to have the guts to show other sites rankings, list them all together like your preseason rankings here, and average them. Chest thumping does nothing for me. Having the guts to post your stuff out there with everyone elses, and giving us an expert average, would be great. We can then weight tem anyway we like to with spread sheet options.

 
The best thing any site could do is to have the guts to show other sites rankings, list them all together like your preseason rankings here, and average them. Chest thumping does nothing for me. Having the guts to post your stuff out there with everyone elses, and giving us an expert average, would be great. We can then weight tem anyway we like to with spread sheet options.
In a FFA debate I once asked Joe if he really though his benefits derived no benefits from the government. When he said not really I asked him what he would do if I set up a web site that promised to provide all of my members all of the Footballguys.com premium content within 10 minutes of being posted here for $5 a year. The answer is why you can't really do this, especially for premium sites. When the sites were mostly free there was a site that did this for you.
 
Bump...

I went a-searchin' today wondering where this ended up. Were there results ever posted for this?

 
Bump...I went a-searchin' today wondering where this ended up. Were there results ever posted for this?
Anyone? Andy? Dodds? Bueller? Bueller?
Wow, the silence in this thread is deafening.May I suggest that some update needs to come forth? The cynics and conspiracy theorists may start to believe that the analysis has been done, the results weren't too flattering to FBG's, and the project has thus been cancelled prior to publication. Vacuums always command attention. People will fill them with their own conjecture when not given an alternative.I'm not one of the cynics...but I'm just saying....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The cynics and conspiracy theorists may start to believe that the analysis has been done, the results weren't too flattering to FBG's, and the project has thus been cancelled prior to publication. Vacuums always command attention. People will fill them with their own conjecture when not given an alternative.
The analysis was never done. I don't know the reasons, but I assumed it was the reasons given by Dodds earlier in this thread.
 
The cynics and conspiracy theorists may start to believe that the analysis has been done, the results weren't too flattering to FBG's, and the project has thus been cancelled prior to publication. Vacuums always command attention. People will fill them with their own conjecture when not given an alternative.
The analysis was never done. I don't know the reasons, but I assumed it was the reasons given by Dodds earlier in this thread.
Really?Andy posted on 10/12 saying it was a go. These quotes are from 9/23.

So what happened? Andy? David?

 
Bump...I went a-searchin' today wondering where this ended up. Were there results ever posted for this?
Anyone? Andy? Dodds? Bueller? Bueller?
Wow, the silence in this thread is deafening.May I suggest that some update needs to come forth? The cynics and conspiracy theorists may start to believe that the analysis has been done, the results weren't too flattering to FBG's, and the project has thus been cancelled prior to publication. Vacuums always command attention. People will fill them with their own conjecture when not given an alternative.I'm not one of the cynics...but I'm just saying....
Oh come on. You're absolutely one of the cynics. The opening line gave it away.Reasonable people would believe that the thing was an overambitious project shot down by the fact that nobody else wanted their premium content out there for the masses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The cynics and conspiracy theorists may start to believe that the analysis has been done, the results weren't too flattering to FBG's, and the project has thus been cancelled prior to publication. Vacuums always command attention. People will fill them with their own conjecture when not given an alternative.
The analysis was never done. I don't know the reasons, but I assumed it was the reasons given by Dodds earlier in this thread.
Really?Andy posted on 10/12 saying it was a go. These quotes are from 9/23.

So what happened? Andy? David?
link to post added.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top