Like many people here, I spend an inordinate amount of time debating between starting options each week. I've had a Eureka! moment and am curious what others' thoughts are on this line of thinking:
1) Most fantasy league scoring systems are heavily tilted toward touchdowns.
2) Markets tends to produce the most reliable information.
3) Point spreads are market based.
4) Points spreads can be used to predict game scores (subtract the point spread from the over/under to get the losing team's predited score).
5) All things being equal (role of player in the offense, in particular), a player on a team predicted to score more points is more likely to score one or more TDs than a player on a team predicted to score fewer points.
6) When in doubt, then, start the player on the team the point spread will score more points.
Example: I'm debate between Lee Evans and Calvin Johnson this week. The point spreads predict the Lions to score about 23 points and the Bills to score only 13-14. There's some difference in roles here (Johnson still the #2 WR), but my instinct is that 10 more points of likely offensive output for the Lions is enough to swing things toward Johnson.
Does this theory make sense. If not, where does the line of thinking break down?
For the most part, the FBG projections will mirror this system, as the projections sum to game outcomes very close to what the point spreads predict. But I'm inclined to use the point spread system to settle statistical ties generated by the FBG projections (projections within, say, one point of each other).
1) Most fantasy league scoring systems are heavily tilted toward touchdowns.
2) Markets tends to produce the most reliable information.
3) Point spreads are market based.
4) Points spreads can be used to predict game scores (subtract the point spread from the over/under to get the losing team's predited score).
5) All things being equal (role of player in the offense, in particular), a player on a team predicted to score more points is more likely to score one or more TDs than a player on a team predicted to score fewer points.
6) When in doubt, then, start the player on the team the point spread will score more points.
Example: I'm debate between Lee Evans and Calvin Johnson this week. The point spreads predict the Lions to score about 23 points and the Bills to score only 13-14. There's some difference in roles here (Johnson still the #2 WR), but my instinct is that 10 more points of likely offensive output for the Lions is enough to swing things toward Johnson.
Does this theory make sense. If not, where does the line of thinking break down?
For the most part, the FBG projections will mirror this system, as the projections sum to game outcomes very close to what the point spreads predict. But I'm inclined to use the point spread system to settle statistical ties generated by the FBG projections (projections within, say, one point of each other).
I've done this for a long time. I like a RB on a team that is favored - and WR on teams that will probably be behind or games with a high O/U. As was stated, I usually only look at this when trying pick between to fairly even players.
ver/under divided by 2 - point spread divided by 2 = Loser's predicted scoreandover/under divided by 2 + point spread divided by 2 = Winner's predicted score
