Does a human being make the 250 going forward List? (1 Viewer)

[redskins08]

In some cases the shark pool consensus and consensus of bloom, lammey and waldman agree on one thing, but these rankings run contrary. I realize they are a guide, but my question is whether a human being sits down and makes sure they represent the proper order (in his/her opinion)?

 

[David Yudkin]

One of the more confusing elements of FBG is that articles, rankings, lists, projections, etc. represent the opinions of the staff presenting/writing/reporting them. In the case of the Top 250, IIRC that's a Dodds/Henry project. So that would explain why Bloom, Lammey, and Waldman may have a different perspective than the players in the listing.

 

[sartre]

While we're on the subject, are bye weeks considered in the rankings? That is, all other things equal, is a player that had his bye given more weight in the rankings than a player who hasn't?

 

[David Yudkin]

While we're on the subject, are bye weeks considered in the rankings? That is, all other things equal, is a player that had his bye given more weight in the rankings than a player who hasn't?

IIRC, a player is listed for his projected total points for the rest of the season, so that would incorporate however many games are left to play for each player.

 

[redskins08]

One of the more confusing elements of FBG is that articles, rankings, lists, projections, etc. represent the opinions of the staff presenting/writing/reporting them. In the case of the Top 250, IIRC that's a Dodds/Henry project. So that would explain why Bloom, Lammey, and Waldman may have a different perspective than the players in the listing.

David, you seem knowledgeable. Could you answer my question: Does a human being make (or at least revise) the 250 going forward list?

 

[Breesisdaman]

One of the more confusing elements of FBG is that articles, rankings, lists, projections, etc. represent the opinions of the staff presenting/writing/reporting them. In the case of the Top 250, IIRC that's a Dodds/Henry project. So that would explain why Bloom, Lammey, and Waldman may have a different perspective than the players in the listing.

Does Bloom et al, also do a long term projection? I haven't seen it if he does.

 

[David Yudkin]

One of the more confusing elements of FBG is that articles, rankings, lists, projections, etc. represent the opinions of the staff presenting/writing/reporting them. In the case of the Top 250, IIRC that's a Dodds/Henry project. So that would explain why Bloom, Lammey, and Waldman may have a different perspective than the players in the listing.

David, you seem knowledgeable. Could you answer my question: Does a human being make (or at least revise) the 250 going forward list?

I think Dodds and Henry qualify as humans, so I will side with yes.

 

[sartre]

One of the more confusing elements of FBG is that articles, rankings, lists, projections, etc. represent the opinions of the staff presenting/writing/reporting them. In the case of the Top 250, IIRC that's a Dodds/Henry project. So that would explain why Bloom, Lammey, and Waldman may have a different perspective than the players in the listing.

David, you seem knowledgeable. Could you answer my question: Does a human being make (or at least revise) the 250 going forward list?

I think Dodds and Henry qualify as humans, so I will side with yes.

 

[davearm]

One of the more confusing elements of FBG is that articles, rankings, lists, projections, etc. represent the opinions of the staff presenting/writing/reporting them. In the case of the Top 250, IIRC that's a Dodds/Henry project. So that would explain why Bloom, Lammey, and Waldman may have a different perspective than the players in the listing.

David, you seem knowledgeable. Could you answer my question: Does a human being make (or at least revise) the 250 going forward list?

I think Dodds and Henry qualify as humans, so I will side with yes.

It's a valid question that deserves a sincere reply.It's clear the numbers in the Top 250 table computer-generated by some algorithm. Human(s) developed the algorithm, obviously.The issue is, to what degree do the same human(s) adjust the numbers by hand every week when they don't jive with their own human intuition and gut feel? Not at all? A little? A lot? And what are the guidelines and methods they apply when making adjustments (if any) that essentially override what their algorithm computes?You may not be able to answer these questions but they are worthwhile ones to ask nevertheless.

 

[apalmer]

It's clear the numbers in the Top 250 table computer-generated by some algorithm.

Why is this clear?

 

[da_budman]

One of the more confusing elements of FBG is that articles, rankings, lists, projections, etc. represent the opinions of the staff presenting/writing/reporting them. In the case of the Top 250, IIRC that's a Dodds/Henry project. So that would explain why Bloom, Lammey, and Waldman may have a different perspective than the players in the listing.

David, you seem knowledgeable. Could you answer my question: Does a human being make (or at least revise) the 250 going forward list?

I think Dodds and Henry qualify as humans, so I will side with yes.

So you are saying there is a chance they are trained chimps or something? (Just kidding) please no, "have a good season guy" lightning bolt out of the sky.

 

[Da Guru]

It is a simple process. The players are numbered 1-250 for example Chris Johnson had #13 last week..so #13 was the #1 ranked player. They keep repeating until the list is complete.

 

[Nate]

One of the more confusing elements of FBG is that articles, rankings, lists, projections, etc. represent the opinions of the staff presenting/writing/reporting them. In the case of the Top 250, IIRC that's a Dodds/Henry project. So that would explain why Bloom, Lammey, and Waldman may have a different perspective than the players in the listing.

David, you seem knowledgeable. Could you answer my question: Does a human being make (or at least revise) the 250 going forward list?

I think Dodds and Henry qualify as humans, so I will side with yes.

It's a valid question that deserves a sincere reply.It's clear the numbers in the Top 250 table computer-generated by some algorithm. Human(s) developed the algorithm, obviously.

I think it was a borderline sarcastic answer because he already said the rankings, etc. represent the opinions of Dodds/Henry, then he was asked if a human being makes the list!

 

[David Yudkin]

One of the more confusing elements of FBG is that articles, rankings, lists, projections, etc. represent the opinions of the staff presenting/writing/reporting them. In the case of the Top 250, IIRC that's a Dodds/Henry project. So that would explain why Bloom, Lammey, and Waldman may have a different perspective than the players in the listing.

David, you seem knowledgeable. Could you answer my question: Does a human being make (or at least revise) the 250 going forward list?

I think Dodds and Henry qualify as humans, so I will side with yes.

It's a valid question that deserves a sincere reply.It's clear the numbers in the Top 250 table computer-generated by some algorithm. Human(s) developed the algorithm, obviously.The issue is, to what degree do the same human(s) adjust the numbers by hand every week when they don't jive with their own human intuition and gut feel? Not at all? A little? A lot? And what are the guidelines and methods they apply when making adjustments (if any) that essentially override what their algorithm computes?You may not be able to answer these questions but they are worthwhile ones to ask nevertheless.

I am neither Dodds nor Henry, so my answers are based on what I believe to be the case.I believe that they adjust their weekly projections based on changes in market conditions. I.E., a player gets hurt (Vick), so what impact does that have on both Vick and the other Eagles, and then how does that impact how they might do in subsequent games. I also believe that for major injuries on defense that they adjust for that as well or if a team starts having tendancies and predilictions that favor certain things, such as DEN airing it out every week and not being able to run the football.I also think that Drinen is the one that oversees the technical end and reporting of things, and that's where any algorithms come in to end up with a ranking on the actual list.So long story short, the numbers and projections for individual players get tweaked (that's the human part) and then the supercomputer spits out the results of the new results into list form (that's the non-human part).But again, I am not involved in the process at all, so that is my understanding of the process. Dodds may very well enlist monkeys, darts, and a dart board on this to come up with the list moving forward (but I doubt it).

 

[redskins08]

One of the more confusing elements of FBG is that articles, rankings, lists, projections, etc. represent the opinions of the staff presenting/writing/reporting them. In the case of the Top 250, IIRC that's a Dodds/Henry project. So that would explain why Bloom, Lammey, and Waldman may have a different perspective than the players in the listing.

David, you seem knowledgeable. Could you answer my question: Does a human being make (or at least revise) the 250 going forward list?

I think Dodds and Henry qualify as humans, so I will side with yes.

It's a valid question that deserves a sincere reply.It's clear the numbers in the Top 250 table computer-generated by some algorithm. Human(s) developed the algorithm, obviously.The issue is, to what degree do the same human(s) adjust the numbers by hand every week when they don't jive with their own human intuition and gut feel? Not at all? A little? A lot? And what are the guidelines and methods they apply when making adjustments (if any) that essentially override what their algorithm computes?You may not be able to answer these questions but they are worthwhile ones to ask nevertheless.

His inability to provide a straight forward answer here was truly amazing.

 

[Paper Lions]

One of the more confusing elements of FBG is that articles, rankings, lists, projections, etc. represent the opinions of the staff presenting/writing/reporting them. In the case of the Top 250, IIRC that's a Dodds/Henry project. So that would explain why Bloom, Lammey, and Waldman may have a different perspective than the players in the listing.

David, you seem knowledgeable. Could you answer my question: Does a human being make (or at least revise) the 250 going forward list?

I think Dodds and Henry qualify as humans, so I will side with yes.

It's a valid question that deserves a sincere reply.It's clear the numbers in the Top 250 table computer-generated by some algorithm. Human(s) developed the algorithm, obviously.The issue is, to what degree do the same human(s) adjust the numbers by hand every week when they don't jive with their own human intuition and gut feel? Not at all? A little? A lot? And what are the guidelines and methods they apply when making adjustments (if any) that essentially override what their algorithm computes?You may not be able to answer these questions but they are worthwhile ones to ask nevertheless.

His inability to provide a straight forward answer here was truly amazing.

Tough crowd. Looked like great answers to me, especially for a guy that's not involved in the process and just trying to be helpful.

 

[amphibianbri]

One of the more confusing elements of FBG is that articles, rankings, lists, projections, etc. represent the opinions of the staff presenting/writing/reporting them. In the case of the Top 250, IIRC that's a Dodds/Henry project. So that would explain why Bloom, Lammey, and Waldman may have a different perspective than the players in the listing.

David, you seem knowledgeable. Could you answer my question: Does a human being make (or at least revise) the 250 going forward list?

I think Dodds and Henry qualify as humans, so I will side with yes.

It's a valid question that deserves a sincere reply.It's clear the numbers in the Top 250 table computer-generated by some algorithm. Human(s) developed the algorithm, obviously.The issue is, to what degree do the same human(s) adjust the numbers by hand every week when they don't jive with their own human intuition and gut feel? Not at all? A little? A lot? And what are the guidelines and methods they apply when making adjustments (if any) that essentially override what their algorithm computes?You may not be able to answer these questions but they are worthwhile ones to ask nevertheless.

I am neither Dodds nor Henry, so my answers are based on what I believe to be the case.I believe that they adjust their weekly projections based on changes in market conditions. I.E., a player gets hurt (Vick), so what impact does that have on both Vick and the other Eagles, and then how does that impact how they might do in subsequent games. I also believe that for major injuries on defense that they adjust for that as well or if a team starts having tendancies and predilictions that favor certain things, such as DEN airing it out every week and not being able to run the football.I also think that Drinen is the one that oversees the technical end and reporting of things, and that's where any algorithms come in to end up with a ranking on the actual list.So long story short, the numbers and projections for individual players get tweaked (that's the human part) and then the supercomputer spits out the results of the new results into list form (that's the non-human part).But again, I am not involved in the process at all, so that is my understanding of the process. Dodds may very well enlist monkeys, darts, and a dart board on this to come up with the list moving forward (but I doubt it).

I don't see the lack of an explanation here. There are both human and computer type elements involved in the Top 250. I think David is probably spot on that the guys do some tweaking to their projections based on situations and then let the program do its thing. I find the response to be more than complete. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[davidwb]

One of the more confusing elements of FBG is that articles, rankings, lists, projections, etc. represent the opinions of the staff presenting/writing/reporting them. In the case of the Top 250, IIRC that's a Dodds/Henry project. So that would explain why Bloom, Lammey, and Waldman may have a different perspective than the players in the listing.

David, you seem knowledgeable. Could you answer my question: Does a human being make (or at least revise) the 250 going forward list?

I think Dodds and Henry qualify as humans, so I will side with yes.

It's a valid question that deserves a sincere reply.It's clear the numbers in the Top 250 table computer-generated by some algorithm. Human(s) developed the algorithm, obviously.The issue is, to what degree do the same human(s) adjust the numbers by hand every week when they don't jive with their own human intuition and gut feel? Not at all? A little? A lot? And what are the guidelines and methods they apply when making adjustments (if any) that essentially override what their algorithm computes?You may not be able to answer these questions but they are worthwhile ones to ask nevertheless.

His inability to provide a straight forward answer here was truly amazing.

As a professional forecaster (not weather, nor ffb unfortunately, but financial) and as the manager of a staff of forecasters who run different models, it would be difficult for me to be able to state exactly how every model we have is run -- since I'm not working directly on all of them. If my senior management asked, I would probably give an answer similar to that given by David Yudkin. It is a reasonable response.

 

[schu]

The top 250 is no different than a preseason cheatsheet. It's going to tell you how to rank players value across positions using a spreadsheet to compute projections determined by a human.

What it's not going to do is tell you who to roster in the margins (beyond about twice the typical starting slots per position) because it does not handicap a player's potential if their situation improves.

So in summary...useful to determine relative value of current starters going forward. Won't answer every one of your who-do-I-roster questions.