FBG Constructive Criticism - was Fbg matchup analysis lacking (1 Viewer)

[Max Power]

Let's talk about "less is more" for a second.Given the choice of two sites.Site A has:1. Offensive Rankings.2. Offensive Projections.3. Matchup information.4. Free Agent / upgrade / downgrade info.5. Roundtable discussionSite B has:1. Offensive Rankings.2. Offensive Projections.3. Matchup information.4. Free Agent / upgrade / downgrade info.5. Roundtable discussion6. IDP deep analysis7. Strength of Schedule breakdown.8. Dynasty news9. Strategy article on trading10. Commissioner articleAre we saying people would prefer site A? It's a serious question. And I really want your guys feedback. But I need more thinking behind your answers.

I think you are seeing the issue of "less is more" as content diversity, where as the customer is thinking content depth/analysis. Say both site A and site B spend 100 man hours a week on their content. If the majority of customers don't care for articles #6-#10, it would stand to reason that they would prefer site A. Since more work and thought is going into the content they care about.

 

[NYRAGE]

Let's talk about "less is more" for a second.Given the choice of two sites.Are we saying people would prefer site A?

As long you do your core A articles well, then of course I would prefer B. While I don't read all of the articles, I do go through many of them since I do have interest in lots of different FF/Football related aspects. Personally, I abhor the modern-age Fantasy Football wealth of information on the internet. Back in the old days, I had such a huge advantage over my league-mates because you had to think on your own. Nowadays, people don't have to think anymore. They can go out to a website like this and find their sleepers, injury news, line-up choices, who to pick up on the waiver wire, draft strategy, etc. Uggh. If I had my way, I'd go "Fight Club" on the Fantasy Football info industry. It is what it is though. I prefer making my own line-up and roster choices. I think I've been really successful over the years by watching most of the games every week. So, what is important to me is the player/match-up analysis that I can consider when I make my own decisions. That's the great thing about all the individual player profiles in pre-season. People contribute to the pros/cons of each player and then you decide what is relevant. I know people that set their line-up because some website will say player X is 10th ranked rb this week's cheatsheet. The value to me comes from why you think he is #10 this week. What drives the projection? Anyway, this site does have great analysis at certain things. The first time I saw the Huddle site, I thought, what garbage. The NFL Network show is pure garbage. I could list several other site/shows that are a waste of time. I've always been loyal to Cheatsheets/Footballguys. I would like to see the content organized better though. Keep the IDP stuff in one section. Dynasty stuff in another. Game predictions in another. Categorize the content. LIke I said earlier in the thread, I love the roundtable and podcasts. I wish the roundtable was earlier in the week. By Thursday night, it's almost too late. Anyway, thanks for having an open mind to constructive criticism.

 

[Zasada]

Regarding the "A" vs "B", I think the critical element missing from that question is what the quality of A becomes if one were to give up B. I would definitely take a higher quality A by giving up B. But if you can get both, great. I think the issue many readers are identifying is that it seems the quality of A has suffered.

Personally, the waiver wire report is almost useless to me (although it could be the most useful if done right). It's like every player in the league is on it, and it is very much "flavour of the week". If a player has one single good week after a season of suckage, he makes the upgrade list. The opposite isn't as true, but I want the experts to split the wheat from the chaff more often than they do. My league website (RTSports) can very easily tell me who had a good week with two clicks of a mouse. But what it can't tell me is who's good week was a fluke (because of a good matchup or gimmick play) and who's is a sign of good things to come. That is what I pay FBG for and don't seem to be getting as much of.

Joe, I love the site, and I'll probably keep subscribing. But I do get the feel that you have traded volume for quality over the last few years. I used to swear by your rankings and now I almost ignore them because it feels like you haven't put as much effort into them as you have in the past. Do I have any proof of that? Nope. But when I read the rankings I find myself doubting them more.

One thing that really burns me is the "here's our prediction, but then be aware of this caveat which suggests we could be totally wrong". Something like this:

"We think Player XYZ is going to have a bad week, but it is entirely possible he blows it up". You're playing both sides of the equation. I'm paying money for your prediction that you put weight behind, not a prediction that is then neutered with a qualifier that the opposite could happen ("what the heck flex" has that very feel). The line between transparency and fence-sitting is very grey. We get that you could be wrong. But don't fence-sit.

Have you ever considered doing a year-end report card (maybe you do internally and just don't publish it)? Show how your weekly rankings did versus your competition each week, what you got right, what you got wrong, and what you're looking to improve in the future. My company does this, and this summer we didn't perform very well versus our competitors. But we were transparent with our customers about it, and we're clear about our plan to improve and how it is already having success this fall.

Sorry about the long post. I've been around since the Cheatsheets.net era and miss the "Jeff Garcia"-type decisiveness that you used to exude. Now with all the varying opinions on your website, it's hard to know who to believe and what carries the official "approved by FBG" stamp.

 

[Zasada]

Look at QBs... #4 is Peyton Manning. #24 is Jay Cutler. The difference between them is only six points. Six.

Six expected fantasy points is a lot. If we translate fantasy points into passing yards, it's more than an extra 100 passing yards. I think six expected fantasy points translates into something like an 80% chance that Manning will outscore Cutler.Projecting a bigger difference than that would be dishonest. It would give the false impression that we're even more sure that Manning will outscore Cutler this week than we really are. While that might be good marketing, the truth is that there's a lot of inherent unpredictability in fantasy outcomes. Manning might outscore Cutler by 12 points, or Cutler might outscore Manning by 6 points, or anything in between, and it would not be all that surprising. But actually predicting Manning to outscore Cutler by 12 points (or predicting Cutler to outscore Manning by 6 points) takes a certain amount of hubris, I think. Our projected differentials are more modest — but more honest, and (over the long run) almost certainly more accurate.

Randomly selecting point totals for the top 24 guys and you'd have as likely a shot as producing decent rankings.

I believe this is false. (CapnJB's daughter notwithstanding.)

Have to agree with MT here. It's all an expected value game. For example, this season in my league the difference between the average weekly performance of the #4 QB in my league and the #24 QB is eight points. Those few points per week are what makes the difference between a starting (FF) QB versus a fantasy dud QB.Just look at the rankings. Many players are forecast to score "0.5" TDs. Which is pretty much impossible. The rankings exist to tell us what the highest expected value play is, not what the precise output of the player will be. Just like playing blackjack at the casino is better than playing roulette. It is more likely that one wins at blackjack than roulette, but the outcome of any given night of gambling can still be quite variable.

 

[The Beezer]

I've been a huge fan of the site and a subscriber for many years. I'm also old enough that I still remember discussions with Joe on newsgroups about VBD. So it pains me to say that I had seriously been on the fence about resubscribing next year. While I probably would, my primary reasons would be because of inertia and as thanks for the message board and podcasts, not because of the site itself.

In my other life, I help people improve their strategies and services so they can be more successful. So when I put my "work hat" on, this is what I see:

[*]Strengths: staff capabilities and commitment, good reputation, openness to ideas for improvement, loyal customers for both free and paid content

[*]Weaknesses: lack of focus, not enough differentiation in free and paid content, inconsistent quality and meeting of expectations, limited ability to tailor content by subscribers

[*]Opportunities: size of the market is still growing, improving economy, new technologies

[*]Threats: improved competition by game providers and other sites, commoditization of data and projections makes it harder to stand out, customers have lower tolerance when their expectations are not met

While there are a lot of ways you could move forward and be successful, I would strongly consider the following ideas:

[*]Split the overall market into four groups: casual, high-stakes, IDP, and dynasty. Define a default league configuration you will orient your content around. FBG standard scoring (or whatever is most popular) for casual and IDP, FBGPC for high-stakes, and Zealots (or whatever is most popular) for dynasty)

[*]Define three tiers of service: free, subscriber, and custom.

[*]Focus free content on the podcasts, keeping the message boards focused and useful, and Wisdom of Crowds. These three offerings help you maintain awareness in the market, monitor the pulse of the FF community as a whole, and leverage your strengths in a way others would find difficult to duplicate.

[*]Focus subscriber content on a tailored experience to each of the four market groups. Produce a version of add/drop, start/sit, and trade value content each week for each group and let them get just what they want through email updates, RSS feeds, etc. Produce subscriber-only podcasts for each group that they can submit questions for. Continue the contests (season, playoffs) and give them opportunities to win the right to compete in leagues with staff members. Set clear targets for when content will be available and refreshed and stick to it. Use other providers for commodity info so you don't have to do it yourself. You may be able to reduce the price and still earn more revenue through more customers and reduced costs.

[*]Create a custom tier for the die hard FF players at a higher price than subscriber. Integrate with the major sites (like you do with MFL today) to make it easier for them to manage a lot of leagues. Give them a dedicated support channel for their questions with guaranteed support levels. Automatically grant them a spot in a league with staff members. Host weekly conference calls/Google+ hangouts with staff members.

Feel free to use or ignore any of this. I'd be happy to discuss further - just PM me if interested. And thanks for being candid and open in this conversation, as lack of that leads to failure.

 

[Braktastic]

The bottom line for me is that I've been a subscriber for a long time, but I don't have a lot of time to read a lot of "analysis" any longer. I usually look at the MyTop 250 and MyFBG ranking as a sounding board for waiver wire and start/sit decisions, but I'm finding I can do just as a good a job following my gut. So I won't be subscribing any longer.

 

[Bud]

How do you really choose between players when projections among all FF sites are within .6 pts right? That's the million dollar question in my book. Try the FBG podcast to really get the matchup analysis and waiver information you are looking for. It helps determine better where players are heading on a week to week basis. Also, Bloom's tier rankings are one the best weekly articles in FF.

 

[da_budman]

How do you really choose between players when projections among all FF sites are within .6 pts right? That's the million dollar question in my book. Try the FBG podcast to really get the matchup analysis and waiver information you are looking for. It helps determine better where players are heading on a week to week basis. Also, Bloom's tier rankings are one the best weekly articles in FF.

You start the one YOU think will score the most points. Same as it always is. I look at rankings. projections and take them into account when deciding FOR MYSELF which one I think will score the most points.

 

[DavidWilsonsTears]

Are we saying people would prefer site A?

Which site replaced The Big Picture with a bunch of crappier pieces? Because that's the site I don't prefer.

 

[Longshot88]

i dont have much time to set lineups, I let you guys do the work for me.In a very important league needing a win this week to lock up the top spot. I had Golden Tate locked in as a starter all week,and Fitz on the bench .This was with out looking at the cheatsheet. 5 min before the games i check out your sheet and see you had Fitz at 12 , and Golden Tate at 46 . I took your advice even though i had my doubts.

HOW DO YOU MAKE THIS CALL? I am Done with Footballguys. Granted Fitz is a great Wr but has done nothing with the rookie at qb to justify ranking him that high. you guys should be ashamed

 

[Longshot88]

???? FITZ at 12? anybody want to defend this?

 

[rickyg]

I like where this thread has gone. I appreciate the FBG staff taking this as constructive criticism rather than just getting pissed. That makes me feel good about the service. Hope you can continue to improve and give us subscribers the analysis we know you can provide next year.

As far as the Fitz rating at #12 this week, it was definitely too high, based on what fitz has done lately, the rookie qb, etc. FBG, like other sites, keeps the blinders on about stud players like that, playing it safe by not recommending to bench a stud like Fitz. Had they put Fitz at WR36 and people benched him as a result and he went OFF then people would be bashing them for recommending that they bench a stud WR.

That said, You need to think for yourself, man...if Fitz was on my team he would have been riding the pine for several weeks now behind the likes of a cecil shorts, danario alexander type player regardless of how any site has him ranked. That Arizona offense is beyond putrid.

 

[SameSongNDance]

???? FITZ at 12? anybody want to defend this?

Anyone even casually playing fantasy football knows he's a WR3 with Lindley under center. It's a shame he was ranked so high but it's also a shame someone would blindly follow rankings that would have him listed as a low-end WR1. This is why I would never pay for fantasy info; you end up putting too much stock into the advice you're receiving because there's a monetary connection to said advice. I can do the research myself and be content with it. But yeah, Fitz in the 12 spot facing a secondary ranked in the top 5 in ff points allowed to WRs is..irresponsible.Don't get me wrong though, Dodds specifically has done a fantastic job this year and I always take his rankings into account but I don't treat them as the be all and end all.

 

[kegger]

???? FITZ at 12? anybody want to defend this?

Anyone even casually playing fantasy football knows he's a WR3 with Lindley under center. It's a shame he was ranked so high but it's also a shame someone would blindly follow rankings that would have him listed as a low-end WR1. This is why I would never pay for fantasy info; you end up putting too much stock into the advice you're receiving because there's a monetary connection to said advice. I can do the research myself and be content with it. But yeah, Fitz in the 12 spot facing a secondary ranked in the top 5 in ff points allowed to WRs is..irresponsible.Don't get me wrong though, Dodds specifically has done a fantastic job this year and I always take his rankings into account but I don't treat them as the be all and end all.

I think what your partly missing though is, if WR Fitz is ranked 12 and a guy you feel afair amount stronger about is ranked 36, if your somewhat of a casual player you couldcertainly second guess yourself an say what am I missing here, and either go search onsome info if you have the time, say screw it and go with what there list says, or yourself.I don't use anyone's rankings to set my lineup, but I certainly do look at them as a kind ofgauge/check to what I'm thinking, an if it's way way off I go, what the heck am I missing?(to me these should be the most important and most thought put into an double checked)---------------I subscribe and will keep subscribing, mostly for the downloadable software to start with.But a well laid out rankings with thought and analysis to me is #1 from a paying site here.(early ones with less info, then later in the week ones with more info an thoughts/in depth)Then upgrades and downgrades + waiver wire on hot topics an players ASAP at the verybeginning of the week so we can get informed info of the weeks players to look at/target.(not every single QB or RB but the ones that really earn being mentioned, plus info on)During the weeks then a breakdown of each game with who to sit/start and "reasons" why.(in depth analysis from the staff members(more then just 1 staff member per game as well)Plus there daily email info, with news around the league and any breaking stories/injuries.For me personally, the previous 5 things would be enough content if it was "concentrated".

 

[kegger]

Let's talk about "less is more" for a second.Given the choice of two sites.Site A has:1. Offensive Rankings.2. Offensive Projections.3. Matchup information.4. Free Agent / upgrade / downgrade info.5. Roundtable discussionSite B has:1. Offensive Rankings.2. Offensive Projections.3. Matchup information.4. Free Agent / upgrade / downgrade info.5. Roundtable discussion6. IDP deep analysis7. Strength of Schedule breakdown.8. Dynasty news9. Strategy article on trading10. Commissioner articleAre we saying people would prefer site A? It's a serious question. And I really want your guys feedback. But I need more thinking behind your answers. Dave Thomas the Wendy's restaurant guy had some really good points in his book about not trying to be everything. He was convinced early that hamburgers should stay their main thing. That having salad bar and chicken and such actually hurt. Other places now have everything on the menu.There is some value to having a wide offering. And the internet especially makes skipping over stuff you don't want very easy. Especially compared to print.But I'd like to hear your reasoning and deeper thoughts on the "less is more". Thanks.J

To a degree I would prefer site A.. but add Site A has:1. Offensive Rankings.2. Offensive Projections.3. Matchup information.4. Free Agent / upgrade / downgrade info. (but not on "every" player, more narrowed down/focused)5. Roundtable discussion (of all the games)Defensive Rankings. (teams not individual players)Defensive Projections. (teams not individual players)Then the daily emails and the software that you provide.Targeting just this information, but getting a lot more in depth with amore thorough/more research approach for me at least would be trulymore useful on the weekly basis to actually set lineups an pick players..

 

[Longshot88]

My point is even though in my mind i liked golden tate much more this week. Im paying for your ranking. When a professional has fitz ranked 30+ spots higher it makes you question your reasoning. I dont expect perfecton, but looking back with time to think, that call was extremely poor and not worth my money

 

[Jed]

If I don't like an article or email, I'll just skip it. I'm mostly here for the contests and late week rankings. If I had to pick one thing that drives me nuts though, it's what Warrior said here:

The Wisdom contest doesn't even have weekly overall standings...individual posters in the forum have to do it for them, despite it being a VERY basic thing that would only have to be implemented once and would take seconds to re-run and post each week. It would also help with the contest itself, as last year's top 12 were calculated and sent out incorrectly. It's sloppy and that's only one small example.

It's a great contest, could we give it just a LITTLE more attention?

 

[THE FANTASY KING]

Projections seem like a waste of time to me. If you're just going to average things out, I don't think there's much value in that.

I think a better week-to-week ranking system would involve tiers, with an upside/downside rating, and a quick summary of information about the match-up and recent trend.

Something condensed like:

PLAYER - OVERALL TIER (for this week) - UPSIDE TIER - DOWNSIDE TIER - RISK RATING - MATCH-UP RATING - TIER RATING BASED ON LAST 3 WEEKS

Something like that. It gives you more information that is helpful when comparing to other players. It's more useful than "oh, this guy is projected for 7 catches and 82 yards and .5 TD's, but this other guy is 5 catches, 68 yards, and .3 TD's....great."

I'd much rather have a tier based system that gives context to where a player is ranked (oh, this guy is a WR2 this week) and then some upside/downside/risk information based on factors effecting volatility (player's consistency, team/QB situation, accounting for stupid coordinators, etc.) a quick reference number for the quality of the defensive match-up, and a figure showing how the player has performed recently. All on one list.

Then I can decide between two guys based on what I want. Do I need someone who's safer, more reliable as a WR2? Or am I looking for a high upside flex play? Maybe I'm stuck between two close guys but want to use a "tie-breaker" like the match-up or how a guy has gone over the past few weeks.

I understand a lot of work goes into the projections, but we basically use team every week knowing they are going to be wrong, so what's the point? Performance of an NFL team or a specific player is impossible to predict, so why pretend we can?

REGARDS,

THE FANTASY KING

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

PLAYER - OVERALL TIER (for this week) - UPSIDE TIER - DOWNSIDE TIER - RISK RATING - MATCH-UP RATING - TIER RATING BASED ON LAST 3 WEEKS

This is a great idea and I pledge right now to release something like this weekly with my projections next year

 

[THE FANTASY KING]

PLAYER - OVERALL TIER (for this week) - UPSIDE TIER - DOWNSIDE TIER - RISK RATING - MATCH-UP RATING - TIER RATING BASED ON LAST 3 WEEKS

This is a great idea and I pledge right now to release something like this weekly with my projections next year

REGARDS,THE FANTASY KING

 

[Waverunner]

I have been a member for many years and here are my observations.

1. Having the Subscriber Section sorted by day of the week is great for finding the newest content. But I would love to be able to sort or customize by type of content. IPD, Projections, Defenses, Free Agents etc... By sorting this way I can quickly find what articles are which type I miss content because I don't always remember what title of article are what type of content.

2. I love the MyFBG part of the site but I would really like more insight on the page to figure out a few things. a) What figured into an individuals ranking, b) an indicators on projections if you see an individual has a high floor/low ceiling or low floor/High ceiling or some kind of combination of these type of quick anaylysis. I use another source that has this type of anlysis to decide between two players that you have ranked close together.

Sigmund Bloom, on 04 December 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

THE FANTASY KING, on 04 December 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

PLAYER - OVERALL TIER (for this week) - UPSIDE TIER - DOWNSIDE TIER - RISK RATING - MATCH-UP RATING - TIER RATING BASED ON LAST 3 WEEKS

This is a great idea and I pledge right now to release something like this weekly with my projections next year

Love this idea

 

[Please See Mine]

Hasn't TFK been doing that on his own blog for years?!

Also, someone do a Porter's FF analysis up in here, stat.

(I actually do like the SWOT, Beezer.)

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

PLAYER - OVERALL TIER (for this week) - UPSIDE TIER - DOWNSIDE TIER - RISK RATING - MATCH-UP RATING - TIER RATING BASED ON LAST 3 WEEKS

This is a great idea and I pledge right now to release something like this weekly with my projections next year

Loved your comment addition this year Sig, you continue to move the bar upward. Keep up the great stuff

 

[skinsrule05]

I have been a member for many years and here are my observations.1. Having the Subscriber Section sorted by day of the week is great for finding the newest content.

The one thing that bothers me with this sorting is when they don't get it done in time and then just move it to another day. When you set deadlines I believe it is very important to hit them.

 

[Tampa Buc]

PLAYER - OVERALL TIER (for this week) - UPSIDE TIER - DOWNSIDE TIER - RISK RATING - MATCH-UP RATING - TIER RATING BASED ON LAST 3 WEEKS

This is a great idea and I pledge right now to release something like this weekly with my projections next year

Not exactly the same as above but the way that you and Bramel did the Position Tiers last August was outstanding. It gave such a clear understanding of your thoughts on why and when a player should be drafted. Doing something like that or the above would be much more helpful than just seeing weekly projection numbers.

 

[Sarnoff]

I've noticed that Cedric Benson is ranked unusually high in the next couple of weeks. He's actually the top available WW RB in my league for weeks 15 and 16 scoring about 12 points. Odd for someone who had season ending surgery a week ago. Hasn't been fixed since he went on IR. Maybe with the Starks news they'll go in there and realize the Green Bay RB stats they have are wrong.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

I've been a huge fan of the site and a subscriber for many years. I'm also old enough that I still remember discussions with Joe on newsgroups about VBD. So it pains me to say that I had seriously been on the fence about resubscribing next year. While I probably would, my primary reasons would be because of inertia and as thanks for the message board and podcasts, not because of the site itself.

In my other life, I help people improve their strategies and services so they can be more successful. So when I put my "work hat" on, this is what I see:

[*]Strengths: staff capabilities and commitment, good reputation, openness to ideas for improvement, loyal customers for both free and paid content

[*]Weaknesses: lack of focus, not enough differentiation in free and paid content, inconsistent quality and meeting of expectations, limited ability to tailor content by subscribers

[*]Opportunities: size of the market is still growing, improving economy, new technologies

[*]Threats: improved competition by game providers and other sites, commoditization of data and projections makes it harder to stand out, customers have lower tolerance when their expectations are not met

While there are a lot of ways you could move forward and be successful, I would strongly consider the following ideas:

[*]Split the overall market into four groups: casual, high-stakes, IDP, and dynasty. Define a default league configuration you will orient your content around. FBG standard scoring (or whatever is most popular) for casual and IDP, FBGPC for high-stakes, and Zealots (or whatever is most popular) for dynasty)

[*]Define three tiers of service: free, subscriber, and custom.

[*]Focus free content on the podcasts, keeping the message boards focused and useful, and Wisdom of Crowds. These three offerings help you maintain awareness in the market, monitor the pulse of the FF community as a whole, and leverage your strengths in a way others would find difficult to duplicate.

[*]Focus subscriber content on a tailored experience to each of the four market groups. Produce a version of add/drop, start/sit, and trade value content each week for each group and let them get just what they want through email updates, RSS feeds, etc. Produce subscriber-only podcasts for each group that they can submit questions for. Continue the contests (season, playoffs) and give them opportunities to win the right to compete in leagues with staff members. Set clear targets for when content will be available and refreshed and stick to it. Use other providers for commodity info so you don't have to do it yourself. You may be able to reduce the price and still earn more revenue through more customers and reduced costs.

[*]Create a custom tier for the die hard FF players at a higher price than subscriber. Integrate with the major sites (like you do with MFL today) to make it easier for them to manage a lot of leagues. Give them a dedicated support channel for their questions with guaranteed support levels. Automatically grant them a spot in a league with staff members. Host weekly conference calls/Google+ hangouts with staff members.

Feel free to use or ignore any of this. I'd be happy to discuss further - just PM me if interested. And thanks for being candid and open in this conversation, as lack of that leads to failure.

This is a constructive and informative post. A lot of the other ones here aren't.My major suggestion would be keeping whatever content can be spat out, with as much quality and speed as possible and splitting the content into groups, but for those who like to see ALL the content still have it in available in the WHOLE format.

Those who just want the dynasty, IDP or redraft draft etc stuff either can have these on a separate menu or have the ability to tailor their content. Stats and Projections should be separated as well.

Fluff, but ones I have to read every week ie the interesting pieces which aren't really fantasy relevant such as Random Shots, the Profit and For the Win etc should be separated as well from the hardcore stuff.

Looking at the weekly content can be daunting as there is so much there and all of it has a niche somewhere, but as many here have said it can be overwhelming when all you need is certain stuff. I would default "the works" and allow people the ability to edit their preferences.

If something new comes along it gets added to whatever people have chosen so that they would have to specifically edit it out.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

You guys probably have some of the best IDP advice/info on the net, you'd be foolish to get rid of that, if that's in fact what you're proposing.

 

[BRONG]

No offense at all, but the Upgrade/WW report is so long-winded I never go through it all anymore. I can appreciate the effort and realize it's a labor of love...but I really don't need to read all the ins-and-outs of exactly how a catch or a cut was made. It's overkill. The reason we are looking that report up is to see if we've missed any names and/or to save time. Instead, these days it reads more like some scout mumbo-jumbo and thus defeats the purpose. Let's face it, we all do a little (or a lot) of our own research after a name intrigues us. We need the alert is all..and briefly why.. Nobody is changing they're mind on a player based on the superlatives added onto his touches.

It needs serious editing and would be way more effective and relevant by simply making it much more concise. In turn, it would probably free-up some time for the writer...It must take longer than it needs to take. Put all that extra stuff in the game recaps where it belongs.

BTW, this kind of goes along with what people have said about too much info or cluttered content or whatever you want to call it. Less is more. JMO.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

Huge and long time proponent, fan and supporter of the site, its content, and its evolution over the years.

I do want to respectfully bring up some area of improvement in terms of editing/streamlining emails that go out to subscribers.

There were two reports in regards to the Raiders and their backfield in today's email.

One item included the full participation of McFadden in practice Wednesday, and included the "Our View" that: "We like him as a flex play or low end RB2 with upside for your fantasy team."

Another item about the schemes that the Raiders may employ in the backfield, given the Bronco's success limiting Doug Martin, led to the comment: "The Raiders may choose to ease McFadden back into the lineup which makes him a risky fantasy start."

I value that the news isn't just given, but the impact and viewpoints discussed. And it's possible that the news creates both risk and opportunity for McFadden, and that in FBG's mind, he's a risky start but could still put up low end RB2 numbers. I could also verify what FBG's opinion on McFadden's potential this week via rankings and other articles posted this week.

But my main point is that the verbiage in this email doesn't unify, consolidate, or reconcile these two viewpoints. Instead, what results is a complete dichotomy of opinion that makes me scratch my head and wonder not if FBGs are weighing pros and cons and coming up with a singular viewpiont, but just slapped two opinions from different writers and didn't notice that they may be in conflict -- especially given that these items are literally almost next to each other in the email.

The goods are there, more work may need to be done to better edit and consolidate these kinds of opinions that make them more utile.

 

[Backside Pursuit]

I am not a subscriber so forgive me if something like this is already available but I would like fantasy football sites to include two things:

1. Detailed WR vs. CB analysis for every game

2. A fantasy football “premortem” preemptively analyzing what went wrong

The “What Went Wrong” Report would come out on Thursdays and it would preemptively provide a plausible narrative for why this week’s rankings did not work out. It would be written in the past tense as if it were being written on the following Tuesday. It would provide an imaginary retrospective on what was “missed.” This would be based upon an idea detailed in Daniel Kahneman’s book “Thinking, Fast and Slow.” Quoting Christopher Chabris’ review of the book:

“Mr. Kahneman stresses that he is just as susceptible as the rest of us to the cognitive illusions he has discovered. He tries to recognize situations when mistakes are especially likely to occur—such as when he is starting a big project or making a forecast—and then act to rethink his System 1 inclinations. The tendency to underestimate the costs of future projects, he notes, is susceptible to taking an "outside view": looking at your own project as an outsider would. To avoid overconfidence, Mr. Kahneman recommends an exercise called the "premortem," developed by the psychologist Gary Klein: Before finalizing a decision, imagine that, a year after it has been made, it has turned out horribly, then write a history of how it went wrong and why.”

In the case of fantasy football, the premortem would imagine why things did not go according to plan this upcoming (“past”) weekend. Injuries could not be used as a crutch to explain misfires, although interceptions and fumbles certainly could. What we, as customers, would be looking for would be 2 things:

1. A consensus on the expected floor of each player

2. A plausible, non-injury-related narrative that can explain underperformance

Every player would be listed in ranking order with a brief paragraph of explanation, written from the Tuesday morning perspective of what went wrong. I would like to see this done for the top 15 or 20 QB, the top 30 RB, the top 30 WR, and the top 10 or 15 TE. For this week we might see entries like this (and this is thrown together very quickly and without much thought so perhaps this example is a bit crude):

1. Adrian Peterson – 18-62-0 rushing; 3-11-0 receiving

Facing an inspired and red-hot Rams defense on the road, Peterson finished with his second-lowest rushing output of the season. The Rams kept their playoff hopes alive in front of the raucous home crowd with a 26-13 victory. As expected, the Rams defense made Peterson the central focus of their defensive game plan and Minnesota’s one-dimensional offense was unable to make gains on the ground for most of the first half despite a decent opening drive. Peterson’s best drive came late in the third quarter but Christian Ponder’s second interception of the day ended that drive and put the game out of reach. The Rams have now held opposing RB under 100 yards for 6 consecutive weeks following their Week 9 bye and in the last 3 weeks have stifled Frank Gore (23-58-1), C.J. Spiller (7-37-0), and Peterson.

2. Arian Foster – 13-55-0 rushing; 1-6-0 receiving

Looking to bury the memory of last week’s embarrassing loss in New England, Matt Schaub and the Houston aerial attack scored three touchdowns in the first half this weekend en route to a 41-23 drubbing of the Colts. Schaub found Kevin Walter, Owen Daniels, and Andre Johnson for scores and finished with 293 yards passing. The Texans added a second half defensive score on a pick-6 and the lone rushing touchdown of the game came in the fourth quarter from Ben Tate, who equaled Foster’s number of carries (13) and produced more yardage (72) along with the score. Tate ran very well and looks strong as the Texans prepare for the postseason. Houston led 27-6 at the half and the final score is not quite indicative of how truly lopsided this game was. Andrew Luck (372 passing, 2 TD, 4 INT) had the Colts in catchup mode for the entire second half and the ferocious Texans defense accrued 4 sacks and 5 turnovers. The Colts’ front 7 was surprisingly stout against the run early but their overmatched secondary was torched on big gains of 20+ yards four times in the game. In recent weeks, the Colts have bottled up Chris Johnson (19-44-0), Mikel Leshoure (21-57-1), and Stevan Ridley (13-28-1) and have only allowed one 100-yard rusher (C.J. Spiller) since Week 7.

Or something like that…

And, of course, the entries for Matt Schaub and Andre Johnson would predict just the opposite: a ground-oriented performance from the Texans. The purpose of this exercise would be threefold: to lay out a plausible prediction about game flow, to isolate personnel matchups which do not or might not favor the player in question, and to isolate potential or nascent statistical “trends” which also do not favor the player in question—and which may or may not yet qualify as a trend. (Yes, the Colts have been horrible against the run this year but since Week 7 they’ve been—and looked—much more successful stopping the run. Yes, the Rams are #19 in fewest fantasy points allowed to RB but the past 3 weeks they have held RB—including Frank Gore and C.J. Spiller—under 60 yards rushing.)

Generally speaking, have there been changes in personnel or alignment? Is the new defensive coordinator’s gameplan finally starting to gel? Is the team getting healthier at key positions or more confident now that they are challenging for a playoff spot?

Two weeks ago the expert consensus was that the Philadelphia Eagles had “quit on the coach” and were “mailing the rest of the season in.” Last week, various experts explained the San Diego Chargers’ woes: Philip Rivers is now feeling phantom pocket pressure as well as real pressure; the Chargers have historically been awful when traveling to the east coast in December; with a lame-duck coach and GM, several key veterans—including Rivers—have mentally “checked out” and already begun their offseason. All of these narratives sounded entirely plausible and well-reasoned yet none of them were particularly accurate.

Narratives feel comforting. They allow us to make sense of the unpredictable; they allow us to turn discrete, simultaneous, related and quasi-related events into something coherent and comprehensible. But they are very often wrong precisely because (especially in football) the discrete, simultaneous events trigger unpredictable and intentionally anti-predictable reactions, are too numerous and variegated and malleable and intricate, are difficult to assess (even by experts) and are difficult to predict (even by experts). This is to say nothing about invested wishful thinking wherein a long-term prediction clouds a short-term prediction. (See also: Cecil Lammey on Ronnie Hillman. A narrative he continues to cling to and rationalize.) A classic example of a faulty narrative involves “momentum” in sports—both in-game and in-season. But people are so invested in this idea that it becomes hard to shake.

Perhaps challenging the presumptive narrative with an alternative narrative will simply overwhelm us with information and lead us to make more errors instead of fewer errors. But I’m not sure there is any other way to challenge the human brain’s investment in narrative. Nothing else will seem as logical or as sensible (even as it may prove to be equally or more misguided). In other words, this is all we got.

I understand that we are just poker players playing the odds. We try to put ourselves in the best position to win but we have no control over the deal of the cards. Take a look at the Trent Richardson thread here in the Shark Pool. A couple of recent posters (MAC_32, Max Power, bigdaddydave) have (correctly and helpfully, in my opinion) pointed out that Richardson is not only degrading statistically in recent weeks but is also failing the eyeball test. As a warning, they (perhaps presciently, in my opinion) warn owners that Richardson may let us down during the fantasy championships. The warnings are dismissed a bit too cavalierly, I suggest, and are ultimately rebuffed with this idea that we are playing the odds and Richardson offers a smart, safe, volume play. This is terrific logic and I tend to agree with it. Who are we going to replace Richardson with? LeShoure? Dwyer? Moreno? This is not the time of year to get “cute” with lineups. But I still think that we ought to be weighing this alternative narrative a bit more judiciously. It would not at all surprise me to see Richardson (consensus top 10 for this week) outperformed this week by RBs ranked significantly lower. And the warning signs—both on game tape AND in the box score—will have been there all along for all of us to see.

The purpose of this premortem idea is not simply to come up with some pessimistic worst case scenario for owners to fret about but to approach it as if it has already happened and CONSTRUCTIVELY attempt to make sense of it. When we do this, we *might* be able to unearth nuggets of information which allow us to (occasionally) stay ahead of the curve and see trends before they become trends. The goal would not be to induce anxious second-guessing or paralyzing indecisiveness; the goal would be in-depth analysis as if working in hindsight from a set of results. Yes, it is true that we can find statistics to support any position. But this just opens up a dialogue—perhaps internal, perhaps in the Shark Pool—countering the counter-analysis. We challenge ourselves and assess (and reassess) the value of those challenges.

Maybe a report like this would be overkill and unpopular with readers. Maybe it wouldn’t be worth the time and effort, I don’t know. It just seems to me that all fantasy rankings (from a wide variety of sources) feel “no-brainer” and locked into short-term memory. (Torrey Smith scored twice last week so now he is inside the Top 20. Torrey Smith follows that up with a stinker and now he is ranked #38. This happens regardless of this week’s matchup or last week’s matchup or any other seemingly relevant information. See also: Brian Hartline, Kevin Ogletree, any WR on the Rams, Browns or Titans, etc.) Safe, predictable rankings are statistically more accurate. They help fantasy football sites perform well against competitors. But they also become susceptible to groupthink and they tend not to be very challenging. (I especially find it telling that writers for a specific site tend to rank and group certain players much more like the other writers at that site and much less like writers at competing sites.)

I think something like a premortem would help all of us “avoid overconfidence” and provide us with a plausible, hypothetical, non-injury-related narrative for how and why the rankings—and our working assumptions—just might turn out to be wrong.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

I am not a subscriber so forgive me if something like this is already available but I would like fantasy football sites to include two things:

1. Detailed WR vs. CB analysis for every game

2. A fantasy football “premortem” preemptively analyzing what went wrong

The “What Went Wrong” Report would come out on Thursdays and it would preemptively provide a plausible narrative for why this week’s rankings did not work out. It would be written in the past tense as if it were being written on the following Tuesday. It would provide an imaginary retrospective on what was “missed.” This would be based upon an idea detailed in Daniel Kahneman’s book “Thinking, Fast and Slow.” Quoting Christopher Chabris’ review of the book:

“Mr. Kahneman stresses that he is just as susceptible as the rest of us to the cognitive illusions he has discovered. He tries to recognize situations when mistakes are especially likely to occur—such as when he is starting a big project or making a forecast—and then act to rethink his System 1 inclinations. The tendency to underestimate the costs of future projects, he notes, is susceptible to taking an "outside view": looking at your own project as an outsider would. To avoid overconfidence, Mr. Kahneman recommends an exercise called the "premortem," developed by the psychologist Gary Klein: Before finalizing a decision, imagine that, a year after it has been made, it has turned out horribly, then write a history of how it went wrong and why.”

In the case of fantasy football, the premortem would imagine why things did not go according to plan this upcoming (“past”) weekend. Injuries could not be used as a crutch to explain misfires, although interceptions and fumbles certainly could. What we, as customers, would be looking for would be 2 things:

1. A consensus on the expected floor of each player

2. A plausible, non-injury-related narrative that can explain underperformance

Every player would be listed in ranking order with a brief paragraph of explanation, written from the Tuesday morning perspective of what went wrong. I would like to see this done for the top 15 or 20 QB, the top 30 RB, the top 30 WR, and the top 10 or 15 TE. For this week we might see entries like this (and this is thrown together very quickly and without much thought so perhaps this example is a bit crude):

1. Adrian Peterson – 18-62-0 rushing; 3-11-0 receiving

Facing an inspired and red-hot Rams defense on the road, Peterson finished with his second-lowest rushing output of the season. The Rams kept their playoff hopes alive in front of the raucous home crowd with a 26-13 victory. As expected, the Rams defense made Peterson the central focus of their defensive game plan and Minnesota’s one-dimensional offense was unable to make gains on the ground for most of the first half despite a decent opening drive. Peterson’s best drive came late in the third quarter but Christian Ponder’s second interception of the day ended that drive and put the game out of reach. The Rams have now held opposing RB under 100 yards for 6 consecutive weeks following their Week 9 bye and in the last 3 weeks have stifled Frank Gore (23-58-1), C.J. Spiller (7-37-0), and Peterson.

2. Arian Foster – 13-55-0 rushing; 1-6-0 receiving

Looking to bury the memory of last week’s embarrassing loss in New England, Matt Schaub and the Houston aerial attack scored three touchdowns in the first half this weekend en route to a 41-23 drubbing of the Colts. Schaub found Kevin Walter, Owen Daniels, and Andre Johnson for scores and finished with 293 yards passing. The Texans added a second half defensive score on a pick-6 and the lone rushing touchdown of the game came in the fourth quarter from Ben Tate, who equaled Foster’s number of carries (13) and produced more yardage (72) along with the score. Tate ran very well and looks strong as the Texans prepare for the postseason. Houston led 27-6 at the half and the final score is not quite indicative of how truly lopsided this game was. Andrew Luck (372 passing, 2 TD, 4 INT) had the Colts in catchup mode for the entire second half and the ferocious Texans defense accrued 4 sacks and 5 turnovers. The Colts’ front 7 was surprisingly stout against the run early but their overmatched secondary was torched on big gains of 20+ yards four times in the game. In recent weeks, the Colts have bottled up Chris Johnson (19-44-0), Mikel Leshoure (21-57-1), and Stevan Ridley (13-28-1) and have only allowed one 100-yard rusher (C.J. Spiller) since Week 7.

Or something like that…

And, of course, the entries for Matt Schaub and Andre Johnson would predict just the opposite: a ground-oriented performance from the Texans. The purpose of this exercise would be threefold: to lay out a plausible prediction about game flow, to isolate personnel matchups which do not or might not favor the player in question, and to isolate potential or nascent statistical “trends” which also do not favor the player in question—and which may or may not yet qualify as a trend. (Yes, the Colts have been horrible against the run this year but since Week 7 they’ve been—and looked—much more successful stopping the run. Yes, the Rams are #19 in fewest fantasy points allowed to RB but the past 3 weeks they have held RB—including Frank Gore and C.J. Spiller—under 60 yards rushing.)

Generally speaking, have there been changes in personnel or alignment? Is the new defensive coordinator’s gameplan finally starting to gel? Is the team getting healthier at key positions or more confident now that they are challenging for a playoff spot?

Two weeks ago the expert consensus was that the Philadelphia Eagles had “quit on the coach” and were “mailing the rest of the season in.” Last week, various experts explained the San Diego Chargers’ woes: Philip Rivers is now feeling phantom pocket pressure as well as real pressure; the Chargers have historically been awful when traveling to the east coast in December; with a lame-duck coach and GM, several key veterans—including Rivers—have mentally “checked out” and already begun their offseason. All of these narratives sounded entirely plausible and well-reasoned yet none of them were particularly accurate.

Narratives feel comforting. They allow us to make sense of the unpredictable; they allow us to turn discrete, simultaneous, related and quasi-related events into something coherent and comprehensible. But they are very often wrong precisely because (especially in football) the discrete, simultaneous events trigger unpredictable and intentionally anti-predictable reactions, are too numerous and variegated and malleable and intricate, are difficult to assess (even by experts) and are difficult to predict (even by experts). This is to say nothing about invested wishful thinking wherein a long-term prediction clouds a short-term prediction. (See also: Cecil Lammey on Ronnie Hillman. A narrative he continues to cling to and rationalize.) A classic example of a faulty narrative involves “momentum” in sports—both in-game and in-season. But people are so invested in this idea that it becomes hard to shake.

Perhaps challenging the presumptive narrative with an alternative narrative will simply overwhelm us with information and lead us to make more errors instead of fewer errors. But I’m not sure there is any other way to challenge the human brain’s investment in narrative. Nothing else will seem as logical or as sensible (even as it may prove to be equally or more misguided). In other words, this is all we got.

I understand that we are just poker players playing the odds. We try to put ourselves in the best position to win but we have no control over the deal of the cards. Take a look at the Trent Richardson thread here in the Shark Pool. A couple of recent posters (MAC_32, Max Power, bigdaddydave) have (correctly and helpfully, in my opinion) pointed out that Richardson is not only degrading statistically in recent weeks but is also failing the eyeball test. As a warning, they (perhaps presciently, in my opinion) warn owners that Richardson may let us down during the fantasy championships. The warnings are dismissed a bit too cavalierly, I suggest, and are ultimately rebuffed with this idea that we are playing the odds and Richardson offers a smart, safe, volume play. This is terrific logic and I tend to agree with it. Who are we going to replace Richardson with? LeShoure? Dwyer? Moreno? This is not the time of year to get “cute” with lineups. But I still think that we ought to be weighing this alternative narrative a bit more judiciously. It would not at all surprise me to see Richardson (consensus top 10 for this week) outperformed this week by RBs ranked significantly lower. And the warning signs—both on game tape AND in the box score—will have been there all along for all of us to see.

The purpose of this premortem idea is not simply to come up with some pessimistic worst case scenario for owners to fret about but to approach it as if it has already happened and CONSTRUCTIVELY attempt to make sense of it. When we do this, we *might* be able to unearth nuggets of information which allow us to (occasionally) stay ahead of the curve and see trends before they become trends. The goal would not be to induce anxious second-guessing or paralyzing indecisiveness; the goal would be in-depth analysis as if working in hindsight from a set of results. Yes, it is true that we can find statistics to support any position. But this just opens up a dialogue—perhaps internal, perhaps in the Shark Pool—countering the counter-analysis. We challenge ourselves and assess (and reassess) the value of those challenges.

Maybe a report like this would be overkill and unpopular with readers. Maybe it wouldn’t be worth the time and effort, I don’t know. It just seems to me that all fantasy rankings (from a wide variety of sources) feel “no-brainer” and locked into short-term memory. (Torrey Smith scored twice last week so now he is inside the Top 20. Torrey Smith follows that up with a stinker and now he is ranked #38. This happens regardless of this week’s matchup or last week’s matchup or any other seemingly relevant information. See also: Brian Hartline, Kevin Ogletree, any WR on the Rams, Browns or Titans, etc.) Safe, predictable rankings are statistically more accurate. They help fantasy football sites perform well against competitors. But they also become susceptible to groupthink and they tend not to be very challenging. (I especially find it telling that writers for a specific site tend to rank and group certain players much more like the other writers at that site and much less like writers at competing sites.)

I think something like a premortem would help all of us “avoid overconfidence” and provide us with a plausible, hypothetical, non-injury-related narrative for how and why the rankings—and our working assumptions—just might turn out to be wrong.

I gotta say this is fascinating, I may buy the book too. I would love to see this kind of discussion, thinking and depth. If a few things gotta go, then so be it.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

There are numerous, daily examples of the low quality of the editing and editorializing. For example, in today's Daily Email Update, we see areas where it looks like there must be copy/pasting taking place from other areas because the context is off. For example, below, there was no question asked, but we see a comment "the better question is..." Alone, this is not a big deal, but this sort of stuff occurs repeatedly, which makes me question to commitment to analysis over simply getting something out.

On Bryce Brown:

PHI - To continue using Bryce Brown

Source: CSNPhilly.com - Geoff Mosher

Philadelphia Eagles head coach Andy Reid said it's important to continue using RB Bryce Brown as he learns the game.

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ OUR VIEW ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

The better question is whether Brown and the Eagles offensive can recapture their week 12/13 form in time to help fantasy owners. His ball security problems and tendency to bounce everything outside are making Brown too easy to defend right now.

---

The second issue also is a regular occurrence. Multiple articles referring to the same player with analysis either repeated, and occasionally the analysis is inconsistent and at odds (are there different writers/contributors to the email?). In this case, we see two articles on Roddy White where perhaps one would be better.

Story #21

ATL - WR Roddy White questionable

Source: USA Today - Mike Garafolo

Atlanta Falcons WR Roddy White (knee) missed his third straight day of practice Friday, Dec. 14, and is questionable for Week 15. WR Harry Douglas fully believes White will suit up for the game.

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ OUR VIEW ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

White has never missed a game, but it feels like a true game-time decision here. He'll still be a solid WR2 play if he can go, but Matt Ryan may fall from QB1 status if he can't.

Story #27

ATL - WR Roddy White sits

Source: The Star-Ledger - Mike Garafolo

Atlanta Falcons WR Roddy White (knee) missed practice again Friday, Dec. 14.

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ OUR VIEW ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

White has never missed a game in his career, but this certainly seems like a week where he could miss his first. If he can go on Sunday, we wouldn't downgrade him much, but you should definitely have a backup plan in place, and perhaps even pick up Harry Douglas if your opponent owns White to block them from one more possible fill-in.

But earlier in the article, we see the following on Harry Douglas noting he's questionable. A reference to this in the analysis might be a good idea if somebody is just reading the Roddy material.

Article #20

ATL - WR Harry Douglas questionable

Source: USA Today - Mike Garafolo

Atlanta Falcons WR Harry Douglas (rib) was limited in practice Friday, Dec. 14, and is questionable for Week 15, although he is certain that he will play.

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ OUR VIEW ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Douglas might be a good desperation start in deep leagues if Roddy White is out.

---

Maybe it's asking too much to have things cleaned up a bit. It seems to me that links to the articles are good and the analysis would be great if more than a sentence or two that is inconsistent with other analysis and/or incomplete.

 

[The Beezer]

Somebody give Backside Pursuit a gold star, because that is an awesome post. Kahnemann's book is an excellent read and your proposal reminded me of the preseason "Face-Off" articles, which I think do exactly what you are describing. Perhaps a weekly version of the Face-Offs for a few key players would be a good way to approach this.

 

[Judge Smails]

I have been a member for many years and here are my observations.1. Having the Subscriber Section sorted by day of the week is great for finding the newest content. But I would love to be able to sort or customize by type of content. IPD, Projections, Defenses, Free Agents etc... By sorting this way I can quickly find what articles are which type I miss content because I don't always remember what title of article are what type of content.2. I love the MyFBG part of the site but I would really like more insight on the page to figure out a few things. a) What figured into an individuals ranking, b) an indicators on projections if you see an individual has a high floor/low ceiling or low floor/High ceiling or some kind of combination of these type of quick anaylysis. I use another source that has this type of anlysis to decide between two players that you have ranked close together.Sigmund Bloom, on 04 December 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:THE FANTASY KING, on 04 December 2012 - 06:58 AM, saidLAYER - OVERALL TIER (for this week) - UPSIDE TIER - DOWNSIDE TIER - RISK RATING - MATCH-UP RATING - TIER RATING BASED ON LAST 3 WEEKSThis is a great idea and I pledge right now to release something like this weekly with my projections next yearLove this idea

Me too. Other sites have better ( or easier to find) inside the matchup info. Who's lining up against shut down corners, what teams are not only giving up against the pass but specifically against TE's, #2 WR's, etc. I think the info is there, but its in countless subscription article content that's analytical/graphs leaving us to interpret. Don't have that time. Need summaries/cliff notes.