General Question About Rankings/Resources On FBG (1 Viewer)

[savemyskin]

In the 9/29 "Top 250 Forward" rankings, Ryan Longwell is the 3rd ranked kicker and Mason Crosby is 7th.

In the 9/30 "Strength of Schedule" rankings for kickers, Minnesota has a very favorable matchup this week with a 10.0 rating and Green Bay has the worst matchup in the league with a 4.5 rating.

In the 10/4 "Cheatsheets" ranking, Crosby is the 3rd ranked kicker this week, while Longwell is ranked 12th.

What am I missing here? It seems to me like the first two data points are quite inconsistent with the third.

I recognize that these three documents are put together by different authors, but it seems like the site should strive for some consistency in its rankings/resources and it's not happening here. I feel like I should be able to use the Top 250 and SOS to arrive at a reasonable estimate of the Cheatsheet rankings (obviously there are week to week injuries/suspensions/etc. that are not reflected in the Top 250, but that's not in play here AFAIK).

I also recognize that the numbers used in projecting performance are not exact and that all of the projected kicker scores are closely bunched together (Crosby achieves his higher ranking based on being projected to kick 0.1 more FGs and 0.1 more XPs than Longwell), but I don't see how that solves the problem.

I also also recognize that I'm giving an example about tenths of points in projections for KICKERS...and who cares about kickers? I have come across this kind of inconsistency on the site before for players at other positions, but this is the one I'm seeing right now.

No one should take this as a criticism of the site. I think you guys do great work. Just trying to see if I am missing something here...

 

[Lash]

perhaps the authors differ on whether they think Rodgers is playing this week and how it may affect GB offense and thus Crosby

 

[savemyskin]

perhaps the authors differ on whether they think Rodgers is playing this week and how it may affect GB offense and thus Crosby

i was thinking about the rodgers angle. first of all, it looks like he's going to play, so crosby's projection should be unchanged from the top 250. but let's say he doesn't play. does this really increase crosby's value? i suppose it makes it more likely he will kick FGs? in that case i would expect his XP projection to go down.my guess is, though, that the authors are not going into this much detail in their weekly kicker projections.

 

[kdun420]

A footballguys mantra is that a kicker is a kicker, and the difference between #1 and #10 is minimal and mostly random on a week-to-week basis. So I wouldn't take kicker rankings very seriously.

 

[savemyskin]

A footballguys mantra is that a kicker is a kicker, and the difference between #1 and #10 is minimal and mostly random on a week-to-week basis. So I wouldn't take kicker rankings very seriously.

right, i agree 100% with "the difference between #1 and #10 is minimal" and that there is a high degree of randomness in kicker projections and performance. no question there....but if you're going to publish them at all, shouldn't they be consistent with the other resources on your site? i doubt the authors would agree that "they shouldn't be taken very seriously."

 

[yeltneb]

Why do you think they should be the same? There are a bunch of different staff writers with different opinions. FBG could just use trained monkeys (which would be awesome) if they needed everything written to agree with Dodds' opinion.

 

[savemyskin]

Why do you think they should be the same? There are a bunch of different staff writers with different opinions. FBG could just use trained monkeys (which would be awesome) if they needed everything written to agree with Dodds' opinion.

giving inconsistent advice like this makes it harder to use the site as a reference, i think. when the various rankings/resources give conflicting information, which one am i supposed to give preference to?i guess i wish that the cheatsheets resource was a synthesis of the opinions of the staff, instead of just david's weekly opinion. i'm sure he incorporates the opinions of the other writers into the work, but there are inconsistencies.

 

[yeltneb]

Why do you think they should be the same? There are a bunch of different staff writers with different opinions. FBG could just use trained monkeys (which would be awesome) if they needed everything written to agree with Dodds' opinion.

giving inconsistent advice like this makes it harder to use the site as a reference, i think. when the various rankings/resources give conflicting information, which one am i supposed to give preference to?i guess i wish that the cheatsheets resource was a synthesis of the opinions of the staff, instead of just david's weekly opinion. i'm sure he incorporates the opinions of the other writers into the work, but there are inconsistencies.

I prefer to see different opinions. Fantasy football's an inexact science and someone isn't going to be right all the time. When I'm looking at cheatsheets, I check out every one available before making a decision.

 

[Marc Levin]

perhaps the authors differ on whether they think Rodgers is playing this week and how it may affect GB offense and thus Crosby

i was thinking about the rodgers angle. first of all, it looks like he's going to play, so crosby's projection should be unchanged from the top 250. but let's say he doesn't play. does this really increase crosby's value? i suppose it makes it more likely he will kick FGs? in that case i would expect his XP projection to go down.my guess is, though, that the authors are not going into this much detail in their weekly kicker projections.

We have Capy - kickers are getting plenty of love.Most likely, the rankers this week believe the offense will be forced to kick more FGs due to Rodgers being oit, while they believe Minn. will score more TDs. Thus, the predicted numbers disagree with the weekly SOS matchup.Clayton does the SOS based purely on numbers - there is no analysis involved. Use that tool as a static reference. The top-250 forward accounts for everything going forward, and is an overall picture.The weekly rankings take into account the weekly matchup, and predictions as to THIS week's numbers. That is the most "fluid" of the three tools, and will often be the most predictive.

 

[savemyskin]

Why do you think they should be the same? There are a bunch of different staff writers with different opinions. FBG could just use trained monkeys (which would be awesome) if they needed everything written to agree with Dodds' opinion.

giving inconsistent advice like this makes it harder to use the site as a reference, i think. when the various rankings/resources give conflicting information, which one am i supposed to give preference to?i guess i wish that the cheatsheets resource was a synthesis of the opinions of the staff, instead of just david's weekly opinion. i'm sure he incorporates the opinions of the other writers into the work, but there are inconsistencies.

I prefer to see different opinions. Fantasy football's an inexact science and someone isn't going to be right all the time. When I'm looking at cheatsheets, I check out every one available before making a decision.

i certainly can't disagree with any of that. i guess my post turned into a question about how to reconcile the different opinions that i see just on the FBG site. marc answered that nicely above.

 

[savemyskin]

perhaps the authors differ on whether they think Rodgers is playing this week and how it may affect GB offense and thus Crosby

i was thinking about the rodgers angle. first of all, it looks like he's going to play, so crosby's projection should be unchanged from the top 250. but let's say he doesn't play. does this really increase crosby's value? i suppose it makes it more likely he will kick FGs? in that case i would expect his XP projection to go down.my guess is, though, that the authors are not going into this much detail in their weekly kicker projections.

We have Capy - kickers are getting plenty of love.Most likely, the rankers this week believe the offense will be forced to kick more FGs due to Rodgers being oit, while they believe Minn. will score more TDs. Thus, the predicted numbers disagree with the weekly SOS matchup.Clayton does the SOS based purely on numbers - there is no analysis involved. Use that tool as a static reference. The top-250 forward accounts for everything going forward, and is an overall picture.The weekly rankings take into account the weekly matchup, and predictions as to THIS week's numbers. That is the most "fluid" of the three tools, and will often be the most predictive.

capy?it would be one thing if the projections reflected that they thought GB would kick more FGs and MIN would score more TDs this week, but crosby is projected to kick more FGs and more XPs. but again, just 0.1 more...not really significant enough to discuss.when i first wrote this thread, i did not think there was much, if any, analysis to be done regarding the specific weekly situations of crosby and longwell (i don't mean SOS here, i mean things like injuries, etc.). but maybe the rodgers situation has more influence than i thought.thanks for the clarifications here, marc.

 

[savemyskin]

fwiw, the 10/2 "Kickermania" article on FBG ranks longwell 7th and crosby 21st this week. even MORE opinions!

 

[Twilight]

perhaps the authors differ on whether they think Rodgers is playing this week and how it may affect GB offense and thus Crosby

i was thinking about the rodgers angle. first of all, it looks like he's going to play, so crosby's projection should be unchanged from the top 250. but let's say he doesn't play. does this really increase crosby's value? i suppose it makes it more likely he will kick FGs? in that case i would expect his XP projection to go down.my guess is, though, that the authors are not going into this much detail in their weekly kicker projections.

We have Capy - kickers are getting plenty of love.Most likely, the rankers this week believe the offense will be forced to kick more FGs due to Rodgers being oit, while they believe Minn. will score more TDs. Thus, the predicted numbers disagree with the weekly SOS matchup.Clayton does the SOS based purely on numbers - there is no analysis involved. Use that tool as a static reference. The top-250 forward accounts for everything going forward, and is an overall picture.The weekly rankings take into account the weekly matchup, and predictions as to THIS week's numbers. That is the most "fluid" of the three tools, and will often be the most predictive.

capy?it would be one thing if the projections reflected that they thought GB would kick more FGs and MIN would score more TDs this week, but crosby is projected to kick more FGs and more XPs. but again, just 0.1 more...not really significant enough to discuss.when i first wrote this thread, i did not think there was much, if any, analysis to be done regarding the specific weekly situations of crosby and longwell (i don't mean SOS here, i mean things like injuries, etc.). but maybe the rodgers situation has more influence than i thought.thanks for the clarifications here, marc.

Capy is Mike Herman, whose board name was Capybara. When it comes to kickers, I listen to him over Dodds actually.

 

[BusterTBronco]

The cheatsheets are for the current week while Top 250 forward is "rest of the season" rankings

 

[savemyskin]

The cheatsheets are for the current week while Top 250 forward is "rest of the season" rankings

i know. my point was that if longwell is ranked higher in the top 250 and has a much better matchup this week (based on SOS), he should be ranked higher for the current week.