Is Mike Bell a for sure waste? (1 Viewer)

[SSOG]

Have to chime in here.1) Perceived value IS actual value so separating the two doesn't make any sense...thus the word value. I would rather have MT on my team for myself and for what someone else might give me.

Perceived value most certainly *IS NOT* actual value. Prior to the 2004 season, the PERCEPTION of Ron Dayne was that he'd become a greater part of the offense, and maybe even win the starting job outright. That was his "perceived value". His ACTUAL value was no where CLOSE to that.Going off last week has jacked Kevin Jones' perceived value through the room... but his actual value is still exactly the same. He's still going to score exactly as many points from week 7-16 as he was a week ago, so his ACTUAL value is the same, but the cost to BUY that production has gone up, because his PERCEIVED value is now higher. People think he's a better RB than they thought last week, even though he's the exact same guy still.

2) Of course starting bell or Turner is probably desperation if both starters are healthy, but if you must start one, 5 extra points could be the difference in winning or losing.3) If YOU have established that injuries are a crap shoot, then I would look at who would you rather have playing if the starter gets injured. My answer would be Turner because he is simply much better.

Injuries are a crapshoot to some extent, but some players are at a statistically higher risk for injuries. Tatum Bell has never demonstrated that he's capable of handling a 320 carry workload (which is what he's on pace for right now). He has a history of minor nagging injuries. I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination to say that he's probably the bigger injury risk of the two. Even beyond that- I'm sure you will agree 100% that Tatum is far and away the more likely of the two to lose his job due to non-injury related reasons.

4) When talking dynasty there is no way anyone could choose Mike Bell over Turner. Not even sure why this would be a discussion.

Agreed.

None of us have addressed the "going forward" argument that SSOG put forth - and it is a good one.Going forward, after watching Turner get only one carry in a blow out game - even though LT said repeatedly (at least in PUBLIC <---important point) he welcomed the breathers from Turner - one has to wonder about each player's future value. SSOG's counter argument to the above point is that MB is as likely as MT to se those 50 yards and a TD. It is hard to argue that point since we have yet to see the Broncos play in a blow out game.Will TB get all the carries, even in a blow out? Will Shannie be more willing than Marty to rest his starter?SSOG's poont about perceived value is also 100% correct - BUT, perceived value is an element of fantasy value (as Mark Kamenski pointed out). It may not make me start MT over MB, but it certainly makes MT's fantasy value HIGHER THAN MB's

I'll agree. In a no-trade league, I'd call Turner and Bell a wash. I feel that their actual value going forward is very very comparable (along with guys like Norwood, Brandon Jacobs, or maybe Maurice Jones-Drew). In a trade-league, I'd probably rather have Turner, because while I feel that his actual value is the same as Bell's, I know that I am in the huge minority on this one, so Turner's perceived value (i.e. trade value) would be much higher.Also, in any league where I own Tatum or Tomlinson, obviously I'd rather have the relevant handcuff.

 

[SSOG]

SSOG, if you played in a re-draft league where each team had to start 4 RBs (and there are probably some of them out there), would you rather start MT or MB each week? Doesn't the answer reveal something about the player's relative values?

I don't know. Like Levin said, we haven't really seen how Mike Bell will do in a blowout. With that said, if I had to choose at this very moment, of COURSE I would choose Michael Turner- as I've said all along, while they're both backups, Turner has marginally more fantasy value.

 

[Liquid Tension]

1) Perceived value IS actual value so separating the two doesn't make any sense...thus the word value. I would rather have MT on my team for myself and for what someone else might give me.

Perceived value most certainly *IS NOT* actual value. Prior to the 2004 season, the PERCEPTION of Ron Dayne was that he'd become a greater part of the offense, and maybe even win the starting job outright. That was his "perceived value". His ACTUAL value was no where CLOSE to that.

Going off last week has jacked Kevin Jones' perceived value through the room... but his actual value is still exactly the same. He's still going to score exactly as many points from week 7-16 as he was a week ago, so his ACTUAL value is the same, but the cost to BUY that production has gone up, because his PERCEIVED value is now higher. People think he's a better RB than they thought last week, even though he's the exact same guy still.

SSOG, good discussion, but I disagree about perceived value and actual value. Many times perceived becomes actual value if you trade at that moment. KJ's actual value in a trade will go up because of the perceived value. I don't see how you can separate them. Also, perceived value may be someone's thought on a player for their team and that becomes their actual value in evaluating worth. Not sure how this can't be true. Now the actual value of the player may not or may exceed the perceived value as of "right now" but that can be said for actual value for "right now" as well. You can't look (well you could) at history and say "see" his perceived value was not up to his actual value after watching him play. I guess my point is that at a moment in time is perceived value IS his actual value and the both change with every event.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

FWIW, in my main league I had both LT and TB and discussed trade for both Turner and MB. The cost for Turner was higher because of the perceived higher value, so I traded for MB instead.

As an owner of both #1 RB's trying to get one of the two for handcuff/insurance reasons, MB had more actual value to me. I think it's far more likely that MB starts at some point this season than it is that MT starts. LT2 is a stud in awesome shape who's proven to be very durable with a heavy workload over the years. TB has proven to be durable with a heavy workload over a couple of games. For me, I buy insurance on TB and take the risk LT2 stays healthy.

 

[Guru]

He is only of value to an owner of Tatum Bell.

 

[Texican]

FWIW, in my main league I had both LT and TB and discussed trade for both Turner and MB. The cost for Turner was higher because of the perceived higher value, so I traded for MB instead. As an owner of both #1 RB's trying to get one of the two for handcuff/insurance reasons, MB had more actual value to me. I think it's far more likely that MB starts at some point this season than it is that MT starts. LT2 is a stud in awesome shape who's proven to be very durable with a heavy workload over the years. TB has proven to be durable with a heavy workload over a couple of games. For me, I buy insurance on TB and take the risk LT2 stays healthy.

What did you give?

 

[SSOG]

SSOG, good discussion, but I disagree about perceived value and actual value. Many times perceived becomes actual value if you trade at that moment. KJ's actual value in a trade will go up because of the perceived value. I don't see how you can separate them. Also, perceived value may be someone's thought on a player for their team and that becomes their actual value in evaluating worth. Not sure how this can't be true. Now the actual value of the player may not or may exceed the perceived value as of "right now" but that can be said for actual value for "right now" as well. You can't look (well you could) at history and say "see" his perceived value was not up to his actual value after watching him play. I guess my point is that at a moment in time is perceived value IS his actual value and the both change with every event.

I think we're defining the terms differently.When I say "actual value", I'm talking about an unknowable absolute. It might be that Torry Holt is going to get 60/1000/5 over the rest of the season. That's his "actual value". Of course, there's no way of knowing this ahead of time, we can only GUESS at what his actual value might be. Those educated guesses that we make regarding Holt's actual value are his "perceived value". Now, let's say that my educated guess is that Holt will get 40/600/2 over the rest of the year. Holt's ACTUAL VALUE in this instance is greater than his PERCEIVED VALUE (or at least, his value as *I* perceive it).Since actual value is unknowable, when I am discussing actual value in real-world terms, I'm usually discussing my perceived value for him, and when I say "perceived value" I am referring to his general consensus value. I'm going to naturally assume that my projections are right (if I didn't think they were right, I'd change them until I did ), so I accept my projections of a player's value as fact. At that point, if those projections are HIGHER than the general consensus for that player, that player is UNDERRATED (i.e. his "perceived value" is lower than his "actual value") and a prime candidate to trade for. If those projections are LOWER than the general consensus, that player is OVERRATED (and therefore a prime candidate to unload).In my projections, both Turner and Mike Bell have very comparable values. As a result, for the sake of convenience, I say that their ACTUAL VALUES are very, very close. However, the general consensus is a lot higher on Michael Turner than it is on Mike Bell, so I therefore say that, while their ACTUAL VALUES are close, Turner's PERCEIVED VALUE is much higher. If I'm going to simply hold them both on my team over the course of the year, Actual Value is the part that's important to me (I want to hold the players who I think will do the best). If I might consider trading, then Perceived Value holds more weight (it doesn't matter what *I* think of a player, it matters what my trading partner thinks).Did that clear up the confusion?

 

[Liquid Tension]

SSOG, good discussion, but I disagree about perceived value and actual value. Many times perceived becomes actual value if you trade at that moment. KJ's actual value in a trade will go up because of the perceived value. I don't see how you can separate them. Also, perceived value may be someone's thought on a player for their team and that becomes their actual value in evaluating worth. Not sure how this can't be true. Now the actual value of the player may not or may exceed the perceived value as of "right now" but that can be said for actual value for "right now" as well. You can't look (well you could) at history and say "see" his perceived value was not up to his actual value after watching him play. I guess my point is that at a moment in time is perceived value IS his actual value and the both change with every event.

I think we're defining the terms differently.When I say "actual value", I'm talking about an unknowable absolute. It might be that Torry Holt is going to get 60/1000/5 over the rest of the season. That's his "actual value". Of course, there's no way of knowing this ahead of time, we can only GUESS at what his actual value might be. Those educated guesses that we make regarding Holt's actual value are his "perceived value". Now, let's say that my educated guess is that Holt will get 40/600/2 over the rest of the year. Holt's ACTUAL VALUE in this instance is greater than his PERCEIVED VALUE (or at least, his value as *I* perceive it).Since actual value is unknowable, when I am discussing actual value in real-world terms, I'm usually discussing my perceived value for him, and when I say "perceived value" I am referring to his general consensus value. I'm going to naturally assume that my projections are right (if I didn't think they were right, I'd change them until I did ), so I accept my projections of a player's value as fact. At that point, if those projections are HIGHER than the general consensus for that player, that player is UNDERRATED (i.e. his "perceived value" is lower than his "actual value") and a prime candidate to trade for. If those projections are LOWER than the general consensus, that player is OVERRATED (and therefore a prime candidate to unload).In my projections, both Turner and Mike Bell have very comparable values. As a result, for the sake of convenience, I say that their ACTUAL VALUES are very, very close. However, the general consensus is a lot higher on Michael Turner than it is on Mike Bell, so I therefore say that, while their ACTUAL VALUES are close, Turner's PERCEIVED VALUE is much higher. If I'm going to simply hold them both on my team over the course of the year, Actual Value is the part that's important to me (I want to hold the players who I think will do the best). If I might consider trading, then Perceived Value holds more weight (it doesn't matter what *I* think of a player, it matters what my trading partner thinks).Did that clear up the confusion?

Believe it or not, yes it did. Your are correct, we did have different definitions and I wouldn't use your definitions, but I do understand the way you are using them and in your definitions I agree with your conclusions.The key is that if you don't trade them, the only thing that matters (using your definition) is their actual value. That being said, my "actual value" has Michael Turner a little higher because I would be much more comfortable with him starting than Mike bell, even "one" believes that the odds of Tatum bell getting injured are a little greater than LT2's.BTW, I think you might have to put that definition on your sig because most people wouldn't interpret it that way.Take care,

 

[SSOG]

BTW, I think you might have to put that definition on your sig because most people wouldn't interpret it that way.

Haha, I think I might get banned for life if I put that monstrosity in my sig.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

FWIW, in my main league I had both LT and TB and discussed trade for both Turner and MB. The cost for Turner was higher because of the perceived higher value, so I traded for MB instead. As an owner of both #1 RB's trying to get one of the two for handcuff/insurance reasons, MB had more actual value to me. I think it's far more likely that MB starts at some point this season than it is that MT starts. LT2 is a stud in awesome shape who's proven to be very durable with a heavy workload over the years. TB has proven to be durable with a heavy workload over a couple of games. For me, I buy insurance on TB and take the risk LT2 stays healthy.

What did you give?

He was a small part of a deal last week, kind of a throw in.

 

[SSOG]

I have to have my Hives CD around here somewhere. For some reason, I feel this overwhelming urge to play their smash hit, "Hate To Say I Told You So"...

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

Looks like there's a lot of crow to be eaten around here...

 

[[scooter]]

Looks like there's a lot of crow to be eaten around here...

Sure, as soon as Mike Bell starts a game for Denver.

 

[zamboni]

Today is precisely the reason I just couldn't cut bait with Mike. You just never know with the Denver RB situation.

 

[softball]

What was the deal today?

I wasn't able to watch much of the game, where as T. Bell?

 

[JuniorNB]

What was the deal today?I wasn't able to watch much of the game, where as T. Bell?

He decided he missed the role that he's had his entire career, so far.

 

[SSOG]

' date='Oct 29 2006, 08:57 PM' post='5814602']

Looks like there's a lot of crow to be eaten around here...

Sure, as soon as Mike Bell starts a game for Denver.

Nah, people in here were saying that Mike Bell had no value, or wasn't at least as valuable as Michael Turner. He's put both points to rest today, whether he starts next week or not.Stats through the first 7 weeks (counting all touches and all yards)-Turner: 53/340/2Bell: 59/326/3

What was the deal today?I wasn't able to watch much of the game, where as T. Bell?

In the first half, he was the featured back, but Mike Bell got some carries and made the most of them. By the second half, Mike Bell was running the rock and Tatum Bell was playing in a similar role to what he had last year. We've yet to hear whether it was a one-week fluke or a signal of things to come.

 

[Gr00vus]

I have to have my Hives CD around here somewhere. For some reason, I feel this overwhelming urge to play their smash hit, "Hate To Say I Told You So"...

Play it. I have to surrender the point at this time. But there's still half a season to go. If Bell gets playing time like he did yesterday and LaDainian makes it through the year unscathed, it'll be Mike Bell in a landslide this year. We'll see how Shanahan plays it. Also keep in mind the Mares won't be playing the Colt D every week.Props to SSOG at this time.