Let’s Talk About Strategy (1 Viewer)

[taylormeetstheismann]

Another interesting idea for the Perfect Drafters is to track the #1 and #2 WRs and even the #1 TE selected by your divisional opponents that you expect to play multiple times per season. Those players will likely be selected in the first seven to eight rounds and before you are picking up your #1, #2 and #3 QBs for QBBC. Then, as the opportunity presents itself and without reaching unneccesarily, select QBs on the same teams. By doing so you will have created additional hedging options during the season where you can cover those WRs and TEs with a QB.Obviously, you don't want to force these picks and end up with lesser QBs. However, if you let opportunities come to you they can be taken advantage of without issue. It is a sinister strategy that will leave your opponents scratching their heads as to why you always seem to beat them by just a few points. Little do they know your chipping away at them with an unfair share of quality hedges throughout the season.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

I have a few dynasty thoughts, although I do not believe anything I have to say is cutting edge.1) I think the "draft QB's late" is a sketchy idea in redraft that at best that has worked nicely for a few years when there were a bunch of QB's that performed similarly. It became a mantra in these parts- "Only guppies draft QB's early. Just look at the VBD." Actually, as I look at value, the top QB's provide oodles of it. That value is magnified in Dynasty leagues. Why? Because the QB's you want in a QBBC situation change every year. The FF QB studs are very consistent- just as the big 3 wr's have been for the last 5 years. They have talent and they are in a good situation. If I were starting in a dynasty league, I would trade down and draft Culpepper, Manning or McNabb in the first/second. I would hold onto my draft picks. You could expect to be set at QB for 4-6 years. I might even trade out of round 4 for a first round draft pick. You don't care if you are very bad, because you can draft a top rb the next year. There is huge rb turnover, and it happens very quickly.2) Backs over 27 and wr's over 30 are undervalued. You could have gotten players like Bruce, Muhammed, and even Joe Horn relatively late in a 2004 dynasty draft. However, highly productive wr's have the ability to produce until age 35. That doesn't mean you should target 35 yo's. However, it means that you can probable get a very good deal on a 31 wr with a very reasonable future near the trading deadline. 3) This is my closest thing to something remotely cutting edge. Many people focus on flexibility while drafting. I think you would like to have similar flexibility with your dynasty roster. Things change very quickly in the NFL. You need to draft talent, but be aware of opportunity. If you have a balanced roster that has veteran production and youth you are in a far better position than someone who has one or the other. Every year at playoff time there are some teams dumping players for picks/young talent because they are out of the race and are reloading. There are also players looking to get that one piece to put them over the top and might be willing to overpay to get it. Many people make poor analogies about poker aand FF. I might be about to join that list. I see roster flexibilit as being very similar to having position in hold em. In hold em, when you have position, you get to see how the other players have acted, attack weakness, and pick your spots. In FF, if you have a balanced roster, you can attack weakness similarly. Someone in playoff contention is willing to overpay for a hot producing veteran wr. Move him. Another player is selling Tiki Barber super cheap because he wants to go into the tank is having a fire sale- go get him.You can do whatever is best at that moment.4) Don't just look at the stat sheet when evaluating your players. It is how we keep score, but not how the NFL keeps score. Some players that have doone quite well this year- Domanick Davis and Brian Westbrook, may have slightly lessened roles next year. This is not because they are bad/ineffective players, but because of the talent at rb coming out this year. There should be some very good rb's available in rounds 3-4. However, most Davis/Westbrook owners would say- "You are crazy. He finished top 10. They won't look to improve there."5) Be friendly, reasonable, honest and active. You might be dealing with these people for a long time. It makes trading much easier and the league more enjoyable. 6) Do not underestimate the power of the 3 team deal in dynasty. It is tough to do, and can be frustrating. However, far more often than not, it seems like 2 teams are not a good match. Team A has a surplus of QB's and wants a proven wr. Team B has draft picks and wants a QB. Enter Team C, who is looking to get younger and has a wr. I have made several 3 way deals, and often they are the closest thing to win/win/win at the time of the deal.

 

[beto]

Forgive if this has been covered somewhere in here. In addressing category 3. Lineup Selection is there any statisical analysis concerning players preformances after being listed on the injury report? What average decrease in numbers players produce when listed Ques, Prob, Doubtful?Possibly even the percentages that each position plays full games as opposed to partial games in conjunction with each position and status.One step further, an average decrease in production in conjunction to certain injuries. Randy Moss, for example this year with his hammy. Would it be possible to look back 3 years and see what the decrease in WR #s is following a hamstring injury after missing one week? after playing the 1st, 2nd...etc.?

This is actually tracked right now on MFL. Injury status is shown for every game played when you click on the player.

 

[beefcake]

I dont believe in cutting edge strategy.I believe that some people are good at doing their homework and they win every time, by looking at evaluations, lineups, matchups, management.I think it was cutting edge in 1985 maybe. But over the past 25 years, competition has whittled it down to a science.Draft Dominator.

 

[Portis 26]

I would recommend my Max RBs Strategy to anyone.RBs are commonly described as overvalued in fantasy terms. If anything, they are all too often undervalued. No other position offers so much potential for a massive increase in value during the course of a season. For this strategy to work, you need to be an active trader.First of all, don't be afraid to take 5 straight RBs with your first 5 picks in a draft. You should be able to get 2 studs with your first two picks, an established RB in the 3rd with high upside, and then in the fourth go for two very young high upside figures. In most redrafts guys like Willis McGahee and Kevin Jones were still available in the 4th and 5th last summer, which was about the time as everyone else was filling up on WRs and QBs.If you had drafted last summer, you could have got (with your first 5 picks in a 12 team league):1) A top RB - someone like Shaun Alexander2) Another pretty good RB - Domanick Davis, perhaps3) An established RB with major question marks - Tiki Barber or Curtis Martin4) A top rookie RB - Kevin Jones5) A high upside figure - Willis McGaheeNow, obviously that's a best-case scenario. You could have drafted Travis Henry instead of Domanick Davis, or Michael Bennett instead of Tiki Barber. Never mind. You still would have picked up a lot of solid talent.With picks 6-10 go for any remaining talent left at QB and WR. Veteran guys on the downside are usually somewhat undervalued. You could almost certainly have picked up Brett Favre here, along with WRs like Isaac Bruce, Jimmy Smith, Rod Smith and Muhsin Muhammed. You just need some solid guys who you can start until you bring in some studs (see below).With any picks after this, go back for more young RBs. Think high draft picks with a lot of potential who are under-rated because they are stuck behind someone on a depth chart. You could have got Larry Johnson in this position last year.Now, when you start the season you should be completely stacked at RB, and have a solid (if rather elderly) group at WR and QB.The trick is to use your massive stockpile of RBs and on the sell-high, buy-low principal, trade them for elite players at QB and WR. If you have 3 or more top RBs you can afford to get rid of one or more. Go for guys like Marvin Harrison who started the season off poorly.Hopefully as the season progresses more of your RBs will start to explode - eg McGahee and Kevin Jones. Trade them in for more elite talent. Say you didn't get a top TE in the draft. Cash in on a RB's value when it is at its height for a Gates or a Gonzo.By the time the playoffs come round, you should have a monster of a team that should slay everything in its path.You do need to be a very active trader for this to work, and you do need to be able to stick to your course in the draft when the other guys will throw derision at you (after taking 5 straight RBs, you'll get a lot of "Hey, who are you going to start at QB - Kordell Stewart?" kind of jibes). Don't respond. Those very same guys will be the ones knocking on your door when one of their stud RBs goes down injured and they are faced with having to start Mike Alstott as their 2nd RB and you have cornered the entire RB market.Good luck!

 

[ConstruxBoy]

To me, a lot comes down to projections. The past is not the key to the future in fantasy football, making many predictions absolutely worthless. I think we need to look beyond yards gained/three year scoring averages to other things.

For example, I never liked Koren Robinson's potential, never thought he would become the #1 receiver in Seattle because he dropped too many passes. Why? His hands are relatively small for one. How can we know that about players?

The relationship between RB age, number of touches and perfomance is poorly understood.

We don't have any good predictive modelling for DTs and Kickers.

Agreed. The lynch pin ( & weakness) of most numbers-based drafting systems ( VBD & the like) is projections. But how to improve on their accuracy? Can they be improved? Or is it just the nature of the game that there are too many variables?(Obviously, some are better at projecting performance than others. But I'd bet that even the best predictors miss more than they'd like to admit.)

What makes a successful projection, anyway? If you're within 20% on a particualr player? And is that good enough? You don't have to miss by much on a few players to screw up your whole draft sheet.

Interesting thought on projection accuracy: It's human nature to believe that you are smarter and can project better than anyone else. But isn't there some sense in the fact that if you combined projections from a bunch of smart FBGs, you'd have better projections than you can do yourself?

 

[LHUCKS]

To me, a lot comes down to projections. The past is not the key to the future in fantasy football, making many predictions absolutely worthless. I think we need to look beyond yards gained/three year scoring averages to other things.

For example, I never liked Koren Robinson's potential, never thought he would become the #1 receiver in Seattle because he dropped too many passes.  Why?  His hands are relatively small for one.  How can we know that about players?

The relationship between RB age, number of touches and perfomance is poorly understood.

We don't have any good predictive modelling for DTs and Kickers.

Agreed. The lynch pin ( & weakness) of most numbers-based drafting systems ( VBD & the like) is projections. But how to improve on their accuracy? Can they be improved? Or is it just the nature of the game that there are too many variables?(Obviously, some are better at projecting performance than others. But I'd bet that even the best predictors miss more than they'd like to admit.)

What makes a successful projection, anyway? If you're within 20% on a particualr player? And is that good enough? You don't have to miss by much on a few players to screw up your whole draft sheet.

Interesting thought on projection accuracy: It's human nature to believe that you are smarter and can project better than anyone else. But isn't there some sense in the fact that if you combined projections from a bunch of smart FBGs, you'd have better projections than you can do yourself?

Not necessarily,Warren Buffet got to the top with an inate ability to beat the market. In the end, the decisions came down to him...not a committee.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

Forgive if this has been covered somewhere in here. In addressing category 3. Lineup Selection is there any statisical analysis concerning players preformances after being listed on the injury report? What average decrease in numbers players produce when listed Ques, Prob, Doubtful?Possibly even the percentages that each position plays full games as opposed to partial games in conjunction with each position and status.One step further, an average decrease in production in conjunction to certain injuries. Randy Moss, for example this year with his hammy. Would it be possible to look back 3 years and see what the decrease in WR #s is following a hamstring injury after missing one week? after playing the 1st, 2nd...etc.?

This is actually tracked right now on MFL. Injury status is shown for every game played when you click on the player.

On My Fantasy League??? I just checked that on two of the leagues that used that site and we don't have it. Is it a option that must be turned on?

 

[EBF]

I don't think group projections are the way to go. The real problem with group projections is that the number of contributors tends to cause the rankings to look awfully conservative. More often than not most people place far too much emphasis on the previous season. For example, I noticed in the dynasty threads that Shaun Alexander is ranked quite a bit higher than Deuce McAllister. Having been a big fantasy football fan for the duration of each player's career, I can't particularly understand the logic behind this. Deuce is younger than Shaun Alexander. He has less career touches. He has the exact same YPC average. About the only area where Alexander has an advantage is TDs, but I've always believed that yardage statistics are more indicative of a player's skill than TDs. At any rate, Alexander doesn't objectively appear to be a better dynasty pick than Deuce. Maybe the TDs give him the edge in your eyes, but I think you also have to ding him a bit because there's no guarantee whatsoever that he'll be in such a friendly system next year. What it basically boils down to is Shaun Alexander being the flavor of the year. He had a great 2004 while Deuce had a down season. This is why one guy is slightly overrated and the other is slightly underrated. In a perfect world, people would have better memories, but that's not the way it works. The good news is that this is one of the many reasons why shrewd drafters and owners can get value advantages over their competitors. The Alexander example was the first to come to mind, but it's not the only ranking in the dynasty threads that I find a bit off. I won't get into more specifics until after the first few rounds of this week's MOX IV draft, but I will eventually make my thoughts known.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Good points about group projections LHUCKS and EBF. I see your points. I guess I'm more thinking about using them as a check and balance against your own. I mean, if you do projections for Marshall Faulk next year and you continue to see people giving him much lower numbers than you did, shouldn't you question your projection? You may be right, or may be considering factors in the projections that no one else does, but it still seems like it should be a double check for you. And LHUCKS, your Warren Buffet analogy is good. You would expect that some folks here are better, possibly much better, projectors than others. But I still think that if other money managers checked their general thoughts on stocks or markets with Buffet's, they may give a second thought to some of their valuations.

 

[Ridgelake]

ConstruxBoy,You bring up some good points about checks and balances. You definitely have to be confident in your assessment if you differ materially from the group.The Warren Buffet analogy is a good one. There probably are some really talented FF projectors out there. Keeping the financial market analogy going a bit further, I suspect that some people are much better projectors of stats of their homer teams than say a team on the other coast in a different conference. (Personally, as a big Cowboy fan, I projected Witten to be a top 5 TE this past season. But I had never heard of Antonio Gates before). Similarly, brokerage firms typically have a handful of people analyze a particular industry and develop expertise in that particular segment of the market. Most stock pickers effectively are "homers" of their industry. Not too many people have expertise in the entire market. It takes too much time to follow everything.So group picks could conceivably be effective, particularly if the teams are broken up into small groups for people to really focus on. I'm not sure if this is how FBG does their projections, but its generally how the financial markets do theirs.

 

[crush304]

Group projections seem like they'd be worth looking into. I read an article a while ago on groups being smarter than the individuals in them. I finally found it. linkand some more info I found after searching on google linkfrom the second link

Under what circumstances is the crowd smarter? There are four key qualities that make a crowd smart. It needs to be diverse, so that people are bringing different pieces of information to the table. It needs to be decentralized, so that no one at the top is dictating the crowd's answer. It needs a way of summarizing people's opinions into one collective verdict. And the people in the crowd need to be independent, so that they pay attention mostly to their own information, and not worrying about what everyone around them thinks. And what circumstances can lead the crowd to make less-than-stellar decisions? Essentially, any time most of the people in a group are biased in the same direction, it's probably not going to make good decisions. So when diverse opinions are either frozen out or squelched when they're voiced, groups tend to be dumb. And when people start paying too much attention to what others in the group think, that usually spells disaster, too. For instance, that's how we get stock-market bubbles, which are a classic example of group stupidity: instead of worrying about how much a company is really worth, investors start worrying about how much other people will think the company is worth. The paradox of the wisdom of crowds is that the best group decisions come from lots of independent individual decisions. What kind of problems are crowds good at solving and what kind are they not good at solving? Crowds are best when there's a right answer to a problem or a question. (I call these "cognition" problems.) If you have, for instance, a factual question, the best way to get a consistently good answer is to ask a group. They're also surprisingly good, though, at solving other kinds of problems. For instance, in smart crowds, people cooperate and work together even when it's more rational for them to let others do the work. And in smart crowds, people are also able to coordinate their behavior—for instance, buyers and sellers are able to find each other and trade at a reasonable price—without anyone being in charge. Groups aren't good at what you might call problems of skill—for instance, don't ask a group to perform surgery or fly a plane. Why are we not better off finding an expert to make all the hard decisions? Experts, no matter how smart, only have limited amounts of information. They also, like all of us, have biases. It's very rare that one person can know more than a large group of people, and almost never does that same person know more about a whole series of questions. The other problem in finding an expert is that it's actually hard to identify true experts. In fact, if a group is smart enough to find a real expert, it's more than smart enough not to need one. Can you explain how a betting pool can help predict the future? Well, predicting the future is what bettors try to do every day, when they try to figure out what horse will win a race or what football team will win on Sunday. What horse-racing odds or a point spread represent, then, is the group's collective judgment about the future. And what we know from many studies is that that collective judgment is often remarkably accurate. Now, we have to be careful here. In the case of a horse race, for instance, what the group is good at predicting is the likelihood of each horse winning. The potential benefits of this are pretty obvious. If you're a company, say, that's trying to decide which product you should put out, what you want to know is the likelihood of success of your different options. A betting pool—or a market, or some other way of tapping into the wisdom of crowds—is the best way for you to get that information.

 

[Sidewinder16]

You do need to be a very active trader for this to work, ...

You also need to be in a league with other active and willing traders.In a smart league most other owners will see what you're trying to do immediately (meaning, during the draft). When you start shopping your RBs around they may hold off trading with you, even if one of your RBs could help them a good bit. They will know you can only start 2 of those RBs. If their QBs/WRs can make up the point difference at the RB position, they will be better suited to stay put.I suppose it only takes 2-3 owners willing to trade with you, though. Either way, there are far too many factors out of your control (injuries, willingness of other owners to trade, ability of other owners to trade good return value) to make me anywhere near comfortable in trying this. But if it works for you, .

 

[Uruk-Hai]

To me, a lot comes down to projections. The past is not the key to the future in fantasy football, making many predictions absolutely worthless. I think we need to look beyond yards gained/three year scoring averages to other things.

For example, I never liked Koren Robinson's potential, never thought he would become the #1 receiver in Seattle because he dropped too many passes.  Why?  His hands are relatively small for one.  How can we know that about players?

The relationship between RB age, number of touches and perfomance is poorly understood.

We don't have any good predictive modelling for DTs and Kickers.

Agreed. The lynch pin ( & weakness) of most numbers-based drafting systems ( VBD & the like) is projections. But how to improve on their accuracy? Can they be improved? Or is it just the nature of the game that there are too many variables?(Obviously, some are better at projecting performance than others. But I'd bet that even the best predictors miss more than they'd like to admit.)

What makes a successful projection, anyway? If you're within 20% on a particualr player? And is that good enough? You don't have to miss by much on a few players to screw up your whole draft sheet.

Interesting thought on projection accuracy: It's human nature to believe that you are smarter and can project better than anyone else. But isn't there some sense in the fact that if you combined projections from a bunch of smart FBGs, you'd have better projections than you can do yourself?

Somewhere (it may well be on this board) there is the best projector of player performance in the world. This person would tend to be hurt by using group projections (everyone else is worse than he is). There's also a "world's worst projector". He'd be helped the most by group projections (they'd pull his numbers closer to "correct"). And here's another factor in projection/ranking accuracy: in a 12 team league, any given team only has 8.33% of the total picks. So, in theory, a drafter could be "right" (whatever that is) on the great majority of his rankings & yet draft a bad team by being wrong on only a small percentage of them.

I could stick my chest out & claim that I'm a master projector because I had a killer team. But in truth, my projections as a whole could have been awful (although I guess that if your draft sheet is too far off, you'd end up with a lot of those players & your team would stink). Or, conversely, you could think that you suck but, in reality, you had a high success rate - you just happened to make picks when your bad projections surfaced.

I kind of used "rankings" & "projections" interchangeably above, when in truth my examples were really talking about rankings (however you get to them). With stat projections, the accuracy problem is compounded, IMO - especially if you're using them to establish VBD values.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

To me, a lot comes down to projections. The past is not the key to the future in fantasy football, making many predictions absolutely worthless. I think we need to look beyond yards gained/three year scoring averages to other things.

For example, I never liked Koren Robinson's potential, never thought he would become the #1 receiver in Seattle because he dropped too many passes.  Why?  His hands are relatively small for one.  How can we know that about players?

The relationship between RB age, number of touches and perfomance is poorly understood.

We don't have any good predictive modelling for DTs and Kickers.

Agreed. The lynch pin ( & weakness) of most numbers-based drafting systems ( VBD & the like) is projections. But how to improve on their accuracy? Can they be improved? Or is it just the nature of the game that there are too many variables?(Obviously, some are better at projecting performance than others. But I'd bet that even the best predictors miss more than they'd like to admit.)

What makes a successful projection, anyway? If you're within 20% on a particualr player? And is that good enough? You don't have to miss by much on a few players to screw up your whole draft sheet.

Interesting thought on projection accuracy: It's human nature to believe that you are smarter and can project better than anyone else. But isn't there some sense in the fact that if you combined projections from a bunch of smart FBGs, you'd have better projections than you can do yourself?

Somewhere (it may well be on this board) there is the best projector of player performance in the world. This person would tend to be hurt by using group projections (everyone else is worse than he is). There's also a "world's worst projector". He'd be helped the most by group projections (they'd pull his numbers closer to "correct"). And here's another factor in projection/ranking accuracy: in a 12 team league, any given team only has 8.33% of the total picks. So, in theory, a drafter could be "right" (whatever that is) on the great majority of his rankings & yet draft a bad team by being wrong on only a small percentage of them.

I could stick my chest out & claim that I'm a master projector because I had a killer team. But in truth, my projections as a whole could have been awful (although I guess that if your draft sheet is too far off, you'd end up with a lot of those players & your team would stink). Or, conversely, you could think that you suck but, in reality, you had a high success rate - you just happened to make picks when your bad projections surfaced.

I kind of used "rankings" & "projections" interchangeably above, when in truth my examples were really talking about rankings (however you get to them). With stat projections, the accuracy problem is compounded, IMO - especially if you're using them to establish VBD values.

True, but in many ways this is much a Mutual Fund Manager. The best performer today is usually NOT the best performer tomorrow -- random drift, mean reversion and Lady Luck play a big role -- such that you'll never be able to put your fingers on the best projector of future performance.

 

[Musesboy]

This is a great topic and I have one thing which I don't think has been mentioned (forgive me if it has):Imagine a 12 team league with 3 divisions. You know that your best chance of making the playoffs is to win your division. You will probably play your divisional rivals twice during the season, and at least once during Weeks 3-10. If you are drafting and you see two options that you rate almost exactly equally, why not draft the guy who has his bye when you are playing a non-divisional opponent? By being able to field your strongest lineup against a key divisional opponent, you are increasing the chances that you will win an important game, or perhaps two or three important games. Most tiebreakers value head to head matchups and divisional records as the most important.You could take things further and key on one particular divisional opponent that you think is the most dangerous obstacle in the way of you winning your league. Look to draft players that have good matchups in those weeks, especially if they face a weak opponent at home. Don't give up value to do this of course, only bear it in mind when your rankings are very similar between 2 or 3 players.

 

[taylormeetstheismann]

Imagine a 12 team league with 3 divisions. You know that your best chance of making the playoffs is to win your division. You will probably play your divisional rivals twice during the season, and at least once during Weeks 3-10. If you are drafting and you see two options that you rate almost exactly equally, why not draft the guy who has his bye when you are playing a non-divisional opponent? By being able to field your strongest lineup against a key divisional opponent, you are increasing the chances that you will win an important game, or perhaps two or three important games. Most tiebreakers value head to head matchups and divisional records as the most important.

You are touching on something of increasing importance to those that want to stay one step ahead of the competition. Other owners are getting more sophisticated at player evaluation and draft strategy. I see the shark moving their mastery of the game to roster management and lineup selection. Right now other owners in my league marvel at my luck in always scoring just enough points to beat them and win championships. They don't even understand what is happening between the lines.In example, there are always comparable players available at each position regardless of where you are in a draft. Be purposeful and select those players that have often unseen advantages. The quoted post identifies some good ones for draft day. I like to select mid-round QBs on the team where my divisional rivals have selected their top two WRs. You are basicially acquiring hedging options should you want to employ them. The more one pays attention to the possibilities to more options appear.

 

[taylormeetstheismann]

This thread got going early Christmas morning and there were a lot of great ideas provided in the discussion. I've opted to bump it up and see if anyone else wants to make a contribution to the discussion. Hopefully, there will be a few new good ideas wrung out of the community. So what would constitute cutting edge thinking in fantasy football today?

 

[SouthJersey]

bump

 

[nygiants56]

I've tried using my QB vs. a guy who has the WR/TE that my qb will throw to.it doesn't work.point cencellation(#2) is worthless..

for my 2 cents worth, nothing works better than using the vegas point system, since we all know vegas is almost ALWAYS right, I look for games with high point totals(high over/unders) and use players in those games..

conversely, if I have Shaun Alexander in a game with a 30 pt over/under, I'm not using him, plain and simple.

 

[JohnnyU]

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't cut Edge

I don't believe in cutting edge thinking. I believe if you know talent, know how to trade, work the WW effectively, and know when to buy low and sell high, you can win at this hobby. It's that simple.

Edited to say that you also need some luck.

 

[BigTex]

I forgot about this thread.

 

[wannabee]

this is a very good read. thanks for the BUMP

 

[GregR_2]

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't cut Edge

Tell that to the Colts.

 

[taylormeetstheismann]

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't cut Edge

I don't believe in cutting edge thinking. I believe if you know talent, know how to trade, work the WW effectively, and know when to buy low and sell high, you can win at this hobby. It's that simple.

Edited to say that you also need some luck.

Do you mean more experience or better instincts or superior information?

 

[Sweetness_34]

In another post, a comment was made by BassNBrew that some of the theories we were discussing were cutting edge. I’ve been thinking about his comment since yesterday as I went about my holiday preparations. The question that keeps coming to my mind is as follows.

What exactly would constitute cutting edge thinking in fantasy football today?

Let’s start with a little background material. I’ve been enjoying fantasy football for about ten years. During the first three or four years I knew very little about how to win. I spent quite a bit of time trying to improve my game but I ended up playing at about a .500 clip during this time. The first really useful idea I encountered for improving my winning percentage was Joe Bryant’s Value Based Drafting theory as provided by cheatsheets.net. I started using it in 2000 and I found that applying VBD to my player drafting was a significant game changer. I went from being an average owner to being a contender overnight. In fact, I’ve never missed the playoffs in any league since I started selecting players using VBD on draft day. The second really useful idea I ran across was David Dobbs’ The Perfect Draft. I first used it in 2002 and by applying The Perfect Draft strategy to my player selection process on draft day I went from perennial contender to dominant force. The reason I am sharing my background is that I figure a number other message board regulars have similar experiences. Both VBD and The Perfect Draft were cutting edge ideas when they were first presented to us. (I’ve come to believe that the combination of these two ideas is the essential building blocks for optimal draft strategy.)

Over the past few years, I’ve started to notice that the other owners in my leagues are getting more sophisticated in playing fantasy football. This isn’t to say that many of them were not competitive before as collectively they were generally good at drafting players into competitive teams and working the wavier wire to their advantage during the season. But I have definitely seen them progress in many ways including the use of player projections based on league scoring, loading up on extra running backs early in the draft, sluffing quarterbacks off to the middle rounds and so forth. The reason for their increased sophistication is the sheer volume of new information that is available to all in fantasy football magazines and websites. Although the quality of information varies greatly, owners are progressively gathering good ideas and applying them with more skill. Most owners are improving their game little by little, year after year as they gain experience and insight into fantasy football. My expectation is that sooner or later the vast majority owners in most leagues will be applying the underlying concepts behind VBD, The Perfect Draft and other solid methodologies to significantly raise the bar on what it takes to win consistently. Sadly enough, some of them won’t actually fully understand why the concepts work as they are simply relying on the expert advice available to them and applying it to their benefit. (In example, many people successfully use a computer on a daily basis to perform the work at their job yet have no idea how a computer really works.)

This is why I am interested in better understanding what is truly cutting edge in fantasy football thinking. I’m reasonably confident that I can continue to maintain my competitive edge by out maneuvering the competition. However, the manner in which I outperform the competition will need to advance and evolve as more and more owners elevate their game with the newfound knowledge of tried and true strategies provided by numerous mainstream sources of fantasy football information.

I believe there are just four basic areas for decision making in fantasy football. Everything I’ve learned about the playing the game can be categorized in one of these areas. Each of these areas is quite distinct from the other in terms of dynamics yet they do flow together as a whole.

1. Player Evaluation - What future statisical performance can be expected from a player?

2. Draft Strategy - What players should be acquired?

3. Roster Management - Which players should be added or dropped?

4. Lineup Selection - Which players should be started?

I have found that taking the football information available to me in a variety of formats and from a variety of sources and processing it with the knowledge and wisdom I’ve gained in each these categories has improved my ability to make better decisions in the management of my teams. Superior decision making leads to superior results in terms of wins and championship titles. Currently, there is a tremendous amount of time and effort put into improving the collective knowledge about Player Evaluation and Draft Strategy. Lineup Selection and Roster Management (but to a much lessor extent) are advancing but their development is a much slower rate of progress. Also, I believe there are many important yet more or less unexploited aspects in the areas Lineup Selection and Roster Management. (Unfortunately, the evolution, development and codification of fantasy football intelligence in each of these four areas is far too vast of a topic for the scope of this post.)

So let’s go back to the original question I’ve been pondering all day. What would constitute cutting edge thinking in fantasy football today? I’ll offer a number of ideas in no particular order that are of interest to me.

1. Identifying and understanding player performance correlations between you and your opponent.

2. Hedging with players in your starting lineup by playing a QB over an opponent’s WR or TE to receive the benefits of point cancellation.

3. Polarizing scoring outcomes by starting an opposing a DT against an opponent’s QB or RB.

4. Doubling down by starting a QB to WR or TE hook up to score points in greater amounts off of single outcomes.

5. Playing combos to diversify point production by starting a QB and RB or RB and WR from the same team. (Add QB and PK from the same team per BassNBrew)

6. Increasing the diversification of point production by starting players from different teams or in different games.

7. Selecting free agents of potential value to anticipated playoff opponents like key back up QBs or RBs.

8. Draining free agents options of current playoff opponents to take advantage of possible injuries or DT match ups.

9. Confusing other owners into bidding too much for their picks or too little for your picks at an auction.

10. Potential analysis for identifying future stars at RB and WR in advance of others.

11. Assessing playoff roster planning opportunities based schedule for weeks 14-17 that allow you to strengthen your position in advance. (Amended based on comments below by Morton Muffley.)

12. Rotating techniques to better manage bye week backups at the TE, PK and DT positions.

This is just a short list that is very much a rough draft as I had limited time to develop and define it this morning. I don’t claim to have all the answers but I do know that elite owners can improve their odds of winning by better understanding their options in these areas. Hedging is one of the best examples per several message board threads on the topic from this season including this one on the subject. The key objective in better understanding these specific ideas is to find a way to improve the odds of winning head to head match ups. The pick up in odds may be small in some cases but I’ll take whatever I can get any time I can get it. So, if you’ve made it this far, then I’m hopeful you will put a little thought into the key question I’m poising if it is of interest to you. Maybe a few people will offer up their ideas or theories for consideration in the dialogue.

What specific ideas or theories would you consider to be cutting edge thinking in fantasy football today?

The outcome of this thread is to identify good topics. I'll add the ones I like the best below.

UPDATES BELOW

13. Assessing the implications of injuries to the future performance of players. - Da Good Da Bad an Da Ugly

14. Using the vegas line to predict the scoring potential of DT, PK and marginal position players. - BassNBrew

15. Using a given team's offense to predict the scoring potential of the same team's defense. - BassNBrew

16. Taking advantage of DT free agent availability and playing match ups week to week rather than sticking with one or two DTs. - taylormeetstheismann

17. Understanding OLs and their impact on back field options. - Spartans Rule

18. Applying Wallstreet Risk Management practices to projecting performance and drafting players. - LHUCKS

19. Assessing positional demand on the fly during the draft instead of just the supply. - GregR.

20. Improve the predictive modelling for DTs and Kickers. - bueno

21. Acquiring players with the same bye week and accepting a loss in favor of greater strength during the other bye weeks. - BigActionMike/No Swammi

22. Developing an integrated, predictive model that incorporates all the important factors into player projections. - suspected

23. Improving the way we us ADP for drafting. - crush304

24. Applying multiple regression analysis to player projections. - Ridgelake

25. Tracking and applying the drafting tendencies of each owner. - WhoDat

26. Draft QBBC options on the same teams as divisional opponents top WRs and TE. - taylormeetstheismann

If you've made a unique suggestion that you believe for which I haven't accounted, then simply send me a message board e-mail to remedy.

Selecting and starting players who have more games in primetime.....players like Shawn Alexander, Chad Johnson, TO, Randy Moss, Brett Favre etc live for the primetime

 

[Baracuda]

The first is using Vegas lines as a reference point for evaluating defenses and identifying marginal starters.  As one who likes to wager, I've come to appreciate how accurate these lines are, especially the over/under target.  By using the over/under number and the spread, you have a projected score for the game.  In leagues that award defenses points for PA, it should be pretty easy to identify which one mathmatically is a better start.  This can also be used to give you a bogey for an opponent who's roster is heavily loaded with a single teams players.

I would like to further explore the correlation between kicker and QB scores, especially in leagues that put a premium on kicker scoring.  It seems like a strong team would want their QB's kicker on their fantasy team to smooth out the ups and downs of their QB's production.

Lastly, a lot of work has been put into using strength of defense when identifying matchups to exploit.  I see some value in taking this one degree further.  Every NFL team is trying to win with the exception of Clevland.  A factor as important as the NFL opponent's defense is the opponent's offense.  These games generally stay close and scoring usually yields more scoring.  Any game KC and Minny play in are prime examples.  When you have an offensively inept team, there's not going to be as much pressure for the opponent's to open up the play book and post a big score.  Is Washington's defense really that improved from last year or has their offense been so weak that opponent's have used a more conservative game plan.  Did Carolina's defense really digress that much from last year or the losses on the o-line in the off season force the Panther's to change from a rushing team to a passing team hence putting more pressure on the defense?  One thing you can usually count on in the NFL is teams playing to the level of their competition.

I really like each of these ideas and feel I am a better FF owner after reading it. I'm definitely going to incorporate the oddmaker #s into my weekly thinking. QB/K's makes perfect sense. I have Palmer and Graham. I'll aim for Pitts kicker as well this year. I need more time to think about the defensive stuff, but in general I agree that teams sometimes play to the level of their competition.Thanks, very helpful suggestions.

 

[Tornacl]

In re-draft leagues, I try to get as many starters to have the same bye weeks as possible. In effect, I'm throwing in the towel for a week, hoping to have all my horses available for the other weeks.

And for roster management, for the less valuable positions on my team (K, TE, Def), when two teams are equal, I'll try to get the team with the bye week earlier in the season, so I won't have to hold an extra of that position for a long time. Or I'll just pick up the team that's available at the time. (Note: my league has roster requirements of at least one at each position at all times, and fines for not having an active player in the lineup, and only 2 add/drops per week).

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Glad this thread didn't get pruned.

 

[BusMan]

 

[brett4pack]

They way we project players is fundamentally flawed. For example, last year Priest Holmes had potential to tear it up every week, but he was downgraded because he had a high injury risk. A couple thoughts on how to change this.

Instead of total points do points per game and project how many games a player will play. (having priest for 6 games might be better than having julius jones for the year)

Two players with the same projected points may be very different. 1 player may be ranked because of high upside, while another consistantly performs at that level. Some of sort of probability analysis should be used. Top 10 with 25% probability, 10-20 with 50% probability... etc. The best example I can think of is Javon Walker... he is a year removed for a tier 1 year, but he probably wont be drafted in the second round because of injury concerns, but he certainly has that potential.

The tool could be used to measure the riskiness of your team and that would offer suggestions on how to minimize the risk (draft a safe player to counter act the risky one). Or it could show that drafting 4 RBs in the 3-6 rounds will yield 2 top 20 RB with 75% probability.

Thought should be given to the type of league your (winner take all or half the league makes the playoffs). Also the quality of the competition. If the league is full of sharks you might consider drafting players with higher variances (micheal vick for example) that would probably increase the chances of you winning over the years and increase the probability you get crushed over the years.

Finally, in a leauge like the survivor league players with higher week to week variances should be given preference to as the highest point total starts each week. You could possibly take last years week to week stats for X player and adjust the point total accordingly to this years projections to give you a good idea of week to week variances.

 

[taylormeetstheismann]

They way we project players is fundamentally flawed. For example, last year Priest Holmes had potential to tear it up every week, but he was downgraded because he had a high injury risk. A couple thoughts on how to change this.

Instead of total points do points per game and project how many games a player will play. (having priest for 6 games might be better than having julius jones for the year)

Two players with the same projected points may be very different. 1 player may be ranked because of high upside, while another consistantly performs at that level. Some of sort of probability analysis should be used. Top 10 with 25% probability, 10-20 with 50% probability... etc. The best example I can think of is Javon Walker... he is a year removed for a tier 1 year, but he probably wont be drafted in the second round because of injury concerns, but he certainly has that potential.

The tool could be used to measure the riskiness of your team and that would offer suggestions on how to minimize the risk (draft a safe player to counter act the risky one). Or it could show that drafting 4 RBs in the 3-6 rounds will yield 2 top 20 RB with 75% probability.

Thought should be given to the type of league your (winner take all or half the league makes the playoffs). Also the quality of the competition. If the league is full of sharks you might consider drafting players with higher variances (micheal vick for example) that would probably increase the chances of you winning over the years and increase the probability you get crushed over the years.

Finally, in a leauge like the survivor league players with higher week to week variances should be given preference to as the highest point total starts each week. You could possibly take last years week to week stats for X player and adjust the point total accordingly to this years projections to give you a good idea of week to week variances.

Joe Bryant does a nice job predicting player points for the season for VBD. I like your thinking about what one could expect on a PPG basis vs. PP season. How would one best express a player's performance for per game and their likeliness of being in the lineup in a way that is useful for draft day? Do you just use two numbers like 1-5 (5 high and 1 low) for both points and health? In example, Priest Holmes would 52 and Larry Johnson would be 44? Hopefully that makes sense. I'm open to comments.

 

[Family Matters]

They way we project players is fundamentally flawed. For example, last year Priest Holmes had potential to tear it up every week, but he was downgraded because he had a high injury risk. A couple thoughts on how to change this.

Instead of total points do points per game and project how many games a player will play. (having priest for 6 games might be better than having julius jones for the year)

I wanted to comment on this idea. First off it's great thinking. I utilize this as part my projecting and selection preocess. Where it's challenging to make this work and a little luck comes in, it what 6 games will they play or miss for that matter. If they miss their game during the playoffs then you're screwed. But if you're fortunate enough to get those games played during the playoffs then you're in much better shape.An example of how this worked well for me was few years ago when Faulk was injured. He was developing a history of being injured. However the record also reflected that his PPG were among the best in the league. Further, his PPG were even higher during weeks 14-17 of the NFL season. Which means our playoffs. Therefore meaning if healthy during the playoffs he was gold and I was likely looking at a championship.

The problem is NO ONE knows which games a player will miss. NO ONE can predict that yet. Although we try, no one has yet to figure it out.

With that said, using some risk management in your drafting startegy you put your team in a better position based on what you know. Some people then refer to it as luck. In reality it's preparation and opportunity meeting.

 

[Musesboy]

They way we project players is fundamentally flawed.  For example, last year Priest Holmes had potential to tear it up every week, but he was downgraded because he had a high injury risk.  A couple thoughts on how to change this.

Instead of total points do points per game and project how many games a player will play.  (having priest for 6 games might be better than having julius jones for the year)

I wanted to comment on this idea. First off it's great thinking. I utilize this as part my projecting and selection preocess. Where it's challenging to make this work and a little luck comes in, it what 6 games will they play or miss for that matter. If they miss their game during the playoffs then you're screwed. But if you're fortunate enough to get those games played during the playoffs then you're in much better shape.An example of how this worked well for me was few years ago when Faulk was injured. He was developing a history of being injured. However the record also reflected that his PPG were among the best in the league. Further, his PPG were even higher during weeks 14-17 of the NFL season. Which means our playoffs. Therefore meaning if healthy during the playoffs he was gold and I was likely looking at a championship.

The problem is NO ONE knows which games a player will miss. NO ONE can predict that yet. Although we try, no one has yet to figure it out.

With that said, using some risk management in your drafting startegy you put your team in a better position based on what you know. Some people then refer to it as luck. In reality it's preparation and opportunity meeting.

FMSo would you say that the strategy of looking for a player with high PPG and a decent backup is worth considering?

Would you limit it to RBs, or consider handcuffing Bruce/Curtis or Bulger/Frerotte for example?

 

[mr blond]

 

[Family Matters]

They way we project players is fundamentally flawed.  For example, last year Priest Holmes had potential to tear it up every week, but he was downgraded because he had a high injury risk.  A couple thoughts on how to change this.

Instead of total points do points per game and project how many games a player will play.  (having priest for 6 games might be better than having julius jones for the year)

I wanted to comment on this idea. First off it's great thinking. I utilize this as part my projecting and selection preocess. Where it's challenging to make this work and a little luck comes in, it what 6 games will they play or miss for that matter. If they miss their game during the playoffs then you're screwed. But if you're fortunate enough to get those games played during the playoffs then you're in much better shape.An example of how this worked well for me was few years ago when Faulk was injured. He was developing a history of being injured. However the record also reflected that his PPG were among the best in the league. Further, his PPG were even higher during weeks 14-17 of the NFL season. Which means our playoffs. Therefore meaning if healthy during the playoffs he was gold and I was likely looking at a championship.

The problem is NO ONE knows which games a player will miss. NO ONE can predict that yet. Although we try, no one has yet to figure it out.

With that said, using some risk management in your drafting startegy you put your team in a better position based on what you know. Some people then refer to it as luck. In reality it's preparation and opportunity meeting.

FMSo would you say that the strategy of looking for a player with high PPG and a decent backup is worth considering?

Would you limit it to RBs, or consider handcuffing Bruce/Curtis or Bulger/Frerotte for example?

Great question and great idea. Handcuffing is a theory I subscribe to. I know some do not like it but I do. Like I mentioned before about Faulk, I used the handcuff theory with him. And I've done that with Holmes too. It's worth noting that in a "bestball" format such as survivor leagues, this theory works very well. In a name the starter format you have to give consideration to when line-ups are due as to the value in handcuffs.As for the QB question or any other position for that matter, it depends on the who the back up is. If there is a quality back up that can keep a reasonable PPG going then sure, why not. Especially if you have the roster space to do so.

The arguement against doing handcuffs is that you might be able to roster another starter instead of a back up. And that may be worth considering as well. If there is a good starter available in lieu of a back up then you have to consider that as well.

I guess it comes down to your draft strategy and who think you can get later in the draft. Sometimes you can get a quality back up "handcuff" later and upgrade a TE or WR earlier in the draft.

 

[Sportin' Woodchucks]

Man, this topic has legs!!! Great stuff top to bottom.

My feeble contribution to "cutting edge" mentality. Repeat after me....Luck favors the prepared player. Do your homework and....with luck....you'll have success.

Pretty simple, really.

 

[EdgeCator]

 

[coolnerd]

Man, this topic has legs!!! Great stuff top to bottom.

My feeble contribution to "cutting edge" mentality. Repeat after me....Luck favors the prepared player. Do your homework and....with luck....you'll have success.

Pretty simple, really.

As I remember last year around this time there were several discussions on the subject of luck versus skill in fantasy football.

 

[santo71]

I have a few dynasty thoughts, although I do not believe anything I have to say is cutting edge.

1) I think the "draft QB's late" is a sketchy idea in redraft that at best that has worked nicely for a few years when there were a bunch of QB's that performed similarly. It became a mantra in these parts- "Only guppies draft QB's early. Just look at the VBD." Actually, as I look at value, the top QB's provide oodles of it. That value is magnified in Dynasty leagues. Why? Because the QB's you want in a QBBC situation change every year. The FF QB studs are very consistent- just as the big 3 wr's have been for the last 5 years. They have talent and they are in a good situation.

If I were starting in a dynasty league, I would trade down and draft Culpepper, Manning or McNabb in the first/second. I would hold onto my draft picks. You could expect to be set at QB for 4-6 years. I might even trade out of round 4 for a first round draft pick. You don't care if you are very bad, because you can draft a top rb the next year. There is huge rb turnover, and it happens very quickly.

I think this holds serious truth in leagues where passing TDs are 6 pts. In 4 pt leagues, I don't think it holds as much weight, but is still a legitmate concept.

 

[Family Matters]

Man, this topic has legs!!!  Great stuff top to bottom.

My feeble contribution to "cutting edge" mentality.  Repeat after me....Luck favors the prepared player. Do your homework and....with luck....you'll have success.

Pretty simple, really.

As I remember last year around this time there were several discussions on the subject of luck versus skill in fantasy football.

Well I think it was sarcasm he was sporting there but you are right. There is always the luck debate. That's the reason I mentioned it. Sometimes you create your own luck and you do so by putting your team in that position.But it's all good. Not taking it personal.

 

[Genester]

 

[Sinrman]

Holy Resurrection, Batman!

 

[The Jerk]

I have a few dynasty thoughts, although I do not believe anything  I have to say is cutting edge.

1) I think the "draft QB's late" is a sketchy idea in redraft that at best that has worked nicely for a few years when there were a bunch of QB's that performed similarly. It became a mantra in these parts- "Only guppies draft QB's early. Just look at the VBD." Actually, as I look at value, the top QB's provide oodles of it. That value is magnified in Dynasty leagues. Why? Because the QB's you want in a QBBC situation change every year. The FF QB studs are very consistent- just as the big 3 wr's have been for the last 5 years. They have talent and they are in a good situation.

If I were starting in a dynasty league, I would trade down and draft Culpepper, Manning or McNabb in the first/second. I would hold onto my draft picks. You could expect to be set at QB for 4-6 years. I might even trade out of round 4 for a first round draft pick.  You don't care if you are very bad, because you can draft a top rb the next year. There is huge rb turnover, and it happens very quickly.

I think this holds serious truth in leagues where passing TDs are 6 pts. In 4 pt leagues, I don't think it holds as much weight, but is still a legitmate concept.

I agree that the "value drafting" can also apply to QBs, however from my experience, there typically is less agreement on who belongs in the #4-6 or #7-10 QB is vs. RB or WR. As a result, there is a greater likelihood of getting a top 4 QB (or top 7 QB) after nearly all the other teams have a QB compared to the other positions.Whether or not you agree that the tiers break differently for RBs, in virtually all leagues, RBs will continue to be drated until half or more of the teams in the league have a backup. This is normally not the case with QBs. And in QBs, the #11-#15 tier is where there is virtually no consensus.

The way you can use this situation to your advantage is to target a QB you think is going to finish in the top 6 or top 10 or whatever. You can sit patiently and hope this guy will be there later into the draft, but even if he is not, you can stock your lineup full of other players, then draft two QBs back to back or over three rounds. If you end up with two QBs roughly 14th and 15th in value, you still have three chances to get good production out of them:

1. one or the other QB can step up their game and end up #7-#9 or so.

2. you can play the matchups and hopefully get the most out of each player's totals (of course, this can backfire, too...)

3. you can jump on free agent QBs who emerge out of nowhere or due to injury

I don't think this approach works as well with either RBs or WRs.

I have had tremendous success using this approach. In 2005, I drafted Hasselbeck and then Plummer in consecutive rounds (7th and 8th) and ended up 4th in QB ppg in one league. Not bad considering I was the 10th out of 12 teams to draft a QB.

I have finished first in total points in my main league five times out of 14 seasons. In each case, I have waited on a QB until virtually all of my opponents have chosen theirs...