JayMan
Footballguy
Hi David,
First of all, I want to congratulate you and Joe – along with all the staff for putting arguably the best FF site possible. Your dedication and omnipresence are what avid FF players looks for - this is why we are hooked here. Great job!
I have read your article in the Footballguys.com magazine on finding the best FF player and I’m totally in agreement with your statement as FFTOC is the way to go to find him… but with a twist.
I have been playing that format for two years now (nothing close to the stake of the FFTOC though) while looking at Matt Waldman’s column on the subject at FFToday and the only downfall I can think of with that format is that is becomes at times, unfortunately, a case of “Which good player is (will be) playing against the poorest of the defences?” instead of finding the best pure value/player each week.
I’m sure you can see where I’m going, you look at the schedules and know that Larry Fitzgerald is going to play the 49ers passing defence at some point. Same can be said of Shaun Alexander against the whole division! – or worst, 4th tier RBs that gets into your starting lineup only because they play the poorest run defence at the right time.
Don’t get me wrong, it is a wonderful way to go – having to judge if you keep the stars that you did not play for the playoffs or if your spot is not secured, you need to play them right away, the only aspect I think can be ameliorated is to reward (by a multiplying factor or else) participants that starts players against strong defences.
The best example would be Carson Palmer’s performances in week 12 and 13 last year (302/3 and 227/3 against the Ravens and Steelers at Pittsburgh! respectively). Most owners probably had played him in week 2 or 8 at home against the Vikings or the Packers, but I think it would add a lot of interest/strategy to the already difficult choices if participants were rewarded more for their gutsy calls – helping even more to figure out the best FF player in my opinion.
I’m trying to figure out a fair way to capitalize on this – hence why I’m posting this – to get suggestions and commentaries (no need to post the “that the stupidest thread I have seen” comment guys – just pass if you think that way – constructive criticism please!). I have already thought of a multiplying factor that would swing away from 1 depending on the rushing/passing defences ranks (home and away rankings separate) and making that multiplying factor dynamic through the year – meaning that the Bills defence factor would have gone from 1.15 (tough) at the beginning of the year to, let’s say, 0.94 (easy) after having lost Takeo Spikes and allowing opposing teams to rush/pass freely on them later in the year. I’m not suggesting changing it from 1.15 to 0.94 immediately after Spikes went down – it would be the rankings/stats that dictate the multiplying factor.
Then again, we already know that NFL pass defense rank alone can't be used to find the multiplying factor - just think of Michael Vick's running yards... or think of the distinction between a defence that is soft against the opposing TEs but tough on the WRs (this is also mentioned in your magazine - very well said).
As you can see, this is just a thought – and a lot of research/testing needs to be done to get the desire objective without affecting too much the strategy involved in FFTOC.
Thoughts?
First of all, I want to congratulate you and Joe – along with all the staff for putting arguably the best FF site possible. Your dedication and omnipresence are what avid FF players looks for - this is why we are hooked here. Great job!
I have read your article in the Footballguys.com magazine on finding the best FF player and I’m totally in agreement with your statement as FFTOC is the way to go to find him… but with a twist.
I have been playing that format for two years now (nothing close to the stake of the FFTOC though) while looking at Matt Waldman’s column on the subject at FFToday and the only downfall I can think of with that format is that is becomes at times, unfortunately, a case of “Which good player is (will be) playing against the poorest of the defences?” instead of finding the best pure value/player each week.
I’m sure you can see where I’m going, you look at the schedules and know that Larry Fitzgerald is going to play the 49ers passing defence at some point. Same can be said of Shaun Alexander against the whole division! – or worst, 4th tier RBs that gets into your starting lineup only because they play the poorest run defence at the right time.
Don’t get me wrong, it is a wonderful way to go – having to judge if you keep the stars that you did not play for the playoffs or if your spot is not secured, you need to play them right away, the only aspect I think can be ameliorated is to reward (by a multiplying factor or else) participants that starts players against strong defences.
The best example would be Carson Palmer’s performances in week 12 and 13 last year (302/3 and 227/3 against the Ravens and Steelers at Pittsburgh! respectively). Most owners probably had played him in week 2 or 8 at home against the Vikings or the Packers, but I think it would add a lot of interest/strategy to the already difficult choices if participants were rewarded more for their gutsy calls – helping even more to figure out the best FF player in my opinion.
I’m trying to figure out a fair way to capitalize on this – hence why I’m posting this – to get suggestions and commentaries (no need to post the “that the stupidest thread I have seen” comment guys – just pass if you think that way – constructive criticism please!). I have already thought of a multiplying factor that would swing away from 1 depending on the rushing/passing defences ranks (home and away rankings separate) and making that multiplying factor dynamic through the year – meaning that the Bills defence factor would have gone from 1.15 (tough) at the beginning of the year to, let’s say, 0.94 (easy) after having lost Takeo Spikes and allowing opposing teams to rush/pass freely on them later in the year. I’m not suggesting changing it from 1.15 to 0.94 immediately after Spikes went down – it would be the rankings/stats that dictate the multiplying factor.
Then again, we already know that NFL pass defense rank alone can't be used to find the multiplying factor - just think of Michael Vick's running yards... or think of the distinction between a defence that is soft against the opposing TEs but tough on the WRs (this is also mentioned in your magazine - very well said).
As you can see, this is just a thought – and a lot of research/testing needs to be done to get the desire objective without affecting too much the strategy involved in FFTOC.
Thoughts?
