This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
so Mr Tremblay are you saying that you predict injuries in your rankings....?
I'm predicting that Favre has a non-negligible chance of retiring.I generally don't predict that Player A is more likely than Player B to be injured. Injury concerns aren't holding Favre down in my rankings.
Are you a 58 year old man who goes by the name of Dragon?
That seems like flawed logic. If Favre is 56% sure he is coming back then do the math and he plays 9/16 games. What? Huh?You either project him playing 16 games or zero. Any other projection produces skewed results. That said, I agree with Trembley's ranking of Favre for other reasons.
What if Brett Favre announces tomorrow: "On August 15, I am going to flip a coin. Heads, I'll play the season; tails, I'll retire"?Between now and August 15, would you draft him as if he were expected to play 16 games, or zero games, or somewhere in between?Personally, if he says "Heads, I'll play; tails, I'll retire," I would rank him lower than if he said "I'm playing for sure," but higher than if he said "I'm retiring for sure." I'd rank him somewhere in between those extremes, which is what I'm doing until we know, one way or the other, what his decision is.
Somewhat surprisingly, it doesn't, at least not at this moment. The staff consensus (all redraft rankings submitted in the last 7 days) has Favre 9th, just a smidge behind #8 Cutler and a decent distance ahead of #10 Eli. If you exclude MT from the rankings, which you can do by clicking the checkbox above his name, Favre is still 9th, a decent distance behind #8 Cutler and a smidge ahead of #10 Eli.
He has a great chance at throwing an interception to the super bowl champion again.200720092010A three-peat!
I agree that that would be helpful, but I'm not sure that a list of rankings is the best medium for communicating that info. Rankings can't be conditional ("If he plays, he's just ahead of Jay Cutler; if he doesn't play, he's just ahead of JaMarcus Russell"). All possibilities, discounted by their likelihood, get reduced down to a single ordered list.Consider Vincent Jackson's ranking right now. How should he be ranked — as if he were going to play 13 games, 10 games, 0 games? There's some uncertainty about his situation right now. If I ranked him as if he were going to play 13 games, I'd be ranking him way too high. Nobody should actually draft him that high. But if I ranked him as if he were going to play 0 games, he'd be ranked too low. He is a better fantasy prospect this season than Dominik Hixon, and the rankings need to reflect that, too.
Vincent jackson is a little different....we know for sure that he will be out for at least 3 weeks, and that is all we have to go on. As you said, you guys arent in the business of projecting how many games these guy play or injuries. I would expect VJacksons ranking to be at missing 3 weeks, even though we know that it is possible it could be longer. That is all we know. As far as Favre goes, all we know is that he is playing next year. He is under contract and is set to make 13 million next year. For that much money he would play in a wheelchair. Is there a chance he could retire? Yes, but nobody is gonna be mad because the rankings had him at the 8th best QB at that time. All you guys can do is rank from the information you know....and I know that.
It's about 95% probable that it will be longer, IMO. But whatever the probability is, whether it's 5% or 50% or 95%, I think it needs to be taken into account.
He hasn't announced that yet. I agree that 56% is too low, but it's not 100% (and I don't mean that in the trivial sense that it's not 100% for anybody).
That makes sense.
Jackson's ranked anywhere from 20 to 55 with 2 no ranks....very similar to how MT has ranked Favre. I agree with Maurile on how he has done his rankings....
I would be fine with a no rank....but 30th?
I think the correct way to value an X% chance of playing a full season is to take X% of his full-season–auction price, and rank him wherever that lands.
I agree with this.
While I understand this logic, I think there is room to accommodate projecting fractional TDs on a weekly basis and not employing this kind of method for Favre's current ranking. I don't necessarily see those situations as analogous.There are two elements to offseason/preseason projections. There is projecting how many games players will play and how they will perform in the games they play. The approach Maurile is using for Favre obviously bears on the first part, not the second part.However, this is not like projecting weekly game scores. For the most part, especially as projections/rankings are refined throughout the week, we tend to have high certainty about whether or not a player will play in a given week. So the projections are essentially focused only on the second part above (i.e., how the players will play in that week's games).So, what is the right method for the first part above when compiling offseason/preseason projections/rankings? IMO, "projections" means "projecting." But in this case, Maurile is not actually projecting that Favre will play in 56% of the games. Instead, he is choosing not to "project" what will happen and instead is simply applying uncertainty to his projected numbers.IMO it makes more sense for projections to reflect what the projector believes will happen. If you believe Favre will retire, reflect that in your projections by projecting him with 0 fantasy points and correspondingly increase the fantasy points of Jackson and/or Rosenfels. If you believe he will return, then reflect that in your projections by projecting him to play 16 games... or less if you think there is another reason he will miss time (e.g., injury, suspension, sitting out week 17 with a division wrapped up).Doing this doesn't mean the projector cannot update his rankings if he gains new information (e.g., if he projects Favre to play and learns he will retire). In Maurile's case, new information means modifying the amount of uncertainty applied to a projection. In the method I describe above and prefer, new information means refining the actual projection.On a smaller scale, I don't like the general method of projecting all QBs at 15 games (or 14 or 14.5) either. It reflects the general notion that all players are injury risks, and I understand the logic. But it isn't useful to apply that logic to all QBs IMO, since those who get injured will likely miss more than 1 or 1.5 games, and those that don't may well play 16 games. It also does not reflect that some players (e.g., Favre, Peyton Manning, and Rivers) are more durable than others.Just my
Jackson should be ranked based on how many games you project him to play. Stake an opinion on it and rank him accordingly.
I completely disagree with this. A ranking list should be where you think a player will rank relative to other players in terms of fantasy points, unless you specify that you are using some other criteria (e.g., like considering that 9 games of Favre is worth more than QB30, as Chase alluded to).That isn't the same as where the player should be drafted. If you think he will miss only the 3 games due to suspension, then you should project him accordingly. Same thing if you think he will miss 10 games.Someone using your rankings/projections should know they don't have to draft him where that ranking would slot him, due to the uncertainty you are talking about. IMO you are mixing two things that should not be mixed.
Of course not .... I'm a 57 year old man who goes by the name of Dragon.Duhhh....are you a 58 year old man who goes by the name of Dragon?
Why, are you a wiseguy named Fred who lives in Boston?
I'm not Maurile, but I know at least some of what he'll say in response to this.
First, I don't think he projects 16 games for all wide receivers. Second, many of the receivers who get 1,000 yards will do so in surprising fashion -- maybe they'll have a breakout year that no one saw, maybe their QB will have a monster season, maybe they'll get really lucky, etc. If you asked Maurile, "how many receivers will hit the 1,000 yard mark this season?" he'd probably tell you 20 or so receivers will do so. But there are only 13 receivers he thinks are more likely than not to hit the 1,000 yard mark. Similarly, if you ask Maurile each week, "how many NFL teams this week will win by more than 14 points?" he'd probably say 5 or 6 teams. But if you asked him to handicap each game, he'd probably only put 1 or 2 teams with 14+ point spreads. That's because group projections don't have to match individual projections. Let's say I'm going to roll a die 6 times. There is (I think) a 98.5% chance that at least one side of the die will come up at least two times. If you ask anyone if they thought one of the 6 numbers will come up more than once if you roll a die 6 times, the obvious answer is yes. Then ask them, do you think a 1 will come up more than once? How about a 2? Or a 3? A 4? Do you see a 5? What about a 6? The answer to all of those questions, obviously, is no. There's only a 26% chance that any side of the die will come up 2 or more times. So as far as your individual projection, you'd say no, neither the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 side will come up more than once. But as to the group projection -- will any side of the die come up more than once -- the answer would be yes. It's the exact same theory when it comes to projecting fantasy wide receivers.
Yeah, Chase knows the answer."What's the over/under on how many WRs will get 1,000 yards?" and "How many WRs have an over/under above 1,000 yards?" are entirely different questions with entirely different answers. A set of projections will answer only the second question, not the first.I'm not Maurile, but I know at least some of what he'll say in response to this.First, I don't think he projects 16 games for all wide receivers. Second, many of the receivers who get 1,000 yards will do so in surprising fashion -- maybe they'll have a breakout year that no one saw, maybe their QB will have a monster season, maybe they'll get really lucky, etc. If you asked Maurile, "how many receivers will hit the 1,000 yard mark this season?" he'd probably tell you 20 or so receivers will do so. But there are only 13 receivers he thinks are more likely than not to hit the 1,000 yard mark. Similarly, if you ask Maurile each week, "how many NFL teams this week will win by more than 14 points?" he'd probably say 5 or 6 teams. But if you asked him to handicap each game, he'd probably only put 1 or 2 teams with 14+ point spreads. That's because group projections don't have to match individual projections. Let's say I'm going to roll a die 6 times. There is (I think) a 98.5% chance that at least one side of the die will come up at least two times. If you ask anyone if they thought one of the 6 numbers will come up more than once if you roll a die 6 times, the obvious answer is yes. Then ask them, do you think a 1 will come up more than once? How about a 2? Or a 3? A 4? Do you see a 5? What about a 6? The answer to all of those questions, obviously, is no. There's only a 26% chance that any side of the die will come up 2 or more times. So as far as your individual projection, you'd say no, neither the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 side will come up more than once. But as to the group projection -- will any side of the die come up more than once -- the answer would be yes. It's the exact same theory when it comes to projecting fantasy wide receivers.
My favorite example:Every single NFL week for the last five years (that's 85 weeks), some team has won by 20 points or more. But yet it's almost never a good idea to pick any particular team to win by 20. If it was, you could make a killing in Vegas every single week.
Why not? Don't you have to assume everyone will play 16 games, as long as they are not on IR or suspended at the start of the season? Also....just because you don't know who will get 1000yds doesnt mean that you cant make an educated guess and project accordingly. If basically you are only projecting the best WR's in the league to get 1000yds, then your not really sticking your neck out there. In the end, thats all projections and rankings are....educated guesses....unless you have a crystal ball.I'm not Maurile, but I know at least some of what he'll say in response to this.
If you asked Maurile, "how many receivers will hit the 1,000 yard mark this season?" he'd probably tell you 20 or so receivers will do so. But there are only 13 receivers he thinks are more likely than not to hit the 1,000 yard mark. Similarly, if you ask Maurile each week, "how many NFL teams this week will win by more than 14 points?" he'd probably say 5 or 6 teams. But if you asked him to handicap each game, he'd probably only put 1 or 2 teams with 14+ point spreads. That's because group projections don't have to match individual projections.
Let's say I'm going to roll a die 6 times. There is (I think) a 98.5% chance that at least one side of the die will come up at least two times. If you ask anyone if they thought one of the 6 numbers will come up more than once if you roll a die 6 times, the obvious answer is yes. Then ask them, do you think a 1 will come up more than once? How about a 2? Or a 3? A 4? Do you see a 5? What about a 6? The answer to all of those questions, obviously, is no. There's only a 26% chance that any side of the die will come up 2 or more times. So as far as your individual projection, you'd say no, neither the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 side will come up more than once. But as to the group projection -- will any side of the die come up more than once -- the answer would be yes.
It's the exact same theory when it comes to projecting fantasy wide receivers.
lost me here...
How many quarterbacks who will not start game 1 of the NFL season do you think will throw for over 1,500 yards in 2010?Zero?1-2?3-5?Over 5?lost me here...
For a backup qb, that would probably be almost half the season.....so I guess proably 3-5 because of QB's losing their job, rookie qb's getting a shot and injuries.How many quarterbacks who will not start game 1 of the NFL season do you think will throw for over 1,500 yards in 2010?Zero?1-2?3-5?Over 5?lost me here...
So you agree with the the first half of Maurile's sentence. Now the second half: Pick 3-5 backup quarterbacks who you expect to get over 1500 yards in 2010. Do you see why these are different questions?For a backup qb, that would probably be almost half the season.....so I guess proably 3-5 because of QB's losing their job, rookie qb's getting a shot and injuries.How many quarterbacks who will not start game 1 of the NFL season do you think will throw for over 1,500 yards in 2010?lost me here...
I see what you are saying, but also you can rank bench qb's pretty easy and get close to this on projections...like I would assume Bradford, Whitehurst, D. Anderson will put up some numbers this year.....unlike whoever backs up Peyton, Rodgers, and Brees. Obviously, no one would have projected Cassell would get 3000 yards 2 years ago when Brady went down. Can't get them all.So you agree with the the first half of Maurile's sentence. Now the second half: Pick 3-5 backup quarterbacks who you expect to get over 1500 yards in 2010. Do you see why these are different questions?For a backup qb, that would probably be almost half the season.....so I guess proably 3-5 because of QB's losing their job, rookie qb's getting a shot and injuries.How many quarterbacks who will not start game 1 of the NFL season do you think will throw for over 1,500 yards in 2010?lost me here...
It's not just about ranking bench QBs. Will you project 1500 yards for Whitehurt and Derek Anderson? That means you can't project more than 2000 or so for Hasselbeck and Leinart. What would you think if you saw someone who projected both of those guys with 1800 yards or so? Would you like that projection?
Saying Favre has a 56% (or 75% or whatever) is taking a stance. So is saying Favre has a 100% (or 0%) chance of playing.
I disagree. Or maybe it's semantics. My point is that projections should be projecting the actual number of games the projector expects the player to play. I feel very confident that Maurile does not expect Favre to play 56% of the games this year. So he is not actually basing his projections on what he expects to happen. So what is the value of Favre's projection?ETA: If one projects Favre to play 0 games or 16 games this season, he could be wrong. But there is a sound basis for projecting either number. There really is not a sound basis for projecting that he will play 56% of the games. If there was some media report or some other reason to believe that he would sit out 7 games, then that stance might have some basis... but there is no such information upon which to base that number. And we know from Maurile himself that he isn't basing that number on any such information. So, to me, this particular projection is useless, because we know it is wrong. The same cannot be said for 0 or 16 game predictions until we know about his return/retirement.What is the value for individual projections we know are wrong?
I don't understand why you want MT to have one method for generating Favre projections and another method for generating everyone else's projections.Take C.J. Spiller, for instance. Maybe he'll be in the three-way timeshare on a horrendously bad offense and post 550/3 and 200/0. Or maybe he really is Chris Johnson Lite and posts 1200/8 and 550/3. And there is an entire continuum of possibilities in between. MT does not pick one of those infinitely many possibilities and roll with it. He uses a weighted average of all of them. Or at least he tries to do that to the extent that it's possible.
That's exactly what people say when they rail against fractional TD projections.
No, you got it.
