***Official*** 2011 FBG Subscriber Contest Thread (2 Viewers)

[H8fulHuck]

Thanks, and again I hope you don't think I'm picking on you specifically, just arguing against the importance of "uniqueness" in this contest.

Not at all. It's a long season and we have time to beat this topic to death. Let me clarify something before I continue. I don't want my entire roster to be unique. Some popular players help you survive further in the contest. You are virtually DOA if you don't have some of these guys.

If you score the most points, but aren't "unique" enough, the worst that can happen is you tie for first place. OTOH if you are the most unique, but don't score enough points, you don't win. Your uniqueness doesn't help you win, scoring the most points does.

You are right. Popular or unique, the winner will be the team that scores the most points regardless of ownership stats. I'll circle back to this in a minute.

I'd much rather have another more unique player who has a good chance to out produce the popular player weeks 14-16 because this play DOES increase my odds of winning the contest. There is less competition when you have a small number of teams with your guy.

It only increases your odds of winning the contest if your unique player outperforms the popular player. If he doesn't, then it decreases your odds of winning the contest, because now you're behind the rest of the field. There's no more or less competitiion - you're competing against 249 other teams, regardless of who you select. If they all have commonly-owned players that all do better than your more unique players, you're going to finish in the bottom of the standings. And yes, if all your unique players do better than their commonly-owned players, then you'll finish in the top of the standings. But again, it's not the uniqueness that makes you more or less likely to win, it's the points.

Stop right there for a minute. This is exactly why having a high scoring "unique" player (player U) is better than having all popular players (player P) in the finals. The odds of player U outscoring player P in the finals >>> owning player P and hoping the other 249 teams don't have a U player who goes off the last three weeks. Player U could be Chris Cooley on team #1 or The Colts D from team #2 or Payton Manning from team #3 or Emmanuel Sanders on team #4 etc.

Only 22 teams have the QB combo of Brady & Roethlisberger

5 teams with Roethlisberger, Starks & Pettigrew

6 teams with Brady, Starks & Tolbert

1 team with Brady, Starks, Tolbert and Gronkowski

The fact is that there are like a quadrillion possible legal rosters in this contest, and only 10,000 entries. Every one of them is unique. That's why every year this thread is full of posts like, "I'm the only person who owns W, X, Y, and Z!" Everyone's unique if you look at just their top 8-10 players, not to mention the rest of their depth.

You are right of course, but it's fun to look at the players on your roster that aren't owned by many others. These are the players that might help you separate from the crowd. For example, I find it fascinating that only 22 teams have the Brady / Ben combination compared to 750 teams with Rivers & Stafford. The obvious answer will be whatever duo scores more, but think about it. Would you rather have Brady & Ben or Rivers & Stafford going into the finals? Odds are good that the Brady/Ben combo will score more points. I like those percentages better than being another team with a common combo because even if your Rivers/Stafford duo wins this coin flip, you still have the bulk of your competition to overcome at other positions. The same players that helped you get far in the contest also make it hard for you to separate to come in first.

The flip side is I'll be in quite a hole if Ben/Brady don't come out on top. That is the risk/reward.

 

[QuizGuy66]

My unofficial tally has me finishing the week at 194.55

The last-minute shuffle to Brady looks like a good move so far. My must-have expensive guy (ADP) was my 9th-highest scoring skill player. Can only hope this team can keep it up.

Guys who counted this week: Brady, Benson, Hightower, Plaxico, S Moss, Burleson, Hernandez, F Davis, Nugent, Arizona.

-QG

 

[apalmer]

Guess the Turk isn't as eager to post scores when he doesn't get to ax anyone. Week 1 Scores

 

[comfortably numb]

Guess the Turk isn't as eager to post scores when he doesn't get to ax anyone. Week 1 Scores

LOLhigh scorer for week 1 won't even have enough eligible WR's for the 1st week of BYES

 

[apalmer]

You are right of course, but it's fun to look at the players on your roster that aren't owned by many others. These are the players that might help you separate from the crowd. For example, I find it fascinating that only 22 teams have the Brady / Ben combination compared to 750 teams with Rivers & Stafford.

The obvious answer will be whatever duo scores more, but think about it. Would you rather have Brady & Ben or Rivers & Stafford going into the finals? Odds are good that the Brady/Ben combo will score more points. I like those percentages better than being another team with a common combo because even if your Rivers/Stafford duo wins this coin flip, you still have the bulk of your competition to overcome at other positions. The same players that helped you get far in the contest also make it hard for you to separate to come in first.

The flip side is I'll be in quite a hole if Ben/Brady don't come out on top. That is the risk/reward.

Of course, the Rivers/Stafford teams also have an extra $8 to invest elsewhere, which could be why there is such a difference in ownership %-age.

 

[Donsmith753]

6105

 

[apalmer]

Guess the Turk isn't as eager to post scores when he doesn't get to ax anyone. Week 1 Scores

LOLhigh scorer for week 1 won't even have enough eligible WR's for the 1st week of BYES

He won't have enough WRs in Weeks 5-7. And, in Week 6, he'll only have Rice & Tate at RB. Flex points will have to come from his TEs.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Guess the Turk isn't as eager to post scores when he doesn't get to ax anyone. Week 1 Scores

Guilty as charged.

 

[apalmer]

When "Stud Theory" goes wrong: ADP, Foster, Stewart, Nicks, Harvin, Finley and Peyton = 10750th Place

 

[BassNBrew]

My three defenses posted 8, 8, and 9.

VJax, Manningham, and Moore did didley squat for me. Not looking good for the look haul.

 

[BassNBrew]

Guess the Turk isn't as eager to post scores when he doesn't get to ax anyone. Week 1 Scores

Guilty as charged.

Doug, can we get the staff names tagged to their entires?Also noted that you wnet with 27 or 28 players this year. Change of heart on the small v. big roster debate?

 

[simsarge]

Amendola and Kaeding = for the long haul. Hopefully the rest of the team can pickup the slack.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

This is exactly why having a high scoring "unique" player (player U) is better than having all popular players (player P) in the finals. The odds of player U outscoring player P in the finals >>> owning player P and hoping the other 249 teams don't have a U player who goes off the last three weeks.

Not clear how you determined this to be the case. Maybe you're right, but you can't just claim the odds of one thing happening are >>> the odds of another thing happening without providing any evidence. Remember, we're not looking for overly simplistic "one team with one unique player vs. 249 teams with the same popular player" or any of that stuff. It's been done before, and as I said, I can construct any number of extreme hypotheticals where uniqueness is a crucial factor. But that's not what really happens in the finals. Every team in the final 250 is sufficiently unique to win outright if they have the highest scoring players, regardless of how commonly owned those players are.

The obvious answer will be whatever duo scores more, but think about it. Would you rather have Brady & Ben or Rivers & Stafford going into the finals? Odds are good that the Brady/Ben combo will score more points. I like those percentages better than being another team with a common combo because even if your Rivers/Stafford duo wins this coin flip, you still have the bulk of your competition to overcome at other positions.

Well, if "odds are good that the Brady/Ben combo will score more points" then I guess I'd want the Brady/Ben combo (for these purposes I assume we're ignoring the price disparity, of course - $8 goes a long way in this contest). But then you refer to it as a "coin flip." And you reference "those percentages." Again, all vague notions without any actual demonstration that the unique players give you a better chance to win. If Brady + Ben outproduce Rivers + Stafford + $8 player(s) in the finals, then I'd rather have Brady + Ben. If Rivers + Stafford + $8 player(s) outproduce Brady + Ben in the finals, then I'd rather have Rivers + Stafford + $8 player(s). I don't get extra points if my players are more unique.

 

[Jayrod]

I'm glad there are no eliminations week 1.

Yeah I agree. But maybe my players are saving all their TDs for weeks 2-16 Or all my projections are completely off.

You may want to even hold off until after next week. I expect the cut line to be around something like 100.0 next week.

Wow....so the cut line would be 137.9Not as bad as I thought.

 

[Jayrod]

At this point, I am at 146.5 pts for week 1 with:Brady (-22.3)Bush (-15.0)Moore (-11.0)Hernandez (-13.8)-also, each of these are at (-8.9) for my flex spotPrater (-13.0)Broncos D (-12.0)Very flat production this week with every position but my flex currently in double digits, but only my QB (McCoy) over 20. I expect either Bush or Hernandez to beat my current flex and Brady to outscore McCoy...still nothing to write home about yet. Top non-QB was Mike Wallace with 18.7.

OK, so first of all, I had the wrong stats on some players, so my original 146.5 was too low. And then Brady, Hernandez & Bush have big games.Finished with 201.55, tied for #545. Hope I'm not peaking too early here.

 

[Jayrod]

Jayrodsquad

Commentary on my team (which I'm sure no one cares about, but this is what we do here)....

I'm encouraged by Brady being what I thought he would be, Bush & Hightower showing up, Mike Wallace scoring big, Dez showing up and Hernandez and Olsen both producing. Discouraged by my WR depth doing next to nothing. I'm going to need more out of Lee Evans, Harry Douglas, Antonio Brown & Denarius Moore if I have a shot at this thing, because Wallace, Dez, Manningham & Burleson won't be able to do it every week. My PK's & DT's were good as well.

I like my chances, gents. Just need key guys to stay healthy and my depth to kick in when needed, with a great crescendo in weeks 14-16.

 

[Jayrod]

Guess the Turk isn't as eager to post scores when he doesn't get to ax anyone. Week 1 Scores

Some observations from the top 5 teams:-they are all small rosters (#1 has 19 players, the next 4 all have only 18)

-most have a serious bye week problem, the "safest" team is #5, followed by #4...I'd almost guarantee none of #1-3 will make it through the bye weeks

-they all have at least 2 at every position

-all have at least 5 WR's, except #1 (only 3)

-all had at least 2 of Brady, Welker, Hernandez (only #3 had all three)

-none of them had Kenny Britt (30.6) or Steve Smith (37.8).

 

[butcher boy]

6105

No need to worry. If you believe in the law of averages, it is MUCH better to be at the bottom on a non-elimination week, and save your good performances for when it matters. It's the people who are peaking now who should be worried.

 

[gandalas]

4824. gandalas 170.25

Yup...

Rivers got me a decent 26.45, but was overpriced compared to the 22.25 I got from Colt for less than half the price.

At RB, I had a LOT of good performances, with 28.90 from Rice, 18.20 from Beanie, 17.60 from Ben Tate, and 16.10 from McFadden. Kinda Wishing I had put some of those dollars towards WR, as you will see....

At WR, Steve Johnson gave me 16.60 which was good, but Fitzgerald only gave me 9.20, which is not. My 3rd scorer was Amendola with 9.50, but I will be without that for a while. Lance Moore, Earl Bennett, Shipley, Cribbs, and Denareous Moore all need to step it up.

At TE, I was golden with Hernandez at 26.80. Olson was also ok with 13.80. But Kendricks needs better than 3.30 if he is going to be worth that $6.

At K, Josh brown Got me 9.00 and that was it. Wishing I had went with Janikowski like last year, but he was too pricey this time around.

At DEF, got 8.00 from Cowboys and Bills. Lions only gave me 6, which is not good for my most expensive defense.

All in all, I think the lack of depth at WR is going to kill me.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

6105

No need to worry. If you believe in the law of averages, it is MUCH better to be at the bottom on a non-elimination week, and save your good performances for when it matters. It's the people who are peaking now who should be worried.

It depends. If you think you have a well-constructed roster but many of your players just had a below-average week, then you're probably ok and will regress to the mean. But if you put up a low score this week, it might also be because you had some players get hurt, or you weren't very good at picking the best players, or you don't have a well-constructed roster, etc. The teams who are peaking now don't have to be worried. Again, the top performers can probably expect to regress towards the mean, but a big week 1 score could just indicate that they successfully picked a lot of players who are going to be good fantasy performers this season.

 

[butcher boy]

Don't know why so many people went with Fitz. He already got his fat contract so you're not going to see contract year type of numbers. He's still a stud, but there was no real bargain there.

 

[pocketducks]

You may want to even hold off until after next week. I expect the cut line to be around something like 100.0 next week.

Wow....so the cut line would be 137.9Not as bad as I thought.

Yeah a cut of 137.9 seams relatively high to me for the first week.I wonder what the distribution of scores were? Can the database people help with this? ie what was the average, mean, standard deviation?

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

To hit on the whole uniqueness debate...

I don't have Ben Tate or Aaron Hernandez. It's just one week, but it has already illustrated how missing out on those guys may come back to haunt me.

 

[QuizGuy66]

139+ for a cut is scary high

For the curious, here's a link to The Turk's entry: The Turk

My math was a little bad, I actually had 196.75 - good for 804th place not that it matters at all of course

I am happy however that I finished ahead of the other Quiz-related entries: Quizmaster and squizz

"Turk" related standings:

JiveTurkey (#2574)

Turkey Two (#3120)

Wild Turkey (#3670)

Turkey (#4169)

The Turk (tied with person ranked #7150)

WILD TURKEYS (#9835)

RedTurkey (#10305)

So there you go.

-QG

 

[pocketducks]

Jayrodsquad

Commentary on my team (which I'm sure no one cares about, but this is what we do here)....

I'm encouraged by Brady being what I thought he would be, Bush & Hightower showing up, Mike Wallace scoring big, Dez showing up and Hernandez and Olsen both producing. Discouraged by my WR depth doing next to nothing. I'm going to need more out of Lee Evans, Harry Douglas, Antonio Brown & Denarius Moore if I have a shot at this thing, because Wallace, Dez, Manningham & Burleson won't be able to do it every week. My PK's & DT's were good as well.

I like my chances, gents. Just need key guys to stay healthy and my depth to kick in when needed, with a great crescendo in weeks 14-16.

I think with Brady you are solid at QB the whole way. Your RBs seem good for now. I like Reggie Bush, just don't trust his health. I like Hightower as long as he doesn't get benched for fumbling the ball. Similar to my squad, I think your biggest problem is depth at WR. It would have been good to get two or three more mid tier WRs to help produce. Especially now that Amendola is out for me. Burleson didn't score but I would expect him to at some point in the future. Also I think you will be fine with Brown. Saw 9 targets but only had 2 catches. If he goes 6 for 80, he gives you a solid 14 pts. Expect a bounce back next week. Moore not getting on the field is a concern.

 

[The Iguana]

I wish I had Iggy brain

everyone wishes they were me.

 

[The Iguana]

I wish I had Iggy brain

everyone wishes they were me.

of course, looking in here and seeing all the work he is doing, i might have to rename my entry to something other than iggy.

 

[BaBastage]

6105

No need to worry. If you believe in the law of averages, it is MUCH better to be at the bottom on a non-elimination week, and save your good performances for when it matters. It's the people who are peaking now who should be worried.

Unfortunately, the "Law of Averages" is also known as the Gambler's Fallacy.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Amish Standings:

#1291 Amish Horsemen

#1515 Fighting Amish

#1950 Amish Hitmen

#3451 fightin amish

#3852 FightingAmish

-QG

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

10753. Trying To Get By 61.40

 

[butcher boy]

6105

No need to worry. If you believe in the law of averages, it is MUCH better to be at the bottom on a non-elimination week, and save your good performances for when it matters. It's the people who are peaking now who should be worried.

Unfortunately, the "Law of Averages" is also known as the Gambler's Fallacy.

Except we're not talking about coin flips and poker hands, we're talking about NFL players. I think it's safe to say that Brady won't throw 500 yards/game or that Frank Gore will only run for 50 yards/game all year. Studs are going to have their up and down weeks, and if your team's studs have a down week when there are no eliminations, the better you potentially stand.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

6105

No need to worry. If you believe in the law of averages, it is MUCH better to be at the bottom on a non-elimination week, and save your good performances for when it matters. It's the people who are peaking now who should be worried.

Unfortunately, the "Law of Averages" is also known as the Gambler's Fallacy.

Except we're not talking about coin flips and poker hands, we're talking about NFL players. I think it's safe to say that Brady won't throw 500 yards/game or that Frank Gore will only run for 50 yards/game all year. Studs are going to have their up and down weeks, and if your team's studs have a down week when there are no eliminations, the better you potentially stand.

So by this logic, Brady owners should be worried, and Gore owners shouldn't be? That seems backwards. Sure, Brady probably won't throw for 500 yards a game, but it appears he is still one of the most elite QBs in the league. And yes, Gore might do better than 50 yards a game but it appears he's on a bad offense and on the decline. You said it best - we're not talking about coin flips, where you might expect heads to be balanced out by tails in the (extremely) long run. We're talking about NFL players, some of whom are good and some who aren't. If your players did good week 1, it doesn't mean they're going to be worse later this year. They might just be good players. And if they didn't do good in week 1, it doesn't mean they're due for better stats later in the season. They might just not be good players.

 

[texasheat]

New dollar amounts are up!

Biggest bargain I see is VJax at $16

 

[cdubz]

6105

No need to worry. If you believe in the law of averages, it is MUCH better to be at the bottom on a non-elimination week, and save your good performances for when it matters. It's the people who are peaking now who should be worried.

Unfortunately, the "Law of Averages" is also known as the Gambler's Fallacy.

Except we're not talking about coin flips and poker hands, we're talking about NFL players. I think it's safe to say that Brady won't throw 500 yards/game or that Frank Gore will only run for 50 yards/game all year. Studs are going to have their up and down weeks, and if your team's studs have a down week when there are no eliminations, the better you potentially stand.

The real issue here is whether individual weeks are statistically independent or not. I tend to think that they are statistically independent, so the performance we observed in week 1 doesn't help predict future performances OTHER than informing us of a player's true ability/opportunity. Let's assume before the season we thought Brady would throw for ~300 yards per week. Does week 1 make it more likely that he will pass for 250 or 350 next week? I tend to think that the best guess is still ~300 rather than an upward or downward movement. So having your team do well or poorly in the first week or any other given week is not necessarily predictive of performance later on.

The exception to this rule is when we observe structural changes; e.g., player looks slow, player targeted more frequently, injuries, promotions/demotions.

In the Brady example, the argument that doing poorly early on helps you later (AKA we should deduct week 1 stats from pre-season projections) means that you believe weeks are statistically dependent on one another and that Brady's 500+ yards makes him more likely to throw for 250 in the future (when we assumed that the best guess preseason per game figure was ~300); I find this hard to believe.

 

[jdoggydogg]

New dollar amounts are up!Biggest bargain I see is VJax at $16

Say what?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Summary stats for week 1:

Size	Rosters	AvScore	StDev18	3568	165.77	21.7219	1393	166.54	20.9920	1059	167.74	20.9521	836	168.41	20.2822	766	168.26	19.3723	641	168.27	19.6824	547	169.84	20.1525	396	169.99	19.1726	415	170.43	17.7627	296	169.97	19.0128	269	169.93	17.5629	214	171.67	17.5130	376	171.56	17.58

 

[domvin]

1556

189.10

Fitzp

Tolbert

Tate

Dez

Jordy

Dav Nelson

Fred Davis

Graham

Cundiff

Texans D

I went with 3 Ds and 3 K this year, 29 total guys. 5 TEs as well, and 3 Qbs-Fitzp, Stafford, Kolb.

Wish I would have allocated 15 from Kolb for another rb. time will tell

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

6105

No need to worry. If you believe in the law of averages, it is MUCH better to be at the bottom on a non-elimination week, and save your good performances for when it matters. It's the people who are peaking now who should be worried.

Unfortunately, the "Law of Averages" is also known as the Gambler's Fallacy.

Except we're not talking about coin flips and poker hands, we're talking about NFL players. I think it's safe to say that Brady won't throw 500 yards/game or that Frank Gore will only run for 50 yards/game all year. Studs are going to have their up and down weeks, and if your team's studs have a down week when there are no eliminations, the better you potentially stand.

The real issue here is whether individual weeks are statistically independent or not. I tend to think that they are statistically independent, so the performance we observed in week 1 doesn't help predict future performances OTHER than informing us of a player's true ability/opportunity. Let's assume before the season we thought Brady would throw for ~300 yards per week. Does week 1 make it more likely that he will pass for 250 or 350 next week? I tend to think that the best guess is still ~300 rather than an upward or downward movement. So having your team do well or poorly in the first week or any other given week is not necessarily predictive of performance later on.

The exception to this rule is when we observe structural changes; e.g., player looks slow, player targeted more frequently, injuries, promotions/demotions.

In the Brady example, the argument that doing poorly early on helps you later (AKA we should deduct week 1 stats from pre-season projections) means that you believe weeks are statistically dependent on one another and that Brady's 500+ yards makes him more likely to throw for 250 in the future (when we assumed that the best guess preseason per game figure was ~300); I find this hard to believe.

I think you have a lot of this backwards. I'm about to head out the door but I'll try to respond later tonight.

 

[texasheat]

New dollar amounts are up!Biggest bargain I see is VJax at $16

Say what?

That's me wanting a do over

 

[butcher boy]

In the Brady example, the argument that doing poorly early on helps you later (AKA we should deduct week 1 stats from pre-season projections) means that you believe weeks are statistically dependent on one another and that Brady's 500+ yards makes him more likely to throw for 250 in the future (when we assumed that the best guess preseason per game figure was ~300); I find this hard to believe.

That's why these sort of statistics differ from table gambling odds. It doesn't happen in a vaccuum. If Brady goes a few weeks throwing 300, 400, 500+ yards each of those weeks, then opposing defenses are going to adjust, forcing New England to balance their offense up a bit resulting in a few "off" weeks for the passing game. Brady may not be the best example since he's a stud regardless, but cheap $2-$3 guys on your team that you added for those 1 or 2 week big games are. It's much better to get their peak weeks when you need them, not in a non-elimination week. It's why I wouldnt be worried if you have a low score this week.

 

[comfortably numb]

Don't know why so many people went with Fitz. He already got his fat contract so you're not going to see contract year type of numbers. He's still a stud, but there was no real bargain there.

oh come on

 

[CalBear]

Except we're not talking about coin flips and poker hands, we're talking about NFL players. I think it's safe to say that Brady won't throw 500 yards/game or that Frank Gore will only run for 50 yards/game all year. Studs are going to have their up and down weeks, and if your team's studs have a down week when there are no eliminations, the better you potentially stand.

So you think that Brady is more likely to have a down week in week 2 because he had a good week in week 1?

 

[BassNBrew]

Summary stats for week 1:

Size	Rosters	AvScore	StDev18	3568	165.77	21.7219	1393	166.54	20.9920	1059	167.74	20.9521	836	168.41	20.2822	766	168.26	19.3723	641	168.27	19.6824	547	169.84	20.1525	396	169.99	19.1726	415	170.43	17.7627	296	169.97	19.0128	269	169.93	17.5629	214	171.67	17.5130	376	171.56	17.58

And so it begins. Can't wait until the bye weeks and this gets magnified. You would think that after last year everyone would have a larger roster, yet 50% of the entires are small rosters.

 

[BassNBrew]

Summary stats for week 1:

Size	Rosters	AvScore	StDev18	3568	165.77	21.7219	1393	166.54	20.9920	1059	167.74	20.9521	836	168.41	20.2822	766	168.26	19.3723	641	168.27	19.6824	547	169.84	20.1525	396	169.99	19.1726	415	170.43	17.7627	296	169.97	19.0128	269	169.93	17.5629	214	171.67	17.5130	376	171.56	17.58

And so it begins. Can't wait until the bye weeks and this gets magnified. You would think that after last year everyone would have a larger roster, yet 50% of the entires are small rosters.

18 man rosters = 356823 thru 30 man rosters = 315418+19 mand rosters = 496121 thru 30 man rosters = 4757

 

[butcher boy]

Except we're not talking about coin flips and poker hands, we're talking about NFL players. I think it's safe to say that Brady won't throw 500 yards/game or that Frank Gore will only run for 50 yards/game all year. Studs are going to have their up and down weeks, and if your team's studs have a down week when there are no eliminations, the better you potentially stand.

So you think that Brady is more likely to have a down week in week 2 because he had a good week in week 1?

Potentially (without knowing who their playing). You dont think that after a 500 yard passing game that whoever they're playing next isn't going to look at that tape and alter their defense to try and stop it?But that's not even the point. We know that Brady is going to end up with 4,000-4,500 yards roughly. He's currently on pace to throw for about 8,000 yards which isn't going to happen. There are going to be dud weeks mixed into his numbers. All I'm saying is it's better to have a dud week from a stud when it's a non-elimination week.

 

[Modog814]

6105

No need to worry. If you believe in the law of averages, it is MUCH better to be at the bottom on a non-elimination week, and save your good performances for when it matters. It's the people who are peaking now who should be worried.

Unfortunately, the "Law of Averages" is also known as the Gambler's Fallacy.

Except we're not talking about coin flips and poker hands, we're talking about NFL players. I think it's safe to say that Brady won't throw 500 yards/game or that Frank Gore will only run for 50 yards/game all year. Studs are going to have their up and down weeks, and if your team's studs have a down week when there are no eliminations, the better you potentially stand.

So by this logic, Brady owners should be worried, and Gore owners shouldn't be? That seems backwards. Sure, Brady probably won't throw for 500 yards a game, but it appears he is still one of the most elite QBs in the league. And yes, Gore might do better than 50 yards a game but it appears he's on a bad offense and on the decline. You said it best - we're not talking about coin flips, where you might expect heads to be balanced out by tails in the (extremely) long run. We're talking about NFL players, some of whom are good and some who aren't. If your players did good week 1, it doesn't mean they're going to be worse later this year. They might just be good players. And if they didn't do good in week 1, it doesn't mean they're due for better stats later in the season. They might just not be good players.

This BTW is exactly what the gambler's falacy is. If after 10 flips you have 10 heads and no tails, then after 1000 flips you should expect 505 heads, 495 tails, not 500/500. In short, the coin has no memory of what occurred previously.

That said, I think much the same applies to NFL players. For the most part, what they perform one week doesn't have much to do with what happens next week (ignoring injuries, confidence ect.).

As cdubz states, it's a question of whether or not week to week games are dependent or independent. As an all or nothing question, I'd think you'd have to say they're independent (one week has no relation to the next). However, the real world doesn't work quite like that. And I'll argue that they are somewhat dependent for 2 main reasons,

1) This is probably more true for RB's than any other position, and maybe a lesser extent QB's, but some coaches believe certain RB's aren't built to handle the ball 25 times a game (ie Haley seems to believe this with Charles). So a coach may have some kind of "play count" (similar to a pitch count in baseball) for the season where they want the running back to be a) healthy, and b) fresh for the playoffs. So it stands to reason that if in one game a player like Charles has 30 carries, you could make the arguement that Haley will make a conscious effort to cut that back over the remaining season. So if a Coach had designed to cap a player at say 250 carries, a week of 30 carries may very well affect what happens for the remainder of the season. I'll be the first to admit that this impact is very small and would not be proof to support the statement that you want to "Save" big weeks.

2) This one I believe has slightly more impact, but still I don't think it's big enough to warrant support of the premise. This reason is based on the fact that most seasons for individual players have a cap on them. Meaning, it's extremely unlikely that anyone will throw for 6,000 yards or 60 TD's. Yes, it's possible, but unlikely. So I think it's safe to say a players point total is in fact capped (at an admittedly high number). So, one could argue that a very good game in a non-crucial week does in fact limit the upside of that said player for the remainder of the season.

Reason #2, I believe is actually mathematically incorrect, that is, theoretically, there is no cap on a players fantasy points. However, in reality, there probably is.

 

[jdoggydogg]

New dollar amounts are up!Biggest bargain I see is VJax at $16

Say what?

That's me wanting a do over

Dude, I hear you.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Don't know why so many people went with Fitz. He already got his fat contract so you're not going to see contract year type of numbers. He's still a stud, but there was no real bargain there.

oh come on

This. If Fitz isn't the most talented WR in the league, he's in the top three. That makes his price a bargain. What, you think he's going to get lazy because he's getting paid? These guys are professionals with pride in their work ethic. There's more at stake here than just money.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Summary stats for week 1:

Size	Rosters	AvScore	StDev18	3568	165.77	21.7219	1393	166.54	20.9920	1059	167.74	20.9521	836	168.41	20.2822	766	168.26	19.3723	641	168.27	19.6824	547	169.84	20.1525	396	169.99	19.1726	415	170.43	17.7627	296	169.97	19.0128	269	169.93	17.5629	214	171.67	17.5130	376	171.56	17.58

I know this'll deviate from week to week. But if I remember correctly, this trend is just a microcosm from the entire 2010 year. Seems logical to me that a well-planned 30 man roster has a much better shot than a well-planned 18 man roster.

 

[atcdav]

Don't know why so many people went with Fitz. He already got his fat contract so you're not going to see contract year type of numbers. He's still a stud, but there was no real bargain there.

oh come on

This. If Fitz isn't the most talented WR in the league, he's in the top three. That makes his price a bargain. What, you think he's going to get lazy because he's getting paid? These guys are professionals with pride in their work ethic. There's more at stake here than just money.

I made a similar statement in another thread I started about money and effort. I think it happens. Your work your ### off to achieve and then you finally arrive. I think it is only human there is a bit of a letdown, a sense of relief. It is like training for an ironman, you train to peak at a certain time. You cannot maintain the peak, thats why it is called a peak. Once you peak there is a letdown. The doers, the professionals, strive to peak again, to acheive greater status, but initially I think there is a letdown. Doesnt mean they are forever lazy, just I think likely to underachieve short term. If you won the lottery, you may continue to work, but I would bet, your quality of production would drop, initially.