butcher boy
Footballguy
I'm not going to get very far through the bye weeks unless some starting RBs get hurt. I'm not the one to root for an injury though. Still surprised Best hasn't been hurt yet. And now Tate seems to be fading as well.
Done at 139.1.I'll predict a cut of around 139.
I doubt I make it by next week. Some last minute changes killed me.
. Thanks to those that have donated and I'm glad you all like the site.Great job as always OC!ffltools live scoring for this has been updated. A couple new features.- Stats are working better now, I seem to be inline with what FBG is scoring. Before, I was seeing stat differences and I've adjusted that.- Changed it to update every 5 minutes, based on previous weeks, the server should be able to handle that no problem.- Updated the owned percentage to reflect only live teams- Added some text to show the current cutoff and when that script was run. This is on the "team" page and runs at 8 and midnight on Sunday's and 2 on Monday.Updated the cutline also, it looks like the current cutoff is 140.9 with the game tonight to go still. This is accurate and does not include any staff members.That being said, my 128 wont cut it this week... Couldn't get over some key injuries this week. Good luck everyone.Finally, if you like the software and are using it weekly, please consider donating. I'm a one man shop and it takes a lot of hours to build something like this to be easily used by others, since I am not going to be winning it this year, figured I'd throw it out there. Thanks to those that have donated and I'm glad you all like the site.
That is going to hurt pretty much any team that has him.On a side note, looks like 663 teams have Andre Johnson... if they are 18-19 player teams... that could hurt em, especially with the beginning of the bye weeks.
how do we donate?ffltools live scoring for this has been updated. A couple new features.- Stats are working better now, I seem to be inline with what FBG is scoring. Before, I was seeing stat differences and I've adjusted that.- Changed it to update every 5 minutes, based on previous weeks, the server should be able to handle that no problem.- Updated the owned percentage to reflect only live teams- Added some text to show the current cutoff and when that script was run. This is on the "team" page and runs at 8 and midnight on Sunday's and 2 on Monday.Updated the cutline also, it looks like the current cutoff is 140.9 with the game tonight to go still. This is accurate and does not include any staff members.That being said, my 128 wont cut it this week... Couldn't get over some key injuries this week. Good luck everyone.Finally, if you like the software and are using it weekly, please consider donating. I'm a one man shop and it takes a lot of hours to build something like this to be easily used by others, since I am not going to be winning it this year, figured I'd throw it out there. Thanks to those that have donated and I'm glad you all like the site.
There is a donate button at the bottom of the page.how do we donate?ffltools live scoring for this has been updated. A couple new features.- Stats are working better now, I seem to be inline with what FBG is scoring. Before, I was seeing stat differences and I've adjusted that.- Changed it to update every 5 minutes, based on previous weeks, the server should be able to handle that no problem.- Updated the owned percentage to reflect only live teams- Added some text to show the current cutoff and when that script was run. This is on the "team" page and runs at 8 and midnight on Sunday's and 2 on Monday.Updated the cutline also, it looks like the current cutoff is 140.9 with the game tonight to go still. This is accurate and does not include any staff members.That being said, my 128 wont cut it this week... Couldn't get over some key injuries this week. Good luck everyone.Finally, if you like the software and are using it weekly, please consider donating. I'm a one man shop and it takes a lot of hours to build something like this to be easily used by others, since I am not going to be winning it this year, figured I'd throw it out there. Thanks to those that have donated and I'm glad you all like the site.
Noticed it was fixed earlier then it switched back during MNF game.FWIW, OC, I still see the Marion Barber mistake.-QG
Thanks guys. Looking into it. Sorry about thatNoticed it was fixed earlier then it switched back during MNF game.FWIW, OC, I still see the Marion Barber mistake.-QG

Turk says 142.10Hmmm... over 1000 teams with Blount. That'll shift the line a little bit. Probably looking at 141-142 now.
Got through
Entry # Size Total100511 19 675.10103802 24 660.65109757 18 658.80108488 20 657.85102682 18 653.50
Entry # Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4103399 185.9 186.4 186.75 186.15
##### ####### ##################!!!!!Cut by .8 points with a 141.3. My earliest exit from the contest in 4 years. Scored 201, 192, 192 and then this disaster. No big games from anyone and a freaking 6 is the best I could get from my 3 defenses. All I needed was 1 more PAT or one more catch by anyone. My RB's did me in and my WR's or Brady didn't bail me out. My TE's did their best with Daniels and Olsen both counting (20.4, 18.5 respectively). Cundiff gave me a 12, but I knew I could be in trouble when both Reggie Bush & Hightower had bad games and then McCoy outscored Brady.I was averaging 195.48/week before this week. Whole team was just blah this week (26 players). It's killing me having to rely on Marion Barber's 7.7 as my RB2 and a Defense score of 6. while no one broke 25.
Very surprised that the small rosters are holding their own. The 30 man rosters are taking an absolute beating.If the playoffs had been held in weeks 2-4, these would be the top five finishers:Code:Size Total Alive Surv%18 3568 2276 63.8%19 1393 952 68.3%20 1059 729 68.8%21 836 577 69.0%22 766 553 72.2%23 641 444 69.3%24 547 399 72.9%25 396 283 71.5%26 415 283 68.2%27 296 194 65.5%28 269 188 69.9%29 214 153 71.5%30 375 239 63.7%Code:Entry # Size Total100511 19 675.10103802 24 660.65109757 18 658.80108488 20 657.85102682 18 653.50
I imagine that the next few bye weeks will take their toll on smaller rosters especially ones with injuries like those including Andre Johnson. The bye weeks is where 24+ larger rosters will do better with survival rate.Very surprised that the small rosters are holding their own. The 30 man rosters are taking an absolute beating.Code:Size Total Alive Surv%18 3568 2276 63.8%19 1393 952 68.3%20 1059 729 68.8%21 836 577 69.0%22 766 553 72.2%23 641 444 69.3%24 547 399 72.9%25 396 283 71.5%26 415 283 68.2%27 296 194 65.5%28 269 188 69.9%29 214 153 71.5%30 375 239 63.7%
I agree completely.I imagine that the next few bye weeks will take their toll on smaller rosters especially ones with injuries like those including Andre Johnson. The bye weeks is where 24+ larger rosters will do better with survival rate.
Team SizeData Wk 1 Wk 2 Wk 3 Wk4 Roll1 Roll2 >600 (roll1) (>600 roll2)18 Avg 165.77 180.32 174.31 173.48 524.93 530.60 3.78% 3.27% St.Dev 21.72 22.24 20.17 19.13 42.23 37.66 19 Avg 166.52 180.89 173.20 172.59 523.81 528.45 3.52% 3.28% St.Dev 21.00 22.52 20.53 19.28 42.12 38.87 20 Avg 167.74 182.87 172.24 170.95 525.96 528.60 3.71% 2.62% St.Dev 20.95 21.83 19.54 17.59 41.48 36.80 21 Avg 168.44 184.45 172.77 170.14 528.78 530.06 4.66% 3.17% St.Dev 20.28 22.70 19.16 18.24 42.43 37.68 22 Avg 168.31 183.86 171.14 169.89 526.09 528.70 3.54% 2.94% St.Dev 19.36 22.80 18.36 17.35 40.91 37.72 23 Avg 168.20 184.03 170.05 169.58 525.55 526.34 2.83% 1.83% St.Dev 19.59 22.12 17.90 16.89 39.04 35.23 24 Avg 169.81 184.20 172.11 171.07 529.10 530.15 3.34% 2.70% St.Dev 20.16 22.14 18.88 18.65 38.67 36.26 25 Avg 169.99 183.74 171.31 168.88 528.20 526.25 3.15% 2.52% St.Dev 19.17 21.98 18.56 17.65 38.61 37.69 26 Avg 170.50 183.13 170.45 167.88 526.45 523.09 2.03% 0.92% St.Dev 17.83 20.78 17.07 15.78 35.91 32.64 27 Avg 170.22 186.02 168.01 166.07 528.25 523.97 1.90% 0.96% St.Dev 18.93 21.39 16.79 15.16 34.57 32.48 28 Avg 169.86 180.49 171.18 167.05 525.79 521.39 2.00% 1.33% St.Dev 17.56 21.42 17.19 15.50 36.12 35.46 29 Avg 171.67 182.55 166.35 165.70 523.11 517.50 1.40% 0.52% St.Dev 17.51 21.16 16.44 14.25 35.00 32.23 30 Avg 171.52 181.65 168.41 165.90 525.19 520.31 1.94% 0.96% St.Dev 17.68 20.18 16.13 15.61 36.20 34.06 Total Average 167.67 182.14 172.34 171.04 525.80 528.16 3.40% 2.62%Total StdDev 20.54 22.16 19.30 18.21 40.64 37.04
I agree I wonder if any of the database guys have any information on which players are the highest fantasy points/$ per position? Though this might be skewed to the super cheap $2 guys.Maybe the reason the smaller rosters are holding together is that there haven't been many low-priced guys that are category killers this year. Be interested to see the correlation between price and performance compared to last year - I bet it's higher this year.-QG
I did this a couple of years ago and it is pretty jacked by lower cost guys. There has to be some sort of factor entered in to show true value instead of straight pts/$.'JamesFFB said:I agree I wonder if any of the database guys have any information on which players are the highest fantasy points/$ per position? Though this might be skewed to the super cheap $2 guys.'QuizGuy66 said:Maybe the reason the smaller rosters are holding together is that there haven't been many low-priced guys that are category killers this year. Be interested to see the correlation between price and performance compared to last year - I bet it's higher this year.-QG
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Philip Rivers $24 26.45 30.10 11.10 23.15 bye Colt McCoy $10 22.25 17.55 21.30 24.10 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jamaal Charles $34 15.00 2.70 0.00 0.00 out? bye out? out? out? out? out? out? out? out? out? out? Felix Jones $23 14.10 3.50 17.00 10.10 bye Reggie Bush $15 19.90 2.60 3.00 7.50 bye Jerome Harrison $5 2.70 0.60 1.60 0.00 bye Montario Hardesty $4 1.80 0.10 10.10 9.60 bye Deji Karim $3 8.70 3.00 3.30 0.60 bye Ben Tate $3 17.60 15.50 9.50 2.00 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mike Wallace $23 18.70 26.60 25.40 11.70 bye Steve Johnson $19 16.60 23.60 23.40 9.80 bye Santana Moss $16 13.60 17.10 12.00 14.90 bye Lance Moore $10 0.00 1.60 23.80 10.00 bye Steve Smith $5 0.00 4.90 4.70 0.00 bye Harry Douglas $4 3.00 3.90 8.50 0.00 bye Mohamed Massaquoi $4 10.70 7.50 10.60 10.60 bye Denarius Moore $3 0.00 28.10 15.70 10.90 bye Josh Cribbs $2 2.00 7.10 13.90 10.00 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Owen Daniels $12 2.70 13.00 21.10 20.40 bye Greg Olsen $9 13.80 4.90 22.20 18.50 bye Lance Kendricks $6 3.30 4.10 4.70 9.30 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Shaun Suisham $3 1.00 6.00 16.00 4.00 bye Rian Lindell $2 12.00 8.00 12.00 10.00 bye Jay Feely $2 4.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tampa Bay Buccaneers $4 8.00 4.00 10.00 6.00 bye St. Louis Rams $3 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 bye Buffalo Bills $2 8.00 4.00 14.00 12.00 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TOTAL 161.65 170.50 194.30 142.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CUTOFF 0.00 138.90 142.00 142.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Did you use a "points over baseline" idea, or just straight points? A $2 player who scores 4 points each game is going to be less valuable than a $10 player who scores 15 as you can actually use the 15 points.I did this a couple of years ago and it is pretty jacked by lower cost guys. There has to be some sort of factor entered in to show true value instead of straight pts/$.'JamesFFB said:I agree I wonder if any of the database guys have any information on which players are the highest fantasy points/$ per position? Though this might be skewed to the super cheap $2 guys.'QuizGuy66 said:Maybe the reason the smaller rosters are holding together is that there haven't been many low-priced guys that are category killers this year. Be interested to see the correlation between price and performance compared to last year - I bet it's higher this year.-QG
Yeah, straight points per dollar isn't a good metric. (Mike Nugent is the current leader, fwiw.) I've played around with different utility models in the past but never really settled on anything simple that I liked. To really determine how "valuable" a player has been in this contest you have to weigh the additional points vs the additional cost and what else you could acquire for that cost, cutting across positions, etc. Tom Brady has averaged 38 points a week, for $27. Matt Stafford has averaged 31 points a week, but only cost $18. Is it worth $9 to sacrifice 7 points at the QB position? Cam Newton has averaged more points than Stafford for $4 less, so clearly Stafford hasn't the best buy at QB. Hasselbeck has averaged 25 points per game for $11; guys like Grossman and Henne have only averaged 20 points per week but only cost $8. Is it worth it to take fewer points at QB if it means you free up that much more money for other positions? Etc. etc.I did this a couple of years ago and it is pretty jacked by lower cost guys. There has to be some sort of factor entered in to show true value instead of straight pts/$.'JamesFFB said:I agree I wonder if any of the database guys have any information on which players are the highest fantasy points/$ per position? Though this might be skewed to the super cheap $2 guys.'QuizGuy66 said:Maybe the reason the smaller rosters are holding together is that there haven't been many low-priced guys that are category killers this year. Be interested to see the correlation between price and performance compared to last year - I bet it's higher this year.-QG
Yeah, straight points per dollar isn't a good metric. (Mike Nugent is the current leader, fwiw.) I've played around with different utility models in the past but never really settled on anything simple that I liked. To really determine how "valuable" a player has been in this contest you have to weigh the additional points vs the additional cost and what else you could acquire for that cost, cutting across positions, etc. Tom Brady has averaged 38 points a week, for $27. Matt Stafford has averaged 31 points a week, but only cost $18. Is it worth $9 to sacrifice 7 points at the QB position? Cam Newton has averaged more points than Stafford for $4 less, so clearly Stafford hasn't the best buy at QB. Hasselbeck has averaged 25 points per game for $11; guys like Grossman and Henne have only averaged 20 points per week but only cost $8. Is it worth it to take fewer points at QB if it means you free up that much more money for other positions? Etc. etc.I did this a couple of years ago and it is pretty jacked by lower cost guys. There has to be some sort of factor entered in to show true value instead of straight pts/$.'JamesFFB said:I agree I wonder if any of the database guys have any information on which players are the highest fantasy points/$ per position? Though this might be skewed to the super cheap $2 guys.'QuizGuy66 said:Maybe the reason the smaller rosters are holding together is that there haven't been many low-priced guys that are category killers this year. Be interested to see the correlation between price and performance compared to last year - I bet it's higher this year.-QG
And even averages are a bad metric because a $2 player scoring 15, 0, 0, is better than a $2 player scoring 5, 5, 5. I don't think it'd be possible to come up with "simple" metric that was also effective.All true, and that doesn't even lead to winning this thing as it cant account for luck. 300 points this week and 100 next week averages nicely but you'd be done in the contest.Yeah, straight points per dollar isn't a good metric. (Mike Nugent is the current leader, fwiw.) I've played around with different utility models in the past but never really settled on anything simple that I liked. To really determine how "valuable" a player has been in this contest you have to weigh the additional points vs the additional cost and what else you could acquire for that cost, cutting across positions, etc. Tom Brady has averaged 38 points a week, for $27. Matt Stafford has averaged 31 points a week, but only cost $18. Is it worth $9 to sacrifice 7 points at the QB position? Cam Newton has averaged more points than Stafford for $4 less, so clearly Stafford hasn't the best buy at QB. Hasselbeck has averaged 25 points per game for $11; guys like Grossman and Henne have only averaged 20 points per week but only cost $8. Is it worth it to take fewer points at QB if it means you free up that much more money for other positions? Etc. etc.I did this a couple of years ago and it is pretty jacked by lower cost guys. There has to be some sort of factor entered in to show true value instead of straight pts/$.'JamesFFB said:I agree I wonder if any of the database guys have any information on which players are the highest fantasy points/$ per position? Though this might be skewed to the super cheap $2 guys.'QuizGuy66 said:Maybe the reason the smaller rosters are holding together is that there haven't been many low-priced guys that are category killers this year. Be interested to see the correlation between price and performance compared to last year - I bet it's higher this year.-QG
Good points. Would something like (the number of top 25% in fantasy points at the position finishes per week)/$ be a better metric? For example for Tom Brady. The top 25% of available QBs (0.25*39) is 9.75 round up to 10. I think he has finished in the top 10 of QB each of the first 4 weeks. So 4/$27 = 0.148.There must be away to look at this mathematically... where did I put that old Probability & Statistics book from my college days?Yeah, straight points per dollar isn't a good metric. (Mike Nugent is the current leader, fwiw.) I've played around with different utility models in the past but never really settled on anything simple that I liked. To really determine how "valuable" a player has been in this contest you have to weigh the additional points vs the additional cost and what else you could acquire for that cost, cutting across positions, etc. Tom Brady has averaged 38 points a week, for $27. Matt Stafford has averaged 31 points a week, but only cost $18. Is it worth $9 to sacrifice 7 points at the QB position? Cam Newton has averaged more points than Stafford for $4 less, so clearly Stafford hasn't the best buy at QB. Hasselbeck has averaged 25 points per game for $11; guys like Grossman and Henne have only averaged 20 points per week but only cost $8. Is it worth it to take fewer points at QB if it means you free up that much more money for other positions? Etc. etc.I did this a couple of years ago and it is pretty jacked by lower cost guys. There has to be some sort of factor entered in to show true value instead of straight pts/$.'JamesFFB said:I agree I wonder if any of the database guys have any information on which players are the highest fantasy points/$ per position? Though this might be skewed to the super cheap $2 guys.'QuizGuy66 said:Maybe the reason the smaller rosters are holding together is that there haven't been many low-priced guys that are category killers this year. Be interested to see the correlation between price and performance compared to last year - I bet it's higher this year.-QG

Yea I am rolling with the stellar RB crew of Ingram, Wells, Harrison, Karim, and Powell this week. Hopefully a lot of the smaller roster teams are in bad shape for week 5. Have to hope Ingram gets a TD this week.While I've made the cut quite easily the first 4 weeks, this week will be tough.With BYEs, I'm counting on RBs like Woodhead, Michael Bush, Ben Tate and Deji Karim to do just a little something. Too bad they are all banged up and probably won't play.![]()
The first problem that jumps out to me with this is that the "25%" is an arbitrary number. The 2nd is that indiviual scores are capped at different amounts. Brady's best possible score would be .5926. Let's say Brady finishes top 10 in all 16 games. And McCoy finished top ten in 6 games. His score is .6 which is better than Bradys. Was McCoy really the better selection?Good points. Would something like (the number of top 25% in fantasy points at the position finishes per week)/$ be a better metric? For example for Tom Brady. The top 25% of available QBs (0.25*39) is 9.75 round up to 10. I think he has finished in the top 10 of QB each of the first 4 weeks. So 4/$27 = 0.148.There must be away to look at this mathematically... where did I put that old Probability & Statistics book from my college days?![]()