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!
NUM PK ALL ALIVE SURV% ALL AVG LIVE AVG1 1519 615 40.5% 167.66 176.772 8773 5034 57.4% 174.84 180.683 2552 1638 64.2% 176.44 181.824 305 177 58.0% 173.77 180.415+ 144 40 27.8% 164.05 178.57
We have the average of the teams with 2 kickers and the average with 3 - average of the actual kickers isn't a good metric to look at because it ignores extra value you can accumulate at other positions. Even with that, you are still ignoring that average score is only part of the picture - volatility matters as well. In the elimination weeks, would you rather have a team that scored 180 every week or 360 50% of the time and 0 50% of the time?Luckily the volatility and average score is summarized above in the survival rate. There are potential arguments against it, which I have provided, but you don't seem to be interested in those.
Is this total $ or just starter $? For example my team has Ryan and Locker and Gabbert.Ryan has contribued to 100.75 for me (I've used him 3 weeks). The other 30.15 he scored didn't factor in for me.Locker has contributed 34.40 for me (I used him 1 week).Gabbert has contribued 0.00 for me (Haven't used him at all). -QG
This is "Starter" money only.If your team were the only team in the set, only Locker's 34.4 from the first week would show as a contribution. Any points he scored the subsequent weeks aren't included, because they didn't help your team at all.Again, this is just an arbitrary way of looking at the data.
This contest is so depressing. Only four weeks in, we've already lost almost half the entries that started the contest. For every 30 entries that are currently still happy to be alive, only 1 will survive to the finals. Sure, winning the $20,000 would be nice but there's so much death and destruction left in its wake.
The $35K contest is a pirateBlustering in from seaWith a rollicking song he sweeps alongSwaggering boisterously.His face is weatherbeatenHe wears a hooded sashWith a silver hat about his headAnd a bristling black mustacheHe growls as he storms the countryA villain big and boldAnd the trees all shake and quiver and quakeAs he robs them of their gold.The Autumn wind is a RaiderPillaging just for funHe'll knock you 'round and upside downAnd laugh when he's conquered and won.
This contest is so depressing. Only four weeks in, we've already lost almost half the entries that started the contest. For every 30 entries that are currently still happy to be alive, only 1 will survive to the finals. Sure, winning the $20,000 would be nice but there's so much death and destruction left in its wake.
The $35K contest is a pirateBlustering in from seaWith a rollicking song he sweeps alongSwaggering boisterously.His face is weatherbeatenHe wears a hooded sashWith a silver hat about his headAnd a bristling black mustacheHe growls as he storms the countryA villain big and boldAnd the trees all shake and quiver and quakeAs he robs them of their gold.The Autumn wind is a RaiderPillaging just for funHe'll knock you 'round and upside downAnd laugh when he's conquered and won.
Nicely done! Now it's time for the real blustery winds with the full bye weeks upon us. It will be interesting to see if the cut lines have as big a drop off as last season or not.
NUM PK ALL ALIVE SURV% ALL AVG LIVE AVG1 1519 615 40.5% 167.66 176.772 8773 5034 57.4% 174.84 180.683 2552 1638 64.2% 176.44 181.824 305 177 58.0% 173.77 180.415+ 144 40 27.8% 164.05 178.57
We have the average of the teams with 2 kickers and the average with 3 - average of the actual kickers isn't a good metric to look at because it ignores extra value you can accumulate at other positions. Even with that, you are still ignoring that average score is only part of the picture - volatility matters as well. In the elimination weeks, would you rather have a team that scored 180 every week or 360 50% of the time and 0 50% of the time?Luckily the volatility and average score is summarized above in the survival rate. There are potential arguments against it, which I have provided, but you don't seem to be interested in those.
Average of kicker score may not be the best metric to look at but I'm not sure it's any worse than average team score. The fact is that there is so much cross effect in any specific position analysis that its difficult to make any assertion from the data. It appears that 3 kickers is at least slightly better than 2, but who's to say that the reason is because of the difference in kickers and not because of one of the many other possible differences. A better way, I think, to look at is is to examine by team make up. As in compare the 3 kicker teams to the 2 kicker teams that have the same roster size. That would give you a much clearer picture of the impact of 2 vs 3 kickers as it eliminates a lot of the other variables other than player selection but that should even itself out.Also the 7% difference in survival rate might seem like a lot but its still early and I'd think it'd be well within any possible margin of error.
A better way, I think, to look at is is to examine by team make up. As in compare the 3 kicker teams to the 2 kicker teams that have the same roster size. That would give you a much clearer picture of the impact of 2 vs 3 kickers as it eliminates a lot of the other variables other than player selection but that should even itself out.
Good idea. Eventually we'll probably break down and do a full-blown GLM or something, but for now I'm trying to stick with these one- and two-way analyses. So for kickers:
The first two tables show the counts of all teams and still-alive teams, respectively, broken out by total roster size and number of kickers. The third table shows the survival rates. The fourth and fifth tables show the average total weekly scores for all teams and still-alive teams.So just eyeballing these tables, we might come to the interesting conclusion that if you're sticking with a small (18 or 19) roster, then you're better off with just 2 kickers. Adding a third kicker presumably leaves you too thin at the more important positions. If you go with a larger roster, then adding a third kicker appears to be a good idea.
Also, I'm not avoiding posting the individual position scoring, I just don't store that data in a way that makes it easy to get. That's at the top of the list of things to add to my DB.
I like this breakdown. I'm in a similar boat with Palmer even though he hasn't been as bad as Freeman.Every week Starters:
[*]RB: Lynch ($19)
Dead weight: (Meaning never used)
[*]QB: Palmer ($15)
[*]RB: Hillis ($15)
[*]RB: Blount ($6)
[*]RB: Vereen ($6)
[*]RB: Powell ($4)
[*]RB: Dwyer ($4)
[*]RB: Royster ($3)
[*]WR: S.Smith ($5)
[*]TE: Z.Miller ($6)
[*]PK: Lindell($3)
Usage: (Meaning I have used the players at least once to contribute to my score)
[*]QB: 2 of 3 used ($15 wasted out of $30)
[*]RB: 3 of 9 used ($23 wasted out of $75)
[*]WR: 7 of 8 used ($5 wasted out of $93)
[*]TE: 3 of 4 used ($6 wasted out of $32)
[*]PK: 2 of 3 used ($3 wasted out of $9)
[*]TD: 3 of 3 used
[*]OVERALL: 20 of 30 used to date ($52 wasted to date)
Really happy with Flacco, Daniels, and Olsen. Andre Roberts was the best $3 I've ever spent even though he hasn't been critical yet. Still have hope for Zach Miller whenever they give up on Russell Wilson. I thought switching out Heath Miller for Zach Miller was a shark move when Winslow was dropped
A better way, I think, to look at is is to examine by team make up. As in compare the 3 kicker teams to the 2 kicker teams that have the same roster size. That would give you a much clearer picture of the impact of 2 vs 3 kickers as it eliminates a lot of the other variables other than player selection but that should even itself out.
Good idea. Eventually we'll probably break down and do a full-blown GLM or something, but for now I'm trying to stick with these one- and two-way analyses. So for kickers:
The first two tables show the counts of all teams and still-alive teams, respectively, broken out by total roster size and number of kickers. The third table shows the survival rates. The fourth and fifth tables show the average total weekly scores for all teams and still-alive teams.So just eyeballing these tables, we might come to the interesting conclusion that if you're sticking with a small (18 or 19) roster, then you're better off with just 2 kickers. Adding a third kicker presumably leaves you too thin at the more important positions. If you go with a larger roster, then adding a third kicker appears to be a good idea.
Thanks Iggy, great stuff here...One, I love that we're doing all this analysis for some freaking kickers.Two, I agree with your conclusion that the ideal number of kickers is dependant on the size of your roster. It seems that 21 or 22 is the cross over point where it at least makes sense to consider a 3rd kicker. And 25 or higher you should almost certainly roster a 3rd. One interesting thing is that for rosters sizes 22, 24, 25, and 26, having a 4th Kicker actually increased your average score but decreased your survival percent!
maybe just a little simple way to get a snapshot of the value would be to compare the list we used to draft with with the current ranking based on points...?for instance Rodgers was the highest priced QB but right now he ranks______ in this contest scoring wise at QB?not very scientific but a snapshot....is there a way to see the original draft sheet....?....can somebody post a link if they have one.....?....original costs, etc....and is there a way to see where each player is ranked right now based on points scored...?
Here's a big table with every player, their cost, their weekly points, their season total points, the number of entries they were on and the number of live entries they're on. As others have pointed out, simple points per dollar isn't a very useful metric, but here's the raw data to do with as you please:
One interesting thing is that for rosters sizes 22, 24, 25, and 26, having a 4th Kicker actually increased your average score but decreased your survival percent!
Ok so here are my numbers in regards to the "Bang for you Buck" question,
what I did was take the average score that counted for each position (note these are for teams that are alive as of now only, I'm too lazy to go back and add the ones that were eliminated back in) and come up with a Value above average for each player for each week. I then added them and divided by cost to get a value.
For example here is Matt Ryan,
Week 1 he scored 9.14 pts above the average starting QB, .58 points less in week2, 1.84 pts less in week3 and .14 less in week 4. Thats a total of 6.58 points average average at a cost of $19 makes him the "greatest value" at qb with .35 points per dollar spent.
For RB, WR and TE, I used the average flex score as the baseline.
I don't agree with this. How are Brady and Newton better buys then Fitzpatrick and Flacco. Flacco and Fitzpatrick both cost $11 and have both outscored Newton and are within a point or 2 of Brady and they cost $17 less. To me Fitzpatrick and Flacco are 2 of the best buys at qb.
I think it's important to clarify what we're looking for - are we looking for the players that give us the best chance to survive for the whole season? Or the best chance to put up the highest point total in a one- or three-week span? What "value" are we trying to pin down here?How would you interpret the above results? Are these the guys that will get you to the final 250, or the guys that will win you the money if you get there? If we're talking survival, I still think we're overcomplicating it to an extent. There are a zillion interactions and survival rate presumably already captures them in as simple a way we could ask for. Newton may be scoring some amount over average but teams with Newton are surviving at a rate (45.8%) much lower than average (56.5%). I assume this is because he cost $28 and had a one really bad week out of three elimination weeks. The other two weeks were really good, so on average he comes out ahead of most other QBs, but that one bad week sunk a lot of teams. So I wouldn't say Newton owners have necessarily gotten the bang for their buck. A guy like Flacco has scored just about the same number of points as Newton over the past three weeks, but Flacco owners have survived at a much better rate - because Flacco was only $11. If we're talking "bang for your buck" I have a hard time with a metric that puts Newton in the top five ahead of Flacco.
I agree that marginal chances of survival are what we're trying to measure, but you'd have to set up dummy variables for each guy, include roster size and composition and then run it against survival percentage.
It would be most interesting to compare the 18s with 2 TDs to the 19s with 3 TDs as well as the 18s with 2 TDs to the 19s with 3 TDs. Maybe compare the 18s with 2/2 to the 20s with 3/3.Personally, I'm a 30 player team all the way, but if I was to go small roster, I don't see how you don't spend a few more bucks and go 3/3 or 4/4. There ARE points to be had and they're very cheap. When you're going for max roster you have to be more concerned about losing the roster spots than the $3 per kicker or TD.ETA: I see from the chart a few posts back that the 18 with 2 K it out surviving the 19 with 3 K. Strange. Although those that are still alive, the 19-3 teams are outscoring the 18-2 by half a point.
I don't agree with this. How are Brady and Newton better buys then Fitzpatrick and Flacco. Flacco and Fitzpatrick both cost $11 and have both outscored Newton and are within a point or 2 of Brady and they cost $17 less. To me Fitzpatrick and Flacco are 2 of the best buys at qb.
This is a good point. Thinking about this, I take back my whole analysis because it gives an unfair advantage to higher cost players. Namely, most players score below the average starter in this analysis (since only really the very best QB scores count each week), which means they have mostly negative values here. And since I'm dividing by cost, I get a smaller negative value for higher cost players. for example, if 2 players score 10 points below average, the one that costs $10 gets a score of -1, the one that costs $20 gets a score of -.5. Thus rewarding a higher cost player for underperforming. So please disregard my post until I can think of a way to factor this out of the equation.Thanks again.
I think it's important to clarify what we're looking for - are we looking for the players that give us the best chance to survive for the whole season? Or the best chance to put up the highest point total in a one- or three-week span? What "value" are we trying to pin down here?How would you interpret the above results? Are these the guys that will get you to the final 250, or the guys that will win you the money if you get there? If we're talking survival, I still think we're overcomplicating it to an extent. There are a zillion interactions and survival rate presumably already captures them in as simple a way we could ask for. Newton may be scoring some amount over average but teams with Newton are surviving at a rate (45.8%) much lower than average (56.5%). I assume this is because he cost $28 and had a one really bad week out of three elimination weeks. The other two weeks were really good, so on average he comes out ahead of most other QBs, but that one bad week sunk a lot of teams. So I wouldn't say Newton owners have necessarily gotten the bang for their buck. A guy like Flacco has scored just about the same number of points as Newton over the past three weeks, but Flacco owners have survived at a much better rate - because Flacco was only $11. If we're talking "bang for your buck" I have a hard time with a metric that puts Newton in the top five ahead of Flacco.
see my post above, i now realize the analysis is deeply flawed...but to answer your questions anyway...I think the analysis was aimed as surviving not getting the highest score. I'd interpret the results (if they were correct) as players who have outproduced their cost, and thus would be valuable commodities on your team.
A better way, I think, to look at is is to examine by team make up. As in compare the 3 kicker teams to the 2 kicker teams that have the same roster size. That would give you a much clearer picture of the impact of 2 vs 3 kickers as it eliminates a lot of the other variables other than player selection but that should even itself out.
Good idea. Eventually we'll probably break down and do a full-blown GLM or something, but for now I'm trying to stick with these one- and two-way analyses. So for kickers:
The first two tables show the counts of all teams and still-alive teams, respectively, broken out by total roster size and number of kickers. The third table shows the survival rates. The fourth and fifth tables show the average total weekly scores for all teams and still-alive teams.So just eyeballing these tables, we might come to the interesting conclusion that if you're sticking with a small (18 or 19) roster, then you're better off with just 2 kickers. Adding a third kicker presumably leaves you too thin at the more important positions. If you go with a larger roster, then adding a third kicker appears to be a good idea.
I think this clearly shows that the optimal roster configuration is to go with 29 players and only 1 kicker.That and its amazing that there are 10 rosters still alive that have only 18 players and 5 or more of that 18 are kickers.
I don't agree with this. How are Brady and Newton better buys then Fitzpatrick and Flacco. Flacco and Fitzpatrick both cost $11 and have both outscored Newton and are within a point or 2 of Brady and they cost $17 less. To me Fitzpatrick and Flacco are 2 of the best buys at qb.
This is a good point. Thinking about this, I take back my whole analysis because it gives an unfair advantage to higher cost players. Namely, most players score below the average starter in this analysis (since only really the very best QB scores count each week), which means they have mostly negative values here. And since I'm dividing by cost, I get a smaller negative value for higher cost players. for example, if 2 players score 10 points below average, the one that costs $10 gets a score of -1, the one that costs $20 gets a score of -.5. Thus rewarding a higher cost player for underperforming. So please disregard my post until I can think of a way to factor this out of the equation.Thanks again.
I don't agree with this. How are Brady and Newton better buys then Fitzpatrick and Flacco. Flacco and Fitzpatrick both cost $11 and have both outscored Newton and are within a point or 2 of Brady and they cost $17 less. To me Fitzpatrick and Flacco are 2 of the best buys at qb.
This is a good point. Thinking about this, I take back my whole analysis because it gives an unfair advantage to higher cost players. Namely, most players score below the average starter in this analysis (since only really the very best QB scores count each week), which means they have mostly negative values here. And since I'm dividing by cost, I get a smaller negative value for higher cost players. for example, if 2 players score 10 points below average, the one that costs $10 gets a score of -1, the one that costs $20 gets a score of -.5. Thus rewarding a higher cost player for underperforming. So please disregard my post until I can think of a way to factor this out of the equation.Thanks again.
I was going to do this, but most players score below the baseline most of the time so they'll be 0. I could change the baseline from average score to say 75th percentile. I guess the best way would be to change the baseline weekly to the % that gets cut that week...
I think we'd need to incorporate some measure of consistency then. From a survival standpoint, a guy who is +5 above average for four straight weeks is probably better than a guy that goes +20 for two weeks and -10 for two weeks. You need to be above the cutline, but it doesn't matter how high above the cutline you are. You just can't dip below. The second guy might be more useful in the finals, though, as you need those +20 weeks to vault you to the top of the standings.
I think we'd need to incorporate some measure of consistency then. From a survival standpoint, a guy who is +5 above average for four straight weeks is probably better than a guy that goes +20 for two weeks and -10 for two weeks. You need to be above the cutline, but it doesn't matter how high above the cutline you are. You just can't dip below. The second guy might be more useful in the finals, though, as you need those +20 weeks to vault you to the top of the standings.
Another good point. Perhaps score * % above base line. So in your example, player A has score of 20 (20 pts above baseline * 100%) while player B has score 10 (20 points above baseline * 50%)?
(ETA: I was writing this before your latest post, Modog, so don't take this to refer to the last set of values you just posted.)
I still think we might be doing a lot of work for very little insight, though. Going back to the Newton/Flacco comparison, we can just eyeball the table of player scores and guess that $11 Flacco has probably provided more "value" than $28 Newton. So we try to devise metrics that pick up on this, but we already have one - survival rate of teams with those players. Flacco owners have survived at a much greater rate than Newton owners, which is what we would guess would happen when you have two players that have performed about the same but one costs 2.5 times as much as the other.
Let's leave out week 1 results since there were no eliminations that week anyway. If I take a totally unscientific approach and just go with my gut after looking at the table of QB results, I'd say the best values so far (in no particular order, other than alphabetical) have been:
$14 Andy Dalton
$29 Drew Brees
$21 Eli Manning
$11 Joe Flacco
$7 Kevin Kolb
$19 Matt Ryan
$17 RG III
$11 Ryan Fitzpatrick
They've all put up pretty good points, but perhaps more importantly they haven't had one of those bad weeks yet that could sink you.
I really just did that without looking at any other stats. Now to keep myself honest I'll pull up the survival rates:
Flacco, Ryan, Fitz, and Brees are four of the top five QBs in survival percentage (Locker is 4th). Manning owners are surviving at a rate just a tick above average. Dalton, Kolb, and Griffin owners are all surviving at a lower than average rate (though there are only like 23 Kolb owners, so just one or two teams moving from "eliminated" to "alive" would cause a huge swing in this percentage).
So maybe simple survival rate doesn't adequately capture QB value. I'm actually quite surprised to see how low Dalton and RG III owners are in survival rate. Dalton is also relatively uncommon (only 282 owners to start the contest) but I think he's certainly performed well enough to not be the reason his owners are getting knocked off. Same with Griffin, though he's much more commonly owned. I'm very interested to look into this a little more and see why guys like Flacco and Fitz are exhibiting high survival rates while Dalton's (and to a lesser extent, Griffin's) are so low.
Can it simply be that Flacco/Fitz owners had an extra $3-6 to spend over the Dalton/Griffin owners, which is putting them over the top? It's possible that people who splurged on a "stud" QB were more often looking in the $11 range for a backup, so they're more likely to take Flacco or Fitz than the higher-priced Dalton or Griffin, but again, all of these guys have performed well enough over the past three weeks to not be a problem for their owners, so I have a hard time believing that's what's going on here.
I feel like whatever metric we come up with has to capture the fact that most of the high-priced "studs" aren't living up to their price (so a guy like Brady probably shouldn't end up near the top), has to capture the fact that cheaper guys like Flacco and Fitz are putting up stud-like points over the past few weeks and have the survival rates to show for it, but also has to capture the fact that cheaper guys like Dalton are also putting up stud-like points but for whatever reason don't have the survival rates to show for it.
but also has to capture the fact that cheaper guys like Dalton are also putting up stud-like points but for whatever reason don't have the survival rates to show for it. Hmm...
I was just kind of looking to see who has outperformed their cost and who has underperformed their cost to this point.....not even how it really relates to "surviving"....
I looked at their "cost" as being like their ADP or drafted slot so to speak....it's pretty easy to just kind of see this in general, but I thought since there is an actual dollar figure attached to each player that there might be some way to see actual "value"...and how valuable one player has been compared to another just based on points alone, not "surviving"...
obviously guys like Andre Roberts, Amendola, etc seem to be giving you more than what you actually paid for, I just didn't know if there was a formula that could accurately put it in comparison to all other players....
I think what Broadway G did ws kind of it....Rodgers was priced as the QB1....but total points wise he is playing at QB12.....
but also has to capture the fact that cheaper guys like Dalton are also putting up stud-like points but for whatever reason don't have the survival rates to show for it. Hmm...
Anyway perhaps most of the people who picked Dalton has him backing up a more expensive QB and the total $ invested at the QB position is what's hurting their survival rate?-QG
Dalton and Griffin are more likely to be found on smaller rosters, while Fitz and Flacco are more likely to be found on larger rosters. So Dalton and Griffin owners are doing worse than Fitz and Flacco owners not because Dalton or Griffin have done any worse than Flacco or Fitz, but simply because they have a smaller roster. So you could argue it really is simply related to the fact that Fitz and Flacco are a few bucks cheaper than Dalton and Griffin.
NUM PK ALL ALIVE SURV% ALL AVG LIVE AVG1 1519 615 40.5% 167.66 176.772 8773 5034 57.4% 174.84 180.683 2552 1638 64.2% 176.44 181.824 305 177 58.0% 173.77 180.415+ 144 40 27.8% 164.05 178.57We have the average of the teams with 2 kickers and the average with 3 - average of the actual kickers isn't a good metric to look at because it ignores extra value you can accumulate at other positions. Even with that, you are still ignoring that average score is only part of the picture - volatility matters as well. In the elimination weeks, would you rather have a team that scored 180 every week or 360 50% of the time and 0 50% of the time?
Luckily the volatility and average score is summarized above in the survival rate. There are potential arguments against it, which I have provided, but you don't seem to be interested in those.
Average of kicker score may not be the best metric to look at but I'm not sure it's any worse than average team score. The fact is that there is so much cross effect in any specific position analysis that its difficult to make any assertion from the data. It appears that 3 kickers is at least slightly better than 2, but who's to say that the reason is because of the difference in kickers and not because of one of the many other possible differences. A better way, I think, to look at is is to examine by team make up. As in compare the 3 kicker teams to the 2 kicker teams that have the same roster size. That would give you a much clearer picture of the impact of 2 vs 3 kickers as it eliminates a lot of the other variables other than player selection but that should even itself out.
Also the 7% difference in survival rate might seem like a lot but its still early and I'd think it'd be well within any possible margin of error.
These are acceptable considerations. I actually provided potential arguments against this being conclusive, but someone wasn't willing to use one of those in support of his claims. The only way you can say that actual kicker score is a better measure than team score in the 2 kicker vs. 3 kicker debate is that the samples are skewed by the selection of other components. Because assuming similar values per kicker, the 2 kicker teams should have more money to spend elsewhere. And the only rationale for 2 kickers being better at this point is if there is only a negligible increase in kicker scoring for 3 and this is outweighed elsewhere. Effectively, a lot of people picking 2 kickers also are not very good at picking the rest of their team. To be clear: this is not saying that 2 kickers is not optimal - it may very well be - just that because so many people are picking 2 kickers there are a lot of junk entries included in the 2 kicker sample. Which is something I mentioned as a possible argument on the last page of the thread.
So I can appreciate that the conclusion is not confirmed, but the thought process going into supporting 2 kickers was off in some responses by others.
Going back to the Newton/Flacco comparison, we can just eyeball the table of player scores and guess that $11 Flacco has probably provided more "value" than $28 Newton. So we try to devise metrics that pick up on this, but we already have one - survival rate of teams with those players. Flacco owners have survived at a much greater rate than Newton owners, which is what we would guess would happen when you have two players that have performed about the same but one costs 2.5 times as much as the other.
I don't have much of a problem with Newton ranking ahead of Flacco. Newtons outscored Flacco in 2 of the 3 elimination weeks so far, and in the one he didn't, Flacco's score was good (35.4), but it's a week where Ryan, Locker, Luck, Schaub, RGIII, Ponder, Roethlisberger, and Dalton all went for 30+ as well. So his value for the week was really diminished because of this.
So maybe simple survival rate doesn't adequately capture QB value. I'm actually quite surprised to see how low Dalton and RG III owners are in survival rate. Dalton is also relatively uncommon (only 282 owners to start the contest) but I think he's certainly performed well enough to not be the reason his owners are getting knocked off. Same with Griffin, though he's much more commonly owned. I'm very interested to look into this a little more and see why guys like Flacco and Fitz are exhibiting high survival rates while Dalton's (and to a lesser extent, Griffin's) are so low.
Can it simply be that Flacco/Fitz owners had an extra $3-6 to spend over the Dalton/Griffin owners, which is putting them over the top? It's possible that people who splurged on a "stud" QB were more often looking in the $11 range for a backup, so they're more likely to take Flacco or Fitz than the higher-priced Dalton or Griffin, but again, all of these guys have performed well enough over the past three weeks to not be a problem for their owners, so I have a hard time believing that's what's going on here.
I think the problem with survival rates is that it's TOO all inclusive. You're assigning a team result to an individual without regard to other factors. Now I know, by selecting someone like Flacco instead of Newton you save money to spend elsewhere, but there's not way to quantify how much of the survival percentage is because of this, and how much is do to other possible reasons totally unrelated to QB selection.
I feel like whatever metric we come up with has to capture the fact that most of the high-priced "studs" aren't living up to their price (so a guy like Brady probably shouldn't end up near the top), has to capture the fact that cheaper guys like Flacco and Fitz are putting up stud-like points over the past few weeks and have the survival rates to show for it, but also has to capture the fact that cheaper guys like Dalton are also putting up stud-like points but for whatever reason don't have the survival rates to show for it.
I agree that the "studs" haven't lived up to their prices yet (at least QB's). It's just another piece of evidence that shows that just because it's happened last year (or the year before or the year before that) doesn't mean that it's the only way it could happen.
These are acceptable considerations. I actually provided potential arguments against this being conclusive, but someone wasn't willing to use one of those in support of his claims. The only way you can say that actual kicker score is a better measure than team score in the 2 kicker vs. 3 kicker debate is that the samples are skewed by the selection of other components. Because assuming similar values per kicker, the 2 kicker teams should have more money to spend elsewhere. And the only rationale for 2 kickers being better at this point is if there is only a negligible increase in kicker scoring for 3 and this is outweighed elsewhere. Effectively, a lot of people picking 2 kickers also are not very good at picking the rest of their team. To be clear: this is not saying that 2 kickers is not optimal - it may very well be - just that because so many people are picking 2 kickers there are a lot of junk entries included in the 2 kicker sample. Which is something I mentioned as a possible argument on the last page of the thread.So I can appreciate that the conclusion is not confirmed, but the thought process going into supporting 2 kickers was off in some responses by others.
but also has to capture the fact that cheaper guys like Dalton are also putting up stud-like points but for whatever reason don't have the survival rates to show for it. Hmm...
Anyway perhaps most of the people who picked Dalton has him backing up a more expensive QB and the total $ invested at the QB position is what's hurting their survival rate?-QG
but also has to capture the fact that cheaper guys like Dalton are also putting up stud-like points but for whatever reason don't have the survival rates to show for it. Hmm...
Anyway perhaps most of the people who picked Dalton has him backing up a more expensive QB and the total $ invested at the QB position is what's hurting their survival rate?-QG
Man, you guys are getting really deep here. I have to confess that I've just scanned posts since my last one. Too much information for me to process. All I know is that no one has contributed all 4 weeks; only Blackmon, Britt, and Driver have yet to contribute at all. And I'm still alive.
As for LHUCKS' question about the odds of Tannehill contributing over Stafford, granted it's a small sample size, but this year it appears to be 50%.
Going back to the Newton/Flacco comparison, we can just eyeball the table of player scores and guess that $11 Flacco has probably provided more "value" than $28 Newton. So we try to devise metrics that pick up on this, but we already have one - survival rate of teams with those players. Flacco owners have survived at a much greater rate than Newton owners, which is what we would guess would happen when you have two players that have performed about the same but one costs 2.5 times as much as the other.
I don't have much of a problem with Newton ranking ahead of Flacco. Newtons outscored Flacco in 2 of the 3 elimination weeks so far, and in the one he didn't, Flacco's score was good (35.4), but it's a week where Ryan, Locker, Luck, Schaub, RGIII, Ponder, Roethlisberger, and Dalton all went for 30+ as well. So his value for the week was really diminished because of this.
So maybe simple survival rate doesn't adequately capture QB value. I'm actually quite surprised to see how low Dalton and RG III owners are in survival rate. Dalton is also relatively uncommon (only 282 owners to start the contest) but I think he's certainly performed well enough to not be the reason his owners are getting knocked off. Same with Griffin, though he's much more commonly owned. I'm very interested to look into this a little more and see why guys like Flacco and Fitz are exhibiting high survival rates while Dalton's (and to a lesser extent, Griffin's) are so low.
Can it simply be that Flacco/Fitz owners had an extra $3-6 to spend over the Dalton/Griffin owners, which is putting them over the top? It's possible that people who splurged on a "stud" QB were more often looking in the $11 range for a backup, so they're more likely to take Flacco or Fitz than the higher-priced Dalton or Griffin, but again, all of these guys have performed well enough over the past three weeks to not be a problem for their owners, so I have a hard time believing that's what's going on here.
I think the problem with survival rates is that it's TOO all inclusive. You're assigning a team result to an individual without regard to other factors. Now I know, by selecting someone like Flacco instead of Newton you save money to spend elsewhere, but there's not way to quantify how much of the survival percentage is because of this, and how much is do to other possible reasons totally unrelated to QB selection.
I feel like whatever metric we come up with has to capture the fact that most of the high-priced "studs" aren't living up to their price (so a guy like Brady probably shouldn't end up near the top), has to capture the fact that cheaper guys like Flacco and Fitz are putting up stud-like points over the past few weeks and have the survival rates to show for it, but also has to capture the fact that cheaper guys like Dalton are also putting up stud-like points but for whatever reason don't have the survival rates to show for it.
I agree that the "studs" haven't lived up to their prices yet (at least QB's). It's just another piece of evidence that shows that just because it's happened last year (or the year before or the year before that) doesn't mean that it's the only way it could happen.
One of the biggest problems we have right now is sample size. The thing with the bolded argument above is Newton scored 12 points that week and your saying 9 other Qbs scored 30+. To me that is a huge issue. The rest of your team is now responsible for making up 20+ points that you lost at QB. I would rather have a QB that is a constant 24 points a week for the first 13 weeks then someone who has 35 one week and 12 the next. Those 12 point weeks will kill you, especially if a third of the qb field scored 20 more points then your qb. But in the last 3 weeks you want that qb who can bust out almost a 40 point week because that is how you win in the end. It kind of comes back to are you building a team to make the finals or a team that is more boom or bust, but could win in the finals. Me personally I took Stafford and Flacco. A lot of people would argue I have too much invested in my Qb's, $38. But the reason I took the two of them is I expect Stafford to have some huge weeks and Flacco to have a steady average of around 20 - 25 points a week. So far Stafford has been a bust and Flacco has been saving me, so what do I know. I have a small roster where I tried to take safe guys or boom guys. I doubt I will make it thru the first 13 weeks, but if I do I feel like I have enough guys with good upside to do some damage, hopefully the safe guys of the world like Flacco can get me there.
I don't have much of a problem with Newton ranking ahead of Flacco. Newtons outscored Flacco in 2 of the 3 elimination weeks so far, and in the one he didn't, Flacco's score was good (35.4), but it's a week where Ryan, Locker, Luck, Schaub, RGIII, Ponder, Roethlisberger, and Dalton all went for 30+ as well. So his value for the week was really diminished because of this.
First, I'd say "good" is an understatement for Flacco's 35.4 score. It was the third-highest QB score that week. Pointing out that 8 other QBs also put up 30+ says way more about Newton's value that week than it does about Flacco's. Newton was was the 24th best QB with a total of 12.70. When you only spend $11 on a QB, you expect and can afford for him to occasionally put up a stinker like that, either because you have other capable QBs on your roster or you're better at the other skill positions. When you drop $28 on a QB, you can't really afford for him to disappear like that. That's where the "value" or "bang for your buck" part comes in - comparing Newton's and Flacco's production is meaningless unless you somehow factor in that Newton costs 2.5 times as much as Flacco.
I think the problem with survival rates is that it's TOO all inclusive. You're assigning a team result to an individual without regard to other factors. Now I know, by selecting someone like Flacco instead of Newton you save money to spend elsewhere, but there's not way to quantify how much of the survival percentage is because of this, and how much is do to other possible reasons totally unrelated to QB selection.
This is true, of course. For all intents and purposes, though, it's impossible to separate QB value from the many other factors that affect survival. Flacco owners have survived at a 63% clip - that's partly due to Flacco's performance this year, partly due to the fact that Flacco's price allowed his owners to spend more at other positions (either by buying more players or "better" players), and partly due to things wholly unrelated to choosing Flacco. But I'm making the simplifying assumption that those things that are unrelated to QB selection are going to (roughly) even out in the wash. There are things affecting Newton owners' survival rate that have nothing to do with Newton, and things affecting Brees owners' survival rate that have nothing to do with Brees, etc. We'll never be able to extricate all the individual components, and if we did we might end up with nonsenical results when we roll them all back up (e.g. optimal strategy dictates a 37-man roster costing $400). I think when we look at overall survival rate, it gives us a good (not perfect) snapshot of the relative value the players have provided to their teams. Flacco owners have survived better than Newton owners, partly because Flacco vastly outproduced Newton in a week when QB scoring was high across the board, but also partly because Flacco owners had an extra $17 to spend, and partly because of __________? I don't know that whatever goes in that blank is vastly different for Flacco owners and owners of other QBs. So I think if we're trying to nail down QB "value", survival rates do a decent job of illustrating overall value - not just in terms of point production, but in the other options that come along with selecting each QB.
One of the biggest problems we have right now is sample size. The thing with the bolded argument above is Newton scored 12 points that week and your saying 9 other Qbs scored 30+. To me that is a huge issue. The rest of your team is now responsible for making up 20+ points that you lost at QB.
The idea is that you have another QB other than Newton. And it isn't so much that 9 other QB's scored 30+ as much as which 9 other QB's scored 30+. Players like Luck, Ponder, Griffin ect are players that are likely to be paired with more "studly" QB's. It should diminish what Flacco gives you that week because a lot of other QB's gave you similar production. So you don't need to make up 20 points at QB, because it's likely that your team benefited from this "backup" qbs.
I would rather have a QB that is a constant 24 points a week for the first 13 weeks then someone who has 35 one week and 12 the next. Those 12 point weeks will kill you, especially if a third of the qb field scored 20 more points then your qb. But in the last 3 weeks you want that qb who can bust out almost a 40 point week because that is how you win in the end. It kind of comes back to are you building a team to make the finals or a team that is more boom or bust, but could win in the finals.
Not sure your point. Flacco had a 16 point week. Sure it's more than 12, but it's not like Flacco is putting up 20-25+ every week either. Volatility is there for every QB.
But the reason I took the two of them is I expect Stafford to have some huge weeks and Flacco to have a steady average of around 20 - 25 points a week.
So far Stafford has been a bust and Flacco has been saving me, so what do I know. I have a small roster where I tried to take safe guys or boom guys. I doubt I will make it thru the first 13 weeks, but if I do I feel like I have enough guys with good upside to do some damage, hopefully the safe guys of the world like Flacco can get me there.
Maybe, I'm missing your point because I don't really see one (not trying to be a jerk, really I just don't see what you're getting at here). All I said was that I don't have a problem with Newton being ranked (in terms of value) ahead of Flacco because a) they both have had 2 good weeks in elimination weeks and 1 sub 20 point week, and b) in Flacco's best week, he wasn't that "valuable" despite his high score, because there were several other low cost alternatives that produced similiarly, and many of them were probably paired with the high cost studs. That's not the case in either of Newtons 2 good weeks. I guess my point is that you took Flacco as your "safe" QB in case of your stud qb faltering. In that particular week, his value isn't very high because alot of "safe" QB's produced equally. The sample size is indeed small, but as of right not it's all we have to work with. Will the results change, absolutely.
I think when we look at overall survival rate, it gives us a good (not perfect) snapshot of the relative value the players have provided to their teams. Flacco owners have survived better than Newton owners, partly because Flacco vastly outproduced Newton in a week when QB scoring was high across the board, but also partly because Flacco owners had an extra $17 to spend, and partly because of __________? I don't know that whatever goes in that blank is vastly different for Flacco owners and owners of other QBs. So I think if we're trying to nail down QB "value", survival rates do a decent job of illustrating overall value - not just in terms of point production, but in the other options that come along with selecting each QB.
I was just kind of looking to see who has outperformed their cost and who has underperformed their cost to this point.....not even how it really relates to "surviving"....I looked at their "cost" as being like their ADP or drafted slot so to speak....it's pretty easy to just kind of see this in general, but I thought since there is an actual dollar figure attached to each player that there might be some way to see actual "value"...and how valuable one player has been compared to another just based on points alone, not "surviving"...obviously guys like Andre Roberts, Amendola, etc seem to be giving you more than what you actually paid for, I just didn't know if there was a formula that could accurately put it in comparison to all other players....I think what Broadway G did ws kind of it....Rodgers was priced as the QB1....but total points wise he is playing at QB12.....thanks for all your guys work....
I was interested in this too after reading your post, so I copied BroadwayG's numbers and compared each player's actual performance vs. their "ADP" (based on cost). I used PPG (only for bye weeks) as I felt it gave a more accurate portrayal than total points. This is sorted by the players who have outperformed their ADP (cost) the most to least. Players that are closest to zero in difference are performing about where they were expected to, based on cost.Thanks to BroadwayG for the numbers to start from.QB:
POS PLAYER PRICE PPG ADP ACTUAL DIFF1_QB Ryan Fitzpatrick $11 27.79 QB20 QB5 151_QB Joe Flacco $11 26.51 QB20 QB7 131_QB Kevin Kolb $7 21.28 QB29 QB16 131_QB Robert Griffin I $17 31.18 QB13 QB2 111_QB Matt Ryan $19 32.73 QB10 QB1 91_QB Andy Dalton $14 26.29 QB17 QB8 91_QB Andrew Luck $11 24.10 QB20 QB12 81_QB Ben Roethlisberg $18 30.80 QB11 QB4 71_QB Ryan Tannehill $4 14.98 QB37 QB30 71_QB Matt Cassel $9 19.90 QB24 QB18 61_QB Blaine Gabbert $6 16.20 QB32 QB26 61_QB Matt Hasselbeck $3 5.03 QB38 QB32 61_QB Christian Ponder $9 18.95 QB24 QB20 41_QB Matt Schaub $13 21.74 QB18 QB15 31_QB Tarvaris Jackson $3 0.00 QB38 QB36 21_QB Peyton Manning $18 25.05 QB11 QB10 11_QB Mark Sanchez $7 15.76 QB29 QB28 11_QB Chad Henne $5 0.29 QB36 QB35 11_QB Drew Brees $29 30.85 QB3 QB3 01_QB Eli Manning $21 25.08 QB8 QB9 -11_QB Carson Palmer $15 20.31 QB16 QB17 -11_QB Jake Locker $9 16.44 QB24 QB25 -11_QB Tim Tebow $6 0.94 QB32 QB34 -21_QB Alex Smith $12 18.25 QB19 QB22 -31_QB Tom Brady $30 27.11 QB2 QB6 -41_QB Brandon Weeden $8 14.24 QB27 QB31 -41_QB John Skelton $7 1.41 QB29 QB33 -41_QB David Garrard $6 0.00 QB32 QB36 -41_QB Matt Moore $6 0.00 QB32 QB36 -41_QB Sam Bradford $10 15.64 QB23 QB29 -61_QB Cam Newton $28 24.84 QB4 QB11 -71_QB Michael Vick $22 22.40 QB7 QB14 -71_QB Matt Flynn $8 0.00 QB27 QB36 -91_QB Jay Cutler $17 16.61 QB13 QB24 -111_QB Aaron Rodgers $31 23.58 QB1 QB13 -121_QB Josh Freeman $16 15.93 QB15 QB27 -121_QB Matthew Stafford $26 19.75 QB5 QB19 -141_QB Tony Romo $20 18.13 QB9 QB23 -141_QB Philip Rivers $23 18.44 QB6 QB21 -15
RB:
POS PLAYER PRICE PPG ADP ACTUAL DIFF2_RB Jackie Battle $2 12.13 RB81 RB19 622_RB Cedric Benson $3 12.10 RB72 RB20 522_RB James Casey $2 6.55 RB81 RB39 422_RB Ronnie Brown $2 5.88 RB81 RB41 402_RB Dexter McCluster $3 7.58 RB72 RB34 382_RB Lance Ball $2 4.18 RB81 RB53 282_RB C.J. Spiller $15 19.75 RB31 RB4 272_RB Mike Tolbert $4 6.73 RB62 RB38 242_RB Lamar Miller $3 4.65 RB72 RB48 242_RB Danny Woodhead $5 6.90 RB60 RB37 232_RB Michael Bush $10 10.40 RB41 RB22 192_RB Willis McGahee $16 15.88 RB28 RB11 172_RB Stevan Ridley $16 15.50 RB28 RB12 162_RB Evan Royster $3 3.60 RB72 RB56 162_RB Pierre Thomas $10 9.03 RB41 RB26 152_RB Mikel Leshoure $9 8.43 RB44 RB30 142_RB Jason Snelling $2 2.08 RB81 RB67 142_RB Marshawn Lynch $19 16.58 RB20 RB7 132_RB Jonathan Dwyer $4 4.47 RB62 RB49 132_RB Ben Tate $12 9.38 RB37 RB25 122_RB Brian Leonard $2 1.23 RB81 RB69 122_RB Marcel Reece $6 6.20 RB51 RB40 112_RB Justin Forsett $2 0.88 RB81 RB70 112_RB Reggie Bush $20 16.53 RB18 RB8 102_RB Jacquizz Rodgers $10 8.33 RB41 RB31 102_RB Bilal Powell $4 4.23 RB62 RB52 102_RB Bernard Pierce $3 2.70 RB72 RB62 102_RB Kendall Hunter $6 5.83 RB51 RB42 92_RB Kevin Smith $12 8.53 RB37 RB29 82_RB LaRod Stephens-H $3 2.38 RB72 RB64 82_RB Jamaal Charles $24 20.30 RB10 RB3 72_RB Michael Turner $18 14.15 RB23 RB16 72_RB BenJarvus Green- $17 12.80 RB25 RB18 72_RB Mike Goodson $6 5.70 RB51 RB44 72_RB Frank Gore $19 15.13 RB20 RB14 62_RB DeAngelo William $15 8.93 RB31 RB27 42_RB Maurice Jones-Dr $25 17.13 RB9 RB6 32_RB Deji Karim $2 0.00 RB81 RB78 32_RB Taiwan Jones $2 0.00 RB81 RB78 32_RB Darren Sproles $23 15.98 RB12 RB10 22_RB Daniel Thomas $8 5.58 RB48 RB46 22_RB Ray Rice $33 22.28 RB2 RB1 12_RB Adrian Peterson $21 15.40 RB14 RB13 12_RB Leon Washington $3 0.73 RB72 RB71 12_RB Trent Richardson $28 18.35 RB5 RB5 02_RB Arian Foster $34 20.35 RB1 RB2 -12_RB LeRon McClain $4 2.28 RB62 RB65 -32_RB Robert Turbin $6 3.85 RB51 RB55 -42_RB Danny Ware $4 2.23 RB62 RB66 -42_RB DeMarco Murray $24 14.28 RB10 RB15 -52_RB LeSean McCoy $32 16.08 RB3 RB9 -62_RB Ryan Williams $12 5.75 RB37 RB43 -62_RB Montario Hardest $3 0.00 RB72 RB78 -62_RB LaMichael James $3 0.00 RB72 RB78 -62_RB Doug Martin $21 11.00 RB14 RB21 -72_RB Donald Brown $19 8.80 RB20 RB28 -82_RB Darren McFadden $26 13.80 RB8 RB17 -92_RB Isaac Redman $18 7.90 RB23 RB32 -92_RB LeGarrette Bloun $6 2.90 RB51 RB60 -92_RB Javon Ringer $4 0.35 RB62 RB74 -122_RB Felix Jones $9 3.53 RB44 RB57 -132_RB Toby Gerhart $13 4.30 RB35 RB51 -162_RB Rashard Mendenha $4 0.00 RB62 RB78 -162_RB Delone Carter $4 0.00 RB62 RB78 -162_RB Dion Lewis $4 0.00 RB62 RB78 -162_RB Matt Forte $27 9.73 RB6 RB23 -172_RB Peyton Hillis $14 4.40 RB33 RB50 -172_RB Chris Johnson $27 9.38 RB6 RB24 -182_RB Shonn Greene $20 7.00 RB18 RB36 -182_RB Brandon Jacobs $5 0.00 RB60 RB78 -182_RB Jonathan Stewart $16 4.90 RB28 RB47 -192_RB Steven Jackson $22 7.83 RB13 RB33 -202_RB Ahmad Bradshaw $21 7.40 RB14 RB35 -212_RB Mark Ingram $14 3.98 RB33 RB54 -212_RB Shane Vereen $6 0.38 RB51 RB73 -222_RB Ronnie Hillman $11 2.53 RB40 RB63 -232_RB Isaiah Pead $6 0.35 RB51 RB74 -232_RB Rashad Jennings $9 1.75 RB44 RB68 -242_RB Joe McKnight $7 0.35 RB49 RB74 -252_RB Chris Wells $13 2.75 RB35 RB61 -262_RB Alex Green $6 0.05 RB51 RB77 -262_RB Jahvid Best $6 0.00 RB51 RB78 -272_RB Bernard Scott $4 -0.13 RB62 RB89 -272_RB David Wilson $9 0.53 RB44 RB72 -282_RB Tim Hightower $7 0.00 RB49 RB78 -292_RB Roy Helu $17 2.93 RB25 RB59 -342_RB Ryan Mathews $30 5.70 RB4 RB44 -402_RB Fred Jackson $21 3.10 RB14 RB58 -442_RB James Starks $17 0.00 RB25 RB78 -53
WR:
POS PLAYER PRICE PPG ADP ACTUAL DIFF3_WR Andre Roberts $3 15.85 WR83 WR16 673_WR Jacoby Jones $2 8.00 WR113 WR55 583_WR James Jones $3 13.28 WR83 WR28 553_WR Danny Amendola $6 19.73 WR56 WR4 523_WR Kevin Ogletree $3 13.00 WR83 WR32 513_WR Brian Hartline $6 19.13 WR56 WR9 473_WR Damian Williams $2 5.60 WR113 WR72 413_WR Jeremy Kerley $3 10.43 WR83 WR43 403_WR Eddie Royal $2 5.43 WR113 WR74 393_WR Brad Smith $2 4.15 WR113 WR80 333_WR Donald Jones $4 10.55 WR74 WR42 323_WR Cecil Shorts $3 8.45 WR83 WR52 313_WR Devin Aromashodu $2 4.10 WR113 WR82 313_WR Armon Binns $3 8.43 WR83 WR53 303_WR Leonard Hankerso $4 9.28 WR74 WR47 273_WR Mario Manningham $4 9.18 WR74 WR48 263_WR Reggie Wayne $15 19.47 WR31 WR6 253_WR Mike Wallace $16 19.50 WR28 WR5 233_WR Louis Murphy $2 3.20 WR113 WR90 233_WR Lance Moore $11 14.93 WR41 WR20 213_WR Davone Bess $6 12.43 WR56 WR35 213_WR Donnie Avery $5 9.58 WR67 WR46 213_WR Josh Morgan $3 6.88 WR83 WR62 213_WR Donald Driver $2 2.73 WR113 WR92 213_WR Torrey Smith $16 17.13 WR28 WR11 173_WR Kendall Wright $6 11.20 WR56 WR39 173_WR Dwayne Bowe $17 19.30 WR24 WR8 163_WR Nate Burleson $8 12.65 WR49 WR33 163_WR Kevin Walter $4 7.03 WR74 WR61 133_WR Mohamed Massaquo $3 5.88 WR83 WR70 133_WR Mike Thomas $2 1.45 WR113 WR101 123_WR Antonio Brown $17 16.43 WR24 WR13 113_WR Kyle Williams $2 1.20 WR113 WR104 93_WR Jonathan Baldwin $4 6.20 WR74 WR66 83_WR Michael Jenkins $3 5.00 WR83 WR75 83_WR Early Doucet $3 4.73 WR83 WR76 73_WR A.J. Green $22 22.23 WR7 WR1 63_WR Eric Decker $17 15.55 WR24 WR18 63_WR Devin Hester $3 4.48 WR83 WR77 63_WR Alshon Jeffery $6 8.60 WR56 WR51 53_WR Victor Cruz $22 20.70 WR7 WR3 43_WR Santonio Holmes $15 13.30 WR31 WR27 43_WR Anquan Boldin $12 12.55 WR38 WR34 43_WR Harry Douglas $3 4.20 WR83 WR79 43_WR Mike Williams $11 11.23 WR41 WR38 33_WR Clyde Gates $2 0.50 WR113 WR110 33_WR Roddy White $23 21.58 WR4 WR2 23_WR Randall Cobb $9 9.75 WR47 WR45 23_WR Joseph Morgan $3 4.13 WR83 WR81 23_WR Miles Austin $20 16.50 WR13 WR12 13_WR DeSean Jackson $18 14.95 WR19 WR19 03_WR Josh Gordon $3 4.08 WR83 WR83 03_WR Brandon Lloyd $18 14.93 WR19 WR20 -13_WR Nate Washington $12 11.20 WR38 WR39 -13_WR Percy Harvin $20 16.33 WR13 WR15 -23_WR Malcom Floyd $13 11.50 WR35 WR37 -23_WR Jason Avant $5 5.95 WR67 WR69 -23_WR A.J. Jenkins $2 0.00 WR113 WR115 -23_WR Danny Coale $2 0.00 WR113 WR115 -23_WR Jason Hill $2 0.00 WR113 WR115 -23_WR Nick Toon $2 0.00 WR113 WR115 -23_WR Ryan Broyles $2 0.00 WR113 WR115 -23_WR Brandon Marshall $22 17.55 WR7 WR10 -33_WR Michael Crabtree $11 10.20 WR41 WR44 -33_WR Brandon LaFell $10 9.18 WR44 WR48 -43_WR Calvin Johnson $29 19.33 WR1 WR7 -63_WR Vincent Jackson $19 14.60 WR17 WR23 -63_WR Golden Tate $7 7.58 WR52 WR58 -63_WR Chaz Schilens $3 3.23 WR83 WR89 -63_WR Demaryius Thom $22 16.38 WR7 WR14 -73_WR Marques Colston $19 14.08 WR17 WR24 -73_WR Emmanuel Sanders $7 7.37 WR52 WR59 -73_WR Stephen Hill $6 6.48 WR56 WR63 -73_WR Chris Givens $3 2.28 WR83 WR94 -113_WR Steve Johnson $18 13.13 WR19 WR31 -123_WR Wes Welker $23 15.75 WR4 WR17 -133_WR Devery Henderson $4 3.35 WR74 WR87 -133_WR Josh Cribbs $3 1.98 WR83 WR97 -143_WR Lestar Jean $3 1.88 WR83 WR98 -153_WR Jordy Nelson $20 13.25 WR13 WR29 -163_WR Titus Young $10 7.08 WR44 WR60 -163_WR Santana Moss $8 6.43 WR49 WR65 -163_WR Laurent Robinson $6 5.60 WR56 WR72 -163_WR Arrelious Benn $3 1.78 WR83 WR99 -163_WR Steve Smith $20 13.20 WR13 WR30 -173_WR Dez Bryant $18 11.98 WR19 WR36 -173_WR Greg Little $12 7.98 WR38 WR56 -183_WR Earl Bennett $5 3.55 WR67 WR86 -193_WR Mohamed Sanu $4 2.41 WR74 WR93 -193_WR Larry Fitzgerald $25 14.63 WR2 WR22 -203_WR Juron Criner $3 1.23 WR83 WR103 -203_WR Julio Jones $23 14.00 WR4 WR25 -213_WR Jerricho Cotcher $3 1.17 WR83 WR105 -223_WR Andre Johnson $24 13.70 WR3 WR26 -233_WR Deion Branch $3 0.78 WR83 WR106 -233_WR Sidney Rice $14 7.80 WR33 WR57 -243_WR Steve Smith $5 3.00 WR67 WR91 -243_WR Legedu Naanee $3 0.73 WR83 WR107 -243_WR Justin Blackmon $7 4.48 WR52 WR77 -253_WR Randy Moss $10 5.70 WR44 WR71 -273_WR Michael Floyd $6 3.83 WR56 WR84 -283_WR Ben Obomanu $3 0.45 WR83 WR111 -283_WR Steve Breaston $5 2.10 WR67 WR96 -293_WR Hakeem Nicks $21 10.93 WR11 WR41 -303_WR Jeremy Maclin $17 8.40 WR24 WR54 -303_WR Denarius Moore $18 9.08 WR19 WR50 -313_WR Preston Parker $3 0.18 WR83 WR114 -313_WR Danario Alexande $3 0.00 WR83 WR115 -323_WR David Gettis $3 0.00 WR83 WR115 -323_WR Jerrel Jernigan $3 0.00 WR83 WR115 -323_WR Jordan Shipley $3 0.00 WR83 WR115 -323_WR Riley Cooper $3 0.00 WR83 WR115 -323_WR Pierre Garcon $14 5.98 WR33 WR68 -353_WR Darrius Heyward- $16 6.20 WR28 WR66 -383_WR Rueben Randle $4 0.35 WR74 WR112 -383_WR Chad Johnson $4 0.00 WR74 WR115 -413_WR Jerome Simpson $7 2.25 WR52 WR95 -433_WR Andre Caldwell $5 0.35 WR67 WR112 -453_WR David Nelson $6 1.28 WR56 WR102 -463_WR Jacoby Ford $5 0.00 WR67 WR115 -483_WR Robert Meachem $13 3.80 WR35 WR85 -503_WR Doug Baldwin $8 1.58 WR49 WR100 -513_WR Brian Quick $6 0.73 WR56 WR107 -513_WR Greg Jennings $21 6.45 WR11 WR64 -533_WR Kenny Britt $13 3.25 WR35 WR88 -533_WR Vincent Brown $6 0.00 WR56 WR115 -593_WR Austin Collie $9 0.53 WR47 WR109 -62
TE:
POS PLAYER PRICE PPG ADP ACTUAL DIFF4_TE Brandon Myers $2 11.70 TE41 TE18 234_TE Martellus Bennet $4 15.18 TE31 TE9 224_TE Heath Miller $7 19.80 TE23 TE2 214_TE Dennis Pitta $5 14.45 TE30 TE12 184_TE Scott Chandler $6 14.88 TE26 TE10 164_TE Tony Gonzalez $13 20.88 TE10 TE1 94_TE Owen Daniels $11 15.93 TE14 TE6 84_TE Joel Dreessen $4 7.50 TE31 TE23 84_TE Ben Watson $4 7.08 TE31 TE24 74_TE Todd Heap $3 5.35 TE39 TE32 74_TE Dwayne Allen $2 4.70 TE41 TE34 74_TE Greg Olsen $11 15.40 TE14 TE8 64_TE Kevin Boss $2 4.25 TE41 TE35 64_TE Anthony Fasano $6 10.00 TE26 TE21 54_TE Kellen Davis $4 6.33 TE31 TE26 54_TE David Ausberry $2 3.13 TE41 TE38 34_TE Brent Celek $12 14.63 TE13 TE11 24_TE Vernon Davis $17 16.55 TE6 TE5 14_TE Brandon Pettigre $15 15.70 TE8 TE7 14_TE Marcedes Lewis $7 8.68 TE23 TE22 14_TE Jeff King $2 3.00 TE41 TE40 14_TE Kyle Rudolph $11 13.78 TE14 TE14 04_TE Zach Miller $6 5.65 TE26 TE27 -14_TE Delanie Walker $2 2.48 TE41 TE42 -14_TE Jimmy Graham $29 19.70 TE1 TE3 -24_TE Rob Gronkowski $28 18.13 TE2 TE4 -24_TE Randy McMichael $2 2.35 TE41 TE43 -24_TE Jared Cook $11 11.75 TE14 TE17 -34_TE Leonard Pope $2 0.55 TE41 TE45 -44_TE Tony Scheffler $4 4.10 TE31 TE36 -54_TE Jermaine Gresham $13 12.33 TE10 TE16 -64_TE Dallas Clark $7 5.40 TE23 TE29 -64_TE Rob Housler $4 3.70 TE31 TE37 -64_TE John Carlson $2 0.35 TE41 TE47 -64_TE Chris Cooley $2 0.00 TE41 TE48 -74_TE Julius Thomas $2 0.00 TE41 TE48 -74_TE Jermichael Finle $16 13.30 TE7 TE15 -84_TE Jason Witten $21 14.08 TE4 TE13 -94_TE Lance Kendricks $9 5.40 TE20 TE29 -94_TE Evan Moore $3 0.00 TE39 TE48 -94_TE Fred Davis $14 10.95 TE9 TE19 -104_TE Jacob Tamme $13 10.25 TE10 TE20 -104_TE Coby Fleener $10 5.45 TE18 TE28 -104_TE Bear Pascoe $4 2.55 TE31 TE41 -104_TE Tony Moeaki $8 5.28 TE21 TE33 -124_TE Ed Dickson $8 3.13 TE21 TE38 -174_TE Zach Miller $4 0.00 TE31 TE48 -174_TE Kellen Winslow $6 0.68 TE26 TE44 -184_TE Antonio Gates $20 6.85 TE5 TE25 -204_TE Dustin Keller $10 0.55 TE18 TE45 -274_TE Aaron Hernandez $23 5.35 TE3 TE31 -28
First, I'd say "good" is an understatement for Flacco's 35.4 score. It was the third-highest QB score that week. Pointing out that 8 other QBs also put up 30+ says way more about Newton's value that week than it does about Flacco's. Newton was was the 24th best QB with a total of 12.70. When you only spend $11 on a QB, you expect and can afford for him to occasionally put up a stinker like that, either because you have other capable QBs on your roster or you're better at the other skill positions. When you drop $28 on a QB, you can't really afford for him to disappear like that. That's where the "value" or "bang for your buck" part comes in - comparing Newton's and Flacco's production is meaningless unless you somehow factor in that Newton costs 2.5 times as much as Flacco.
We can argue back and force on this, but it's pretty irrelevant. Plus I'm not particularly a fan of Newton and am one of Flacco so it kind of feels like cheating arguring for Newton...
I think when we look at overall survival rate, it gives us a good (not perfect) snapshot of the relative value the players have provided to their teams. Flacco owners have survived better than Newton owners, partly because Flacco vastly outproduced Newton in a week when QB scoring was high across the board, but also partly because Flacco owners had an extra $17 to spend, and partly because of __________? I don't know that whatever goes in that blank is vastly different for Flacco owners and owners of other QBs. So I think if we're trying to nail down QB "value", survival rates do a decent job of illustrating overall value - not just in terms of point production, but in the other options that come along with selecting each QB.
Sure. I agree it's a decent metric. It's got its flaws as any metric in this contest really would. Maybe it's the best, was just trying to give an alternate look because a) it might turn out to be a better metric, and b) i was bored.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.