LHUCKS
Footballguy
I noticed. Nevertheless, developing a strategy via cutdown weeeks and point requirements is how you take this to the next level...that and trying to increase your unique score.Everybody is talking about the wrong stuff in here.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
***Official*** 2012 FBG Subscriber Contest Thread (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ignoratio Elenchi
- Start date
HairySasquatch
Footballguy
I finished 9th last year. You'll appreciate this if you look closely. http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2011/104781.phpI had the least unique team of anyone in the finals. I pretty much clear the cut lines by 30-50 pts every week not by studying the cutdown weeks, but by selecting players that scored a lot.
Interested in hearing your take on taking it to the next level. Not sure that's possible/necessary with this many entries.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Looking forward to reading LHUCK's next-level analysis of the cut weeks.
I'm of the opinion that uniqueness is VASTLY overrated in this contest, but that's been beaten to death before.
I'm of the opinion that uniqueness is VASTLY overrated in this contest, but that's been beaten to death before.
Yeah unless the scores really bump up this year. DD doesn't figure in best ball variability. When I ran this last year my weekly scores were usually around 120.
butcher boy
Footballguy
I need to make more adjustments.
I'm consistently over 150 each week in DD and over 160 every playoff week but one, except Week 8 I'm only at 122.9.
This is with a 27 man roster.
I'm consistently over 150 each week in DD and over 160 every playoff week but one, except Week 8 I'm only at 122.9.
This is with a 27 man roster.
Are you loaded up at QB with top caliber talent?
LHUCKS
Footballguy
Things I take into account:A) Positional VarianceB) SOS for critical cutdown weeksC) late bye weeks
butcher boy
Footballguy
I'm carrying 3 QBs totaling $46. 1 stud, 1 middling guy with upside and a cheap flyer with upside.
BuffaloWings
Footballguy
Just asking -- how do you get week by week projections in DD for a team that you have? Thanks.
butcher boy
Footballguy
Click on Weekly Points up on the top of DD.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Still looking forward to reading your next-level analysis of the cut weeks.
flc735
Footballguy
i have made it very easy for myself to try different variations. all i have to do is copy & paste, reorder the weeks and repeat.i've tried many examples of all of these combinations. 10, 10, 10 ect... its just too much to explain all of that in writing.
i have tried all of these combinations with a full team. i have a sheet that auto finds my flex for each week. still, stud heavy wins out at all positions. wr to a lesser degree
i don't know why i am getting so much debate here. we all play fantasy and as a rule of thumb, studs are better than medium mathchup plays. i'd much rather have rodgers and gbbert than matt ryan and eli on my fanasy team.
part of my argument that i think is being overlooked is how much i like some of these $3 guys. i think they are great value. i feel a lot better picking $3 sleepers over $12 sleepers. thats just too much to pay, imo
Last edited by a moderator:
flc735
Footballguy
also, differentiating between a $3 and $5 is a bit much, don't you think?i have a 23 man roster by the way, though it has 4 k's and 4 d's on it right now
i only have 3 players between $5-$20
Last edited by a moderator:
You should pick players for your team that you want on it, seems reasonable. As for the debate, it seems you are making a certain assumption regarding optimal line up construction whereas others have different conclusions based on different, probably more in-depth, analysis.Look at Lhucks' contest team from last year, Moore, Burleson and Floyd (total of $26) each put up 20+ in week 15. But obviously people want V-Jax for $25 instead right? Except V-Jax was dead money for weeks 14-16. While this is just one example, it does point to the fact that it is not nearly as one-sided for the studs as it may seem.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
That's what this thread is all about. Don't get all sensitive about it. We've been doing this for years.Anyway, it's still not clear exactly why you're analyzing it the way you are. You're saying, "I think Julio Jones will average 17 ppg this year. I'll use this other guy who averaged 17 ppg last year as a proxy for Julio Jones. Now I'll compare him to these cheaper guys" who you presumably have projected to score fewer points, since they're cheaper. Well it's no surprise the stud combos are always winning - you're setting it up that way from the outset. You've played fantasy football before, the expensive guys don't always score as many points as you think they will, and the cheap guys don't always score as few. One of the reasons that quantity can be more effective than "quality" is because sometimes you pay for quality but don't actually get it. So among it's other flaws, your analysis doesn't seem to capture that at all - you're just assuming that each player will score points commensurate with their price, and so you're getting exactly the results you expect.
That's surely true in our normal fantasy leagues where you pick a single QB to start each week. But this is best-ball - it's a totally different format, and what works in one format may not work in the other. Now, I happen to agree with you that even in this format, I'd rather have Rodgers and Gabbert than Ryan and Manning, but that's only my opinion (based loosely on several years' worth of contest data and experience). You (and I) might be right, but not just because you say so - we have higher standards here.
flc735
Footballguy
yes, best ball has an impact. but not that much. i do a pretty good job playing matchups in my normal leagues. when i compair the two, it's not totally different, it's just a little different.im not just saying so. i've been trying to explain every nit picking argument that has come up."ya, but you didn't factor in this" "yes, actually i did. blah blah blah"That's what this thread is all about. Don't get all sensitive about it. We've been doing this for years.Anyway, it's still not clear exactly why you're analyzing it the way you are. You're saying, "I think Julio Jones will average 17 ppg this year. I'll use this other guy who averaged 17 ppg last year as a proxy for Julio Jones. Now I'll compare him to these cheaper guys" who you presumably have projected to score fewer points, since they're cheaper. Well it's no surprise the stud combos are always winning - you're setting it up that way from the outset. You've played fantasy football before, the expensive guys don't always score as many points as you think they will, and the cheap guys don't always score as few. One of the reasons that quantity can be more effective than "quality" is because sometimes you pay for quality but don't actually get it. So among it's other flaws, your analysis doesn't seem to capture that at all - you're just assuming that each player will score points commensurate with their price, and so you're getting exactly the results you expect.That's surely true in our normal fantasy leagues where you pick a single QB to start each week. But this is best-ball - it's a totally different format, and what works in one format may not work in the other. Now, I happen to agree with you that even in this format, I'd rather have Rodgers and Gabbert than Ryan and Manning, but that's only my opinion (based loosely on several years' worth of contest data and experience). You (and I) might be right, but not just because you say so - we have higher standards here.
(not you, others)
flc735
Footballguy
"You should pick players for your team that you want on it, seems reasonable."brilliant"As for the debate, it seems you are making a certain assumption regarding optimal line up construction whereas others have different conclusions based on different, probably more in-depth, analysis."no10,000 entries dude. 1 example is meaningless.
Nick Vermeil
Footballguy
I thought I already dotted this thing. 
Here's to making it to week 7 this year! 
Here's to making it to week 7 this year!
HairySasquatch
Footballguy
Baring an unforeseen event, my team is set. 20 players. Week 8 is a major concern, but I feel like I have enough in different areas to cover the cut and I get the feeling week 8 will be one of the lower scoring weeks overall. I don't feel like I need anyone to step up and surprise...I just need them play close to their projections and stay healthy. Then get hot for weeks 14-16. That's not too much to ask for, right? 
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
As I said, that's what we do in here. It's really great if you want to do some analyses and share your findings and thoughts with the rest of us - we always need more people to do that - but expect to have to defend it against critique. That's how we flesh out the good ideas from the not so good ideas, and improve understanding of contest strategy. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who enter the contest don't venture into this thread, so it's not like we're giving away secrets to the masses.When you put your ideas out there, they're going to get critiqued. I hope you're ok with that because it seems like you've got the interest and would be a great addition to the strategy discussion we have all season long. The whole reason this thread goes to like 100 pages every year, instead of just filling up with people showing off their entries and then dying off, is because we're in here challenging each other's competing theories about the best way to build a roster. After years of this contest there's still a lot of lively debate, so don't expect that you're going to "solve" the riddle of how to build a winning entry right away, and even if you come up with some really great insights, don't expect that there won't be people (myself included) eager to pick them apart - not because we're #####, but because that's how we figure out whether or not you're really on to something. If you're just going to get all offended about it, maybe rethink whether you want to share your ideas in the first place."ya, but you didn't factor in this" "yes, actually i did. blah blah blah"
flc735
Footballguy
i know, i know. debate is a good thing. thats the reason im here.i get annoyed when i provide what i think is solid evidence and then someone points out a random anomaly and presents that as if it is an equally viable counter argument. it's not going to help me if everyone agrees with me, so thats a good thing. but it also doesn't help when you cherry pick specific events to argue my point. the fact that vjax didnt do well doesn't mean that all $25 wr's are going to be bad or going stud heavy is a bad strategy, it only means you projected vjax wrong. that is something that is irrelevant to my point. what would be a good thing is if someone could present an equivalent counter argument. maybe something like how many teams have made it to the top 250 with >6 rb's, something like that. if you found that, say only 15 of the 250 had less than 5 rb's, it's reasonable to say 'you need to have more than 5 rb's.' that is info that i would consider to be of value.btw, im not offended. i was saying that was a lame argument.As I said, that's what we do in here. It's really great if you want to do some analyses and share your findings and thoughts with the rest of us - we always need more people to do that - but expect to have to defend it against critique. That's how we flesh out the good ideas from the not so good ideas, and improve understanding of contest strategy. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who enter the contest don't venture into this thread, so it's not like we're giving away secrets to the masses.When you put your ideas out there, they're going to get critiqued. I hope you're ok with that because it seems like you've got the interest and would be a great addition to the strategy discussion we have all season long. The whole reason this thread goes to like 100 pages every year, instead of just filling up with people showing off their entries and then dying off, is because we're in here challenging each other's competing theories about the best way to build a roster. After years of this contest there's still a lot of lively debate, so don't expect that you're going to "solve" the riddle of how to build a winning entry right away, and even if you come up with some really great insights, don't expect that there won't be people (myself included) eager to pick them apart - not because we're #####, but because that's how we figure out whether or not you're really on to something. If you're just going to get all offended about it, maybe rethink whether you want to share your ideas in the first place."ya, but you didn't factor in this" "yes, actually i did. blah blah blah"
The Real Hipster Doofus
Footballguy
Personally I think a whole lot of this talk is simply over analysis. Outside of making sure you don't have a ton of byes on the same week, I don't think you need to put nearly this much thought into it. Fill your team with guys of all prices that you expect to significantly outperform their value. If at QB that happens to be guys more in the mid price range, then that's who you go with. The whole studs versus fliers argument is meaningless if you pick the wrong studs or the right fliers. I know this seems like common sense, but in fantasy football (especially at FBG), I think some people tend to over think things.
HairySasquatch
Footballguy
I swing for the fences...I don't take backups to the guys I have. I like to take the backups to the guys I don't have who have an injury history or just coming off a big injury. I'm hoping by the end of the season I have two guys scoring for me instead of just one. Or you could use that money that you were going to use on the backup and just upgrade to a better RB. The extra money it costs to take the backup+starter=a better starting rb. For example: S. Jackson 22 + I. Pead 6 = Forte 27. This is especially true for smaller rosters who can't afford to have any wasted money not being used.
HairySasquatch
Footballguy
This can also kill your team though...your starter could get hurt and the other starters backup might never see the field and end up with 0 people scoring for you.
northwoods
Footballguy
I like taking the handcuffs to guys that aren't on my team, but maybe that's just me...
flc735
Footballguy
your right. i know the 30 hours of analysis is most likely going to result in a week 8 elimination, but i like doing stuff like this. breaking down numbers is part of why i love ff.
flc735
Footballguy
let me ask you this, if both matchups are equal, would you rather start benson or deon lewis/b pierce with mccoy/rice hurt?
HairySasquatch
Footballguy
If I knew mccoy or rice were hurt, I might take a gamble there...but I would rather take Benson since I know he is the starter. Mainly because I know he is going to put up points on the board and I need those with my small roster. If I had a large roster, and I viewed the other two guys as having a bigger upside, I would take them. IMO larger rosters can take that risk because they will have more rb's to bridge the gap while lewis/pierce are throwing up 0 to 5 points a game until the starter goes down.
HairySasquatch
Footballguy
Benson will probably have the highest % of ownership of any player in this contest. He is the cheapest RB who will start the year as the starter.
The Kerminator
Footballguy
Beware of one Alex Green.
flc735
Footballguy
injury prone and not a full time back. 6 is a bit high for him, imo
The Real Hipster Doofus
Footballguy
Still $3 for a guy who is #1 on the depth chart will put him on a very high percentage of teams.
Instinctive
Footballguy
I think you're carrying the exact same guys I am. PM if you want to know.
I frequently play devils advocate to people even if I agree with them. Its more thought provoking and way more useful than just agreeing with everyone. For years ive took up defense of the smaller rosters even though all my teams were in the 25 player range. Besides this contest has so many nuances and is changing every year that I highly doubt the ideal strategy, if there even is one, is simple. We forge new ideas by challenging old ones.I mostly agree with this. I actually have a pretty simplistic way of picking my team. Throu the years I have an ideal number of def, Qbs, and pks that I think is optimal, and basically just pick who i like this season. There are arguments for all sides so unless one becomes apparently clear the discussion is something nice to kill time between weeks. In the end, it really comes down to picking the right players more than roster constructtion. If you pick the right players, the correct roster strategy ( for that year) will take care of itself.
Worm
slimy ninja
After last year I've definitely come around to wanting more expensive TE's on my roster. Last couple years I've gone with a middle/middle-upper guy and a few lower priced guys. This year I'm at one top tier guy and one middle-upper tier guy. I think you have to have a TE scoring big points for you at the end of the year, and another really good TE is a great way to fill up the flex spot each week.
cheese
Footballguy
For those that know the DD better than me... does it factor in depth at all? Take these 2 teams for wk 7
Team1:
QBA projected for 20 pts that week
QBB on bye
Team2:
QBA projected for 20 pts that week
QBB on bye
QBC projected for 11 pts that week
Is the DD giving both teams 20 pts projected at QB? I can understand the problem with not allowing extra value for the outside chance that QBC blows up, but we also have the problem of the value if QBA were to get hurt or unexpectedly benched.
I'm asking because the DD doesn't have a problem with bye weeks where I only have 3 WR's as long as they are my best WR's, but I think it is a problem.
butcher boy
Footballguy
I think DD always shows the highest players' scores under weekly points but I'm not 100% sure. For example, I set it to only 1 starting QB and I add Aaron Rodgers and see his points added to the weekly totals. Then if I go in and add someone like Kevin Kolb, the point totals don't change at all except on Rodgers' bye week.
YesOh wait, one word answers don't make an argument? Weird. You could be right on some of your conclusions, but based on process there are other people that have been looking at this longer and appear to have a better methodology. You say that one example is meaningless, yet your analysis doesn't seem to go beyond random comparisons you have cut and pasted into excel.
This contests is about value. If you pay ~$30 for a WR and they have a Calvin 2011 level year, you will be happy. If you pay for $25 for a V-Jax 2011 year you will not be happy.
If you pick the right cheaper players you are probably better off because their upside hasn't already been priced in. By definition there is generally a lower chance on hitting on these players. If you know who will be the uber-studs this year, you should grab them because they will be worth it an any (contest) price. But I have this vague feeling that you can't predict the future with 100% certainty.
That about sums it up, given all of the uncertainty and injury risk in a given season - we will probably never know what the optimal strategy is. As for life advice, I would recommend this book.
Just because they only spoke of one specific example doesn't mean it's the only example. You can't expect him to point out every example, and pointing out one is way better than just making the claim without pointing any out. I'm not saying his claim is true (or false for that matter) so don't ask me to find another example.
Agreed. I think your analysis works well in retrospect. Knowing (or assuming) you know the relative amount of points scored and distribution of those points over a season, you can come up with what WOULD have been the best roster make up for that specific season. The problem I have with it is that we don't know the amount of points scored or their distributions. Sure we have best guess estimates, but so much of the results of your analysis comes from the distrubtion of the points over the year. And shifting just a few points around could result in much different results. I looked at the link you provided with scoring, and easily came up with better scores using Ryan and pretty much anyone over Brady and Tannehill (using Gabberts numbers). Of course, to do this all I said was that Brady would revert to his 2010 statistics. Nothing else would changed. Using your method is only going to confirm what you initially think, that's my point. If I think that the Rodgers/Brees/Brady's of the world are going to regress, and the Ryans/Cutlers/Mannings of the world are going to close the gap between themselves and the "elite", I can easily do that because their projections that I personally use for them will be close to each other. So it comes down to having the 2nd "middle" guy only needing to be marginally better than the "cheap" guy.Of course, better is a relative term. That's why I had asked what Criteria you were using to determine that the Stud+Cheap combo was better than the 2 Middle Guys. BTW, my team actually has a Stud + Cheap guy, not 2 middle guys. I think it's a valid strategy, I just don't think it's the only viable strategy.
I doubt this would be of much use. One, this contest changes too much, imo, (although the changes might seem minor) season to season to be able to gain much insight from the past year. Two, even if you disagree with my first reason, just because something has happened in the past doesn't mean that it'll happen again in the future. When you think about it, last year is a single data point and we have no way to gauge the rarity of what happened. Kind of like if each week we flipped a coin but didn't know the real probability of it landing heads or tails. It could have landed heads 15 out of the 16 weeks, but that doesn't mean heads is more likely than tails.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
"You see this is week 8 Folks... that means those of you who wasted your money on guys like FOster and AJ are going to have a hard making it through this week. Thats' what you get for picking studs in this contest."SHUCKS, OUT!
Last edited by a moderator:
northwoods
Footballguy
Teaser: I made a tweak to my team's lineup today that will probably make or break my contest. It's a risk/reward positional bye week strategy that hasn't been discussed on the board yet. In it to win it. Tune in next week for details...
[icon]
Insoxicated
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Rolling with Stafford and no backup? That's what I've been thinking of doing.
