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 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ignoratio Elenchi
- Start date
Ahmad Rashad
Footballguy
Interesting that 20-man rosters like mine have survived at the same 3.7% rate as the 26-man rosters.Among the 1376 20-man rosters (and more smaller ones), there's a lot of crap, with people not spending a lot of time putting together their teams. I bet the time spent putting together the 26-man rosters was much higher on average than the 20-man rosters, as it takes a lot more time selecting the good lower-priced players. I think that extra time carefully picking low-cost players is a big part of why larger rosters tend to do better, and a well-selected 20-man roster has as much chance or more of winning this thing as a well-selected 26-man roster.The most important thing is the players selected. 82 teams selected a core of Foster, Doug Martin, and Calvin Johnson, and 20 of them are still alive, for a 24.39% survival rate. That's far more survivors than the 14 remaining 26-man teams (or the 27, 28, or 29-man teams), even though there were 380 26-man teams vs. only 82 with these 3 players. Add Aaron Rodgers to that and an incredible 36% of those teams have survived (9 of 25), which is almost 10 times the survival rate of the 26-man teams. Add Marshall and an amazing 80% of those teams (4 of 5, and the only one eliminated had just 4 WR's, one of whom was out the first half of the season) have survived. I hope the winner comes from one of these 4 - the one with Graham at TE would be nice
. Who needs unique, obscure players when this group of pretty commonly-owned players translates to this much success in the contest so far.There's a lot less magic in having a bigger roster than in selecting good players in this contest. IMO, that's where people should focus. I think there's a better chance the contest winner will come from the 82 who selected Foster, Martin, and Megatron than from the 335 who put together 30-man rosters.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Interesting that you chose to compare 20-man rosters to 26-man rosters, and not to 22-, 23-, 24-, 25-, 27-, 28-, 29-, or 30-man rosters.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Uniqueness at this point is probably a good thing. If your players blow up for a ton of points, you will presumably have less competition at the top of the standings. If your players don't blow up for a ton of points, it doesn't really matter how unique you are because you're not going to win anyway. As I've always said, in my opinion, every team is sufficiently unique to win. Pretty much every single team left in the contest right now can say "I'm the only team with ______, ______, ________, and _______."'rustycolts said:
Teams 101212 and 107353 are probably the most similar teams among the final 500. They both have Ryan, Luck, Rice, Martin, Powell, Benson, T. Jones, J. Jones, Nelson, Blackmon, Amendola, Jean, Rudolph, Allen, Prater, Barth, Bills and Seahawks. But they also have some key differences as well (Torrey Smith, Brandon Marshall, Jimmy Graham, etc).
If your roster scores 600+ points over the final three weeks, you'll be near the top of the standings. If it doesn't, you won't. Uniqueness does play a role but I don't think it will be a major factor.
Regarding the roster size discussion-
I've always been under the assumption that a larger roster is more likely to survive to the top 250, but a smaller roster is more likely to win. Just kinda seems like common sense to me. The 18 man rosters that survive the gauntlet to get to the top 250 have a much greater chance of winning simply because they chose their studs correctly. They are very high variance which means they are more likely to finish at the top or the bottom. Whereas the larger rosters are more likely to put up just enough to advance every week by 'schooling', but are unlikely to have the firepower to put up a winning score over the last 3 weeks combined.
Me, personally, I'm a 'survive and advance' type guy, so I tend to favor a larger roster. However, I also certainly dont disagree with anybody using the 'it's gonna take a ton of luck to win this thing so I'm just gonna load up on an 18-man stud roster and hope my guys stay healthy and perform' strategy either. It's just not my style. That person is more likely to win it all than I am, so I totally get it.
I've always been under the assumption that a larger roster is more likely to survive to the top 250, but a smaller roster is more likely to win. Just kinda seems like common sense to me. The 18 man rosters that survive the gauntlet to get to the top 250 have a much greater chance of winning simply because they chose their studs correctly. They are very high variance which means they are more likely to finish at the top or the bottom. Whereas the larger rosters are more likely to put up just enough to advance every week by 'schooling', but are unlikely to have the firepower to put up a winning score over the last 3 weeks combined.
Me, personally, I'm a 'survive and advance' type guy, so I tend to favor a larger roster. However, I also certainly dont disagree with anybody using the 'it's gonna take a ton of luck to win this thing so I'm just gonna load up on an 18-man stud roster and hope my guys stay healthy and perform' strategy either. It's just not my style. That person is more likely to win it all than I am, so I totally get it.
what IE is getting at is correct imo. We just don't have enough entries to smooth out the variance. But if there were, say, 5 million people in this contest and all roster sizes equally represented, we'd likely see an increase in % survival along each rung of the roster size ladder. Maybe something like 18-3% 19-3.2% 20-3.4% 21-3.6% all the way up to 29-6.8% 30-7%. Not that it has to be exactly the same increments but you get the point.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I mostly agree with all of this, except perhaps the bolded parts. You're right that small rosters exhibit greater variance. That, in and of itself, doesn't guarantee a greater chance to win (e.g. if their average score is sufficiently lower than larger rosters, greater variance wouldn't necessarily make up the difference) but it does seem to be their primary advantage. I don't think they have a much greater chance to win simply because they chose their studs correctly. Everyone in the final 250 (out of 13,000+ entries) has chosen their players correctly. They'd have been weeded out by now if they hadn't. Now, small rosters have more expensive players, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have better players. The prices are set the first week of August. Even by the time the season starts in September there are some obviously mispriced players. By the time you get to week 14, there are a whole bunch of players who are worth significantly more or less than they were on August 1. Consider that the top ten QBs this season, five of them are the five most expensive QBs in the contest, but the other five all cost less than $20. Guys like Vereen ($6), Reese ($6), Leshoure ($9), etc. can easily be difference makers at RB down the stretch. Randall Cobb was $9, Andre Roberts was $3 - who's to say that at an inherently high-variance position like WR, these guys won't put up that big week or two needed to carry a team to the top? The list of "studs" on August 1 is different than the list of "studs" on December 1, so I think it's a mistake to assume that small rosters have better players than large rosters. Besides, the players that got you here won't necessarily be the ones who win it for you. Prospects are probably grim, for example, for the small rosters than have been riding guys like Lesean McCoy all year if he continues to miss time.
Through twelve weeks this year, the largest rosters have basically survived at more than double the rate of the smallest rosters (and IIRC that's actually a bit low compared to the past few years). Do the small rosters have more than double the chances of winning in the final 250? Not sure, but my gut tells me they don't. Like you, I'd rather give myself a greater chance to survive the first thirteen weeks, and take my chances in the final three.
Of course it does. I mean, obviously its not guaranteed and there's always going to be tons of exceptions like the guys you mentioned. But as a general rule the expensive players are the better ones. And then when you factor in that we're in the last week of eliminations, the smaller roster teams that are still alive are VERY LIKELY to have the better players.
This is obviously all true, but not really all that relevant to the discussion. Sure the list of 'studs' might change a little but the small roster teams that have these guys will have the right studs for obvious reasons (btw, this is what I meant by "chose the right studs"). Those teams might have a WR stable of Calvin/AJG/Marshall/Julio/Decker. Which team do you prefer for a 3-week contest? That team or super upstart team of Calvin/Torrey/Cobb/Gordon/Roberts/Jones/Shorts? I mean, sure it's possible those guys come up with big weeks and allow a large roster team to win it all, but who would you put your money on if you had to bet?And btw, I'm not sure cherry picking Shady who missed last week after being a stud all year is a really fair example. I mean, sure, a small roster team that has him is obviously more likely to be in trouble that if they had ADP, Foster, Rice but that's not exactly groundbreaking news. It goes without saying that a small roster team is always going to be more susceptible to losing one of their superstars to injury than a large roster team.
Uniqueness becomes a valued trait if/when you perform poorly in week 14. If you jump out to the front of the leader board early than having a unique team is really of little benefit and could possibly even be viewed as a negative. In short uniqueness is a good way to make up points, uniformity is probably a better way to hold a lead.
chocula
Footballguy
I looked at a couple smaller rosters and several barely survived during the bye weeks.
Someone has to have run data on the winning teams from each year of this contest.
Looking at some of the close wins during bye weeks, shows that you have to take big risks just to get to the final 250, then have the big guns to win it all.
Overall though, luck is a big part of FF no matter how you play
Someone has to have run data on the winning teams from each year of this contest.
Looking at some of the close wins during bye weeks, shows that you have to take big risks just to get to the final 250, then have the big guns to win it all.
Overall though, luck is a big part of FF no matter how you play
Ahmad Rashad
Footballguy
I chose the 20-man rosters because that's what I have, and I compared it to 26-man rosters because that's the one that exactly matches the Surv %. I also chose the core of Foster, Martin, and Megatron because that's what I have. No data manipulation or anything -- just looking at what I have vs. others and commenting on the interesting match. It's not like I'm trying to argue that smaller rosters survive at the same rate as larger rosters or anything -- I did say "larger rosters tend to do better"...
Last edited by a moderator:
HairySasquatch
Footballguy
At this point, I think you have to throw percentages from the beginning of this contest out the window. The percentage that is important to me is who is left. 50% of the teams still alive in this contest have roster sizes of 20 or less. Is this just because we started with so many teams, that a lot are bound to get through or are the smaller teams putting up higher point totals the further we get into the contest?I haven't followed this contest for a few weeks....but does anyone have an average score per week based on roster size?
cheese
Footballguy
Yes... the smaller rosters are putting up bigger point totals, but they are also less consistent. That is fairly predictable year to year. So every individual week, they're at a disadvantage for beating the cutline, but they have higher upside for 1 week or 3 weeks as well. The goal isn't to have huge weeks or even a high average score though until the final 250. That is what makes the different strategies interesting. The goal actually changes mid-contest.Like pretty much everyone else, I strongly prefer large roster weeks 1-13 and small rosters once you get there.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Yes, of course. Small rosters have survived at a lower rate than larger rosters. But there were many more small rosters to begin with. Consider that there are almost 5 times as many 18-20 man rosters left (244) as 28-30 man rosters left (51). But there were more than 10 times as many to begin with (7,822 small vs. 755 large).
For all 13,000 teams, or just the 500 that are left? For just the 500 that remain, here are the averages:ALIVE COUNT AVSCORE18 137 176.5519 56 177.4220 51 176.9121 35 176.3022 41 178.6123 48 176.8624 27 178.6925 28 178.9526 14 178.0627 12 177.7228 16 174.7029 13 174.7930 22 178.55TOT 500 177.17
IIRC the smaller rosters typically don't put up higher average scores than the larger rosters. As the table shows above, that's not exactly the case this year either. You're right that they exhibit greater variance, though. That variance explains why they're more likely to put up a big score on any given week, despite the fact that they usually score less, on average, than larger rosters.
WildGeneral
Footballguy
Good recap!As I see it, it's all about avoiding injuries. A large roster provides a bit of security from injuries to key players on that roster; if you roster 25 guys and 3 of them are lost to injury for a few weeks, you still have 22 players putting up points, even if they are marginal points. On the other hand, a small roster cannot afford injuries at all...if an 18-player roster loses 3 guys, it's time to meet the Turk. As I see it, the small rosters that made it this to this point are more lucky than good...because it's easy to pick Arian Foster and know that he's going to get 20-25 carries every game, but it's impossible to predict if he'll stay healthy for 17 weeks.That said, if you pick a small roster of high-salary, highly-productive players in August AND those players stay healthy throughout the season, you're more likely to win the 3-week playoff system because those guys are far less likely to lay an egg on any given day than say, an Evan Royster or a Cedric Benson (who are both on a large % of opening day rosters).
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I don't think you're disagreeing with me here. I didn't say they don't have better players, I said they don't necessarily have better players simply because they cost more money. And that's true. At this point in the season there may be more relevant predictors of December success than August price.'sooted72 said:
The smaller roster teams that are still alive are very likely to have better players than the smaller (and larger) rosters that aren't still alive. We've eliminated more than 96% of the entries at this point. Everyone that's left has good players.'sooted72 said:
In an otherwise good post, this is a really absurd comparison. Talk about cherry-picking: The stable of 5 WR studs you chose cost a total of $113. There are only four teams in the final 500 that spent that much on their entire WR corps, and none of them spent it on fewer than 7 WRs. Of course I'd love to have Calvin/Green/Marshall/Julio/Decker, but that kind of team isn't in the final 250. Then you ask if I'd rather have that than a group of 7 WRs that cost a total of just $66? Come up with something a little more realistic and we can compare. In general at the WR position, I tend to prefer quantity over quality (to an extent, of course). Would I rather have 3 $25+ WRs, or 5 $15 WRs? I'll almost certainly take the 5, especially considering your point that at this point in the contest, if I'm still alive, I obviously chose the "right" $15 WRs. Everyone who makes it to the finals has good players. Maybe they have a handful of guys that cost a lot of money on August 1, maybe they have a greater quantity of players that cost somewhat less money on August 1. Do the smaller rosters have a greater proportion of "studs"? Probably. Does that give them a greater shot to win the $25,000? Maybe, maybe not. Price is certainly correlated to production on average, but a higher price does not inherently make an individual player more likely to score more points in weeks 14-16. For every "stud-led" small team with $30 Aaron Rodgers at the helm, there's a larger roster with $17 Robert Griffin III at QB (not to mention, there are larger rosters with Rodgers, too). It's really a crapshoot and will be fun to watch.'sooted72 said:
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I don't think it's that they're far less likely to lay an egg, it's more that they're far more likely to blow up for 30 points. Whether your RB has average days or comes up totally emtpy, either way you're probably not going to win the big money. You need some really big point totals to end up at the top of the standings. Are high-salary players more likely to put up big point totals in weeks 14-16? On average, sure, but that's not always what happens.The guy who won last year had just 18 players, but it's not like he won because all of his high-priced studs blew up. He won by less than 20 points, and in week 14, his $31 Calvin put up 7 points, while his $3 Antonio Brown put up 26. In week 16 his $29 Hakeem Nicks put up 3 points, while $9 Andre Roberts counted for 13. $13 CJ Spiller, $10 Michael Bush, $18 Matt Stafford, and $10 Aaron Hernandez had as much or more to do with him winning as $25 Deangelo Williams and $30 Roddy White.
Lest I get painted into a corner I can't get out of, I want to be clear that I'm not saying cheap guys are as good as expensive guys or anything like that. I agree that your $30 WR is probably more likely to go for 200 and 2 TDs than your $3 WR. But there's a ton of just random luck that goes into those final three weeks. The guy who wins it all is just as likely to be led by a $30 stud who lived up to his price, as he is to be led by a $10 guy who just happened to get hot at the right time. We see it happen every year.
Maybe the best way to express my feelings about the contest are: It would not surprise me at all if a large roster won the $25,000. It would totally surprise me if small rosters survived at a higher rate than large rosters during the regular season. When I'm building my entry in August, that's what I'm thinking about.
chocula
Footballguy
How many years have they had this contest?
Has anyone broken down the winners and final 250 for all years and looked to see what is better represented, smaller or bigger rosters?
I did look at some of the final 500 teams and saw some smaller rosters that barely beat the cutoff during some of the bye weeks. That tells me that you may risk it all on a bye week, if one of your active players has a bad week.
I realize that fantasy football does involve some luck and getting those bye weeks can be tricky...
Has anyone broken down the winners and final 250 for all years and looked to see what is better represented, smaller or bigger rosters?
I did look at some of the final 500 teams and saw some smaller rosters that barely beat the cutoff during some of the bye weeks. That tells me that you may risk it all on a bye week, if one of your active players has a bad week.
I realize that fantasy football does involve some luck and getting those bye weeks can be tricky...
Fair enough, but perhaps you took my example a little too literally. OK, so nobody has that exact combo of WRs. My point remains. And btw, I did give the hypothetical large roster team a huge collection of over-performing guys from this year, you have to admit that lol.Maybe what we need to look at is average score by roster size. If the small roster teams who've made it this far with the 'correct' studs have banged out 200+ points pretty much every week and destroyed the cut line while the large roster teams just skated by then I think it's probably safe to say that the smaller roster teams would have the advantage in the final 3 week contest.It's certainly very much a crapshoot like you said, but just because there's tons of luck and variance involved doesn't necessarily mean that we can't predict certain things such as which roster sizes have the advantage and when.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
But your point seems to be that I should prefer the combo of a smallish number of "studs" than a greater quantity of cheaper WRs. I don't agree. As I said, if we really made an apples-to-apples comparison, I probably wouldn't pick the "stud" combo, I might actually prefer 5 $15 WRs to 3 $25 WRs (or whatever the relevant comparison would be). Moreso than any of the other skill positions, quantity trumps quality at WR imo. Yes, you gave the hypothetical large roster the "right" cheap guys, and why shouldn't you? You argued that the small rosters who made it this far obviously picked the "right" expensive WRs - you think the large rosters that make it to the final 250 have a bunch of crappy cheap WRs? Of course not, they tend to have the cheaper players that actually turned out to outperform their price.
ok but now you're cherrypicking in pretty much the same way that you accused me of doing earlier. I'd concede that as a general rule you'd probably rather have 5 $15 WRs than 3 $25 WRs in this contest. But that's an oversimplification.
lol come on. I gave you a group of pretty much every lower priced guy that's overproduced so far. While obviously these guys will show up overall on more of the larger roster teams, most of those teams aren't going to have 6 or 7 of those guys. Which brings us back to my original point. Who's your money on over a 3 week contest? The team with the group of stud WRs or the team with maybe 1 stud/semistud, a couple of middle tier guys, and a couple of cheap flyers (some of which certainly have overproduced their cost)?Something that might be interesting to look at would be to take 18-20 man rosters vs 28-30 man rosters who spent similar amounts on WRs and see which group you'd rather have over the next 3 weeks. Is that possible with the searcher?
Ahmad Rashad
Footballguy
Revisiting the Roddy White vs. Julio Jones debate, where both WR's from the same team had the same price tag -- the proven 31-year-old vet vs. the 2nd-year emerging youngster, so far teams with Jones (4.16%) have survived at over twice the rate of the teams with White (2.02%), and that spread's probably going to get even bigger after tonight, when White had only 1 catch for 20 yards while Jones had 5 for 48. Despite his injury limiting him and making him somewhat of a fantasy disappointment, Julio's owners have survived better than average, while White's teams have survived far worse than average.
While he's had a good year, White's stats have faded from his peak, as expected, and his dud weeks have cost many owners. I know I would have been eliminated in week 3 if I'd picked White instead of Jones, and White's proponent in the debate was eliminated long ago. Most of the surviving teams with White also have Ryan, so they're in trouble after both had a subpar night tonight, with White's 3 points and Ryan's 165 yards and 1 TD.
Hopefully, I'll survive this week and Julio will put up some big numbers the next 3 weeks during the finals. In any case, I seriously doubt the the winning team, or even any of the top teams, will have White on their roster, while I expect some of the top teams to have Julio (153 left after last week, vs. only 8 with White).
While he's had a good year, White's stats have faded from his peak, as expected, and his dud weeks have cost many owners. I know I would have been eliminated in week 3 if I'd picked White instead of Jones, and White's proponent in the debate was eliminated long ago. Most of the surviving teams with White also have Ryan, so they're in trouble after both had a subpar night tonight, with White's 3 points and Ryan's 165 yards and 1 TD.
Hopefully, I'll survive this week and Julio will put up some big numbers the next 3 weeks during the finals. In any case, I seriously doubt the the winning team, or even any of the top teams, will have White on their roster, while I expect some of the top teams to have Julio (153 left after last week, vs. only 8 with White).
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Where do you see anything remotely resembling cherrypicking in the post you just quoted? You say that "as a general rule you'd probably rather have 5 $15 WRs than 3 $25 WRs in this contest." That's pretty much exactly what I said. I didn't even mention a single player's name.
Once again, you seem intent on skewing things your way. Most teams don't have all 6 or 7 cheap WRs that overproduced? Maybe that's true, but most teams don't have a "group" of stud WRs, either. You continue to set up the hypothetical in a way that would clearly lead the reader to choose your side, without seeming concerned with how realistic it is. You'll argue that small rosters that make it to the finals obviously picked the "right" WRs but won't concede the same to the larger rosters. Everyone that makes the final 250 has a bunch of players that turned out to be good. They wouldn't be in the final 250 otherwise.
Anything's possible when you build your own database!
That's a large, mostly qualitative and subjective effort, though, so I'm not going to eyeball every entry's WRs and guess which I'd rather have (also, I'd kind of be defending a position that isn't mine - I don't actually think 28-30 is the sweet spot for this contest, I think it's more in the 25-26 range). Anyway, here are the first two that come out of a query I ran, no cherrypicking involved:
Code:
SIZE 29 18 28 18 ENTRY 106487 109950 108615 107673 SPEND $101 $101 $96 $96 WR1 Calvin Johnson Calvin Johnson Julio Jones Calvin Johnson WR2 Dez Bryant Julio Jones A.J. Green Julio Jones WR3 Antonio Brown Brandon Lloyd Pierre Garcon Brandon Marshall WR4 Eric Decker Darrius Heyward-Bey Randall Cobb Jordy Nelson WR5 Michael Crabtree Reggie Wayne Santana Moss Donald Driver WR6 Steve Smith Justin Blackmon WR7 Leonard Hankerson Davone Bess WR8 Mario Manningham WR9 James JonesIgnoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
This is strange, because Roddy White has scored more points than Julio Jones this year. He's outscored Jones in 6 of the 10 elimination weeks (I don't have last night's game in the database yet, so I guess it's 6 out of 11 now). As far as "duds" go, Roddy's scored fewer than 10 points only once all year, while Julio's done it 3 times, most recently in week 11. Roddy outscored Julio in three of the last four weeks. And yet, in week 9, Roddy outscored Julio but Julio owners survived at a rate about 10% higher than Roddy owners; similarly in week 10, Roddy outscored Julio but Julio owners survived at a rate about 7% higher than Roddy owners. Clearly there's more going on than just "Julio is better than Roddy" because that's not actually the case. The discrepancy may be explained simply by the fact that there were 9 times as many Julio owners than Roddy owners - so when Julio had a bad week, a bunch of his owners had a large built in cushion of other Julio owners to keep them above the cutline. When Roddy had a bad week, no such buffer existed.
Well of course, but that's not really saying anything at all about whether Julio is actually better than Roddy. That's like saying you expect some of the top teams to be small rosters. Of course they will be, there's way too many of them for that not to be the case.
I meant that you talked about how you wanted an 'apples-to-apples' comparison yet then chose an example that pretty much everyone would agree with. A more real life example would be like 6 'studlier' WRs for $100 vs say a smattering of 10 different priced WRs for a total of $100. I'm arguing that over a 3 week contest you'd almost always prefer the smaller group when the focus of the contest is now on winning and not survival.'Ignoratio Elenchi said:
This isn't what I've said or what I believe. Maybe I didn't properly state my position. Here is what I believe: An 18 man stud team that makes the final 250 pretty much has to have 'chosen the correct studs' (I know you hate that phrase, but let me just use it for now). This is because they only have 18 players yet survived the elimination gauntlet for 13 weeks. The 30 man teams also has chosen the correct players. This is obvious because they are also still alive. Nobody would dispute this so I'm not really sure why you think I don't believe it. I just think that it's not necessarily that they have players that are all that good. For example I have 12 WRs on my team and they pretty much all suck and would be a huge dog to a Calvin/AJG/Marshall (or whoever, I chose those WRs because they have been the best this year so I would figure that a lot of 18-20 man teams would have some combo of those 3) led stud WR team over the final 3 weeks of the season all else being equal.Also I'm not sure how we got on specifically WRs as my argument pretty much extends to all positions and entire teams.'Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Totally agree given this season's salaries and scoring rules.'Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Also good job doing that little mini-query and coming up with a couple of examples. TBH, I'd chose the larger roster's WRs in both of those examples. Of course, though, that's just 2 examples and just looking at strictly WRs.
I'm not just trying to agrue my point, I'm doing the same thing that you are - trying to figure out the proper strategy for this contest.
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
Sucks for owners of the Falcons studs this week.
Ahmad Rashad
Footballguy
Yes, Roddy's scored 5 more points than Julio thus far, so it is a bit strange that Julio's been much better in this contest for survival. Also, with Julio's injury, Roddy's been able to outscore Julio in recent weeks, but the Julio owners still survive better. I never said "Julio is better than Roddy" in the debate -- I only said that Roddy was 31, which means he's likely past his peak, which his stats have shown despite a good season.I think part of the reason Julio owners have done better than Roddy owners is because there are probably some owners of Roddy who picked him over Julio just based on name recognition and past performance. Roddy obviously had more name recognition and better past NFL performance than Julio in August amongst lay people, while those more into fantasy football were high on Julio, who was ranked higher among fantasy experts. I think that means that the Julio owners in general relied less on past performance, and thus picked the rest of their team better than Roddy owners. Yes, with Julio ranked much higher here than Roddy in August,there were far more Julio owners than Roddy owners, yet both were the same price. One of the arguments for the Roddy owners was that he was more unique and thus would be better for the contest. You're suggesting that Julio owners survived better because he was less unique, which very well may be the case. It's interesting that so many strive to have unique teams by picking a less popular choice like Roddy -- in fact I think that's what started the debate -- yet this analysis of 2 same-priced players shows that the less unique player has been much better to own in this contest.'Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Yep -- again, I never said Julio is better than Roddy. However, Julio's clearly been the better choice for this contest, partly because Roddy has not performed to the same level he has in past seasons before he was 31.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I guess we need to be more precise with terms or something, then. Again, just trying to keep things realistic, "stud" WRs (i.e. the kind you expect to find more often on small rosters than large rosters, by virtue of their higher price) cost $20+ each. You don't get 6 of them for $100. If you're going to say that "studlier" includes guys cheaper than $20, well then we're venturing into the territory where they're not actually more likely to be on a small roster than a larger roster, which I thought was kind of the point all along.Anyway, I don't think we really disagree as much as it may seem. It's certainly hard to argue against a team something like this one as a favorite to win the big money. Like I said, it will be fun to watch.
I think earlier you asked for average score by roster size and I bumped the results, showing that small rosters aren't averaging more points than larger rosters. Perhaps a better thing to compare, here's another table showing the average number of weeks a team has scored 200+ points, by roster size:
SIZE COUNT AVCt18 137 2.0119 56 2.0220 51 1.7521 35 1.7122 41 2.1723 48 1.8324 27 1.9625 28 1.9326 14 2.1427 12 2.0828 16 1.4429 13 1.3130 22 2.00So, on average, the 18-man rosters that are still alive have put up 200+ points about twice this season. And on average, the 30-man rosters that are still alive have put up 200+ points about twice this season. There's some obvious variation in between, of course, but there's clearly not a great advantage for the small rosters shown here. Or, another way, we can look at the size of the top scoring team each week so far:
WEEK SIZE1 272 183 204 185 206 187 248 279 1910 2611 2312 18Seven times it was 18-20, five times it was 23+.Or we can look at rolling three week totals so far:
WEEK SIZE1 222 223 294 185 226 207 208 189 2410 24Four times it's been 18-20, three times it's been 22, three times it's been 24+.Are small rosters more likely to put up the big points needed to win the grand prize? Probably. But I don't think they're vastly more likely to do it, and I'm not convinced that the advantage they do have outweighs the disadvantage they're at during the regular season. Regardless of what happens in these final few weeks, when next year's contest goes live, I'm almost certainly still rolling with a larger roster.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
This is possible. ETA: Although, we're not really talking about lay people here, are we? I mean, this is the Footballguys.com Subscriber Contest. It's reasonable to assume that most people entering this contest are aware of who's ranked higher than who by fantasy experts, since they actually pay for rankings by fantasy experts.
I think most people agree that uniqueness isn't a good thing until you get to the finals. I don't think anyone argued that they wanted a more unique team so they'd have a better chance surviving during the regular season.
But that's my point. It can't possibly be "partly because Roddy has not performed to the same level he has in past seasons before he was 31." Whatever stats he put up prior to this year are totally irrelevant to this year's contest. Roddy isn't somehow penalized because his career stats are trending downwards while Julio's are trending upwards. In this year's contest, Roddy White has scored more points than Julio Jones. The fact that his output is actually a decline from his previous career peak has no bearing on the question of which one is the better choice for the contest. If I told you on September 1st, Roddy White is guaranteed to score 180 points through 12 elimination weeks, and Julio Jones is guaranteed to score 160 points through 12 elimination weeks, would you argue that Julio Jones is a better pick becuase 180 is less than what Roddy used to put up in previous years? That makes no sense.
Obviously there's some reason Julio owners have outlasted Roddy owners, but "Roddy has not performed to the same level he has in past seasons" is not the reason.
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
Roddy White is on pace for 1364 yards, which is just about exactly his peak.And if you're trying to call me out, I didn't choose either Roddy or Julio, I chose Tony Gonzalez, who's been better than either of them.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Code:
PLAYER POS TEAM ALIVEMatt Ryan 1_QB ATL 197Michael Turner 2_RB ATL 15Jacquizz Rodgers 2_RB ATL 54Jason Snelling 2_RB ATL 4Julio Jones 3_WR ATL 153Roddy White 3_WR ATL 8Harry Douglas 3_WR ATL 25Tony Gonzalez 4_TE ATL 57Matt Bryant 5_PK ATL 62Atlanta Falcons 6_TD ATL 13Drew Brees 1_QB NO 42Darren Sproles 2_RB NO 37Mark Ingram 2_RB NO 12Pierre Thomas 2_RB NO 3Marques Colston 3_WR NO 27Lance Moore 3_WR NO 25Devery Henderson 3_WR NO 54Josh Morgan 3_WR NO 3Nick Toon 3_WR NO 7Jimmy Graham 4_TE NO 124Garrett Hartley 5_PK NO 8New Orleans Saints 6_TD NO 68Ahmad Rashad
Footballguy
He's on pace for 5.33 TD's, less than half his peak number, and 90.67 receptions, well below his 115 peak. In fantasy football points scored, he's well below his peak.
Ahmad Rashad
Footballguy
I don't know if there are lay people in the contest, but there are a lot of garbage entries that show that there are entrants that don't put a lot of thought into their rosters.
I don't know that most agree with that -- there were a lot of proponents of uniqueness that didn't make that distinction. I do agree with that.
The main part of the debate was I didn't think Roddy was a good risk at that price because he was 31, which meant he was likely past his peak fantasy production while his price didn't necessarily reflect that. He was priced the same as Julio, who was ranked as the number 3 WR here. Neither has produced at that level, Julio partially because of his injury limiting him in recent weeks. No one can guarantee how many points someone is going to score, but the risk of spending that much for a 31-year-old WR who's priced like he's at his peak is a good reason not to pick someone.
Going forward to the finals, if I make it, I'd rather have Julio, as he seems to be healthy now and has more NFL experience under his belt than at the beginning of the season (though uniqueness would favor Roddy).
CalBear
Footballguy
And yet he's still scoring more than Julio Jones and thus was a better selection in the contest.
Ahmad Rashad
Footballguy
They've scored about the same overall, with Roddy having 5 more points (less than .5 per week), but Julio's scored 19 points more since their week 7 bye, when the cuts have been harder. By the end of the contest, Julio probably will have scored more, and his owners have survived at more than double the rate, which is what counts.
CalBear
Footballguy
Look, man, just admit that you have nothing. They're more or less a wash this year, so your brilliant "analysis" that Julio was a much better deal than White because White is 31 was, as predicted, completely wrong.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Sure, but now we know how things turned out, and Roddy outproduced Julio.
You seem to have missed (or are intentionally avoiding) the point. Roddy actually has scored 180 points in the elimination weeks, and Julio's scored 160. There's no "risk" there, I'm guaranteeing that's exactly what will happen (because that's exactly what has happened). Obviously no one could really know that would happen ahead of time, but just pretend for a moment that you did know that on September 1st - based on that knowledge, who would you take?
Right, but why? That's really the interesting question that remains. It's certainly not because Julio has outperformed Roddy, because he hasn't.
chocula
Footballguy
Anyone know how many points Drew Brees scored last night? Hoping those 42 left with him get the boot this week. JK
I don't know if there are lay people in the contest, but there are a lot of garbage entries that show that there are entrants that don't put a lot of thought into their rosters.
Not sure what you saw and just taking a guess here, but I think some people go for originality and think that if they are unique, they have a chance of beating everyone else. Kind of like the teams with 15 kickers or defenses. They may think they can do more with their strange roster or beat others because no one else has their players.
I had a hunch with Flacco this year and he has been a good compliment to Matt Ryan. Now that it is the end of the contest, I look back and think that I would have a much better chance if I would have taken a safer QB.
I don't know if there are lay people in the contest, but there are a lot of garbage entries that show that there are entrants that don't put a lot of thought into their rosters.
Not sure what you saw and just taking a guess here, but I think some people go for originality and think that if they are unique, they have a chance of beating everyone else. Kind of like the teams with 15 kickers or defenses. They may think they can do more with their strange roster or beat others because no one else has their players.
I had a hunch with Flacco this year and he has been a good compliment to Matt Ryan. Now that it is the end of the contest, I look back and think that I would have a much better chance if I would have taken a safer QB.
Ahmad Rashad
Footballguy
I never said Julio was a much better deal. I said White was past his peak, and he's scored far less than in his peak year, as predicted.
Ahmad Rashad
Footballguy
Julio's outproduced Roddy in the bigger cut weeks and helped his owners survive at double the rate, and will probably end up outproducing him overall by the end of the contest.
Of course if someone guaranteed points, I'd take the higher points, but if someone guaranteed that I would survive at double the rate with Julio, I'd take Julio.
He has during the higher cut weeks since their bye, and probably will continue to do so through the playoff weeks now that he has more NFL experience and is getting healthy again. That's another consideration for this contest where the cuts get more and more difficult and the scoring for a young, emerging WR increases as he gets experience and begins to replace the aging vet as the highest producer.Based on the survival results, it's clear that Julio was the better choice if you wanted to survive and have a chance to win this contest.
Ahmad Rashad
Footballguy
I made no such prediction. I have no idea what scoring system that is. I only said that he was past his peak.
CalBear
Footballguy
Too bad you were wrong.
