smackdaddies
Footballguy
Free, assuming you ignore the subscription free.
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 Subscriber Contest (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter David Dodds
- Start date
Couch Potato
Footballguy
People subscribe simply to enter this contest? Are you kidding? Maybe they do, but that never occurred to me. Seems such a minor part of what FBG is here for.
Couch Potato
Footballguy
I stand corrected. I just never thought of it as that big a part of things. I'm not criticizing, I'm just having my eyes opened here. Interesting.
Last edited by a moderator:
nashua55
Footballguy
I agree. It is way too early to say that the QB position is overrated. The first two weeks into the season, I am sure people owning Brees werent upset that they spent top dollar on a QB. And then you had the people crowning Leftwich the best bargain around. In the end, I would be happier with a Brady, Brees or a P. Manning as opposed to a Pennington, Hill, Hasselbeck, E. Manning, Sanchez, ect.. Thats just my opinion. sure you can get a low dollar QB that performs like a high dollar player, but the key is picking the right guy. Picking a P. Manning, Brees or Brady were as close to a sure thing. Picking a guy like Flacco was pure luck. By the way, my selections at QB go against what I should have done. I went with Romo, Sanchez and Leinart. I tried to get a team that was different from the rest. The news on Romo was negative and I took a shot by taking him. At this point, I think taking Romo was a mistake. If I could do it over, I would take P. Manning to pair him with D. Clark.gregjcross said:What convinces you that QB is overrated / overpaid when marginal starters like Brady Quinn and Jamarcus Russell still cost $9 and $12 respectively instead of $2 or $4? Just because a person thinks they are hitting on a huge bargain with some QBs before week 1 (in the $9-$19 range), it doesn't mean that they are.Most overrated and overpaid for position in this contest...and it's not close.LOL, good luck with your lack of depth at QB. One healthy starter.LHUCKS said:Team LHUCKS is only getting stronger...don't hate me because you didn't draft the sick RB depth that I have.
Big part of the reason I subscribe, also.
ratbast
Footballguy
1st Time player...having a blast!
Used every week:
Grant, Collston, Carlson
Not used:
Sanchez, Lynch, Wells, BScott, JDavis, JCribbs, JFinely, Seahawks
Is that good? I see 5 wasted picks thus far but seems to have good balance with only 3 used every week.
Used every week:
Grant, Collston, Carlson
Not used:
Sanchez, Lynch, Wells, BScott, JDavis, JCribbs, JFinely, Seahawks
Is that good? I see 5 wasted picks thus far but seems to have good balance with only 3 used every week.
Last edited by a moderator:
nashua55
Footballguy
The contest is the reason I subscribe. The strategy to win the thing is what makes it great. It has suspense every week. I quit fantasy football years ago. I rather bet on games than put in the time of submitting a lineup and worrying who to start each week. If I do play fantasy football again, it will be in a big money tournement. I never get sick of the contest, the format is the best.
The Kansas Comet
Footballguy
+1When I've been eliminated the past few years, it's been a real bummer even though I wasn't close to the money. I love the contest.
Quick data dump here.
These are the average and standard deviation of the 3-week total scores of the remaining teams, sorted by roster size.
+-------------+-----------------+---------+| roster_size | avg_total_score | std_dev |+-------------+-----------------+---------+| 20 | 465 | 31 || 21 | 466 | 31 || 22 | 469 | 32 || 23 | 471 | 33 || 24 | 476 | 33 |+-------------+-----------------+---------+apalmer will argue, and I won't disagree, that I should be including the teams that have been eliminated (and what they would have scored). But that would take a lot of extra programming, so I'll just have to leave it at this.And here are the top 20 live teams in terms of total score:
These are the average and standard deviation of the 3-week total scores of the remaining teams, sorted by roster size.
+-------------+-----------------+---------+| roster_size | avg_total_score | std_dev |+-------------+-----------------+---------+| 20 | 465 | 31 || 21 | 466 | 31 || 22 | 469 | 32 || 23 | 471 | 33 || 24 | 476 | 33 |+-------------+-----------------+---------+apalmer will argue, and I won't disagree, that I should be including the teams that have been eliminated (and what they would have scored). But that would take a lot of extra programming, so I'll just have to leave it at this.And here are the top 20 live teams in terms of total score:
Code:
+--------+-------------+-----------+| team | roster_size | tot_score |+--------+-------------+-----------+| 100122 | 24 | 591.15 || 109314 | 23 | 587.40 || 107586 | 24 | 584.95 || 109168 | 20 | 581.15 || 102679 | 23 | 580.90 || 108481 | 22 | 578.75 || 102221 | 21 | 578.35 || 109446 | 21 | 576.60 || 112277 | 24 | 574.25 || 113217 | 24 | 573.80 || 111369 | 21 | 572.95 || 101844 | 24 | 572.00 || 103294 | 24 | 569.15 || 112024 | 20 | 568.85 || 101020 | 23 | 568.60 || 104320 | 24 | 568.20 || 102589 | 21 | 568.15 || 105631 | 24 | 567.55 || 108884 | 24 | 566.20 || 105082 | 22 | 565.05 |+--------+-------------+-----------+Couch Potato
Footballguy
I think thats sorta cool guys. I learned something.
I almost didn't enter at all this year, I was so wrapped up in other drafts and lineups and such. I made the deadline the last day, and only because Joe's email reminded me. I'm glad I did though.
I almost didn't enter at all this year, I was so wrapped up in other drafts and lineups and such. I made the deadline the last day, and only because Joe's email reminded me. I'm glad I did though.
nashua55
Footballguy
The further you get in the contest the more involved you get. It takes on a life of its own. The contest is all about survival. It is like a playoff game each week. The last two years in a row, I got knocked out in the final cutdown week. This contest can be cruel at times, but it is the best. I always look foward to it each year.I think thats sorta cool guys. I learned something. I almost didn't enter at all this year, I was so wrapped up in other drafts and lineups and such. I made the deadline the last day, and only because Joe's email reminded me. I'm glad I did though.
sinatravolta
Footballguy
Not sure I understand what you are saying about the $$ drop-off and the numbers "I stated". I just added up the #'s of roster spots that had the highest survival rate. The Schaub point is silly - Schaub was awful week 1 so having him alone would not beat a lot of teams with multiples. And yes the point is obvious anyway - that's in fact what I said was surprising - picking 4 QBs seems like a bad idea to me - but so far it has actually worked better than picking 2! And it may continue to now that Leftwich and some other guys are injured. QB is also a spot where I think having fewer makes sense in the risk/reward sense. It does you no good if 2 or 3 QBs put up big numbers in the playoffs. They can't be flexed. The depth at RB/WR/TE can. This may wind up being a case where 4 QBs helps you last to the finals more than 2 - but won't help you win it all. I think 3 is probably the best play there (although I went 2).jon_mx said:
sinatravolta
Footballguy
Thank you Doug.
PatsChowder
Footballguy
As a fellow Brady owner, I used the exact same strategy. I actually dipped further down the list in grabbing Sanchez ($9) as my number two thinking he might be.. well.. as good as he is at his absolute best. I won't be disappointed if he stays the course he's on. That being said, Leftwich would have been a waste of money for any Brady owner. They have the same bye and at best Leftwich was going to be replaced after that by the rookie.I've followed along with a lot of the 3QB vs. 2QB discussion, but in my opinion, the risk of taking two quarterbacks (one elite, one low cost) far outweighs the benefits of spending the extra money on three quarterbacks. I spent 18.4% ($46) of my money at QB and feel like I really locked down the other positions where depth is more important. I'd much rather have better depth at RB/WR/TE where I start 7 players each week then QB where I start one.Couch Potato said:
EDIT: Side note, while I like all of the content at FBGs... the contest is what brings me back.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ted Lange as your Bartender
Footballguy
Felix + K smith injuries are killers. W/ DeAngelo on the bye, my only healthy RB's are Ahmad Bradshaw and Edgerrin James. Dicey two weeks coming up... 
gregjcross
Footballguy
Is there a link for all the cumulative scores?
THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA
Footballguy
Hey Doug do you have the week4 rankings out yet?
It is pretty conclusive that 24 is better than 20. Better survival rate, better average score, more top 20 scores. As we hit the bye weeks, it will even get worse for the 20 player teams. A lot of the high dollar players have disappointed, and a lot of the low dollar guys who had preseason buzz are doing pretty well. If you loaded up with the right $2-5 guys and hit on your high dollar studs, you are in great shape. I am doing well on my high dollar guys, but most of my cheap guys haven't come through. Wish I had gone Percy and Manningham.
I am always interested in the comments in this thread as I also really enjoy the contest. The addition of the 24 camp vs 20 camp discussions have been some of the most lively this year. I tend to favor the longer roster as better, but the truth is that when the additional position player depth (QB, RB, WR, and TE) are increased, it only really helps if you choose wisely (and luckily). If you chose L Robinson, Engram, or other less useful cheap WRs for your extra slots, did not help much to be 24 instead of 20.
There have been lots of comments about the high dollar players that the 20 roster folks grabbed haven't performed that well so that was a poor choice, but some of the higher $ guys are also on 24 roster teams so I don't get that one at all.
However, there is no way anyone will convince me that the extra roster spots at PK and DST are not worth adding. The week to week scoring for kickers and defenses is so variable and seemingly random, that it has to be an advantage to grab a minimum of three at each spot, especially with several $1 options.
Last blurb is that it is funny to me that since Leftwich has been dropped to third team that everyone knew this was inevitable for Tampa Bay this season, even after they traded McCown. This situation was eerily similar to Warner at Arizona last year and could have played out the same way, but since he has been demoted the postings that this was inevitable are too funny. Did not roster Leftwich.
There have been lots of comments about the high dollar players that the 20 roster folks grabbed haven't performed that well so that was a poor choice, but some of the higher $ guys are also on 24 roster teams so I don't get that one at all.
However, there is no way anyone will convince me that the extra roster spots at PK and DST are not worth adding. The week to week scoring for kickers and defenses is so variable and seemingly random, that it has to be an advantage to grab a minimum of three at each spot, especially with several $1 options.
Last blurb is that it is funny to me that since Leftwich has been dropped to third team that everyone knew this was inevitable for Tampa Bay this season, even after they traded McCown. This situation was eerily similar to Warner at Arizona last year and could have played out the same way, but since he has been demoted the postings that this was inevitable are too funny. Did not roster Leftwich.
Just for the record, I am strongly in the 24 camp and have been all along. When Dodds proposed the switch to flexible rosters, I basically asked, "what's the point? You may as well just change the roster limit to 24 because that's what everyone is going to do." I was wrong about that and am glad to have been wrong.But...
There is all sorts of potential correlation-causation trouble with inferring too much from these stats. I.e. just because the actual 24-man rosters in the contest are doing better than the 20-man rosters doesn't necessarily mean they're doing better because of the 24-man rosters. It could be that tendency to go with the 24-man roster is correlated with some other factors that lead to success. One such factor might be general awareness of the rules. There are LOTS of people who enter this thing without reading the rules at all (as evidenced by the emails we get in week 2 from people asking where they make their week 2 selections for the contest, and things like that). If the majority of those people, for whatever reason, went with 20-man rosters instead of 24, then we'd see more success from 24-man rosters even if a given individual is as likely to have success with a 20-man roster as with a 24.
Last year, for example, selecting Courtney Taylor was a statistically significant determinant of success in the contest even though Taylor himself did nothing. The same is true of James Davis this year. Davis ownership has so far correlated with success in the contest but, with 20 total yards on the season and no TDs, it certainly hasn't caused it.
This article, which I wrote last season, ruminates on the subject in greater detail.
The success of the higher number of player roosters is correlated with the number of low $$ players who become studs. There are a good number of $1, $2, $4, $5, and $9 players who are producing good numbers. There is also a good number of the higher dollar players, especially at RB and WR, who have flopped. QB is about the only position where you had to pay the money to get a stud.
It's the only reason I subscribed (other than contributing to keep the message boards free). Most of my drafts were over by the time the DD was rolling and every league I'm in is a best ball league. Not knoocking the content which is awesome, I just won't be using it this year.
smackdaddies
Footballguy
I am not saying it is the only reason, or perhaps even a major reason.However, only if you pay do you get to play, ergo, not free.And I think it is definitely a part of the reason some (many?) subscribe.
smackdaddies
Footballguy
From your link - Regardless of the results he produced, we have strong evidence that Courtney Taylor was a smart pick, that his selection is the result of a good process that didn't happen to work out in this particular case.That is one of the most important truths about long term success at FF - that process matters. Luck will return short term (or even a single season) of success. But it isn't the way to count on winning year after year.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
Missed the cut by two points.
butcher boy
Footballguy
Unless you're on this list, here's 20 of them.I challenge any of you to present your team if it's better than mine.
Code:
+--------+-------------+-----------+| team | roster_size | tot_score |+--------+-------------+-----------+| 100122 | 24 | 591.15 || 109314 | 23 | 587.40 || 107586 | 24 | 584.95 || 109168 | 20 | 581.15 || 102679 | 23 | 580.90 || 108481 | 22 | 578.75 || 102221 | 21 | 578.35 || 109446 | 21 | 576.60 || 112277 | 24 | 574.25 || 113217 | 24 | 573.80 || 111369 | 21 | 572.95 || 101844 | 24 | 572.00 || 103294 | 24 | 569.15 || 112024 | 20 | 568.85 || 101020 | 23 | 568.60 || 104320 | 24 | 568.20 || 102589 | 21 | 568.15 || 105631 | 24 | 567.55 || 108884 | 24 | 566.20 || 105082 | 22 | 565.05 |+--------+-------------+-----------+So at the end of the day - when the season is over, and we can use revisionist history - which roster do you think will turn out to be the "perfect" roster, a 20-man roster, or a 24-man roster (or something in between)?
The roster will have to be constructed such that it would have advanced every week, and scored the most points in the end. That is the goal of the contest (the size of the roster expands the margin for error a little bit, but you still have to pick teh right players who will perform each week, and have the top score in the end). So with the benefit of hindsight - which strategy - if executed perfectly, would have the "perfect" roster.
My money is on a 20-man roster. It should be an interesting exercise.
The roster will have to be constructed such that it would have advanced every week, and scored the most points in the end. That is the goal of the contest (the size of the roster expands the margin for error a little bit, but you still have to pick teh right players who will perform each week, and have the top score in the end). So with the benefit of hindsight - which strategy - if executed perfectly, would have the "perfect" roster.
My money is on a 20-man roster. It should be an interesting exercise.
Frank Costanza's Lawyer
Footballguy
Without trying to jump into the 20-24 player debate, I feel its necessary to say that I disagree with the first paragraph. You basically start off belittling any strategy used by someone with a 20-man roster - they were "uncomfortable" evaluating lesser-know players, they didnt take the time to find players with value, and they didnt bother thinking about how to best construct their rosters. You then move on to state that they will be eliminated at 4, 5, or more times the rate of 24-man rosters, with no data or reasoning to back it up. DD's stats show that 24-man rosters are surviving at a better rate, but that rate hasnt come anywhere near what you predict. I realize some are predicting 20-man rosters will be eliminated at a greater rate now that byes are in play, but that rate would have to make a truly massive jump in magnitude to even approach 4 times the rate of 24-man rosters.In the end, Im not sure any data will show which roster size was the "best" choice. The top 250 should have more 24-man teams than 20-man teams. But I expect that success in weeks 14-16 will have more to do with the specific players each team selected than the number of players on each teams roster.
In theory a 20 man roster would be the best assuming that there's always one higher priced player at each position producing better than a less expensive choice. In reality the 24 man roster is better since it's statistically unlikely that anyone picked the perfect roster.
LHUCKS
Footballguy
The goal is to be the final survivor...not score the most in the first three weeks.Unless you're on this list, here's 20 of them.I challenge any of you to present your team if it's better than mine.
ctriopelle
Footballguy
I'd actually bet against it, as the final 3 weeks will likely have many different "best" players, and a perfect roster will need to accommodate as many of them as possible. Since most weeks end up with cheap flier guys near the top, but they are horribly inconsistent, having more spots available to choose them would be important. Also, due to their inconsistency, it would be important to have a larger pool to draw from throughout the season to make sure you reach the finals.FWIW I think determining the "perfect" (i.e. unbeatable) roster, even using results after they have been determined is probably a very difficult exercise. Not saying it can't be done, but someone would have to do some pretty healthy iterative investigating to pull it off. I tried to determine a maximizing function for my team selection, and couldn't find any way to do it other than human trial and error, and even that was a tough process.
Steel Dillo
Footballguy
Just noticed that I'm the only one with the core team of:
QB - Rodgers
RB - Turner
RB - K. Smith
WR - Ca. Johnson
WR - V. Jackson
Unfortunately, I probably won't make it through week 4 & 5.
QB - Rodgers
RB - Turner
RB - K. Smith
WR - Ca. Johnson
WR - V. Jackson
Unfortunately, I probably won't make it through week 4 & 5.
Frank Costanza's Lawyer
Footballguy
Based on posts from last year and this year, virtually everyone's top 5 priced players are unique to their team.
It won't be easy, but it probably won't be that difficult. I would think you could maximize points over the final 3 weeks with a minimal roster, and fill in the blanks with low-priced fillers to ensure that the team made it past the cut line each week.
massraider
Footballguy
You:Carson Palmer $21 10.55 31.35I challenge any of you to present your team if it's better than mine.
Matt Hasselbeck $17 30.25 6.05
DeAngelo Williams $37 15.90 18.60
Felix Jones $11 2.20 15.60
Chester Taylor $11 5.50 4.30
Ahmad Bradshaw $8 8.60 5.50
LeSean McCoy $7 5.20 7.50
Glen Coffee $2 -0.30 3.90
James Davis $2 2.40 0.00
Randy Moss $42 26.10 6.40
DeSean Jackson $24 6.20 21.60
Vincent Jackson $21 16.60 26.10
Chris Henry $12 2.80 7.50
Derrick Mason $9 8.70 6.10
Robert Meachem $3 13.10 3.60
Laurent Robinson $2 13.70 17.40
John Carlson $11 30.50 13.60
Jermichael Finley $3 2.10 11.60
Chris Baker $1 2.20 1.60
Josh Brown $1 0.00 1.00
Dan Carpenter $1 1.00 17.00
San Francisco 49ers $2 7.00 3.00
Cincinnati Bengals $1 3.00 8.00
New Orleans Saints $1 7.00 16.00
Me:
QB - Aaron Rodgers - 27
QB - Matt Hasselbeck - 17
RB - Ryan Grant - 24
RB - Chris Wells - 15
RB - Darren Sproles - 13
RB - Leon Washington - 12
RB - Fred Taylor - 11
RB - Bernard Scott - 2
RB - James Davis - 2
WR - DeSean Jackson - 24
WR - Vincent Jackson - 21
WR - Kevin Walter - 14
WR - Derrick Mason - 9
WR - Nate Burleson - 5
WR - Percy Harvin - 5
WR - Patrick Crayton - 4
WR - Greg Camarillo - 4
WR - Chaz Schilens - 3
TE - Greg Olsen - 15
TE - John Carlson - 11
PK - Kris Brown - 3
PK - Shayne Graham - 2
TD - New York Jets - 4
TD - Green Bay Packers - 3
Quite a bit better.
Let's not do this people. Joe doesn't have the server capacity for all of us to post our teams that are better than Lhucks.You:Carson Palmer $21 10.55 31.35I challenge any of you to present your team if it's better than mine.
Matt Hasselbeck $17 30.25 6.05
DeAngelo Williams $37 15.90 18.60
Felix Jones $11 2.20 15.60
Chester Taylor $11 5.50 4.30
Ahmad Bradshaw $8 8.60 5.50
LeSean McCoy $7 5.20 7.50
Glen Coffee $2 -0.30 3.90
James Davis $2 2.40 0.00
Randy Moss $42 26.10 6.40
DeSean Jackson $24 6.20 21.60
Vincent Jackson $21 16.60 26.10
Chris Henry $12 2.80 7.50
Derrick Mason $9 8.70 6.10
Robert Meachem $3 13.10 3.60
Laurent Robinson $2 13.70 17.40
John Carlson $11 30.50 13.60
Jermichael Finley $3 2.10 11.60
Chris Baker $1 2.20 1.60
Josh Brown $1 0.00 1.00
Dan Carpenter $1 1.00 17.00
San Francisco 49ers $2 7.00 3.00
Cincinnati Bengals $1 3.00 8.00
New Orleans Saints $1 7.00 16.00
Me:
QB - Aaron Rodgers - 27
QB - Matt Hasselbeck - 17
RB - Ryan Grant - 24
RB - Chris Wells - 15
RB - Darren Sproles - 13
RB - Leon Washington - 12
RB - Fred Taylor - 11
RB - Bernard Scott - 2
RB - James Davis - 2
WR - DeSean Jackson - 24
WR - Vincent Jackson - 21
WR - Kevin Walter - 14
WR - Derrick Mason - 9
WR - Nate Burleson - 5
WR - Percy Harvin - 5
WR - Patrick Crayton - 4
WR - Greg Camarillo - 4
WR - Chaz Schilens - 3
TE - Greg Olsen - 15
TE - John Carlson - 11
PK - Kris Brown - 3
PK - Shayne Graham - 2
TD - New York Jets - 4
TD - Green Bay Packers - 3
Quite a bit better.
apalmer
Footballguy
Good point. We'd double the number of pages in the thread in a matter of hours.
sinatravolta
Footballguy
Really? The person I responded to had just said that people who did the 20-man roster all knew that they would be eliminated at a higher rate and were taking the "risk-reward" approach that supposedly the 20-man roster would score higher in the final 3 weeks so they were playing to win. I pointed out that many people who chose the 20-man roster were probably not thinking that. I don't see any fallacy in that. Doug Drinen's recent post was basically pointing out the same thing - that a lot of people who took the 20-man approach were likely casual players. That doesn't mean someone couldn't have a well-thought out 20-man strategy, but just that I'm pretty sure many did not. As for extrapolating out survival rates - I think I would need more data/time to figure this out exactly - and I'd love to see someone's efforts to do so - but I actually think that's a fair estimate of the pace we're already on. This is a really crude method - but if you look at it like in Weeks 1-3 75% of 24 man rosters survived and 56% of 20 man rosters survived. If you figure the same thing happens in weeks 4-6, weeks 7-9 and weeks 10-12 you have:
.75 x .75 x .75 x .75 = 32% survival.
.56 x .56 x. .56 x.56 = 10% survival. Then you have another week - week 13 - that same trend continues but I don't know what the multiple should be - but we're already at more than 3 times more likely to survive.
Now obviously the actual cuts get harder as we go - so a lower proportion of each will actually survive that long. And estimating how that would go will take more info/effort and some assumptions. If you buy in that the bye weeks will make it harder for 20-man rosters, it's pretty easy to get to my 4 or 5 times more likely without stretching your imagination whatsoever. I think you are not understanding that 75% survival vs. 56% through 3 weeks is a very big difference when there are so many more cut-down weeks to go.
Finally - what's funny is going back to your original point - you should actually be hoping that a high proportion of the 20-man rosters were not well thought out. Because that would mean that once those are weeded out the proportion surviving should get better for you. If the 20-man rosters were all well thought out - then the numbers so far are even worse news for you.
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
I agree. Although, it occurs to me that your margin of error shrinks with a smaller roster. For example, so far I regret the $33 and $12 I spent on Roddy White and Chris Henry. But of course, I am very happy with cheap players like Burleson, Harvin, Crayton, and Mason. With a 20 man roster, it seems like you have a larger chance of picking a dud without enough cheap backups to pick up the slack.
sinatravolta
Footballguy
Agree with ctriopelle - if you could pick the exact roster after-the-fact, it almost certainly will be 24 players. The strongest argument against the 24-man roster is it's hard to know which $1 or $2 or $3 guys will be the one-week wonder when you need them. Well - with the benefit of hind-sight that's no longer an issue at all. I think the "perfect roster" if you allowed for it - would have even more than 24 players (same $250 cap).
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
Footballguy
absent Devin Hesters last minute score (and assuming the overall # wouldn't change) I'd have made the cut by .01 pts
