Official Subscriber Contest (2 Viewers)

[BAT1man]

I was worried this week with GB and CHI on BYE, but thanks to Burleson, Bradshaw and Chris Henry and Michael Bush, of all people doing something, I made it through. Now I've got my two biggest BYE weeks out of the way with my main guys at QB, RB, and WR ready to go.

I used the query tool and if I did it right, I think I'm the only team left with:

Aaron Roders, Ryan Grant, DeAngelo Williams, Greg Jennings, Anquan Boldin and Greg Olsen. Hopefully that bodes well for my future.

I am still alive in the contest and have Aaron Roders, Ryan Grant LaDainian Tomlinson, DeAngelo Williams, Greg Jennings, Anquan Boldin and Greg Olsen Owen Daniels.I hope you do very well because it'll mean I do well, too.

 

[Dodge]

Entry 111433This entry is still alive.								 1	  2	  3	  4	  5  ----------------------------------------------------------------Eli Manning		   $16	 17.50  28.70  20.95  31.60  20.65 Shaun Hill			$11	 16.45   8.90  20.75  19.40  14.20 Byron Leftwich		 $4	 20.10  30.80   0.40   0.00   0.00 Steve Slaton		  $37	  6.70   7.40  12.80  21.90  12.80 Ryan Grant			$24	 13.20  14.30  10.90  12.10   0.00 Jerious Norwood		$9	  8.10   0.60   0.00   0.00   4.30 Ahmad Bradshaw		 $8	  8.60   5.50  10.40   6.40  29.00 Ladell Betts		   $2	  2.70   4.30   6.50   3.50   1.80 Reggie Wayne		  $36	 32.20   6.70  25.60  19.40  18.00 Marques Colston	   $28	 12.00  29.80  10.70   5.30   0.00 DeSean Jackson		$24	  6.20  21.60  26.90   0.00   1.10 Josh Morgan		   $15	  6.80   0.00   8.70  11.90  11.80 Chansi Stuckey		 $4	 16.40   7.70   3.10   1.80   0.00 David Clowney		  $2	  0.00   0.00   0.00   0.00  11.20 Jacoby Jones		   $2	  0.00  15.30  10.30   1.60   1.40 Mario Manningham	   $2	 14.80  31.00   9.50   5.30  11.60 Owen Daniels		  $13	 10.40  22.20  17.30   7.80  21.40 Ben Watson			 $3	 28.70   6.80   3.80   8.10  10.30 Lawrence Tynes		 $3	 13.00  18.00   6.00  11.00  16.00 Sebastian Janikowski   $1	 10.00  12.00   5.00   9.00   1.00 Arizona Cardinals	  $3	  6.00  16.00   2.00   0.00   8.00 Green Bay Packers	  $3	 10.00  12.00   7.00   8.00   0.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------TOTAL						169.00 206.40 148.55 137.10 160.45 CUTOFF					   120.88 130.04 126.34 113.79 110.99

Having Stuckey and Clowney, though both not great WRs might help me out now get over a hump here and there. Took a gamble with a cheap WR at the last second. Apparently there are 22 other teams that have picked this combo.

Survival Rate 	Overall Contest Survival RateTotal teams with these players	22 		Still Alive	17 	77.27 	46.07Eliminated in week 1	1 	95.45	90.59Eliminated in week 2		100.00	83.32Eliminated in week 3	2 	90.48	85.01Eliminated in week 4	1 	94.74	85.34Eliminated in week 5	1 	94.44	84.13

However lets see if Stuckey can get some passes in Cleveland.

 

[Short Corner]

I was worried this week with GB and CHI on BYE, but thanks to Burleson, Bradshaw and Chris Henry and Michael Bush, of all people doing something, I made it through. Now I've got my two biggest BYE weeks out of the way with my main guys at QB, RB, and WR ready to go.

I used the query tool and if I did it right, I think I'm the only team left with:

Aaron Roders, Ryan Grant, DeAngelo Williams, Greg Jennings, Anquan Boldin and Greg Olsen. Hopefully that bodes well for my future.

I am still alive in the contest and have Aaron Roders, Ryan Grant LaDainian Tomlinson, DeAngelo Williams, Greg Jennings, Anquan Boldin and Greg Olsen Owen Daniels.I hope you do very well because it'll mean I do well, too.

I would guess that almost everyone's top 6 are unique

 

[vandyt]

Interesting week...got through solely on the performance of my QB and top 2 RBs (Schaub/Bradshaw/Rice) as the rest of my roster was awful.

Got 6 from Dwill as a flex. Djax was my 2nd highest scoring WR with 1.1. Got the Cowboys D for 4 and Jeff Reed for 4. My 4th and 5th highest scoring players were Harvin and Celek.

Yeesh.

 

[Balco]

I still have no idea why I thought Mark Bradley was a good pick at $7, None. And I should have known Schillens situation could possibly cause him to be out longer than anticipated. Not really sure what I was thinking Lendale White. Doesn't catch the ball, doesn't carry more than 5 times a game. So his only real value would be if he scored twice in a game. Money poorly spent on those guys.

But this is my first time playing so I am learning for next year, I guess. Like I said earlier, one thing is for certain next year, I will be drafting 3 qb's, 3 defenses, 3 tight ends, and 3 kickers.

 

[rzrback77]

As of now, I count 426 teams with no QB who is projected to score points in week 6.

Good news there!

 

[Marvelous]

As a matter of common sense I'd humbly suggest that everyone who participates in this contest and who believes that higher number teams are the better strategy STOP trying to convince the lower number teams that their strategy is wrong.

Pretty sure they can't change strategy now.

Ah, but there's always next year.

And they will add a new wrinkle for us to debate endlessly throughout the season.

 

[eaglezzz]

Doesn't really matter if you went with 20 players or 24 players. Players get injured and bye weeks come up. If you drafted the right guys who work around byes/injuries you will have the best team in this thing, and also you need lots of Luck.

 

[jon_mx]

As of now, I count 426 teams with no QB who is projected to score points in week 6.

Good news there!

These bye weeks are killing a lot of people who tried to go with only two QB's. I think about 800 people took a zero or one at QB last week.

 

[rzrback77]

I think that there were also some three QB teams that took a zero. The two versus three argument is key when you lose one by injuries or benching.

 

[Balco]

As of now, I count 426 teams with no QB who is projected to score points in week 6.

Good news there!

These bye weeks are killing a lot of people who tried to go with only two QB's. I think about 800 people took a zero or one at QB last week.

Do we know how many people it effected, though? The cutoff was low, so it seems like with moderate contributions from the rest of the roster, a team could advance.

 

[jon_mx]

Interesting week...got through solely on the performance of my QB and top 2 RBs (Schaub/Bradshaw/Rice) as the rest of my roster was awful. Got 6 from Dwill as a flex. Djax was my 2nd highest scoring WR with 1.1. Got the Cowboys D for 4 and Jeff Reed for 4. My 4th and 5th highest scoring players were Harvin and Celek. Yeesh.

Your RB's were better than mine. DWill scored at RB for me, and Edgerrin James was my flex. Of course James 5.8 points were essential to making it to next week with a lowly 113.

 

[jon_mx]

As of now, I count 426 teams with no QB who is projected to score points in week 6.

Good news there!

These bye weeks are killing a lot of people who tried to go with only two QB's. I think about 800 people took a zero or one at QB last week.

Do we know how many people it effected, though? The cutoff was low, so it seems like with moderate contributions from the rest of the roster, a team could advance.

Of course it had a huge impact and was the main reason the cutoff was so low. Most of those 800 did not make it. I am betting there was a couple hundred who made it through without points at QB, but they had to have a major week by a player or two to do it.

 

[fatness]

Made it by my toughest bye-affected week by the skin of my teeth (above the cut-off by 2.41 points)

Same here, but by 1.06 points.

 

[gianmarco]

I have a potential rule addition that would make this contest VERY interesting.

You get to choose ONE week of the year for "immunity". It could be decided upon at any time. If you suffer some injuries and/or have bye week guys out that are going to hurt your chances, then you can use it. This would add the strategy of selecting many guys on a similar bye week and using it then. Of course, if you don't use it early on and get bumped, that's too bad. So waiting to use it could be a risky proposition.

Thoughts?

 

[Verbal Kint]

Week 1 the goal is to make it to week 2.Week 2 the goal is to make it to week 3.Week 3 the goal is to make it to week 4.Week 4 the goal is to make it to week 5.Week 5 the goal is to make it to week 6.So for five weeks running 20 has hurt your chances of achieving the goal dramatically vs 24.

 

[gianmarco]

Week 1 the goal is to make it to week 2.Week 2 the goal is to make it to week 3.Week 3 the goal is to make it to week 4.Week 4 the goal is to make it to week 5.Week 5 the goal is to make it to week 6.So for five weeks running 20 has hurt your chances of achieving the goal dramatically vs 24.

Yes and no. If your goal is to make it further than any random team, then sure. But my goal is to actually win at the end. Yes, you have to get there, but if you get there by having a team that puts up good but not great scores, then you won't win it all. That isn't to say that a 20 person team is better than a 24 person team, but in the end, I think it's irrelevant because it's going to end up being the team with the best players at the right team. 24 vs. 20 at that point has little impact as a 20 person team that has made it that far to begin with has done so for a reason.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I have a potential rule addition that would make this contest VERY interesting.You get to choose ONE week of the year for "immunity". It could be decided upon at any time. If you suffer some injuries and/or have bye week guys out that are going to hurt your chances, then you can use it. This would add the strategy of selecting many guys on a similar bye week and using it then. Of course, if you don't use it early on and get bumped, that's too bad. So waiting to use it could be a risky proposition.Thoughts?

There is not an X big enough or red enough to fit here

 

[Short Corner]

I have a potential rule addition that would make this contest VERY interesting.You get to choose ONE week of the year for "immunity". It could be decided upon at any time. If you suffer some injuries and/or have bye week guys out that are going to hurt your chances, then you can use it. This would add the strategy of selecting many guys on a similar bye week and using it then. Of course, if you don't use it early on and get bumped, that's too bad. So waiting to use it could be a risky proposition.Thoughts?

 

[CalBear]

Yes and no. If your goal is to make it further than any random team, then sure. But my goal is to actually win at the end. Yes, you have to get there, but if you get there by having a team that puts up good but not great scores, then you won't win it all. That isn't to say that a 20 person team is better than a 24 person team, but in the end, I think it's irrelevant because it's going to end up being the team with the best players at the right team. 24 vs. 20 at that point has little impact as a 20 person team that has made it that far to begin with has done so for a reason.

If 20-player teams have scored more poorly than 24-player teams in weeks 1,2,3,4, and 5, why would you think they would score better in weeks 13-16?

 

[Short Corner]

Week 1 the goal is to make it to week 2.Week 2 the goal is to make it to week 3.Week 3 the goal is to make it to week 4.Week 4 the goal is to make it to week 5.Week 5 the goal is to make it to week 6.So for five weeks running 20 has hurt your chances of achieving the goal dramatically vs 24.

Yes and no. If your goal is to make it further than any random team, then sure. But my goal is to actually win at the end. Yes, you have to get there, but if you get there by having a team that puts up good but not great scores, then you won't win it all. That isn't to say that a 20 person team is better than a 24 person team, but in the end, I think it's irrelevant because it's going to end up being the team with the best players at the right team. 24 vs. 20 at that point has little impact as a 20 person team that has made it that far to begin with has done so for a reason.

I disagree. 24 vs 20 will still have a huge impact as you will have to differentiate yourself from the pack and having more players gives you more combinations to do so. You might have players A, b, and C go off, but in all likelihood, so will others. It will be the bottom how you round out your scoring that determines whether you come out on top.

 

[gianmarco]

Yes and no. If your goal is to make it further than any random team, then sure. But my goal is to actually win at the end. Yes, you have to get there, but if you get there by having a team that puts up good but not great scores, then you won't win it all. That isn't to say that a 20 person team is better than a 24 person team, but in the end, I think it's irrelevant because it's going to end up being the team with the best players at the right team. 24 vs. 20 at that point has little impact as a 20 person team that has made it that far to begin with has done so for a reason.

If 20-player teams have scored more poorly than 24-player teams in weeks 1,2,3,4, and 5, why would you think they would score better in weeks 13-16?

Think about it this way. If a 20 player team has done well enough to make it to the end, why do you think that is? It is likely they have some extremely good performers and the extra $ spent on a couple of guys may have made a big difference.It doesn't mean that a 24 player team can't do as well at the end either, but I think in the end, when it matters most, 20 vs. 24 is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that the 24 person team may have gotten there because of some extra guys chipping in occasionally. The 20 person team relied on that less and likely just has overall better starters. I think people looking at the overall #'s in terms of teams who make it isn't the right way to look at it. I couldn't care less if I have 9 Americans running the 100 meter race if the 1 Jamaican running is Bolt. Quantity != Quality. Just because there's more 24 person teams advancing each week doesn't make them likely to win. What's more important is to see of the top scoring teams, what THAT distribution is, especially as the contest goes along. And that sample size would end up being so small, especially after just 1 year of doing this, that it would be hard to draw a firm conclusion.As an extreme example, assuming 500 teams of 20 player rosters and 500 teams of 24 player rosters. Let's assume that 450 of the 24 player rosters advanced but only 50 of the 20 player rosters advanced. Using those #'s, the 24 player roster is superior. However, if I then told you that the top 20 scorers that week were all 20 man rosters, then I think you'd look at it differently. Both can occur at the same time. When it gets down to the end, the team that scores the most is probably going to get the most contribution from his star players. At that point, 20 vs. 24 just doesn't matter.

 

[CalBear]

Yes and no. If your goal is to make it further than any random team, then sure. But my goal is to actually win at the end. Yes, you have to get there, but if you get there by having a team that puts up good but not great scores, then you won't win it all. That isn't to say that a 20 person team is better than a 24 person team, but in the end, I think it's irrelevant because it's going to end up being the team with the best players at the right team. 24 vs. 20 at that point has little impact as a 20 person team that has made it that far to begin with has done so for a reason.

If 20-player teams have scored more poorly than 24-player teams in weeks 1,2,3,4, and 5, why would you think they would score better in weeks 13-16?

Think about it this way. If a 20 player team has done well enough to make it to the end, why do you think that is? It is likely they have some extremely good performers and the extra $ spent on a couple of guys may have made a big difference.It doesn't mean that a 24 player team can't do as well at the end either, but I think in the end, when it matters most, 20 vs. 24 is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that the 24 person team may have gotten there because of some extra guys chipping in occasionally. The 20 person team relied on that less and likely just has overall better starters.

I think people looking at the overall #'s in terms of teams who make it isn't the right way to look at it. I couldn't care less if I have 9 Americans running the 100 meter race if the 1 Jamaican running is Bolt. Quantity != Quality. Just because there's more 24 person teams advancing each week doesn't make them likely to win. What's more important is to see of the top scoring teams, what THAT distribution is, especially as the contest goes along. And that sample size would end up being so small, especially after just 1 year of doing this, that it would be hard to draw a firm conclusion.

As an extreme example, assuming 500 teams of 20 player rosters and 500 teams of 24 player rosters. Let's assume that 450 of the 24 player rosters advanced but only 50 of the 20 player rosters advanced. Using those #'s, the 24 player roster is superior. However, if I then told you that the top 20 scorers that week were all 20 man rosters, then I think you'd look at it differently. Both can occur at the same time. When it gets down to the end, the team that scores the most is probably going to get the most contribution from his star players. At that point, 20 vs. 24 just doesn't matter.

If your hypothesis were true--if 20-player teams which survive to the end are somehow stronger than 24-player teams--then we already would be seeing that reflected in the population. After all, the teams which are left have already survived five weeks, so they have to be stronger, right?But that's the opposite of what we're seeing; at this point the 24-player teams are more strongly represented at the top of the projections, they've scored more points, and their prospects going forward are better. We've already eliminated over half of the overall population; everyone who's left has a real team, and all the 24-player teams which make the final 250 will have strong top guys as well as cheap contributors.

It's better to have strong top guys and cheap contributors, than strong top guys without cheap contributors. How much was Drew Bennett worth in weeks 13-16 in 2004? He was probably a $1 player in this format and he put up 30 receptions, 544 yards and 8 TDs in weeks 13-16. The contest winner is likely to have at least one guy like that, and 24-player teams are more likely to have a guy like that on the roster.

 

[gianmarco]

Yes and no. If your goal is to make it further than any random team, then sure. But my goal is to actually win at the end. Yes, you have to get there, but if you get there by having a team that puts up good but not great scores, then you won't win it all. That isn't to say that a 20 person team is better than a 24 person team, but in the end, I think it's irrelevant because it's going to end up being the team with the best players at the right team. 24 vs. 20 at that point has little impact as a 20 person team that has made it that far to begin with has done so for a reason.

If 20-player teams have scored more poorly than 24-player teams in weeks 1,2,3,4, and 5, why would you think they would score better in weeks 13-16?

Think about it this way. If a 20 player team has done well enough to make it to the end, why do you think that is? It is likely they have some extremely good performers and the extra $ spent on a couple of guys may have made a big difference.It doesn't mean that a 24 player team can't do as well at the end either, but I think in the end, when it matters most, 20 vs. 24 is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that the 24 person team may have gotten there because of some extra guys chipping in occasionally. The 20 person team relied on that less and likely just has overall better starters.

I think people looking at the overall #'s in terms of teams who make it isn't the right way to look at it. I couldn't care less if I have 9 Americans running the 100 meter race if the 1 Jamaican running is Bolt. Quantity != Quality. Just because there's more 24 person teams advancing each week doesn't make them likely to win. What's more important is to see of the top scoring teams, what THAT distribution is, especially as the contest goes along. And that sample size would end up being so small, especially after just 1 year of doing this, that it would be hard to draw a firm conclusion.

As an extreme example, assuming 500 teams of 20 player rosters and 500 teams of 24 player rosters. Let's assume that 450 of the 24 player rosters advanced but only 50 of the 20 player rosters advanced. Using those #'s, the 24 player roster is superior. However, if I then told you that the top 20 scorers that week were all 20 man rosters, then I think you'd look at it differently. Both can occur at the same time. When it gets down to the end, the team that scores the most is probably going to get the most contribution from his star players. At that point, 20 vs. 24 just doesn't matter.

If your hypothesis were true--if 20-player teams which survive to the end are somehow stronger than 24-player teams--then we already would be seeing that reflected in the population. After all, the teams which are left have already survived five weeks, so they have to be stronger, right?But that's the opposite of what we're seeing; at this point the 24-player teams are more strongly represented at the top of the projections, they've scored more points, and their prospects going forward are better. We've already eliminated over half of the overall population; everyone who's left has a real team, and all the 24-player teams which make the final 250 will have strong top guys as well as cheap contributors.

It's better to have strong top guys and cheap contributors, than strong top guys without cheap contributors. How much was Drew Bennett worth in weeks 13-16 in 2004? He was probably a $1 player in this format and he put up 30 receptions, 544 yards and 8 TDs in weeks 13-16. The contest winner is likely to have at least one guy like that, and 24-player teams are more likely to have a guy like that on the roster.

4 of the 5 top scoring teams this week had 21 players or fewer. I'm just saying.........Again, I'm NOT saying 20 is > 24. I'm simply saying that to say 24 > 20 just because more 24 player teams are advancing is faulty logic. The more important thing to look at is the distribution of the top scoring teams. If that's available or has been shown, I haven't seen it yet, but this thread is massive already and I haven't read every single post. I'm also saying that, in the end, if a 20 person team has made it, they made it through 13 weeks for a reason and it's because they didn't NEED help from cheap starters. Why? Because their stars are putting up big pts and on a consistent basis. On a given week at the end of the season, it's very unlikely that the 24 player team is getting his pts from those cheapies. What may matter more is that the 20 person team is getting even more production from his WR1 than the 24 person team because he was able to spend a few extra bucks on him.

P.S.--I have a 24 man roster

 

[CalBear]

Again, I'm NOT saying 20 is > 24. I'm simply saying that to say 24 > 20 just because more 24 player teams are advancing is faulty logic. The more important thing to look at is the distribution of the top scoring teams. If that's available or has been shown, I haven't seen it yet, but this thread is massive already and I haven't read every single post. I'm also saying that, in the end, if a 20 person team has made it, they made it through 13 weeks for a reason and it's because they didn't NEED help from cheap starters. Why? Because their stars are putting up big pts and on a consistent basis. On a given week at the end of the season, it's very unlikely that the 24 player team is getting his pts from those cheapies. What may matter more is that the 20 person team is getting even more production from his WR1 than the 24 person team because he was able to spend a few extra bucks on him.

Even if the bolded statement is true for weeks 1-12, there's no reason to believe it will be true for weeks 13-16. Here are some of the top 10 QBs who were < $5 players for weeks 13-16 in 2008:Matt Cassell

Tyler Thigpen

David Garrard

The top 10 RBs included the following cheap players:

Pierre Thomas

Steve Slaton

Chris Johnson

Matt Forte

And the top 10 WRs included:

Antonio Bryant

Vincent Jackson

In 2007 it was even more pronounced; at WR you had Roddy White, Greg Jennings, Anthony Gonzalez, and Roydell Williams, with Ryan Grant, Fred Taylor, Earnest Graham, and Aaron Stecker at RB, and Kurt Warner, David Garrard, Tarvaris Jackson, and Sage Rosenfels at QB.

So it looks like you can expect 30-40% of the top 10 point producers in weeks 13-16 to be cheap players.

 

[Marauder]

Again, I'm NOT saying 20 is > 24. I'm simply saying that to say 24 > 20 just because more 24 player teams are advancing is faulty logic. The more important thing to look at is the distribution of the top scoring teams. If that's available or has been shown, I haven't seen it yet, but this thread is massive already and I haven't read every single post. I'm also saying that, in the end, if a 20 person team has made it, they made it through 13 weeks for a reason and it's because they didn't NEED help from cheap starters. Why? Because their stars are putting up big pts and on a consistent basis. On a given week at the end of the season, it's very unlikely that the 24 player team is getting his pts from those cheapies. What may matter more is that the 20 person team is getting even more production from his WR1 than the 24 person team because he was able to spend a few extra bucks on him.P.S.--I have a 24 man roster

The flaw in this logic, IMO, is making the assumption that the 20-man teams that make it to the final 250 will have better studs. In reality, they will likely have the same studs as many of the 24-man teams. In fact you will likely see a lot of commonality at the top of the rosters among all the teams. The difference will more typically be something like 1 $12 WR vs. 5 $1-$5 RB/WR's. Which team is more likely to differentiate themselves from the pack? I say the 24-man team.

 

[tomarken]

Yes and no. If your goal is to make it further than any random team, then sure. But my goal is to actually win at the end. Yes, you have to get there, but if you get there by having a team that puts up good but not great scores, then you won't win it all. That isn't to say that a 20 person team is better than a 24 person team, but in the end, I think it's irrelevant because it's going to end up being the team with the best players at the right team. 24 vs. 20 at that point has little impact as a 20 person team that has made it that far to begin with has done so for a reason.

If 20-player teams have scored more poorly than 24-player teams in weeks 1,2,3,4, and 5, why would you think they would score better in weeks 13-16?

Think about it this way. If a 20 player team has done well enough to make it to the end, why do you think that is? It is likely they have some extremely good performers and the extra $ spent on a couple of guys may have made a big difference.It doesn't mean that a 24 player team can't do as well at the end either, but I think in the end, when it matters most, 20 vs. 24 is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that the 24 person team may have gotten there because of some extra guys chipping in occasionally. The 20 person team relied on that less and likely just has overall better starters.

I think people looking at the overall #'s in terms of teams who make it isn't the right way to look at it. I couldn't care less if I have 9 Americans running the 100 meter race if the 1 Jamaican running is Bolt. Quantity != Quality. Just because there's more 24 person teams advancing each week doesn't make them likely to win. What's more important is to see of the top scoring teams, what THAT distribution is, especially as the contest goes along. And that sample size would end up being so small, especially after just 1 year of doing this, that it would be hard to draw a firm conclusion.

As an extreme example, assuming 500 teams of 20 player rosters and 500 teams of 24 player rosters. Let's assume that 450 of the 24 player rosters advanced but only 50 of the 20 player rosters advanced. Using those #'s, the 24 player roster is superior. However, if I then told you that the top 20 scorers that week were all 20 man rosters, then I think you'd look at it differently. Both can occur at the same time. When it gets down to the end, the team that scores the most is probably going to get the most contribution from his star players. At that point, 20 vs. 24 just doesn't matter.

If your hypothesis were true--if 20-player teams which survive to the end are somehow stronger than 24-player teams--then we already would be seeing that reflected in the population. After all, the teams which are left have already survived five weeks, so they have to be stronger, right?snip

No they don't have to be stronger individually. The hypothesis, as you stated yourself, is that "the 20-player teams which survive to the end are somehow stronger than 24-player teams." We wouldn't be seeing that reflected yet because - note the italicized - we're not at the end yet. There are still plenty of 20-player rosters remaining, any one of which might win the money - which is all that matters, right?

 

[tomarken]

Again, I'm NOT saying 20 is > 24. I'm simply saying that to say 24 > 20 just because more 24 player teams are advancing is faulty logic. The more important thing to look at is the distribution of the top scoring teams. If that's available or has been shown, I haven't seen it yet, but this thread is massive already and I haven't read every single post. I'm also saying that, in the end, if a 20 person team has made it, they made it through 13 weeks for a reason and it's because they didn't NEED help from cheap starters. Why? Because their stars are putting up big pts and on a consistent basis. On a given week at the end of the season, it's very unlikely that the 24 player team is getting his pts from those cheapies. What may matter more is that the 20 person team is getting even more production from his WR1 than the 24 person team because he was able to spend a few extra bucks on him.

Even if the bolded statement is true for weeks 1-12, there's no reason to believe it will be true for weeks 13-16. Here are some of the top 10 QBs who were < $5 players for weeks 13-16 in 2008:Matt Cassell

Tyler Thigpen

David Garrard

The top 10 RBs included the following cheap players:

Pierre Thomas

Steve Slaton

Chris Johnson

Matt Forte

And the top 10 WRs included:

Antonio Bryant

Vincent Jackson

Of that list, the guy who won last year only had Slaton (who EVERYONE had), Chris Johnson (who wasn't actually cheap and doesn't belong on that list), and Antonio Bryant. The second place team only had Slaton (who EVERYONE had) and Vincent Jackson (who wasn't actually cheap and doesn't belong on that list).

The guy who came in third only had Slaton and Bryant.

Now, I agree that Bryant was a great $2 player to own in those final weeks, but there's no magic formula here. A team is going to win the $20,000 this year and one side or the other in this argument will claim victory, when really the arguments on both sides are dwarfed by luck. Maybe a 24-player team claims luck is on their side because they have more players with a chance to blow up. Maybe a 20-player team claims the luck advantage because they were able to concentrate their money into more proven studs and they happened to pick the right ones. It doesn't matter, only one team out of the 13000+ entries will win and the amount of luck it requires to do so outweighs any strategy they may claim to have implemented.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Preliminary week 6 sim

 

[CalBear]

Now, I agree that Bryant was a great $2 player to own in those final weeks, but there's no magic formula here. A team is going to win the $20,000 this year and one side or the other in this argument will claim victory, when really the arguments on both sides are dwarfed by luck. Maybe a 24-player team claims luck is on their side because they have more players with a chance to blow up. Maybe a 20-player team claims the luck advantage because they were able to concentrate their money into more proven studs and they happened to pick the right ones. It doesn't matter, only one team out of the 13000+ entries will win and the amount of luck it requires to do so outweighs any strategy they may claim to have implemented.

Certainly winning a 1-in-13000 contest requires luck, but as with most games of chance, there are things you can do to improve your chances of winning. Winning at roulette requires luck, but it should be obvious that playing on a European wheel (with one green) will give you better odds than playing on a United States wheel (with two). Having 24 players is a way to improve your odds against the field. It really does not matter what the final winner has on his roster; that's a sample size of one and can't meaningfully be a part of a discussion on which was a better strategy (any more than a roulette ball landing in "17" can meaningfully be part of a discussion on the best roulette bet). It is clear from the populations that 24-player teams have a significant advantage over 20-player teams.

 

[Frank Costanza's Lawyer]

As a matter of common sense I'd humbly suggest that everyone who participates in this contest and who believes that higher number teams are the better strategy STOP trying to convince the lower number teams that their strategy is wrong.

:bump:

 

[drm1125]

Preliminary week 6 sim

Only a 76% chance of surviving this week. Lowest by far for my team in any sim. I'm officially worried.

 

[gianmarco]

It is clear from the populations that 24-player teams have a significant advantage over 20-player teams.

If you mean it's clear they have a significant advantage in advancing from one week to the next early on, yes, it's clear.If you mean it's clear they have a significant advantage in winning the whole thing, then no, sorry, I'll have to disagree. We're not there yet and more teams advancing overall does not mean better chance at being the winning team.

 

[datonn]

Not that anyone cares, but I went with a 22-man roster vs. 20 or 24. I didn't want to go 20 players, as I felt a little TOO exposed to injuries and byes. However, I also didn't want to go 24 players, because I wanted to have enough $$$ per-player to afford a couple more guys I thought could carry me later in the year. Guys like Rodgers, Turner, Boldin and VJax.

So far, so good. Byron Leftwich is dead money for me now, as is RB James Davis (IR). However, I've been doing okay so far. Whether or not I can survive for another 4-6 weeks is yet to be seen...but if I do, I hope that Rodgers, Turner, Rice, Boldin and VJax can post enough big weeks to give me a fighting chance. First things first though...just keep me alive, week to week.

 

[firstseason1988]

:gulp:

46.2 %

Thought I could have trouble this week, but not that much.

 

[ctriopelle]

[quote name='rzrback77' Do we know how many people it effected, though? The cutoff was low, so it seems like with moderate contributions from the rest of the roster, a team could advance.

Of course it had a huge impact and was the main reason the cutoff was so low. Most of those 800 did not make it. I am betting there was a couple hundred who made it through without points at QB, but they had to have a major week by a player or two to do it.

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ......wrong answer...

775 teams according to my data took less than 1 point at QB. 443 survived (including mine), 342 didn't. You are correct in saying that the cut was low because lots of teams had no QB (dragging down the bottom scores), but the fact that 10% of the survivors had a zero and only 15% got cut made it a LOT easier to advance than you'd think. I only had to beat about 400 of the rest of the teams that had a QB (and probably quite a few that poorly managed this popular bye in general), and I ended up placing in the top 2500 spotting the field about 20 points. Taking a bad score isn't all bad if you can get away with it, I just don't want to be dealing with taking a zero at a spot in another 8 weeks.

 

[CalBear]

It is clear from the populations that 24-player teams have a significant advantage over 20-player teams.

If you mean it's clear they have a significant advantage in advancing from one week to the next early on, yes, it's clear.If you mean it's clear they have a significant advantage in winning the whole thing, then no, sorry, I'll have to disagree. We're not there yet and more teams advancing overall does not mean better chance at being the winning team.

Current projections are that a 24-man roster is about 8 times as likely to make the final 250 as a 20-man roster. Let me say that again: eight times as likely. If only 20 and 24-man rosters were allowed and they were evenly split originally, that means that there would be 31 20-man rosters and 219 24-man rosters in the final 250.To overcome that deficit, those 31 teams would have to be eight times as likely to score the most points in any given week compared to the 24-man rosters. Considering how they got slaughtered on the way to week 13, it seems crazy to believe that any such thing has even a remote possibility of being true.

 

[gianmarco]

It is clear from the populations that 24-player teams have a significant advantage over 20-player teams.

If you mean it's clear they have a significant advantage in advancing from one week to the next early on, yes, it's clear.If you mean it's clear they have a significant advantage in winning the whole thing, then no, sorry, I'll have to disagree. We're not there yet and more teams advancing overall does not mean better chance at being the winning team.

Current projections are that a 24-man roster is about 8 times as likely to make the final 250 as a 20-man roster. Let me say that again: eight times as likely. If only 20 and 24-man rosters were allowed and they were evenly split originally, that means that there would be 31 20-man rosters and 219 24-man rosters in the final 250.To overcome that deficit, those 31 teams would have to be eight times as likely to score the most points in any given week compared to the 24-man rosters. Considering how they got slaughtered on the way to week 13, it seems crazy to believe that any such thing has even a remote possibility of being true.

And again, this past week, 4 of the top 5 scoring teams had either 20 or 21 players on their roster. Considering there's so many 24 roster teams that are making it through, how could that possibly be?The bolded statement above is the flaw in your logic. Just because there would be 219 vs. 31 does NOT mean that the 24 man rosters necessarily are scoring THE highest. Just means there's more that made it. It's still possible that the highest scorers overall out of those 250 are mostly 20 team groups. Like, you know, last week?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If 20-player teams have scored more poorly than 24-player teams in weeks 1,2,3,4, and 5, why would you think they would score better in weeks 13-16?

 

[CalBear]

And again, this past week, 4 of the top 5 scoring teams had either 20 or 21 players on their roster. Considering there's so many 24 roster teams that are making it through, how could that possibly be?

The bolded statement above is the flaw in your logic. Just because there would be 219 vs. 31 does NOT mean that the 24 man rosters necessarily are scoring THE highest. Just means there's more that made it. It's still possible that the highest scorers overall out of those 250 are mostly 20 team groups. Like, you know, last week?

The flaw in your logic (other than the ridiculously small sample size) is that the population of 20+21-player team is still larger than the population of 24-player teams. There are 2051 teams with 20 or 21 players, and 2021 teams with 24. So it is natural that most of the top teams in any given week are from smaller rosters, but that will become less and less true as the smaller rosters disappear. In fact, I would be surprised if it's true for any week from here on in (for sufficiently large values of n; n=5 is too small).Look at it this way. Let's say your team got eliminated, but after week 12 you found a glitch in FBG's system which allowed you to create a new team for weeks 13-16. The only catch is that the team has to still be legal under the original conditions of the contest, using the same player values. So, you know all about the injuries, hot players, cold players, promotions and benchings going into week 13. You can spend $250 on any number of players. How many players would you put on your roster?

I think it would be insane to go with any less than 24 players in this scenario. It's best-ball format, so adding more low-cost, valuable players will always be better than concentrating on a few. And in the actual contest, the winning team is going to look a lot like the team that you'd build in this scenario.

 

[sinatravolta]

It is clear from the populations that 24-player teams have a significant advantage over 20-player teams.

If you mean it's clear they have a significant advantage in advancing from one week to the next early on, yes, it's clear.If you mean it's clear they have a significant advantage in winning the whole thing, then no, sorry, I'll have to disagree. We're not there yet and more teams advancing overall does not mean better chance at being the winning team.

Gianmarco - you apparently missed the part of the thread where Doug posted the top 20 teams when you add all 3 weeks 1-3. 10 of them were 24-man rosters. 1 was a 20-man roster. Bear in mind at that point there were still many more 20-man rosters than 24-man rosters. Average score was highest for 24-man rosters of all roster sizes.That is the closest thing we have to a simulation of Weeks 14-16. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[HellToupee]

99.2%

good lord I hope that plays out

 

[shahekee]

70.3 :gulp:

 

[Fennis]

92.8%. Ill take it.

 

[jon_mx]

[quote name='rzrback77' Do we know how many people it effected, though? The cutoff was low, so it seems like with moderate contributions from the rest of the roster, a team could advance.

Of course it had a huge impact and was the main reason the cutoff was so low. Most of those 800 did not make it. I am betting there was a couple hundred who made it through without points at QB, but they had to have a major week by a player or two to do it.

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ......wrong answer...

775 teams according to my data took less than 1 point at QB. 443 survived (including mine), 342 didn't. You are correct in saying that the cut was low because lots of teams had no QB (dragging down the bottom scores), but the fact that 10% of the survivors had a zero and only 15% got cut made it a LOT easier to advance than you'd think. I only had to beat about 400 of the rest of the teams that had a QB (and probably quite a few that poorly managed this popular bye in general), and I ended up placing in the top 2500 spotting the field about 20 points. Taking a bad score isn't all bad if you can get away with it, I just don't want to be dealing with taking a zero at a spot in another 8 weeks.

I am not sure what you mean, only 15% got cut. 343/774 = 44% of those teams missed the cut. The other teams which score points at QB (7251-775=6476), 808 (1150-342) missed the cut or 12%. I am a bit surprised that more than half the teams without QB points made the cut, but a 56 percent survival rate is much worse than an 88 percent.

 

[ctriopelle]

[quote name='rzrback77' Do we know how many people it effected, though? The cutoff was low, so it seems like with moderate contributions from the rest of the roster, a team could advance.

Of course it had a huge impact and was the main reason the cutoff was so low. Most of those 800 did not make it. I am betting there was a couple hundred who made it through without points at QB, but they had to have a major week by a player or two to do it.

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ......wrong answer...

775 teams according to my data took less than 1 point at QB. 443 survived (including mine), 342 didn't. You are correct in saying that the cut was low because lots of teams had no QB (dragging down the bottom scores), but the fact that 10% of the survivors had a zero and only 15% got cut made it a LOT easier to advance than you'd think. I only had to beat about 400 of the rest of the teams that had a QB (and probably quite a few that poorly managed this popular bye in general), and I ended up placing in the top 2500 spotting the field about 20 points. Taking a bad score isn't all bad if you can get away with it, I just don't want to be dealing with taking a zero at a spot in another 8 weeks.

I am not sure what you mean, only 15% got cut. 343/774 = 44% of those teams missed the cut. The other teams which score points at QB (7251-775=6476), 808 (1150-342) missed the cut or 12%. I am a bit surprised that more than half the teams without QB points made the cut, but a 56 percent survival rate is much worse than an 88 percent.

Your comment was that most of the people without a QB did not make the cut last week, which was incorrect (although I suspect most people would not have guessed that fact). Normally, if you are guaranteed a zero at a position (and a high scoring one at that) you can plan on getting whacked. But since so many were in the same spot last week, it actually leveled the playing field for us. If only 1-2% of teams were taking a QB zero (or 50% of teams were getting whacked), you can bet that almost every team without a QB would be gone. With the number of QB-less teams approaching the total number of teams getting cut, you really just needed to perform better than the other teams without QB, which wasn't terribly difficult this week with all the other bye issues going on.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Just-for-fun power ratings

 

[stlrams]

My team is slowly moving up the power ranking (1061) and sim results (97%) each week. While they haven't produce much yet I really like my RB's with 4 legit starters.

Tony Romo $23 35.85 15.65 14.95 11.75 30.05

Matt Hasselbeck $17 30.25 6.05 0.00 0.00 38.35

JaMarcus Russell $12 15.00 5.15 3.25 6.50 5.50

Brian Westbrook $34 14.70 8.10 0.00 0.00 10.50

Ryan Grant $24 13.20 14.30 10.90 12.10 0.00

Willie Parker $16 2.90 5.50 19.90 0.00 0.00

Laurence Maroney $4 5.10 2.30 1.70 2.80 2.10

Sammy Morris $4 0.00 2.30 7.70 14.10 11.70

Edgerrin James $1 3.00 0.60 0.70 2.70 5.80

Marques Colston $28 12.00 29.80 10.70 5.30 0.00

Donald Driver $21 7.90 21.90 20.80 9.50 0.00

Kevin Walter $14 0.00 0.00 23.70 5.10 7.60

Chris Chambers $10 0.00 5.00 0.00 13.90 0.00

Michael Jenkins $8 8.10 6.30 12.80 0.00 5.50

Nate Burleson $5 20.40 8.60 20.10 7.10 27.80

Patrick Crayton $4 24.00 3.40 8.80 4.60 8.40

Heath Miller $9 18.40 7.20 9.50 31.00 18.90

Kevin Boss $6 10.70 2.80 5.70 10.10 0.00

Jermichael Finley $3 2.10 11.60 0.00 27.80 0.00

Chris Baker $1 2.20 1.60 13.20 0.00 0.00

Jeff Reed $2 9.00 2.00 8.00 10.00 4.00

Olindo Mare $1 4.00 5.00 19.00 6.00 13.00

Houston Texans $2 8.00 5.00 2.00 16.00 3.00

New Orleans Saints $1 7.00 16.00 8.00 24.00 0.00

----------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL 166.25 138.15 163.35 161.25 145.05

CUTOFF 120.88 130.04 126.34 113.79 110.99

 

[kerpow]

21 man team for me. The key was getting 2 good QBs with different bye weeks. Shaub and Rodgers has been panning out well so far.

 

[PatsChowder]

99.1% looks good to me.

As for the "immunity" idea... I just cannot get on board with that at all. It's the second time I have seen someone propose something along those lines. The lack of immunity is what makes this game great. You have to attempt to build a roster that plays well every single week. Byes and injury prone players are taken into account. Yes, any of us could have a downer week and our studs could choke a week away, but that's all part of the game.

Currently, there is no margin for error... and that's what makes it exciting.