Official Subscriber Contest (5 Viewers)

[tomarken]

Simulator accuracy report (now broken down a bit further):

Prob # surv pct-------------------------- 100 1 1 100.095--99 1262 1226 97.190--94 1280 1182 92.385--89 945 807 85.480--84 647 522 80.775--79 470 372 79.170--74 362 263 72.765--69 270 185 68.560--64 210 137 65.255--59 173 101 58.450--54 124 73 58.945--49 96 52 54.240--44 69 35 50.735--39 68 24 35.330--34 38 16 42.125--29 29 6 20.720--24 28 12 42.915--19 13 1 7.710--14 21 2 9.5 5-- 9 7 0 0.0 0-- 4 7 0 0.0

This confirms my intuition on the simulator--that high survival percentages tend to be overstated, and low survival percentages tend to be understated. Looks like the crossover is around 70%.

Actually he has been dead on most weeks, and this week is still very good. The smaller sample size in the least likely to succeed groups makes variations much more probable. All of the groups under 50 percent contain less than 100 people. Just look at the group 30-34...there are 38 people in that group. In order for his prediction to come about, 12 or 13 teams would have had to survive. Just because 16 teams survived, it does not mean his predictions understated the odds, it just means something unexpected happened. Probably 1 or 2 players had better weeks than expected a lifted a few teams up. Besides, if you flip a coin 100 times, and heads comes up 57 times, you can't conclude that your prediction of 50 was understated. That is just how random events work.

If you predict 50 and it comes up 57, you did understate it. Besides, a coin-flipping analogy doesn't work here because a coin has predetermined odds. We know that it's 50/50 and could arguably verify that outside of a Monte Carlo simulation.

Drinen's predictions and the final results are slightly different in the way they are being interpreted (the former is an individual team's chances of survival, while the latter is the overall survival rate for a collection of teams) but ignoring that for a moment, if Drinen says 50% and it turns out to be 57%, he did understate it. That's not a criticism of Doug, of course, no one would expect him to get them exactly right - and besides, if he's wrong it's really Dodds's fault.

 

[jon_mx]

Here's a list of guys that could be in the discussion for being at or near zero for the rest of the season. Really there's only a handful that are on IR or FA or in jail. If you feel guys like Bernard Scott will be a factor in this competition, feel free to remove them. I'm not going to argue.

QB

Clemens, Kellen NYJ 0.00

Leftwich, Byron TB 0.00

McCown, Luke TB 0.00

Pennington, Chad MIA 0.00

Quinn, Brady CLE 0.00

Rosenfels, Sage MIN 0.00

Smith, Alex SF 0.00

Stafford, Matthew DET 0.00

Not sure if i'm reading this right, but are you suggesting that Stafford won't score any more points this season? I'm actually confident he'll be back after the bye

Especially after Daunte Culpepper did his best DeMarcus Russel impersonation. I was really hoping Daunte was going to make a bit of a comeback. Stafford will be back after the bye.

 

[GloryDaze]

Feel free to redo the list. This isn't the thread to have a Stafford discussion. I just put people in there that are either seeing little to no PT, or may not play again this season. Pending an official announcement on Stafford, especially if he needs to visit Mr. Andrews, I thought it was possible enough to leave him on there.

 

[jon_mx]

Feel free to redo the list. This isn't the thread to have a Stafford discussion. I just put people in there that are either seeing little to no PT, or may not play again this season. Pending an official announcement on Stafford, especially if he needs to visit Mr. Andrews, I thought it was possible enough to leave him on there.

Stafford is the clear #1 QB, and no one is hinting his injury was season-ending. He shouldn't even be a consideration to be on the list.

 

[PatsChowder]

Getting back to the bye weeks..........

I have 4 players on bye, but unfortunately 3 of them are at WR (Mason, Burleson, and Britt). The other is Hauschka. This was somewhat by design, as I knew I would have my top two receivers still playing (Roddy White and Greg Jennings) and I could pick between Bess, Crayton, and Engram for the third. I had much higher hopes for Engram and with his dud of a season I'm stressing this week a little bit more.

Seeing the numbers for week 8 are concerning since I will have Brady, Morris, Engram, FWP, Cooley, and Suisham all on bye. I have depth across the board, but my margin for error will be slimmer during week 8 than any other. That being said, I'll take it one week at a time and just hope to see week 8 first.

These next two weeks will certainly be interesting.

 

[bonesman]

141.40 141.44 Welp... that puts the cap on one of the most painful non playoff fantasy weeks EVER!.... unbelievable.

Probably a QB kneel down.

Yup2-10-DET 36 36) 12-A.Rodgers kneels to DET 37 for -1 yards.(though he had a kneel down before that one that was for no loss)I blame Bironas for putting up a zero more than anything though.

 

[apalmer]

Top 50 by average weekly score:

112961	 24	   186.06100122 	24 	185.68108626 	20 	185.36109433 	24 	185.09106060 	24 	184.44107397 	24 	184.40109074 	23 	183.81111413 	24 	183.32112189 	22 	182.38100754 	24 	182.31101118 	24 	182.19103193 	24 	182.14108766 	24 	181.95104970 	24 	181.88108304 	23 	181.80100873 	24 	181.73106465 	21 	181.73102514 	24 	181.66100007 	24 	181.66102780 	24 	181.57105631 	24 	181.55106233 	24 	181.36102131 	23 	181.33102569 	24 	181.25108558 	20 	181.07103443 	23 	180.97102647 	23 	180.78100416 	22 	180.77100624 	23 	180.63107298 	21 	180.46107274 	24 	180.43107755 	24 	180.43106304 	24 	180.37107840 	24 	180.13109897 	24 	180.03107159 	23 	179.98109694 	24 	179.94109223 	24 	179.92105436 	24 	179.84108553 	24 	179.82106812 	24 	179.77112231 	22 	179.76100784 	24 	179.74102961 	24 	179.72104158 	24 	179.57100563 	24 	179.57102890 	24 	179.53101923 	24 	179.43107833 	24 	179.32102976 	20 	178.97

I've tried to stay on the sidelines for this whole 20 vs 24 debate (I have 23 btw) to let it play out,

This is like saying let's see who wins the hand to determine if AA is actually better than KK.

More like saying "Let's see who wins...one of 6 hands with a pair, or the one hand trying to hit a straight flush."

 

[Short Corner]

Top 50 by average weekly score:

112961	 24	   186.06100122 	24 	185.68108626 	20 	185.36109433 	24 	185.09106060 	24 	184.44107397 	24 	184.40109074 	23 	183.81111413 	24 	183.32112189 	22 	182.38100754 	24 	182.31101118 	24 	182.19103193 	24 	182.14108766 	24 	181.95104970 	24 	181.88108304 	23 	181.80100873 	24 	181.73106465 	21 	181.73102514 	24 	181.66100007 	24 	181.66102780 	24 	181.57105631 	24 	181.55106233 	24 	181.36102131 	23 	181.33102569 	24 	181.25108558 	20 	181.07103443 	23 	180.97102647 	23 	180.78100416 	22 	180.77100624 	23 	180.63107298 	21 	180.46107274 	24 	180.43107755 	24 	180.43106304 	24 	180.37107840 	24 	180.13109897 	24 	180.03107159 	23 	179.98109694 	24 	179.94109223 	24 	179.92105436 	24 	179.84108553 	24 	179.82106812 	24 	179.77112231 	22 	179.76100784 	24 	179.74102961 	24 	179.72104158 	24 	179.57100563 	24 	179.57102890 	24 	179.53101923 	24 	179.43107833 	24 	179.32102976 	20 	178.97

I've tried to stay on the sidelines for this whole 20 vs 24 debate (I have 23 btw) to let it play out,

This is like saying let's see who wins the hand to determine if AA is actually better than KK.

More like saying "Let's see who wins...one of 6 hands with a pair, or the one hand trying to hit a straight flush."

That all depends on what cards he is drawing with relative to the pairs. There are also no implied odds here. Everyone is all-in before the flop.

 

[bahamallama]

I'm out.

Missed the cut by 3 points, but I did get a big whopping 0 from Eddie Royal. No special teams td's I guess? Megatron was down too, all well.

Mental note for next year, carry more WR's!

d

 

[apalmer]

I'm out.

Missed the cut by 3 points, but I did get a big whopping 0 from Eddie Royal. No special teams td's I guess? Megatron was down too, all well.

Mental note for next year, carry more WR's!

d

Mental note #2: read the rules before picking your team.

 

[rzrback77]

I am curious about the 20-man roster has more capability to win than longer rosters. It seems that the one thought is that with the roster being shorter that more money was devoted to higher priced more high score potential guys. Would it be possible for some of the teams that went with 20-man rosters to post their top ten highest priced players?

I think that would be an interesting read.

Thanks

 

[Modog814]

I'm out.

Missed the cut by 3 points, but I did get a big whopping 0 from Eddie Royal. No special teams td's I guess? Megatron was down too, all well.

Mental note for next year, carry more WR's!

d

Mental note #2: read the rules before picking your team.

Was this specifically spelled out in the rules? I'm at work and can't open the rules, but I recall it being vague (or unclear) in the rules but I leant with that players wouldn't get special teams TD's.

 

[apalmer]

I'm out.

Missed the cut by 3 points, but I did get a big whopping 0 from Eddie Royal. No special teams td's I guess? Megatron was down too, all well.

Mental note for next year, carry more WR's!

d

Mental note #2: read the rules before picking your team.

Was this specifically spelled out in the rules? I'm at work and can't open the rules, but I recall it being vague (or unclear) in the rules but I leant with that players wouldn't get special teams TD's.

Doesn't seem vague or unclear at all--Individual palyers get points for rushing, receiving or passing TD's, D/St gets points for return TD's:

Player Scoring (QB, RB, WR, TE)

Passing TDs = 6 points

Interceptions Thrown = -1 points

Rushing TD = 6 points

Receiving TD = 6 points

Passing Yardage = .05 points per yard

Rushing Yardage = .10 points per yard

Receiving Yardage = .10 points per yard

Receptions for RB = 0.5 points

Receptions for WR = 1.0 points

Receptions for TE = 1.5 points

No points scored for 2 point conversions

Kicker Scoring (PK)

Field Goal Made (0-29 yards) = 3 points

Field Goal Made (30-39 yards) = 4 points

Field Goal Made (40-49 yards) = 5 points

Field Goal Made (50+ yards) = 6 points

Extra Point Made = 1 point

Def/ST Scoring (Def/ST)

Sack = 1 point

Interception = 2 points

Fumble Recovery = 2 points

Safety = 2 points

Defensive/ST TD = 6 points (Kickoff return, punt return, blocked FG return, blocked punt return, interception return, fumble recovery return, etc. Note: ALL fumble recoveries and non-offensive TDs will count)

 

[Modog814]

I'm out.

Missed the cut by 3 points, but I did get a big whopping 0 from Eddie Royal. No special teams td's I guess? Megatron was down too, all well.

Mental note for next year, carry more WR's!

d

Mental note #2: read the rules before picking your team.

Was this specifically spelled out in the rules? I'm at work and can't open the rules, but I recall it being vague (or unclear) in the rules but I leant with that players wouldn't get special teams TD's.

Doesn't seem vague or unclear at all--Individual palyers get points for rushing, receiving or passing TD's, D/St gets points for return TD's:

Def/ST Scoring (Def/ST)

Sack = 1 point

Interception = 2 points

Fumble Recovery = 2 points

Safety = 2 points

Defensive/ST TD = 6 points (Kickoff return, punt return, blocked FG return, blocked punt return, interception return, fumble recovery return, etc. Note: ALL fumble recoveries and non-offensive TDs will count)

The bolded part was the part that I thought was a little unclear and vague. I understand that it's listed under Def/ST and that is why I believed that Individual Returns didn't count, but I would understand if someone thought the other way as well, especially since it's the last thing listed in scoring, and on could interpret (whether correctly or not) that it was meant to apply to all player scoring. This doesn't really affect me at all, but i had to stop and think about it first before coming to my conclusion, so I could see someone not really thinking about it and coming to a different conclusion.

 

[bahamallama]

I understand the rules I was just mentioning the fact that they rested him at wr but he had 2 td's that don't count and I lost by 3 points!

It's not irony but I don't know the word for it.......

d

 

[jon_mx]

I understand the rules I was just mentioning the fact that they rested him at wr but he had 2 td's that don't count and I lost by 3 points!It's not irony but I don't know the word for it.......d

I am not sure there is a word for it, but it does kind of rub salt to the wound.

 

[rzrback77]

OK I did not get a reply from a 20 roster team so I did some checking......looked only at the 20 and 21 man teams that are in the top 50 averages per week

team 108626 (20) eight highest priced guys - 2 QBs 5 RBs 7 WRs 2 TEs 2 PKs 2 DSTs No $1 players

Drew Brees $35

D Garrard $18

DeAngelo Williams $37

Ray Rice $21

Colston $28

Chad Ocho $27

V Jackson $21

Dallas Clark $18

team 108558 (20) eight highest priced guys - 2 QBs 6 RBs 6 WRs 2 TEs 2 PKs 2 DSTs No $1 players

J Cutler $22

Matt Ryan $19

DeAngelo Williams $37

Ray Rice $21

L Washington $12

Colston $28

Chad Ocho $27

O Daniels $13

team 102976 (20) eight highest priced guys - 2 QBs 5 RBs 7 WRs 2 TEs 2 PKs 2 DSTs Three $1 players

P Rivers $25

J Flacco $14

Matt Forte $45

L White $12

Reggie Wayne $36

DeSean Jackson $24

Steve Smith $12

Greg Olsen $15

team 106465 (21) eight highest priced guys - 3 QBs 3 RBs 7 WRs 3 TEs 3 PKs 2 DSTs No $1 players

Big Ben Roeth $19

M Hasselbeck $17

Frank Gore $43

Ray Rice $21

Mendenhall $10

Anquan Boldin $31

Hines Ward $24

Chris Cooley $15

team 107298 (21) eight highest priced guys - 2 QBs 6 RBs 7 WRs 2 TEs 2 PKs 2 DSTs No $1 players

Schaub $20

Hasselbeck $17

R Grant $24

Ray Rice $21

C Wells $15

G Jennings $32

Chad Ocho $27

Roy Williams $21

Not a tremendous number of higher priced guys in these top average scoring teams with rosters of 20 or 21. They all included Ray Rice though.

 

[jdoggydogg]

OK I did not get a reply from a 20 roster team so I did some checking......looked only at the 20 and 21 man teams that are in the top 50 averages per week

team 108626 (20) eight highest priced guys - 2 QBs 5 RBs 7 WRs 2 TEs 2 PKs 2 DSTs No $1 players

Drew Brees $35

D Garrard $18

DeAngelo Williams $37

Ray Rice $21

Colston $28

Chad Ocho $27

V Jackson $21

Dallas Clark $18

team 108558 (20) eight highest priced guys - 2 QBs 6 RBs 6 WRs 2 TEs 2 PKs 2 DSTs No $1 players

J Cutler $22

Matt Ryan $19

DeAngelo Williams $37

Ray Rice $21

L Washington $12

Colston $28

Chad Ocho $27

O Daniels $13

team 102976 (20) eight highest priced guys - 2 QBs 5 RBs 7 WRs 2 TEs 2 PKs 2 DSTs Three $1 players

P Rivers $25

J Flacco $14

Matt Forte $45

L White $12

Reggie Wayne $36

DeSean Jackson $24

Steve Smith $12

Greg Olsen $15

team 106465 (21) eight highest priced guys - 3 QBs 3 RBs 7 WRs 3 TEs 3 PKs 2 DSTs No $1 players

Big Ben Roeth $19

M Hasselbeck $17

Frank Gore $43

Ray Rice $21

Mendenhall $10

Anquan Boldin $31

Hines Ward $24

Chris Cooley $15

team 107298 (21) eight highest priced guys - 2 QBs 6 RBs 7 WRs 2 TEs 2 PKs 2 DSTs No $1 players

Schaub $20

Hasselbeck $17

R Grant $24

Ray Rice $21

C Wells $15

G Jennings $32

Chad Ocho $27

Roy Williams $21

Not a tremendous number of higher priced guys in these top average scoring teams with rosters of 20 or 21. They all included Ray Rice though.

Sorry to repeat myself, but I really don't see how $4 extra is an advantage whatsoever. It's not like 20 man roster has $20 more to spend on dominant players.

 

[Modog814]

Sorry to repeat myself, but I really don't see how $4 extra is an advantage whatsoever. It's not like 20 man roster has $20 more to spend on dominant players.

ok, would you rather have:Schaub or T. edwards : $2 differenceRoethlisberger or J. Campbell : $4 differenceRodgers or Romo: $4 differenceRonnie Brown or Jacobs: $3 differenceGrant or Ward: $2 DifferenceT. Jones or Ward: $1 DifferenceR. Rice or J. Lewis: $4 DifferenceR. moss or S. smith (car) : $4 diffColston or e. royal (or a. gonzalez): $2 diffR. white or Owens $2 diffBoldin or Owens $1 diffO. daniels or Keller : $1 diffand so on...I haven't seen any player with the exception of K or Def that cost $1 make a impact. Making any of the above moves could have cost a team dearly. And I understand that I'm going back now after seeing the results, and sometimes this would work out for you (perhaps dropping from Brady to Peyton), I just don't see the point in picking your team to get to the maximum players allowed. And for what, to try to catch lighting in the bottle. I count maybe 6 out of 65 RB/WR/TE who cost $2 or less that have made an impact this year.

 

[Modog814]

I am curious about the 20-man roster has more capability to win than longer rosters. It seems that the one thought is that with the roster being shorter that more money was devoted to higher priced more high score potential guys. Would it be possible for some of the teams that went with 20-man rosters to post their top ten highest priced players?I think that would be an interesting read.Thanks

Here's mine, it turned out to be a 21 player team, but my strategy was just to pick the guys who I thought would score the most points, and no even look at total players unless i was below the minimum or above the max.I'll list my players and then give you the guy who i would have substituted him for if i wanted to max out my roster:QB Schaub -> My gamble pick. Was betting that he would stay healthy all year. I considered Matt Ryan briefly but weren't in the same class imho. Sanchez -> To go with my gamble, picked the cheapest starting QB whose job I thought was the most secure to last until Schaubs week 10 bye. Considered Leftwich here, but didn't think he'd last as a starter.RB APD -> I thought he would be more involved in the passing game this year (and he has, just not as much as I thought). Considered Dwill and R. Brown, but I wanted ADP on one team this year and it wasn't looking like I'd get him in any of my other leagues. R. Grant -> Wanted a RB who I thought would give me consistent points. Was considering a wide variety of players here including T. Jones, Ward, Lynch, Rice, LJ. I wish I would have picked Rice instead, but am also glad I didn't pick LJ or Ward either. Leon Washington & Felix Jones -> Wanted a homerun threat that could replace consistent scoring of my top guys or play as flex. Considered F. Taylor, M. Bush and McGahee here. McGahee has only really been the one of use (not so much any more it seems) but i didn't need him then anyway. Edge -> Was $1.WR Colston & Boldin -> Ran the gauntlet here on how to spend this combined $59. Contemplated getting AJ but didn't want him and Schaub and as you'll later see Daniels. Wanted guys who get lots of targets and do things with them consistently. Also both are injury risks but you can't really predict injuries so I thought the value was there. Considered Owens, Marshall, Edwards, Ochocinco, Royal and DeShaun Jackson. J Morgan & C. Henry -> i believe this will be my downfall. Could have definitely spent this $27 better. But i don't know if I would have come up with any one better. I considered Gage, Curtis, Clayton, Walter, Hester, and in one brief moment of insanity actually considered taking every oakland WR. Mason -> Never thought of not having him. A staple in every roster I selected. S. Rice-> Looking at 4 guys for this spot here. Rice, Nicks, Camarillo and Bess. Camarillo and Bess were involved in a battle so I went against them, and Nicks was a rookie so I went with Rice. My other option that I thought was to take 2 $2 WR's here. And I'd love to say I would have taking Manningham and Collie, but neither of them ever was in consideration. Cribbs -> My $1 swing for the fences guy. was listed as the #2 WR plus I knew he got some carries every once in a while. Jury is till out but this week I'm wishing I went with another K.TE Daniels -> Flip flopped back and forth between him and Keller. I thought they offered the best value. I liked Shiancoe but thought he was overpriced. I had Z Miller last year and vowed never again with that offence (also what brought the sense to me when picking WR's). Considered Shockey at a point, as well as Fasano. M Bennett -> bought the hype, very disappointed but only need him to come up big in week 10. Considered J. Finley here too. K Carpenter & Hauschka -> 2 $1 kickers. Wish i could have had a $3, but didn't see where I was willing to downgrade for the "chance" at an extra couple points.Def: New Orleans, Houston & Oakland -> Big believer in 3 Def. Figured Oakland and NOr's could provide the occasional score and Houston would provide some sacks and TO's. So looking back, so far the only thing i think I would be willing to change would be R. Rice for Grant. I would love to change Henry and Morgan but honestly noone I would have picked has done much better.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Sorry to repeat myself, but I really don't see how $4 extra is an advantage whatsoever. It's not like 20 man roster has $20 more to spend on dominant players.

ok, would you rather have:Schaub or T. edwards : $2 difference

Roethlisberger or J. Campbell : $4 difference

Rodgers or Romo: $4 difference

Ronnie Brown or Jacobs: $3 difference

Grant or Ward: $2 Difference

T. Jones or Ward: $1 Difference

R. Rice or J. Lewis: $4 Difference

R. moss or S. smith (car) : $4 diff

Colston or e. royal (or a. gonzalez): $2 diff

R. white or Owens $2 diff

Boldin or Owens $1 diff

O. daniels or Keller : $1 diff

and so on...

I haven't seen any player with the exception of K or Def that cost $1 make a impact. Making any of the above moves could have cost a team dearly. And I understand that I'm going back now after seeing the results, and sometimes this would work out for you (perhaps dropping from Brady to Peyton), I just don't see the point in picking your team to get to the maximum players allowed. And for what, to try to catch lighting in the bottle. I count maybe 6 out of 65 RB/WR/TE who cost $2 or less that have made an impact this year.

Sorry. That argument is easily countered. Would you rather have:T Romo DAL - $23 or J Flacco BAL - $14

C Benson CIN - $19 or C Portis WAS - $37

S Smith CAR - $38 or N Burleson SEA - $5

A Gates SD - $24 or B Celek PHI - $7

You are arguing that just a couple of bucks more will net you better players. But I cannot emphasize this enough: this presumes you can predict player performances and therefore guarantee a better team. The field is littered with high priced players that stink and low priced players that rock. Conversely, the contest is populated by high priced players that are living up to their price and low priced players that are proving they should have been low priced players.

The difference? You are arguing that spending a few bucks more is worth it because you're getting a better player, and this is simply impossible to predict.

 

[Marauder]

Sorry to repeat myself, but I really don't see how $4 extra is an advantage whatsoever. It's not like 20 man roster has $20 more to spend on dominant players.

ok, would you rather have:Schaub or T. edwards : $2 differenceRoethlisberger or J. Campbell : $4 differenceRodgers or Romo: $4 differenceRonnie Brown or Jacobs: $3 differenceGrant or Ward: $2 DifferenceT. Jones or Ward: $1 DifferenceR. Rice or J. Lewis: $4 DifferenceR. moss or S. smith (car) : $4 diffColston or e. royal (or a. gonzalez): $2 diffR. white or Owens $2 diffBoldin or Owens $1 diffO. daniels or Keller : $1 diffand so on...I haven't seen any player with the exception of K or Def that cost $1 make a impact. Making any of the above moves could have cost a team dearly. And I understand that I'm going back now after seeing the results, and sometimes this would work out for you (perhaps dropping from Brady to Peyton), I just don't see the point in picking your team to get to the maximum players allowed. And for what, to try to catch lighting in the bottle. I count maybe 6 out of 65 RB/WR/TE who cost $2 or less that have made an impact this year.

I have a 24 man roster and I have 4 of the players from the high side of your comparisons and no players from the low side. This is not where the difference in the rosters is typically going to be. I think most people did like I did when picking their rosters. Pick the studs they want first, then the cheap bargains, then fill in the rest with middle of the road players. The difference between a 20 and 24 man roster is more typically going to be something like one $14 player vs. five $1-$6 players. It's not going to be Shaub vs. Edwards or Rodgers vs. Romo.

 

[Modog814]

Sorry. That argument is easily countered. Would you rather have:

T Romo DAL - $23 or J Flacco BAL - $14

C Benson CIN - $19 or C Portis WAS - $37

S Smith CAR - $38 or N Burleson SEA - $5

A Gates SD - $24 or B Celek PHI - $7

You are arguing that just a couple of bucks more will net you better players. But I cannot emphasize this enough: this presumes you can predict player performances and therefore guarantee a better team. The field is littered with high priced players that stink and low priced players that rock. Conversely, the contest is populated by high priced players that are living up to their price and low priced players that are proving they should have been low priced players.

The difference? You are arguing that spending a few bucks more is worth it because you're getting a better player, and this is simply impossible to predict.

While yes I agree with you that player performance is impossible to predict exactly. But that is a poor counter argument because I highly doubt many if any people were considering between Romo or Flacco, or Benson or Portis, or Smith or Burleson. The argument made by the those advocating a full 24 is why only have 21 when you can drop a $1 or two for some players and get 3 extra players. Because as you said yourself '$4 doesn't make much a difference." My point was to show you that it can.

All I'm saying is that I believe the correct strategy isn't to select a full 24, but to select those you, as you stated, predict will have the best performances. And once you select those players you shouldn't downgrade a $1 or $2 to fill out a full 24. I mean, there's a reason I picked the players I did...because I believe that they were going to have better seasons. So whats the point in downgrading so I can take a shot at at a $1 or $2 player?

 

[Modog814]

I have a 24 man roster and I have 4 of the players from the high side of your comparisons and no players from the low side. This is not where the difference in the rosters is typically going to be. I think most people did like I did when picking their rosters. Pick the studs they want first, then the cheap bargains, then fill in the rest with middle of the road players. The difference between a 20 and 24 man roster is more typically going to be something like one $14 player vs. five $1-$6 players. It's not going to be Shaub vs. Edwards or Rodgers vs. Romo.

I can see this, but that wasn't what was being suggested earlier in the thread. It was, if you're at your cap at 21 players why not simply downgrade $3 somewhere so that you get get the full 24. My point is...you say that the difference between a 20 and 24 man roster is 1 $14 player vs 5 $1-$6 players....if you thought that the 1 $14 player was going to have a great year with a much higher chance than any of the cheaper players, why would you pick the 5 $1-$6 simply to get to 24 players?

 

[ctriopelle]

All I can say is that I REALLY hope FBG opens up the rosters to no limitations next year, since I'm pretty convinced I have a decent strategy for that case already devised. It will be interesting to see how the bulk of the other 13k or so folks decide to tackle that one based on opinions floating around in here.

 

[smackdaddies]

I'm out.

Missed the cut by 3 points, but I did get a big whopping 0 from Eddie Royal. No special teams td's I guess? Megatron was down too, all well.

Mental note for next year, carry more WR's!

d

Mental note #2: read the rules before picking your team.

Was this specifically spelled out in the rules? I'm at work and can't open the rules, but I recall it being vague (or unclear) in the rules but I leant with that players wouldn't get special teams TD's.

It's clear

 

[rzrback77]

The only argument favoring the lower rosters was the fact that they used the cash saved by having fewer players was spent on more quality. I do not see evidence of that in the review of the higher scoring short rosters.

I also think that all of the higher scoring teams with short rosters would have been better by adding a third kicker and a third defense to offset the variable scoring nature of those positions. That could easily have been accomplished by decreasing their expenses on one of the QB/RB/WR/TE by $2 or $3.

The variable rosters has undoubtedly been the best rule change for this season and made what was an awesome contest for several years way better.

 

[smackdaddies]

All I can say is that I REALLY hope FBG opens up the rosters to no limitations next year, since I'm pretty convinced I have a decent strategy for that case already devised. It will be interesting to see how the bulk of the other 13k or so folks decide to tackle that one based on opinions floating around in here.

One of the many things I love about this contest is the changing rules - I really like having to think about the players in different ways and look pick a strategy based on those rules. I too would like wide open rosters - it would present some very interesting options

 

[jdoggydogg]

Sorry. That argument is easily countered. Would you rather have:

T Romo DAL - $23 or J Flacco BAL - $14

C Benson CIN - $19 or C Portis WAS - $37

S Smith CAR - $38 or N Burleson SEA - $5

A Gates SD - $24 or B Celek PHI - $7

You are arguing that just a couple of bucks more will net you better players. But I cannot emphasize this enough: this presumes you can predict player performances and therefore guarantee a better team. The field is littered with high priced players that stink and low priced players that rock. Conversely, the contest is populated by high priced players that are living up to their price and low priced players that are proving they should have been low priced players.

The difference? You are arguing that spending a few bucks more is worth it because you're getting a better player, and this is simply impossible to predict.

While yes I agree with you that player performance is impossible to predict exactly. But that is a poor counter argument because I highly doubt many if any people were considering between Romo or Flacco, or Benson or Portis, or Smith or Burleson. The argument made by the those advocating a full 24 is why only have 21 when you can drop a $1 or two for some players and get 3 extra players. Because as you said yourself '$4 doesn't make much a difference." My point was to show you that it can.

All I'm saying is that I believe the correct strategy isn't to select a full 24, but to select those you, as you stated, predict will have the best performances. And once you select those players you shouldn't downgrade a $1 or $2 to fill out a full 24. I mean, there's a reason I picked the players I did...because I believe that they were going to have better seasons. So whats the point in downgrading so I can take a shot at at a $1 or $2 player?

See, everything you say makes sense. But just the term "downgrade" isn't an appropriate term. Downgrade assumes there's a quantifiable technique that can accurately asses player value. There simply isn't. We're talking about $4. That's one or two incremental upgrades. Not a giant leap in salary.

This game all comes down to a given subscriber's ability to find value in this player cap structure. Yes, Peyton is worth the money his owners spent. But there are so many bust players or just mediocre players in the high salary range, your ability to finish in the money here is inextricably tied to your ability to extract value in both the top dollar players and the bargain bin.

 

[jdoggydogg]

All I can say is that I REALLY hope FBG opens up the rosters to no limitations next year, since I'm pretty convinced I have a decent strategy for that case already devised. It will be interesting to see how the bulk of the other 13k or so folks decide to tackle that one based on opinions floating around in here.

Same here. And I may very well buy two subscriptions just to experiment. One with about 30 players and one with about 45 to 50.

 

[rzrback77]

All I can say is that I REALLY hope FBG opens up the rosters to no limitations next year, since I'm pretty convinced I have a decent strategy for that case already devised. It will be interesting to see how the bulk of the other 13k or so folks decide to tackle that one based on opinions floating around in here.

Same here. And I may very well buy two subscriptions just to experiment. One with about 30 players and one with about 45 to 50.

Twenty four is the only answer............

 

[jdoggydogg]

All I can say is that I REALLY hope FBG opens up the rosters to no limitations next year, since I'm pretty convinced I have a decent strategy for that case already devised. It will be interesting to see how the bulk of the other 13k or so folks decide to tackle that one based on opinions floating around in here.

Same here. And I may very well buy two subscriptions just to experiment. One with about 30 players and one with about 45 to 50.

Twenty four is the only answer............

I'm sure there's a law of diminishing returns in this continuum. I'm guessing there's a sweet spot in the 30 to 45 player range where you start to have too many cheap players that are worthless. But I confess that I am intrigued by the possibility of rostering 9 $1 kickers, 15 $1 WRs, and 15 $1 RBs.

 

[Doug Drinen]

All I can say is that I REALLY hope FBG opens up the rosters to no limitations next year, since I'm pretty convinced I have a decent strategy for that case already devised. It will be interesting to see how the bulk of the other 13k or so folks decide to tackle that one based on opinions floating around in here.

1. The only talk of that has been me shooting my mouth off without consulting anyone. So don't get your hopes up too high. I'm not the main decision-maker on this.2. If there are unlimited rosters, don't assume that the pricing structure wouldn't change as well. I'm guessing that, for example, a $3 minimum on all kickers and defenses would probably alter the strategy you currently have in mind.

 

[jon_mx]

I'm sure there's a law of diminishing returns in this continuum. I'm guessing there's a sweet spot in the 30 to 45 player range where you start to have too many cheap players that are worthless. But I confess that I am intrigued by the possibility of rostering 9 $1 kickers, 15 $1 WRs, and 15 $1 RBs.

Here are all of the WR's who scored more than 15 points last week. 23 players total. One $2, One $3, and Two $4 WR's. There were 60 WR's $4 or less in this competition, and Four of them were valuable this week. 14 of those players who scored more than 15 points were $20 or more. There were 34 WR's total who cost more than $20. So for the top dollar players, 41% of them were very valuable this week. For cheap players, 7% were valuable this week. Trying to load up on cheap players can work, but you have to hit them. There are too many misses. My only cheap WR's were Nicks and Meachem, both of whom I am happy with. But I also have Moss and Colston, who can put up the kind of numbers than can win this competition. I just don't think there are enough good cheap players to offset what a couple studs can do. Quantity is not everything.Moss, Randy NE 38.90....$42Colston, Marques NO 30.60.......$28 Ward, Hines PIT 29.90.......$24 Fitzgerald, Larry ARI 29.00........$44 Rice, Sidney MIN 23.60........$4 Mason, Derrick BAL 22.70........$9 Nicks, Hakeem NYG 22.40.........$4 Johnson, Andre HOU 21.50.......$43 Walker, Mike JAC 21.00.......$9 Breaston, Steve ARI 20.70.......$17 Moore, Lance NO 19.80......$20 Driver, Donald GB 17.70........$21 Bowe, Dwayne KC 16.90.......$35 Evans, Lee BUF 16.80........$21 White, Roddy ATL 15.60........$33 Hester, Devin CHI 15.40......$19 Holmes, Santonio PIT 15.40......$ 25Jackson, DeSean PHI 15.40......$24 Ochocinco, Chad CIN 15.30......$27 Meachem, Robert NO 15.20......$3 Holt, Torry JAC 15.10......$22 Manningham, Mario NYG 15.00......$2

 

[QuizGuy66]

All I can say is that I REALLY hope FBG opens up the rosters to no limitations next year, since I'm pretty convinced I have a decent strategy for that case already devised. It will be interesting to see how the bulk of the other 13k or so folks decide to tackle that one based on opinions floating around in here.

ctriopelle = 240-kicker guy? -QG

 

[Short Corner]

OK I did not get a reply from a 20 roster team so I did some checking......looked only at the 20 and 21 man teams that are in the top 50 averages per week

team 108626 (20) eight highest priced guys - 2 QBs 5 RBs 7 WRs 2 TEs 2 PKs 2 DSTs No $1 players

Drew Brees $35

D Garrard $18

DeAngelo Williams $37

Ray Rice $21

Colston $28

Chad Ocho $27

V Jackson $21

Dallas Clark $18

team 108558 (20) eight highest priced guys - 2 QBs 6 RBs 6 WRs 2 TEs 2 PKs 2 DSTs No $1 players

J Cutler $22

Matt Ryan $19

DeAngelo Williams $37

Ray Rice $21

L Washington $12

Colston $28

Chad Ocho $27

O Daniels $13

team 102976 (20) eight highest priced guys - 2 QBs 5 RBs 7 WRs 2 TEs 2 PKs 2 DSTs Three $1 players

P Rivers $25

J Flacco $14

Matt Forte $45

L White $12

Reggie Wayne $36

DeSean Jackson $24

Steve Smith $12

Greg Olsen $15

team 106465 (21) eight highest priced guys - 3 QBs 3 RBs 7 WRs 3 TEs 3 PKs 2 DSTs No $1 players

Big Ben Roeth $19

M Hasselbeck $17

Frank Gore $43

Ray Rice $21

Mendenhall $10

Anquan Boldin $31

Hines Ward $24

Chris Cooley $15

team 107298 (21) eight highest priced guys - 2 QBs 6 RBs 7 WRs 2 TEs 2 PKs 2 DSTs No $1 players

Schaub $20

Hasselbeck $17

R Grant $24

Ray Rice $21

C Wells $15

G Jennings $32

Chad Ocho $27

Roy Williams $21

Not a tremendous number of higher priced guys in these top average scoring teams with rosters of 20 or 21. They all included Ray Rice though.

Sorry to repeat myself, but I really don't see how $4 extra is an advantage whatsoever. It's not like 20 man roster has $20 more to spend on dominant players.

I have 24 and I spent more on my top 8 than any of these, except for the first.

 

[CalBear]

Here are all of the WR's who scored more than 15 points last week. 23 players total. One $2, One $3, and Two $4 WR's. There were 60 WR's $4 or less in this competition, and Four of them were valuable this week. 14 of those players who scored more than 15 points were $20 or more. There were 34 WR's total who cost more than $20. So for the top dollar players, 41% of them were very valuable this week. For cheap players, 7% were valuable this week. Trying to load up on cheap players can work, but you have to hit them. There are too many misses. My only cheap WR's were Nicks and Meachem, both of whom I am happy with. But I also have Moss and Colston, who can put up the kind of numbers than can win this competition. I just don't think there are enough good cheap players to offset what a couple studs can do. Quantity is not everything.Colston, Marques NO 30.60.......$28 Ward, Hines PIT 29.90.......$24 Rice, Sidney MIN 23.60........$4 Nicks, Hakeem NYG 22.40.........$4

The point is that it's better to have Ward and Rice or Nicks, than Colston alone, and that's why 24-team rosters are slaughtering 20-team rosters.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Have to post this quick, I hope it's self-explanatory:

Dollars spent, on average, on your most expensive player, your second-most expensive, and so on. Broken down by roster size.

20	21	22	23	24-----------------------------------------Player # 1   40.9  39.8  39.1  38.1  37.2Player # 2   34.9  33.8  32.9  32.1  31.2Player # 3   30.1  28.9  28.2  27.6  26.7Player # 4   26.1  25.2  24.6  24.2  23.3Player # 5   22.7  21.9  21.6  21.1  20.3Player # 6   19.0  18.5  18.1  17.8  17.4Player # 7   15.3  15.1  14.9  14.8  14.6Player # 8   12.3  12.4  12.5  12.3  12.5Player # 9	9.9  10.3  10.5  10.5  10.7Player #10	7.9   8.4   8.7   8.9   9.2Player #11	6.2   6.8   7.1   7.3   7.7Player #12	5.0   5.5   5.7   6.0   6.4Player #13	4.1   4.5   4.7   5.0   5.3Player #14	3.5   3.8   4.0   4.2   4.5Player #15	2.9   3.3   3.4   3.6   3.9Player #16	2.5   2.8   2.9   3.1   3.4Player #17	2.1   2.4   2.6   2.8   3.0Player #18	1.8   2.1   2.3   2.4   2.6Player #19	1.5   1.7   1.9   2.1   2.3Player #20	1.2   1.4   1.6   1.9   2.1Player #21	0.0   1.2   1.4   1.6   1.8Player #22	0.0   0.0   1.1   1.3   1.5Player #23	0.0   0.0   0.0   1.1   1.3Player #24	0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   1.1

 

[Doug Drinen]

Preliminary week 7 sim

 

[Doug Drinen]

And the just-for-fun power rankings

Nobody can accuse me of rigging these things to make my team look good. I rank #4837 out of 5017. And deservedly so. My three most expensive players were Frank Gore, Greg Jennings, and Carolina Steve. It's a miracle I've lasted as long as I have, based on timely (i.e. lucky) performances from guys like Maclin, Nicks, Mason, Heath Miller, Zach Miller, Shockey (my flex has been a TE all 6 weeks), et al.

 

[Marauder]

Preliminary week 7 sim

Still have a 90.9% chance of advancing despite my 7 players on a bye.

 

[John Mamula]

My weekly chance to advance is slowly declining. Last week I was at 78% to advance prior to the games and needed a great game by Denver defense to pull it out.

Now I am a coinflip at 48.7%. By far the lowest expectation, and not surprising with only having 2 RBs going this week, neither one very good.

 

[jon_mx]

Preliminary week 7 sim

Over 92% chance of survival, 315 in power ranking...moving up...maybe there is a chance to make the finals for once.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Have to post this quick, I hope it's self-explanatoryollars spent, on average, on your most expensive player, your second-most expensive, and so on. Broken down by roster size.

20	21	22	23	24 ----------------------------------------- Player # 1   40.9  39.8  39.1  38.1  37.2 Player # 2   34.9  33.8  32.9  32.1  31.2 Player # 3   30.1  28.9  28.2  27.6  26.7 Player # 4   26.1  25.2  24.6  24.2  23.3 Player # 5   22.7  21.9  21.6  21.1  20.3 Player # 6   19.0  18.5  18.1  17.8  17.4 Player # 7   15.3  15.1  14.9  14.8  14.6 Player # 8   12.3  12.4  12.5  12.3  12.5 Player # 9	9.9  10.3  10.5  10.5  10.7 Player #10	7.9   8.4   8.7   8.9   9.2 Player #11	6.2   6.8   7.1   7.3   7.7 Player #12	5.0   5.5   5.7   6.0   6.4 Player #13	4.1   4.5   4.7   5.0   5.3 Player #14	3.5   3.8   4.0   4.2   4.5 Player #15	2.9   3.3   3.4   3.6   3.9 Player #16	2.5   2.8   2.9   3.1   3.4 Player #17	2.1   2.4   2.6   2.8   3.0 Player #18	1.8   2.1   2.3   2.4   2.6 Player #19	1.5   1.7   1.9   2.1   2.3 Player #20	1.2   1.4   1.6   1.9   2.1 Player #21	0.0   1.2   1.4   1.6   1.8 Player #22	0.0   0.0   1.1   1.3   1.5 Player #23	0.0   0.0   0.0   1.1   1.3 Player #24	0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   1.1

It seems like, and this is obviously just a guess, that the main difference between 20 and 24 man rosters is more in the number of QB, TE, K, and D versus WR an RBs. Is it possible (and easy) to show the distribution of players at each position broken down by roster size? I know I bought an extra QB and TE this year with the extra players. My guess is that others with 24 man rosters did something similar. Also, maybe the average $ spent at each position by roster size. Thanks.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I'm sure there's a law of diminishing returns in this continuum. I'm guessing there's a sweet spot in the 30 to 45 player range where you start to have too many cheap players that are worthless. But I confess that I am intrigued by the possibility of rostering 9 $1 kickers, 15 $1 WRs, and 15 $1 RBs.

Here are all of the WR's who scored more than 15 points last week. 23 players total. One $2, One $3, and Two $4 WR's. There were 60 WR's $4 or less in this competition, and Four of them were valuable this week. 14 of those players who scored more than 15 points were $20 or more. There were 34 WR's total who cost more than $20. So for the top dollar players, 41% of them were very valuable this week. For cheap players, 7% were valuable this week. Trying to load up on cheap players can work, but you have to hit them. There are too many misses. My only cheap WR's were Nicks and Meachem, both of whom I am happy with. But I also have Moss and Colston, who can put up the kind of numbers than can win this competition. I just don't think there are enough good cheap players to offset what a couple studs can do. Quantity is not everything.Moss, Randy NE 38.90....$42Colston, Marques NO 30.60.......$28 Ward, Hines PIT 29.90.......$24 Fitzgerald, Larry ARI 29.00........$44 Rice, Sidney MIN 23.60........$4 Mason, Derrick BAL 22.70........$9 Nicks, Hakeem NYG 22.40.........$4 Johnson, Andre HOU 21.50.......$43 Walker, Mike JAC 21.00.......$9 Breaston, Steve ARI 20.70.......$17 Moore, Lance NO 19.80......$20 Driver, Donald GB 17.70........$21 Bowe, Dwayne KC 16.90.......$35 Evans, Lee BUF 16.80........$21 White, Roddy ATL 15.60........$33 Hester, Devin CHI 15.40......$19 Holmes, Santonio PIT 15.40......$ 25Jackson, DeSean PHI 15.40......$24 Ochocinco, Chad CIN 15.30......$27 Meachem, Robert NO 15.20......$3 Holt, Torry JAC 15.10......$22 Manningham, Mario NYG 15.00......$2

I'm not saying that a typical $4 player is ever as valuable as Randy Moss or Reggie Wayne. I am saying that DeSean Jackson ($24), Sidney Rice ($4), and Derrick Mason ($9) give you a better shot at making the finals in this contest than Larry Fitzgerald ($44). Part of my strategy is to lessen risk by avoiding the top five highest-priced players at every position and to have a large roster as insurance against injury or poor performance.

 

[tomarken]

Here are all of the WR's who scored more than 15 points last week. 23 players total. One $2, One $3, and Two $4 WR's. There were 60 WR's $4 or less in this competition, and Four of them were valuable this week. 14 of those players who scored more than 15 points were $20 or more. There were 34 WR's total who cost more than $20. So for the top dollar players, 41% of them were very valuable this week. For cheap players, 7% were valuable this week. Trying to load up on cheap players can work, but you have to hit them. There are too many misses. My only cheap WR's were Nicks and Meachem, both of whom I am happy with. But I also have Moss and Colston, who can put up the kind of numbers than can win this competition. I just don't think there are enough good cheap players to offset what a couple studs can do. Quantity is not everything.

I'd like to see these numbers for every week this year, and the last few years, before you could draw a very meaningful conclusion from them. Besides, this analysis is badly skewed because you're ignoring the money spent; sure, 41% of expensive players were "valuable" vs only 7% of cheap players - but for $40 you can only get one or two of the former tier, but anywhere from 10-40* of the latter, so if you put the percentages on level the big difference in risk basically disappears.* - This, however, raises an important point - the strategy of loading up on cheap players would make more sense if the roster size was unlimited. If you fill your roster with the players you want and then add a handful of $1-2 guys just to get you to 24, you're not really taking advantage of the numbers game being professed. Yes, more players is better, if you get enough of them. If you could get rid of a $26 player and add 13 $2 players, it's probably a good idea. But to switch from a $26 player to a $18 player just to add four $2 players, I'm still not entirely convinced the actual benefit is as great as the perceived benefit.That said, the weekly attrition rates are pretty overwhelming evidence. I'm happy to admit that at the beginning of the season I didn't expect the difference between 20 and 24 man teams to be so stark. I still think it won't end up as badly for the 20 man teams as people expect.

 

[tomarken]

Have to post this quick, I hope it's self-explanatoryollars spent, on average, on your most expensive player, your second-most expensive, and so on. Broken down by roster size.

20	21	22	23	24-----------------------------------------Player # 1   40.9  39.8  39.1  38.1  37.2Player # 2   34.9  33.8  32.9  32.1  31.2Player # 3   30.1  28.9  28.2  27.6  26.7Player # 4   26.1  25.2  24.6  24.2  23.3Player # 5   22.7  21.9  21.6  21.1  20.3Player # 6   19.0  18.5  18.1  17.8  17.4Player # 7   15.3  15.1  14.9  14.8  14.6Player # 8   12.3  12.4  12.5  12.3  12.5Player # 9	9.9  10.3  10.5  10.5  10.7Player #10	7.9   8.4   8.7   8.9   9.2Player #11	6.2   6.8   7.1   7.3   7.7Player #12	5.0   5.5   5.7   6.0   6.4Player #13	4.1   4.5   4.7   5.0   5.3Player #14	3.5   3.8   4.0   4.2   4.5Player #15	2.9   3.3   3.4   3.6   3.9Player #16	2.5   2.8   2.9   3.1   3.4Player #17	2.1   2.4   2.6   2.8   3.0Player #18	1.8   2.1   2.3   2.4   2.6Player #19	1.5   1.7   1.9   2.1   2.3Player #20	1.2   1.4   1.6   1.9   2.1Player #21	0.0   1.2   1.4   1.6   1.8Player #22	0.0   0.0   1.1   1.3   1.5Player #23	0.0   0.0   0.0   1.1   1.3Player #24	0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   1.1

I just saw this and haven't really digested it yet, but at first glance I'm surprised that the point at which 24-man teams spend more than the 20-man rosters is player #8 (if that makes sense). That's earlier than I expected, and I guess the 20-man teams are a lot more top-heavy than I would have expected. I actually thought that the place 20-man teams would make up the difference against 24-man teams would be in that $5-15 range - that maybe the 20-player owner would have a handful of these players, while the 24-player owner would eschew these middle-tier players to grab more of the sub-$5 players. Doesn't appear that's the case, though...?

 

[Fennis]

Preliminary week 7 sim

considering my 10 spots on bye, I'll take a 39% survival rate.

 

[jon_mx]

Preliminary week 7 sim

considering my 10 spots on bye, I'll take a 39% survival rate.

In years past that might have been excusable, but this year they gave you the bye weeks right there. Poor planning.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Have to post this quick, I hope it's self-explanatoryollars spent, on average, on your most expensive player, your second-most expensive, and so on. Broken down by roster size.

20	21	22	23	24-----------------------------------------Player # 1   40.9  39.8  39.1  38.1  37.2Player # 2   34.9  33.8  32.9  32.1  31.2Player # 3   30.1  28.9  28.2  27.6  26.7Player # 4   26.1  25.2  24.6  24.2  23.3Player # 5   22.7  21.9  21.6  21.1  20.3Player # 6   19.0  18.5  18.1  17.8  17.4Player # 7   15.3  15.1  14.9  14.8  14.6Player # 8   12.3  12.4  12.5  12.3  12.5Player # 9	9.9  10.3  10.5  10.5  10.7Player #10	7.9   8.4   8.7   8.9   9.2Player #11	6.2   6.8   7.1   7.3   7.7Player #12	5.0   5.5   5.7   6.0   6.4Player #13	4.1   4.5   4.7   5.0   5.3Player #14	3.5   3.8   4.0   4.2   4.5Player #15	2.9   3.3   3.4   3.6   3.9Player #16	2.5   2.8   2.9   3.1   3.4Player #17	2.1   2.4   2.6   2.8   3.0Player #18	1.8   2.1   2.3   2.4   2.6Player #19	1.5   1.7   1.9   2.1   2.3Player #20	1.2   1.4   1.6   1.9   2.1Player #21	0.0   1.2   1.4   1.6   1.8Player #22	0.0   0.0   1.1   1.3   1.5Player #23	0.0   0.0   0.0   1.1   1.3Player #24	0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   1.1

I just saw this and haven't really digested it yet, but at first glance I'm surprised that the point at which 24-man teams spend more than the 20-man rosters is player #8 (if that makes sense). That's earlier than I expected, and I guess the 20-man teams are a lot more top-heavy than I would have expected. I actually thought that the place 20-man teams would make up the difference against 24-man teams would be in that $5-15 range - that maybe the 20-player owner would have a handful of these players, while the 24-player owner would eschew these middle-tier players to grab more of the sub-$5 players. Doesn't appear that's the case, though...?

I'm not as surprised actually. I figure that the logic of 20-player guy generally is to have more studs at the top. They are looking for knockout punch guys. Category-killer studs, especially those that can win the 3 (or is it 4?) week spring at the end. 24-player guys want a well rounded team with (as they see it) as many bullets in the chamber as possible. That they place a higher value on their mid-level guys makes sense in this light.IMO anyway -QG