Official Subscriber Contest (1 Viewer)

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Top 50 point week here:

Need Hasslebeck to come back soon. Dallas Clark! thank you very much!

Matt Schaub $20 7.90 42.25

Matt Hasselbeck $17 30.25 6.05

DeAngelo Williams $37 15.90 18.60

Willie Parker $16 2.90 5.50

Felix Jones $11 2.20 15.60

Ahmad Bradshaw $8 8.60 5.50

Michael Bush $6 12.40 5.70

James Davis $2 2.40 0.00

Marques Colston $28 12.00 29.80

Donald Driver $21 7.90 21.90

Steve Smith $12 14.00 29.40

Chris Henry $12 2.80 7.50

Derrick Mason $9 8.70 6.10

Isaac Bruce $5 10.60 7.50

Percy Harvin $5 14.80 16.50

Laurent Robinson $2 13.70 17.40

Dallas Clark $18 9.90 34.80

John Carlson $11 30.50 13.60

Jermichael Finley $3 2.10 11.60

Josh Brown $1 0.00 1.00

Steve Hauschka $1 10.00 8.00

Dallas Cowboys $3 0.00 0.00

Seattle Seahawks $2 5.00 4.00

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

TOTAL 158.55 221.75

CUTOFF 120.88 130.04

 

[Shrek]

This entry is NOT still alive.

1 2

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

Drew Brees $35 52.90 32.45

Joe Flacco $14 34.15 20.80

Chad Pennington $12 13.80 8.55

Matt Leinart $4 0.00 0.80

Ray Rice $21 13.00 10.70

Willie Parker $16 2.90 5.50

Ladell Betts $2 2.70 4.30

Shonn Greene $2 0.00 0.00

Randy Moss $42 26.10 6.40

Roddy White $33 9.20 17.30

Bernard Berrian $21 0.00 10.60

Chris Henry $12 2.80 7.50

Limas Sweed $4 0.00 0.00

David Clowney $2 0.00 0.00

Visanthe Shiancoe $10 7.10 7.60

Kevin Boss $6 10.70 2.80

Alge Crumpler $2 3.50 10.40

Kris Brown $3 1.00 11.00

Rob Bironas $3 6.00 9.00

Arizona Cardinals $3 6.00 16.00

Green Bay Packers $3 10.00 12.00

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

TOTAL 140.70 129.05

CUTOFF 120.88 130.04

 

[sinatravolta]

Just to give you guys something to talk about....

+-------------+--------+----------+| roster_size | number | live_pct |+-------------+--------+----------+| 20 | 5181 | 0.7037 || 21 | 2032 | 0.7259 || 22 | 1445 | 0.7744 || 23 | 1291 | 0.7901 || 24 | 3328 | 0.8299 |+-------------+--------+----------+

No surprise here, this should put the arguement to rest. In best ball, you want the maximum number of players, it's that simple.

How about we wait until we see the top 250 before we argue about which approach was better.

As I see it the argument was simple - people with 24 argued that it gave their team a better chance to last longer into the contest (thus giving them a better chance of winning) - people with 20 argued that if they make it through they will have the better team in the end (by virtue of having better core starters).

Could be that both sides are right Its just a risk aversion question.

Well - I think what we have already seen is the people with 24 arguing that it gave their team a better chance to last longer into the contest (thus giving them a better chance of winning) - are correct. If you're in the 20-camp, your theory could still be correct but it is in doubt unless it comes to fruition in Weeks 14-16. We are already at 83% vs. 70% survival after 2 weeks and a couple of things that favor the bigger rosters haven't come into play yet:

injuries (well - they've barely come in to play yet)
bye weeksSo odds are it's going to look even worse for the 20-team rosters before it looks better (if it ever does).

 

[apalmer]

Just to give you guys something to talk about....

+-------------+--------+----------+| roster_size | number | live_pct |+-------------+--------+----------+| 20 | 5181 | 0.7037 || 21 | 2032 | 0.7259 || 22 | 1445 | 0.7744 || 23 | 1291 | 0.7901 || 24 | 3328 | 0.8299 |+-------------+--------+----------+

No surprise here, this should put the arguement to rest. In best ball, you want the maximum number of players, it's that simple.

How about we wait until we see the top 250 before we argue about which approach was better.

As I see it the argument was simple - people with 24 argued that it gave their team a better chance to last longer into the contest (thus giving them a better chance of winning) - people with 20 argued that if they make it through they will have the better team in the end (by virtue of having better core starters).

Could be that both sides are right Its just a risk aversion question.

Well - I think what we have already seen is the people with 24 arguing that it gave their team a better chance to last longer into the contest (thus giving them a better chance of winning) - are correct. If you're in the 20-camp, your theory could still be correct but it is in doubt unless it comes to fruition in Weeks 14-16. We are already at 83% vs. 70% survival after 2 weeks and a couple of things that favor the bigger rosters haven't come into play yet:

injuries (well - they've barely come in to play yet)
bye weeksSo odds are it's going to look even worse for the 20-team rosters before it looks better (if it ever does).

Actually, what you've seen is what both camps predicted coming true. I could just as easily argue that if you're in the 24-camp, your theory could still be correct, but it is in doubt unless it comes to fruition in Weeks 14-16. Look at this week's top 10 scoring teams: 3 of the top 4 and 5 of the top 10 have 20-man rosters. Only 3 of the top 10 (#2,5 & 6) have 24-man rosters and 2 (#7 & #10) have 23-man rosters. The things that favor 20-man rosters haven't happened yet either: 160+ cut lines in Weeks 12 and 13 and needing to average about 20 points per player position in weeks 14-16 to win. So, odds are it is going to look better for 24-man teams before the bottom drops out.

 

[loompa17]

Is there a page that has links to all the awesome analyzer tools? I didn't find these tools until I looked in this thread, but I'd like to see a page that links to them all.

Tools like these:

Percent Own

Contest Querier

Power Ranks

Power Ranks One Week Only (Week 2)

Please, please, pretty please?I guess in the meantime, I'll have to bookmark my own post here on the board. Therefore, I'm adding:

Ownership Stats

thefantasystar

 

[Random]

Just to give you guys something to talk about....

+-------------+--------+----------+| roster_size | number | live_pct |+-------------+--------+----------+| 20 | 5181 | 0.7037 || 21 | 2032 | 0.7259 || 22 | 1445 | 0.7744 || 23 | 1291 | 0.7901 || 24 | 3328 | 0.8299 |+-------------+--------+----------+

No surprise here, this should put the arguement to rest. In best ball, you want the maximum number of players, it's that simple.

How about we wait until we see the top 250 before we argue about which approach was better.

As I see it the argument was simple - people with 24 argued that it gave their team a better chance to last longer into the contest (thus giving them a better chance of winning) - people with 20 argued that if they make it through they will have the better team in the end (by virtue of having better core starters).

Could be that both sides are right Its just a risk aversion question.

 

[Short Corner]

Just to give you guys something to talk about....

+-------------+--------+----------+| roster_size | number | live_pct |+-------------+--------+----------+| 20 | 5181 | 0.7037 || 21 | 2032 | 0.7259 || 22 | 1445 | 0.7744 || 23 | 1291 | 0.7901 || 24 | 3328 | 0.8299 |+-------------+--------+----------+

No surprise here, this should put the arguement to rest. In best ball, you want the maximum number of players, it's that simple.

How about we wait until we see the top 250 before we argue about which approach was better.

As I see it the argument was simple - people with 24 argued that it gave their team a better chance to last longer into the contest (thus giving them a better chance of winning) - people with 20 argued that if they make it through they will have the better team in the end (by virtue of having better core starters).

Could be that both sides are right Its just a risk aversion question.

Well - I think what we have already seen is the people with 24 arguing that it gave their team a better chance to last longer into the contest (thus giving them a better chance of winning) - are correct. If you're in the 20-camp, your theory could still be correct but it is in doubt unless it comes to fruition in Weeks 14-16. We are already at 83% vs. 70% survival after 2 weeks and a couple of things that favor the bigger rosters haven't come into play yet:

injuries (well - they've barely come in to play yet)
bye weeksSo odds are it's going to look even worse for the 20-team rosters before it looks better (if it ever does).

Actually, what you've seen is what both camps predicted coming true. I could just as easily argue that if you're in the 24-camp, your theory could still be correct, but it is in doubt unless it comes to fruition in Weeks 14-16. Look at this week's top 10 scoring teams: 3 of the top 4 and 5 of the top 10 have 20-man rosters. Only 3 of the top 10 (#2,5 & 6) have 24-man rosters and 2 (#7 & #10) have 23-man rosters. The things that favor 20-man rosters haven't happened yet either: 160+ cut lines in Weeks 12 and 13 and needing to average about 20 points per player position in weeks 14-16 to win. So, odds are it is going to look better for 24-man teams before the bottom drops out.

keep reaching

 

[sinatravolta]

Actually, what you've seen is what both camps predicted coming true. I could just as easily argue that if you're in the 24-camp, your theory could still be correct, but it is in doubt unless it comes to fruition in Weeks 14-16. Look at this week's top 10 scoring teams: 3 of the top 4 and 5 of the top 10 have 20-man rosters. Only 3 of the top 10 (#2,5 & 6) have 24-man rosters and 2 (#7 & #10) have 23-man rosters. The things that favor 20-man rosters haven't happened yet either: 160+ cut lines in Weeks 12 and 13 and needing to average about 20 points per player position in weeks 14-16 to win. So, odds are it is going to look better for 24-man teams before the bottom drops out.

I disagree. There are a lot more 20-man rosters than 24 starting the contest. If you just look at the 20 vs. 24 man rosters it's a 60/40 split. So all else being equal there should be more 20-man teams in the Top 10. You are saying there are 5 of the top 10 that are 20 man and 3 that are 24 man. That is basically a 60/40 split! So - this has shown nothing. Throw in that the other 2 are 23 man rosters (rather than 21 or 22) - and you would have to conclude that having more guys has made you more likely to score high in a given week so far too (when you compare to the number of rosters at each size). And of course there's the problem that having a high score with 20 guys in Week 1 or Week 2 is a lot easier than in Week 14 or 15 when guys have gotten injured and of course it's harder to predict exactly who will be good 14 weeks out.

Lastly - you also need to look at which teams were good in Week 1 and Week 2 to have any kind of argument. The winner has to score high every week in Weeks 14-16 to win. People who scored high this week had Chris Johnson and Schaub for example - that didn't work out so great last week.

 

[perry147]

This entry is still alive.

1 2

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

Aaron Rodgers $27 15.90 23.35

David Garrard $18 7.50 27.80

Byron Leftwich $4 20.10 30.80

DeAngelo Williams $37 15.90 18.60

Felix Jones $11 2.20 15.60

Fred Taylor $11 8.50 4.60

James Davis $2 2.40 0.00

Edgerrin James $1 3.00 0.60

Reggie Wayne $36 32.20 6.70

Greg Jennings $32 22.60 0.00

Chad Ochocinco $27 14.70 19.10

Vincent Jackson $21 16.60 26.10

Laurent Robinson $2 13.70 17.40

Brent Celek $7 18.70 22.40

Todd Heap $5 20.90 8.40

Chris Baker $1 2.20 1.60

Phil Dawson $1 9.00 8.00

Jason Hanson $1 11.00 10.00

San Diego Chargers $5 7.00 3.00

Cleveland Browns $1 10.00 2.00

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

TOTAL 176.50 171.40

CUTOFF 120.88 130.04

 

[apalmer]

Actually, what you've seen is what both camps predicted coming true. I could just as easily argue that if you're in the 24-camp, your theory could still be correct, but it is in doubt unless it comes to fruition in Weeks 14-16. Look at this week's top 10 scoring teams: 3 of the top 4 and 5 of the top 10 have 20-man rosters. Only 3 of the top 10 (#2,5 & 6) have 24-man rosters and 2 (#7 & #10) have 23-man rosters. The things that favor 20-man rosters haven't happened yet either: 160+ cut lines in Weeks 12 and 13 and needing to average about 20 points per player position in weeks 14-16 to win. So, odds are it is going to look better for 24-man teams before the bottom drops out.

I disagree. There are a lot more 20-man rosters than 24 starting the contest. If you just look at the 20 vs. 24 man rosters it's a 60/40 split. So all else being equal there should be more 20-man teams in the Top 10. You are saying there are 5 of the top 10 that are 20 man and 3 that are 24 man. That is basically a 60/40 split! So - this has shown nothing. Throw in that the other 2 are 23 man rosters (rather than 21 or 22) - and you would have to conclude that having more guys has made you more likely to score high in a given week so far too (when you compare to the number of rosters at each size). And of course there's the problem that having a high score with 20 guys in Week 1 or Week 2 is a lot easier than in Week 14 or 15 when guys have gotten injured and of course it's harder to predict exactly who will be good 14 weeks out.

Lastly - you also need to look at which teams were good in Week 1 and Week 2 to have any kind of argument. The winner has to score high every week in Weeks 14-16 to win. People who scored high this week had Chris Johnson and Schaub for example - that didn't work out so great last week.

How many teams STARTED the contest is irrelevant. Based on the current stats (which is what you used to argue the clear superiority of 24-man rosters), there are NOW about 3646 20-man teams and 2762 24-man. That means that NOW the split you used is 57-43 (not 60-40) and 5 out of 8 is 62.5%, not 60%. So, 57% of the teams get a 62.5%-37.5% advantage. It's also fascinating that this is what you'd expect "all else being equal". Isn't "all else being equal" exactly what I said? You're the one arguing that they're not equal and that 24 is clearly superior.I'm content to wait until the final 250 and see how it shakes out.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Just to give you guys something to talk about....

+-------------+--------+----------+ | roster_size | number | live_pct | +-------------+--------+----------+ |		  20 |   5181 |   0.7037 | |		  21 |   2032 |   0.7259 | |		  22 |   1445 |   0.7744 | |		  23 |   1291 |   0.7901 | |		  24 |   3328 |   0.8299 | +-------------+--------+----------+

As a 21 man roste owner (one of whom is Lynch, so effectively a 20 man roster for now), I've always said that a 24 man roster is "safer" and more likely to get a team deeper into the contest, so this isn't surprising to me. There are a lot of $1-$2 guys who are capable of putting up the 10-15 points you need to get by when a stud has a down week or is injured. This is especially true in the first few weeks, when the cuts are relatively low numbers. Going with a smaller roster is a gamble to try and reach weeks 12 and 13 (when the cuts are in the 160's) and the finals with more guys capable of scoring 15-20 points each to have a better shot at first place if you do.

I doubt the $6 to $8 you'd save by cutting 4 players would really add much value to your core players. Getting an extra player in best ball is likely a better option.

 

[dino259]

#48 this week. Had the big 2 RBs and Schaub. And again thank you to Laurent Robinson. Saving me from a dreaded Eddie Royal. Wish I could bank some of those points.

This entry is still alive.

1 2

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

Matt Schaub $20 7.90 42.25

David Garrard $18 7.50 27.80

Matt Leinart $4 0.00 0.80

Byron Leftwich $4 20.10 30.80

Frank Gore $43 18.30 39.10

Chris Johnson $38 7.30 50.90

Ray Rice $21 13.00 10.70

Darren Sproles $13 15.10 24.50

Correll Buckhalter $2 6.70 17.10

Glen Coffee $2 -0.30 3.90

James Davis $2 2.40 0.00

Braylon Edwards $28 2.20 15.20

Eddie Royal $26 3.80 5.00

Chris Henry $12 2.80 7.50

Patrick Crayton $4 24.00 3.40

Laurent Robinson $2 13.70 17.40

Jermichael Finley $3 2.10 11.60

Chris Baker $1 2.20 1.60

Olindo Mare $1 4.00 5.00

Shaun Suisham $1 5.00 9.00

Houston Texans $2 8.00 5.00

Oakland Raiders $1 7.00 6.00

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

TOTAL 123.20 223.45

CUTOFF 120.88 130.04

 

[Short Corner]

Actually, what you've seen is what both camps predicted coming true. I could just as easily argue that if you're in the 24-camp, your theory could still be correct, but it is in doubt unless it comes to fruition in Weeks 14-16. Look at this week's top 10 scoring teams: 3 of the top 4 and 5 of the top 10 have 20-man rosters. Only 3 of the top 10 (#2,5 & 6) have 24-man rosters and 2 (#7 & #10) have 23-man rosters. The things that favor 20-man rosters haven't happened yet either: 160+ cut lines in Weeks 12 and 13 and needing to average about 20 points per player position in weeks 14-16 to win. So, odds are it is going to look better for 24-man teams before the bottom drops out.

I disagree. There are a lot more 20-man rosters than 24 starting the contest. If you just look at the 20 vs. 24 man rosters it's a 60/40 split. So all else being equal there should be more 20-man teams in the Top 10. You are saying there are 5 of the top 10 that are 20 man and 3 that are 24 man. That is basically a 60/40 split! So - this has shown nothing. Throw in that the other 2 are 23 man rosters (rather than 21 or 22) - and you would have to conclude that having more guys has made you more likely to score high in a given week so far too (when you compare to the number of rosters at each size). And of course there's the problem that having a high score with 20 guys in Week 1 or Week 2 is a lot easier than in Week 14 or 15 when guys have gotten injured and of course it's harder to predict exactly who will be good 14 weeks out.

Lastly - you also need to look at which teams were good in Week 1 and Week 2 to have any kind of argument. The winner has to score high every week in Weeks 14-16 to win. People who scored high this week had Chris Johnson and Schaub for example - that didn't work out so great last week.

How many teams STARTED the contest is irrelevant. Based on the current stats (which is what you used to argue the clear superiority of 24-man rosters), there are NOW about 3646 20-man teams and 2762 24-man. That means that NOW the split you used is 57-43 (not 60-40) and 5 out of 8 is 62.5%, not 60%. So, 57% of the teams get a 62.5%-37.5% advantage. It's also fascinating that this is what you'd expect "all else being equal". Isn't "all else being equal" exactly what I said? You're the one arguing that they're not equal and that 24 is clearly superior.I'm content to wait until the final 250 and see how it shakes out.

Actually the relevant numbers are the number of teams that started this week, not the number that made it through. Those number will be relevant next week.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Here's a question: did anyone else advance with worse RB performances than my team?

Steve Slaton 7.40

Willie Parker 5.50

Leon Washington 8.60

Michael Bush 5.70

Sammy Morris 2.30

James Davis 0.00

 

[PatrickT]

Here's a question: did anyone else advance with worse RB performances than my team?Steve Slaton 7.40 Willie Parker 5.50 Leon Washington 8.60 Michael Bush 5.70 Sammy Morris 2.30 James Davis 0.00

YesDarren McFadden 12.50 Willie Parker 5.50 Laurence Maroney 2.30 Tashard Choice 1.60 James Davis 0.00 143 total

 

[jon_mx]

I am thinking some guy with 22 or 23 players to win. At some point there is a place where having top studs versus quantity takes over and you get to the point of diminishing return. Going to an extreme example of saying they allowed upto 70 players, would you actually fill all 70 spots using only $2-4 players. At some point it pays to pay the bigger dollars for players you are certain are going to produce.

But it also depends on the player pool. Last year I bet the farm that Warner was going to be a stud QB. So for $4 I got a stud QB who produced as good as any $37 QB, and for $11 I was set at the QB position with 2 solid QB's and a stud QB. This year there is not a QB under $12 that looked very appealing. If you are confident there are solid players at the low dollar levels, then by all means back up the truck and get as many as possible. But if most of them ride the bench, you are just wasting rooster spots and money. Concentrate you money on guys who are out there and going to produce week in and week out.

But who knows where this optimal point is. It will change every year based on how many great players who emerge from the lower dollar levels. If there are a lot of the $2-4 gems, then a larger rooster size is the way to go. Of course if that optimal rooster size is way above 24, then the guys going for 24 are doing it right.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

All I know is that the best idea Doug ever had, and that's saying something, is making the roster size variable.

 

[ctriopelle]

Here's a question: did anyone else advance with worse RB performances than my team?Steve Slaton 7.40 Willie Parker 5.50 Leon Washington 8.60 Michael Bush 5.70 Sammy Morris 2.30 James Davis 0.00

This guy has you by a mile...RB total of 2.2 points

Entry 103232This entry is still alive.								 1	  2  -------------------------------------------Tony Romo			 $23	 35.85  15.65 Matt Schaub		   $20	  7.90  42.25 LaDainian Tomlinson   $40	 12.10   0.00 Tashard Choice		 $2	  2.60   1.60 Justin Fargas		  $2	  0.00   0.00 Edgerrin James		 $1	  3.00   0.60 Randy Moss			$42	 26.10   6.40 Marques Colston	   $28	 12.00  29.80 Vincent Jackson	   $21	 16.60  26.10 Donnie Avery		  $21	 11.40   1.40 Chaz Schilens		  $3	  0.00   0.00 Jason Witten		  $27	 14.60  16.80 Martellus Bennett	  $4	  2.80   2.60 Alge Crumpler		  $2	  3.50  10.40 Chris Baker			$1	  2.20   1.60 Rob Bironas			$3	  6.00   9.00 Jeff Reed			  $2	  9.00   2.00 Matt Bryant			$1	  0.00   0.00 Sebastian Janikowski   $1	 10.00  12.00 Jay Feely			  $1	  6.00  12.00 Dallas Cowboys		 $3	  0.00   0.00 Detroit Lions		  $1	 12.00   5.00 Oakland Raiders		$1	  7.00   6.00 -------------------------------------------TOTAL						153.65 151.95 CUTOFF					   120.88 130.04

 

[jon_mx]

All I know is that the best idea Doug ever had, and that's saying something, is making the roster size variable.

Yep, the more flexibility the better. It puts more strategy into the mix. Of course the number of times we make changes, perhaps there is already too much stategizing going on.

 

[Caveman_Nick]

Entry 104662This entry is still alive. 1 2 -------------------------------------------Aaron Rodgers $27 15.90 23.35 Matt Ryan $19 23.05 28.30 DeAngelo Williams $37 15.90 18.60 Ryan Grant $24 13.20 14.30 Ray Rice $21 13.00 10.70 Kevin Faulk $8 8.80 1.60 Correll Buckhalter $2 6.70 17.10 Marques Colston $28 12.00 29.80 Bernard Berrian $21 0.00 10.60 Earl Bennett $11 13.60 4.20 Justin Gage $8 20.80 4.70 Nate Burleson $5 20.40 8.60 Davone Bess $3 12.70 5.90 Deon Butler $2 1.70 2.50 Laurent Robinson $2 13.70 17.40 Owen Daniels $13 10.40 22.20 Jermichael Finley $3 2.10 11.60 Chris Baker $1 2.20 1.60 Neil Rackers $3 14.00 9.00 Robbie Gould $2 9.00 7.00 Josh Brown $1 0.00 1.00 San Diego Chargers $5 7.00 3.00 Arizona Cardinals $3 6.00 16.00 Oakland Raiders $1 7.00 6.00 -------------------------------------------TOTAL 152.05 183.30 CUTOFF 120.88 130.04

 

[FWmaker]

All I know is that I'll be in it at the end!!!

This week - Rank 10 with 20 players rostered

Entry 102679

This entry is still alive.

1	  2  -------------------------------------------Matt Schaub		   $20	  7.90  42.25 Ben Roethlisberger	$19	 22.45  22.65 Chris Johnson		 $38	  7.30  50.90 DeAngelo Williams	 $37	 15.90  18.60 Leon Washington	   $12	 10.40   8.60 Ladell Betts		   $2	  2.70   4.30 James Davis			$2	  2.40   0.00 Edgerrin James		 $1	  3.00   0.60 Reggie Wayne		  $36	 32.20   6.70 Vincent Jackson	   $21	 16.60  26.10 Nate Washington		$6	  1.80  15.00 Nate Burleson		  $5	 20.40   8.60 Percy Harvin		   $5	 14.80  16.50 Chaz Schilens		  $3	  0.00   0.00 David Clowney		  $2	  0.00   0.00 Darrius Heyward-Bey	$2	  0.00   2.80 Dallas Clark		  $18	  9.90  34.80 Todd Heap			  $5	 20.90   8.40 Ryan Longwell		  $3	 11.00  11.00 Robbie Gould		   $2	  9.00   7.00 Jay Feely			  $1	  6.00  12.00 Pittsburgh Steelers	$7	  5.00   1.00 Green Bay Packers	  $3	 10.00  12.00 -------------------------------------------TOTAL						174.65 236.75 CUTOFF					   120.88 130.04

 

[sinatravolta]

How many teams STARTED the contest is irrelevant. Based on the current stats (which is what you used to argue the clear superiority of 24-man rosters), there are NOW about 3646 20-man teams and 2762 24-man. That means that NOW the split you used is 57-43 (not 60-40) and 5 out of 8 is 62.5%, not 60%. So, 57% of the teams get a 62.5%-37.5% advantage. It's also fascinating that this is what you'd expect "all else being equal". Isn't "all else being equal" exactly what I said? You're the one arguing that they're not equal and that 24 is clearly superior.I'm content to wait until the final 250 and see how it shakes out.

Actually the relevant numbers are the number of teams that started this week, not the number that made it through. Those number will be relevant next week.

Yes - Short Corner is right. If you have the number of 20 vs. 24 teams left after week 1 - that is what should be used. Since I don't have that number - I used the number who started the contest which is closer to that proportion than using the ones who are left at this point (2,000 dropped out this week compared to something like 1,277 last week). Also - you should realize your argument based on 10 teams in this 1 week is kind of silly. It's too small a sample size. And when you are talking about only 10 players - the 5/0/0/2/3 split - if only 1 person had differed it alters the %'s drastically, but wouldn't actually mean that much. The point is this is the best you have to back up your point - and it's not even backing up your point. In the top 10 - you have half from the 23/24 group, when they only started the competition with 35% of the submissions. Even after 2 weeks - the 23/24 group makes up 38% of the live entries - and still they represent 50% of the Week 2 Top 10. In other words - the data you are providing is pretty meaningless given how small a sample you are using. And if you actually look at it correctly - you see it goes against your point.

 

[apalmer]

How many teams STARTED the contest is irrelevant. Based on the current stats (which is what you used to argue the clear superiority of 24-man rosters), there are NOW about 3646 20-man teams and 2762 24-man. That means that NOW the split you used is 57-43 (not 60-40) and 5 out of 8 is 62.5%, not 60%. So, 57% of the teams get a 62.5%-37.5% advantage. It's also fascinating that this is what you'd expect "all else being equal". Isn't "all else being equal" exactly what I said? You're the one arguing that they're not equal and that 24 is clearly superior.

I'm content to wait until the final 250 and see how it shakes out.

Actually the relevant numbers are the number of teams that started this week, not the number that made it through. Those number will be relevant next week.

Yes - Short Corner is right. If you have the number of 20 vs. 24 teams left after week 1 - that is what should be used. Since I don't have that number - I used the number who started the contest which is closer to that proportion than using the ones who are left at this point (2,000 dropped out this week compared to something like 1,277 last week). Also - you should realize your argument based on 10 teams in this 1 week is kind of silly. It's too small a sample size. And when you are talking about only 10 players - the 5/0/0/2/3 split - if only 1 person had differed it alters the %'s drastically, but wouldn't actually mean that much. The point is this is the best you have to back up your point - and it's not even backing up your point. In the top 10 - you have half from the 23/24 group, when they only started the competition with 35% of the submissions. Even after 2 weeks - the 23/24 group makes up 38% of the live entries - and still they represent 50% of the Week 2 Top 10. In other words - the data you are providing is pretty meaningless given how small a sample you are using. And if you actually look at it correctly - you see it goes against your point.

And 20-man teams that make up only 36% of the remaining entires make up the other 50%. Which is better? I'll agree with you that the sample-size is too small--as is the data showing %-ages eliminated in two weeks. Of course, that's why I've been saying all along to wait and see what happens with the final 250, which is where this discussion started.

 

[Short Corner]

How many teams STARTED the contest is irrelevant. Based on the current stats (which is what you used to argue the clear superiority of 24-man rosters), there are NOW about 3646 20-man teams and 2762 24-man. That means that NOW the split you used is 57-43 (not 60-40) and 5 out of 8 is 62.5%, not 60%. So, 57% of the teams get a 62.5%-37.5% advantage. It's also fascinating that this is what you'd expect "all else being equal". Isn't "all else being equal" exactly what I said? You're the one arguing that they're not equal and that 24 is clearly superior.I'm content to wait until the final 250 and see how it shakes out.

Actually the relevant numbers are the number of teams that started this week, not the number that made it through. Those number will be relevant next week.

Yes - Short Corner is right. If you have the number of 20 vs. 24 teams left after week 1 - that is what should be used. Since I don't have that number - I used the number who started the contest which is closer to that proportion than using the ones who are left at this point (2,000 dropped out this week compared to something like 1,277 last week). Also - you should realize your argument based on 10 teams in this 1 week is kind of silly. It's too small a sample size. And when you are talking about only 10 players - the 5/0/0/2/3 split - if only 1 person had differed it alters the %'s drastically, but wouldn't actually mean that much. The point is this is the best you have to back up your point - and it's not even backing up your point. In the top 10 - you have half from the 23/24 group, when they only started the competition with 35% of the submissions. Even after 2 weeks - the 23/24 group makes up 38% of the live entries - and still they represent 50% of the Week 2 Top 10. In other words - the data you are providing is pretty meaningless given how small a sample you are using. And if you actually look at it correctly - you see it goes against your point.

The one thing I look at right now is attrition rates compared to their EV.20 : +20.8%21 : +11.8%22 : -8.0%23 : -14.4%24 : -30.6%It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[jdoggydogg]

All I know is that the best idea Doug ever had, and that's saying something, is making the roster size variable.

Yep. Genius.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Here's a question: did anyone else advance with worse RB performances than my team?Steve Slaton 7.40 Willie Parker 5.50 Leon Washington 8.60 Michael Bush 5.70 Sammy Morris 2.30 James Davis 0.00

This guy has you by a mile...RB total of 2.2 points

Entry 103232  This entry is still alive. 								  1	  2   ------------------------------------------- Tony Romo			 $23	 35.85  15.65  Matt Schaub		   $20	  7.90  42.25  LaDainian Tomlinson   $40	 12.10   0.00  Tashard Choice		 $2	  2.60   1.60  Justin Fargas		  $2	  0.00   0.00  Edgerrin James		 $1	  3.00   0.60  Randy Moss			$42	 26.10   6.40  Marques Colston	   $28	 12.00  29.80  Vincent Jackson	   $21	 16.60  26.10  Donnie Avery		  $21	 11.40   1.40  Chaz Schilens		  $3	  0.00   0.00  Jason Witten		  $27	 14.60  16.80  Martellus Bennett	  $4	  2.80   2.60  Alge Crumpler		  $2	  3.50  10.40  Chris Baker			$1	  2.20   1.60  Rob Bironas			$3	  6.00   9.00  Jeff Reed			  $2	  9.00   2.00  Matt Bryant			$1	  0.00   0.00  Sebastian Janikowski   $1	 10.00  12.00  Jay Feely			  $1	  6.00  12.00  Dallas Cowboys		 $3	  0.00   0.00  Detroit Lions		  $1	 12.00   5.00  Oakland Raiders		$1	  7.00   6.00  ------------------------------------------- TOTAL						153.65 151.95  CUTOFF					   120.88 130.04

Oy. What a crappy RB squad.

 

[proninja]

If you'd told me I'd be using Flacco's first two weeks instead of Brady's, I'd have, well, been surprised.

 

[jdoggydogg]

If you'd told me I'd be using Flacco's first two weeks instead of Brady's, I'd have, well, been surprised.

He was on so many iterations of my squad before I submitted a final roster. Kicking myself now.

 

[sinatravolta]

I'll agree with you that the sample-size is too small--as is the data showing %-ages eliminated in two weeks. Of course, that's why I've been saying all along to wait and see what happens with the final 250, which is where this discussion started.

Fair enough. Here are a couple of facts:
24 man rosters made up 25% of the original entries
20 man rosters made up 39% of the entriesHere are my expectations:

There will be more 24 rosters left in the Top 250 than 20 man rosters even though they started out with nearly 2,000 fewer of them
24 man rosters will make up at least half of the final 250
Just among those that make the Top 250, the 24 man rosters left will outperform the 20 man rosters left (avg score Week 14-16 will be higher)
There will be more 24 man rosters in the Top 50 and in the Top 10 than 20 man rostersOf course I also think a 24-man roster will win, but that's the hardest to predict as it's just 1 team.

 

[a_troll00]

Brady owners got pulverized this week. That will make things so much better when he gets his mojo back.

 

[smackdaddies]

If you'd told me I'd be using Flacco's first two weeks instead of Brady's, I'd have, well, been surprised.

For me, Leftwich instead of Rogers - I almost went just one qb (win big or go home) but he was so cheap that I tossed him in.

 

[jdoggydogg]

If you'd told me I'd be using Flacco's first two weeks instead of Brady's, I'd have, well, been surprised.

For me, Leftwich instead of Rogers - I almost went just one qb (win big or go home) but he was so cheap that I tossed him in.

Yeah, I remember people labeling Leftwich as a wasted roster spot. But this $4 QB is outperforming many top $$$ QBs so far. He's my third QB along with McNabb and Garrard.

 

[mbuehner]

The other thing not being considered is whether all other things are equal between 20 and 24 man rosters. There must be a certain percent of this contest that are noise- randomly picked players or rushed through early on with the intent to come back later and never fixed up. I would suspect that 20 man rosters would be more heavily represented in the 'hopeless' category since they are faster to put together. If that is true, you would expect to see a higher rate of failure in the 20 roster early on, but that does not tell you anything about the long term prospects of the survivors. Past performance does not guarantee future success.

 

[Jilez001]

Might be a little early, but based on the scoring system it would be interesting to see a breakdown of point production/cost on a positional basis. Looking at similar player costs originally, it seemed to me, that RB were overly expensive, and TE was severely under priced. On a cost basis my feeling is that a lineup rolling out 2 TE's a week, all else being equal, would be the most effecient on a per dollar basis. Particularly a team that invested in 3 TE's in the 15$-8$ range. Hopefully for me, Greg Olsens chemistry manifests on the field .

 

[jdoggydogg]

Might be a little early, but based on the scoring system it would be interesting to see a breakdown of point production/cost on a positional basis. Looking at similar player costs originally, it seemed to me, that RB were overly expensive, and TE was severely under priced. On a cost basis my feeling is that a lineup rolling out 2 TE's a week, all else being equal, would be the most effecient on a per dollar basis. Particularly a team that invested in 3 TE's in the 15$-8$ range. Hopefully for me, Greg Olsens chemistry manifests on the field .

Totally. I rostered John Carlson for $11 and Brent Celek for $7. Compare that to guys like Brandon Jacobs, Clinton Portis, and Steve Slaton - who were all priced in the mid to high $30s. Clearly, the stud RBs will start to perform better. But I'm thinking that in this contest, any player over $30 to $35 is a huge risk.

 

[perry147]

Might be a little early, but based on the scoring system it would be interesting to see a breakdown of point production/cost on a positional basis. Looking at similar player costs originally, it seemed to me, that RB were overly expensive, and TE was severely under priced. On a cost basis my feeling is that a lineup rolling out 2 TE's a week, all else being equal, would be the most effecient on a per dollar basis. Particularly a team that invested in 3 TE's in the 15$-8$ range. Hopefully for me, Greg Olsens chemistry manifests on the field .

Totally. I rostered John Carlson for $11 and Brent Celek for $7. Compare that to guys like Brandon Jacobs, Clinton Portis, and Steve Slaton - who were all priced in the mid to high $30s. Clearly, the stud RBs will start to perform better. But I'm thinking that in this contest, any player over $30 to $35 is a huge risk.

I got three TE also. The value was screaming. TEs have been my flex both weeks so far.Brent Celek $7 18.70 22.40

Todd Heap $5 20.90 8.40

Chris Baker $1 2.20 1.60

Baker has been a bust but for only $1 I could afford the risk.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Might be a little early, but based on the scoring system it would be interesting to see a breakdown of point production/cost on a positional basis. Looking at similar player costs originally, it seemed to me, that RB were overly expensive, and TE was severely under priced. On a cost basis my feeling is that a lineup rolling out 2 TE's a week, all else being equal, would be the most effecient on a per dollar basis. Particularly a team that invested in 3 TE's in the 15$-8$ range. Hopefully for me, Greg Olsens chemistry manifests on the field .

Totally. I rostered John Carlson for $11 and Brent Celek for $7. Compare that to guys like Brandon Jacobs, Clinton Portis, and Steve Slaton - who were all priced in the mid to high $30s. Clearly, the stud RBs will start to perform better. But I'm thinking that in this contest, any player over $30 to $35 is a huge risk.

I got three TE also. The value was screaming. TEs have been my flex both weeks so far.Brent Celek $7 18.70 22.40

Todd Heap $5 20.90 8.40

Chris Baker $1 2.20 1.60

Baker has been a bust but for only $1 I could afford the risk.

Same here.

 

[tim_whatley]

I hate having a position dedicated to TE, and this is the first game I have played with an explicit TE position in years.

That said, I have gotten nice value from the position.

How much meth could I buy with $35K?

 

[BassNBrew]

Donovan McNabb $24 23.65 0.00

David Garrard $18 7.50 27.80

DeAngelo Williams $37 15.90 18.60

Ryan Grant $24 13.20 14.30

Fred Taylor $11 8.50 4.60

Kevin Faulk $8 8.80 1.60

Laurence Maroney $4 5.10 2.30

Sammy Morris $4 0.00 2.30

Glen Coffee $2 -0.30 3.90

James Davis $2 2.40 0.00

Greg Jennings $32 22.60 0.00

Eddie Royal $26 3.80 5.00

Jerricho Cotchery $25 15.00 12.70

Nate Burleson $5 20.40 8.60

Hakeem Nicks $4 3.80 0.00

Chaz Schilens $3 0.00 0.00

Robert Meachem $3 13.10 3.60

Todd Heap $5 20.90 8.40

Jermichael Finley $3 2.10 11.60

Chris Baker $1 2.20 1.60

Josh Scobee $2 8.00 6.00

Robbie Gould $2 9.00 7.00

Seattle Seahawks $2 5.00 4.00

Oakland Raiders $1 7.00 6.00

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

TOTAL 160.75 120.00

CUTOFF 120.88 130.04

The flaw you had in hindsight was 2 QB's.

Actually - while it might have eventually be a problem - he scored fine at QB in week 2 with Garrard. What undid him was his 2 top WRs coming up really small in Week 2, as well as the 4 NE RB approach really not working out.

i was wondering why he went with 4 NE RBs. given his expertise i would expect a very good guess and the correct one. imo he crippled himself if he made it to the end game as the guys who picked the correct NE RB would hold a huge advantage. one of those roster spots (7 RBs) would have been usefully this week at K or D.

 

[Twilight]

Fred Taylor $11 8.50 4.60

Kevin Faulk $8 8.80 1.60

Laurence Maroney $4 5.10 2.30

Sammy Morris $4 0.00 2.30

The flaw you had in hindsight was 2 QB's.

Actually - while it might have eventually be a problem - he scored fine at QB in week 2 with Garrard. What undid him was his 2 top WRs coming up really small in Week 2, as well as the 4 NE RB approach really not working out.

i was wondering why he went with 4 NE RBs. given his expertise i would expect a very good guess and the correct one. imo he crippled himself if he made it to the end game as the guys who picked the correct NE RB would hold a huge advantage. one of those roster spots (7 RBs) would have been usefully this week at K or D.

Actually, if the NE Offense returned to the '07 numbers, then there would be plenty of points to go around, and it wouldn't be a horrible strategy. We've seen just how much they want to spread out the touches among their RBs, so I could even see an occasional 2nd score coming out of the group (again, if the O was clicking). But in the long run, even if it clicked, I think 4 spots for mostly 1 expected score is too many.

 

[davper]

I am thinking some guy with 22 or 23 players to win. At some point there is a place where having top studs versus quantity takes over and you get to the point of diminishing return. Going to an extreme example of saying they allowed upto 70 players, would you actually fill all 70 spots using only $2-4 players. At some point it pays to pay the bigger dollars for players you are certain are going to produce. But it also depends on the player pool. Last year I bet the farm that Warner was going to be a stud QB. So for $4 I got a stud QB who produced as good as any $37 QB, and for $11 I was set at the QB position with 2 solid QB's and a stud QB. This year there is not a QB under $12 that looked very appealing. If you are confident there are solid players at the low dollar levels, then by all means back up the truck and get as many as possible. But if most of them ride the bench, you are just wasting rooster spots and money. Concentrate you money on guys who are out there and going to produce week in and week out.But who knows where this optimal point is. It will change every year based on how many great players who emerge from the lower dollar levels. If there are a lot of the $2-4 gems, then a larger rooster size is the way to go. Of course if that optimal rooster size is way above 24, then the guys going for 24 are doing it right.

week 1, Lefty @ $4 scored as much as my $12+ QBs combined. The extra man or 2 could save you in the event of bad outings by your big name players.

 

[dcgator]

Thank you Mario Manningham!

 

[PatsChowder]

I am thinking some guy with 22 or 23 players to win. At some point there is a place where having top studs versus quantity takes over and you get to the point of diminishing return. Going to an extreme example of saying they allowed upto 70 players, would you actually fill all 70 spots using only $2-4 players. At some point it pays to pay the bigger dollars for players you are certain are going to produce.

But it also depends on the player pool. Last year I bet the farm that Warner was going to be a stud QB. So for $4 I got a stud QB who produced as good as any $37 QB, and for $11 I was set at the QB position with 2 solid QB's and a stud QB. This year there is not a QB under $12 that looked very appealing. If you are confident there are solid players at the low dollar levels, then by all means back up the truck and get as many as possible. But if most of them ride the bench, you are just wasting rooster spots and money. Concentrate you money on guys who are out there and going to produce week in and week out.

But who knows where this optimal point is. It will change every year based on how many great players who emerge from the lower dollar levels. If there are a lot of the $2-4 gems, then a larger rooster size is the way to go. Of course if that optimal rooster size is way above 24, then the guys going for 24 are doing it right.

Let's hope. Being someone who put together a 22 man team, I must admit there are plenty of players I think back wishing I had grabbed (Leftwich, Manningham, Robinson). But, my roster is still alive and I think I struck a nice balance between star power and depth.

 

[Couch Potato]

Brady owners got pulverized this week. That will make things so much better when he gets his mojo back.

I decided to go 'all in' with Brady in this thing, reasoning that at his cost and being a year out of the game not many others would, and if he does have another great year I'd have a big advantage over most of the field. After his 10 point performance this week only 60.7% of Brady owners have survived, lowest among QBs other than Orton. There are just 760 people remaining in the contest who own Brady. I'm one of those, and with all the Brady owners biting the dust this week, those who remain really are in good shape if he gets things back to the top-3 level most have expected entering the season.

 

[PatsChowder]

Brady owners got pulverized this week. That will make things so much better when he gets his mojo back.

I decided to go 'all in' with Brady in this thing, reasoning that at his cost and being a year out of the game not many others would, and if he does have another great year I'd have a big advantage over most of the field. After his 10 point performance this week only 60.7% of Brady owners have survived, lowest among QBs other than Orton. There are just 760 people remaining in the contest who own Brady. I'm one of those, and with all the Brady owners biting the dust this week, those who remain really are in good shape if he gets things back to the top-3 level most have expected entering the season.

As a fellow Brady owner, I also appreciate this. But, I'd be a liar if I said I wasn't concerned.

 

[Doug Drinen]

All I know is that the best idea Doug ever had, and that's saying something, is making the roster size variable.

To be completely honest, that was all Dodds' idea. I actually fought against it because it meant a bit of extra programming for me. I eventually quit my whining and went with it. Glad I did. I could see* next year making the roster sizes even more variable. Seriously, why have roster limits at all? Want a 50-man roster? Go for it. Then we'd see where all these 24-man-roster zealots (of which I am one) draw the line. With regard to the roster size debate itself, I'll only say this: while I disagree with apalmer and his camp that 20 is the way to go, I do think he is correct to point out that it's far from clear right now. IMO the #1 reason this contest is so great is because the strategies that increase your chances of getting TO the final round of 250 (minimizing variance, maximizing consistency) are exactly contrary to the kind of strategies that increase your chances of winning ONCE IN the final 250. It's a neat challenge trying to balance the two. The variable roster sizes just adds one more bit of nuance to that same challenge.* - this is just me shooting my mouth off, not an official FBG statement in any way.

 

[tomarken]

I am thinking some guy with 22 or 23 players to win. At some point there is a place where having top studs versus quantity takes over and you get to the point of diminishing return. Going to an extreme example of saying they allowed upto 70 players, would you actually fill all 70 spots using only $2-4 players. At some point it pays to pay the bigger dollars for players you are certain are going to produce.

But it also depends on the player pool. Last year I bet the farm that Warner was going to be a stud QB. So for $4 I got a stud QB who produced as good as any $37 QB, and for $11 I was set at the QB position with 2 solid QB's and a stud QB. This year there is not a QB under $12 that looked very appealing. If you are confident there are solid players at the low dollar levels, then by all means back up the truck and get as many as possible. But if most of them ride the bench, you are just wasting rooster spots and money. Concentrate you money on guys who are out there and going to produce week in and week out.

But who knows where this optimal point is. It will change every year based on how many great players who emerge from the lower dollar levels. If there are a lot of the $2-4 gems, then a larger rooster size is the way to go. Of course if that optimal rooster size is way above 24, then the guys going for 24 are doing it right.

My wife says I have the optimal rooster size. I actually think this whole 20 v 24 argument is pointless, and I'd expect the final 250 to have a mix of both approximately proportionate to how many of each there were to begin with. Whether you have 20 players or 24 players, you are unlikely to see every single one of them contribute meaningfully to your starting lineup over the course of the season. To get far and win, you need to hit on some picks, and you can do that whether you have 20 players or 24.

 

[belljr]

I thought I had no chance. I made it to later weeks before but I see this being a week 4 or 5 for me this year.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that a large majority of top 100 final teams have more than 20 to 22 roster spots.

 

[drm1125]

Entry 102995

This entry is still alive.

1 2

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

Aaron Rodgers $27 15.90 23.35

Joe Flacco $14 34.15 20.80

Byron Leftwich $4 20.10 30.80

DeAngelo Williams $37 15.90 18.60

Ray Rice $21 13.00 10.70

Felix Jones $11 2.20 15.60

Jamaal Charles $7 5.70 0.00

Correll Buckhalter $2 6.70 17.10

Shonn Greene $2 0.00 0.00

James Davis $2 2.40 0.00

Calvin Johnson $40 12.00 17.70

Greg Jennings $32 22.60 0.00

Chris Henry $12 2.80 7.50

Pierre Garcon $3 5.40 11.80

David Clowney $2 0.00 0.00

Mario Manningham $2 14.80 31.00

Josh Cribbs $1 3.60 7.60

Dustin Keller $12 15.40 12.70

Jermichael Finley $3 2.10 11.60

Chris Baker $1 2.20 1.60

Rob Bironas $3 6.00 9.00

Phil Dawson $1 9.00 8.00

Baltimore Ravens $6 3.00 6.00

San Diego Chargers $5 7.00 3.00

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

TOTAL 150.55 170.30

CUTOFF 120.88 130.04

I survived and for the second week Rodgers wasn't my best QB. I just realized that I'm one of the 24 player teams, I didn't mean to do it. Maningham has been very nice. I'm worried about my RB's and my defenses.