Official Subscriber Contest (1 Viewer)

[tomarken]

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.

You would've made the cut both weeks without Manningham. I don't mean to call you out specifically, but there is a difference between a player "making your starting lineup" and "contributing meaningfully to your team" and I think a lot of people mistake the former for the latter. Take Manningham out and replace him with any other WR on your roster and you're still alive. Hell, take Manningham out and replace him with a zero and you still make the cut both weeks. Of course it's only two weeks and maybe Manningham will carry you to the $20,000 for all I know, but I think people sometimes overreact.

 

[Balco]

I am really not liking Brady Quinn as my # 3. Had Sanchez until I talked myself out of it. I think that is going to be the end of me, unless Hasselback can come back quickly and play effectively. I can't count on Drew Brees to score so much each week.

 

[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.

You would've made the cut both weeks without Manningham. I don't mean to call you out specifically, but there is a difference between a player "making your starting lineup" and "contributing meaningfully to your team" and I think a lot of people mistake the former for the latter. Take Manningham out and replace him with any other WR on your roster and you're still alive. Hell, take Manningham out and replace him with a zero and you still make the cut both weeks. Of course it's only two weeks and maybe Manningham will carry you to the $20,000 for all I know, but I think people sometimes overreact.

You're right of course, but it's very nice to see a $2 player contributing.

 

[gregjcross]

The contest is almost here. It is being tested by our staff to make sure we make it extra hard for you guys.Most of the rules will remain the same, but we have one tweak that we think will add some skill.You can now field a team between 20 to 24 picks (as long as you don't spend more than the $250). We are hoping this will add increased variability to the rosters.The contest is expected to debut Tuesday afternoon.

So funny to read that this is tested with staff to make it EXTRA hard. Because it is. I agonize over the final send just because of that. I like my chances this year though with Flacco $14, Leon Washington $12 Michael Bush $6 and Britt $2/M.Manningham $2, in the key back up positions.

 

[Das Boot]

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.

That would be absoutely freakin' Awesome.I seriously hope this happens.

 

[gigantor]

I'm eliminated.

Thanks Welker and Royal

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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.

It won't be all that interesting. The 20-player folks are going to throw in the towel around Week 5 when the byes and injuries start to pile up.

 

[LHUCKS]

Team LHUCKS.

Entry 100033This entry is still alive.								 1	  2  -------------------------------------------Carson Palmer		 $21	 10.55  31.35 Matt Hasselbeck	   $17	 30.25   6.05 DeAngelo Williams	 $37	 15.90  18.60 Felix Jones		   $11	  2.20  15.60 Chester Taylor		$11	  5.50   4.30 Ahmad Bradshaw		 $8	  8.60   5.50 LeSean McCoy		   $7	  5.20   7.50 Glen Coffee			$2	 -0.30   3.90 James Davis			$2	  2.40   0.00 Randy Moss			$42	 26.10   6.40 DeSean Jackson		$24	  6.20  21.60 Vincent Jackson	   $21	 16.60  26.10 Chris Henry		   $12	  2.80   7.50 Derrick Mason		  $9	  8.70   6.10 Robert Meachem		 $3	 13.10   3.60 Laurent Robinson	   $2	 13.70  17.40 John Carlson		  $11	 30.50  13.60 Jermichael Finley	  $3	  2.10  11.60 Chris Baker			$1	  2.20   1.60 Josh Brown			 $1	  0.00   1.00 Dan Carpenter		  $1	  1.00  17.00 San Francisco 49ers	$2	  7.00   3.00 Cincinnati Bengals	 $1	  3.00   8.00 New Orleans Saints	 $1	  7.00  16.00 -------------------------------------------TOTAL						162.75 188.85 CUTOFF					   120.88 130.04

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Entry 102030 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 Ronnie Brown $35 6.80 25.60 Ray Rice $21 13.00 10.70 Leon Washington $12 10.40 8.60 Felix Jones $11 2.20 15.60 Ladell Betts $2 2.70 4.30 James Davis $2 2.40 0.00 Greg Jennings $32 22.60 0.00 Vincent Jackson $21 16.60 26.10 Josh Morgan $15 6.80 0.00 Steve Smith $12 14.00 29.40 Mike Sims-Walker $9 0.00 22.60 Nate Washington $6 1.80 15.00 Chansi Stuckey $4 16.40 7.70 Robert Meachem $3 13.10 3.60 Zach Miller $12 18.60 0.00 Jermichael Finley $3 2.10 11.60 Delanie Walker $1 3.20 0.00 Robbie Gould $2 9.00 7.00 Olindo Mare $1 4.00 5.00 Miami Dolphins $3 2.00 1.00 Cincinnati Bengals $1 3.00 8.00 -------------------------------------------TOTAL 131.50 203.15 CUTOFF 120.88 130.04

I really thought I'd be gone after week 1.

 

[Marvelous]

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.

That would be absoutely freakin' Awesome.I seriously hope this happens.

I'd probably stop around 30 or 35. But I really don't know until I start trying to put a team together.

 

[Marvelous]

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 .

I went stud TE with Whitten and Olsen. But Olsen has been a huge dissappointment so far. I thought I would have a TE as my flex player many weeks.

 

[QuizGuy66]

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.

That would be absoutely freakin' Awesome.I seriously hope this happens.

I'd probably stop around 30 or 35. But I really don't know until I start trying to put a team together.

Behold the glory that is 200-kicker guy!-QG

 

[Moniker]

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 .

I went stud TE with Whitten and Olsen. But Olsen has been a huge dissappointment so far. I thought I would have a TE as my flex player many weeks.

I thought the same thing, except I couldn't find any receivers that I thought were worth the money. Decided to roll with Gonzo and Clark at TE.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Preliminary week 3 simulation

 

[smackdaddies]

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 .

I went stud TE with Whitten and Olsen. But Olsen has been a huge dissappointment so far. I thought I would have a TE as my flex player many weeks.

I went Witten with Heap/Finley backing him up - I have scored two te both weeks. Last year i did two stud, but this year with the expanded roster you could play it differently

 

[ctriopelle]

Preliminary week 3 simulation

looks like the assumption is low 130s to survive this week....

 

[PatrickT]

Preliminary week 3 simulation

Good ol' team 105761 just can't catch a break on these sims. 8300 last week, 9100 with a 70% chance of surviving.But don't give up on ol' 105761, they're a bunch of fighters, they are. Always have been.

 

[PatsChowder]

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 .

I went stud TE with Whitten and Olsen. But Olsen has been a huge dissappointment so far. I thought I would have a TE as my flex player many weeks.

I thought the same thing, except I couldn't find any receivers that I thought were worth the money. Decided to roll with Gonzo and Clark at TE.

I did the same thing, and it saved me this weekend. I went with Cooley ($15) and Daniels ($13) for an acceptable amount seeing as Witten was going for $27. This week, they scored 18~ and 22~ respectively. Without them, I'd be done.

 

[Barry Jive and The Uptown Five]

Preliminary week 3 simulation

This simulator-thingy is *OBVIOUSLY* broken.No way should any team I've assembled be in the Top 30 of anything!

 

[jon_mx]

Preliminary week 3 simulation

I wondered how a team could have only a 19% chance of survival, but a look at his first four players kind of answered that....Donovan McNabb $24

Matt Hasselbeck $17

Daunte Culpepper $4

LaDainian Tomlinson $40

 

[cardsharky]

Will Slaton be $2 again this year?

The way Slayton is playing he wasn't worth more than 2 dollars in 2009.

 

[Gravity]

If LT can get healthy and stay a top 10 RB starting about week 6 I am very confident in this team:

-------------------------------------------
Peyton Manning        $32     19.65  27.45 
Byron Leftwich         $4     20.10  30.80 
LaDainian Tomlinson   $40     12.10   0.00 
Kevin Smith           $30     16.70  10.30 
Julius Jones          $14     20.60   8.40 
Ladell Betts           $2      2.70   4.30 
Bernard Scott          $2     -0.60   0.70 
Greg Jones             $1      1.40   0.00 
Chris Brown            $1      2.10   2.50 
Larry Fitzgerald      $44     19.10  13.40 
Marques Colston       $28     12.00  29.80 
Derrick Mason          $9      8.70   6.10 
Chansi Stuckey         $4     16.40   7.70 
Chaz Schilens          $3      0.00   0.00 
Jason Hill             $3      0.00   0.00 
Dallas Clark          $18      9.90  34.80 
Randy McMichael        $9     10.40   4.40 
Jay Feely              $1      6.00  12.00 
Steve Hauschka         $1     10.00   8.00 
Green Bay Packers      $3     10.00  12.00 
Oakland Raiders        $1      7.00   6.00 
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL                        147.40 165.30 
CUTOFF                       120.88 130.04

 

[Nugget]

I think I may have been jinxed with the #10 spot in the simulation. I'm guessing the projections have LT and Barber not playing and my Sproles/Choice combo rocked.

 

[thatguythere]

Thank you Jason Avant and Percy Harvin! Way to cover those zero's from Jennings and A. Gonzo

 

[rzrback77]

Just wanted to say thank you to the Cowboy DD for providing such interesting news and notes on the contest. Keeps it fun and interesting.

Thanks Doug!

 

[Balance]

not sure how im still in this with McNabb and LT out.

 

[Lehigh98]

Lowest % to advance in simulation. "Ouch"

Entry 109471 This entry is still alive. 1 2 -------------------------------------------Donovan McNabb $24 23.65 0.00 Matt Hasselbeck $17 30.25 6.05 Daunte Culpepper $4 0.00 0.00 LaDainian Tomlinson $40 12.10 0.00 Brian Westbrook $34 14.70 8.10 LenDale White $12 3.80 2.50 Correll Buckhalter $2 6.70 17.10 Edgerrin James $1 3.00 0.60 Anquan Boldin $31 3.90 15.30 Marques Colston $28 12.00 29.80 DeSean Jackson $24 6.20 21.60 Michael Crabtree $9 0.00 0.00 Jeremy Maclin $4 0.00 3.20 Bobby Engram $3 3.90 2.20 Roscoe Parrish $1 0.40 0.90 Brent Celek $7 18.70 22.40 Jeff King $1 1.70 6.80 Matt Prater $2 11.00 10.00 Philadelphia Eagles $5 31.00 6.00 Denver Broncos $1 7.00 10.00 -------------------------------------------TOTAL 146.55 147.15 CUTOFF 120.88 130.04

 

[BassNBrew]

Lowest % to advance in simulation. "Ouch"

Entry 109471 This entry is still alive. 1 2 -------------------------------------------Donovan McNabb $24 23.65 0.00 Matt Hasselbeck $17 30.25 6.05 Daunte Culpepper $4 0.00 0.00 LaDainian Tomlinson $40 12.10 0.00 Brian Westbrook $34 14.70 8.10 LenDale White $12 3.80 2.50 Correll Buckhalter $2 6.70 17.10 Edgerrin James $1 3.00 0.60 Anquan Boldin $31 3.90 15.30 Marques Colston $28 12.00 29.80 DeSean Jackson $24 6.20 21.60 Michael Crabtree $9 0.00 0.00 Jeremy Maclin $4 0.00 3.20 Bobby Engram $3 3.90 2.20 Roscoe Parrish $1 0.40 0.90 Brent Celek $7 18.70 22.40 Jeff King $1 1.70 6.80 Matt Prater $2 11.00 10.00 Philadelphia Eagles $5 31.00 6.00 Denver Broncos $1 7.00 10.00 -------------------------------------------TOTAL 146.55 147.15 CUTOFF 120.88 130.04

looks to be an eagles fan. maybe next year they can have an option where you can draft an entire team's roster with one click.

 

[Wadsworth]

Preliminary week 3 simulation

Wow, I'll take a 93.2% chance at moving on with Matt Jones, Hakeem Nicks, Antonio Bryant, and DeSean Jackson all either out or potentially out.

 

[Dodge]

QB - Eli Manning - 16

QB - Shaun Hill - 11

QB - Byron Leftwich - 4

RB - Steve Slaton - 37

RB - Ryan Grant - 24

RB - Jerious Norwood - 9

RB - Ahmad Bradshaw - 8

RB - Ladell Betts - 2

WR - Reggie Wayne - 36

WR - Marques Colston - 28

WR - DeSean Jackson - 24

WR - Josh Morgan - 15

WR - Chansi Stuckey - 4

WR - David Clowney - 2

WR - Jacoby Jones - 2

WR - Mario Manningham - 2

TE - Owen Daniels - 13

TE - Ben Watson - 3

PK - Lawrence Tynes - 3

PK - Sebastian Janikowski - 1

TD - Arizona Cardinals - 3

TD - Green Bay Packers - 3

Things are looking good. Though I'm regretting Steve Slaton. Ugh. My RBs are going to bite me in my ### soon enough.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Things are looking good. Though I'm regretting Steve Slaton. Ugh. My RBs are going to bite me in my ### soon enough.

I love my roster, but my two enormous regrets so far are Roddy White and Steve Slaton. I have a good WR corps, but I could have spread around White's $33 to improve my WRs even more. Slaton is a joke at this point. I am sure Slaton will start to put up good numbers eventually, but will my team already be eliminated?

 

[Jilez001]

Lowest % to advance in simulation. "Ouch"

Entry 109471 This entry is still alive. 1 2 -------------------------------------------Donovan McNabb $24 23.65 0.00 Matt Hasselbeck $17 30.25 6.05 Daunte Culpepper $4 0.00 0.00 LaDainian Tomlinson $40 12.10 0.00 Brian Westbrook $34 14.70 8.10 LenDale White $12 3.80 2.50 Correll Buckhalter $2 6.70 17.10 Edgerrin James $1 3.00 0.60 Anquan Boldin $31 3.90 15.30 Marques Colston $28 12.00 29.80 DeSean Jackson $24 6.20 21.60 Michael Crabtree $9 0.00 0.00 Jeremy Maclin $4 0.00 3.20 Bobby Engram $3 3.90 2.20 Roscoe Parrish $1 0.40 0.90 Brent Celek $7 18.70 22.40 Jeff King $1 1.70 6.80 Matt Prater $2 11.00 10.00 Philadelphia Eagles $5 31.00 6.00 Denver Broncos $1 7.00 10.00 -------------------------------------------TOTAL 146.55 147.15 CUTOFF 120.88 130.04

looks to be an eagles fan. maybe next year they can have an option where you can draft an entire team's roster with one click.

Funnily enough, one of my first team variants for this contest was to do exactly this (minus mcnabb)! Except I was planning on doing it with two full rosters. If you look at them most of a teams avaliable skill position run between 7 and 10 players. Early on I I really liked OAK because their entire eligible roster cost like 62 dollars!! Someone has to catch the passes there right ?Anyway the two rosters I liked most were SF/PHI. They were both relatively inexpensive (~90?) and had nice qualities like early bye weeks (an obvious serious issue when 33% of your roster is going to be missing) have to capitalize on the lower cut rate. I ended up scrapping the idea largely because it didn't seem capable of winning the contest. It just seemed likely to survive to the end. Also had way too much money invested in RB's for my taste.

 

[PatsChowder]

Things are looking good. Though I'm regretting Steve Slaton. Ugh. My RBs are going to bite me in my ### soon enough.

I love my roster, but my two enormous regrets so far are Roddy White and Steve Slaton. I have a good WR corps, but I could have spread around White's $33 to improve my WRs even more. Slaton is a joke at this point. I am sure Slaton will start to put up good numbers eventually, but will my team already be eliminated?

I'm not worried about White. I have him on my squad as well and feel like I know I will be able to bank on him for strong performances in at least 13 of the 17 weeks. He'll average 5 receptions a game with strong odds for a touchdown. He should hit double digit scoring with high upside for 20s more than enough. When you look at the prices for the elite receivers he was extremely affordable. Personally, I picked White ($33) and Jennings ($32) with hopes that I would utilize both scores each week, but practically expecting to use one of them while getting at least two 10-15 point performances from my other six receivers (Mason, Burleson, Bess, and Crayton specifically). My big regret... buying the hype on James Davis when I could have used it on Mario Manningham.

 

[rmfesh33]

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.

Folks, I think you need to think regression to the mean here. Neither the 24 or 20 group camps picked teams to maximize pts in weeks 1 and 2; they (hopefully!) tried to pick teams that would be best servered over the long haul. Picking a Donte Rosario for $1 looked great last year after week 1 until he regressed to his mean expected production the rest of the year and brought no value to his owners. And yes, there are some Steve Slatons and Warners possible to; although less likely. We are yet to find out which is which, yet, this year with only 2 games played. If either camp picked Chris Johnson and fell out in week 1 due to a tough performance against a tough Pitt defense; it does not tell us either approach is right yet since he was picked a good player to have for the whole year hopefully and especially when his schedule gets easier in the bigger cut weeks. Now this week everyone can say he was a great call maybe, but only time will tell.

The debate goes something like this.....do you want a 45% chance a stud will get you 20 pts; or do you want 3 15% chances that a lesser guy will get you 20 pts for an active counting roster spot. Time will tell if the 3 guys end up closer to a 20% chance each and improving odds, or be more like 10% and reduce them....the rest is just luck in which week they happen to do it and when you need it.

Bottom line, however, is to wait for more data, especially with bye weeks coming up...right now the 20 team groups are only 2.5% behind what is expected for their live rate (remember, since more of them they will have a higher burn rate earlier).....if you could teams left as a percentage; they started at 39% of the total population and are now at 36.46 of those left. The 24 group team is now up 2.6%....probably neither is statistically relevant at this point with the short sample size and the variability that can bring...not to mention the upcoming variability of bye weeks and regressions to the mean of some players.

for those intersted:

Team Size Start % Current %

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

20 39% 36.46%

21 15.3% 14.75%

22 9.7% 10.20%

23 25% 27.62%

 

[jdoggydogg]

Things are looking good. Though I'm regretting Steve Slaton. Ugh. My RBs are going to bite me in my ### soon enough.

I love my roster, but my two enormous regrets so far are Roddy White and Steve Slaton. I have a good WR corps, but I could have spread around White's $33 to improve my WRs even more. Slaton is a joke at this point. I am sure Slaton will start to put up good numbers eventually, but will my team already be eliminated?

I'm not worried about White. I have him on my squad as well and feel like I know I will be able to bank on him for strong performances in at least 13 of the 17 weeks. He'll average 5 receptions a game with strong odds for a touchdown. He should hit double digit scoring with high upside for 20s more than enough. When you look at the prices for the elite receivers he was extremely affordable. Personally, I picked White ($33) and Jennings ($32) with hopes that I would utilize both scores each week, but practically expecting to use one of them while getting at least two 10-15 point performances from my other six receivers (Mason, Burleson, Bess, and Crayton specifically). My big regret... buying the hype on James Davis when I could have used it on Mario Manningham.

You're right. White was a decent buy at that price. And I guess all the targets that Gonzalez is getting will help loosen the deep coverage this year.

 

[Short Corner]

Folks, I think you need to think regression to the mean here. Neither the 24 or 20 group camps picked teams to maximize pts in weeks 1 and 2; they (hopefully!) tried to pick teams that would be best servered over the long haul. Picking a Donte Rosario for $1 looked great last year after week 1 until he regressed to his mean expected production the rest of the year and brought no value to his owners. And yes, there are some Steve Slatons and Warners possible to; although less likely. We are yet to find out which is which, yet, this year with only 2 games played. If either camp picked Chris Johnson and fell out in week 1 due to a tough performance against a tough Pitt defense; it does not tell us either approach is right yet since he was picked a good player to have for the whole year hopefully and especially when his schedule gets easier in the bigger cut weeks. Now this week everyone can say he was a great call maybe, but only time will tell.The debate goes something like this.....do you want a 45% chance a stud will get you 20 pts; or do you want 3 15% chances that a lesser guy will get you 20 pts for an active counting roster spot. Time will tell if the 3 guys end up closer to a 20% chance each and improving odds, or be more like 10% and reduce them....the rest is just luck in which week they happen to do it and when you need it.Bottom line, however, is to wait for more data, especially with bye weeks coming up...right now the 20 team groups are only 2.5% behind what is expected for their live rate (remember, since more of them they will have a higher burn rate earlier).....if you could teams left as a percentage; they started at 39% of the total population and are now at 36.46 of those left. The 24 group team is now up 2.6%....probably neither is statistically relevant at this point with the short sample size and the variability that can bring...not to mention the upcoming variability of bye weeks and regressions to the mean of some players.for those intersted:Team Size Start % Current %-------------------------------------------------20 39% 36.46%21 15.3% 14.75%22 9.7% 10.20%23 25% 27.62%

See, I think that the main difference between the 20s and 24s isn't exchanging a stud for 3 lesser guys. Every team has studs. I have 24 on my roster and still managed to get Brees-Gore-Grant-Anquan-Vjackson. The difference, IMO is going with 4-5 guys in the $2-$5 range over the one guy for $14-$16. I didn't see as much value in the middle tier as I saw in the bottom so I went dumpster diving. For $14 I got LRobinson-Avant-Harvin-Burleson who have counted 6x for me in 2 weeks while Anquan has yet to put up a number. The u[coming bye weeks, as well as injuries are going to favor the larger rosters even more.As far as statistical relevance, we have over 25000 trials so far and a 2% shift is pretty significant. I stated in an earlier thread, the actual elimination rate compared to the EV is very telling.Team Size EV(eliminated) Actual Eliminated delta--------------------------------------------------------------------------20---------------------39%-------------------47%-----------------+20.8%21---------------------15.3%---------------- 17.1%---------------+11.8% 22---------------------10.9%----------------10.0%-----------------(8.0%)23--------------------9.7%-------------------8.3%-----------------(14.4%) 24---------------------25.1%----------------17.4%-----------------(30.6%)Seems to be, at least, an obvious correlation.Edit-fixed white space problems with hyphens

 

[BassNBrew]

1 2

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

Tom Brady $37 30.80 10.00

Mark Sanchez $9 19.20 13.95

DeAngelo Williams $37 15.90 18.60

Marshawn Lynch $22 0.00 0.00

Felix Jones $11 2.20 15.60

Ahmad Bradshaw $8 8.60 5.50

LeSean McCoy $7 5.20 7.50

James Davis $2 2.40 0.00

Anquan Boldin $31 3.90 15.30

Marques Colston $28 12.00 29.80

Chris Henry $12 2.80 7.50

Justin Gage $8 20.80 4.70

Greg Camarillo $4 4.00 4.10

Chaz Schilens $3 0.00 0.00

Robert Meachem $3 13.10 3.60

Greg Olsen $15 2.30 8.60

Jermichael Finley $3 2.10 11.60

Chris Baker $1 2.20 1.60

Shayne Graham $2 1.00 9.00

Dan Carpenter $1 1.00 17.00

Steve Hauschka $1 10.00 8.00

Green Bay Packers $3 10.00 12.00

Oakland Raiders $1 7.00 6.00

Denver Broncos $1 7.00 10.00

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

TOTAL 128.70 149.95

CUTOFF 120.88 130.04

Still happy with this lineup. Schilens and Lynch hopefully will be contributing soon. Took the gamble that I could survive 3 weeks without them. Hopefully Jones will fill the void this week as I've just been scrapping by.

Biggest disappointed has been Olsen. I had Clark in my lineup until the last couple of iterations. Needed the extra $3 to get D. Williams and Brady on the roster which isn't looking very smart right now.

 

[tommyGunZ]

were you cheating off of my paper BnB? I also went Brady-DeAngelo-Felix-Colston-Henry. I know some of those guys are on a lot of rosters, but still.

Dumb minds think alike.

 

[CalBear]

Bottom line, however, is to wait for more data, especially with bye weeks coming up...right now the 20 team groups are only 2.5% behind what is expected for their live rate (remember, since more of them they will have a higher burn rate earlier).....if you could teams left as a percentage; they started at 39% of the total population and are now at 36.46 of those left. The 24 group team is now up 2.6%....probably neither is statistically relevant at this point with the short sample size and the variability that can bring...not to mention the upcoming variability of bye weeks and regressions to the mean of some players.for those intersted:Team Size Start % Current %-------------------------------------------------20 39% 36.46%21 15.3% 14.75%22 9.7% 10.20%23 25% 27.62%

The sample size is only two weeks, but it's a large number of data points; there are multiple thousands of different 20 and 24-team rosters. That, and the fact that the results have 24 > 23 > 22 > 21 > 20, strongly suggests that the 24-player strategy is better.

 

[gpalmer]

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.

Now this would be awesome! One suggestion would be to make teams spend a $1 to purchase every roster spot over 20. So if you wanted 50 players, you would have to do it with $30 less than a team with 20 players. That seems like a fair risk/reward system. $15 could buy you the following players: 1@$15, 2@$7, 4@$3, or 8@$1If you open up the roster requirements, I would have probably taken every single $1 Kicker and $1&$2 Defense. But, if they cost me an extra $1, I'd probably think again.

 

[LHUCKS]

strongly suggests that the 24-player strategy is better.

I think it depends on the players available each year....I think it's a mistake to make a blanket statement that maxing out your player count is always the best strategy. Making the rosters unlimited is an excellent idea as it would obviously increase the variance in teams....I'd also like to see some significant changes in format from year to year, such as start 2QB or double flex, etc. etc. Anything that will weed out the men from the boys.

 

[sinatravolta]

Folks, I think you need to think regression to the mean here.

You do not understand what "regression to the mean" means. That has nothing to do with what will happen regarding 24 vs. 20 man rosters. The trend of 24-man rosters surviving longer will continue and will likely become even more pronounced as the bye weeks come along and injuries build up. As others have pointed out - we already have tons of data points.The 20-man supporters are clinging to the notion that somehow if they can reach the top 250 they'll be more differentiated than the 24-man rosters. I don't agree because they have fewer guys to be differentiated with! To survive with fewer guys you likely will actually have greater need for the guys you do have to have come through in the first 13 weeks (and therefore they will be on other teams that survived). But what they are saying is at least hypothetically possible. I think apalmer would even agree that the trend of 20-man teams dying off at a greater rate than 24-man teams will certainly continue.

 

[Das Boot]

strongly suggests that the 24-player strategy is better.

I think it depends on the players available each year....I think it's a mistake to make a blanket statement that maxing out your player count is always the best strategy. Making the rosters unlimited is an excellent idea as it would obviously increase the variance in teams....I'd also like to see some significant changes in format from year to year, such as start 2QB or double flex, etc. etc. Anything that will weed out the men from the boys.

It probably makes sense to actually master the current format before making calls for it to be changed up to make it harder.

 

[Short Corner]

strongly suggests that the 24-player strategy is better.

I think it depends on the players available each year.

Your point?

I think it's a mistake to make a blanket statement that maxing out your player count is always the best strategy.

Nobody is making this blanket statement, yet it seems to be the main arguing point for some here.

 

[apalmer]

Folks, I think you need to think regression to the mean here.

I think apalmer would even agree that the trend of 20-man teams dying off at a greater rate than 24-man teams will certainly continue.

I've already said that numerous times. A 20-man roster is a gamble. I designed mine to minimize the gamble by avoiding bye issues. In fact, I have less bye issues than most 24-man teams I've seen. Of course, injuries and disappointing players could wreck the strategy easily. With only 2 QB's, Hasselbeck (my #2 QB) better get heathy in a hurry. Same with 2 TE's: Daniels has been fine, but sooner or later he'll have a bad week. Going into the contest, I figured he and Olsen would be more than enough, but if Olsen doesn't start doing something soon, I'm in trouble. On the other hand, I'm guessing that if any of the 24-man teams get to the point where injuries make them rely on Leftwich at QB or Baker at TE, they're not going to feel comfortable either.

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.

That's the entire rationale for a 20-man roster in a nutshell. 250 of over 13,500 etries get to the finals. That's 1.85% of the entries getting to the finals. A 20-man roster probably does decrease the chances, but is 1.85% a whole lot better than 1.7% or even 1.5%? If Doug is correct that the safest strategy to make the finals is not the best strategy to win once you're there (and I think he is), then I'm willing to risk that decrease in exchange for what I see as a better chance to win IF I get there.There's also a side issue that's difficult to analyze: how are the rosters made up? Most of the 24-man rosters I've seen differ from mine by using the extra slots to have 3 QBs, TEs, Ds and/or Ks while I only have 2 of each. I have as many (or more) RBs and WRs as most of those teams, and, IMO, the ones I have at those positons are better than those on most 24-man teams because I could afford to spend more there. Once the contest converts to cumulative scoring, I think the few point swing those extra Ks and Ds produce (which admittedly might save a team in elimination weeks) is less valuable than the major point swings possible from (what I perceive as) superior WRs and RBs. Be honest: if you have to rely on Leftwich and/or Baker to score points for you in Weeks 13-16, you're not going to take first place anyhow. So, if the goal is first place, who cares if you have them those weeks? Putting it another way, I spent $4 on two Ks and $5 on two Ds. Would it have made me significantly stronger to add a $1 third TE and get an extra K and D for the same $9 and thus have a 24-man roster? I guess there's a chance, but the odds of it increasing my score in any week by more than a point or two are pretty slim (and it also has a chance of decreasing my score in some weeks).

 

[ctriopelle]

Folks, I think you need to think regression to the mean here.

I think apalmer would even agree that the trend of 20-man teams dying off at a greater rate than 24-man teams will certainly continue.

I've already said that numerous times. A 20-man roster is a gamble. I designed mine to minimize the gamble by avoiding bye issues. In fact, I have less bye issues than most 24-man teams I've seen. Of course, injuries and disappointing players could wreck the strategy easily. With only 2 QB's, Hasselbeck (my #2 QB) better get heathy in a hurry. Same with 2 TE's: Daniels has been fine, but sooner or later he'll have a bad week. Going into the contest, I figured he and Olsen would be more than enough, but if Olsen doesn't start doing something soon, I'm in trouble. On the other hand, I'm guessing that if any of the 24-man teams get to the point where injuries make them rely on Leftwich at QB or Baker at TE, they're not going to feel comfortable either.

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.

That's the entire rationale for a 20-man roster in a nutshell. 250 of over 13,500 etries get to the finals. That's 1.85% of the entries getting to the finals. A 20-man rsoter probably decreases the chances, but is 1.85% a whole lot better than 1.7% or even 1.5%? If Doug is correct that the safest strategy to make the finals is not the best strategy to win once you're there (and I think he is), then I'm willing to risk that decrease in exchange for what I see as a better chance to win IF I get there.There's also a side issue that's difficult to analyze: how are the rosters mad up? Most of the 24-man rosters I've seen differ from mine by using the extra slots to have 3 QBs, TEs, Ds and/or Ks while I only have 2 of each. I have as many (or more) RBs and WRs as most of those teams, and, IMO, the ones I have at those positons are better than those on most 24-man teams because I could afford to spend more there. Once the contest converts to cumulative scoring, I think the few point swing those extra Ks and Ds produce (which admittedly might save a team in elimination weeks) is less valuable than the major point swings possible from (what I perceive as) superior WRs and RBs. Be honest: if you have to rely on Leftwich and/or Baker to score points for you in Weeks 13-16, you're not going to take first place anyhow. So, if the goal is first place, who cares if you have them those weeks?

What I focused on in my strategy is the fact that WR's are very hard to predict, and even "elite" ones can be highly inconsistent (ask any Greg Jennings, Randy Moss, or Steve Smith owners ). I agree with part of what you are saying, that loading up on WR's specifically for quantity is part of the homerun formula. Best to have as many potential guys to drop 80 yard TD's as possible, as there always seems to be "that guy" in the NFL every week. Since best ball affords us the luxury of not needing to know what week that is, I don't think you need to spend a lot for individual guys, which makes the <$5 guys pretty valuable. I probably could have bought more of them and shorted the PK/DEF positions (I went with 3 each), but for right now, I kinda like the $1 each I spent on NO and Dan Carpenter to fill the 3 slots. I don't think PK/DEF wins it for you (unless you have a week 1 Philly situation), but taking a low score there can kill you, so you have to do something to mitigate the potential for disaster there. We'll see how things play out, I'm curious to see what the final 250 breakdown is on roster makeup is, and equally curious to see how the winner looks compared to the other finalists.By the way, my brain will explode if we go to unlimited rosters, not that it wouldn't be fun!

 

[BassNBrew]

were you cheating off of my paper BnB? I also went Brady-DeAngelo-Felix-Colston-Henry. I know some of those guys are on a lot of rosters, but still.Dumb minds think alike.

Four of us with that group of five.

 

[Marauder]

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.

That's the entire rationale for a 20-man roster in a nutshell. 250 of over 13,500 etries get to the finals. That's 1.85% of the entries getting to the finals. A 20-man roster probably does decrease the chances, but is 1.85% a whole lot better than 1.7% or even 1.5%? If Doug is correct that the safest strategy to make the finals is not the best strategy to win once you're there (and I think he is), then I'm willing to risk that decrease in exchange for what I see as a better chance to win IF I get there.

This is actually where I think the 20-man roster guys have the biggest disadvantage. You are more reliant on your studs to get you to the final 250. The problem is that if you get there, many of the other teams still alive will have the same studs. You will need to find uniqueness somewhere else. Basically, in order to win this thing the players who win it for you in the final three weeks will need to be different than the ones who got you there. Having more players on your roster gives you the best chance of being able to take advantage of the two conflicting stategies that Doug described.

 

[sinatravolta]

Folks, I think you need to think regression to the mean here.

I think apalmer would even agree that the trend of 20-man teams dying off at a greater rate than 24-man teams will certainly continue.

I've already said that numerous times. A 20-man roster is a gamble. I designed mine to minimize the gamble by avoiding bye issues. In fact, I have less bye issues than most 24-man teams I've seen. Of course, injuries and disappointing players could wreck the strategy easily. With only 2 QB's, Hasselbeck (my #2 QB) better get heathy in a hurry. Same with 2 TE's: Daniels has been fine, but sooner or later he'll have a bad week. Going into the contest, I figured he and Olsen would be more than enough, but if Olsen doesn't start doing something soon, I'm in trouble. On the other hand, I'm guessing that if any of the 24-man teams get to the point where injuries make them rely on Leftwich at QB or Baker at TE, they're not going to feel comfortable either.

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.

That's the entire rationale for a 20-man roster in a nutshell. 250 of over 13,500 etries get to the finals. That's 1.85% of the entries getting to the finals. A 20-man roster probably does decrease the chances, but is 1.85% a whole lot better than 1.7% or even 1.5%? If Doug is correct that the safest strategy to make the finals is not the best strategy to win once you're there (and I think he is), then I'm willing to risk that decrease in exchange for what I see as a better chance to win IF I get there.There's also a side issue that's difficult to analyze: how are the rosters made up? Most of the 24-man rosters I've seen differ from mine by using the extra slots to have 3 QBs, TEs, Ds and/or Ks while I only have 2 of each. I have as many (or more) RBs and WRs as most of those teams, and, IMO, the ones I have at those positons are better than those on most 24-man teams because I could afford to spend more there. Once the contest converts to cumulative scoring, I think the few point swing those extra Ks and Ds produce (which admittedly might save a team in elimination weeks) is less valuable than the major point swings possible from (what I perceive as) superior WRs and RBs. Be honest: if you have to rely on Leftwich and/or Baker to score points for you in Weeks 13-16, you're not going to take first place anyhow. So, if the goal is first place, who cares if you have them those weeks? Putting it another way, I spent $4 on two Ks and $5 on two Ds. Would it have made me significantly stronger to add a $1 third TE and get an extra K and D for the same $9 and thus have a 24-man roster? I guess there's a chance, but the odds of it increasing my score in any week by more than a point or two are pretty slim (and it also has a chance of decreasing my score in some weeks).

I think this is pretty well put. I guess to compare - I spent $4 on 3 K's and $8 on 3 D's. I actually think K's especially - it's a mistake to not take 3 cheap ones. It's so unpredictable and the expensive guys aren't worth trying to outdo 3 cheap guys - but having 3 bullets firing is worth the roster spots. D - I spent $3 more for 1 more D. That one is more arguable - I think that didn't cost me much on other guys, and when a D has a big game and/or scores a TD - it can be worth a lot. I also went with only 2 QBs - P. Manning and Leftwich. Solid QBs just cost so much this year and you can only start one - so I agree that is a place it's worth being risky. While an extra D or K costs $1-$3, an extra QB costs $15. The nice thing about RB/WR/TE is they can all count towards a flex, so having depth there is rarely not useful. Note - at TE I didn't like the cheap guys so I only have Olsen and Z. Miller - am still hoping to get my flex from there sometimes, but they haven't started great. Now at RB and WR - I took some fliers on cheap guys - and they actually haven't done much for me yet. I could see the point there that if you take all the right guys - you have a little extra to spend - but it is a big risk to basically rely on having all your picks right. I think at WR especially - but also to some degree with RBs where now RBBC is so common - having more bullets firing is not only useful in keeping you around, but will help you score more in Weeks 14-16.I also agree with Marauder and I made this point to some extent before. Having only 20 guys to get you to the final dance will mean - you need virtually all of those guys to have helped you survive. Those teams are actually less likely to be unique.

 

[The Jerk]

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.

I don't know what the first year of the contest was. I'm pretty sure I ignored it for a couple of seasons. But all three times I've entered it, I've made it into the double-digit weeks. I've been a finalist once, and I've been eliminated one and two weeks prior to the finals the other two times.Unfortunately, while my strategy has been successful in terms of lasting that long (and -- let's be honest -- it takes a lot of good fortune to make it that far), I've never had a team that was a threat to contend for the big prizes. I've tweaked my approach a little and tilted a little bit more in favor of top players in an effort to bridge the gap. But I still favor getting there as you can't win it if you're not still alive. Whether it's making close cuts with a top-heavy team, or having the balanced team get hot in Weeks 13-16, both strategies balance skill with a whole lot of luck. At worst, the contest is one more opportunity to salvage my self-esteem when my "juggernaut" fantasy squads stumble out of the gate (as happens more often than not).