Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
Taking a similar shot with kickers:Taking a shot at the original questiono teams with three defenses have a better chance than those with two (or gasp, one)?
First, here's what I did:
(Note - bye overlaps are ignored, we're just looking at scores)
I used Twilight's scoring site to grab all the scores for the defenses.
Average scores (512 scores, 32x16) = 8.1 points
Standard Deviation = 5.95 points
What that means is that 63% of the scores are going to be within 1 std dev of the average, and 95% of the scores will be within 2.
So if I do the math, the teams scoring between 3 and 14 points is 348, which is 68%. Pretty good. Actually those between 4 and 15 is 63%, so we're in the basic ballpark.
Now the questions I asked:
1. If I have 1, 2, or 3 teams, what are the odds I get 0-4 points for my defense?
2. If I have 1, 2, or 3 teams, what are the odds I get 8 or more points for my defense?
Answers:
1. One team = 37%. Two teams = 14%. Three teams = 5%.
2. One team = 42%. Two teams = 66%. Three teams = 81%.
Conclusion - you are more likely to both avoid bad weeks (0-4 points) with 3 defenses by almost a factor of three over teams with two, and almost seven times as insulated as a team with one defense.
Three defense teams are also nearly twice as likely than teams with one defense to get at least eight points in a given week (81% vs. 42%) and about 23% more likely to do better than two team defenses. That translates to about 12-13 "good" weeks for 3-def squads against 10-11 for 2-def squads (and just 6-7 for 1-def squads).
Significant? Quite possibly. It certainly doesn't hurt.
Do teams with three kickers have a better chance than those with two (or gasp, one)?
First, here's what I did:
(Note - bye overlaps are ignored, we're just looking at scores)
I used Twilight's scoring site to grab all the scores for the defenses.
Average scores (512 scores, 32x16) = 6 points (5.99 points to be precise, so 6)
Standard Deviation = 4.20 points
Here's where Standard Deviation breaks down, probably because the results are one-sided (can't go under 0).
The general results (which can be significant):
A whopping 78 kickers posted a zero. Now, that could be because of injury, getting cut or whatever - but that's not insignificant at all. That's over 15%. Compare that to kickers getting over 8 points in a game which happens just over one in four times (26%). So yes, having three can be an advantage over two - and certainly over one.
Now the questions I asked:
1. If I have 1, 2, or 3 teams, what are the odds I get 0-4 points for my kicker?
2. If I have 1, 2, or 3 teams, what are the odds I get 7 or more points for my kicker?
Answers:
1. One team = 62%. Two teams = 14%. Three teams = 5%.
2. One team = 45%. Two teams = 69%. Three teams = 83%.
Conclusion - you are more likely to both avoid bad weeks (0-4 points) with 3 kickers by almost a factor of three over teams with two, and almost 12 times as insulated as a team with one kicker.
Three kicker teams are also nearly twice as likely than teams with one kicker to get at least 7 points in a given week (83% vs. 45%) and about 14% more likely to do better than two kickers. That translates to about 12-13 "good" weeks for 3-kicker squads against 10-11 for 2-kicker squads (and just 6-7 for 1-kicker squads).
Significant? Quite possibly. It certainly doesn't hurt.
So yeah, 3Ks does kind of mirror 3D/STs, although the point spread (3 instead of 4) isn't as big - but it still very well could matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't even realize...Okay. Can I punt my whole team? Not that the Britt arrest really makes a difference to that sentiment.
In round 22 and WR 110 that's all it takes to get one excited.Then again, I got Chaz Schilens instead who is ranked 54 on the latest Pasquino Dynasty rankings 
Considering that I've come around on Jacoby Ford of late, perhaps I should push Mr. Schilens back down... realistically, good luck figuring out OAK WRs...
