Seriously FBG? (1 Viewer)

[Sigmund Bloom]

I appreciate the weekly Upgrade/Downgrade article. I take it for what it's worth. I mean nobody is downgrading Aaron Rodgers and you can't really upgrade him anymore than he already is. Still it's good to read their take on some of the fringe players some of us aren't as familiar with.

That's sort of my point. Focus on the important stuff like the fringe players we aren't familiar with. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with an upgrade/downgrade column with 2-3 players listed per position.

I would probably like writing that kind of column better than something this comprehensive that loses nuance, but there is a decent-sized segment of the FBG audience (more casual players) that value it - I hear about it right away if it is even an hour later than usual. I try to get into more specific takes on the show and in buy low/sell high.

This is all great feedback.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

What is the point of Upgrade/Downgrade? Isn't it just a summarized knee-jerk reaction to the player's very most recent on field performance? Seems like anyone that watched the games (or read about them) could write these same summaries.

Honestly, I have no idea what the message is supposed to be.

That's kind of the point. If someone wasn't immersed in the games on Sunday and wanted a quick overview of who exceeded expectations or underperformed, it provides that. It's not meant to have nuanced takes because it isn't based on intense study.

So you're saying the point of this article is to cover past performance, not future expectations?

I honestly assumed by the title they it was mean to cover nuanced takes on future expectations. I would much prefer that you go that direction or breaking this into two articles…"What you need to know overview" and "Going forward upgrades/downgrades"

I would say it's "based on what happened in the games Thr/Sun, who looks like they are worth more/less than they were worth going into the week"

 

[BassNBrew]

I appreciate the weekly Upgrade/Downgrade article. I take it for what it's worth. I mean nobody is downgrading Aaron Rodgers and you can't really upgrade him anymore than he already is. Still it's good to read their take on some of the fringe players some of us aren't as familiar with.

That's sort of my point. Focus on the important stuff like the fringe players we aren't familiar with. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with an upgrade/downgrade column with 2-3 players listed per position.

I would probably like writing that kind of column better than something this comprehensive that loses nuance, but there is a decent-sized segment of the FBG audience (more casual players) that value it - I hear about it right away if it is even an hour later than usual. I try to get into more specific takes on the show and in buy low/sell high.

This is all great feedback.

I really hope you take this to Joe. I would really like to see a focused and nuanced weekly article coming from you giving us insight into who our biggest acquisition targets (waivers or trade) should be and who we should be cutting bait on. Even if it focused on a handful of players each week, this could provide huge value. This could be something that would be fun for you and allow you to dig into the details of each situation whether it's performance, competition, or upcoming schedule. There still could be an article covering a broad recap of what happened the past week.

Even if another article wasn't in the cards, you could break this article into two segments at each position.

QB - upgrades

Blooms's key movers to note with one to three players to follow and in depth analysis.

Other players of note from the past week with a short blurb about them or what happened.

QB - downgrades

etc….

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

The weakest of any content they put out

Ooooh, that's a tough one. There's a lot of weak content. This is bad but there are so many other worthwhile candidates for this honor.

I enjoy reading the article. It's one of the 5-6 articles I read every week. It's not meant to be taken as bench Luck, Rodgers, and Forte because they underperformed expectations. I enjoy reading the article because sometimes it gives me a different perspective also good that he calls out waiver wire opportunities.

Please explains what it means regarding Luck, Rodgers, etc if your not benching them? Trade them for someone else one week and then try to reacquire them the following week?

it means that the perception of the players value is most likely be down in the mind of FF players coming off the game. It's an answer to the question "would you say that player is worth, more, less, or the same - with obvious "the sames" left off"

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I appreciate the weekly Upgrade/Downgrade article. I take it for what it's worth. I mean nobody is downgrading Aaron Rodgers and you can't really upgrade him anymore than he already is. Still it's good to read their take on some of the fringe players some of us aren't as familiar with.

That's sort of my point. Focus on the important stuff like the fringe players we aren't familiar with. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with an upgrade/downgrade column with 2-3 players listed per position.

I would probably like writing that kind of column better than something this comprehensive that loses nuance, but there is a decent-sized segment of the FBG audience (more casual players) that value it - I hear about it right away if it is even an hour later than usual. I try to get into more specific takes on the show and in buy low/sell high.

This is all great feedback.

I really hope you take this to Joe. I would really like to see a focused and nuanced weekly article coming from you giving us insight into who our biggest acquisition targets (waivers or trade) should be and who we should be cutting bait on. Even if it focused on a handful of players each week, this could provide huge value. This could be something that would be fun for you and allow you to dig into the details of each situation whether it's performance, competition, or upcoming schedule. There still could be an article covering a broad recap of what happened the past week.

Even if another article wasn't in the cards, you could break this article into two segments at each position.

QB - upgrades

Blooms's key movers to note with one to three players to follow and in depth analysis.

Other players of note from the past week with a short blurb about them or what happened.

QB - downgrades

etc….

That's kind of what buy low/sell high is, but the "cutting bait" is more "trade them while you can" than drops

A "key movers" section could address this is in a good way tho.

Another thing we're dealing with here is that by Week 14, we kind of know the landscape, so a lot of the takes are more straightforward. I understand why at this point it can get tiresome. It can get a bit tiresome to write some of blurbs, but again - for a segment of the audience, this feature, as written, is providing value. Honestly this is the most specific feedback Ive gotten - good or bad - on the feature - and usually if we are getting no feedback on something, that means it is serving the expected purpose/providing expected value for the audience. Thats why threads such as these can be very valuable. I'll try to open something up when the season is over and the dust clears to take more general suggestions about how my content and content at the site in general can improve.

I have an oversight role in content focus and direction, so please feel free to pass along thoughts via email (bloom at footballguys dot com) on this or anything other feature - positive or negative

 

[BassNBrew]

The weakest of any content they put out

Ooooh, that's a tough one. There's a lot of weak content. This is bad but there are so many other worthwhile candidates for this honor.

I enjoy reading the article. It's one of the 5-6 articles I read every week. It's not meant to be taken as bench Luck, Rodgers, and Forte because they underperformed expectations. I enjoy reading the article because sometimes it gives me a different perspective also good that he calls out waiver wire opportunities.

Please explains what it means regarding Luck, Rodgers, etc if your not benching them? Trade them for someone else one week and then try to reacquire them the following week?

it means that the perception of the players value is most likely be down in the mind of FF players coming off the game. It's an answer to the question "would you say that player is worth, more, less, or the same - with obvious "the sames" left off"

Quite honestly if this is the intent, this should be farmed out to an intern/newbee and someone with your experience should be delivering analysis that is going to help us dominate our league.

Let me give you an example of what I would like to see. I'm stuck with Bowe/Harvin/Baldwin/Welker as WR3 in the playoffs behind Cobb and Hilton. I scan your list and see Calvin, Julio, and Jeffrey as upgrades. Are these guys upgraded to the point that I move Cobb or Hilton to go get one of them to improve my team? As I scan further down this weeks list I see Bailey, Moncrief, Lee, Douglas all of whom are available on waivers in addition to other guys who aren't but may be in other leagues. Help me sort this sea of options by explaining why Lee is going to be the go to guy the rest of the year and is the best option or why Moncrief has passed Wayne as option 2 in Indy and will be a huge difference maker. Dig into the details of what you've seen and educate me on something that will impact my season.

I understand you won't have content for me every week that is applicable wavier because my league may be deeper or shallower. In deeper leagues those guys become trade targets while they are still reasonably cheap. Maybe you focus on at each position one or two elite guys, one or two low end guys, and one or two flyer type guys.

 

[BassNBrew]

And Sigmund, thanks for you time addressing this here.

 

[Tau837]

What is the point of Upgrade/Downgrade? Isn't it just a summarized knee-jerk reaction to the player's very most recent on field performance? Seems like anyone that watched the games (or read about them) could write these same summaries.

Honestly, I have no idea what the message is supposed to be.

That's kind of the point. If someone wasn't immersed in the games on Sunday and wanted a quick overview of who exceeded expectations or underperformed, it provides that. It's not meant to have nuanced takes because it isn't based on intense study.

Saying someone is an upgrade is not the same as saying he exceeded expectations in the most recent game. "Upgrade" implies forward looking.

Similarly, saying someone is a downgrade is not the same as saying he underperformed expectations in the most recent game. "Downgrade" implies forward looking.

The forward looking theme is also shown by the "Holding Steady" sections, which suggest that a player should not be upgraded or downgraded despite their most recent performance. But then that suggests that when you are upgrading/downgrading Luck, you are indeed saying something forward looking, i.e., saying he should be upgraded or downgraded (in rankings, lineups, etc.). Otherwise, they would be in the Holding Steady section.

it seems that multiple concepts are being mixed in the article/email, and it would be appropriate to separate those concepts into different articles/emails, or at least different sections in the article/email.

 

[Tau837]

What is the point of Upgrade/Downgrade? Isn't it just a summarized knee-jerk reaction to the player's very most recent on field performance? Seems like anyone that watched the games (or read about them) could write these same summaries.

Honestly, I have no idea what the message is supposed to be.

That's kind of the point. If someone wasn't immersed in the games on Sunday and wanted a quick overview of who exceeded expectations or underperformed, it provides that. It's not meant to have nuanced takes because it isn't based on intense study.

So you're saying the point of this article is to cover past performance, not future expectations?

I honestly assumed by the title they it was mean to cover nuanced takes on future expectations. I would much prefer that you go that direction or breaking this into two articles…"What you need to know overview" and "Going forward upgrades/downgrades"

 

[Tau837]

The weakest of any content they put out

Ooooh, that's a tough one. There's a lot of weak content. This is bad but there are so many other worthwhile candidates for this honor.

I enjoy reading the article. It's one of the 5-6 articles I read every week. It's not meant to be taken as bench Luck, Rodgers, and Forte because they underperformed expectations. I enjoy reading the article because sometimes it gives me a different perspective also good that he calls out waiver wire opportunities.

Please explains what it means regarding Luck, Rodgers, etc if your not benching them? Trade them for someone else one week and then try to reacquire them the following week?

it means that the perception of the players value is most likely be down in the mind of FF players coming off the game. It's an answer to the question "would you say that player is worth, more, less, or the same - with obvious "the sames" left off"

Once again, I think the Holding Steady section contradicts this. It seems to be saying one of the following:

1. Despite the fact that most FF players may think this player's value is up or down coming off the game, you should hold him where he was because...

or

2. Obvious "the same"

But both of these things contradicts your comment here.

 

[Tau837]

And Sigmund, thanks for you time addressing this here.

We could use more Sigmund time in the forums in general. And lots of other staffers, too. I wish FBG would scrap 10% of its content and direct its staff to apply that collective time in the forums. But I digress...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I will tell you where the Waiver Report really comes into focus.

If you're in MyFBG, there is a section on the free agents in your league, by league. So that gives you a filtered down run down of just who is available in any given league.

Then if you go to the section of your players, under "News" etc., you can see the comments on just your players, again by league, which is cool. We all have tier 1 players, and occasionally we get worried, or concerned, or maybe overly confident. It's interesting to get an objective take on your players.

If you have MyFBG you should take advantage of it by reading the Waiver Report within just these two sections.

 

[OldMilwaukee]

And Sigmund, thanks for you time addressing this here.

We could use more Sigmund time in the forums in general. And lots of other staffers, too. I wish FBG would scrap 10% of its content and direct its staff to apply that collective time in the forums. But I digress...

yes.....a think tank of staffers.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

The weakest of any content they put out

Ooooh, that's a tough one. There's a lot of weak content. This is bad but there are so many other worthwhile candidates for this honor.

I enjoy reading the article. It's one of the 5-6 articles I read every week. It's not meant to be taken as bench Luck, Rodgers, and Forte because they underperformed expectations. I enjoy reading the article because sometimes it gives me a different perspective also good that he calls out waiver wire opportunities.

Please explains what it means regarding Luck, Rodgers, etc if your not benching them? Trade them for someone else one week and then try to reacquire them the following week?

it means that the perception of the players value is most likely be down in the mind of FF players coming off the game. It's an answer to the question "would you say that player is worth, more, less, or the same - with obvious "the sames" left off"

Once again, I think the Holding Steady section contradicts this. It seems to be saying one of the following:

1. Despite the fact that most FF players may think this player's value is up or down coming off the game, you should hold him where he was because...

or

2. Obvious "the same"

But both of these things contradicts your comment here.

That's fair.

There's definitely a "good game/bad game" notion here that isn't forward looking even though the names imply it.

There's also a sort of litmus test - Take Luck having a meh game (for him) against JAX and the IND OL also looking ragged in the process. Are you going to bench him? No. Are you going to think twice about giving up the farm for him? Maybe. That "feels" like a downgrade. It's sort of a "did the light you see the player in change at all after Sunday's game" designation.

But y'all are right that I use holding steady to say "don't go in the obvious direction the box score would push you in", which means the other upgrades/downgrades are mostly obvious. I try not to devote any time to a player in this feature if we would view them the same as we did going into the week.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

What is the point of Upgrade/Downgrade? Isn't it just a summarized knee-jerk reaction to the player's very most recent on field performance? Seems like anyone that watched the games (or read about them) could write these same summaries.

Honestly, I have no idea what the message is supposed to be.

That's kind of the point. If someone wasn't immersed in the games on Sunday and wanted a quick overview of who exceeded expectations or underperformed, it provides that. It's not meant to have nuanced takes because it isn't based on intense study.

So you're saying the point of this article is to cover past performance, not future expectations?

I honestly assumed by the title they it was mean to cover nuanced takes on future expectations. I would much prefer that you go that direction or breaking this into two articles…"What you need to know overview" and "Going forward upgrades/downgrades"

well don't past performances shape our future expectations? If someone underperforms or beats the projection, then that makes us that much more likely to tick up or down our median expectation in the following week. The two are intricately related.

 

[Sabertooth]

I read the upgrades downgrades to just take a quick pulse of the league.

 

[matuski]

Still better than the Random Shots email from Joe.

 

[Marauder]

What is the point of Upgrade/Downgrade? Isn't it just a summarized knee-jerk reaction to the player's very most recent on field performance? Seems like anyone that watched the games (or read about them) could write these same summaries.

Honestly, I have no idea what the message is supposed to be.

That's kind of the point. If someone wasn't immersed in the games on Sunday and wanted a quick overview of who exceeded expectations or underperformed, it provides that. It's not meant to have nuanced takes because it isn't based on intense study.

So you're saying the point of this article is to cover past performance, not future expectations?

I honestly assumed by the title they it was mean to cover nuanced takes on future expectations. I would much prefer that you go that direction or breaking this into two articles…"What you need to know overview" and "Going forward upgrades/downgrades"

well don't past performances shape our future expectations? If someone underperforms or beats the projection, then that makes us that much more likely to tick up or down our median expectation in the following week. The two are intricately related.

To some extent, but I guess we expect more than that from you. If this is all you are going to do, Joe should be able to hand off this article to Wimer or one of the other donks on staff. When I see your name attached to an article I expect to see you look past the obvious and provide some real insight. You seem to be mailing this article in.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

What is the point of Upgrade/Downgrade? Isn't it just a summarized knee-jerk reaction to the player's very most recent on field performance? Seems like anyone that watched the games (or read about them) could write these same summaries.

Honestly, I have no idea what the message is supposed to be.

That's kind of the point. If someone wasn't immersed in the games on Sunday and wanted a quick overview of who exceeded expectations or underperformed, it provides that. It's not meant to have nuanced takes because it isn't based on intense study.

So you're saying the point of this article is to cover past performance, not future expectations?

I honestly assumed by the title they it was mean to cover nuanced takes on future expectations. I would much prefer that you go that direction or breaking this into two articles…"What you need to know overview" and "Going forward upgrades/downgrades"

well don't past performances shape our future expectations? If someone underperforms or beats the projection, then that makes us that much more likely to tick up or down our median expectation in the following week. The two are intricately related.

To some extent, but I guess we expect more than that from you. If this is all you are going to do, Joe should be able to hand off this article to Wimer or one of the other donks on staff. When I see your name attached to an article I expect to see you look past the obvious and provide some real insight. You seem to be mailing this article in.

This article comes out by 6 pm ET on Monday and I usually write bw 100-120 blurbs. It takes up most of my Monday. No other staffers have all of Monday open to do something like this. Wimer is buried doing something similar with injuries. I appreciate the feedback and would love to off load this to do something more in depth and less comprehensive on Mondays, but this is an essential feature for the audience at large, even though it might not be of much use for folks who already starting from an informed position. I understand why it seems like I am "mailing it in", but the deadline to get this out Monday evening and the comprehensive nature of the feature makes it impossible to go much deeper than the surface takes.

 

[BassNBrew]

What is the point of Upgrade/Downgrade? Isn't it just a summarized knee-jerk reaction to the player's very most recent on field performance? Seems like anyone that watched the games (or read about them) could write these same summaries.

Honestly, I have no idea what the message is supposed to be.

That's kind of the point. If someone wasn't immersed in the games on Sunday and wanted a quick overview of who exceeded expectations or underperformed, it provides that. It's not meant to have nuanced takes because it isn't based on intense study.

So you're saying the point of this article is to cover past performance, not future expectations?

I honestly assumed by the title they it was mean to cover nuanced takes on future expectations. I would much prefer that you go that direction or breaking this into two articles…"What you need to know overview" and "Going forward upgrades/downgrades"

well don't past performances shape our future expectations? If someone underperforms or beats the projection, then that makes us that much more likely to tick up or down our median expectation in the following week. The two are intricately related.

To some extent, but I guess we expect more than that from you. If this is all you are going to do, Joe should be able to hand off this article to Wimer or one of the other donks on staff. When I see your name attached to an article I expect to see you look past the obvious and provide some real insight. You seem to be mailing this article in.

This article comes out by 6 pm ET on Monday and I usually write bw 100-120 blurbs. It takes up most of my Monday. No other staffers have all of Monday open to do something like this. Wimer is buried doing something similar with injuries. I appreciate the feedback and would love to off load this to do something more in depth and less comprehensive on Mondays, but this is an essential feature for the audience at large, even though it might not be of much use for folks who already starting from an informed position. I understand why it seems like I am "mailing it in", but the deadline to get this out Monday evening and the comprehensive nature of the feature makes it impossible to go much deeper than the surface takes.

This is why I titled the post "Seriously FBG" rather than "Seriously Bloom". Obviously if your bosses want a massive amount of content to send out by a certain time you have little choice other than what you are doing. From a customer standpoint, I'd rather see Bloom getting paid a little more to think/analyze/digest and getting paid a little less to tickle the keyboard. If from a business sense if this is essential, I'd love to see it titled Player Performance Recap and a true Upgraded/Downgrade article come out on Tuesday.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Speaking as an FBG subscriber rather than as a staffer, I think the title is fine.

Every bit of new information causes our forward-looking estimate of a player's value to adjust. From a Bayesian standpoint, we're constantly updating our beliefs. [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]Each game, when it is played, contains a lot of new information.[/SIZE][SIZE=14.4444446563721px] [/SIZE]Whenever Andrew Luck exceeds expectations in a game, we'll naturally and appropriately increase our estimate of his value going forward. Whenever he falls short of expectations, we'll decrease our estimate of his value going forward. The exceptions are far and few in between. (It's possible that he'll play well but get hurt at the end of the game, for example, causing us to decrease our estimate of his value even if he exceeded expectations.)

It is a simple exercise to upgrade a player when he performs well and downgrade him when he performs poorly. But simple doesn't mean bad. In almost every case, it's entirely appropriate. (And when it's not appropriate, Sigmund points that out as well.)

 

[blake]

And Sigmund, thanks for you time addressing this here.

We could use more Sigmund time in the forums in general. And lots of other staffers, too. I wish FBG would scrap 10% of its content and direct its staff to apply that collective time in the forums. But I digress...

I couldn't agree more with this. I think this would be a great move. And definitely thanks to Sigmund for spending so much time addressing and clarifying.

Still better than the Random Shots email from Joe.

Also a very much agreed. By far, the worst thing that FBG's puts out, in my opinion. An automatic delete once it hits my inbox.

 

[avina1]

And Sigmund, thanks for you time addressing this here.

We could use more Sigmund time in the forums in general. And lots of other staffers, too. I wish FBG would scrap 10% of its content and direct its staff to apply that collective time in the forums. But I digress...

I couldn't agree more with this. I think this would be a great move. And definitely thanks to Sigmund for spending so much time addressing and clarifying.

Still better than the Random Shots email from Joe.

Also a very much agreed. By far, the worst thing that FBG's puts out, in my opinion. An automatic delete once it hits my inbox.

I don't mind the Random Shots at all. I don't see all the amusing instagram/vine so the Random Shots gives me a good chuckle or two. The insta-delete for me is the passing/rushing match-ups.

 

[rickyg]

I find the upgrade/downgrade report to be completely manic. Totally agree with the op. One week they're talking about a player like they are allwordly doing the next week after a subpar performance they are downgraded?

I don't care if luck has a bad week. There is still not ONE other QB Id rather have on my fantasy team rt now...one or even 2 bad weeks from luck when overall he is literally crushing his competition at the qbspot is nothing.

The column lacks perspective. It drives me nuts.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Luck can be downgraded while remaining in the top spot if the gap between him and the #2 guy narrows -- as it should with each successive subpar performance.

 

[BassNBrew]

Luck can be downgraded while remaining in the top spot if the gap between him and the #2 guy narrows -- as it should with each successive subpar performance.

MT - That would apply to 99.5% of the players in the league each week. If I'm watching the news I want to hear about a new cancer drug, not hear about little Johnny no longer being in diapers.

 

[rickyg]

Luck can be downgraded while remaining in the top spot if the gap between him and the #2 guy narrows -- as it should with each successive subpar performance.

The only scenario I can see where it would be ok for FBG to downgrade luck is if you are going to take a negative stance on him moving forward. Maybe you don't like his schedule or you see a ***** in his armor that other experts aren't seeing and you are advocating trading him.

But to just downgrade the best player in fantasy football BC he had a bad game only to rave about him the next week? That's just dumb. Jmo

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I find the upgrade/downgrade report to be completely manic. Totally agree with the op. One week they're talking about a player like they are allwordly doing the next week after a subpar performance they are downgraded?

I don't care if luck has a bad week. There is still not ONE other QB Id rather have on my fantasy team rt now...one or even 2 bad weeks from luck when overall he is literally crushing his competition at the qbspot is nothing.

The column lacks perspective. It drives me nuts.

I understand this, but is it really correct to say Luck's value didn't go down after a dud against the Jags? I think Peyton's value legitimately went down after his performance vs KC. I would be less inclined to deal for him or pick him in DFS this week in light of the performance. Players can lose value without losing startability or even a spot in the rankings.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

As a thought experiment, ask yourself how many bad games in a row it should take before we downgrade Luck. Certainly fewer than 15, right? Maybe your answer is three. Whatever your answer is, I can prove that a better answer would be one fewer than that (down to a lower limit of one). Whatever your number is, assuming it's above one, he's more likely to get there if he's one short of it than if he's coming off a great game. Taking that into account means that we should downgrade him at least a bit when he's one short of your number. A recursive proof will show that a single bad game is sufficient to downgrade him a bit.

I think BassNBrew's complaint is that downgrading someone just a bit shouldn't be enough to make the news. We should focus instead on substantial downgrades, not just small, incremental ones.

Fair enough. It's hard to find the right threshold for newsworthiness because different readers will use the feature in different ways, but maybe we don't have it tuned optimally right now.

But that's a different complaint from saying a single bad game by Luck doesn't mean we should adjust our view of him downward at least a bit. In almost every case of a subpar performance, we should.

 

[rickyg]

As a thought experiment, ask yourself how many bad games in a row it should take before we downgrade Luck. Certainly fewer than 15, right? Maybe your answer is three. Whatever your answer is, I can prove that a better answer would be one fewer than that (down to a lower limit of one). Whatever your number is, assuming it's above one, he's more likely to get there if he's one short of it than if he's coming off a great game. Taking that into account means that we should downgrade him at least a bit when he's one short of your number. A recursive proof will show that a single bad game is sufficient to downgrade him a bit.

I think BassNBrew's complaint is that downgrading someone just a bit shouldn't be enough to make the news. We should focus instead on substantial downgrades, not just small, incremental ones.

Fair enough. It's hard to find the right threshold for newsworthiness because different readers will use the feature in different ways, but maybe we don't have it tuned optimally right now.

But that's a different complaint from saying a single bad game by Luck doesn't mean we should adjust our view of him downward at least a bit. In almost every case of a subpar performance, we should.

I hear what you're saying mt. At some point with a string of bad performances luck would have to be downgraded. I think 3 games makes a trend. But the more important point I'm making here is that whenever you are analyzing a player for a upgrade or downgrade, you should ask yourself "will a downgrade of this player change they way I feel about the player with regards to starting him, benching him, or trading him?" If the answer is no, then downgrading him is pointless.

Let's apply this to luck. So he has a bad game. If you own him are you going to bench him the next weeks even if he faces a tough opponent? I don't know about you but if he's on my team HELLS NO unless you also own arodg or Peyton! he is plastered as a fixture in my starting lineup.

Does it change your opinion of whether you should try to trade him away? HELLS NO! You're not trading luck, and especially not after a bad game where his value would be perceived as lower by other sharks who want to try and steal him from your cold dead Kung fu grip hands.

So, basically you have an elite qb. Scratch that...the MOST elite qb in fantasy football and he had a bad game,but you're not benching him based off this and you're not advocating trading him.

SO WHY DOWNGRADE HIM? See my point?

A player should only be downgraded when your view of his startability changes or you think he should be traded based on your analysis for the player moving forward.

And I'd be cool with that with luck. If you guys made a call based on schedule or his mechanics or whatever. You see something and you draw a line in the sand. I wouldn't agree with you but I'd respect the stance.

Instead you guys give a meaningless downgrade to a player that won't change the way anyone uses him and then just upgrade him the next week when he bounces back.

But we all knew he would BC he's awesome and that's what awesome players do.

So Id rather see this analysis:

Luck had a bad game, but you're not benching him and you're not trading him unless you're getting a kings random so he's a holding steady.

Bam. Perfect. And provides good guidance especially for noobs.

If I was a ff rookie and saw an expert site downgrade luck I might actually consider benching or trading him which would be a terrible move.

Overall I appreciate what you guys do. You work hard and provide good content. Happy. Holidays!

 

[Marauder]

As a thought experiment, ask yourself how many bad games in a row it should take before we downgrade Luck. Certainly fewer than 15, right? Maybe your answer is three. Whatever your answer is, I can prove that a better answer would be one fewer than that (down to a lower limit of one). Whatever your number is, assuming it's above one, he's more likely to get there if he's one short of it than if he's coming off a great game. Taking that into account means that we should downgrade him at least a bit when he's one short of your number. A recursive proof will show that a single bad game is sufficient to downgrade him a bit.

I think BassNBrew's complaint is that downgrading someone just a bit shouldn't be enough to make the news. We should focus instead on substantial downgrades, not just small, incremental ones.

Fair enough. It's hard to find the right threshold for newsworthiness because different readers will use the feature in different ways, but maybe we don't have it tuned optimally right now.

But that's a different complaint from saying a single bad game by Luck doesn't mean we should adjust our view of him downward at least a bit. In almost every case of a subpar performance, we should.

But what value does this have if you are not quantifying how much you are upgrading or downgrading the player, especially if, as Bloom is saying, the article is geared toward the uninformed subscriber? Just adding Luck to the Downgrade list sandwiched in between Kaepernick and Mallett with a one sentence blurb about his performance almost certainly does more harm than good to the audience it is aimed at.

 

[rickyg]

As a thought experiment, ask yourself how many bad games in a row it should take before we downgrade Luck. Certainly fewer than 15, right? Maybe your answer is three. Whatever your answer is, I can prove that a better answer would be one fewer than that (down to a lower limit of one). Whatever your number is, assuming it's above one, he's more likely to get there if he's one short of it than if he's coming off a great game. Taking that into account means that we should downgrade him at least a bit when he's one short of your number. A recursive proof will show that a single bad game is sufficient to downgrade him a bit.

I think BassNBrew's complaint is that downgrading someone just a bit shouldn't be enough to make the news. We should focus instead on substantial downgrades, not just small, incremental ones.

Fair enough. It's hard to find the right threshold for newsworthiness because different readers will use the feature in different ways, but maybe we don't have it tuned optimally right now.

But that's a different complaint from saying a single bad game by Luck doesn't mean we should adjust our view of him downward at least a bit. In almost every case of a subpar performance, we should.

But what value does this have if you are not quantifying how much you are upgrading or downgrading the player, especially if, as Bloom is saying, the article is geared toward the uninformed subscriber? Just adding Luck to the Downgrade list sandwiched in between Kaepernick and Mallett with a one sentence blurb about his performance almost certainly does more harm than good to the audience it is aimed at.

Bingo. This is what I was saying in my last post.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

As a thought experiment, ask yourself how many bad games in a row it should take before we downgrade Luck. Certainly fewer than 15, right? Maybe your answer is three. Whatever your answer is, I can prove that a better answer would be one fewer than that (down to a lower limit of one). Whatever your number is, assuming it's above one, he's more likely to get there if he's one short of it than if he's coming off a great game. Taking that into account means that we should downgrade him at least a bit when he's one short of your number. A recursive proof will show that a single bad game is sufficient to downgrade him a bit.

I think BassNBrew's complaint is that downgrading someone just a bit shouldn't be enough to make the news. We should focus instead on substantial downgrades, not just small, incremental ones.

Fair enough. It's hard to find the right threshold for newsworthiness because different readers will use the feature in different ways, but maybe we don't have it tuned optimally right now.

But that's a different complaint from saying a single bad game by Luck doesn't mean we should adjust our view of him downward at least a bit. In almost every case of a subpar performance, we should.

But what value does this have if you are not quantifying how much you are upgrading or downgrading the player, especially if, as Bloom is saying, the article is geared toward the uninformed subscriber? Just adding Luck to the Downgrade list sandwiched in between Kaepernick and Mallett with a one sentence blurb about his performance almost certainly does more harm than good to the audience it is aimed at.

Quantifying the upgrades/downgrades in a meaningful way would be hugely preferable. But that's a really tall order for a Monday with so many players being covered.

That may be your point. I understand that some of you are saying to cut back on the quantity of players analysed so that Sig can go a bit deeper with the ones he does analyse. I think that's a legitimate request. It's one that Sig has taken notice of thanks to this thread. I don't know how to balance the competing interests of the hardcore readers with those of the more casual readers. It's a tough thing to get right, and no matter how we strike the balance, not everyone will be happy. I don't want to speak for Sig, but I do think that you guys have made some good points in this thread -- and I do think you can be comfortable knowing that Sig has read the arguments here and is taking them seriously.

 

[GreenNGold]

I would prefer for it to remain as is than for the changes others are suggesting in this thread, those advocating coverage for deeper leagues are in the minority, as the current coverage already covers more players than will ever be owned in any of my multiple leagues, and for the majority of players out there, if FBG can make time to do an article like that later in the week then great, but I don't think something like that should take precedence over this article. Thank you for taking the time to seriously consider what is being suggested here and also respond, both Sigmund Bloom and Maurile Tremblay. Earlier in this thread I recommended improving the waiver wire percentages but after thinking about it more that was really nothing more than wishful thinking on my part, and thank you Sigmund Bloom for taking the time to reply, I'm glad you see what I was getting at and I agree it's difficult, but I can't think of a better method than the current one either or I would recommend it, like you said, it is up to me to know the tendencies of my league and translate your estimates appropriately.

Also, I may be in the minority here, but I'm not worried about getting this article by Monday evening. If you guys could delay this article to incorporate the Monday night game, I'd gladly wait until Tuesday morning/afternoon for this article (same goes if it would give you more time to give deeper analysis). I do have waivers I need to submit Tuesday night though so would need this article by the afternoon. I don't know what your timelines are though or if even if you had the extra time if you would have enough time in the week to still do everything else you guys do, but I'd say this could be pushed back to Tuesday morning/afternoon and not have a negative impact on the vast majority of subscribers.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I would prefer for it to remain as is than for the changes others are suggesting in this thread, those advocating coverage for deeper leagues are in the minority, as the current coverage already covers more players than will ever be owned in any of my multiple leagues, and for the majority of players out there, if FBG can make time to do an article like that later in the week then great, but I don't think something like that should take precedence over this article. Thank you for taking the time to seriously consider what is being suggested here and also respond, both Sigmund Bloom and Maurile Tremblay. Earlier in this thread I recommended improving the waiver wire percentages but after thinking about it more that was really nothing more than wishful thinking on my part, and thank you Sigmund Bloom for taking the time to reply, I'm glad you see what I was getting at and I agree it's difficult, but I can't think of a better method than the current one either or I would recommend it, like you said, it is up to me to know the tendencies of my league and translate your estimates appropriately.

Also, I may be in the minority here, but I'm not worried about getting this article by Monday evening. If you guys could delay this article to incorporate the Monday night game, I'd gladly wait until Tuesday morning/afternoon for this article (same goes if it would give you more time to give deeper analysis). I do have waivers I need to submit Tuesday night though so would need this article by the afternoon. I don't know what your timelines are though or if even if you had the extra time if you would have enough time in the week to still do everything else you guys do, but I'd say this could be pushed back to Tuesday morning/afternoon and not have a negative impact on the vast majority of subscribers.

the article gets updated on Tuesday for MNF and any situations that have changed since Mon afternoon. thanks for the feedback!

 

[GreenNGold]

I would prefer for it to remain as is than for the changes others are suggesting in this thread, those advocating coverage for deeper leagues are in the minority, as the current coverage already covers more players than will ever be owned in any of my multiple leagues, and for the majority of players out there, if FBG can make time to do an article like that later in the week then great, but I don't think something like that should take precedence over this article. Thank you for taking the time to seriously consider what is being suggested here and also respond, both Sigmund Bloom and Maurile Tremblay. Earlier in this thread I recommended improving the waiver wire percentages but after thinking about it more that was really nothing more than wishful thinking on my part, and thank you Sigmund Bloom for taking the time to reply, I'm glad you see what I was getting at and I agree it's difficult, but I can't think of a better method than the current one either or I would recommend it, like you said, it is up to me to know the tendencies of my league and translate your estimates appropriately.

Also, I may be in the minority here, but I'm not worried about getting this article by Monday evening. If you guys could delay this article to incorporate the Monday night game, I'd gladly wait until Tuesday morning/afternoon for this article (same goes if it would give you more time to give deeper analysis). I do have waivers I need to submit Tuesday night though so would need this article by the afternoon. I don't know what your timelines are though or if even if you had the extra time if you would have enough time in the week to still do everything else you guys do, but I'd say this could be pushed back to Tuesday morning/afternoon and not have a negative impact on the vast majority of subscribers.

the article gets updated on Tuesday for MNF and any situations that have changed since Mon afternoon. thanks for the feedback!

Thanks, I did not realize that! I have only read the version that gets emailed in the past!

 

[GreenNGold]

I would prefer for it to remain as is than for the changes others are suggesting in this thread, those advocating coverage for deeper leagues are in the minority, as the current coverage already covers more players than will ever be owned in any of my multiple leagues, and for the majority of players out there, if FBG can make time to do an article like that later in the week then great, but I don't think something like that should take precedence over this article. Thank you for taking the time to seriously consider what is being suggested here and also respond, both Sigmund Bloom and Maurile Tremblay. Earlier in this thread I recommended improving the waiver wire percentages but after thinking about it more that was really nothing more than wishful thinking on my part, and thank you Sigmund Bloom for taking the time to reply, I'm glad you see what I was getting at and I agree it's difficult, but I can't think of a better method than the current one either or I would recommend it, like you said, it is up to me to know the tendencies of my league and translate your estimates appropriately.

Also, I may be in the minority here, but I'm not worried about getting this article by Monday evening. If you guys could delay this article to incorporate the Monday night game, I'd gladly wait until Tuesday morning/afternoon for this article (same goes if it would give you more time to give deeper analysis). I do have waivers I need to submit Tuesday night though so would need this article by the afternoon. I don't know what your timelines are though or if even if you had the extra time if you would have enough time in the week to still do everything else you guys do, but I'd say this could be pushed back to Tuesday morning/afternoon and not have a negative impact on the vast majority of subscribers.

the article gets updated on Tuesday for MNF and any situations that have changed since Mon afternoon. thanks for the feedback!

Thanks, I did not realize that! I have only read the version that gets emailed in the past!

I'd actually recommend putting something at the top of the article that you make updates to the article on Tuesday based on MNF and other situations, I doubt many people are even aware of that, I'd hate to see that effort go to waste (and unfortantely it probably has been for the majority of subscribers to this point in time).