Subscriber Contest (2 Viewers)

[Modog814]

So it looks like half of the leaderboard at each position from weeks 14-16 came from cheap players.

I bet reverse-engineering a winning solution with 18 players would mean leaving $ on the table at the beginning of the contest. And who would do that?Let's say your choice 18-player roster of "after-the-season-is-done" cherry-picked guys adds up to $225.

Now imagine you're back at the beginning of the year (without knowing what the future holds) and you have those exact 18 players selected, adding up to $225.

Are you going to roll with those guys and leave $25 on the table? No.

You would either:

A) Select a few other cheap guys, increasing your roster size and defeating the 18 player theory.

or



B) use the extra money for an "upgrade" by un-checking Ray Rice and putting Matt Forte in his place. Ouch. Season over.

Or you could have "upgraded" by un-Checking Ray Rice and selecting CJIII, and unchecking D.Bowe and upgrading to AJ.

Ignoring the fact that this argument is silly because you've based your team on the fact that you know the results, so you wouldn't change them, you'd leave $25 on the table, upgrading could go against you, but it could also work for you.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Ignoring the fact that this argument is silly because you've based your team on the fact that you know the results, so you wouldn't change them, you'd leave $25 on the table, upgrading could go against you, but it could also work for you.

On average, upgrading is more likely to go for you than against you. The correlation between projections and production isn't perfect, but it's still positive.

 

[gregjcross]

I went with a relatively small roster.

To win, you're going to need studly performance at each starting position. So let's just assume that my team and your team will both have studly perfomances at each starting position (because if they don't, our teams are irrelevant).

The question then is: which studs are likely to be more studly — my higher-priced studs, or your lower-priced studs?

We're both going to have to get very lucky to have a chance to win. But if I get very lucky with my high-priced studs, I think I'll outscore your team that gets very lucky with its low-priced studs.

(A big roster might last longer, on average, than a small roster; but busting in week 10 instead of week 4 isn't worth very much. I think small rosters are relatively more likely to bust out early; but also relatively less likely to bust out in the middle [since if they survive the beginning, it means they did land studs rather than busts], and relatively more likely to win the whole thing.)

It's a hard question, though, and I'm not very confident that I'm right.

Above is exactly what I subscribed to in going with 20 players this year. Yeah I may have slightly reduced my chances of surviving the byes, but in the bigger picture, and after reviewing my non rookie "low end" purchases from previous years, e.g. SF WR Isaac Bruce / SEA WR Courtney Taylor / OAK RB Michale Bush -who for all intensive purposes did nothing--I feel like if i am lucky enough to survive the 2010 byes, I have a genuine shot at the bigger Enchilada. I dont want to survive just to eat beans

 

[LittlePhatty]

Ignoring the fact that this argument is silly because you've based your team on the fact that you know the results, so you wouldn't change them, you'd leave $25 on the table

No, I meant not knowing the results.I said:

Now imagine you're back at the beginning of the year (without knowing what the future holds) and you have those exact 18 players selected

So you are filling out the entry form and you have 18 players selected. They are the exact 18 right players that will win the contest, but you don't know that. You don't have any knowledge of the future. All you know is you really like those players but you have $25 left to spend. Anyone who is even half-way trying will spend all of their salary cap. So if you don't upgrade one or more of your 18 players, you will choose a few cheap players to add to your roster, increasing it above 18.My point is: Odds are against anyone to pick those exact 18 players. PLUS multiply that by even longer odds that those "perfect" 18 players add up to EXACTLY $250. If it is less, then most people will pick a few $1 or $2 guys and that means you don't have an 18 player roster anymore.

 

[CalBear]

Here are the dollar totals for those players (bolded are "cheap" players for their positions):So it looks like half of the leaderboard at each position from weeks 14-16 came from cheap players. This is not an isolated result; it is absolutely the expected result given what we know about fantasy football. It's pretty obvious that buying Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning was a much better deal than buying Tom Brady or Drew Brees for about the same amount.I think the major flaw with the logic that you need studs to be able to produce in weeks 14-16 is that our definition of who is a stud changes radically over the course of the season. This year, half of the expensive players will not be on these lists, again.

I agree with this. But this also means that half of the expensive players will be on the list again this year, and there is nothing to suggest that a person couldn't have put together a 18 player teams that had players from both high and low. And you bringing up Ben Roethlisberger leads me to a question that I don't think anyone has quite answered: How are we defining studs? Because even if we take it to the extreme and say that 18 man roster has 2 K/2Def and spend the min $4 on them, he still only has an average of $17.57 to spend on each of his remaining players. So I think we can argue that anyone over $20 (making an adjust for TE's being less costly) would have to be considered a "stud" for this contest. That's:6 out of top 11 QB's (2 were at $19 and 1 not available for purchase) were "studs"7 out of the top 9 RB's were "studs"6 out of the top 8 WR's were "studs"

I don't think $20 is a reasonable demarcation for the definition of "stud". Lance Moore cost $20; he was the 34th most-costly WR. Larry Johnson was $20 as the 29th most-costly RB. If you're going to include guys who wouldn't even start in a normal fantasy league in your definition of "stud", you've missed the mark.Furthermore, it's easy to fit $20 players onto a large roster. I have two $27 RBs on my 30-player roster this year (Best and Thomas).

 

[Doug Drinen]

I don't know if this is a meaningful observation or not (and maybe it's already been made), but it might be worth checking out how many of those winning and near-winning 24-man rosters actually needed 24 guys last year.

I just checked out the winner. He never used James Davis's points. He used Leon Washington's twice and the Saints' D several times, but still would have won without them.

As I've said before, I don't think looking at the specifics of last year's winner is very relevant. But if you're going to do that, you could argue that he won with 21.

 

[Modog814]

Ignoring the fact that this argument is silly because you've based your team on the fact that you know the results, so you wouldn't change them, you'd leave $25 on the table

No, I meant not knowing the results.I said:

Now imagine you're back at the beginning of the year (without knowing what the future holds) and you have those exact 18 players selected

So you are filling out the entry form and you have 18 players selected. They are the exact 18 right players that will win the contest, but you don't know that. You don't have any knowledge of the future. All you know is you really like those players but you have $25 left to spend. Anyone who is even half-way trying will spend all of their salary cap. So if you don't upgrade one or more of your 18 players, you will choose a few cheap players to add to your roster, increasing it above 18.My point is: Odds are against anyone to pick those exact 18 players. PLUS multiply that by even longer odds that those "perfect" 18 players add up to EXACTLY $250. If it is less, then most people will pick a few $1 or $2 guys and that means you don't have an 18 player roster anymore.

Okay, I see what you're trying to say.

Yes I agree with you 100%. However, I don't think people's strategy is to say "I'm going 18 and that's it." I mean the ultimate point is to get as many points (that count) as possible. So they do this mostly by selecting the players that they think will be best. The strategy of teams that end up with smaller rosters is probably more like: I'm going to try and get as many known studs as I can b/c they're the most likely to be studly again and if they stay healthly, I should be in good shape. So they pick the 18 players they think are most likely to repeat their studism, and if they are under the cap, they'll select new players because they already have the players they want.

I think the people that ended up at 18 players (or even 19) are the ones who at first crack grabbed as many "studs" as possible, saw that their salary was $300 or $350 and "downgraded" from there until they got to the cap. I think these are also the people who if ended up at $249, they'd upgrade a position instead of taking a $1 lotto ticket

 

[CalBear]

I don't know if this is a meaningful observation or not (and maybe it's already been made), but it might be worth checking out how many of those winning and near-winning 24-man rosters actually needed 24 guys last year.

I just checked out the winner. He never used James Davis's points. He used Leon Washington's twice and the Saints' D several times, but still would have won without them.

As I've said before, I don't think looking at the specifics of last year's winner is very relevant. But if you're going to do that, you could argue that he won with 21.

But as LittlePhatty pointed out, no one would have selected those 21 players and left that money on the table. You have to overshoot, because you know that some number of your players will not be productive.

 

[Kuz]

I went with a relatively small roster.

To win, you're going to need studly performance at each starting position. So let's just assume that my team and your team will both have studly perfomances at each starting position (because if they don't, our teams are irrelevant).

The question then is: which studs are likely to be more studly — my higher-priced studs, or your lower-priced studs?

We're both going to have to get very lucky to have a chance to win. But if I get very lucky with my high-priced studs, I think I'll outscore your team that gets very lucky with its low-priced studs.

(A big roster might last longer, on average, than a small roster; but busting in week 10 instead of week 4 isn't worth very much. I think small rosters are relatively more likely to bust out early; but also relatively less likely to bust out in the middle [since if they survive the beginning, it means they did land studs rather than busts], and relatively more likely to win the whole thing.)

It's a hard question, though, and I'm not very confident that I'm right.

Above is exactly what I subscribed to in going with 20 players this year. Yeah I may have slightly reduced my chances of surviving the byes, but in the bigger picture, and after reviewing my non rookie "low end" purchases from previous years, e.g. SF WR Isaac Bruce / SEA WR Courtney Taylor / OAK RB Michale Bush -who for all intensive purposes did nothing--I feel like if i am lucky enough to survive the 2010 byes, I have a genuine shot at the bigger Enchilada. I dont want to survive just to eat beans

well if you can somehow get by week 7 you may be okay. Not liking your chance to survive that week though. only 2 RB's that will score & Bradford/Anderson at QB.. yikes..

 

[LittlePhatty]

I think the people that ended up at 18 players (or even 19) are the ones who at first crack grabbed as many "studs" as possible, saw that their salary was $300 or $350 and "downgraded" from there until they got to the cap. I think these are also the people who if ended up at $249, they'd upgrade a position instead of taking a $1 lotto ticket

Right. There will always be a certain percentage of people who will do the minimum amount of work required, and that partially explains why there are so many 18 player entries.If you put a lot of thought into it and you're convinced that Pierre Thomas is the guy to own, then having $3 left over would not sway you into upgrading to Mendenhall instead. You would add a $3 player.The people who just filled out the sheet once in a hurry and had $3 left over would probably be the ones most likely to upgrade a $27 player to a $30 player.

 

[Modog814]

I don't think $20 is a reasonable demarcation for the definition of "stud". Lance Moore cost $20; he was the 34th most-costly WR. Larry Johnson was $20 as the 29th most-costly RB. If you're going to include guys who wouldn't even start in a normal fantasy league in your definition of "stud", you've missed the mark.Furthermore, it's easy to fit $20 players onto a large roster. I have two $27 RBs on my 30-player roster this year (Best and Thomas).

Maybe not in the conventional use of the word. But an 18-player roster can be filled out numerous ways. You could start by selecting 3 or 4 uber studs and then fill in with cheapies. Or you can take a bunch of middle of the road players ($17 or so). And I think (I haven't looked so I could be wrong) that most of the 18 player rosters are made up of 1 an uber stud or 2 (what we'd conventionally call studs) and then a bunch of players around between 15-20. And if you look at those year end scoring lists, a lot of players fall into those ranges, much more than the ones that are <$10.Just out of curiousity, I'd love to see your 30 man roster for this, if you don't mind sharing

 

[QuizGuy66]

I don't know if this is a meaningful observation or not (and maybe it's already been made), but it might be worth checking out how many of those winning and near-winning 24-man rosters actually needed 24 guys last year.

I just checked out the winner. He never used James Davis's points. He used Leon Washington's twice and the Saints' D several times, but still would have won without them.

As I've said before, I don't think looking at the specifics of last year's winner is very relevant. But if you're going to do that, you could argue that he won with 21.

And perhaps more intriguingly, he won using less than his whole $250 in effect. -QG

 

[Modog814]

I don't know if this is a meaningful observation or not (and maybe it's already been made), but it might be worth checking out how many of those winning and near-winning 24-man rosters actually needed 24 guys last year.

I just checked out the winner. He never used James Davis's points. He used Leon Washington's twice and the Saints' D several times, but still would have won without them.

As I've said before, I don't think looking at the specifics of last year's winner is very relevant. But if you're going to do that, you could argue that he won with 21.

But as LittlePhatty pointed out, no one would have selected those 21 players and left that money on the table. You have to overshoot, because you know that some number of your players will not be productive.

Of course not. The question (theoretical at least) would be if those 21 players he "needed" to win would have cost him $250 instead of whatever it did, would he have been better off "down grading" to get 3 more players on his team?

The obvious answer in no, he won the thing and without needing those guys.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

Here are the dollar totals for those players (bolded are "cheap" players for their positions):So it looks like half of the leaderboard at each position from weeks 14-16 came from cheap players. This is not an isolated result; it is absolutely the expected result given what we know about fantasy football. It's pretty obvious that buying Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning was a much better deal than buying Tom Brady or Drew Brees for about the same amount.I think the major flaw with the logic that you need studs to be able to produce in weeks 14-16 is that our definition of who is a stud changes radically over the course of the season. This year, half of the expensive players will not be on these lists, again.

I agree with this. But this also means that half of the expensive players will be on the list again this year, and there is nothing to suggest that a person couldn't have put together a 18 player teams that had players from both high and low. And you bringing up Ben Roethlisberger leads me to a question that I don't think anyone has quite answered: How are we defining studs? Because even if we take it to the extreme and say that 18 man roster has 2 K/2Def and spend the min $4 on them, he still only has an average of $17.57 to spend on each of his remaining players. So I think we can argue that anyone over $20 (making an adjust for TE's being less costly) would have to be considered a "stud" for this contest. That's:6 out of top 11 QB's (2 were at $19 and 1 not available for purchase) were "studs"7 out of the top 9 RB's were "studs"6 out of the top 8 WR's were "studs"

Yes, the definition of "studs" makes a difference. I found it interesting that players at $19-24 were considered "cheap" players making up half the week 14-16 leader board. The $19+ players made up nearly half of those "cheap" players.With $24 players considered "cheap," does that mean Tom Brady, Cedric Benson, and Steve Smith are "cheap" players? If so, then nearly everybody's roster is 90%+ made up of cheap players.When I think of "cheap" players vs. studs, I was thinking the "cheap players" were mostly the under $10 variety and the studs were the $19+. You can't have too many $19+ "cheap" players on a 30-man roster. If $24 players are cheap, there's not much price difference between a "cheap" player and the most expensive stud this year (a top 5 QB was $24 this year, top 5 RB $34, top 5 WR $27, top 5 TE $19). Looking at player values, clearly this year is a different situation than last year -- a top 5 RB last year was $43+, $9 more than this year, and a top 5 WR was $38, $11 more than this year. That's a big reason smaller rosters with top studs made less sense last year than this year -- the "studs" were much more expensive. On the lower end, a cheaper player from that leader board like Derrick Mason, who was $9 last year, is $17 this year -- you don't have as many great values this year as last year, so it's less rewarding to load up on the cheaper players vs. the studs, who are better values this year. The price gap between the top and bottom/middle is much less now, so the larger roster without studs this year has much less advantage, if any, than a larger roster without studs last year.If you take it to an extreme, and make the top player only cost 1% more than the cheapest available player, it would clearly make sense to fill your roster with top studs as much as possible, so the "never roster studs in best ball" theory clearly depends on the rules. It will be interesting to see how much the rule changes this year changes the success rate of the viable "stud"-filled rosters.In any case, every viable roster has a bunch of cheap players on it, especially when they're defined as $24 or less, but even when defined as $10 or less. If an 18-player roster has the cheap players that break out and end up on the leader board along with studs who perform as expected, they'll have a very good chance to go far.

 

[CalBear]

With $24 players considered "cheap," does that mean Tom Brady, Cedric Benson, and Steve Smith are "cheap" players? If so, then nearly everybody's roster is 90%+ made up of cheap players.When I think of "cheap" players vs. studs, I was thinking the "cheap players" were mostly the under $10 variety and the studs were the $19+. You can't have too many $19+ "cheap" players on a 30-man roster. If $24 players are cheap, there's not much price difference between a "cheap" player and the most expensive stud this year (a top 5 QB was $24 this year, top 5 RB $34, top 5 WR $27, top 5 TE $19).

A 24-player team will still average over $10 per player; and if you figure in the K and D effects, probably about $15/player. My 30-team roster averages $11/player outside of K/D. Big-roster teams will have mid-priced players as their leaders.

 

[Driver]

I don't know if this is a meaningful observation or not (and maybe it's already been made), but it might be worth checking out how many of those winning and near-winning 24-man rosters actually needed 24 guys last year.

I just checked out the winner. He never used James Davis's points. He used Leon Washington's twice and the Saints' D several times, but still would have won without them.

As I've said before, I don't think looking at the specifics of last year's winner is very relevant. But if you're going to do that, you could argue that he won with 21.

The winner's roster last year was:QB - Rodgers ($27), Romo ($23)

RB - Grant ($24), Rice ($21), Wells ($15), Leon Washington ($12), Felix Jones ($11), Jamaal Charles ($7, James Davis ($2)

WR - Royal ($26), DeSean Jackson ($24), Earl Bennett ($11), Mason ($9), Harvin ($5), Schilens ($3)

TE - Shockey ($9), Celek ($7), Finley ($3)

K - Bironas ($3), Gould ($2), Prater ($2)

D - SF ($2), NO (1), DET ($1)

I'm kind of surprised that last year's winner only had 7 of the high-scoring players in weeks 14 to 16 (see below) -- Rodgers, Grant, Rice, Charles, DJackson, Mason, and Celek (excluding kickers and defenses). The winning team spent $11 on kickers and defenses, and $239 on the remaining players.

Excluding kickers and defenses, last year's winner scored 511.0 points in weeks 14 to 16. The 13-player team below (built by reverse engineering) scored 681.6 points in weeks 14-16 (excluding kickers and defenses) -- and only cost $228.

Conclusion - I'm shocked but, excluding defenses and kickers, the winning team last year scored less than 75% of the potential points (for an optimal team). It looks like, even with 13,000 entries, the winning team has a lot of room for improvement.

Caveat - I don't know if the select team below would have survived to the final 250. With $22 left (after the $228 spent for the 13 players), you could probably add kickers, defenses and other players to ensure that it made the cut each week to get to the final 250.

Regarding reverse engineering, here's a quick cut at the top players in weeks 14-16 last year (2009):

QB:

95.2 pts - Eli Manning (total points for all 3 weeks)

89.1 - Donovan McNabb

83.4 - Peyton Manning

82.4 - Matt Moore

81.1 - Matt Schaub

79.2 - Joe Flacco

78.2 - Philip Rivers

78.1 - Kyle Orton

76.6 - Aaron Rodgers

75.8 - Drew Brees

75.6 - Ben Roethlisberger

RB:

80.4 - Chris Johnson

72.9 - Adrian Peterson

72.5 - Jerome Harrison

65.6 - Jamaal Charles

62.0 - Frank Gore

58.8 - Ryan Grant

58.8 - Ray Rice

57.4 - Jonathan Stewart

55.1 - Maurice Jones-Drew

WR:

89.3 - Andre Johnson

85.5 - Brandon Marshall

69.7 - DeSean Jackson

64.1 - Steve Smith, CAR

62.9 - Miles Austin

59.1 - Vincent Jackson

55.8 - Derrick Mason

47.1 - Randy Moss

TE:

73.5 - Dallas Clark

57.3 - Brent Celek

50.6 - Todd Heap

49.6 - Antonio Gates

49.4 - John Carlson

47.4 - Fred Davis

I bet the top-10 winning teams from last year's contest had some combination of the above players. Assuming you used 2 slots for kickers and 2 slots for D/STs, I bet an 18-roster team with the following would be among the top-10:

QB - Eli Manning ($16), Matt Moore, Joe Flacco ($14) -- Note delete Moore because he was not a listed player

RB - Chris Johnson ($38), Jerome Harrison ($4), Jamaal Charles ($7), Ray Rice ($21)

WR - Andre Johnson ($43), DeSean Jackson ($24), Miles Austin ($6), Vincent Jackson ($21), Derrick Mason ($9)

TE - Dallas Clark ($18), Brent Celek ($7)

D - pick 2

K - pick 2

Total cost = $228 (excluding kickers and defense)

In Week 14, this team would have had 260.6 points (excluding K and D/ST):

QB - 42.4 pts (Eli Manning)

RB - 38.1 pts (Chris Johnson)

RB - 29.9 pts (Ray Rice)

WR - 42.6 pts (Andre Johnson)

WR - 29.8 pts (DeSean Jackson)

WR - 20.4 pts (Derrick Mason)

TE - 29.8 pts (Dallas Clark)

Flex - 27.6 pts (Jamaal Charles)

In week 15, this team would have had 255.2 points (excl. D and K):

QB - 40.2 pts (Joe Flacco)

RB - 48.8 pts (Jerome Harrison)

RB - 24.0 (Jamaal Charles)

WR - 28.6 pts (Andre Johnson)

WR - 27.8 pts (Vincent Jackson)

WR - 26.9 pts (DeSean Jackson)

TE - 32.0 pts (Dallas Clark)

Flex - 26.9 pts (Miles Austin)

In week 16, this team would have had 154.4 points (excl. D and K):

QB - 18.4 pts (Eli Manning)

RB - 25.4 pts (Chris Johnson)

RB - 20.8 pts (Jerome Harrison)

WR - 18.1 pts (Andre Johnson)

WR - 16.9 pts (Miles Austin)

WR - 14.7 pts (Derrick Mason)

TE - 24.1 pts (Brent Celek)

Flex - 16.0 pts (Ray Rice)

Excluding points scored by kickers and defenses, this team scored 681.6 points in weeks 14 to 16. Each of the players were used at least one week (weeks 14-16). By further reverse engineering, you could pick the defenses and kickers to ensure that this team would make all the cuts for weeks 1 to 13 (this could be a problem). If this team survived to the final 250, I bet it would have placed at least in the money and hopefully in the top 10.

ETA: Whoops! Matt Moore was not a listed player last year. I deleted him. The above team cost $228 (excluding kickers and defense).

 

[CalBear]

Just out of curiousity, I'd love to see your 30 man roster for this, if you don't mind sharing

Sure.

Jason Campbell		$11	 17.50Sam Bradford		   $9	 15.65 Derek Anderson		 $6	 21.75 ----------------------------------------Jahvid Best		   $27	 18.10   Pierre Thomas		 $27	 16.10		 LaDainian Tomlinson   $12	  8.80 Leon Washington		$8	  1.20   Fred Taylor			$6	  8.70	 Marshawn Lynch		 $4	  1.30	 ----------------------------------------Johnny Knox		   $18	  8.20		  Donald Driver		 $15	 14.00		  Devin Aromashodu	  $11	 12.10	  Nate Washington		$8	 17.80	   Chaz Schilens		  $7	  0.00   Laurent Robinson	   $7	 10.80	  Legedu Naanee		  $7	 22.00	   Harry Douglas		  $5	  6.90	  Louis Murphy		   $4	  6.80		----------------------------------------Tony Gonzalez		 $19	  6.50		Jeremy Shockey		 $9	  6.80		Bo Scaife			  $7	 14.20			  Ben Watson			 $5	  6.00			  ----------------------------------------Ryan Succop			$2	  3.00		Sebastian Janikowski   $2	  9.00  Olindo Mare			$2	  8.00	 Matt Bryant			$2	 12.00	 ----------------------------------------Seattle Seahawks	   $3	 12.00	   Tampa Bay Buccaneers   $3	  6.00	St. Louis Rams		 $2	 10.00		Detroit Lions		  $2	 12.00

 

[LittlePhatty]

The 13-player team below (built by reverse engineering) scored 681.6 points in weeks 14-16 (excluding kickers and defenses) -- and only cost $228.

Have you figured out if that team would have survived each of the 13 cutoffs? That would be very interesting.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

With $24 players considered "cheap," does that mean Tom Brady, Cedric Benson, and Steve Smith are "cheap" players? If so, then nearly everybody's roster is 90%+ made up of cheap players.When I think of "cheap" players vs. studs, I was thinking the "cheap players" were mostly the under $10 variety and the studs were the $19+. You can't have too many $19+ "cheap" players on a 30-man roster. If $24 players are cheap, there's not much price difference between a "cheap" player and the most expensive stud this year (a top 5 QB was $24 this year, top 5 RB $34, top 5 WR $27, top 5 TE $19).

A 24-player team will still average over $10 per player; and if you figure in the K and D effects, probably about $15/player. My 30-team roster averages $11/player outside of K/D. Big-roster teams will have mid-priced players as their leaders.

Yes, but you paid $27 each for 2 RB's. I wouldn't consider those 2 to be "cheap" players, and outside of those 2, your average player cost was well under $10.Yes, big-roster teams will have some "non-cheap," or mid-priced players, but the main argument for why the larger rosters are so advantageous has been because they have a bunch of cheap players in the place where a smaller roster team has studs. The cost for those mid-priced players and cheap players is much higher this year relative to the top-tier studs, so this strategy's advantage is significantly lessened vs. last year.

 

[CalBear]

Yes, big-roster teams will have some "non-cheap," or mid-priced players, but the main argument for why the larger rosters are so advantageous has been because they have a bunch of cheap players in the place where a smaller roster team has studs. The cost for those mid-priced players and cheap players is much higher this year relative to the top-tier studs, so this strategy's advantage is significantly lessened vs. last year.

I think you're correct that the advantage is less this year. But in best-ball, the number of bodies you have is always pretty significant. No one would consider my WR corps studly, but I had one top-10 and two more top-20 WRs this week, and those three cost a total of $30. I would assert that Driver+Nannee+Nate Washington is inherently more valuable in this contest than Larry Fitzgerald.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

Just out of curiousity, I'd love to see your 30 man roster for this, if you don't mind sharing

Sure.

Jason Campbell		$11	 17.50Sam Bradford		   $9	 15.65 Derek Anderson		 $6	 21.75 ----------------------------------------Jahvid Best		   $27	 18.10   Pierre Thomas		 $27	 16.10		 LaDainian Tomlinson   $12	  8.80 Leon Washington		$8	  1.20   Fred Taylor			$6	  8.70	 Marshawn Lynch		 $4	  1.30	 ----------------------------------------Johnny Knox		   $18	  8.20		  Donald Driver		 $15	 14.00		  Devin Aromashodu	  $11	 12.10	  Nate Washington		$8	 17.80	   Chaz Schilens		  $7	  0.00   Laurent Robinson	   $7	 10.80	  Legedu Naanee		  $7	 22.00	   Harry Douglas		  $5	  6.90	  Louis Murphy		   $4	  6.80		----------------------------------------Tony Gonzalez		 $19	  6.50		Jeremy Shockey		 $9	  6.80		Bo Scaife			  $7	 14.20			  Ben Watson			 $5	  6.00			  ----------------------------------------Ryan Succop			$2	  3.00		Sebastian Janikowski   $2	  9.00  Olindo Mare			$2	  8.00	 Matt Bryant			$2	 12.00	 ----------------------------------------Seattle Seahawks	   $3	 12.00	   Tampa Bay Buccaneers   $3	  6.00	St. Louis Rams		 $2	 10.00		Detroit Lions		  $2	 12.00

Here's mine, for an example of an 18-player, stud-led roster. I think if my guys stay healthy and I survive week 10 (Rodgers and Finley's bye), and if a couple of the cheaper players break out, I'll do pretty well. However, any major injuries or big dud weeks by several studs at once and I could be toast early. With Ray Rice's and Andre Johnson's duds in week 1, and without Rodgers' points being used, the rest still managed to score 184.75. Even with 3 studs down, a score like that should make the cut most weeks, giving me some hope for the bye weeks. Last year, the cutoff for Week 10 was 130.04, the highest bye week cutoff was 141.44, and the highest non-bye week cutoff was 167.89.

Aaron Rodgers		 $29	 20.30  Derek Anderson		 $6	 21.75  ----------------------------------------Chris Johnson		 $40	 29.00	Ray Rice			  $37	  7.20	   Arian Foster		  $13	 42.30	 Leon Washington		$8	  1.20  ----------------------------------------Andre Johnson		 $32	  6.30  Wes Welker			$21	 26.40  Mike Williams		  $8	 14.00   Bernard Berrian		$7	  1.30  Louis Murphy		   $4	  6.80   Deion Branch		   $3	 10.10  ---------------------------------------Jermichael Finley	 $21	 10.70 Jermaine Gresham	   $6	 17.5---------------------------------------Rob Bironas			$3	 10.00   Billy Cundiff		  $3	  4.00	  ---------------------------------------San Francisco 49ers	$5	  3.00New Orleans Saints	 $4	  3.00

 

[CalBear]

Here's mine, for an example of an 18-player, stud-led roster. I think if my guys stay healthy and I survive week 10 (Rodgers and Finley's bye), and if a couple of the cheaper players break out, I'll do pretty well. However, any major injuries or big dud weeks by several studs at once and I could be toast early. With Ray Rice's and Andre Johnson's duds in week 1, and without Rodgers' points being used, the rest still managed to score 184.75. Even with 3 studs down, a score like that should make the cut most weeks, giving me some hope for the bye weeks. Last year, the cutoff for Week 10 was 130.04, the highest bye week cutoff was 141.44, and the highest non-bye week cutoff was 167.89.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that Ray Rice will not finish the season in the top 10 RBs. On less of a limb, I'll predict that Arian Foster won't score 42 points every week.

---------------------------------------Rob Bironas $3 10.00 Billy Cundiff $3 4.00 ---------------------------------------San Francisco 49ers $5 3.00New Orleans Saints $4 3.00

Here, I spent $2 more than you on K/D, and outscored you by 11 points this week. I expect I'll pick up maybe 10 points per week on average at these positions, at a cost of $2 and 4 roster spots.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

Yes, big-roster teams will have some "non-cheap," or mid-priced players, but the main argument for why the larger rosters are so advantageous has been because they have a bunch of cheap players in the place where a smaller roster team has studs. The cost for those mid-priced players and cheap players is much higher this year relative to the top-tier studs, so this strategy's advantage is significantly lessened vs. last year.

I think you're correct that the advantage is less this year. But in best-ball, the number of bodies you have is always pretty significant. No one would consider my WR corps studly, but I had one top-10 and two more top-20 WRs this week, and those three cost a total of $30. I would assert that Driver+Nannee+Nate Washington is inherently more valuable in this contest than Larry Fitzgerald.

Yes, the number of bodies is significant, but more important is the quality of those bodies. If Driver, Nannee, and Washington can score like that every week, you'll be in great shape.I spent $7 less at WR, and Andre Johnson put up a dud that wasn't used, but my top 3 scored only 3.3 points less than those 3. The big week by my second stud helped make up for AJ. If Andre Johnson can put up points like he did last year and these guys stay pretty healthy, my WR's should be a pretty decent unit, too. It will be interesting to see how stud-led units do vs. a bunch of cheaper players.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that Ray Rice will not finish the season in the top 10 RBs. On less of a limb, I'll predict that Arian Foster won't score 42 points every week.

---------------------------------------Rob Bironas $3 10.00 Billy Cundiff $3 4.00 ---------------------------------------San Francisco 49ers $5 3.00New Orleans Saints $4 3.00

Here, I spent $2 more than you on K/D, and outscored you by 11 points this week. I expect I'll pick up maybe 10 points per week on average at these positions, at a cost of $2 and 4 roster spots.

If Rice doesn't finish in the top 10, I'm not sure how much of a chance I'll have. Hopefully I survive and he does well at the end of the season, when he plays against much easier defenses than the Jets. Foster's points won't matter much as long as he puts up starter points -- most teams have him, so his big points will be nullified.I seriously doubt your K/D will outscore mine by 10 points per week on average, and you paid $3 more. Either SF or NO will usually put up more than 3 points.

 

[therokie0070]

its simple you never want all your eggs in one basket in FF, but you still need quality= 18 players bad!! 30 players bad!! 24 players is just about right!!

 

[ratbast]

With $24 players considered "cheap," does that mean Tom Brady, Cedric Benson, and Steve Smith are "cheap" players? If so, then nearly everybody's roster is 90%+ made up of cheap players.When I think of "cheap" players vs. studs, I was thinking the "cheap players" were mostly the under $10 variety and the studs were the $19+. You can't have too many $19+ "cheap" players on a 30-man roster. If $24 players are cheap, there's not much price difference between a "cheap" player and the most expensive stud this year (a top 5 QB was $24 this year, top 5 RB $34, top 5 WR $27, top 5 TE $19).

A 24-player team will still average over $10 per player; and if you figure in the K and D effects, probably about $15/player. My 30-team roster averages $11/player outside of K/D. Big-roster teams will have mid-priced players as their leaders.

This is essentially what I feel is the most important relation. Avg dollar value and how far or close are most of your players to that value.

 

[ratbast]

its simple you never want all your eggs in one basket in FF, but you still need quality= 18 players bad!! 30 players bad!! 24 players is just about right!!

I disagree. 23 players of the 24 player team could be the same players. If Ryan Grant was the 24th well the other 6 players of the 30 player roster can only help.

 

[Jayrod]

its simple you never want all your eggs in one basket in FF, but you still need quality= 18 players bad!! 30 players bad!! 24 players is just about right!!

I disagree. 23 players of the 24 player team could be the same players. If Ryan Grant was the 24th well the other 6 players of the 30 player roster can only help.

Except those players aren't free, they come at a cost and are also greater individual risks as worthless players for no reason other than they suck or are not going to get enough playing time to score big. For the higher priced players to fail, there must be an injury or unforseen difficulty.

 

[therokie0070]

yup!! mid 20's is the way to go!!!

 

[ratbast]

its simple you never want all your eggs in one basket in FF, but you still need quality= 18 players bad!! 30 players bad!! 24 players is just about right!!

I disagree. 23 players of the 24 player team could be the same players. If Ryan Grant was the 24th well the other 6 players of the 30 player roster can only help.

Except those players aren't free, they come at a cost and are also greater individual risks as worthless players for no reason other than they suck or are not going to get enough playing time to score big. For the higher priced players to fail, there must be an injury or unforseen difficulty.

They come cheap and can back up or provide another D or K or even allow you an extra TE.The real issue here isnt how many players but how you spent the money.It's a little like roto baseball where some owner fills out their roster with Studs and $1 players and another builds a team with good balance throughout.

 

[Driver]

Nobody's going to start just 2 WR's -- in fact, that's not allowed by the rules. Nearly everybody with studs will have to combine them with some "value-priced" guys (I would argue that Andre Johnson is a better value at his price than some of the very low-priced WR's) to fill up enough roster spots to meet the rules.For a realistic comparison, can you take those 2 studs and combine them with 4 of those value WR's? Take Williams, Berrian, Murphy, and Branch -- the 4 of those guys I have. Then, take as many "value-priced" WR's at <= $8 as you want to total the same # of points, and see which group has the better 3 or 4 scores each week. It would be an interesting comparison and a more valid test of the "studs vs. low-priced guys" theories.

Ok, so Team #1 will have Calvin Johnson, Wes Welker, Mike Williams, Berrian, Murphy, and Branch, and I'll throw in Gage for $2 to make a total of 7 WRs.For Team #2, I'll take Randy Moss, Anquan Boldin, and a different group of value-priced WRs for roughly the same salary dollars as Team #1 (Nate Washington, Josh Morgan, Devery Henderson, Jarrett, and Camarillo).For Team #3, I'll take Reggie Wayne, DeSean Jackson, and value-priced WRs for roughly the same salary dollars (Laurent Robinson, Chris Chambers, Murphy, Shipley, and Gage).For Team #4, I'll take Andre Johnson and a group of value-priced WRs for roughly the same salary dollars (MWilliams, Robinson, Hartline, Morgan, Murphy, Henderson, Branch, Camarillo, and Gage).For Team #5, I'll take Jabar Gaffney and a bunch of value-priced WRs for the same salary dollars (NWashington, Berrian, Robinson, Chambers, Hartline, Morgan, Murphy, Branch, Shipley, Camarillo, and Jarrett).For Team #6, I'll take no studs and a large group of value-priced WRs (for roughly the same salary dollars) and see how they do against Teams #1-5 (MWilliams, NWashington, KWalter, Robinson, Chambers, Hartline, Naanee, Morgan, Douglas, Henderson, Murphy, Branch, Shipley, and Jarrett).Each week, I'll compute the top 3 scores and the top 4 scores for each team. So Teams #1-3 will have two top-rated WRs and Teams #4-6 will emphasize the larger group of value-priced WRs. I'll try to do it for the first 10 weeks of the season so all teams will be affected equally by bye weeks. I'll combine the scores for Teams 1-3 (teams with 2 studs), and compare against the combined scores for Teams #4-6 (teams emphasizing low-priced guys).

Just to follow-up, when I calculated the total $'s for each team, Team 1 and 5 were lower than the others. To compensate I added Austin Collie ($8) and subtracted Murphy ($4) from Teams 1 and 5. Now all teams cost $75-77, and the total dollars for Teams 1-3 and Teams 4-6 are both $229.For week 1, the combined scores for the top-3 WR's on each team are as follows:Team 1 - 73.7 [Collie (33.3), Welker (26.4), MWilliams (14.0)]Team 2 - 47.6 [boldin (18.0), NWashington (17.8), Henderson (11.8)]Team 3 - 46.9 [Wayne (22.9), Shipley (13.2), LRobinson (10.8)]Combined Teams 1-3 = 168.2Team 4 - 36.6 [MWilliams (14.0), Henderson (11.8), LRobinson (10.8)]Team 5 - 64.3 [Collie (33.3), NWashington (17.8), Shipley (13.2)Team 6 - 53.8 [Naanee (22.0), NWashington (17.8), MWilliams (14.0)]Combined Teams 4-6 = 154.7The combined scores for the top-4 WR's (incl. flex) are:Team 1 - 83.8 [Added Branch (10.1)]Team 2 - 58.5 [Added RMoss (10.9)]Team 3 - 53.9 [Added DJackson (7.0)]Combined Teams 1-3 = 196.2Team 4 - 47.7 [Added Branch (10.1)]Team 5 - 76.7 [Added Gaffney (12.4)Team 6 - 67.0 [Added Shipley (13.2)Combined Teams 4-6 = 191.4For week 2, the combined scores for the top-3 WR's on each team are as follows:Team 1 - 44.2 [Welker (15.8), CJohnson (15.0), MWilliams (13.4)]Team 2 - 33.7 [NWashington (13.4), RMoss (11.8), Boldin (8.5)]Team 3 - 67.7 [DJackson (24.0), Wayne (22.6), Murphy (21.1)]Combined Teams 1-3 = 145.6Team 4 - 68.3 [AJohnson (33.8), Murphy (21.1), MWilliams (13.4)]Team 5 - 38.9 [NWashington (13.4), Morgan (13.0), Collie (12.5)]Team 6 - 65.9 [KWalter (31.4), Murphy (21.1), MWilliams (13.4)]Combined Teams 4-6 = 173.1The combined scores for the top-4 WR's (incl. flex) are:Team 1 - 56.7 [Added Collie (12.5)]Team 2 - 39.5 [Added Henderson (5.8)]Team 3 - 79.1 [Added Gage (11.4)]Combined Teams 1-3 = 175.3Team 4 - 81.3 [Added Morgan (13.0)]Team 5 - 50.7 [Added Hartline 11.8)]Team 6 - 77.7 [Added Hartline 11.8)]Combined Teams 4-6 = 209.7For week 3, the combined scores for the top-3 WR's on each team are as follows:Team 1 - 73.7 [Collie (33.3), Welker (26.4), MWilliams (14.0)]Team 2 - 47.6 [boldin (18.0), NWashington (17.8), Henderson (11.8)]Team 3 - 46.9 [Wayne (22.9), Shipley (13.2), LRobinson (10.8)]Combined Teams 1-3 = 168.2Team 4 - 36.6 [MWilliams (14.0), Henderson (11.8), LRobinson (10.8)]Team 5 - 64.3 [Collie (33.3), NWashington (17.8), Shipley (13.2)Team 6 - 53.8 [Naanee (22.0), NWashington (17.8), MWilliams (14.0)]Combined Teams 4-6 = 154.7The combined scores for the top-4 WR's (incl. flex) are:Team 1 - 83.8 [Added Branch (10.1)]Team 2 - 58.5 [Added RMoss (10.9)]Team 3 - 53.9 [Added DJackson (7.0)]Combined Teams 1-3 = 196.2Team 4 - 47.7 [Added Branch (10.1)]Team 5 - 76.7 [Added Gaffney (12.4)Team 6 - 67.0 [Added Shipley (13.2)Combined Teams 4-6 = 191.4For week 4, the combined scores for the top-3 WR's on each team are as follows:Team 1 - 44.2 [Welker (15.8), CJohnson (15.0), MWilliams (13.4)]Team 2 - 33.7 [NWashington (13.4), RMoss (11.8), Boldin (8.5)]Team 3 - 67.7 [DJackson (24.0), Wayne (22.6), Murphy (21.1)]Combined Teams 1-3 = 145.6Team 4 - 68.3 [AJohnson (33.8), Murphy (21.1), MWilliams (13.4)]Team 5 - 38.9 [NWashington (13.4), Morgan (13.0), Collie (12.5)]Team 6 - 65.9 [KWalter (31.4), Murphy (21.1), MWilliams (13.4)]Combined Teams 4-6 = 173.1The combined scores for the top-4 WR's (incl. flex) are:Team 1 - 56.7 [Added Collie (12.5)]Team 2 - 39.5 [Added Henderson (5.8)]Team 3 - 79.1 [Added Gage (11.4)]Combined Teams 1-3 = 175.3Team 4 - 81.3 [Added Morgan (13.0)]Team 5 - 50.7 [Added Hartline 11.8)]Team 6 - 77.7 [Added Hartline 11.8)]Combined Teams 4-6 = 209.7Total through week 2 for top-3:Teams 1-3 = 313.8Teams 4-6 = 327.8Total through week 2 for top-4 (incl. flex):Teams 1-3 = 371.5Teams 4-6 = 401.1ETA: Points for each player.ETA(2): Week 2 scores.

 

[Doug Drinen]

I doubt much as changed since the early run, but here is a sunday morning sim.

 

[firstseason1988]

I doubt much as changed since the early run, but here is a sunday morning sim.

I think I moved up 2000 spots in rank and down to 94.7% from 95.0%.

 

[Crash and Walk Away]

I doubt much as changed since the early run, but here is a sunday morning sim.

Interesting Surv% for 101289.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I doubt much as changed since the early run, but here is a sunday morning sim.

Interesting Surv% for 101289.

What's so interesting about 87.4%? -QG

 

[HairySasquatch]

I am number one! I am number 1! Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

I thought I would take the opportunity to write this now since I know the chances of it happening again are very slim.

Ok, it actually looks like I am number 2......it has a number 1 by my name, but there is another team with a 101% survival rating.

I am number 2! I am number 2!......lol Whatever........

 

[gregjcross]

I am number one! I am number 1! Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooo.I thought I would take the opportunity to write this now since I know the chances of it happening again are very slim.Ok, it actually looks like I am number 2......it has a number 1 by my name, but there is another team with a 101% survival rating.I am number 2! I am number 2!......lol Whatever........

Looking at your roster its a great strategy, going w/ the leading #2 WRs then heavier everywhere else. THhe 4 kickers is the only aspect i would not have done but they do swing wildly week to week.I am at #253 this week and likely dont have enough diversity with my WRs to make it through all 10 weeks of byes.

 

[Typical White Guy]

Thank you LeSean McCoy.

 

[HairySasquatch]

Tolbert for $1 looks like :X

I'm not sure there was a lot of strategy in picking him up other than his $1 price tag. How many people picked him up because they only had $1 left over?

 

[Das Boot]

I'm not sure there was a lot of strategy in picking him up other than his $1 price tag.

Not true... potential goal line back, backing up an unproven rookie, coaches already said he was in line for more work this season.He was a deliberate part of my RB mix, not a throw in.

 

[Dolfan]

Any early estimates on the cut this week?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Rivers

Foster

LT

Welker

Murphy

M.Williams(TB)

Finley

M.Bryant

Detroit

About 146 and I still have a slot to fill with guys like Collie, Garcon, Moore, and Henderson...like my chances to advance this week but it's a far cry from the 230 I posted last week.

 

[Typical White Guy]

Sitting at 184.8 with a few players left that could add to my final. Moving on to next week, I'm sure (last year's Week 2 cutoff was ~130).

Schaub

McCoy

Foster

L Murphy

M Williams (TB)

Jacoby Jones

Finley

Heap (flex)

Janikowski

Lions

Colston (-9.5) and Saints D (-7) could add to that total.

 

[HellToupee]

Tolbert for $1 looks like I'm not sure there was a lot of strategy in picking him up other than his $1 price tag. How many people picked him up because they only had $1 left over?

I took Tolbert because I took Matthews

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I'm at 149.85 with Eli (-19.35), Gore (-8.8), Garcon (-15) and 49ers D (-7). A little nervous about the cut given some huge scores that went up today, but I think that will be enough to move on.

 

[BassNBrew]

Cutler 29

Foster 17

Brown 9

Smith 15

Floyd 18

Murphy 21

Finley 16

K 11

Pitt 24

Flex 12

Nothing flashy, but 172 should be good to move on. RBs will be doing me in soon.

 

[ctriopelle]

High 150's here without much opportunity to change a lot. Nothing flashy ye,t but confidently moving through to week 3. Studs aren't blowing up, which helps boost the UQ for when I need it!

 

[Donsmith753]

Tolbert at a dollar looks like great insurance.

 

[ScottyDog]

How do you guys find out where you are at, as far as survivor rank right now?

 

[JKL]

I'm not sure there was a lot of strategy in picking him up other than his $1 price tag.

Not true... potential goal line back, backing up an unproven rookie, coaches already said he was in line for more work this season.He was a deliberate part of my RB mix, not a throw in.

I was stunned that he actually wasn't one of the most commonly rostered players. It was pretty clear that he was going to be the backup to Mathews and get his carries in case of injury, and was a potential goal line vulture. I figured he might be good for 3 best ball starts even if Mathews didn't miss any significant time, which is steal at $1 when other backups were going for $5+.That said, it's sad that after two weeks, I have used 2 Brandon Jackson games and a Mike Tolbert game in my starting lineup. I wasn't planning on needing them this early.