TheChairman
Footballguy
Yes, I would be shocked.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Subscriber Contest (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter eaglezzz
- Start date
wollac
Footballguy
Survival Rates through Wk 9 by roster size:
18 9.64%19 14.91%20 17.26%21 19.25%22 23.28%23 29.76%24 29.53%25 33.83%26 36.36%27 40.34%28 38.33%29 38.73%30 42.07%FBG Staff 60.86%
FBG Staff Standings through Wk 9...Aaron Rudnicki knocked out this week...
18 9.64%19 14.91%20 17.26%21 19.25%22 23.28%23 29.76%24 29.53%25 33.83%26 36.36%27 40.34%28 38.33%29 38.73%30 42.07%FBG Staff 60.86%
FBG Staff Standings through Wk 9...Aaron Rudnicki knocked out this week...
Code:
TOTAL 1469.05 Jeff Tefertiller1425.95 Keith Overton1387.2 Jene Bramel1375.2 Jason Wood1372.85 Jeff Pasquino (Out Wk 2)1372.05 Jen Maki1348.2 Matt Waldman1340.4 David Yudkin1338.6 Joe Bryant1336.1 Andy Hicks1324.55 Aaron Rudnicki (Out Wk 9)1314.45 David Dodds1293.4 Anthony Borbely1284.65 Larry Thomas (Out Wk 5)1274.9 Bruce Henderson (Out Wk 8)1273.8 Jeff Haseley1267.9 Bob Henry (Out Wk 4)1265.05 Andrew Garda1244.9 Sigmund Bloom1221.3 Will Grant (Out Wk 6)1188.5 Maurile Tremblay (Out Wk 5)1182.4 Mark Wimer (Out Wk 3)1108 Doug Drinen (Out Wk 2)
CalBear
Footballguy
Let me put it this way: the perfect 19-man roster will always beat the perfect 18-man roster. What evidence is there that an 18-man roster benefits more from being imperfect than a 19-man roster?
As someone else said, yes, I would be shocked if this team is the highest scoring in any given 3-week period (including and especially weeks 14-16). In fact I would be willing to bet a lot of money that in the 32-team NFL, there has never been a 3-week period where the top pre-season players at all these positions actually were the top scorers.
Marauder
Footballguy
That 60% survival rate for the FBG staff is pretty darn impressive if you ask me, especially when you consider that since the staff members can't win any money and the time period when the contest is open is their busiest time of the year most of them probably spend far less time putting together their team than most subscribers
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Sure, it's impossible to quantify exactly, just like it's impossible to calculate the exact probabilities involved when deciding whether or not to go for 2 when down by 15 with 7 minutes left in the 4th quarter. What we can do, however, is approximate these quanitities based on experience and intuition, and use these approximations to help make better decisions.I think most people would agree at this point that smaller rosters face a sizable disadvantage during the 13-week regular season. In order for a small roster to be a good idea anyway, the advantage gained in the three-week playoff would have to be pretty big, and I don't see how that's the case. In fact, the variance argument sort of works against the small rosters even in the playoffs - sure, they might be more likely to put up an abnormally huge number of points on any single given week, but to win you have to have the highest cumulative score over a three-week period. Greater variance isn't necessarily an asset in that situation.
Always is too strong of a word here. Is it not possible for a perfect 18-man roster having cost $250, thus adding another player makes it less perfect (not score as much)?I'm not saying there is evidence that an 18-man roster does benefit more than a 19-man roster. I'm saying theres no evidence either way to quantify it to the point where you can say with absolute certainty one way or the other.
Now you're just nitpicking an example. These top players were an extreme example to prove a point. The point being that a situation can occur where the highest scoring team you could possibly construct over a 3-week period could be a 18-man team. I get your point that chances are that the best 18-man team will cost < $250 thus adding an additional player won't hurt. But it's certainly possible to have the highest possible scoring team be an 18-man team that costs $250.
Agreed. However, this intuition thing you talk about is where it gets tricky. You're intuition says that there is no (or small or whatever) advantage for having a small team in the final 3 weeks. Someone elses believes there is an advantage (some may even believe it's big), so you put your assumptions one way, the other puts them in the opposite direction. Who's right? We've come full circle back to the initial question.
I disagree that greater variance isn't an asset. Weeks are independent (mostly), so if you have a greater chance of putting up an abnormally huge number on any given week, you have a greater chance of doing it twice, and three times as well. And have better chance of overcoming an below average performance.
If you start with a 160, which team would you rather have at that point....high variance team that averages 180 (+/- 40) or lower variance team that averages (180 +/- 10). (Obviously exagerated examples)
That said, having the ability to put up a monster week 1, gives you a huge advantage.
I could be wrong here, but last year the winner scored 613, did they score 204.33 each week? Or did they score something more like 220, 210 183? Or 250, 200, 163? (i don't know the answer and can't look it up at work). I'd think it was the last one , not that one way or the other would prove anything, but it's how I'd imagine it's more likely to go.
I agree. What's the roster size for each of the remaining FBG staff teams?18 players on team roster - 1 (Andrew Garde)20 players - 121 players - 122 players - 123 players - 325 players - 226 players - 129 players - 1 (Joe Bryant)30 players - 3 (David Dodds, Keith Overton, Andy Hicks)To summarize, there are 2 teams with 18-20 players, 5 teams with 21-23 players, 3 teams with 24-26 players, 1 team with 27-29 players, and 3 teams with 30 players. Compared to all of the teams remaining alive in the contest, I think the FBG teams are significantly underweighted in the small 18-20 roster category, and substantially overweighted in 2 categories: 21-23 player teams, and 30-player teams. The 60% survival rate for FBG staff results from (1) better player selection than average, and (2) better roster size selection.
TheChairman
Footballguy
Shouldn't Garda have a huge advantage in total points due to his 18 man roster?
az_prof
Footballguy
I think it takes skill to make it to the final 250. But it definitely takes luck to win it all.
az_prof
Footballguy
I wanted Finley, but ultimately went with Zach Miller oakland and Shiancoe. I figured I didn't want to spend too much money on the position and that rather than put all my eggs in one basket it would be better to have two guys who I could count on to be close to top 10 performers. So far it worked out although Zach Miller's injury has me worried. Luckily Shiancoe had a good fourth quarter in week 9.
CalBear
Footballguy
Well, OK, it's "possible." How high do you think the probability of that scenario occurring is? (The perfect roster being 18 (or fewer) players costing exactly $250). How high would the probability need to be to make choosing an 18-player roster a good idea? I think the answers are clearly "extremely low" and "relatively high", respectively.
Look, we're not publishing a scientific paper here; we're jawing on a football message board. The fact remains that there is a ton of evidence that larger rosters are stronger in this contest, and not a single shred of evidence that smaller rosters are stronger.
A situation can occur where I hit on 20 and pull an ace, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to hit on 20. I would assert that the probability of pulling and ace (4/52) is far higher than the probability of the perfect roster being 18 or fewer players and costing exactly $250. Here, let's reframe the question. Let's say that the contest has two sections; weeks 1-13, and weeks 14-16. After week 13, you get to choose a brand new team, using the original player values; highest score from weeks 14-16 wins. What would an 18-player roster, with all the knowledge of what's happened in the season so far look like? Maybe something like:
Rivers $19
M.Ryan $16
-----------------
Peterson $38
McCoy $26
McFadden $14
Foster $13
-----------------
C.Johnson $27
R.White $27
H.Nicks $24
T.Owens $19
M.Williams $8
S.Johnson $4
----------------
A.Gates $26
M.Lewis $6
----------------
R.Bironas $3
S.Janikowski $2
----------------
Packers $6
Raiders $4
Total: $250
Can we improve on this roster? It seems obvious that we can in best ball. Let's start with swapping Packers D for Lions and Titans. Swap Calvin Johnson or Roddy White ($27) for B.Edwards ($11), L.Moore ($7), D.Bess ($4), L.Murphy ($4), and you've saved $1. Swap Peterson ($38) for Forte ($20), Tomlinson ($12), B.Jackson ($4), Tolbert ($1) and you've saved another $1. Swap Ryan ($16) for Sanchez ($13) and Vick ($3). Swap Gates ($26) for Z.Miller ($15), Keller ($9), Pettigrew ($4), With the $2 you saved, add Matt Bryant at kicker. Now you have:
Rivers $19
Sanchez $13
Vick $3
----------------
McCoy $26
Forte $20
McFadden $14
Foster $13
Tomlinson $12
B.Jackson $4
Tolbert $1
----------------
R.White $27
H.Nicks $24
T.Owens $19
B.Edwards $11
M.Williams $8
L.Moore $7
D.Bess $4
L.Murphy $4
S.Johnson $4
----------------
Z.Miller $15
D.Keller $9
M.Lewis $6
B.Pettigrew $4
----------------
R.Bironas $3
M.Bryant $2
S.Janikowski $2
----------------
Titans $4
Raiders $4
Lions $2
This is a 29-player roster which will demolish the 18-player roster. Guaranteed, it beat the hand-picked 18-player roster in every three-week period up until now, and it is a heavy favorite to do so again in weeks 14-16.
With Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, Campbell on byes
Stafford, Romo, Moore hurt
and Edwards, Leftwich, Josh Johnson, Henne, Delhomme, Alex Smith, Kolb and Hasselbeck(?) most likely not playing this week
I count 199 teams that will be without a QB this week. 927 will have only 1.
Also I count 360 teams that will have less than 10 scores this week.
Stafford, Romo, Moore hurt
and Edwards, Leftwich, Josh Johnson, Henne, Delhomme, Alex Smith, Kolb and Hasselbeck(?) most likely not playing this week
I count 199 teams that will be without a QB this week. 927 will have only 1.
Also I count 360 teams that will have less than 10 scores this week.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Saying there's no advantage isn't the same as saying there's a big advantage. They're not opposites. The former is just the null hypothesis, which is a perfectly acceptable position to take in the absence of evidence to the contrary. No intuition required.
Agree to disagree. We'd need to know a lot more about the distributions involved to even try to answer that question. Otherwise there would be a ton of probably bad assumptions going into it. How are the weekly scores distributed? Are they independent? Who says the high-variance team and the low-variance team have the same mean score anyway? (So far, larger rosters have averaged higher weekly scores than smaller rosters, fwiw.) Without really knowing the answers to any of those questions, there's no way to say which is better.
It was more like the middle one - 223, 222, 167. It was also a 24-man roster (the largest possible), as were most of the top 10 IIRC. My position on this isn't that outlandish - like I said, it's just the null hypothesis. I haven't seen a compelling case to believe that there's a big advantage, so I don't believe there's a big advantage.
Seriously we can argue this back and forth all day. The difference between this and the blackjack scenario is that we know the blackjack probabilities with certainty. They can not be argued. Here we do not know them. You may guess at them all you want, but the truth remains you don't know. That's all I'm saying. In your example, do you really think there is an absolute 0% chance of the 18-man team beating the 29-man team? Or that none of them will be close and the 29-man team will always "demolish" the smaller roster? Always?
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
Now Henne is out. ####!!!He was my only QB going this week.
firstseason1988
Footballguy
5 mins a day for 3 weeks isn't too much. I would guess they have a side pool going, I know if I was one of them I would get that going.
You kind of lost me here, not sure who said they were the same thing.
Sorry, I was no longer talking about a large/small roster variance, more just a Variance is good in general. My example was pointed as all else equal, higher variance > lower variance.
I haven't seen a compelling case either, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Like I said before, I think the advantage is small, if even present. But discussions like these will at least help us better understand the problem at hand.I knew that last years winner had 24 (the highest) but I also believe it was pointed out that he didn't use 2 of the players, and used the 3rd a couple times but would have won without him. So I offer you this question:Had the 21 players he/she needed to win this contest cost $250, would he/she have been better off forgoing those players to get to the 24-max? Obviously a slanted question, but something to make us think that having the max (or near max) might not be as important as some think. So, with the 18 vs. 30 debate once again beaten to death, perhaps we should focus our attention on some other questions. Would love to get your (and CalBear/QuizGuy and anyone else who cares to chime in) on a few of these thoughts:1) Is 30>29>28>27.... in terms of roster size. If you don't believe 18 man teams offer a big enough advantage (if any) vs 30-man teams, does your opinion change if you're talking about a roster of 21? 24? 27?2) Multiple players of the same team... here I'm thinking something along the lines of taking the QB, RB and either the WR or TE (or both) from a high powered offense (Houston, GB, Indy, SD, NE ect). The thinking here is that this offense is less likely to get completely shut down and even if it did, with a reasonably large roster, you could still overcome it. And the high scoring games (30-40 pts) you're almost certainly to get a huge score from. I think Houston was a great example of this:QB; Schaub, RB: Foster WR: AJ -> This offered basically the entire houston offense at a reasonable (imo) price. I think this could have worked well due to the cheapness of Foster. San Diego wouldn't have been so bad either with Rivers, Gates and Floyd/Mathews. GB and Indy probably turn out poorly due to injuries. Obviously, you'd have some major bye issues, so you'd need to work your team around that, but I think thi could offer some huge advantage in weeks 14-16 if your NFL blows up. Just an idea, any thoughts?It was more like the middle one - 223, 222, 167. It was also a 24-man roster (the largest possible), as were most of the top 10 IIRC. My position on this isn't that outlandish - like I said, it's just the null hypothesis. I haven't seen a compelling case to believe that there's a big advantage, so I don't believe there's a big advantage.
My whole strategy of picking 30 players was that 20 of them would pan out.
out of those cheep type of players I have Tolbert $1, Bess $4, Branch $3, Murphy $3, T. Jones $7, Williams $8 and Gronkowski $3, that have all been good.
Even the guys that haven't took off yet are still on the roster and could get a TD any week, or could move into a starting role. Scott $6, Washington $8, Choice $4, Stroughter $4, Camarillo $3, E. Sanders $2, Finneran $1, Scheffler $7
All these guys to go with my studs
Roethlisberger/Rivers Combo
Bradshaw
Foster
Calvin/B Marsh Combo
and guys like
Garcon and Spiller who still have a chance to break out big time. My roster is not very unique at all but out of 30 roster spots I have only lost 1 to injury Finley. So I have 29 guys that can get me points each week, that is huge advantage going down the stretch in my opinion.
out of those cheep type of players I have Tolbert $1, Bess $4, Branch $3, Murphy $3, T. Jones $7, Williams $8 and Gronkowski $3, that have all been good.
Even the guys that haven't took off yet are still on the roster and could get a TD any week, or could move into a starting role. Scott $6, Washington $8, Choice $4, Stroughter $4, Camarillo $3, E. Sanders $2, Finneran $1, Scheffler $7
All these guys to go with my studs
Roethlisberger/Rivers Combo
Bradshaw
Foster
Calvin/B Marsh Combo
and guys like
Garcon and Spiller who still have a chance to break out big time. My roster is not very unique at all but out of 30 roster spots I have only lost 1 to injury Finley. So I have 29 guys that can get me points each week, that is huge advantage going down the stretch in my opinion.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
If the absolutely optimal roster for the playoffs was a 21-player roster that cost exactly $250, then obviously forgoing that for any other roster would be a mistake. A loaded question like that doesn't really give us much to think about, honestly. Every single entry in this contest is going to be suboptimal, and every single one of them would be better off if they'd chosen the optimal roster instead. Unfortunately we have no idea what the optimal roster will be.
There's definitely a point at which adding more players is detrimental, although I don't know if it's in the 18-30 range this year. I'd say maybe 27 is a decent estimate for where production levels off. So if I were pressed to say, I might put it something like:18 < 19 < 20 < 21 < 22 < 23 < 24 < 25 < 26 < 27 = 28 = 29 = 30
It's hard not to keep coming back to the survival part of the equation, but it's such an integral part of the contest. Doug made the analogy earlier that variance is good in the playoffs, because we're all underdogs when it comes to winning the $25,000. But then you can also say that in each of weeks 1-13, we're all favorites. All else being equal, my chances of surviving any given week are >= 50%, so Id rather employ a larger-roster/lower-variance strategy each of those weeks. I just need a high floor, not a high ceiling. And even if a lower-variance team gives me less of a chance in the playoffs, I'd still rather roll the "anything can happen" dice for three weeks in a row than for thirteen weeks in a row.
It depends how important they are to your team. This is the kind of move that would increase your variance to some extent. If you have a small roster and a lot of money tied up in one team's offense, you probably have a better chance of putting up a huge week but you're also probably not going to survive 13 weeks of cuts (that team's bye week being one of the major obstacles, obviously). If you have a larger roster and/or it didn't cost you a big portion of your budget, then you might still be able to take advantage of the big weeks but you're more insulated against the bad weeks.
Touchdown There
Footballguy
The odds of a Finley owner winning this thing has to be very low. 2300 entries left, so average odds are 1/2300. I would give a Finley owner a 1/10,000 chance. It can be done, but probably not happening.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
At this point last year, $3 Chaz Schilens had scored a total of 0.00 points. The guy who won all the money ended up using Schilens in each of weeks 13, 14, and 15. You never know when those players will come in handy.
CalBear
Footballguy
Let's define a term: I would say the 29-man roster is better, meaning that it is both more likely to survive weeks 1-13, and likely to score more points in a 3-week period more than half of the time. Using a 29-man roster is a better strategy, meaning that it will win the contest more often than using an 18-man roster. It doesn't have to do so 100% of the time to be better.All the evidence, all the thought experiments, and all our knowledge of how fantasy football works indicates that larger rosters are better than smaller rosters. Your response to this has been, "well, you haven't proven it scientifically." OK, fine--so what? There is no amount of data we can throw at the problem which will prove it scientifically. But frankly, if you can look at all this evidence and still choose an 18-man roster, you are the guy I'm looking to play against at the poker table.
[Also: If your response is, "I wouldn't necessarily choose an 18-man roster, I just don't think you've proven that a larger roster is better," and you don't have some way to support the idea of an 18-man roster being better, then you're just arguing to argue.]
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Not sure why you'd think that. There are still 626 Finley owners left, so all else being equal the chances are 626/2300 that one of them will win. Besides, most of the remaining Finley owners also have some combination of Hernandez, Pettigrew, Cooley, Keller, Moeaki, Miller, Miller, Gresham, Shiancoe, etc. Sure it sucks to have $21 of dead money on your roster but it's not necessarily a killer.
CalBear
Footballguy
At some point larger rosters will reach diminishing returns; I don't think we have enough data to say where that breaking point is, except to say that it's clearly well above 18.I would say that you've reached diminishing returns when you try to do the kind of 18->29 exercise I did above, and run out of cheap players performing in the top 25 at their positions.
I used some same-team strategy some in my entry; with large rosters, it can be useful even on teams that aren't good. For example, you could have had DHB, Schilens, Murphy, and Johnny Lee Higgins for a total of $19, and in best ball format, they're almost guarnateed to outperform a $19 WR. Chicago also had a bunch of cheap WRs. I don't think QB+RB+WR combos are that meaningful one way or the other in this contest, although I suppose a QB+WR combo might slightly increase your chances of winning in the final 250 (by increasing variance).
Nice work - 15 out of the starting 32 QB's out. Obviously this is a big advantage to teams with multiple QB's or good match-ups.... Go Roeth and D Anderson this week....
Touchdown There
Footballguy
Touchdown There
Footballguy
All things are not equal, they lost their top tight end.
CalBear
Footballguy
You know you've just doomed him in week 10.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Counting to 21 down?
apalmer
Footballguy
There are also a lot of teams that are going to take a 0 from their kicker spot. 476 teams have Hanson, and 196 of those teams also have Janikowski. A lot of them are 2 kicker teams trying to save a few bucks. The 10 or 12 points they lose there could be the difference.Nice work - 15 out of the starting 32 QB's out. Obviously this is a big advantage to teams with multiple QB's or good match-ups.... Go Roeth and D Anderson this week....
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Yeah, they lost him six weeks ago, and they're still alive.
apalmer
Footballguy
I just looked at the top-10 winners of last year's contest. Eight of the top 10 had 24-player rosters -- team #2 had 23 players, and team #10 had 20 players.For QBs, 10 different QBs scored points for the top-10 teams during weeks 14, 15 and 16, as follows:
Rodgers - used 14 times (Rodgers was on 7 rosters (out of the top-10 teams))
Romo - used 2 times (on 1 roster)
Brees - used 2 times (on 1 roster)
McNabb - used 2 times (on 1 roster)
P. Manning - used 1 time (on 1 roster)
Cutler - used 2 times (on 1 roster)
E. Manning - used 3 times (on 1 roster)
Ryan - used 1 time (on 1 roster)
Hasselbeck - used 1 time (on 1 roster)
Schaub - used 2 times (on 1 roster)
The highest scoring QB's were:
Week 14 - E. Manning (39.35)
Week 15 - Rodgers (45.35)
Week 16 - Cutler (37.65)
The optimal 2-QB combination was Rodgers who scored 45.35 pts in Week 15, and McNabb who scored 25.25 pts in Week 14 and 36.00 pts in Week 16 for a total of 106.60 pts from the QB position during Weeks 14-16. You would have paid $51 for Rodgers ($27) and McNabb ($24).
Every position shows the same pattern. Many different players were used to score points in weeks 14-16 for the top-10 teams. Perhaps the most valuable player overall was Derrick Mason ($9) who was used most -- 24 times (out of a possible 30). Mason was on 8 of the top-10 teams (all except for teams #8 and #9).
From a relatively quick calculation, it appears that the best possible team was:
QB - Rodgers ($27), McNabb ($24)
RB - Grant ($24), Rice ($21), Wells ($15), Bradshaw ($8), Charles ($7), Harrison ($4)
WR - DeSean Jackson ($24), Vincent Jackson ($21), Mason ($9), Austin ($6), Rice ($4), Nicks ($4), Meacham ($3)
TE - Clark ($18), Celek ($7), Heap ($5), Finley ($3)
K- Bironas ($3), Gould ($2)
D - S.F. ($2), DET ($1)
The above team would have had a total price of $242, with a roster of 23 players. Last year, the total pts scored by this team in Weeks 14-16 was 738.1 pts. -- considerably greater than the 613 pts scored by the team that won the contest.
TheChairman
Footballguy
Perhaps that is the problem with the 18 crowd.
Futeki
Footballguy
If by 18 you mean 21 for team 101754, you might be right.
LittlePhatty
Footballguy
I'm sure the "advantage" could be plotted along a curve.The survival rates posted above already show a curve, and even the low 20s are clearly behind the high 20s and 30-man rosters in survival percentage.
Extrapolate that out to extreme team sizes of 10 (the minimum starters) and then go high with say 80 players with the same $250 budget (I'm pretty sure this is possible with ALL the $3 players, some $2 and $1 and then some $4 and $5).
It would be fairly obvious that 12 players is better than 10, right?
And still obvious that 18 is better than 12.
Last year's survival rates showed 24 is better than 18.
This year, so far, is showing that 30 is better than 24.
But the question is, would 40 be better than 30 if we had been allowed to go that high? Would 80 be better than 60? Probably not. The law of diminishing returns would kick in long before 60 or 80 I would guess.
This year's survival rates show a bit of leveling-off between 27 - 30. That could be due to the small sample size, or it could be due to that being close to the true "optimal" peak.
Okay, then we don't necessarily disagree. Because what you just defined as "better" was not what I was getting from reading your posts. What I got was that there was no way in hell a 18-man roster would ever beat a 29-man roster. That they'll be "demolished" or "will always win".
The bolded is the whole point. That you can't prove it scientifically. And all this ton of evidence you speak of, really is the same thing presented a 1000 different ways. That larger rosters give you a greater chance of surviving to the top 250. And I agree, if someone refuses to think so, I'd like to play poker against them too.
However, I haven't seen any real evidence that refutes that an 18 man (or smaller roster) doesn't have an advantage once in the top 250. As Iggy pointed out, basically it's taking the Null hypothesis (no advantage for anyone) and accepting it because there isn't proof that it's wrong. What I believe Doug was arguing is that we don't have enough of a sample (and I know we could go back 30 years and get the data, but until someone is willing to do it, we don't have enough of a sample) to conclude one way or the other than no advantage actually exists.
You (among others) keep coming back to the fact that larger rosters survive at a better rate, which is pretty much universally accepted at this point. The question has now become given that you're in the top 250, does a smaller roster give an advantage? To this I haven't seen any evidence (other than last years single sample, which isn't enough) to put our foot down and say that no advantage exists. So to me, the question remains open, and is worthy of continued discussion.
Touchdown There
Footballguy
Also, I realize Finley owners have been surviving at a better than average rate. There are 626 left, and here is how many have Finley + a quarterback on bye or out this week:Rodgers - 246Brees - 38Stafford - 105Henne - 18Rivers - 115Campbell - 19Romo - 11Kolb - 3Alex Smith - 8Trent Edwards - 6Matt Moore - 8Delhomme - 29Total of 606 missing QB starters on Finley rosters for week 10. It is surprising to see 246 Rodgers owners have Finley, knowing they would be in a pickle for week 10. I think we are losing 30.43% of all rosters (total of 700 entries) during week 10 play. I speculate that 40% to 50% of Finley rosters go down this week.
I count 111 that will be without a kicker this week. 829 have only 1.There are also a lot of teams that are going to take a 0 from their kicker spot. 476 teams have Hanson, and 196 of those teams also have Janikowski. A lot of them are 2 kicker teams trying to save a few bucks. The 10 or 12 points they lose there could be the difference.Nice work - 15 out of the starting 32 QB's out. Obviously this is a big advantage to teams with multiple QB's or good match-ups.... Go Roeth and D Anderson this week....
Touchdown There
Footballguy
Did not bother to count because I used the query form. I think I crossed the streams, like in Ghostbusters.
Touchdown There
Footballguy
Correct, and they are at the exact same disadvantage as the Finley entries. Romo entries are no better off. The winning entry is not likely to be the one with devastating injuries along the way.
Yes but this doesn't always have to be true. Also, are you assuming that once in the top 250 it's entirely luck (everyone has equal shot?) Some rosters have an advantage over the other (18 over 30 or 30 over 18 or whatever)?
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
I should probably just give up then. Wonder if Doug will let me do that?Correct, and they are at the exact same disadvantage as the Finley entries. Romo entries are no better off. The winning entry is not likely to be the one with devastating injuries along the way.And a lot of the others have lost their top QB, TE, Rb, etc.
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
They said Not Likely - as in it's not likely you'll date a supermodel - but there's a chance
-QG
ctriopelle
Footballguy
Maybe most expensive, but not my best. I have Witten too, makes a decent fill-in in my book..
LittlePhatty
Footballguy
You can say that about anything. We're talking about averages.Out of 13,000 entries the survival stats still show (again this year) that more players = good.
If an 18-player team wins the whole thing, that won't change the statistics. It will have won despite having less of a chance.
Last edited by a moderator:
