Subscriber Contest (1 Viewer)

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

This is from last year, anyone know if Doug updated this at the end of the year or anything?

Obviously 3 $1 kickers is better than 1 $3 kicker. With no $1 kickers, is 2 $2 kickers better than 1 $3 kicker factoring in the extra buck?

OK, so I dumped a bunch of data and ran some regressions.Let's start with kickers. Here's the plan: look at every team --- even the ones that have been eliminated --- and record the following pieces of information about them:

1. How many kickers they took

2. How much money they spent on kickers

3. How many total points they have scored (or would have scored, for eliminated teams) at the kicker position during the first five weeks of the season.

Figuring that anything more than five kickers is probably not a very serious entry, and knowing how outliers can skew regressions, I threw out all teams who took more than five kickers. Then I ran a regression of total points versus number and money. Here is the formula that came back:

Total Points per week = 6.04 + .183*(dollars spent on PK) + 1.23*(HaveExactly2PK) + 1.94*(HaveExactly3PK) + 2.20*(HaveExactly4PK) + 2.37*(HaveExactly5PK)

[for you regression wonks, all coefficients massively significant. R^2 = .28.]

So, for example, if you have one $3 kicker, you can expect 6.04 + .183*3 =~ 6.57 points per week. If you have three $1 kickers, you can expect about 6.04 + .183*3 + 1.94 =~ 8.51 points per week. Two $2 kickers =~ 8.00 PPG

NOTE: these results are very, very sensitive to the particular performances of particular kickers in 2009 and the particular tendencies of contest participants in 2009. If Stephen Gostkowski were on record FG pace or if Dan Carpenter had gotten injured, or whatever, these results could look very different. On my to-do list is to go back and run this for 2008, but I'm not too confident about getting that done anytime soon.

With that (rather huge) caveat, here are the implications:

If you have one kicker, then adding a second one (for $1) will add about 1.23 + .18 = 1.41 points per week.

If you have two kickers, then adding a third one (for $1) will add about 1.94 - 1.23 + .18 = .89 points per week.

If you have three kickers, then adding a fourth one (for $1) will add about 2.20 - 1.94 + .18 = .44 points per week.

If you have four kickers, then adding a fifth one (for $1) will add about 2.37 - 2.20 + .18 = .35 points per week.

This is exactly what we'd expect to see: diminishing marginal returns.

I'll let the nerds toss this around for a bit, then post the numbers for Team D and QB. [For RB, WR, and TE, it gets a little complicated because I'm not quite sure how to count the flex.]

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

Going with 18 players means you only have 8 "backups" for your 10 "starters" - once the bye weeks start rolling in I think most of the 18-man rosters will be exposed. There just isn't enough depth there to deal with the inevitable down weeks and stay afloat, imo.

Don't forget that these "studs" on the 18 man rosters are quite likely to score much more than "normal" players with reasonable frequency. CJ3 or AP can each score two or three times as much as two lesser players on the 30 man rosters--the Thomas Jones, Ricky Williams, Jamal Charles types of players. If you think of it in terms of variance, the "studs" have higher ceilings. Of course the contest winner needs to get lucky, but I disagree that 18 man rosters don't have depth. They have greater depth within each individual player, but less depth across all players. It will take max points in the final weeks to win the contest. An 18 man roster with players like CJ3 and AP has a harder time getting to the final weeks, but is dangerous once it gets there.

Yes, one good week for Chris Johnson or Andre Johnson can more than offset another player on a bye, even if there's a missing player (0 score) that week. For example, AJ this past week scored more than double all other WR's except the 13 right behind him.In reality, the viable 18-player rosters will almost always have at least one player filling in for each stud during their bye weeks if they're not unlucky with injuries. Yes, the goal in the contest isn't only to survive the bye weeks -- it's to score the max points during the finals. Many teams chose to take more risk during the bye weeks by going with less depth, but if they're lucky enough to make it to the finals, they'll be in good shape.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The way you get decent depth with 18 players is by going double the requirements at each position, with 2 QB's, 4 RB's, 6 WR's, 2 TE's, 2 PK's, and 2 D's. The flex will come from the 12 RB/WR/TE's. When you have higher quality players and get lucky with injuries/performance, you don't need as many players to have decent depth. So with that mix and good/lucky player selection, one could have decent enough depth to survive the regular season and have a very strong roster for the finals.Of course, doing it that way, you need to get lucky and avoid injuries and multiple stud dud weeks at the wrong time. You also need to be careful about bye weeks. Whoever wins will need to get lucky, no matter the roster size.I didn't say 7-8 WR's on an 18-player roster would be wise -- just that it can be done, just like a 4 WR's can be done as you said. In fact, I don't think any 18-player roster with anything other than 2-4-6-2-2-2 distribution can have decent depth. Those teams with different distributions will get eliminated at a very high rate, making all 18-player rosters look bad.It is a different pricing structure than last year, which makes a huge difference. Yes, many 18-man rosters will get eliminated because they don't have the right player mix or didn't account for byes or had bad luck with injuries, but those that were well selected and get lucky with injuries/performance will do very well. As I said before, the most important thing is player selection, not roster size.

I wouldn't call 2-4-6-2-2-2 decent depth at all. At this point it's mostly a subjective debate, but the good thing is we'll get to see what happens by the end of the year. I believe the vast majority of 18-man teams will be eliminated. The pricing structure isn't as important as you seem to think it is, and it won't be a bunch of "poorly constructed" 18-man teams getting the axe. ALL 18-man teams are at a significant disadvantage. It's just not enough players for a season-long best ball contest. I think you're badly underestimating the effect of variance - even a "well selected" team that stays healthy and has no overlapping bye week issues will still have down weeks. It's just the way it is, and it takes just one such week to knock out the 18-man roster because he doesn't have the depth to cover for it.Will a handful of 18-man teams get lucky and live to the final 250? Almost certainly. Will any of them win, or come close to winning? Maybe. But the odds are so stacked against them that it's a poor strategy. I'm paraphrasing something SSOG said recently, but an idea is either good or bad, regardless of the outcome. I believe an 18-man roster is a bad idea, even if some random 18-man roster ends up winning the contest.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

It sounds obvious, but I think part of the trick to winning is finding players who outperform their price. Obviously before the season we don't really know who those guys will be, but we do pretty much know who it won't be: the expensive "studs." At best they'll live up to their price, but I don't think they'll ever outproduce their cost by enough to be a difference-maker. You don't "swing for the fences" with expensive players - if you get lucky and everything goes right and they stay healthy all year and perform at a high level like they're supposed to, you will have gotten exactly what you paid for, and no more.

I see your point, but I'm not sure I agree with it.If Rodgers goes 4400/30, you've gotten what you paid for, but Rodgers might go 4900/45.

It's easy to get excited about Mike Williams going 1000/7 for only 8 bucks or whatever. No question you'll need some of that to win. But if Adrian Peterson goes Shaun Alexander 2005, he's provided even more value. There are very few guys who are capable of having a transcendent, carry-you-on-their-back, super-duper-mega-season.

Studs do have more downside, but contrary to the bolded, they have upside too.

Yes, you can get outperformance both from an $8 player like Williams as well as a $29 player like Rodgers. One difference is an $8 player could outperform all year and still ride the bench most weeks, whereas if a top stud outperforms, his points will count for you most weeks. Another difference is that if both play as expected, the $29 player's points will count for you far more often than the $8 player's points.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

Will a handful of 18-man teams get lucky and live to the final 250? Almost certainly. Will any of them win, or come close to winning? Maybe. But the odds are so stacked against them that it's a poor strategy. I'm paraphrasing something SSOG said recently, but an idea is either good or bad, regardless of the outcome. I believe an 18-man roster is a bad idea, even if some random 18-man roster ends up winning the contest.

I think there will be far more than a handful of 18-man teams in the final 250, and those who make it will do very well. The odds are extremely stacked against everybody, regardless of roster size.I agree that a shorter roster is usually not a good idea in a best ball contest, which is why I went with a big roster last year, when there were some great cheap value players and the higher cost players cost more. However, this year, I think the player values were so good for some of the higher cost players compared to the lower cost players that choosing to go with a higher value player rather than a lower value player combined with an extra, cheaper player was a viable strategy.Imagine an extreme case, where all the stud players cost $17 and all Kickers and Defenses cost $3 each. All the other players available are $14 each, but they're all backups who aren't even expected to get playing time. In this extreme example, you can roster 14 $17 stud players and 2 K's and 2 D's for exactly $250. If you believe bigger rosters are always better in best ball, you could also choose to roster 17 $14 backup players, 2 K's, and 2 D's for exactly $250, or you could go with more K's and D's and fewer skill players. Would you still argue that the 21 player team has a better chance to win than the 18 player team?Of course, this example isn't realistic -- it's just meant to point out that the player costs do make a difference in which strategy is the best for any contest like this. This year's pricing structure isn't as extreme as this example, but it moves in that direction compared to last year.

 

[apalmer]

Might as well throw in my

Last year I was one of the proponents of the small roster team, basically arguing the same thing as this year's small rosters--"If I can get lucky enough to get to the finals, I'll have an advantage". I still think that's likely to be true, but I've also decided that it's just too unlikely to get to the finals that way. Last year just a couple of injuries that coincided with the week a stud had a poor performance was enough to knock me out, and most of the small stud teams had the same result. Meanwhile, the bigger rosters could absorb the injuries and stay alive. Since you can't win it if you're not in the finals, this year I decided on a different approach. I'm still not in the "you have to have 30 guys" camp, but I do think you need to take advantage of the value of quantity. I don't think that advantage plays out as well at QB or TE, where the studs seem to produce higher scores more consistently (sorry, but I don't see Anderson, Moore, Smith and Flacco producing many weeks where any of them outscore Rodgers), but at RB and WR, I'm now in the quantity over quality camp. I guess it's sort of a hybrid approach to the question, as it gave me in the 25-man roster.

 

[cjack]

I think you guys are investing too much energy into this discussion. I don't know if it's better to roster 18 guys or 30 guys, most likely somewhere in between. But, what's more important is how many guys you can get that are value at their price. Last year, I think I was in the 24-25 player range, can't quite remember. I didn't really change my strategy this year, but after evaluating player prices, and putting together a roster of players who I thought would be productive at their price, I netted out with 19 guys. That may prove too few, but my bye weeks are well balanced, and so far, no injury concerns. At WR, I went with two studs in A. Johnson and R. White, but I also grabbed Tampa Mike and L. Murphy, so it's possible to get the best of both worlds. Unfortunately I have Berrian and Camarillo in there too, but I don't think it's so simple to say you can't get good value cheap guys if you go for studs. You can do both, you just have to be right more often than wrong. I also went with the two TE stud theory, based on their 1.5 point/reception advantage and the fact that I could use one as a flex many times, so I have Finley and Davis. As a result, I'm less concerned with having a 4th WR produce consistently, because I have a good chance to have one of my TEs count as a flex in a given week.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I don't think the anti-stud crowd in this thread understands that the rules have changed from last year, and you can get great value in some of the studs this year vs. the mediocre players, who are more expensive this year. If Aaron Rodgers has a year like last year, he's a steal at $29 vs. mediocre guys like Kolb at $21 and Cassel at $13. If AJ has a year like last year, he's a steal at $32 vs. 2 mediocre $16 WR's like Devin Thomas and Lee Evans

What you don't understand is that picking players - cheap or expensive - comes with a lot of variables that are impossible to predict. New rules haven't changed that fact. Picking a < $25 player isn't any less or more safe than picking a > $7 player. I picked Shonn Greene for $27. He's been an absolute disaster at that price. I picked Visanthe Shiancoe for $12. Shiancoe looks to be a steal at that price. The "all stud" strategy isn't any more valid or effective than a 28 man roster composed of great value players.

Of course I understand that -- I'm not predicting anything. I think the people who insult those who go with an 18-player roster, saying bigger rosters are obviously always better, are the ones who don't understand that. There are lots of variables that are impossible to predict, so to say that last year's results showing higher survival rate for those with bigger rosters proves the same applies to this year, despite the different rules, is faulty logic. When you take out all the non-viable smaller rosters (e.g., 1 QB, 4 WR's, 1 D, etc.), those with good player selection and lots of luck can do very well, even with an 18-player roster.

The "all stud" strategy isn't any more valid or effective than a 28 man roster composed of great value players.

I never said anything about an "all stud" strategy being more effective. I just said that those who are so sure that the "no stud" strategy with far more players is definitely better because of last year's results with different rules or the first 2 weeks' results where many non-viable smaller-roster teams were eliminated, shouldn't be so sure.What I did say is, "Much more important than roster size in this contest (as long as you have decent depth, which is doable with 18 players) is player selection and luck in those players staying healthy and performing to/above expectations."

I'd never insult an 18 man roster. That's silly. Here's the deal: luck and excellent roster planning is critical - be it an 18 man roster or a 30 man roster. I don't have a problem with picking an 18 man roster and therefore owning more elite players. That makes sense to me. What I argue with is the notion that this strategy is any safer or more valid.

 

[jdoggydogg]

For all of the depth proponents....Why doesn't it seem to apply to kickers and defenses, the most volitile positions in the contest?The majority have 3 of each, but why not go 4? It only costs $2-5 to add a quality defense or kicker and you are given one more option to save your team with a big score during the byes...if you space them out, you always have 3 options. And defenses can never get injured (although any of them can put up a zero vs. a team like NO or ATL).

I have three defenses and four kickers. The four kicker concept makes a lot of sense to me, since they are very cheap and - as you mentioned - very volatile.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I think you guys are investing too much energy into this discussion.

Because it's fun

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I don't have a problem with picking an 18 man roster and therefore owning more elite players. That makes sense to me. What I argue with is the notion that this strategy is any safer or more valid.

context.the smaller roster is less safe than a bigger roster in terms of making it through byes, injuries and weekly variation.the smaller roster is safer in terms of maximizing point production in the finals.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I think you guys are investing too much energy into this discussion.

Because it's fun

this.we need more regression analysis imo.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I don't have a problem with picking an 18 man roster and therefore owning more elite players. That makes sense to me. What I argue with is the notion that this strategy is any safer or more valid.

context.the smaller roster is less safe than a bigger roster in terms of making it through byes, injuries and weekly variation.

the smaller roster is safer in terms of maximizing point production in the finals.

If you don't suffer a bunch of injuries to your studs, then sure. But I'm not convinced (and neither is Drinen) that a small roster is any safer than a large roster.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I think you guys are investing too much energy into this discussion.

Because it's fun

this.we need more regression analysis imo.

Yes. I don't know anything about statistics or probability, but it sure is interesting hearing these discussions.

 

[eaglezzz]

my regrets so far in this contest after week 2 are taking

Spiller $17

Garcon $12

Washington $8

Scheffler $7

Camarillo $3

So $47 bucks which I could have got a J. Best $27 and Forte $20 for

My picks that I am loving so far though are

Rivers $19

Bradshaw $18

Foster $13

Tolbert $1

Mike Williams $8

Calvin J $27

Marshall $26

Murphy $4

Branch $3

Finley $21

No injuries so far so I can't complain about that.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I don't think the anti-stud crowd in this thread understands that the rules have changed from last year, and you can get great value in some of the studs this year vs. the mediocre players, who are more expensive this year. If Aaron Rodgers has a year like last year, he's a steal at $29 vs. mediocre guys like Kolb at $21 and Cassel at $13. If AJ has a year like last year, he's a steal at $32 vs. 2 mediocre $16 WR's like Devin Thomas and Lee Evans

What you don't understand is that picking players - cheap or expensive - comes with a lot of variables that are impossible to predict. New rules haven't changed that fact. Picking a < $25 player isn't any less or more safe than picking a > $7 player. I picked Shonn Greene for $27. He's been an absolute disaster at that price. I picked Visanthe Shiancoe for $12. Shiancoe looks to be a steal at that price. The "all stud" strategy isn't any more valid or effective than a 28 man roster composed of great value players.

Of course I understand that -- I'm not predicting anything. I think the people who insult those who go with an 18-player roster, saying bigger rosters are obviously always better, are the ones who don't understand that. There are lots of variables that are impossible to predict, so to say that last year's results showing higher survival rate for those with bigger rosters proves the same applies to this year, despite the different rules, is faulty logic. When you take out all the non-viable smaller rosters (e.g., 1 QB, 4 WR's, 1 D, etc.), those with good player selection and lots of luck can do very well, even with an 18-player roster.

The "all stud" strategy isn't any more valid or effective than a 28 man roster composed of great value players.

I never said anything about an "all stud" strategy being more effective. I just said that those who are so sure that the "no stud" strategy with far more players is definitely better because of last year's results with different rules or the first 2 weeks' results where many non-viable smaller-roster teams were eliminated, shouldn't be so sure.What I did say is, "Much more important than roster size in this contest (as long as you have decent depth, which is doable with 18 players) is player selection and luck in those players staying healthy and performing to/above expectations."

I'd never insult an 18 man roster. That's silly. Here's the deal: luck and excellent roster planning is critical - be it an 18 man roster or a 30 man roster. I don't have a problem with picking an 18 man roster and therefore owning more elite players. That makes sense to me. What I argue with is the notion that this strategy is any safer or more valid.

<--- 18-man roster guy



I think it's a spirited discussion - that's all.

-QG

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I think you guys are investing too much energy into this discussion.

Because it's fun

this.we need more regression analysis imo.

Yes. I don't know anything about statistics or probability, but it sure is interesting hearing these discussions.

if survival versus roster size is a bell curve with a maximal value in the middle, you cant do any linear regression on historical data to arrive at an empirical rule of thumb on "optimal" roster size. i'm wondering if you cant get at it by doing a regression of predicted points versus number of studs where studs are defined as players costing more than a threshhold value, say $24. i would expect you could kludge some linear relationship together with fairly reliable regression coefficients and infer something about optimal roster size by this relationship.buehler? .... buehler?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Some great discussion in here which is what makes this contest so great. Here are my thoughts:

There are two phases to the contest: Phase One lasts for 13 weeks in which the object is to score enough points to move on to the next week. Phase Two lasts for 3 weeks in which the object is to score as many cumulative points as possible. There is a lot of luck needed in both and strategy, by my definition, is used to decrease the amount of luck needed. I think there is a different strategy needed for each phase, even if the difference isn't as great as some think. So the question is whether I would rather use my strategy and minimize luck needed during the 13 weeks of Phase One, or during the 3 weeks of Phase Two. To me, the answer was simple. I'd rather "hope" for luck "more" during a 3 week period than a 13 week period and therefore use the strategy that I "think" helps me more during the 13 weeks of Phase One.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I think you guys are investing too much energy into this discussion.

Because it's fun

this.we need more regression analysis imo.

Yes. I don't know anything about statistics or probability, but it sure is interesting hearing these discussions.

if survival versus roster size is a bell curve with a maximal value in the middle, you cant do any linear regression on historical data to arrive at an empirical rule of thumb on "optimal" roster size. i'm wondering if you cant get at it by doing a regression of predicted points versus number of studs where studs are defined as players costing more than a threshhold value, say $24. i would expect you could kludge some linear relationship together with fairly reliable regression coefficients and infer something about optimal roster size by this relationship.buehler? .... buehler?

You're making what for dinner?

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Some great discussion in here which is what makes this contest so great. Here are my thoughts:There are two phases to the contest: Phase One lasts for 13 weeks in which the object is to score enough points to move on to the next week. Phase Two lasts for 3 weeks in which the object is to score as many cumulative points as possible. There is a lot of luck needed in both and strategy, by my definition, is used to decrease the amount of luck needed. I think there is a different strategy needed for each phase, even if the difference isn't as great as some think. So the question is whether I would rather use my strategy and minimize luck needed during the 13 weeks of Phase One, or during the 3 weeks of Phase Two. To me, the answer was simple. I'd rather "hope" for luck "more" during a 3 week period than a 13 week period and therefore use the strategy that I "think" helps me more during the 13 weeks of Phase One.

best argument for a large roster i've heard so far.my response: id rather optimize my chance to win the finals than optimize my chance to make the finals.

 

[Moonlight]

Additionally the first 2 weeks have been non-bye weeks. Having a 4th D or PK will result, if there is a sweet spot for 3, in higher survival rates during bye weeks for those carrying 4.

Well, the thing is that the bye weeks impact all positions, not just kickers. It remains to be seen if investing in that 4th kicker for those weeks provides enough margin to make up for the losses at other positions too. -QG

True. For me since I had 10 WRs and 6 RBs putting another few dollars to go from 3 to 4 Defenses in my mind was the thing to do.

 

[Jayrod]

Some great discussion in here which is what makes this contest so great. Here are my thoughts:There are two phases to the contest: Phase One lasts for 13 weeks in which the object is to score enough points to move on to the next week. Phase Two lasts for 3 weeks in which the object is to score as many cumulative points as possible. There is a lot of luck needed in both and strategy, by my definition, is used to decrease the amount of luck needed. I think there is a different strategy needed for each phase, even if the difference isn't as great as some think. So the question is whether I would rather use my strategy and minimize luck needed during the 13 weeks of Phase One, or during the 3 weeks of Phase Two. To me, the answer was simple. I'd rather "hope" for luck "more" during a 3 week period than a 13 week period and therefore use the strategy that I "think" helps me more during the 13 weeks of Phase One.

best argument for a large roster i've heard so far.my response: id rather optimize my chance to win the finals than optimize my chance to make the finals.

Both of them.I've been in the final round and finished out of the money because I had a survival team, but not a high scoring team.My goal is to get in the top 100, so I tried to pick a group of highly talented players that could go bananas for three weeks while avoiding bye week problems and spreading it among all the positions. As a result, my roster is 22. I think that is about the minimum that I could feel comfortable with making it to the end but spent some bigger money on players in several spots. I may have gone overboard with 4 defenses & 4 kickers, and too thin with only 4 RB's and 5 WR's. I'm not worried about my WR's, but with Reggie's injury and Spiller's no show..I'm in trouble at RB. Foster & Hightower will have to continue to carry me.

 

[gregjcross]

Some great discussion in here which is what makes this contest so great. Here are my thoughts:There are two phases to the contest: Phase One lasts for 13 weeks in which the object is to score enough points to move on to the next week. Phase Two lasts for 3 weeks in which the object is to score as many cumulative points as possible. There is a lot of luck needed in both and strategy, by my definition, is used to decrease the amount of luck needed. I think there is a different strategy needed for each phase, even if the difference isn't as great as some think. So the question is whether I would rather use my strategy and minimize luck needed during the 13 weeks of Phase One, or during the 3 weeks of Phase Two. To me, the answer was simple. I'd rather "hope" for luck "more" during a 3 week period than a 13 week period and therefore use the strategy that I "think" helps me more during the 13 weeks of Phase One.

best argument for a large roster i've heard so far.my response: id rather optimize my chance to win the finals than optimize my chance to make the finals.

Both of them.I've been in the final round and finished out of the money because I had a survival team, but not a high scoring team.My goal is to get in the top 100, so I tried to pick a group of highly talented players that could go bananas for three weeks while avoiding bye week problems and spreading it among all the positions. As a result, my roster is 22. I think that is about the minimum that I could feel comfortable with making it to the end but spent some bigger money on players in several spots. I may have gone overboard with 4 defenses & 4 kickers, and too thin with only 4 RB's and 5 WR's. I'm not worried about my WR's, but with Reggie's injury and Spiller's no show..I'm in trouble at RB. Foster & Hightower will have to continue to carry me.

I think a lot of very solid teams in this, no matter roster size, went with fewer RBs this year because the options were so bad below $12 (at the time). I went with four, R> Matthews, Forte, A.Foster and Tomlinson. We'll see if I survive byes.

 

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

19 MAN ROSTER

T.Brady (5)

D.Anderson (6)

A.Bradshaw (8)

C.Spiller (6)

A.Foster (7)

A.Johnson (7)

R.Moss (5)

M.Austin (4)

H.Nicks (8)

M.Williams (4)

M.Clayton (9)

J.Finley (10)

V.Shiancoe (4)

O.Mare (5)

M.Bryant (8)

J.Hanson (7)

Saints (10)

Tampa (4)

Ok i know this is a short roster and there is alot of SOLID arguments against rolling with a team built this way. But what i wanted to do was have a team thats unique and somewhat powerful if everything lined up right. Yes im playing with FIRE at qb and rb. But with a max of 2 rb's i decided to gamble on just those 3 guys to see if i can get decent production while my wr's/te's really hold the team up. I thought this team would be unique cause really Nicks was really valuable compared to the bettter bargains and i didnt think many would own him especially with AJ AUSTIN and MOSS. I expect my flex to come from this position every week possibly with me spending a whopping 123.00 at the wr position . My younger price guys have done well in Clayton and M.Williams thus far giving me some added protection of really down weeks thus far.

So with all that being said how you guys feel about this team, I wouldnt be shocked to see it take a early exit due to my rb/qb issues but if i was happen to make it deep in this contest i likes the chance of some very big games of this group of guys.

 

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

Random Stats:

Team with the most money spent at the wr position (146.00) ALIVE

Team with the most money spent at the qb position (194.00) DEAD

Team with the most money spent at qb thats still alive (156.00) ALIVE

Team with the most money spent at the te position (90.00) ALIVE

 

[kevzilla]

19 MAN ROSTER

T.Brady (5)

D.Anderson (6)

A.Bradshaw (8)

C.Spiller (6)

A.Foster (7)

A.Johnson (7)

R.Moss (5)

M.Austin (4)

H.Nicks (8)

M.Williams (4)

M.Clayton (9)

J.Finley (10)

V.Shiancoe (4)

O.Mare (5)

M.Bryant (8)

J.Hanson (7)

Saints (10)

Tampa (4)

Ok i know this is a short roster and there is alot of SOLID arguments against rolling with a team built this way. But what i wanted to do was have a team thats unique and somewhat powerful if everything lined up right. Yes im playing with FIRE at qb and rb. But with a max of 2 rb's i decided to gamble on just those 3 guys to see if i can get decent production while my wr's/te's really hold the team up. I thought this team would be unique cause really Nicks was really valuable compared to the bettter bargains and i didnt think many would own him especially with AJ AUSTIN and MOSS. I expect my flex to come from this position every week possibly with me spending a whopping 123.00 at the wr position . My younger price guys have done well in Clayton and M.Williams thus far giving me some added protection of really down weeks thus far.

So with all that being said how you guys feel about this team, I wouldnt be shocked to see it take a early exit due to my rb/qb issues but if i was happen to make it deep in this contest i likes the chance of some very big games of this group of guys.

Brother, I've counted that roster a bunch of times, but I keep getting 18. Did you leave one off?

 

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

19 MAN ROSTER

T.Brady (5)

D.Anderson (6)

A.Bradshaw (8)

C.Spiller (6)

A.Foster (7)

A.Johnson (7)

R.Moss (5)

M.Austin (4)

H.Nicks (8)

M.Williams (4)

M.Clayton (9)

J.Finley (10)

V.Shiancoe (4)

O.Mare (5)

M.Bryant (8)

J.Hanson (7)

Saints (10)

Tampa (4)

Ok i know this is a short roster and there is alot of SOLID arguments against rolling with a team built this way. But what i wanted to do was have a team thats unique and somewhat powerful if everything lined up right. Yes im playing with FIRE at qb and rb. But with a max of 2 rb's i decided to gamble on just those 3 guys to see if i can get decent production while my wr's/te's really hold the team up. I thought this team would be unique cause really Nicks was really valuable compared to the bettter bargains and i didnt think many would own him especially with AJ AUSTIN and MOSS. I expect my flex to come from this position every week possibly with me spending a whopping 123.00 at the wr position . My younger price guys have done well in Clayton and M.Williams thus far giving me some added protection of really down weeks thus far.

So with all that being said how you guys feel about this team, I wouldnt be shocked to see it take a early exit due to my rb/qb issues but if i was happen to make it deep in this contest i likes the chance of some very big games of this group of guys.

Brother, I've counted that roster a bunch of times, but I keep getting 18. Did you leave one off?

LOL, Oops i did, Gronkowski as well.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

Might as well throw in my Last year I was one of the proponents of the small roster team, basically arguing the same thing as this year's small rosters--"If I can get lucky enough to get to the finals, I'll have an advantage". I still think that's likely to be true, but I've also decided that it's just too unlikely to get to the finals that way. Last year just a couple of injuries that coincided with the week a stud had a poor performance was enough to knock me out, and most of the small stud teams had the same result. Meanwhile, the bigger rosters could absorb the injuries and stay alive. Since you can't win it if you're not in the finals, this year I decided on a different approach. I'm still not in the "you have to have 30 guys" camp, but I do think you need to take advantage of the value of quantity. I don't think that advantage plays out as well at QB or TE, where the studs seem to produce higher scores more consistently (sorry, but I don't see Anderson, Moore, Smith and Flacco producing many weeks where any of them outscore Rodgers), but at RB and WR, I'm now in the quantity over quality camp. I guess it's sort of a hybrid approach to the question, as it gave me in the 25-man roster.

Last year was very different from this year because the player costs were much different. Here are some specifics based on my team this year.This year, I was able to load up with the top QB, #1 and #4 RB, #1 WR, #22 WR who some ranked in the top 10-12 (Welker), and the #3 TE who some ranked way above the other TE's (Finley). Here's a comparison of how much these guys cost this year vs. their counterparts' cost in 2009:

Pos   2010  2009QB1	29	 37RB1	40	 50RB4	37	 45WR1	32	 44WR22   21	 25TE3	21	 22Total $180  $223Remaining $ for other players:  $70 in 2010 vs. $27 in 2009, a $43 differenceKnown stud value before 2010 contest closed: Foster at $13, owned by 71.5% of participants, vs. nobody in 2009 owned even near half as much.Known clear starting QB before 2010 contest closed:  Anderson at $6, the most owned QB at 29.4%, vs. $9 for 2009 cheapest clear starter.

So this year, if you took the above 6 studs and Foster and Andersen, you'd have $57 left for the remaining 10 slots, from which you'd only need to have 1 of the 8 starting skill positions filled (1 QB, 2 RB's, 3 WR's, 1 TE, 1 flex). In 2009, considering the cheapest starting QB in 2009 was $9, and you'd have needed to have at least 2 starting QB's for bye coverage, that lineup would have left you with a max of $18 to fill 11 remaining slots, including 2 starting skill positions -- a nearly impossibly tall order to field a viable team. Obviously, this year, even though you'd have more studs at this point, you'd also have far better depth with nearly 3 times the money left over for fewer remaining slots required.So, counting Foster as a stud, since most participants in the contest knew he would be a top RB and should have cost much more, this year you could get these 7 studs for the 8 starting skill positions and still have a decent amount of money left over to fill out the rest of the roster. You couldn't come anywhere near that last year.If these guys all stay healthy, the max of these guys you'd lose for a bye week is 2, leaving you with 5 studs for 8 positions, along with 7 lower-priced players to cover for the studs on bye. Last year, with only 5 clear studs affordable, with bye weeks you'd probably have to get by with only 3 of those 8 positions covered by your studs, putting you at a severe disadvantage vs. the competition. That's a huge difference, making it much more likely that a team loaded with studs would survive the bye weeks this year vs. last year.Even if they don't all stay healthy, you could afford pretty good depth behind the studs because of their much lower cost vs. last year.

2010  2009$1 RB's  1	  5$1 WR's  3	  8$1 TE's  0	  6$1 PK's  0	 11$1 D's   0	  8

Looking at the number of $1 players available above, last year, with an extra $5, you could easily add 5 more players, one at each non-QB position. That would have been impossible this year, where it cost much more to add extra players. With the increased cost of cheap players this year, you get a lot less for downgrading from a stud than you would have gotten last year. The increased cost of cheap players is another reason the stud strategy is more viable this year.This analysis shows clearly that, because of the vastly differently priced player pools this year vs. last year, a more stud-oriented strategy this year is much more viable than it would have been last year. The difference may not make it clear that a more stud-oriented strategy is the better strategy than a no-stud strategy, but it does make it clear that it's a far better strategy this year than it would have been last year.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Some great discussion in here which is what makes this contest so great. Here are my thoughts:There are two phases to the contest: Phase One lasts for 13 weeks in which the object is to score enough points to move on to the next week. Phase Two lasts for 3 weeks in which the object is to score as many cumulative points as possible. There is a lot of luck needed in both and strategy, by my definition, is used to decrease the amount of luck needed. I think there is a different strategy needed for each phase, even if the difference isn't as great as some think. So the question is whether I would rather use my strategy and minimize luck needed during the 13 weeks of Phase One, or during the 3 weeks of Phase Two. To me, the answer was simple. I'd rather "hope" for luck "more" during a 3 week period than a 13 week period and therefore use the strategy that I "think" helps me more during the 13 weeks of Phase One.

best argument for a large roster i've heard so far.my response: id rather optimize my chance to win the finals than optimize my chance to make the finals.

Very valid of course. Different strokes and all that.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Sunday morning sim run

 

[CalBear]

I guess what I'm saying is, based on the numbers so far, I do not see a powerful argument for 4 defenses vs 3 of 'em. The marginal value is just not there.

I think the issue is roster spots, not dollars. If you are running 30 players, it makes perfect sense to have 4 D and 4 K; all you're giving up is $4 for other positions. If you are running 18-21 players, you can't afford to waste roster spots with that many D's and K's.

 

[bro1ncos]

Does CJ Spiller's kickoff return TD count in his scoring. According to the rules, it looks like it only counts as a Defense scoring.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Does CJ Spiller's kickoff return TD count in his scoring. According to the rules, it looks like it only counts as a Defense scoring.

Yes, even though it only counts as a defensive score according to the rules, for some reason Spiller will also be credited with the points, too.

 

[Twilight]

Does CJ Spiller's kickoff return TD count in his scoring. According to the rules, it looks like it only counts as a Defense scoring.

No it doesn't. I actually thought this would come up more from Dez Bryant's TD last week.

 

[Typical White Guy]

Come on Derek Anderson (says the dissapointed Schaub owner)

Do believe Week 3 will be the earliest I've exited this comp.

 

[The Man With No Name]

Doesn't matter, but Ben Watson is listed as a Patriot on The Fantasy Star site.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Doesn't matter, but Ben Watson is listed as a Patriot on The Fantasy Star site.

There's at least a few guys that are listed as being on the wrong team. I think maybe OC just kept using the same list from last year. Mike Williams isn't on there.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Rivers 28+

Chris Johnson 24.4

A.Foster 16.6

A.Collie 41

Louis Murphy 13

Mike WIlliams 10.5

Wes Welker 8.5

Todd Heap 10.6

Matt Bryant 11

Kansas City 7

171 roughly, should be plenty

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I believe I'm at 150 even with Ronnie Brown (-14.6) remaining. I'll feel better once I see the turk's number, but if I move on, one more week until Big Ben arrives. I need the QB help.

 

[QuizGuy66]

162.75 182.75

+ (Fasano - 11.9)

+ (Janikowski - 11.0)

+ (Chicago - 8.0)

= a bit less

-QG

 

[radiohead417]

151.75 + (Ronnie Brown - 11.4) + (Brandon Marshall - 13.5). Stupid no return TDs, I have CJ Spiller and Leon Washington. I think that's enough to avoid the turk, but always fear the turk!

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I have CJ Spiller and Leon Washington.

Me too.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I have CJ Spiller and Leon Washington.

Me too.

Moi aussi.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I have CJ Spiller and Leon Washington.

Me too.

I have the Seahwks

 

[apalmer]

I have CJ Spiller and Leon Washington.

Me too.

Moi aussi.

Would someone please tell the Seattle coaching staff that Washington's healthy enough to play RB?

 

[Bankerguy]

Big weeks from ADP, Roy Williams, Murphy, Bradshaw, Seattle D, Hernandez, Foster. Still have no score at QB (Big Ben) but Rodgers and possibly Finley still to add to my 175.

Garcon and Owens are the 2 picks that are haunting me right now.

 

[apalmer]

I believe I'm at 150 even with Ronnie Brown (-14.6) remaining. I'll feel better once I see the turk's number, but if I move on, one more week until Big Ben arrives. I need the QB help.

Two more weeks until Ben arrives--Week 5 is his bye.

 

[ctriopelle]

Mid 150's already with a likely (smaller) bump yet to come. Fully expecting to make the cut easily this week, but my team is REALLY under performing to the sim...although that should help in the UQ.

 

[The Kansas Comet]

152.9 with Rodgers (-18.1), Finley (-12.1) and James Jones (-10.5) remaining. Nice to see Barber contributing something to my team this week, but I know my running backs are going to cost me big time in the near future.

 

[The Iguana]

For all of the depth proponents....Why doesn't it seem to apply to kickers and defenses, the most volitile positions in the contest?The majority have 3 of each, but why not go 4? It only costs $2-5 to add a quality defense or kicker and you are given one more option to save your team with a big score during the byes...if you space them out, you always have 3 options. And defenses can never get injured (although any of them can put up a zero vs. a team like NO or ATL).

assuming this has been answered already but you can only score 1 of each in each week. with rb, wr and te you score up to 3, 4 and 2 of these. so it makes sense to have more depth there than a 4th k or d. last year I went with only 2 k and 2 d... really think 3 of each is the way to go for more possibilites.