The Iguana
Footballguy
bump.Doug Drinen said:
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 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter eaglezzz
- Start date
TheGrimReaper
Footballguy
Already running 11+ points ahead of the cut line the last two weeks compared to last year. Is scoring up more at the beginning of the year this year w/high % owned players? Is this the impact of expanded roster options? Tough to say at this point, but I am inclined to go with the latter. Will be interesting to see the roster size vs survival rate that is being posted as the weeks begin to pass. That IMO will hold a huge clue to determining best approach for next year, assuming rules stay static. Of course that will be coupled with choosing the right value plays to begin with.BaBastage said:
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot of the discussion of expanded rosters provides comment from the large roster side that "best ball" is maximized with the additional depth. I think that this is true, but also the compressed costs results in the opportunity to acquire more higher cost players (studs) which may also be contributing to the higher scoring. I think that the higher scores will continue throughout the entire contest.
benson_will_lead_the_way
Footballguy
How do you figure out what your team score is currently?
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
I use pen and paper, myself.If you look at the Turk's projections and look at the minimum, that's your score within the next whole point.-QG
I have a spreadsheet - have to enter the stats manually and it calculates the score, and which players will count.
bonesman
Footballguy
cool... upload it to google docs or something and let us all share!
djjosee
Footballguy
cool... upload it to google docs or something and let us all share!
I am very lazy.
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
166 with Finley tonight. 
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
Totally. Although DeAngelo Williams was as much or more and he's been pretty awful, too.
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
Update. Started with approximately 114 (per Turkomatic). Had Rodgers (28.8) minus Garrard (6.55) so that's an increase of 22.25. Had Finley for 25.0. Kickers didn't beat his top guy. Anyhow it washes out to about 161 or so. 21-kicker guy lives!!!!Btw, for those who are wondering crowd favorite 21-kicker guy is at 51.7% to advance according to the Turkomatic. He's got Rodgers and Finley going. Oh and Crosby and Gould of course-QG
-QG
Typical White Guy
Footballguy
Thank you Dan Carpenter and your glorious 16 pts. Made the cut by 1.2 points. Cutting that a bit close there...
PatrickT
Footballguy
You had me beat, I slid thru at 1.5 over on the strength of James Jones 10.5 point effort. I still think the right number of players is in the 24-26 range (I have 25), but you need to be better than me at picking them. My WRs suck horribly, and my RBs are not much better.
https://spreadsheets0.google.com/ccc?key=te...=CPyb8t4N#gid=0Try this - first time I have uploaded to google docs so I think it all came through.
I built this a few years ago and have not updated it - I might have changed a couple of things if I was more industrious, its not particularly pretty, but it is functional.
You need to input Yards for passing, rushing, and receiving; number of receptions, TDs (note this is total TDs - they all count 6 points), FGs (based on yardage), sacks, INTs, Fumbles and safties. I usually do this a few times on Sundays.
It will calculate your score, including your flex player. It "fits" my roster, so if you have more players at any given position you need to tweak the formulas. In a nutshell, it calculates each players score, then identifies the top QB score, top 2 RB scores, top 3 WR scores, Top TE score, and top K and D. It then will look at teh leftover RB, WR, and TE scores to find the highest remaining score as your flex.
As I look at it right now - you can change the formulas in column L to Large([your RB score range], 3), Large([your WR score range], 4), Large([Your TE score range], 2) to get the flex score - I include more than are necessary in the spreadsheet.
LittlePhatty
Footballguy
Survival Rate % by roster size (before the first bye week):
18 - 58.46%
19 - 64.57%
20 - 67.26%
21 - 68.68%
22 - 69.21%
23 - 73.01%
24 - 74.95%
25 - 76.37%
26 - 77.92%
27 - 81.12%
28 - 72.22%
29 - 78.87%
30 - 80.07%
18 - 58.46%
19 - 64.57%
20 - 67.26%
21 - 68.68%
22 - 69.21%
23 - 73.01%
24 - 74.95%
25 - 76.37%
26 - 77.92%
27 - 81.12%
28 - 72.22%
29 - 78.87%
30 - 80.07%
LittlePhatty
Footballguy
I bet some people didn't look at the scoring chart. It's all about turnovers, sacks and defensive TDs (including kick returns)."Points allowed" is a non-factor, so a team like the Jets can play an excellent NFL game but still score low in this contest. Seattle obviously came up big this week thanks to Leon Washington's two return TDs.
I agree, I think this is one of the little things they put in to see if your paying attention (like not including byes, return TD's not counting for individual players). I haven't looked at any numbers but I might be willing to bet that the correlation between price and points scored for defense is pretty low.
Overall contest survival rate - 65.24%
week 2 - 84.96%
week 2 - 84.96%
Code:
roster size / overall survival / week 2 survival18 / 58.46 / 80.0719 / 64.57 / 83.8420 / 67.26 / 86.1221 / 68.68 / 87.7722 / 69.21 / 88.7623 / 73.01 / 90.5224 / 74.95 / 89.7625 / 76.37 / 90.5626 / 77.92 / 91.9527 / 81.12 / 94.9728 / 72.22 / 94.2029 / 78.87 / 94.9230 / 80.07 / 95.18
Last edited by a moderator:
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
squeaked by with a 169
Wow! The 18 man rosters are being led to slaughter and we haven't had a bye week. This week with the exception of the 24 and 28 man squads, more was better at every level up in roster size. I think this is where the argument will completely change to smaller rosters being built solely for the playoffs.
eta: contest suggestion for next year. Allow 10 man rosters. The big rosters guys could then totally cruise through the first 10 weeks or so.
eta: contest suggestion for next year. Allow 10 man rosters. The big rosters guys could then totally cruise through the first 10 weeks or so.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's still early in the season but I just ran a regression on the defense points scored and price and it hsa a correlation of .0623, an R^2 of .00388, and in fact, the regression equation currently is Points = 20.63 - .335 * ($spent on Def), so currently for each additional dollar spent, you'd expect .33 points less. Again it's still early, but I'd expect the correalation and R^2 to both stay pretty low.I agree, I think this is one of the little things they put in to see if your paying attention (like not including byes, return TD's not counting for individual players). I haven't looked at any numbers but I might be willing to bet that the correlation between price and points scored for defense is pretty low.
To an extent. I spent for Pitt and Chicago becuase of the sack potential and TD potential. Playmakers like Troy P, Peppers, Hester seem to make things happen. About the only defensive stat that can be projected with any accuracy is sacks so I lean on those tools when picking team Ds.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
As bad as it's been for the 18-man teams so far, once the byes hit it's only going to get worse. I know the argument is that these 18-man teams should be better in weeks 14-16, but if the attrition keeps up at this rate there will seriously only be like 25-30 18-man rosters in the final 250.
bonesman
Footballguy
Sweet! Thank you very much! Everything seems to be working perfectly. Excellent job!https://spreadsheets0.google.com/ccc?key=te...=CPyb8t4N#gid=0Try this - first time I have uploaded to google docs so I think it all came through.
I built this a few years ago and have not updated it - I might have changed a couple of things if I was more industrious, its not particularly pretty, but it is functional.
You need to input Yards for passing, rushing, and receiving; number of receptions, TDs (note this is total TDs - they all count 6 points), FGs (based on yardage), sacks, INTs, Fumbles and safties. I usually do this a few times on Sundays.
It will calculate your score, including your flex player. It "fits" my roster, so if you have more players at any given position you need to tweak the formulas. In a nutshell, it calculates each players score, then identifies the top QB score, top 2 RB scores, top 3 WR scores, Top TE score, and top K and D. It then will look at teh leftover RB, WR, and TE scores to find the highest remaining score as your flex.
As I look at it right now - you can change the formulas in column L to Large([your RB score range], 3), Large([your WR score range], 4), Large([Your TE score range], 2) to get the flex score - I include more than are necessary in the spreadsheet.
May your generosity bring you prosperity and luck in this contest and beyond.
The Iguana
Footballguy
Time for a stats junky mini-book.The one thing I don't think either side in the "big roster" verses "little roster" argument takes into account is that the little roster folks (at least several of the vocal ones) are saying that it isn't just about survival but also about trying to win at the end with quality over quantity. Most of the "little roster" folks are just about surviving and then "hope for the best". That was kind of my philosophy as I filled out my roster. I figure it's a huge crap shoot just to make it to 250 out of 13000+ to start. If I get lucky enough to make it that far, then I'll hope my team can do something. The idea of building a team with the thought of finishing in the top 10 seems crazy to me. I just want to hang around and than "see what happens. All that said, just highlighting that the 18 player rosters have the lowest survival rating isn't going to "win" the debate.
One thing I find interesting that no one really discusses is the distribution of the number of teams entered at each roster size:
ALL - 13061
18 - 5416
19 - 1905
20 - 1338
21 - 961
22 - 799
23 - 615
24 - 491
25 - 402
26 - 308
27 - 233
28 - 180
29 - 142
30 - 271
More than 40% of all entries were the minimum roster size while just over 20% have 23 or more players. I would theorize that people that took the time to find ways to get a larger roster size are more likely to have taken the competition "seriously". There's likely a higher percentage of people in the 18 to 20 player range that filled out the contest form quickly without really looking over the rules or contemplating what it would take to survive or win. Thus, you have a much higher % of dropouts in that range based on lack of effort than at the larger roster size. I have no way of quantifying this but I think it is a fairly "safe" theory.
Taking that into account, it is hard to say what is better to "win" the game. It seems obvious that to just survive, bigger is better, to a point. Even just looking at the 20 to 30 roster sizes and not trying to determine how many 18 or 19 team rosters are "legit", there is a definite positive correlation between more players and better chance of survival. I find it interesting that there is a significant dip at 28 players but then another rise at 29 and 30.
So, theoretically looking at just survival, it's would seem that 27 is the optimal number of players at this point. I also have pulled queries for each position by count. that will be the next "chapter".
CalBear
Footballguy
The sample sizes above 25 are too small to make conclusions that specific. Right now it looks like 25-30 is more or less a wash, though that may change with bye weeks coming up.
The Iguana
Footballguy
Part 2... position by position.
QB:Num TOTAL LEFT %1 367 197 53.682 7365 4826 65.533 4480 2975 66.414 676 439 64.945+ 173 84 48.55
First, having the minimum number even before bye weeks is obviously a big negative. Seems obvious but just pointing it out. As I expected when I created my own entry, WR is the one place that bigger is always better. WR scoring is the one in any FF league that is the toughest to predict week to week and the one most likely to fluctuate greatly IMO. More WRs means more chances to hit, especially in a "best ball" format such as this. Even at the point of seeming mildy ridiculous at 11 or 12+, the survival rate is still well above average.
Assuming you avoid injuries, RB is a spot you can have fewer and get away with it. I think a big part of this is that it is harder to find lower priced RBs that will contribute enough to be part of your score in a given week. Looking at my own roster, I think I could easily see a good argument to combine from 7 RBs down to 5. So far, the $19 I spent on the bottom 3 guys could have been better spent on 1 guy that would contribute. That said, there is still a chance that I get a TD when I need it from McGahee, Scott and/or Ringer somewhere during the bye weeks.
So far at QB there isn't a significant difference between 2, 3 and 4 QBs to warrent pushing one number over the other. I think now that we are in the bye weeks, the advantages of 3 or 4 qbs will become apparent. Time will tell.
QB:Num TOTAL LEFT %1 367 197 53.682 7365 4826 65.533 4480 2975 66.414 676 439 64.945+ 173 84 48.55
Code:
RB:Num TOTAL LEFT %2 133 49 36.843 1101 648 58.864 4538 2925 64.465 4337 2888 66.596 1918 1318 68.727 684 460 67.258 261 173 66.289+ 89 60 67.42
Code:
WRsNum TOTAL LEFT %3 180 48 26.674 787 364 46.255 2938 1793 61.036 4172 2778 66.597 2576 1747 67.828 1308 956 73.099 610 456 74.7510 290 230 79.3111+ 200 149 74.50First, having the minimum number even before bye weeks is obviously a big negative. Seems obvious but just pointing it out. As I expected when I created my own entry, WR is the one place that bigger is always better. WR scoring is the one in any FF league that is the toughest to predict week to week and the one most likely to fluctuate greatly IMO. More WRs means more chances to hit, especially in a "best ball" format such as this. Even at the point of seeming mildy ridiculous at 11 or 12+, the survival rate is still well above average.
Assuming you avoid injuries, RB is a spot you can have fewer and get away with it. I think a big part of this is that it is harder to find lower priced RBs that will contribute enough to be part of your score in a given week. Looking at my own roster, I think I could easily see a good argument to combine from 7 RBs down to 5. So far, the $19 I spent on the bottom 3 guys could have been better spent on 1 guy that would contribute. That said, there is still a chance that I get a TD when I need it from McGahee, Scott and/or Ringer somewhere during the bye weeks.
So far at QB there isn't a significant difference between 2, 3 and 4 QBs to warrent pushing one number over the other. I think now that we are in the bye weeks, the advantages of 3 or 4 qbs will become apparent. Time will tell.
The Iguana
Footballguy
I would agree with that. That's why I posted what the actual team counts looked like. Everyone posts %'s but no one really looks at the numbers.
The differences between 25-30 can probably just be attributed to noise (random variation). That said, I think these charts aren't really telling us much we didn't know anyway. I mean, we know in a best ball format, larger rosters increases your chances at survival. We also know that smaller rosters decreases your chances at survival. This chart pretty much confirms this. But the agrument made by 18 man (and smaller rosters) is that selecting such would increase their chances of making it to the top 250, it's increasing their chances of winning this thing should they get there. Is this true? I don't know, nor do I think we'll ever really know. I do think that one of these "stud" teams probably would be the favorite over many of the "value" teams once in the top 250. However, I'm not sure this advantage doesn't disappear when you consider that it's not a head to head thing.
The Iguana
Footballguy
Part 3... te, d, k
TEsNum TOTAL LEFT %1 1119 523 46.742 8382 5402 64.453 3005 2175 72.384 501 383 76.455+ 54 38 70.37
TEs really deserve to go with RB and WR as the comparisons there are similar. I actually find it surprising that 4 TE teams seem to do so well. I would have thought that 3 would be about the number to have but with the flex spot, this can make some sense. It's also a smaller sample size but should be big enough to matter. My best guess is that most of those are 3 legit type TEs and a "flier" on a $1 guy but that's just a guess.
K and D are what I really find interesting in all this. I think it highlights well what others have posted from doing regression testing. 3 seems to be the number with the greatest return. After that, you are probably better off using the $'s and the roster spot on an extra WR. That seems to be the area with the greatest return for stretching the roster spot.
TEsNum TOTAL LEFT %1 1119 523 46.742 8382 5402 64.453 3005 2175 72.384 501 383 76.455+ 54 38 70.37
Code:
KsNum TOTAL LEFT %1 1093 539 49.312 8223 5400 65.673 2868 2040 71.134 606 410 67.665+ 271 132 48.71
Code:
DS TOTAL LEFT %1 1290 654 50.702 8623 5679 65.863 2577 1827 70.904 457 294 64.335+ 114 67 58.77TEs really deserve to go with RB and WR as the comparisons there are similar. I actually find it surprising that 4 TE teams seem to do so well. I would have thought that 3 would be about the number to have but with the flex spot, this can make some sense. It's also a smaller sample size but should be big enough to matter. My best guess is that most of those are 3 legit type TEs and a "flier" on a $1 guy but that's just a guess.
K and D are what I really find interesting in all this. I think it highlights well what others have posted from doing regression testing. 3 seems to be the number with the greatest return. After that, you are probably better off using the $'s and the roster spot on an extra WR. That seems to be the area with the greatest return for stretching the roster spot.
WisWolvrns
Footballguy
Not sure if these numbers are possible to get, but since we just completed 3 weeks, can a 3 week tally be done using weeks 1-3, just as if they were weeks 14-16?
It would be a good test to compare who the top combined total teams were for weeks 1-3 with respect to amount of players on their teams.
The 18 player rosters should be a large majority if their theory is a small roster will have a better shot at winning if they survive the first 13 weeks, right? Also the first 3 weeks have no NFL teams on bye and the most players not injured yet, so less of those effects would be present, which should make the 18 team rosters even more powerful by their logic.
I also agree with the previous poster that larger roster teams probably had people taking a more serious look at who to pick percentage-wise than the 18 team rosters. Which could also account for the higher loss rate of the 18 roster teams, since there is probably a higher amount of entries with less thought put into them submitted. Albeit, if you look at the total amount of subscribers compared to the total amount of submissions in the contest, a lot of the not too interested people never even put in lineups so are pre-excluded...
It would be a good test to compare who the top combined total teams were for weeks 1-3 with respect to amount of players on their teams.
The 18 player rosters should be a large majority if their theory is a small roster will have a better shot at winning if they survive the first 13 weeks, right? Also the first 3 weeks have no NFL teams on bye and the most players not injured yet, so less of those effects would be present, which should make the 18 team rosters even more powerful by their logic.
I also agree with the previous poster that larger roster teams probably had people taking a more serious look at who to pick percentage-wise than the 18 team rosters. Which could also account for the higher loss rate of the 18 roster teams, since there is probably a higher amount of entries with less thought put into them submitted. Albeit, if you look at the total amount of subscribers compared to the total amount of submissions in the contest, a lot of the not too interested people never even put in lineups so are pre-excluded...
Ted Lange as your Bartender
Footballguy
Was just about to suggest the same exercise. Who are the top 250 cumulative to this point as relation to their roster sizes?
Last edited by a moderator:
The Iguana
Footballguy
I wasn't expecting to show any great revelation here. Just was interested in some of the numbers up to this point. What I did find interesting is that much of what I used for my strategy based on feel is proved out via the numbers so far. Basically that is that you want 3 at each positions that requires 1 "starter" and that money is better spent on lots of WRs and TEs than on more RBs. RBs is the traditional spot to spend your resources in FF but I think it's apparent that from a survival standpoint, you need a few solid options at RB and then should load up on multiple options at WR.
The Iguana
Footballguy
This would be an intersting thing to see. Basically a break down of the number of teams in the top 50, top 100, top 250, etc by number of players on the roster.
My problem with this analysis , specifically for QB and RB's is that there are multiple strategies within each grouping. Take 2 QB's for example, this could mean 2 high priced studs, 2 middle tier player, 2 lower (less likely), it could mean 1 high priced and a middle tier, 1 high priced and a lower tier, 1 middle tier and a lower tier. So this one alone has 6 possible strategies (3 QB's would be even more). So let's just say, the majority of the top 250 teams (let's say 90%) had 2 QB's. So we draw the conclusion that the optimal roster has 2 QB's. Ok, great...now what? Which of these 2 QB strategies is the way to go?In addition to that, there is some dependancy going on....lets say 225 of the top 250 have 2 QB, 210 of them also have have 5 RB's, the other 25 teams are made of 5 RB's and 3 QB's. What's the more important factor then 2 QBs or 5 RB's (in this example the answer might be easier but it'll be much more complicated in real life). Did those teams get there because of selecting 5 RB's and most of them just happen to have 2 Qb's? Or b/c they had 2 Qb's and most of them just happen to have 5 rb's?
Actually many of the small roster guys argue quality over quantity will get them through to the finals. They stand by this for a few weeks until the decimation begins and they have to abandoned that postion. Then the argument solely focuses on the playoff weeks. Once those come, the cycle repeats and they disappeared until next year when the same argument is renewed with the qualifiers that the rules and/or prices changed or the sample size of two seasons isn't enough to make a conclusion.That said, they should have a fighting chance this year based on the sheer number of 18 man rosters entered.
The Iguana
Footballguy
Not that it means anything at all but I also find it interesting that after 3 weeks of scores, of my 30 man roster, I've used scores from exactly 18 of my players to survive to week 4.
QBs - 3 of 4
RBs - 4 of 7
WRs - 5 of 10
TEs - 2 of 3
Ks - 2 of 3
Ds - 2 of 3
Flex - 2 RBs and 1 TE.
QBs - 3 of 4
RBs - 4 of 7
WRs - 5 of 10
TEs - 2 of 3
Ks - 2 of 3
Ds - 2 of 3
Flex - 2 RBs and 1 TE.
More is better to a point. Someone could do a point scored per position per dollar spent analysis. Once you rank the position where the dollars were best spent from top to bottom, you'd optimized the stats above to fit that model.
The Iguana
Footballguy
That's true just looking at 18 vs 30 too, right? Right now, the stats show that having 2, 3 or 4 QBs isn't that big of a difference when bye weeks aren't involved. I think it will be intesting to compare QB stats as the bye weeks hit. My hypothesis is that 3 and 4 QB teams will have an advantage over 2 QB teams when the bye Weeks hit. Time will tell.At RB I think it shows that, at least so far, there isn't a huge advantage to having more than 4 RBs. I think as bye weeks roll around that teams with 5, 6 and 7 will fair significantly better than teams with 4. Right now, if you just pull the top stats it says you should have 3 QBs, 6 RBs, 10 WRs, 4 TEs, 3 Ks and 3Ds for a total of 29 players. Means nothing but just interesting to me.
Jayrod
Footballguy
I've used 17 of my 22:QBs - 1 of 2 (other is Ben)RBs - 3 of 4WRs - 5 of 5TEs - 2 of 3Ks - 2 of 4Ds - 3 of 4I expect to eventually use all of my players at some point (if I last that long). Unused players are:QB - Ben RoethlisbergerRB - Reggie BushWR - noneTE - Heath MillerK - Bironas & HansonD - 49ersAll of them are perfectly capable of contributing when healthy and playing. I've been lucky in that none of my picks are total duds yet. Bush's injury leaves me too thin at RB, but every other position is solid. I've come to realize I need one more WR, but I like my chances to score big with the 5 I have.
billyjohnson
Footballguy
218.9 in week one--still alive!!!173.4 in week two--still alive!!!170.4 in week three--still alive!!!
Matt Schaub $23
Ben Roethlisberger $14
Derek Anderson $6
Jahvid Best $27
Ahmad Bradshaw $18
Arian Foster $13
Leon Washington $8
Bernard Scott $6
Tashard Choice $4
Wes Welker $21
Malcom Floyd $17
Braylon Edwards $11
Mike Williams $8
Laurent Robinson $7
Harry Douglas $5
Louis Murphy $4
Deion Branch $3
Greg Camarillo $3
Jermichael Finley $21
Todd Heap $7
Aaron Hernandez $5
Tony Moeaki $4
Ryan Succop $2
Sebastian Janikowski $2
Jason Hanson $2
New Orleans Saints $4
Denver Broncos $3
Detroit Lions $2
Overall liking my team so far. Obviously I wish I went with Vick instead of Anderson but I was worried about only having one QB until Ben returns. I need one of my three low priced RBs to do something once the bye weeks get to me. My worst week is going to be week 7 if I make it that far. TEs are huge for me right now. I don't know if I have enough upside with my WRs, but they have been consistent to this point.
Ben Roethlisberger $14
Derek Anderson $6
Jahvid Best $27
Ahmad Bradshaw $18
Arian Foster $13
Leon Washington $8
Bernard Scott $6
Tashard Choice $4
Wes Welker $21
Malcom Floyd $17
Braylon Edwards $11
Mike Williams $8
Laurent Robinson $7
Harry Douglas $5
Louis Murphy $4
Deion Branch $3
Greg Camarillo $3
Jermichael Finley $21
Todd Heap $7
Aaron Hernandez $5
Tony Moeaki $4
Ryan Succop $2
Sebastian Janikowski $2
Jason Hanson $2
New Orleans Saints $4
Denver Broncos $3
Detroit Lions $2
Overall liking my team so far. Obviously I wish I went with Vick instead of Anderson but I was worried about only having one QB until Ben returns. I need one of my three low priced RBs to do something once the bye weeks get to me. My worst week is going to be week 7 if I make it that far. TEs are huge for me right now. I don't know if I have enough upside with my WRs, but they have been consistent to this point.
LittlePhatty
Footballguy
There was some discussion about this a few weeks ago, starting here.I still think it is safe to assume that quite a few of the 18-player rosters were "phoned in" - just filled out very quickly without much thought. It's just a fact that if you ask 10,000 people to perform a task, there will be a certain percentage of those people who will put in the absolute minimum amount of effort required, even if there is a reward involved. I'm sure there are plenty of 18-player rosters that were put together with a lot of thought too, but the others are the reason why there is such a large number of them.
