Subscriber Contest (2 Viewers)

[Stinkin Ref]

Week 1 trim to 12,000 teams (all advance if we have less entries) 91.9% advance

Week 2 trim to 10,000 teams 83.3%

Week 3 trim to 8,500 teams 85%

Week 4 trim to 7,250 teams 85.3% Very good week to have some bye players

Week 5 trim to 6,100 teams 84.1%

Week 6 trim to 5,000 teams 82%

Week 7 trim to 4,000 teams 80%

Week 8 trim to 3,100 teams 77.5%

Week 9 trim to 2,300 teams 74.2%

Week 10 trim to 1,600 teams 69.6% Not so good week to have some bye players

Week 11 trim to 1,000 teams 62.5%

Week 12 trim to 500 teams 50%

Week 13 trim to 250 teams 50%

but obviously damage could be somewhat minimized by having more players to choose from.....which I think is a big change when contest jumped from a max of 24 to a max of 30.....

 

[CalBear]

69% of LIVE entries have 21 or fewer, (i'm assuming that the top 3 weeks scores isn't counting the people that got eliminated in weeks 1 and 2, but I could be wrong). They make up 60% of top 25, and 64% of top 50. Since it's only a single week, I wouldn't consider that a significant difference.

7.6% of LIVE entries have 27 or greater, They make up 20% of top 25, but only 10% of top 50.

Looks to me like small rosters are both getting eliminated at a higher rate, and the remaining ones are performing near the top of the pack at a lower rate than larger rosters. Even if you argue that 69%->60% isn't statistically significant, there's certainly no evidence that the surviving small rosters are performing better than the surviving large rosters.

 

[Modog814]

All teams will have some studs. An 18 man roster could have dropped a $30 stud (keeping it's other studs) and add 10 players averaging $3 leaving it with 27 players (hence a large roster). There's a good chance that as we move on, there will be a larger roster that has a good percentage of the smaller rosters stud players covered.

Probably the best thing that could happen for the smaller rosters is for Foster to get injured after the bye weeks.

Yup, but I"m not specifically reffering to an 18 man roster. I'm talking about smaller rosters, not necessarily 18 man. And to have 10 guys average $3 a piece, you're pickings are pretty slim, you're looking at mostly $3 players, since theres a limit on $1 and $2 players, but let's say you limit your selection to 10 players between $1-$4.

And I'm just thinking out loud here, don't know where I'm going with this...

QB: 2 Qb's, Vick Yes, Tebow no.

RB: THere are 19 between 1 and 4....the one's that would work out (so far and I realize this may change by week 14): maybe Lynch, maybe B. Jackson, definitely Tolbert.

WR: 41 WR's....L.Murphy definitely, Henderson I guess, Branch?, Shipley, Clayton.

TE: 14 TE's....Moeaki, Pettigrew, D.Thomas?, Gronkowski

So, I'll say 10 definitely worth the money, 3 possibly, thats out of 75 choices (i'll remove Holt from WR's), so 13% of these players are performing well, another 4% kind of are.

Ok say let's say you drop a $30 stud and add 10 players avg $3.

Assume we don't know if you make the top 250:

There's roughly 829 Billion combination of players $4 or less (selection 10 of them)...selecting randomly leads to:

Getting 0 of these breakout players 13% of the time: So here you have $30 stud vs a hope that some no-one steps up and outperforms him. Edge: Stud

1 of these players: 31.8% One on One Stud vs Break out (plus additional chance of someone stepping up) Edge: Stud

2 of these players: 31.8% One on Two Edge: ????

3 of these players 17% One on three Edge: Break out

4 of these players 5.3%

5 + of these players 1.1%

Hmmm interesting....not exactly sure what it means yet though. It doesn't account for scoring potential (AJ best games are likely to be larger than break-out best games) Initially i had 1 stud vs two break out players as an edge toward the breakout players but have changed it to "????" This determination (and I'm going to guess it's different for many people) could be essentially what the large vs. small roster debate boils down to. Would you rather have 1 stud or 2 players that broke out for cheap ($<4)

So would you rather have any stud (i'll say around $28-32 since there's only 2 listed as exactly 30 and I don't want actual opinions on that specific player to influence the decision)

Would you choose 1 of: M.Turner, Mendenhall, Charles, Mathews, Wells, D.Williams, A.Johnson, Fitzgerald, R.Moss, R.Wayne (Rodgers, Brees, Manning if you want to include QB)

OR

Would you choose 2 of: Vick (if including QB), Lynch, Tolbert, Murphy, Henderson, Clayton, Moeaki, Pettigrew, Gronkowski (or any other player costing $4 or less)

 

[Modog814]

I count 15 of the top 25 in the list below have a roster of 21 or less. Only 5 have 27 or more. That to me seems that if you're okay with using this as data (which I do think the sample size is too small, it's 1 three week period, we should keep this going with rolling 3 week periods) it shows that the theory of 18 players rosters, which I don't take literal I take them at meaning shorter rosters, does in fact hold weight.

You're missing something obvious here. There are waaay more small rosters than large rosters, so they should be represented more in the top 25, and in fact the small rosters are underrepresented. 18-man rosters made up 41.5% of all the entries yet only make up 24% of the early season top-25. OTOH, 30-man rosters made up just 2.1% of all the entries yet make up 8% of the early season top-25. More generally, 84.5% of the entries were "smaller" (less than 24 players) but these only represent 72% of the top 25.Any way you slice it, the smaller rosters are taking a beating so far. The bye weeks will only make this more evident. Of course, we still don't know if these small rosters will realize some kind of an advantage in weeks 14-16 (they didn't last year, IIRC - but, I know, I know, this year's pricing is different, etc.)

I think very few of the very small rosters will make the final 250, and I'm still not buying the idea that those who do will have a better chance of winning it all when they get there. If some 18-man roster correctly chose the "right" studs to keep them alive until the final 250, they'll probably find themselves competing against some 20-, 22-, 24-man rosters who have the most, if not all, of the same studs and better depth.

The greater "smaller' rosters is accounted for here:

69% of LIVE entries have 21 or fewer, (i'm assuming that the top 3 weeks scores isn't counting the people that got eliminated in weeks 1 and 2, but I could be wrong). They make up 60% of top 25, and 64% of top 50. Since it's only a single week, I wouldn't consider that a significant difference.

7.6% of LIVE entries have 27 or greater, They make up 20% of top 25, but only 10% of top 50.

 

[Modog814]

69% of LIVE entries have 21 or fewer, (i'm assuming that the top 3 weeks scores isn't counting the people that got eliminated in weeks 1 and 2, but I could be wrong). They make up 60% of top 25, and 64% of top 50. Since it's only a single week, I wouldn't consider that a significant difference.

7.6% of LIVE entries have 27 or greater, They make up 20% of top 25, but only 10% of top 50.

Looks to me like small rosters are both getting eliminated at a higher rate, and the remaining ones are performing near the top of the pack at a lower rate than larger rosters. Even if you argue that 69%->60% isn't statistically significant, there's certainly no evidence that the surviving small rosters are performing better than the surviving large rosters.

Wasn't saying they were. There does seem to be evidence that some of the larger rosters are doing very well (5 in top 25) and others not (0 in top 26-50). Not saying it's true, but thought it looks interesting.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I count 15 of the top 25 in the list below have a roster of 21 or less. Only 5 have 27 or more. That to me seems that if you're okay with using this as data (which I do think the sample size is too small, it's 1 three week period, we should keep this going with rolling 3 week periods) it shows that the theory of 18 players rosters, which I don't take literal I take them at meaning shorter rosters, does in fact hold weight.

You're missing something obvious here. There are waaay more small rosters than large rosters, so they should be represented more in the top 25, and in fact the small rosters are underrepresented. 18-man rosters made up 41.5% of all the entries yet only make up 24% of the early season top-25. OTOH, 30-man rosters made up just 2.1% of all the entries yet make up 8% of the early season top-25. More generally, 84.5% of the entries were "smaller" (less than 24 players) but these only represent 72% of the top 25.Any way you slice it, the smaller rosters are taking a beating so far. The bye weeks will only make this more evident. Of course, we still don't know if these small rosters will realize some kind of an advantage in weeks 14-16 (they didn't last year, IIRC - but, I know, I know, this year's pricing is different, etc.)

I think very few of the very small rosters will make the final 250, and I'm still not buying the idea that those who do will have a better chance of winning it all when they get there. If some 18-man roster correctly chose the "right" studs to keep them alive until the final 250, they'll probably find themselves competing against some 20-, 22-, 24-man rosters who have the most, if not all, of the same studs and better depth.

The greater "smaller' rosters is accounted for here:

69% of LIVE entries have 21 or fewer, (i'm assuming that the top 3 weeks scores isn't counting the people that got eliminated in weeks 1 and 2, but I could be wrong). They make up 60% of top 25, and 64% of top 50. Since it's only a single week, I wouldn't consider that a significant difference.

7.6% of LIVE entries have 27 or greater, They make up 20% of top 25, but only 10% of top 50.

Yes, so the smaller rosters are performing worse than expected, and the larger rosters are performing better than expected. And as has already been pointed out, even if you argue that these differences aren't significant, the argument in favor of smaller rosters is that they will perform better over a cumulative three-week, no bye-week stretch. It's not enough to point out that they're not worse than large rosters.

You seem to be arguing that smaller rosters are a viable strategy, but the stats you're posting don't support that. There is absolutely no doubt that smaller rosters are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to surviving weeks 1-13; in order for the smaller roster strategy to make any kind of sense, they must provide a significant advantage in a cumulative three week period, and in the weeks 1-3 sample they haven't.

For this to be complete, you'd really need to include all the teams that were eliminated in weeks 1 and 2 and factor in their scores had they still been alive, but I'm totally confident that, if anything, this would make the results look worse for the smaller rosters.

 

[firstseason1988]

Week 1 trim to 12,000 teams (all advance if we have less entries) 91.9% advanceWeek 2 trim to 10,000 teams 83.3%Week 3 trim to 8,500 teams 85%Week 4 trim to 7,250 teams 85.3% Very good week to have some bye playersWeek 5 trim to 6,100 teams 84.1%Week 6 trim to 5,000 teams 82%Week 7 trim to 4,000 teams 80%Week 8 trim to 3,100 teams 77.5%Week 9 trim to 2,300 teams 74.2%Week 10 trim to 1,600 teams 69.6% Not so good week to have some bye playersWeek 11 trim to 1,000 teams 62.5%Week 12 trim to 500 teams 50%Week 13 trim to 250 teams 50%

Week 10 is a huge week for byes. Without looking, I know it is Green Bay's bye week, and I remember having trouble with my roster on week 10 avoiding this week's bye troubles. Getting by week 10 will be huge. I do have RB issues with bye week this week. Hope I make it.

 

[Marvelous]

Another thought on big rosters: I used all 30 rosters spots and have 21 for rb, wr, and te. My scores for my flex player has been 16.3, 16.3, 16.8. I have not done a lot of analysis, but I am guessing those are very high scores and very consistent scores for the flex position. And I would claim a larger roster size certainly helps with this.

 

[Modog814]

Yes, so the smaller rosters are performing worse than expected, and the larger rosters are performing better than expected.

Yup, that's what it looks like for this single given 3-week period. But it's a sample size of one. If I flip a coin 3 times and it lands heads twice, does that means heads is performing better than expected, yup. Does that mean heads is always going to come out better in a 3 flip sequence...Nope.

And as has already been pointed out, even if you argue that these differences aren't significant, the argument in favor of smaller rosters is that they will perform better over a cumulative three-week, no bye-week stretch. It's not enough to point out that they're not worse than large rosters.

I understand that that was someone's argument, or theory, not mine. Again, see above, it's one single 3-week period, not nearly enough to draw any conclusion from.

You seem to be arguing that smaller rosters are a viable strategy, but the stats you're posting don't support that. There is absolutely no doubt that smaller rosters are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to surviving weeks 1-13; in order for the smaller roster strategy to make any kind of sense, they must provide a significant advantage in a cumulative three week period, and in the weeks 1-3 sample they haven't.

Nope, I'm not arguing smaller rosters are a viable strategy. I don't know what the best strategy is. What i posted says that for this specific period smaller rosters performed a little worse than they should have, larger rosters a little better than expected. But I'll point out in this 3 week period, some of the top performers happen to be in the low to mid $20 price range. Nicks, Best, Cutler, Rivers, Welker, Knox, ect. Players that are probably (i think?) more likely to be on larger rosters. I'm not really interested in having one side win, i'm more intested in seeing which side wins. I see the more aggressive agruments are the ones against the smaller rosters, so I'm simply playing some devil's advocate to get people thinking. Plus I like discussing strategy for these things, stats and probabilities are my thing.

For this to be complete, you'd really need to include all the teams that were eliminated in weeks 1 and 2 and factor in their scores had they still been alive, but I'm totally confident that, if anything, this would make the results look worse for the smaller rosters.

Possibly, and I agree that this should be done to be complete, but I think it's already been agreed upon a portion (however large or small) of the 18 player rosters are probably junk entries. Unfortunately there is no real way to break out these entries into those who took the time to really consider options, and those who filled them out right away and never re-visited or filled them out last minute.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Another thought on big rosters: I used all 30 rosters spots and have 21 for rb, wr, and te. My scores for my flex player has been 16.3, 16.3, 16.8. I have not done a lot of analysis, but I am guessing those are very high scores and very consistent scores for the flex position. And I would claim a larger roster size certainly helps with this.

My first two Flex scores were both by Tim Hightower: 17.4 and 19.4This week it was Rob Gronkowski with 14.8I have 28 players and I wish I had taken 30. I'd probably pick two more WRs.7 RB9 WR4 TEA total of 20 combined.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Week 1 trim to 12,000 teams (all advance if we have less entries) 91.9% advanceWeek 2 trim to 10,000 teams 83.3%Week 3 trim to 8,500 teams 85%Week 4 trim to 7,250 teams 85.3% Very good week to have some bye playersWeek 5 trim to 6,100 teams 84.1%Week 6 trim to 5,000 teams 82%Week 7 trim to 4,000 teams 80%Week 8 trim to 3,100 teams 77.5%Week 9 trim to 2,300 teams 74.2%Week 10 trim to 1,600 teams 69.6% Not so good week to have some bye playersWeek 11 trim to 1,000 teams 62.5%Week 12 trim to 500 teams 50%Week 13 trim to 250 teams 50%

Week 10 is a huge week for byes. Without looking, I know it is Green Bay's bye week, and I remember having trouble with my roster on week 10 avoiding this week's bye troubles. Getting by week 10 will be huge. I do have RB issues with bye week this week. Hope I make it.

If I'm lucky enough to get to week 10, I have to sweat having Rivers on bye (hopefully Stafford will be back by then). I also have Murphy and Janikowski on bye. San Diego, Oakland, Green Bay, and New Orleans are on bye. A lot of teams that roll through weeks 1 through 9 could be trouble there.This week is the week that I'm most of. I did note that it has the lowest cut percentage, but I'm still concerned that I'm in some danger.My 26-player roster will be missing Stafford due to injury as well as ADP, Thomas Jones, Mike Williams, Berrian, Winslow and the Tampa Bay defense.The scariest position for me is RB - I have Foster, Spiller, Leon Washington and Bernard Scott. In 2 out of the 3 weeks my flex has been a RB so that is a further concern. 17 of my 26 picks have contributed. The 9 who haven't: Stafford, D Anderson, Spiller, L Washington, Scott, Berrian, H Douglas, Fasano, and Bironas-QG

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Yup, that's what it looks like for this single given 3-week period. But it's a sample size of one. If I flip a coin 3 times and it lands heads twice, does that means heads is performing better than expected, yup. Does that mean heads is always going to come out better in a 3 flip sequence...Nope.

While I agree that we're not drawing any definitive conclusions from the first three weeks, it's not a sample size of one. It's a sample of thousands of rosters. The argument is that a smaller, "stud-heavy" roster, while less likely to survive the rigors of a 13-week regular season half full of byes, is more likely to put up a high cumulative score over a three-week bye-free period at the end of the season. Thousands of people entered small rosters last year, and they didn't show this supposed advantage when the playoffs rolled around. Thousands of people entered small rosters this year, and they haven't displayed such an advantage in weeks 1-3.

Plus I like discussing strategy for these things, stats and probabilities are my thing.

Me too. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. It's a fascinating question - I'd actually be disappointed if we all agreed on a definitive answer. I waste far too many hours working out problems like these just for my own enjoyment.

 

[BassNBrew]

All teams will have some studs. An 18 man roster could have dropped a $30 stud (keeping it's other studs) and add 10 players averaging $3 leaving it with 27 players (hence a large roster). There's a good chance that as we move on, there will be a larger roster that has a good percentage of the smaller rosters stud players covered.

Probably the best thing that could happen for the smaller rosters is for Foster to get injured after the bye weeks.

Yup, but I"m not specifically reffering to an 18 man roster. I'm talking about smaller rosters, not necessarily 18 man. And to have 10 guys average $3 a piece, you're pickings are pretty slim, you're looking at mostly $3 players, since theres a limit on $1 and $2 players, but let's say you limit your selection to 10 players between $1-$4.

And I'm just thinking out loud here, don't know where I'm going with this...

QB: 2 Qb's, Vick Yes, Tebow no.

RB: THere are 19 between 1 and 4....the one's that would work out (so far and I realize this may change by week 14): maybe Lynch, maybe B. Jackson, definitely Tolbert.

WR: 41 WR's....L.Murphy definitely, Henderson I guess, Branch?, Shipley, Clayton.

TE: 14 TE's....Moeaki, Pettigrew, D.Thomas?, Gronkowski

So, I'll say 10 definitely worth the money, 3 possibly, thats out of 75 choices (i'll remove Holt from WR's), so 13% of these players are performing well, another 4% kind of are.

Ok say let's say you drop a $30 stud and add 10 players avg $3.

Assume we don't know if you make the top 250:

There's roughly 829 Billion combination of players $4 or less (selection 10 of them)...selecting randomly leads to:

Getting 0 of these breakout players 13% of the time: So here you have $30 stud vs a hope that some no-one steps up and outperforms him. Edge: Stud

1 of these players: 31.8% One on One Stud vs Break out (plus additional chance of someone stepping up) Edge: Stud

2 of these players: 31.8% One on Two Edge: ????

3 of these players 17% One on three Edge: Break out

4 of these players 5.3%

5 + of these players 1.1%

Hmmm interesting....not exactly sure what it means yet though. It doesn't account for scoring potential (AJ best games are likely to be larger than break-out best games) Initially i had 1 stud vs two break out players as an edge toward the breakout players but have changed it to "????" This determination (and I'm going to guess it's different for many people) could be essentially what the large vs. small roster debate boils down to. Would you rather have 1 stud or 2 players that broke out for cheap ($<4)

So would you rather have any stud (i'll say around $28-32 since there's only 2 listed as exactly 30 and I don't want actual opinions on that specific player to influence the decision)

Would you choose 1 of: M.Turner, Mendenhall, Charles, Mathews, Wells, D.Williams, A.Johnson, Fitzgerald, R.Moss, R.Wayne (Rodgers, Brees, Manning if you want to include QB)

OR

Would you choose 2 of: Vick (if including QB), Lynch, Tolbert, Murphy, Henderson, Clayton, Moeaki, Pettigrew, Gronkowski (or any other player costing $4 or less)

Solid reply Modog. One more variable for you to consider. When someone drops a $30 for 10 $3 players, they can pick up picks other than just against the stud they dropped. Those 10 extra players could be spread across RB/WR/TE/D/K. For instance, let's say I drop AJ at WR and Murphy/Clayton only post 15 rather than the 22 AJ puts up. It's definately possible that Seattle D, Bryant, and Moeaki pick up those 7 pts and then some by besting the scores of the others on my roster.For the record, I had Clayton, Henderson, Tolbert on my 29/30 early roster and dropped them among a few others to get/upgrade to Smith (Car) and Floyd as well as Pitt and Chic D on my roster. I mention that because I've been arguing the larger roster case here, I sold myself in pre-season on the value of having some more "stud" power for the stretch run. Ended up with a roster of 25 which seems thin at RB with only 3/5 contributing and 2 sucking and thin at WR with Berrian/Camarillo sucking.

 

[David Dodds]

Joe Bryant (not eligible to win any prize) is a pretty good example of how to craft a large-team entry (29 players)

Aaron Rodgers $29 20.30 32.75 28.80

Kyle Orton $12 20.95 26.85 29.90

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tim Hightower $13 17.40 19.40 4.50

Arian Foster $13 42.30 15.30 14.60

Leon Washington $8 1.20 1.70 0.00

Thomas Jones $7 3.90 9.30 16.10

Fred Taylor $6 8.70 1.10 1.60

Mike Bell $5 0.00 0.00 1.40

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wes Welker $21 26.40 15.80 8.50

Malcom Floyd $17 7.80 18.50 21.70

Pierre Garcon $12 7.30 2.10 0.00

Lance Moore $8 5.30 0.00 32.90

Bernard Berrian $7 1.30 4.40 3.10

Laurent Robinson $7 10.80 1.40 0.00

Legedu Naanee $7 22.00 2.40 9.10

Louis Murphy $4 6.80 21.10 16.90

Deion Branch $3 10.10 7.10 11.00

Justin Gage $2 0.00 11.40 6.90

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jermichael Finley $21 10.70 16.30 25.00

Jason Witten $19 7.20 12.60 16.10

Aaron Hernandez $5 6.00 19.10 16.80

Rob Gronkowski $3 7.60 2.90 14.80

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neil Rackers $4 13.00 17.00 8.00

David Buehler $4 1.00 10.00 13.00

Matt Bryant $2 12.00 12.00 11.00

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arizona Cardinals $4 10.00 3.00 11.00

Tampa Bay Buccaneers $3 6.00 10.00 4.00

St. Louis Rams $2 10.00 6.00 5.00

Detroit Lions $2 12.00 6.00 8.00

 

[BassNBrew]

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/c...mp;query_type=1

Not sure what the Gates/Finley owners will do in wk 10, but they are rolling right now.

 

[Modog814]

Yup, that's what it looks like for this single given 3-week period. But it's a sample size of one. If I flip a coin 3 times and it lands heads twice, does that means heads is performing better than expected, yup. Does that mean heads is always going to come out better in a 3 flip sequence...Nope.

While I agree that we're not drawing any definitive conclusions from the first three weeks, it's not a sample size of one. It's a sample of thousands of rosters. The argument is that a smaller, "stud-heavy" roster, while less likely to survive the rigors of a 13-week regular season half full of byes, is more likely to put up a high cumulative score over a three-week bye-free period at the end of the season. Thousands of people entered small rosters last year, and they didn't show this supposed advantage when the playoffs rolled around. Thousands of people entered small rosters this year, and they haven't displayed such an advantage in weeks 1-3.

Plus I like discussing strategy for these things, stats and probabilities are my thing.

Me too. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. It's a fascinating question - I'd actually be disappointed if we all agreed on a definitive answer. I waste far too many hours working out problems like these just for my own enjoyment.

Yes it's thousands of rosters, but it's only a single scenario. We're looking at the results of all these rosters through a single path (a single 3 week period) it's sample of 1. I agree, that the supposed advantage hasn't been displayed.

But if you have the top 250 teams, if everyone has an equal shot, eat team has a .4% chance of winning. If there is such an advantage of a stud team (lets say it raises it up to .5%), if 50 stud rosters make the finals (20%) those rosters have a 25% chance of winning the whole thing. The other 75% goes to the other 200 larger rosters (.375% each team gets). This means it's more likely that a larger roster will win, but in fact each stud team may have a better shot at winning. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean the advantage doesn't exist.

 

[Sinn Fein]

can someone bump last year's thread? We had the exact same conversation about roster size.

 

[jdoggydogg]

(Another small-vs-large-roster post)

I'm sure this has been said before, but to me it makes sense and is germane to the discussion. We're all picking players we think will outperform (or at the very least perform) at their dollar cost. That's true be it an 18 man roster or a 30 man roster. You could pick an awful 18 man roster and you can pick an awful 30 man roster.

So the reason I think a larger roster is ideal (24 to 28 players) is that you're reducing risk. This is not to say that you should not gamble. You can gamble on certain guys with any size roster. But the larger rosters seem to have a better shot at finishing in the money. I've read several opinions stating that the point isn't to make it far and fail, it's to make it all the way. But if you have a small roster, injuries and off weeks can kill you. And if you can't make it to the final three weeks, who cares how many studs you have?

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

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

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

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		  74.50

TEsNum	   TOTAL		 LEFT		  %1		  1119		  523		  46.742		  8382		 5402		  64.453		  3005		 2175		  72.384		   501		  383		  76.455+		   54		   38		  70.37

KsNum		TOTAL		 LEFT		  %1		  1093		  539		  49.312		  8223		 5400		  65.673		  2868		 2040		  71.134		   606		  410		  67.665+		  271		  132		  48.71

DS		TOTAL		 LEFT		  %1		  1290		  654		  50.702		  8623		 5679		  65.863		  2577		 1827		  70.904		   457		  294		  64.335+		  114		   67		  58.77

Much more important than roster size is depth at each position. Thousands of entrants rostered only the minimum starters at at least one position (i.e., 1 QB, 2 RB's, 3 WR's, 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 D). IMO, those no-depth rosters aren't viable, as they'll be short-handed during the bye weeks, even without injuries. There are thousands more with only 3 RB's or 4-5 WR's. Clearly, very few of these rosters will last very long, especially during the bye weeks. I'd say none of the thousands of no-depth smaller rosters has a chance of winning this contest, or probably even making the top 250.

The vast majority of these rosters were likely put together very quickly without much thought, as were many more smaller rosters (most fantasy leagues have smaller rosters). Putting together the larger rosters took much more time/thought.

Obviously, given that thousands of the smaller rosters are not viable because of their lack of any depth at all for at least one position, and many more were quickly put together without much thought, bunching those rosters with all the viable smaller rosters, and then pointing out the poor performance numbers for all these small roster teams as a whole doesn't prove that a smaller roster is an invalid strategy. The smaller rosters that were put together with lots of attention to value, at least minimum depth, and bye weeks may well have much higher performance numbers than the larger rosters, but that can't be shown in the numbers because of the dilution caused by the thousands of crappy smaller rosters.

Most entrants with smaller rosters don't care if other teams with small rosters get eliminated, especially the non-viable ones and the ones put together with little thought. What they care about is that their own team survives and that they have a chance to go far. If they chose players well, get lucky with injuries, and can get good performances from their non-bye week players during the bye weeks, they should do well, regardless of the bashing they get from posters saying their strategy is inferior.

IMO, the most important factor in this contest is player selection, not roster size. I'm sure when all's said and done, one can come up with an 18-player roster or a 30-player roster that would beat the contest winner's team. If only one can know in advance and select the right 18 or 30 players...

 

[LittlePhatty]

can someone bump last year's thread? We had the exact same conversation about roster size.

I think most people discussing it are aware of that, but they will say that the changes this year make it different (30 players, fewer cheap guys). I wonder if there is a "sweet spot". Take it to extremes: minimum 10, maximum 50.Wouldn't it be obvious that 10 is too few? I think it would be obvious to most anyone.But, is 50 too many? That's an average of $5 per player. You could take some $7 or $8 guys, maybe even $10 or $11 and balance them out with the $2 and $3 selections. There are quite a few cheap players breaking out, as always.So if there is a breaking point of "too many", is it below or above this year's limit of 30?At one point I had 30 players selected that I really liked and I had $12 left. I could have picked 33 easily. I backed off that and wound up going with 28.

 

[The Man With No Name]

Have used 19 of 23 so far.

QB 2-3 (Anderson)

RB 4-5 (Barber)

WR 6-7 (Garcon)

TE 3-3

PK 2-3

TD 2-2

Have 6 on BYE week 4 including 3 of 5 running backs. Turner vs. San Fran and Foster at Oakland will be used :(

Have used just 1 player all 3 weeks- Santana Moss, my highest priced receiver.

WR was used as flex weeks 1 & 2, TE week 3.

 

[ratbast]

Ive said from the start it's possible for first 20 players to be the same and the remaining $s spent on a stud for one team is spread out for depth on another so its not really roster size but rather an analysis on the rosters that bought all mid priced vs. the rosters that bought stud and bargains or studs and nothing even.

The team with more players that are say $10 away from the avg vs the team with more avg. priced players is probably more indicative of a success pattern. (either way I am not sure)

Like a Rotisserie baseball auction.

 

[gregjcross]

Week 1 trim to 12,000 teams (all advance if we have less entries) 91.9% advanceWeek 2 trim to 10,000 teams 83.3%Week 3 trim to 8,500 teams 85%Week 4 trim to 7,250 teams 85.3% Very good week to have some bye playersWeek 5 trim to 6,100 teams 84.1%Week 6 trim to 5,000 teams 82%Week 7 trim to 4,000 teams 80%Week 8 trim to 3,100 teams 77.5%Week 9 trim to 2,300 teams 74.2%Week 10 trim to 1,600 teams 69.6% Not so good week to have some bye playersWeek 11 trim to 1,000 teams 62.5%Week 12 trim to 500 teams 50%Week 13 trim to 250 teams 50%

Good post. Too late to help people now but i feel much better about having my week 4 byes, and getting them over with! Peyton Manning $28 39.65 30.45 34.15 Sam Bradford $9 15.65 19.35 16.95 Derek Anderson $6 21.75 6.05 17.10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ryan Mathews $29 8.20 6.50 0.00 out? Matt Forte $20 35.60 15.10 5.30 Arian Foster $13 42.30 15.30 14.60 LaDainian Tomlinson $12 8.80 12.20 16.30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Greg Jennings $26 19.20 6.60 9.80 DeSean Jackson $25 7.00 24.00 27.10 Michael Crabtree $22 3.20 4.20 6.70 Mike Williams $8 14.00 13.40 10.50 bye Louis Murphy $4 6.80 21.10 16.90 Greg Camarillo $3 3.90 1.30 3.60 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Vernon Davis $19 19.30 13.80 6.70 Visanthe Shiancoe $12 19.60 17.60 2.20 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Joe Nedney $3 6.00 2.00 7.00 Matt Bryant $2 12.00 12.00 11.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------San Francisco 49ers $5 3.00 2.00 2.00 St. Louis Rams $2 10.00 6.00 5.00 Detroit Lions $2 12.00 6.00 8.00 TOTAL 220.65 / 168.75 / 155.05

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

NOt that it matters for me as my gronk/hernandez pair both outscored him, but my svreen shows FBG's only crediting Zach Miller with 2.2 pts and he obviously did a lot better than that considering he had a 22 yard td, and 64 total rec yds...

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

IMO, the most important factor in this contest is player selection, not roster size.

Kyle Orton		   $12	11.8   77.8 |  59  84  50 Michael Vick		 $ 3	 4.0   76.9 | 120  74  36 Philip Rivers		$19	14.7   75.9 |  65  69  81 Lex Hilliard		 $ 4	 0.2   91.3 |   0  57   0 Darren McFadden	  $14	 5.1   79.9 |  16  81  58 Adrian Peterson	  $38	12.0   79.6 | 152  40  33 Rashad Jennings	  $ 3	 6.7   78.1 |  76  57  67 Arian Foster		 $13	75.1   77.3 |   3  90  79 Frank Gore		   $34	15.9   76.6 | 138  19  93 Ahmad Bradshaw	   $18	26.0   75.4 |  42 129  36 Jason Snelling	   $ 5	 2.2   75.1 | 182   0 108 Louis Murphy		 $ 4	32.5   86.6 |  41  30  42 Mike Williams		$ 8	33.8   79.6 |  35  70  61 Austin Collie		$ 8	 5.4   79.3 |   8 137  13 Mark Clayton		 $ 3	 6.2   78.3 |  18  64  90 Deion Branch		 $ 3	10.9   78.2 |  40  69  73 Roddy White		  $27	11.2   77.9 |  46  61  81 Santana Moss		 $18	11.2   77.8 |  64  92  39 Malcom Floyd		 $17	21.3   77.5 |  88  76  46 Steve Johnson		$ 4	 0.9   76.0 |  37  96  67 Jabar Gaffney		$16	14.1   75.1 |  72 136  17 Dustin Keller		$ 9	 9.0   83.7 | 121  31  23 Antonio Gates		$26	 4.6   82.6 |  64  46  46 Jermichael Finley	$21	31.9   79.6 |  81  67  40 Aaron Hernandez	  $ 5	17.4   78.0 |  74  66  60Seattle Seahawks	 $ 3	 3.1   75.4 |  77 150  23

Above are the 25 players whose owners have the highest % survival rate (top 26 -- 2 tie for 25th). The owners of these players have over a 75% survival rate, some well over 75%, vs. the 65% overall survival rate.IMO, the teams that make the top 250 are likely to have at least a few of the players on this leader board after Week 13. I think that's a far better indicator of who's going far than roster size (not including those with 0 depth at any position).With a couple of quirky exceptions, these players presumably have outperformed their cost, presenting great value to help their teams survive. After 3 weeks, there are a bunch of cheap players on this list, but there are also a few higher-priced studs. I think this list will look quite different after Week 13, with some of these cheaper players falling off (Lex Hilliard? Rashad Jennings? Seattle D?) and other players joining the list. I think the best-performing teams in this contest at the end will have a mix of players from this list, regardless of roster size. I only have an 18-player roster, but I have 5 guys from this list, including 3 cheaper players. If I end up with at least that many at the end, I think I'll have a decent chance to make the finals (if I can get by the week 10 bye week).

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

IMO, the teams that make the top 250 are likely to have at least a few of the players on this leader board after Week 13

On the other hand, I find myself cheering against my "stud" players to increase my team's uniqueness by eliminating others with those guys. The teams that do best will have some players that come on strong at just the right time for them, even though they may never make this leader board. Luck is very important in this contest.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

IMO, the most important factor in this contest is player selection, not roster size.

Part of player selection is going with studs vs. no studs. IMO, that's the more relevant discussion than roster size.Assuming that the #1 player at each skill position is considered a "stud," here are the ownership survival rates for teams with each of those top studs:

Survival Rate	Overall Contest Survival RateAaron Rodgers:Still Alive	2152	72.31	65.24Chris Johnson:Still Alive	1282	69.33	65.24Andre Johnson:Still Alive	1994	69.82	65.24Antonio Gates:Still Alive	 388	82.55	65.24All 4 combined:Still Alive	  38	88.37	65.24

So for each top player, the survival rate is higher than the overall rate, and highest when you combine all 4, even though the rosters with these players are likely shorter, and shorter rosters have a lower than average survival rate. Taking out the crappy rosters without any depth at all, these survival rates would be even higher.A larger % of teams with these players will get eliminated during their bye weeks (though I have 3 of these guys, and have used none of them every week), and of course if they get injured and miss time, but if they can survive until the finals, they likely will be able to outscore teams without studs, if weeks 14-16 are like weeks 1-3. Considering that only Gates has performed as the #1 at his position so far, there's also lots of upside for these studs.I think this type of analysis is much more effective in determining if a stud/smaller roster strategy is viable than just lumping all the smaller rosters together.

 

[Balco]

184 this week with my 30 man roster. My receiving corps will really be put to the test with 2 players likely out and 3 on byes:

Pierre Garcon $ 12 OUT?

Mike Thomas $ 11

Mike Williams (TB) $ 8 BYE

Dexter McCluster $ 7 BYE

Laurent Robinson $ 7 OUT?

Sammie Stroughter $ 4 BYE

Louis Murphy $ 4

Deon Branch $ 3

Justin Gage $ 2

I really need a big game out of Thomas, Murphy, Branch or Gage. I also have Favre (other qbs Bradford and Rivers) and Adrian Peterson off.

 

[LittlePhatty]

NOt that it matters for me as my gronk/hernandez pair both outscored him, but my svreen shows FBG's only crediting Zach Miller with 2.2 pts and he obviously did a lot better than that considering he had a 22 yard td, and 64 total rec yds...

Mine says 18.4 and I used him as my TE this week. If it is a glitch I hope it didn't keep people below the line.Wait - did you accidentally take the other Zach Miller?

 

[QuizGuy66]

NOt that it matters for me as my gronk/hernandez pair both outscored him, but my svreen shows FBG's only crediting Zach Miller with 2.2 pts and he obviously did a lot better than that considering he had a 22 yard td, and 64 total rec yds...

Mine says 18.4 and I used him as my TE this week. If it is a glitch I hope it didn't keep people below the line.Wait - did you accidentally take the other Zach Miller?

How much did you pay for your Zach Miller, Hipple? The cheaper one is the one in Jax.-QG

 

[geoff8695]

IMO, the most important factor in this contest is player selection, not roster size.

I only have an 18-player roster, but I have 5 guys from this list, including 3 cheaper players. If I end up with at least that many at the end, I think I'll have a decent chance to make the finals (if I can get by the week 10 bye week).

May seem obvious but of course player selection is the most important factor. However, absent the gift of prophecy, the larger your roster size the better your chances of player selection. I agree in principal and only went with 22, as my own personal compromise between trying to max out player selection without totally sacrificing depth.Out of curiosity, who are your 18?

 

[BassNBrew]

Compiling an 18 man roster excuse list

Roster selected to perform during the playoff weeks, not make it to the playoffs.

Your sample size is too small.

Studs are better conditioned athletes and produced better later in the year.

Can't be shown in the numbers because of the dilution caused by the thousands of crappy smaller rosters.

Many of the 18 man rosters just phoned it in.

Player valuations aren't the same as last year.

Mid to low priced guys have been over achieving thus far.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

IMO, the most important factor in this contest is player selection, not roster size.

I only have an 18-player roster, but I have 5 guys from this list, including 3 cheaper players. If I end up with at least that many at the end, I think I'll have a decent chance to make the finals (if I can get by the week 10 bye week).

May seem obvious but of course player selection is the most important factor. However, absent the gift of prophecy, the larger your roster size the better your chances of player selection. I agree in principal and only went with 22, as my own personal compromise between trying to max out player selection without totally sacrificing depth.Out of curiosity, who are your 18?

Not necessarily. The larger your roster size, the better your chances of selecting the cheaper players that you can fit in the larger roster by giving up on some higher-priced players, but the lower your chances of selecting the higher-priced players who help their teams survive. Teams with the top studs are surviving at a higher rate (stud-led teams surviving), and most of those teams have shorter rosters.My team

 

[geoff8695]

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

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

Very interesting team.I really like a lot of what you've done here and wish I could have strategized my own team after seeing yours. I love your stud RBs, but I believe 8-10 WRs and 3 PKs & 3TDs is a MUST, and we've seen so far that the cut-offs are higher than last season with two early weeks over 140 already.I also went with 2 QBs and 2TEs as I felt they were the positions most conducive to maximizing player selection while sacrificing depth; but I spent more to try and ensure byes and down weeks wouldn't preclude my team from an opportunity to maintain elite production at those 'thin' positions.BreesRoethlisberger at a cost of $42 to your $35&VDavisWitten at a cost of $38 to your $27 With 20/20 hindsight, I wish I hadn't spent so much at QB and TE (something like a $30 Finley/Keller combo would have freed up $8, and a $33 Rivers/Roethlisberger combo would have freed up another $9. That extra $17 would have helped my team A LOT elsewhere, and the total spent would have only been $1 more than what you did, basically downgrade your $3 Cundiff to a $2 Bryant at PK and you're there).I do agree that your studs give you a chance to weather the week 10 bye, and I wish I had modeled my own RBs more similarly to yours. However, IMO your WR-TE-K-D combination still lacks the necessary depth to see you through.The jury is still out, but replacing Washington & Berrian ($15) and extending your WR corps to at least 8 total rather than 6 would help protect your WRs and picking up a 3rd PK and 3 TD 'feels' better to me. Still if things break right for you, I think you have an excellent shot at going deep and doing some damage if you make the last 3 weeks. Just think a roster more in the 22+ range would give a better chance.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

However, IMO your WR-TE-K-D combination still lacks the necessary depth to see you through.

I spent relatively little on my WR-TE's, but I'm happy with them and think I may be good there as long as they stay healthy. 4 of my 6 WR's have scored well, providing a good core, and none of those 4 has the same bye. The other 2 should be serviceable bye week fill-ins, so as long as they don't get hit with injuries, I think these guys may perform pretty well as a group for the cost. My TE1 is all-universe, and my TE2 is decent.My K's are OK. I might have been better off with 3 $2 K's instead of 2 $3 ones, but I thought these 2 would be top scorers, and they still may be when it really matters for me. My D's have sucked, particularly the 49'ers, but they may turn things around yet. I like the schedule combination for these 2 -- they play the Rams twice in weeks 14-16, so hopefully I make it there and they earn their keep then.Last year, I went with more at these positions, but I wanted to load up with the studs that I saw as values this year, so I didn't have as much to spend on these guys this year, plus there were far fewer cheap options this year (only 3 $1 players at these positions vs. 33 last year).With minimal depth at these positions, I'll need to get lucky to make it through the bye weeks, but if I do, I think I'll have a better chance with these guys than if I'd spread the $ out to a few more players.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Early Week 4 sim

 

[The Ref]

I have 0% chance of winning this. I havent finished lower then 260 this whole year.

 

[The Iguana]

Early Week 4 sim

vbd's 999 still makes me chuckle everytime I pull this up.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Early Week 4 sim

vbd's 999 still makes me chuckle everytime I pull this up. :(

You cant stop me.

 

[JB Breakfast Club]

used all 3 weeks: Foster, S Moss, Finley

not used: L Washington, Choice, Berrian, Janikowski, Gano

Best decision: Santana Moss as a low(er) % WR at $18

Worst decision: Deangelo Williams as a low % RB

If I could adjust (and pretend I don't know what I know now...e.g. take Vick): DWill + Washington + Berrian out ($53) / super stud RB + cheaper WR + third TE in.

 

[QuizGuy66]

75.7% chance of survival per Turkomatic

Btw, 21-kicker guy is at 89.5%!

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

FWIW, here's the entry with the lowest survival percentage projection chance:

3.1%

-QG

 

[CalBear]

FWIW, here's the entry with the lowest survival percentage projection chance:

3.1%

-QG

Wow, what a terrible team.

 

[firstseason1988]

FWIW, here's the entry with the lowest survival percentage projection chance:

3.1%

-QG

Wow, what a terrible team.

Cowboy fan who doesn't need any other kickers or Ds.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

FWIW, here's the entry with the lowest survival percentage projection chance:

3.1%

-QG

Wow, what a terrible team.

Just one of the thousands of "junk entries" that are dragging down the average for the rest of the 18-man rosters.

 

[apalmer]

75.7% chance of survival per Turkomatic Btw, 21-kicker guy is at 89.5%! -QG

78.3%, which is better than I thought I'd have. Between injuries, byes, non-use and suspensions, I may only have scores from 1 QB, 3 RBs, 3 WRs, and 1 TE...in other words, I may be starting with the bare minimum at the major positions. It would sure help if LRob and/or Garcon would make a comeback and if Leon Washington could pick up some playing time in the backfield.

 

[Modog814]

Doug,

Is this information available anywhere.....

What I'm looking for a list of all teams that shows how many of each position they took, so it'd look like:

Team# QB RB WR TE K Def

111111 2 4 7 3 2 2

I think if we can get this information we can step past the debate of 18 players vs. 30 players, and look into the deeper complexities of this contest such as the interaction of positions, sacrificing depth at one position for the sake of the other, or stud at one position, value at another.

Thanks.

 

[BassNBrew]

FWIW, here's the entry with the lowest survival percentage projection chance:

3.1%

-QG

Wow, what a terrible team.

Just one of the thousands of "junk entries" that are dragging down the average for the rest of the 18-man rosters.

Actually most of the junk entries this week are Cowboy fan entries. How about 'em.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Doug,Is this information available anywhere.....What I'm looking for a list of all teams that shows how many of each position they took, so it'd look like:Team# QB RB WR TE K Def111111 2 4 7 3 2 2I think if we can get this information we can step past the debate of 18 players vs. 30 players, and look into the deeper complexities of this contest such as the interaction of positions, sacrificing depth at one position for the sake of the other, or stud at one position, value at another. Thanks.

Funny you ask, I was planning on pulling this info when I get home tonight. But if Doug could post it that would be a lot easier.

 

[Pastor]

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/c...mp;query_type=1

Not sure what the Gates/Finley owners will do in wk 10, but they are rolling right now.

Hope Rob Gronkowski brings it. At least that is what I am hoping for.