Subscriber Contest (2 Viewers)

[David Dodds]

What could have been....

Kyle Orton ($12)

Michael Vick ($3)

Ahmad Bradshaw ($18)

Arian Foster ($13)

LaDainian Tomlinson ($12)

Thomas Jones ($7)

Austin Collie ($8)

Mike Williams ($8)

Lance Moore ($8)

Kevin Walter ($7)

Roy Williams ($7)

Legedu Naane ($7)

Louis Murphy ($4)

Devery Hendeson ($4)

Mark Clayton ($3)

Dustin Keller ($9)

Jermaine Gresham ($6)

Aaron Hernandez ($5)

and $59 left for defenses, kickers and a special player

 

[GloryDaze]

and $59 left for defenses, kickers and a special player

$109And any more players would make it less than optimal.

 

[LittlePhatty]

What could have been....

Vick could be a game breaker if he's still "doing his thing" come Week 14. Currently owned by 342 live entries.Every one of those RBs and WRs were on my roster at one point or another except Roy Williams. Never would have picked him to have such a good start.

And any more players would make it less than optimal.

Hmm?

 

[GloryDaze]

And any more players would make it less than optimal.

Hmm?

That's 18 players. If you add a kicker you get to 19 and you're toast from lack of studs.

 

[LittlePhatty]

That's 18 players. If you add a kicker you get to 19 and you're toast from lack of studs.

Ahh, got it. Sarcasm in print needs to be blatant to be understood.

 

[inca911]

That's 18 players. If you add a kicker you get to 19 and you're toast from lack of studs.

Ahh, got it. Sarcasm in print needs to be blatant to be understood.

He does diclose that in his sig...."95% of what I post is sarcasm and/or a failed attempt at a joke and not to be taken seriously. Lighten up Francis."

 

[rzrback77]

What could have been....Kyle Orton ($12)Michael Vick ($3)Ahmad Bradshaw ($18)Arian Foster ($13)LaDainian Tomlinson ($12)Thomas Jones ($7)Austin Collie ($8)Mike Williams ($8)Lance Moore ($8)Kevin Walter ($7)Roy Williams ($7)Legedu Naane ($7)Louis Murphy ($4)Devery Hendeson ($4)Mark Clayton ($3)Dustin Keller ($9)Jermaine Gresham ($6)Aaron Hernandez ($5)and $59 left for defenses, kickers and a special player

I've got eight of those guys.

 

[comfortably numb]

Can FBG out

21 K guy?

Or

12 QB guy?

Would like to know this stuff

 

[QuizGuy66]

Can FBG out

21 K guy?

Or

12 QB guy?

Would like to know this stuff

Entry with most QBs still alive - 10 QB guyEntry with most RBs still alive - 15 RB guy

Entry with most WRs still alive - 18 WR guy

Entry with most TEs still alive - 7 TE guy #1

Entry with most TEs still alive - 7 TE guy #2

The Myth The Legend - 21 Kicker guy!!!

Entry with the most TDs still alive - 17 TD guy

-QG

 

[Das Boot]

What could have been....

Kyle Orton ($12)

Michael Vick ($3)

Ahmad Bradshaw ($18)

Arian Foster ($13)

LaDainian Tomlinson ($12)

Thomas Jones ($7)

Austin Collie ($8)

Mike Williams ($8)

Lance Moore ($8)

Kevin Walter ($7)

Roy Williams ($7)

Legedu Naane ($7)

Louis Murphy ($4)

Devery Hendeson ($4)

Mark Clayton ($3)

Dustin Keller ($9)

Jermaine Gresham ($6)

Aaron Hernandez ($5)

and $59 left for defenses, kickers and a special player

It's an awesome week 1-3 team, but I always find myself looking back at various points during the contest and wishing I had player A or player B only later in the season to realize that I'm glad I didn't have them.And vice versa... there are lots of players people are kicking themselves for taking right now, but who could be strong contributors later in the contest.

Assuming one survives long enough to enjoy those contributions.

 

[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.

OK, so I put together a database of all the remaining live teams so I can get this kind of info (I don't have the teams that have already been eliminated, but I can always add them at some later point).Of the 3,166 live 18-man rosters, the most popular configurations are:2-4-6-2-2-2 (27.7%)2-5-5-2-2-2 (15.4%)3-4-5-2-2-2 (6.8%)2-3-7-2-2-2 (4.0%)2-4-5-2-3-2 (3.0%)2-4-5-3-2-2 (2.7%)2-4-5-2-2-3 (1.7%)3-5-4-2-2-2 (1.1%)Regarding the "junk entries," of the 3166 remaining 18-man teams, 473 of them (about 15%) appear to have the only minimum number of players for at least one position (e.g. only 1 QB, or 1 TE, or 3 WRs, etc At some point during the bye weeks, these teams will be taking a guaranteed zero at that spot. I have to admit, that's a lot more than I expected. I haven't had a chance to really do any better analysis on the rosters but I probably will tomorrow. If you have specific questions I can probably look up the answers.

 

[rzrback77]

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.

OK, so I put together a database of all the remaining live teams so I can get this kind of info (I don't have the teams that have already been eliminated, but I can always add them at some later point).Of the 3,166 live 18-man rosters, the most popular configurations are:2-4-6-2-2-2 (27.7%)2-5-5-2-2-2 (15.4%)3-4-5-2-2-2 (6.8%)2-3-7-2-2-2 (4.0%)2-4-5-2-3-2 (3.0%)2-4-5-3-2-2 (2.7%)2-4-5-2-2-3 (1.7%)3-5-4-2-2-2 (1.1%)Regarding the "junk entries," of the 3166 remaining 18-man teams, 473 of them (about 15%) appear to have the only minimum number of players for at least one position (e.g. only 1 QB, or 1 TE, or 3 WRs, etc At some point during the bye weeks, these teams will be taking a guaranteed zero at that spot. I have to admit, that's a lot more than I expected. I haven't had a chance to really do any better analysis on the rosters but I probably will tomorrow. If you have specific questions I can probably look up the answers.

Interesting data and thanks for the work. and I also enjoyed the brief summary of your team in the sig, just the right size.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

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.

OK, so I put together a database of all the remaining live teams so I can get this kind of info (I don't have the teams that have already been eliminated, but I can always add them at some later point).Of the 3,166 live 18-man rosters, the most popular configurations are:2-4-6-2-2-2 (27.7%)2-5-5-2-2-2 (15.4%)3-4-5-2-2-2 (6.8%)2-3-7-2-2-2 (4.0%)2-4-5-2-3-2 (3.0%)2-4-5-3-2-2 (2.7%)2-4-5-2-2-3 (1.7%)3-5-4-2-2-2 (1.1%)Regarding the "junk entries," of the 3166 remaining 18-man teams, 473 of them (about 15%) appear to have the only minimum number of players for at least one position (e.g. only 1 QB, or 1 TE, or 3 WRs, etc At some point during the bye weeks, these teams will be taking a guaranteed zero at that spot. I have to admit, that's a lot more than I expected. I haven't had a chance to really do any better analysis on the rosters but I probably will tomorrow. If you have specific questions I can probably look up the answers.

Thanks for putting that together.Wow. That's amazing that so many teams went with 5 or fewer WR's when you can start 4, or only 3 RB's when you can start 3. Those teams are at a serious disadvantage during the bye weeks, and I consider them "junk entries."IMO, the only way to go with an 18-man roster is 2-4-6-2-2-2, considering bye weeks and the flex coming from RB/WR/TE. Even then, you have to be careful with bye weeks and lucky with injuries.It will be interesting to see the survival rates within the 18-man teams. I bet most of the non-2-4-6-2-2-2 teams will be eliminated during the bye weeks, and the % of 18-man teams with the 2-4-6-2-2-2 configuration will rise from 27.7%.

 

[eaglezzz]

To have a 1 in 8500 chance at $20,000 really isn't that bad.

Those are pretty good odds and if you make the cut this week odds go to 1 in 7250.

I just hope someone active in the Shark Pool wins it.

Also right now each 8500 entry left has a 2.94% chance of making it to the final 250

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Thanks for putting that together.Wow. That's amazing that so many teams went with 5 or fewer WR's when you can start 4, or only 3 RB's when you can start 3. Those teams are at a serious disadvantage during the bye weeks, and I consider them "junk entries."IMO, the only way to go with an 18-man roster is 2-4-6-2-2-2, considering bye weeks and the flex coming from RB/WR/TE. Even then, you have to be careful with bye weeks and lucky with injuries.It will be interesting to see the survival rates within the 18-man teams. I bet most of the non-2-4-6-2-2-2 teams will be eliminated during the bye weeks, and the % of 18-man teams with the 2-4-6-2-2-2 configuration will rise from 27.7%.

I agree, I think if you're going to roll with an 18-man roster, 2-4-6-2-2-2 is pretty much the only way to go. I imagine most of the 18-man teams that have been eliminated already were of the non-2-4-6-2-2-2 variety and I'd probably expect that trend to continue.On another note, I think I may have understated the number of teams that have the minimum number of players at a position. I just re-ran the query and came up with 1236 of them, 811 of which are 18-man teams. That is a lot of poorly constructed teams. Also surprisingly, 11 of the remaining 217 30-man teams (a little more than 5%) fall into this boat. These include 21-kicker guy and 17-defense guy.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

On another note, I think I may have understated the number of teams that have the minimum number of players at a position. I just re-ran the query and came up with 1236 of them, 811 of which are 18-man teams. That is a lot of poorly constructed teams. Also surprisingly, 11 of the remaining 217 30-man teams (a little more than 5%) fall into this boat. These include 21-kicker guy and 17-defense guy.

Yeah, there are a ton of "junk entries" in this contest, skewing the survival totals that some here take as proof of the supremacy of one roster-size strategy over another. Those 21-kicker and 17-defense entries are "junk entries" too, put together more for entertainment than actually trying to go far or win the contest. There are "junk entries" throughout, but mostly concentrated in the smaller rosters.I wonder if the "junk entries" with less than minimum depth (2-4-6-2-2-2) at any position or greater than practical depth (i.e., 21-kicker and 17-defense entries) can be stripped out, and then survival totals can be calculated on the rest? I don't think any of those "junk entries" has a real chance to win the contest.

 

[CalBear]

On another note, I think I may have understated the number of teams that have the minimum number of players at a position. I just re-ran the query and came up with 1236 of them, 811 of which are 18-man teams. That is a lot of poorly constructed teams. Also surprisingly, 11 of the remaining 217 30-man teams (a little more than 5%) fall into this boat. These include 21-kicker guy and 17-defense guy.

Yeah, there are a ton of "junk entries" in this contest, skewing the survival totals that some here take as proof of the supremacy of one roster-size strategy over another. Those 21-kicker and 17-defense entries are "junk entries" too, put together more for entertainment than actually trying to go far or win the contest. There are "junk entries" throughout, but mostly concentrated in the smaller rosters.

Do you have evidence for this statement?

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

On another note, I think I may have understated the number of teams that have the minimum number of players at a position. I just re-ran the query and came up with 1236 of them, 811 of which are 18-man teams. That is a lot of poorly constructed teams. Also surprisingly, 11 of the remaining 217 30-man teams (a little more than 5%) fall into this boat. These include 21-kicker guy and 17-defense guy.

Yeah, there are a ton of "junk entries" in this contest, skewing the survival totals that some here take as proof of the supremacy of one roster-size strategy over another. Those 21-kicker and 17-defense entries are "junk entries" too, put together more for entertainment than actually trying to go far or win the contest. There are "junk entries" throughout, but mostly concentrated in the smaller rosters.

Do you have evidence for this statement?

Yep:

I wonder if the "junk entries" with less than minimum depth (2-4-6-2-2-2) at any position or greater than practical depth (i.e., 21-kicker and 17-defense entries) can be stripped out

Of the 3,166 live 18-man rosters, the most popular configurations are:

2-4-6-2-2-2 (27.7%)

2-5-5-2-2-2 (15.4%)

3-4-5-2-2-2 (6.8%)

2-3-7-2-2-2 (4.0%)

2-4-5-2-3-2 (3.0%)

2-4-5-3-2-2 (2.7%)

2-4-5-2-2-3 (1.7%)

3-5-4-2-2-2 (1.1%)

If only 27.7% of the 3,166 live 18-man rosters have minimum depth at all positions (2-4-6-2-2-2), that means over 2200 of the 18-man rosters are "junk entries." Lots more are probably in the 19-man rosters. With 8500 live entries, clearly that means that these "junk entries" are "mostly concentrated in the smaller rosters."

 

[Doug Drinen]

My first cut at rest-of-season power rankings. Please read the fine print.

Click me

 

[CalBear]

Of the 3,166 live 18-man rosters, the most popular configurations are:2-4-6-2-2-2 (27.7%)2-5-5-2-2-2 (15.4%)3-4-5-2-2-2 (6.8%)2-3-7-2-2-2 (4.0%)2-4-5-2-3-2 (3.0%)2-4-5-3-2-2 (2.7%)2-4-5-2-2-3 (1.7%)3-5-4-2-2-2 (1.1%)

If only 27.7% of the 3,166 live 18-man rosters have minimum depth at all positions (2-4-6-2-2-2), that means over 2200 of the 18-man rosters are "junk entries." Lots more are probably in the 19-man rosters. With 8500 live entries, clearly that means that these "junk entries" are "mostly concentrated in the smaller rosters."

2-5-5-2-2-2 is hardly a junk entry. All of the above configurations are completely valid ways to approach the contest, if you start with the flawed assumption that 18 players is a reasonable choice. 21-Kicker-Guy is a junk entry.

 

[QuizGuy66]

My first cut at rest-of-season power rankings. Please read the fine print.

Click me

I am tied for 3410th place My team is 7171st in uniqueness as well

I must point out that your system is clearly broken as entry 101289 placed only 2325th in the power rankings and it's only 1982nd in uniqueness when we know it is special and should be #1 in both categories.

On a lighter note, 21-kicker guy is 8498th in the power rankings and 7245th in uniqueness :(

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

Of the 3,166 live 18-man rosters, the most popular configurations are:2-4-6-2-2-2 (27.7%)2-5-5-2-2-2 (15.4%)3-4-5-2-2-2 (6.8%)2-3-7-2-2-2 (4.0%)2-4-5-2-3-2 (3.0%)2-4-5-3-2-2 (2.7%)2-4-5-2-2-3 (1.7%)3-5-4-2-2-2 (1.1%)

If only 27.7% of the 3,166 live 18-man rosters have minimum depth at all positions (2-4-6-2-2-2), that means over 2200 of the 18-man rosters are "junk entries." Lots more are probably in the 19-man rosters. With 8500 live entries, clearly that means that these "junk entries" are "mostly concentrated in the smaller rosters."

2-5-5-2-2-2 is hardly a junk entry. All of the above configurations are completely valid ways to approach the contest, if you start with the flawed assumption that 18 players is a reasonable choice. 21-Kicker-Guy is a junk entry.

21-Kicker-Guy must be exalted :( -QG

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

Of the 3,166 live 18-man rosters, the most popular configurations are:2-4-6-2-2-2 (27.7%)2-5-5-2-2-2 (15.4%)3-4-5-2-2-2 (6.8%)2-3-7-2-2-2 (4.0%)2-4-5-2-3-2 (3.0%)2-4-5-3-2-2 (2.7%)2-4-5-2-2-3 (1.7%)3-5-4-2-2-2 (1.1%)

If only 27.7% of the 3,166 live 18-man rosters have minimum depth at all positions (2-4-6-2-2-2), that means over 2200 of the 18-man rosters are "junk entries." Lots more are probably in the 19-man rosters. With 8500 live entries, clearly that means that these "junk entries" are "mostly concentrated in the smaller rosters."

2-5-5-2-2-2 is hardly a junk entry. All of the above configurations are completely valid ways to approach the contest, if you start with the flawed assumption that 18 players is a reasonable choice. 21-Kicker-Guy is a junk entry.

That's interesting that you think 18 players is a flawed strategy yet you think 5 WR's is fine, even though you can start 4. My thinking is the opposite, that 18 players can be a viable strategy, but not with only 5 WR's.

 

[CalBear]

That's interesting that you think 18 players is a flawed strategy yet you think 5 WR's is fine, even though you can start 4. My thinking is the opposite, that 18 players can be a viable strategy, but not with only 5 WR's.

I think any 18-player strategy is flawed, but I don't think 5-5 is significantly more flawed than 4-6.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

My first cut at rest-of-season power rankings. Please read the fine print.

Click me

I am tied for 3410th place My team is 7171st in uniqueness as well

I must point out that your system is clearly broken as entry 101289 placed only 2325th in the power rankings and it's only 1982nd in uniqueness when we know it is special and should be #1 in both categories.

On a lighter note, 21-kicker guy is 8498th in the power rankings and 7245th in uniqueness

-QG

 

[del mar]

The odds on winning this contest are 13000 to 1. Somebody has to be very lucky. Does the experience to date have any relevance for the result 13 weeks from now? The case seems clearly made that larger rosters have survived better than smaller ones so far. There are two reasons why any roster may get eliminated and they tend to have a harsher effect on smaller rosters: 1) injuries, and 2) miscalculations. Obviously there is little room for either in a small roster. (My own 19 man roster includes Spiller who is so far a miscalculation which will probably be my undoing.) The miscalculations appear early in the season and that may be a significant factor in eliminating small rosters early. Once you wipe out the guys with people like Spiller, Kolb, Jacobs, etc. then you get down to only the owners who didn't have miscalculations in their rosters. Those owners may survive very well and last until the end of the year. Will the teams with 25 players and minimal studs fare as well when the playoffs come? Who knows? But projecting the present into the future is always a very risky proposition. Ask those guys who bet that mortgage defaults would never be as high as they are now.

 

[geoff8695]

Has anyone used Drinen's new power rankings to determine roster sizes in the top 250?

This might be interesting to see how Drinen's simulations treat the roster sizes for teams projected to make it to the final 3 weeks.

EDIT to add my team is a 22 man roster and is in the top 250

 

[Txns8]

To have a 1 in 8500 chance at $20,000 really isn't that bad.Those are pretty good odds and if you make the cut this week odds go to 1 in 7250.I just hope someone active in the Shark Pool wins it.Also right now each 8500 entry left has a 2.94% chance of making it to the final 250

Anyone up for an even chop?

 

[BassNBrew]

Of the 3,166 live 18-man rosters, the most popular configurations are:2-4-6-2-2-2 (27.7%)2-5-5-2-2-2 (15.4%)3-4-5-2-2-2 (6.8%)2-3-7-2-2-2 (4.0%)2-4-5-2-3-2 (3.0%)2-4-5-3-2-2 (2.7%)2-4-5-2-2-3 (1.7%)3-5-4-2-2-2 (1.1%)

If only 27.7% of the 3,166 live 18-man rosters have minimum depth at all positions (2-4-6-2-2-2), that means over 2200 of the 18-man rosters are "junk entries." Lots more are probably in the 19-man rosters. With 8500 live entries, clearly that means that these "junk entries" are "mostly concentrated in the smaller rosters."

2-5-5-2-2-2 is hardly a junk entry. All of the above configurations are completely valid ways to approach the contest, if you start with the flawed assumption that 18 players is a reasonable choice. 21-Kicker-Guy is a junk entry.

That's interesting that you think 18 players is a flawed strategy yet you think 5 WR's is fine, even though you can start 4. My thinking is the opposite, that 18 players can be a viable strategy, but not with only 5 WR's.

7th overall in Doug's power rankings only has 5 WRs....

 

[BassNBrew]

Compiling an 18 man roster excuse listRoster 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.Projecting the present into the future is always a very risky proposition."junk entries" are "mostly concentrated in the smaller rosters."Miscalculations appear early in the season and that may be a significant factor in eliminating small rosters early.

Updating

 

[gregjcross]

My first cut at rest-of-season power rankings. Please read the fine print.

Click me

Very cool I"ll take my #641 ranking but having just 20 players could hurt and i actually dont see myself surviving due to injuries.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

I think any 18-player strategy is flawed

Well, FWIW, my 18-player team has a rest-of-season power ranking of 458 while yours has a ranking of 6,210, despite the flaws you've pointed out in my team (some of my team's flaws) and the strengths you've pointed out in yours (some of your team's strengths):Our two teams

I'll take my "flawed strategy" team over your "superior strategy" team if the result is a team with a better chance of doing well. I may get knocked out early, but it won't be because my strategy is flawed. With some luck, maybe I'll last a few weeks...

 

[Doug Drinen]

Has anyone used Drinen's new power rankings to determine roster sizes in the top 250? This might be interesting to see how Drinen's simulations treat the roster sizes for teams projected to make it to the final 3 weeks.

As it says in the intro,

These rankings are meant to be a very rough general gauge of team strengths. There are a great many strategical and roster-construction considerations that they make no effort to measure.

Although the two are obviously related, I would say the power rankings are less a measurement of who is likely to win and more a measurement of who appears to have the best collection of players. I'm not sure they're going to shed much light on strategical debates. Rather, they just provide a list of teams to watch.

 

[Twilight]

Did you keep the week by week power rankings from last year? And if you did, how did the final top 10 rate in the initial Power rankings from last year?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Has anyone used Drinen's new power rankings to determine roster sizes in the top 250? This might be interesting to see how Drinen's simulations treat the roster sizes for teams projected to make it to the final 3 weeks.EDIT to add my team is a 22 man roster and is in the top 250

Roster Size	Total Entries	% of all Entries	# in Top 250	% of Top 25018	3166	37.2%	43	17.2%19	1230	14.4%	22	8.8%20	900	10.6%	27	10.8%21	660	7.7%	26	10.4%22	553	6.5%	17	6.8%23	449	5.3%	33	13.2%24	368	4.3%	29	11.6%25	307	3.6%	13	5.2%26	240	2.8%	15	6.0%27	189	2.2%	10	4.0%28	130	1.5%	6	2.4%29	112	1.3%	4	1.6%30	217	2.5%	5	2.0%

(Not sure how to get those to line up properly, but hopefully it's still easy enough to read.)18- and 19-man rosters are significantly underrepresented in the Top 250. On the other hand, it looks like the "sweet spot" is around the 23- or 24-man range, as they are the most overrepresented in the Top 250.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

18- and 19-man rosters are significantly underrepresented in the Top 250. On the other hand, it looks like the "sweet spot" is around the 23- or 24-man range, as they are the most overrepresented in the Top 250.

And just to follow up on this, as Doug alluded to, I don't think his power rankings take into consideration things like bye week distribution, etc. So, for example, a team could have a very high power ranking right now, but very little chance of winning the contest because all of their players are on bye in week 10. With that in mind, I think it's a relatively safe assumption that a larger roster will have less of a problem surviving byes/injuries than a smaller roster, so in reality the smaller rosters are probably at an even greater disadvantage than the power rankings indicate.

 

[Marvelous]

Thanks for putting that together.Wow. That's amazing that so many teams went with 5 or fewer WR's when you can start 4, or only 3 RB's when you can start 3. Those teams are at a serious disadvantage during the bye weeks, and I consider them "junk entries."IMO, the only way to go with an 18-man roster is 2-4-6-2-2-2, considering bye weeks and the flex coming from RB/WR/TE. Even then, you have to be careful with bye weeks and lucky with injuries.It will be interesting to see the survival rates within the 18-man teams. I bet most of the non-2-4-6-2-2-2 teams will be eliminated during the bye weeks, and the % of 18-man teams with the 2-4-6-2-2-2 configuration will rise from 27.7%.

I agree, I think if you're going to roll with an 18-man roster, 2-4-6-2-2-2 is pretty much the only way to go. I imagine most of the 18-man teams that have been eliminated already were of the non-2-4-6-2-2-2 variety and I'd probably expect that trend to continue.On another note, I think I may have understated the number of teams that have the minimum number of players at a position. I just re-ran the query and came up with 1236 of them, 811 of which are 18-man teams. That is a lot of poorly constructed teams. Also surprisingly, 11 of the remaining 217 30-man teams (a little more than 5%) fall into this boat. These include 21-kicker guy and 17-defense guy.

I am surprised there are only 217 30-man teams left. I guess we are a rare breed.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I am surprised there are only 217 30-man teams left. I guess we are a rare breed.

There were only 271 to begin with.

 

[Jayrod]

Has anyone used Drinen's new power rankings to determine roster sizes in the top 250? This might be interesting to see how Drinen's simulations treat the roster sizes for teams projected to make it to the final 3 weeks.EDIT to add my team is a 22 man roster and is in the top 250

Roster Size	Total Entries	% of all Entries	# in Top 250	% of Top 25018	3166	37.2%	43	17.2%19	1230	14.4%	22	8.8%20	900	10.6%	27	10.8%21	660	7.7%	26	10.4%22	553	6.5%	17	6.8%23	449	5.3%	33	13.2%24	368	4.3%	29	11.6%25	307	3.6%	13	5.2%26	240	2.8%	15	6.0%27	189	2.2%	10	4.0%28	130	1.5%	6	2.4%29	112	1.3%	4	1.6%30	217	2.5%	5	2.0%

(Not sure how to get those to line up properly, but hopefully it's still easy enough to read.)18- and 19-man rosters are significantly underrepresented in the Top 250. On the other hand, it looks like the "sweet spot" is around the 23- or 24-man range, as they are the most overrepresented in the Top 250.

That 22-man roster % looks like an anomoly due to sample size. I've got a 22-man and am at 432 which I'm pumped about. If I can survive week 6 (only 1 RB unless Bush comes back early), I have a great shot at the final 250.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If only 27.7% of the 3,166 live 18-man rosters have minimum depth at all positions (2-4-6-2-2-2), that means over 2200 of the 18-man rosters are "junk entries." Lots more are probably in the 19-man rosters. With 8500 live entries, clearly that means that these "junk entries" are "mostly concentrated in the smaller rosters."

2-4-6-2-2-2 isn't minimum depth. 2-3-4-2-2-2 is minimum depth. Anything greater than that is theoretically a serious entry. 2-4-6-2-2-2 is arguably the best way to construct an 18-man roster, but that's subjective. 2-5-5-2-2-2 is just as viable, as is 2-4-5-3-2-2, etc. The point is really that every single 18-man configuration (even 2-4-6-2-2-2) is suffering from a serious lack of depth; the argument in favor is that they make up for that lack of depth by having "studs" at all positions.I'd single out anyone who has less than minimum depth as a junk entry, but as long as they spent at least $248 and have at least 2-3-4-2-2-2 there's no way to single them out as a junk entry. You have to assume that they are a serious attempt at an 18-man roster.

ETA: Your point remains, however, that most of the junk entries, by my minimum depth definition, are concentrated in the smaller rosters. 65.6% of all the rosters that lack minimum depth at at least one position are 18-man rosters. Another 15.4% are 19-man rosters, and 7.9% are 20-man rosters.

By this definition, 25.6% of the live 18-man rosters, 15.4% of the 19-man rosters, and 10.9% of the 20-man rosters are junk entries. By contrast, once you get past 22-man rosters, this rate drops to around 2-3%.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It's also interesting to see how people allocated their money. The average 18-man team allocated their budget as follows:

QB $38.79 15.5% of budget

RB $84.90 34.0% of budget

WR $85.47 34.2% of budget

TE $24.66 9.9% of budget

PK $ 6.75 2.7% of budget

TD $ 9.35 3.7% of budget

The average 24-man team spent:

QB $42.96 17.2% of budget

RB $82.55 33.0% of budget

WR $78.08 31.2% of budget

TE $27.65 11.1% of budget

PK $ 7.79 3.1% of budget

TD $10.91 4.4% of budget

The average 30-man team spent:

QB $44.82 17.9% of budget

RB $81.59 32.6% of budget

WR $72.71 29.1% of budget

TE $28.89 11.6% of budget

PK $ 9.43 3.8% of budget

TD $12.42 5.0% of budget

These trends seem to have been pretty much constant across all roster sizes. In general, the teams with the larger rosters appeared to move money away from the RB and WR positions (relative to the smaller rosters), and put more towards QB, TE, PK, and TD instead.

Of course, the smaller rosters spent more per player than the larger rosters (obviously). The average amount spent per player at each position for an 18-man roster is:

QB $18.17

RB $20.14

WR $15.08

TE $12.40

PK $ 3.31

TD $ 4.78

For 24-man rosters, it's:

QB $15.14

RB $15.02

WR $10.44

TE $10.09

PK $ 2.80

TD $ 4.10

and for 30-man rosters:

QB $13.02

RB $11.96

WR $ 7.66

TE $ 8.60

PK $ 2.65

TD $ 3.73

 

[Doug Drinen]

Did you keep the week by week power rankings from last year? And if you did, how did the final top 10 rate in the initial Power rankings from last year?

Here is a look from the other angle.The top line means: of the 500 teams ranked between 1 and 500 in the week 4 power rankings from last year, 49 made the final 250, and the average elimination week of the others was 8.5.

final  avgWk4 Power rank   250  elim---------------------------	1 --   500   49	8.5  501 --  1000   31	8.2 1001 --  1500   25	8.0 1501 --  2000   21	7.9 2001 --  2500   20	7.6 2501 --  3000   14	7.5 3001 --  3500   17	7.5 3501 --  4000   13	7.2 4001 --  4500   14	7.2 4501 --  5000   12	7.3 5001 --  5500	8	7.0 5501 --  6000	6	6.9 6001 --  6500	5	7.0 6501 --  7000	5	6.7 7001 --  7500	5	6.5 7501 --  8000	3	6.4 8001 --  8500	2	6.0

 

[QuizGuy66]

Did you keep the week by week power rankings from last year? And if you did, how did the final top 10 rate in the initial Power rankings from last year?

Here is a look from the other angle.The top line means: of the 500 teams ranked between 1 and 500 in the week 4 power rankings from last year, 49 made the final 250, and the average elimination week of the others was 8.5.

final  avgWk4 Power rank   250  elim---------------------------	1 --   500   49	8.5  501 --  1000   31	8.2 1001 --  1500   25	8.0 1501 --  2000   21	7.9 2001 --  2500   20	7.6 2501 --  3000   14	7.5 3001 --  3500   17	7.5 3501 --  4000   13	7.2 4001 --  4500   14	7.2 4501 --  5000   12	7.3 5001 --  5500	8	7.0 5501 --  6000	6	6.9 6001 --  6500	5	7.0 6501 --  7000	5	6.7 7001 --  7500	5	6.5 7501 --  8000	3	6.4 8001 --  8500	2	6.0  <---- one of these 2 guys will be 21-kicker guy this year :excited:

-QG

 

[LittlePhatty]

My first cut at rest-of-season power rankings. Please read the fine print.

Click me

I'm #96 (100331).I'll take that as a sign that I will be cut in the next couple of weeks.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

I think any 18-player strategy is flawed

Well, FWIW, my 18-player team has a rest-of-season power ranking of 458 while yours has a ranking of 6,210, despite the flaws you've pointed out in my team (some of my team's flaws) and the strengths you've pointed out in yours (some of your team's strengths):Our two teams

I'll take my "flawed strategy" team over your "superior strategy" team if the result is a team with a better chance of doing well. I may get knocked out early, but it won't be because my strategy is flawed. With some luck, maybe I'll last a few weeks...

Here's a graphic view:

final  avgWk4 Power rank   250  elim---------------------------	1 --   500   49	8.5  <---- My "flawed strategy" team  501 --  1000   31	8.2 1001 --  1500   25	8.0 1501 --  2000   21	7.9 2001 --  2500   20	7.6 2501 --  3000   14	7.5 3001 --  3500   17	7.5 3501 --  4000   13	7.2 4001 --  4500   14	7.2 4501 --  5000   12	7.3 5001 --  5500	8	7.0 5501 --  6000	6	6.9 6001 --  6500	5	7.0  <---- Your "superior strategy" team 6501 --  7000	5	6.7 7001 --  7500	5	6.5 7501 --  8000	3	6.4 8001 --  8500	2	6.0

 

[CalBear]

I think any 18-player strategy is flawed

Well, FWIW, my 18-player team has a rest-of-season power ranking of 458 while yours has a ranking of 6,210, despite the flaws you've pointed out in my team (some of my team's flaws) and the strengths you've pointed out in yours (some of your team's strengths):Our two teams

I'll take my "flawed strategy" team over your "superior strategy" team if the result is a team with a better chance of doing well. I may get knocked out early, but it won't be because my strategy is flawed. With some luck, maybe I'll last a few weeks...

Here's a graphic view:

final  avgWk4 Power rank   250  elim---------------------------	1 --   500   49	8.5  <---- My "flawed strategy" team  501 --  1000   31	8.2 1001 --  1500   25	8.0 1501 --  2000   21	7.9 2001 --  2500   20	7.6 2501 --  3000   14	7.5 3001 --  3500   17	7.5 3501 --  4000   13	7.2 4001 --  4500   14	7.2 4501 --  5000   12	7.3 5001 --  5500	8	7.0 5501 --  6000	6	6.9 6001 --  6500	5	7.0  <---- Your "superior strategy" team 6501 --  7000	5	6.7 7001 --  7500	5	6.5 7501 --  8000	3	6.4 8001 --  8500	2	6.0

Geeze, you're stooping to trash talk based on power ranking projections? You realize those numbers are based on a huge number of assumptions which are not going to be true in the long run? And that they speak to player selection far more than strategy, anyway? Perhaps you don't realize that.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I think any 18-player strategy is flawed

Well, FWIW, my 18-player team has a rest-of-season power ranking of 458 while yours has a ranking of 6,210, despite the flaws you've pointed out in my team (some of my team's flaws) and the strengths you've pointed out in yours (some of your team's strengths):Our two teams

I'll take my "flawed strategy" team over your "superior strategy" team if the result is a team with a better chance of doing well. I may get knocked out early, but it won't be because my strategy is flawed. With some luck, maybe I'll last a few weeks...

Here's a graphic view:
final avgWk4 Power rank 250 elim--------------------------- 1 -- 500 49 8.5 <---- My "flawed strategy" team 501 -- 1000 31 8.2 1001 -- 1500 25 8.0 1501 -- 2000 21 7.9 2001 -- 2500 20 7.6 2501 -- 3000 14 7.5 3001 -- 3500 17 7.5 3501 -- 4000 13 7.2 4001 -- 4500 14 7.2 4501 -- 5000 12 7.3 5001 -- 5500 8 7.0 5501 -- 6000 6 6.9 6001 -- 6500 5 7.0 <---- Your "superior strategy" team 6501 -- 7000 5 6.7 7001 -- 7500 5 6.5 7501 -- 8000 3 6.4 8001 -- 8500 2 6.0

Geeze, you're stooping to trash talk based on power ranking projections? You realize those numbers are based on a huge number of assumptions which are not going to be true in the long run? And that they speak to player selection far more than strategy, anyway? Perhaps you don't realize that.

-QG

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Rooster Fight!!!

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

I think any 18-player strategy is flawed

Well, FWIW, my 18-player team has a rest-of-season power ranking of 458 while yours has a ranking of 6,210, despite the flaws you've pointed out in my team (some of my team's flaws) and the strengths you've pointed out in yours (some of your team's strengths):Our two teams

I'll take my "flawed strategy" team over your "superior strategy" team if the result is a team with a better chance of doing well. I may get knocked out early, but it won't be because my strategy is flawed. With some luck, maybe I'll last a few weeks...

Here's a graphic view:
final avgWk4 Power rank 250 elim--------------------------- 1 -- 500 49 8.5 <---- My "flawed strategy" team 501 -- 1000 31 8.2 1001 -- 1500 25 8.0 1501 -- 2000 21 7.9 2001 -- 2500 20 7.6 2501 -- 3000 14 7.5 3001 -- 3500 17 7.5 3501 -- 4000 13 7.2 4001 -- 4500 14 7.2 4501 -- 5000 12 7.3 5001 -- 5500 8 7.0 5501 -- 6000 6 6.9 6001 -- 6500 5 7.0 <---- Your "superior strategy" team 6501 -- 7000 5 6.7 7001 -- 7500 5 6.5 7501 -- 8000 3 6.4 8001 -- 8500 2 6.0

Geeze, you're stooping to trash talk based on power ranking projections? You realize those numbers are based on a huge number of assumptions which are not going to be true in the long run? And that they speak to player selection far more than strategy, anyway? Perhaps you don't realize that.

Trash talk? No, just pointing out the much higher ranking in the power rankings despite the "flawed strategy." I realize the power rankings aren't perfect, but it's based on much more than your statements that any 18-player strategy is flawed. The proven results last year, with the top 500 having about a 10% chance of making the final 250 vs. a 1% chance of the 6001-6500 tier making the final 250 give it credence. I'll take the strategy that gives me 10 x the odds of making the final 250, even if the odds are still way against me making it there.Yes, I've repeatedly said that the most important factor in this contest is player selection, not roster size. You've criticized my player selection, too ("Ray Rice will not finish the season in the top 10 RBs"), but despite a "flawed strategy" and poor player selection, my team has much higher odds of going further than yours, if there's anything to the power rankings, which results indicate there is. So are you now saying that an 18-player strategy is not flawed if the player selection is good?

You continually bash my contest strategy and criticize my player selection yet you whine about trash talking when I simply point out my team's much higher power ranking in response...

 

[Modog814]

On another note, I think I may have understated the number of teams that have the minimum number of players at a position. I just re-ran the query and came up with 1236 of them, 811 of which are 18-man teams. That is a lot of poorly constructed teams. Also surprisingly, 11 of the remaining 217 30-man teams (a little more than 5%) fall into this boat. These include 21-kicker guy and 17-defense guy.

Yeah, there are a ton of "junk entries" in this contest, skewing the survival totals that some here take as proof of the supremacy of one roster-size strategy over another. Those 21-kicker and 17-defense entries are "junk entries" too, put together more for entertainment than actually trying to go far or win the contest. There are "junk entries" throughout, but mostly concentrated in the smaller rosters.

Do you have evidence for this statement?

Thanks to Ignoratio, we have some data to determine this, which I just did:

I defined a "junk" entry as the following:

Either only 1 QB OR only 2 RB OR only 3 WR OR 6+ Kickers OR 6+ Defenses

This criteria produced 310 "junk" entries remaining

18: 213 out of 3166 (6.73%)

19: 36 of 1230 (2.93%)

20: 14 of 900 (1.56%)

21: 5 of 660 (0.76%)

22: 5 of 553 (0.90%)

23: 1 of 449 (0.22%)

24: 4 of 368 (1.09%)

25: 3 of 307 (0.98%)

26: 5 of 240 (2.08%)

27: 3 of 188 (1.60%)

28: 5 of 130 (3.85%)

29: 2 of 112 (1.79%)

30: 14 of 217 (6.45%)

A couple observations:

1) 18 man rosters have the highest amont of Junk by not far ahead of 30 man entries.

2) I'm amazed at the symmetry of the distribution, but I guess it makes sense. The extremes have a higher percentage which might (could?) indicate lesser time put into this. While the middle ground has much less junk and that might be indicative the people spending more time picking and choosing a balance.