Subscriber Contest (4 Viewers)

[eaglezzz]

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.

So adding them all up there are 310 total junk entries left out of the remaining 8500 teams?

 

[Modog814]

So adding them all up there are 310 total junk entries left out of the remaining 8500 teams?

Using the definition of "junk" entry that I used (1 QB or 2 RB Or 3 WR Or 6+ K or 6+ Def), yes.

 

[ODoyleRules]

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.

You were screening for teams with either ridiculously low # of players (at QB, RB and WR) or ridiculously high # of players (at DST and PK). Why wouldn't you expect to find these teams at either end of the spectrum?

 

[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?

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.

Thanks for putting that together. What about 1 TE or 1 D or 1 PK? With the flex position and byes factored in, I consider 3 RB's and 4-5 WR's to be "junk" too, but others don't agree and junk is in the eye of the beholder.Even with this very limited definition of "junk," 249 of the 310 "junk" entries, or over 80% of them, are in the 18-19 man rosters. I'd say that clearly shows the "junk" entries are "mostly concentrated in the smaller rosters."

 

[rzrback77]

Thanks for putting that together. What about 1 TE or 1 D or 1 PK? With the flex position and byes factored in, I consider 3 RB's and 4-5 WR's to be "junk" too, but others don't agree and junk is in the eye of the beholder.Even with this very limited definition of "junk," 249 of the 310 "junk" entries, or over 80% of them, are in the 18-19 man rosters. I'd say that clearly shows the "junk" entries are "mostly concentrated in the smaller rosters."

Dude,the overwhelming amount of all rosters fall in that category. You would expect it.

 

[CalBear]

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.

It's based on projected stats for the rest of the year, which is mostly based on a mix of pre-season projections and the results of the first three weeks.Surely you can anticipate plenty of reasons why things will not turn out exactly that way. And the reasons why things will not turn out exactly that way favor larger rosters. (Injuries, for example).

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.

Wait, I thought your strategy was supposed to reduce your chances of making the top 250, but give you a better chance of winning once you get there? I'm confused.

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?

18 players is a flawed strategy. An 18-player team with good player selection can beat larger rosters with poor player selection, but it's at a huge disadvantage compared to larger rosters with good player selection.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Last tidbit for the day because I'm starting to get drunk... this one goes back to 2009, and is just the tip of the iceberg of an analysis I've always wanted to do and might just get around to doing in the near future.

I compared the "stud" WRs from last year (any WR costing $20+) to all pairs of WRs that cost the same amount. For example, Terrell Owens cost $30, so I compared him to every pair of WRs whose prices added up to $30 (there were 120 such pairs, for example). I just compared the year-end total points (ETA: by year end total points, I mean I took the max score of the two WRs for each week from weeks 1-16 and added them up), and just checked if the pair outscored the stud or vice versa. Obviously this doesn't account for weekly variance, coincident byes, etc., but it's a start. Ultimately the goal is to do a comprehensive look at whether or not a "stud" WR is better than several lesser-priced WRs.

Anyway, here are the results... the rightmost column indicates how many of the possible pairs of WRs outscored the stud that could be purchased for the same price:

Player Team Price Pair Win %

Larry Fitzgerald ARI $44 53.1%

Andre Johnson HOU $43 7.1%

Randy Moss NE $42 14.1%

Calvin Johnson DET $40 86.4%

Steve Smith CAR $38 68.7%

Reggie Wayne IND $36 25.0%

Dwayne Bowe KC $35 98.4%

Roddy White ATL $33 30.5%

Wes Welker NE $33 16.8%

Greg Jennings GB $32 48.3%

Anquan Boldin ARI $31 51.4%

Terrell Owens BUF $30 62.5%

T.J. Houshmandzadeh SEA $30 56.3%

Brandon Marshall DEN $29 3.7%

Braylon Edwards CLE $28 66.9%

Marques Colston NO $28 36.8%

Santana Moss WAS $27 57.2%

Chad Ochocinco CIN $27 29.0%

Anthony Gonzalez IND $26 100.0%

Eddie Royal DEN $26 98.7%

Jerricho Cotchery NYJ $25 67.6%

Santonio Holmes PIT $25 24.7%

Hines Ward PIT $24 12.7%

DeSean Jackson PHI $24 7.0%

Antonio Bryant TB $23 88.1%

Torry Holt JAX $22 75.2%

Domenik Hixon NYG $21 100.0%

Lee Evans BUF $21 71.6%

Bernard Berrian MIN $21 71.6%

Donnie Avery STL $21 71.6%

Roy Williams DAL $21 69.5%

Donald Driver GB $21 16.8%

Vincent Jackson SD $21 6.3%

Lance Moore NO $20 100.0%

So, obviously a guy like Anthony Gonzalez has a "Pair Win %" of 100%, because he was hurt all year, so any possible pair of WRs that cost $26 outscored him. You can see a guy like Calvin Johnson, who had a down year, was outscored by 86.4% of the possible $40 pairs of WRs, while Andre Johnson, who had a great year, outscored all but 7.1% of the pairs that cost $43.

Overall, pairs of WRs outscored the "studs" 52.8% of the time. So it was almost a coinflip - it really did come down to lucky player selection vs. the idea that "studs" are always better than multiple cheaper guys or vice versa. Again, this doesn't look at variance (e.g. a pair of WRs might still be better than the stud because, even if they had a lower end-of-year total points, they might have more consistently avoided "down" weeks), and of course it doesn't account for the possibility of buying three or more WRs for the price of one stud.

I'll try to do more like this later but now the rest of my beer awaits.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Thanks for putting that together. What about 1 TE or 1 D or 1 PK? With the flex position and byes factored in, I consider 3 RB's and 4-5 WR's to be "junk" too, but others don't agree and junk is in the eye of the beholder.Even with this very limited definition of "junk," 249 of the 310 "junk" entries, or over 80% of them, are in the 18-19 man rosters. I'd say that clearly shows the "junk" entries are "mostly concentrated in the smaller rosters."

Dude,the overwhelming amount of all rosters fall in that category. You would expect it.

There were still proportionately many more "junk" entries in the smaller rosters, though (I was defining junk differently than modog did, though).Without manually combing through each roster (and even then it's totally subjective) I find it hard to label any entry junk if they have enough players at each position. If someone spent $250 and has 7 kickers, who am I to say they didn't take that entry seriously? Maybe they think that's a useful strategy. I draw the line at rosters that have a guaranteed zero at some point (e.g. they only have 3 WRs, or 1 PK, so when the byes roll around they will definitely have a zero at one starting position). I assume any roster with this flaw is "junk" because no one who seriously understood the rules and put any thought into the dynamics of the contest would seriously think that's a good idea. Earlier I posted up the numbers of teams that lacked the minimum depth at each position, and thus were labeled junk. What I didn't do at that time was pull in other rosters that might have bye week conflicts - for example, a team with 4 RBs wasn't labeled junk, but if all four of those RBs are on bye the same week, it should have been labeled a junk entry. I'll get to that on Monday, probably (I quickly glanced at some numbers earlier, and there was one team with 4 QBs, all on bye week 8 ). I didn't necessarily count all those teams in my junk numbers earlier but I'll throw them in later.Is 21-kicker guy a "junk" entry? Maybe. (Well, actually, I think he lacks the necessary depth at other positions, so he definitely is.) But is 10-kicker guy a "junk" entry? I don't know. If he has 2 QBs, 4 RBs, 6 WRs, 2 TEs, and 2 DST to go along with his 10 kickers, who am I to say that's not a serious attempt? Maybe he's done some analysis and seen that carrying that many kickers increases his chances of survival. (I can't imagine that's actually true, but you get the point.)Anyway, from what we can tell so far, there are proportionately a lot more junk entries in the smaller rosters than there are in the larger rosters. Even if we started calling 21-kicker guy and 15-defense guy "junk" there would still be many more in the smaller rosters. I think we have to admit that for now until they're all weeded out, and then maybe we can get a better comparison of "serious" 18-man rosters vs. the rest of the field.

 

[CalBear]

I draw the line at rosters that have a guaranteed zero at some point (e.g. they only have 3 WRs, or 1 PK, so when the byes roll around they will definitely have a zero at one starting position). I assume any roster with this flaw is "junk" because no one who seriously understood the rules and put any thought into the dynamics of the contest would seriously think that's a good idea. Earlier I posted up the numbers of teams that lacked the minimum depth at each position, and thus were labeled junk. What I didn't do at that time was pull in other rosters that might have bye week conflicts - for example, a team with 4 RBs wasn't labeled junk, but if all four of those RBs are on bye the same week, it should have been labeled a junk entry. I'll get to that on Monday, probably (I quickly glanced at some numbers earlier, and there was one team with 4 QBs, all on bye week 8 ). I didn't necessarily count all those teams in my junk numbers earlier but I'll throw them in later.

I wouldn't throw out 4-Week-8-QB-Bye Guy as a junk entry. He may have thought that was a valid strategy; if he gets through week 8, he'll be at full strength the rest of the weeks. [i don't agree, but I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.]

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

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.

Wait, I thought your strategy was supposed to reduce your chances of making the top 250, but give you a better chance of winning once you get there? I'm confused.

If my strategy does reduce my chances of making the top 250, and I still have 10 x the odds of making the top 250 than a larger-roster team, all the better. With no bye weeks in the finals, a healthy stud-led team has a better chance to produce up to potential once in the top 250 -- their finals average points should be > than their non-finals average points by a larger amount than for the larger roster teams.BTW, I don't consider my strategy to be a "small roster" strategy, but rather a "stud-led strategy": stud-led teams outperforming so far

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?

18 players is a flawed strategy. An 18-player team with good player selection can beat larger rosters with poor player selection, but it's at a huge disadvantage compared to larger rosters with good player selection.

That made more sense last year, where you could get a lot more value for low $ than this year, and where top studs were much more expensive, but I think that "huge disadvantage" is significantly reduced, if not eliminated, this year because of the ability to afford more top studs on a smaller roster, and the bigger downgrade in quality this year when going with more, cheaper players. It's much harder to have good player selection all around with a larger roster than it is with a stud-led roster, as "studs" have higher odds of ending up being "good player selection" than e.g., a group of 11 cheap WR's. This year, it was much easier to load up on "studs" (making it easier to have "good player selection" with a smaller roster) than last year: analysis of this year vs. last year:

"This year you could get these 7 studs for the 8 starting skill positions and still have a decent amount of money left over to fill out the rest of the roster. You couldn't come anywhere near that last year."

"This analysis shows clearly that, because of the vastly differently priced player pools this year vs. last year, a more stud-oriented strategy this year is much more viable than it would have been last year."

 

[CalBear]

BTW, I don't consider my strategy to be a "small roster" strategy, but rather a "stud-led strategy": stud-led teams outperforming so far

It so happens that the #1 priced players are performing pretty well, so the teams which have them are performing well. How are those teams with Romo, MJD, Fitzgerald, and Dallas Clark doing? Those are supposedly stud-led, too, right?When those #1 guys have byes and down weeks, rosters which are reliant on them (that is, small rosters) will get swept out.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

Overall, pairs of WRs outscored the "studs" 52.8% of the time. So it was almost a coinflip - it really did come down to lucky player selection vs. the idea that "studs" are always better than multiple cheaper guys or vice versa. Again, this doesn't look at variance (e.g. a pair of WRs might still be better than the stud because, even if they had a lower end-of-year total points, they might have more consistently avoided "down" weeks), and of course it doesn't account for the possibility of buying three or more WRs for the price of one stud.

Thanks for taking the time to do this analysis of last year's WR's. It's closer than I thought it would be -- I though with last year's price structure, the pairs would have outperformed the studs more handily. It will be interesting to see the numbers for this year. I think this year, the "stud" WR's will outperform the pairs, since the price structure has changed significantly. "Stud" WR's are much cheaper, with WR1 costing only $32 this year vs. $44 last year. Also, the cheapest WR's are more expensive this year -- last year there were 33 $1 and $2 WR's, whereas this year there are only 7.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It's much harder to have good player selection all around with a larger roster than it is with a stud-led roster, as "studs" have higher odds of ending up being "good player selection" than e.g., a group of 11 cheap WR's.

I don't think this has ever been shown. Does a single "stud" have a better chance of being a good selection than a single cheap WR? Probably. But do 2-3 "studs" have a better chance of being a good selection than 10-11 cheaper WRs? I don't think anyone's ever figured that out. You definitely can't claim it as a fact one way or the other. I just showed that last year, the question of whether a stud was better than two cheaper WRs was basically just a coinflip. Personally, I'd still guess that a group of 11 cheaper WRs would be much more useful than a similarly priced group of "studs" (even with the new pricing structure).

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

It so happens that the #1 priced players are performing pretty well, so the teams which have them are performing well.

Going by my league stats (don't have the leader stats for this contest), so far, Rodgers is QB #7, Chris Johnson's RB # 5, Andre Johnson is WR # 15, and only Gates is #1. I wouldn't call that "performing pretty well" vs. expectations.

When those #1 guys have byes and down weeks, rosters which are reliant on them (that is, small rosters) will get swept out.

I have the first 3, Rodgers, Chris Johnson, and Andre Johnson, and have used none of them all 3 weeks. I've only used Andre Johnson once. Stud-led doesn't mean you have nobody else to fill in for byes and down weeks (unless you have one of the many "junk" entries). This year, stud-led teams could have loaded up with 7 or so studs for the 8 skill positions, plus a bunch of good backups, so a bye or down week from a couple of studs won't sweep them out like it would have last year, where you could afford far fewer.

 

[The Man With No Name]

It's much harder to have good player selection all around with a larger roster than it is with a stud-led roster, as "studs" have higher odds of ending up being "good player selection" than e.g., a group of 11 cheap WR's.

I don't think this has ever been shown. Does a single "stud" have a better chance of being a good selection than a single cheap WR? Probably. But do 2-3 "studs" have a better chance of being a good selection than 10-11 cheaper WRs? I don't think anyone's ever figured that out. You definitely can't claim it as a fact one way or the other. I just showed that last year, the question of whether a stud was better than two cheaper WRs was basically just a coinflip. Personally, I'd still guess that a group of 11 cheaper WRs would be much more useful than a similarly priced group of "studs" (even with the new pricing structure).

There may be 2010 stud wr's that were not thought of as studs before the season started. So I guess it depends on your definition of stud. What points have the 'studs' scored so far this season? I have 7 wr's with a highest one just $22. No studs. My top 3 wr's each week have scored 163 points, an average of 54.33 points per week, 18.11 points per player per week.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I draw the line at rosters that have a guaranteed zero at some point (e.g. they only have 3 WRs, or 1 PK, so when the byes roll around they will definitely have a zero at one starting position). I assume any roster with this flaw is "junk" because no one who seriously understood the rules and put any thought into the dynamics of the contest would seriously think that's a good idea. Earlier I posted up the numbers of teams that lacked the minimum depth at each position, and thus were labeled junk. What I didn't do at that time was pull in other rosters that might have bye week conflicts - for example, a team with 4 RBs wasn't labeled junk, but if all four of those RBs are on bye the same week, it should have been labeled a junk entry. I'll get to that on Monday, probably (I quickly glanced at some numbers earlier, and there was one team with 4 QBs, all on bye week 8 ). I didn't necessarily count all those teams in my junk numbers earlier but I'll throw them in later.

I wouldn't throw out 4-Week-8-QB-Bye Guy as a junk entry. He may have thought that was a valid strategy; if he gets through week 8, he'll be at full strength the rest of the weeks. [i don't agree, but I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.]

Well the cut % goes up each week, and QB is generally the highest scoring position. Like I said, I don't think 4-QBs-all-on-bye-week-8-guy "seriously understood the rules and put any thought into the dynamics of the contest." It's just a terrible idea - you're taking a guaranteed zero at the highest scoring position late in the season. I'd safely consider that a "junk" entry. But it is a subjective thing. Personally, I'd consider any teams with guaranteed zeroes as junk entries, and I err on the side of believing any other teams that don't have guaranteed zeroes are not junk.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

It's much harder to have good player selection all around with a larger roster than it is with a stud-led roster, as "studs" have higher odds of ending up being "good player selection" than e.g., a group of 11 cheap WR's.

I don't think this has ever been shown. Does a single "stud" have a better chance of being a good selection than a single cheap WR? Probably. But do 2-3 "studs" have a better chance of being a good selection than 10-11 cheaper WRs? I don't think anyone's ever figured that out. You definitely can't claim it as a fact one way or the other. I just showed that last year, the question of whether a stud was better than two cheaper WRs was basically just a coinflip. Personally, I'd still guess that a group of 11 cheaper WRs would be much more useful than a similarly priced group of "studs" (even with the new pricing structure).

For this year, because of the far more stud-favorable price structure, I think it will be clear that 1 stud on average will outperform a pair of cheaper WR's. For 2-3 vs. 11 at the same cost, I think the result will be the same, but that wasn't my point. My point was it was easier to hit on 2-3 studs than it is to hit on 11 cheap WR's. It all comes down to player selection -- sure, a well-selected (after-the-fact) 11 cheap WR's will probably outperform 2-3 studs (plus 3-4 cheapies to fill out the roster), but I don't think the typical 11 cheap WR's selected before the contest will outperform the 2-3 studs (plus 3-4 cheapies). In any case, my point was it's harder to end up with "good player selection" "all around" with 30 players that on average cost much less than it is with 18 players that are loaded with studs. Sure, there are top stud WR's who flop and won't contribute to a team, but there are far more cheap WR's that don't perform well enough to help a team in this contest. Keep in mind, even an under-performing stud likely will be used more often than a cheap WR performing as expected, and bench points don't count.

After the fact, when the 30-player roster under-performs, they can chalk it up to "bad player selection" even with a superior strategy, but IMO you'll see "bad player selection" far more often %-wise in the larger rosters than the stud-led rosters.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It's much harder to have good player selection all around with a larger roster than it is with a stud-led roster, as "studs" have higher odds of ending up being "good player selection" than e.g., a group of 11 cheap WR's.

I don't think this has ever been shown. Does a single "stud" have a better chance of being a good selection than a single cheap WR? Probably. But do 2-3 "studs" have a better chance of being a good selection than 10-11 cheaper WRs? I don't think anyone's ever figured that out. You definitely can't claim it as a fact one way or the other. I just showed that last year, the question of whether a stud was better than two cheaper WRs was basically just a coinflip. Personally, I'd still guess that a group of 11 cheaper WRs would be much more useful than a similarly priced group of "studs" (even with the new pricing structure).

There may be 2010 stud wr's that were not thought of as studs before the season started. So I guess it depends on your definition of stud. What points have the 'studs' scored so far this season? I have 7 wr's with a highest one just $22. No studs. My top 3 wr's each week have scored 163 points, an average of 54.33 points per week, 18.11 points per player per week.

Yes, I frequently put "studs" in quotes, because I'm really referring to "players who were considered studs before the season started." Someone else astutely pointed out earlier that studs are really defined after the season, not before.

 

[David Dodds]

why would having 6 defenses or 6 kickers be considered a junk entry with 30 roster spots? Couldn't that cost less than $18? Hardly a waste of dollars to give yourself a better than average chance of having a high scoring defense each week. I agree strategically that you likely don't need 6 (just the right 3 or 4), but the same could be said about too many of any position. At least at kicker and defense, the players come cheap.

I see flawed as 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, or 1 TE only. I think those types of rosters are going to be more common at 18 teams.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

My point was it was easier to hit on 2-3 studs than it is to hit on 11 cheap WR's.

But you don't have to hit on 11 cheap WRs. You just have to hit on 2-3 of them. The question really is, if you need to end up with 2-3 stud WRs (as defined after the season), are your chances better by choosing 2-3 "preseason studs" or 10-11 cheaper guys? That question hasn't been answered yet. It's definitely not as clear cut as you seem to think.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

why would having 6 defenses or 6 kickers be considered a junk entry with 30 roster spots? Couldn't that cost less than $18? Hardly a waste of dollars to give yourself a better than average chance of having a high scoring defense each week. I agree strategically that you likely don't need 6 (just the right 3 or 4), but the same could be said about too many of any position. At least at kicker and defense, the players come cheap.

I agree, I wouldn't classify them as junk.

I see flawed as 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, or 1 TE only. I think those types of rosters are going to be more common at 18 teams.

They are. (I'd also include teams with 1 PK or 1 TD as flawed as well - I don't think it's wise to take a zero at any position on any given week.)

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

My point was it was easier to hit on 2-3 studs than it is to hit on 11 cheap WR's.

But you don't have to hit on 11 cheap WRs. You just have to hit on 2-3 of them. The question really is, if you need to end up with 2-3 stud WRs (as defined after the season), are your chances better by choosing 2-3 "preseason studs" or 10-11 cheaper guys? That question hasn't been answered yet. It's definitely not as clear cut as you seem to think.

Yes, but you can hit on 2-3 of them with the 3-4 cheap WR's you combine with your studs. Nobody with a viable roster has only 2-3 WR's -- they have at least 3-4 cheaper WR's to back the studs up.For that question, I think you're more likely to end up with 2-3 stud WR's (as defined after the season) by choosing 2-3 preseason studs plus 3-4 cheaper WR's than with 10-11 cheaper guys. You might miss badly on one of the studs, but you should be able to make up for that with the cheaper WR's.

 

[CalBear]

It so happens that the #1 priced players are performing pretty well, so the teams which have them are performing well.

Going by my league stats (don't have the leader stats for this contest), so far, Rodgers is QB #7, Chris Johnson's RB # 5, Andre Johnson is WR # 15, and only Gates is #1. I wouldn't call that "performing pretty well" vs. expectations.

Compared to Romo, MJD, Fitzgerald and Clark it is.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

My point was it was easier to hit on 2-3 studs than it is to hit on 11 cheap WR's.

But you don't have to hit on 11 cheap WRs. You just have to hit on 2-3 of them. The question really is, if you need to end up with 2-3 stud WRs (as defined after the season), are your chances better by choosing 2-3 "preseason studs" or 10-11 cheaper guys? That question hasn't been answered yet. It's definitely not as clear cut as you seem to think.

Yes, but you can hit on 2-3 of them with the 3-4 cheap WR's you combine with your studs. Nobody with a viable roster has only 2-3 WR's -- they have at least 3-4 cheaper WR's to back the studs up.For that question, I think you're more likely to end up with 2-3 stud WR's (as defined after the season) by choosing 2-3 preseason studs plus 3-4 cheaper WR's than with 10-11 cheaper guys. You might miss badly on one of the studs, but you should be able to make up for that with the cheaper WR's.

OK, but that's only one part of the picture. Let's say you get lucky and hit on your 2-3 studs and your 3-4 backups. I assume that means you have one of those 2-4-6-2-2-2 rosters, or something similar. So not only did you have to hit on those WRs, but then you also have to hit on your 4 RBs to perform as well as all the larger rosters that have 6-8 RBs, and your 2 QBs to perform as well as all the larger rosters with 3-4 QBs, and your 2 TEs to perform as well as all the larger rosters with 3-4 TEs, and your 2 PKs to perform as well as all the larger rosters with 3-4 PKs, and your 2 TDs to perform as well as all the larger rosters with 3-4 TDs. It's an extremely tall order - you have to get phenomenally lucky for all of thsoe things to go right. That's why, on average, the smaller rosters got killed last year and have continued to get eliminated at a very high rate this year.

 

[sinatravolta]

Wow - I officially have the least unique team remaining. (8521)



102775

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

My point was it was easier to hit on 2-3 studs than it is to hit on 11 cheap WR's.

But you don't have to hit on 11 cheap WRs. You just have to hit on 2-3 of them. The question really is, if you need to end up with 2-3 stud WRs (as defined after the season), are your chances better by choosing 2-3 "preseason studs" or 10-11 cheaper guys? That question hasn't been answered yet. It's definitely not as clear cut as you seem to think.

Yes, but you can hit on 2-3 of them with the 3-4 cheap WR's you combine with your studs. Nobody with a viable roster has only 2-3 WR's -- they have at least 3-4 cheaper WR's to back the studs up.For that question, I think you're more likely to end up with 2-3 stud WR's (as defined after the season) by choosing 2-3 preseason studs plus 3-4 cheaper WR's than with 10-11 cheaper guys. You might miss badly on one of the studs, but you should be able to make up for that with the cheaper WR's.

OK, but that's only one part of the picture. Let's say you get lucky and hit on your 2-3 studs and your 3-4 backups. I assume that means you have one of those 2-4-6-2-2-2 rosters, or something similar. So not only did you have to hit on those WRs, but then you also have to hit on your 4 RBs to perform as well as all the larger rosters that have 6-8 RBs, and your 2 QBs to perform as well as all the larger rosters with 3-4 QBs, and your 2 TEs to perform as well as all the larger rosters with 3-4 TEs, and your 2 PKs to perform as well as all the larger rosters with 3-4 PKs, and your 2 TDs to perform as well as all the larger rosters with 3-4 TDs. It's an extremely tall order - you have to get phenomenally lucky for all of thsoe things to go right. That's why, on average, the smaller rosters got killed last year and have continued to get eliminated at a very high rate this year.

When you consider that you're starting mostly studs while those other teams are starting mostly mediocre players in those positions because of the price structure this year, you don't "have to get phenomenally lucky for all of those things to go right." In your analysis showing the stud WR's last year, which were far more expensive than this year, were basically a coin flip vs. a pair of WR's for the same price, teams with studs were able to get about the same points as teams with twice as many WR's at the same cost. I was amazed at that, as I thought last year it was clearly better to go with the larger roster. I think the studs win that comparison this year (on average -- of course there will be some flops among the studs and the cheaper players).One example is Andre Johnson, where you said, "Andre Johnson, who had a great year, outscored all but 7.1% of the pairs that cost $43." That's amazing, as he was a steal at $43. If he has a similar year this year, or even significantly worse but still good, he'll be a total steal at $32 in the new price structure.

If you have, say 7 preseason studs across the 8 skill positions (1 QB, 2 RB's, 3 WR's, 1 TE, 1 Flex), 6 of them perform on average near their expectations (maybe 1 significantly above, 1 significantly below), and 1 of them flops out or gets injured, you still have 7 other cheaper players to fill in for that 8th slot, bye weeks, dud weeks, and the flop/injured stud, as well as the extra points from your studs who are performing near expectations. Yes, you need to get phenomenally lucky to win the contest, but more of your luck is required to keep your players healthy than to pick the longshot (or 7 of them) who far outperforms expectations. With any bad luck, you'll lose more studs to injury/bad performance and get eliminated early, but nobody's going to win this thing with bad luck.

I actually think the opposite, that you have to be phenomenally lucky in picking the right cheap players to match up to the performance of the best stud-led teams, both during the bye weeks and in the finals. For the Andre Johnson example, you would have had to pick one of the 7.1% of pairs that beat him for the same cost, and this year you'd need to do that with much cheaper WR's. And you'd need to do that at every position, as somebody's going to end up with the right combination of studs. I think it was much easier to pick Andre Johnson last year than it was to pick 2 WR's that would have outperformed him for the same cost.

Yes, "on average, the smaller rosters got killed last year and have continued to get eliminated at a very high rate this year," but that includes thousands of junk rosters. The stud-led rosters have actually survived better than average: stud-led teams outperforming so far

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

How are those teams with Romo, MJD, Fitzgerald, and Dallas Clark doing?

Not one of them has been eliminated. Not one person out of the 13,000+ entrants chose this combination, but I guess it must prove that stud-led teams are doomed... Meanwhile, of the 43 teams with Rodgers, Chris Johnson, Andre Johnson, and Gates, 38 are still alive. That's 88.37% vs. 65.24% for the contest overall. That tough player selection entailed choosing the top-ranked, highest-cost player at each of the 4 skill positions.Replace Gates with Finley (seeing that many here viewed Finley as TE1) and there were 109 teams with that mix, with 100 still alive. That's a 91.74% survival rate just taking the board-consensus top-ranked players at each of the 4 skill positions. Even though Finley's only been TE3 so far, I think those who selected him were more likely to have read these boards and spent more time on their rosters, and less likely to have just rushed through -- thus the very high survival rate.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

Replace Gates with Finley (seeing that many here viewed Finley as TE1) and there were 109 teams with that mix, with 100 still alive. That's a 91.74% survival rate just taking the board-consensus top-ranked players at each of the 4 skill positions. Even though Finley's only been TE3 so far, I think those who selected him were more likely to have read these boards and spent more time on their rosters, and less likely to have just rushed through -- thus the very high survival rate.

Add Foster, whom everyone here expected be a top RB and should have cost much more -- owned by over 75% of teams, way more than any other player, and there were 76 teams with that combination. Amazingly, all 76 are still alive, for a 100% survival rate.So based on the results so far, it seems a great strategy was to take the board-consensus #1 player at each skill position and add in the board-consensus biggest steal of the contest, and then build your team from that core. That's what I did, along with 75 others -- definitely a stud-led strategy. We'll see how this strategy works the rest of the season...

 

[CalBear]

So based on the results so far, it seems a great strategy was to take the board-consensus #1 player at each skill position and add in the board-consensus biggest steal of the contest, and then build your team from that core.

That's a "great" strategy, assuming your goal is to get through the first three weeks. Call me back after the bye weeks.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

So based on the results so far, it seems a great strategy was to take the board-consensus #1 player at each skill position and add in the board-consensus biggest steal of the contest, and then build your team from that core.

That's a "great" strategy, assuming your goal is to get through the first three weeks. Call me back after the bye weeks.

Yeah, I was about to edit to say great strategy for the first 3 weeks. The big test will be week 10, when Rodgers and Finley are both on bye -- hopefully, Chris Johnson, Andre Johnson, and Foster all go off that week to help make up for the bye players. That should be the biggest % cut to this group, assuming any make it that far. Fortunately, I think that week will be a low cut week, with many teams hindered by that bye. Week 7, when Foster and Andre Johnson are both on bye, will be another challenge for this group. If any of these teams make it through week 10, they should be strong contenders the rest of the way.Another downside to this strategy is the lack of uniqueness. However, I think the importance of uniqueness gets overemphasized sometimes. I wouldn't mind if all 76 teams make it to the finals -- then the difference among this group will come down to the rest of the roster, which will be unique for everyone. I'd much rather have a stronger, less-unique team than a weaker, more unique team.

 

[WisWolvrns]

Replace Gates with Finley (seeing that many here viewed Finley as TE1) and there were 109 teams with that mix, with 100 still alive. That's a 91.74% survival rate just taking the board-consensus top-ranked players at each of the 4 skill positions. Even though Finley's only been TE3 so far, I think those who selected him were more likely to have read these boards and spent more time on their rosters, and less likely to have just rushed through -- thus the very high survival rate.

Add Foster, whom everyone here expected be a top RB and should have cost much more -- owned by over 75% of teams, way more than any other player, and there were 76 teams with that combination. Amazingly, all 76 are still alive, for a 100% survival rate.So based on the results so far, it seems a great strategy was to take the board-consensus #1 player at each skill position and add in the board-consensus biggest steal of the contest, and then build your team from that core. That's what I did, along with 75 others -- definitely a stud-led strategy. We'll see how this strategy works the rest of the season...

great observation. as I too think the who you pick will weigh more than how many a person picks. though I do side with the larger roster theories. however a simple top priced player at each position and an obvious possible steal (Foster) is about as straight forward as possible to illustrate your stud theory. color me as curious how those teams fair during the bye weeks. impressive first 3 weeks.

 

[WisWolvrns]

On the flip side... there were 310 teams with: Arian Foster, Louis Murphy, Mike Williams (TB) and Aaron Hernandez ($30 total). 303 are still alive. 97.7% survival rate.

Hmm... note to self... next year... pick the top player at each spot, the highly hyped RB everyone will own (last season it was Rice, this year Foster, there is bound to be one next year), plus own the cheap player(s) consensus that is floating around. fill in remaining $ with bye week coverage depth and style of choice (min / middle / or max roster size).

But then I won't be able to waste hours flipping multitudes of lineups!

 

[The Iguana]

I love this thread!

oh and the power rankings like me at least a little... 410 power ranking, 1419 UQ... I'll take it for now.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Wow - I officially have the least unique team remaining. (8521) 102775

Let's look at your team:Aaron Rodgers $29 2nd most owned QBDerek Anderson $6 1st most owned QB---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Marion Barber $18 18th most owned RBAhmad Bradshaw $18 3rd most owned RBC.J. Spiller $17 2nd most owned RB Arian Foster $13 1st most owned RBLeon Washington $8 7th most owned RB---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Andre Johnson $32 4th most owned WRPierre Garcon $12 2nd most owned WRMike Williams $8 1st most owned WRDexter McCluster $7 20th most owned WRBernard Berrian $7 5th most owned WRLaurent Robinson $7 7th most owned WRBrian Hartline $6 65th most owned WRLouis Murphy $4 3rd most owned WR---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jermichael Finley $21 1st most owned TEVernon Davis $19 8th most owned TE---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sebastian Janikowski $2 1st most owned PKMatt Bryant $2 3rd most owned PKJason Hanson $2 4th most owned PK---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------San Francisco 49ers $5 1st most owned TDNew England Patriots $4 12th most owned TDTampa Bay Buccaneers $3 13th most owned TDAs an aside 11 of the 26 guys on my roster are on this roster.-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

One other thing about having the least unique roster:

Of the 64 entries that have all 6 of the most-owned choice at each of the 6 positions, 62 are still in the contest. That's an incredible percentage.

None were eliminated in week one.

None were eliminated in week two.

Two were eliminated in week three. Both of these entries finished less than 1 point below the cut line.

While it will be very difficult for any of these entries to break out of the pack and finish on top, it will be very very difficult for them to get knocked out of the contest. You should have a nice long run, entry number 102775

-QG

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I love this thread!

oh and the power rankings like me at least a little... 410 power ranking, 1419 UQ... I'll take it for now.

proxy theiguana

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

One example is Andre Johnson, where you said, "Andre Johnson, who had a great year, outscored all but 7.1% of the pairs that cost $43." That's amazing, as he was a steal at $43. If he has a similar year this year, or even significantly worse but still good, he'll be a total steal at $32 in the new price structure.

That "pairs vs. studs" analysis had a ton of flaws, most of which probably leaned in favor of the studs. One of the biggest, as I mentioned, is that it just compared year-end total points, which doesn't necessarily tell us that much useful information in a contest like this. For as good of a year he had, Andre Johnson scored just 8.6 points in week 4 - 68% of the $43 pairs did better than that. He scored just 8.2 points in week 7 - 70% of the pairs did better than that. And, of course, he scored 0 points when he was on bye in week 10, and all 100% of the pairs did better than that. Hedging that inevitable weekly variance is an enormous part of why larger rosters consistently do better than smaller rosters, and none of the analyses done so far have really begun to account for that. If everyone just picked players, survived all year long, and we just added up all their points at the end of the season, a smaller, stud-led team might be better. But that's not at all how the contest works, and most of the stud-heavy teams will likely be sitting here at the end of the year lamenting how well they'd be doing if only they'd been able to survive past week 10. The luck doesn't just come in to picking the "right" players for the season - the luck comes in to picking the "right" players for each individual week of the season. It is far more difficult to pull that off with a smaller roster, new pricing structure notwithstanding. And as poorly as the smaller rosters have done so far this year, they haven't even had to deal with bye weeks yet, so the worst is yet to come.

 

[Modog814]

why would having 6 defenses or 6 kickers be considered a junk entry with 30 roster spots? Couldn't that cost less than $18? Hardly a waste of dollars to give yourself a better than average chance of having a high scoring defense each week. I agree strategically that you likely don't need 6 (just the right 3 or 4), but the same could be said about too many of any position. At least at kicker and defense, the players come cheap.I see flawed as 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, or 1 TE only. I think those types of rosters are going to be more common at 18 teams.

Good point, i arbitrarily picked 6+ Kickers or Defenses. The point was to try and capture the ridiculous teams that clearly are junk (21 kicker guy). I don't have the data I worked with in front of me, but if I recall correctly there weren't too many teams that fell into the junk category due to the Kicker/Defense criteria that weren't already there due to a different criteria.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

One example is Andre Johnson, where you said, "Andre Johnson, who had a great year, outscored all but 7.1% of the pairs that cost $43." That's amazing, as he was a steal at $43. If he has a similar year this year, or even significantly worse but still good, he'll be a total steal at $32 in the new price structure.

That "pairs vs. studs" analysis had a ton of flaws, most of which probably leaned in favor of the studs. One of the biggest, as I mentioned, is that it just compared year-end total points, which doesn't necessarily tell us that much useful information in a contest like this. For as good of a year he had, Andre Johnson scored just 8.6 points in week 4 - 68% of the $43 pairs did better than that. He scored just 8.2 points in week 7 - 70% of the pairs did better than that. And, of course, he scored 0 points when he was on bye in week 10, and all 100% of the pairs did better than that. Hedging that inevitable weekly variance is an enormous part of why larger rosters consistently do better than smaller rosters, and none of the analyses done so far have really begun to account for that. If everyone just picked players, survived all year long, and we just added up all their points at the end of the season, a smaller, stud-led team might be better. But that's not at all how the contest works, and most of the stud-heavy teams will likely be sitting here at the end of the year lamenting how well they'd be doing if only they'd been able to survive past week 10. The luck doesn't just come in to picking the "right" players for the season - the luck comes in to picking the "right" players for each individual week of the season. It is far more difficult to pull that off with a smaller roster, new pricing structure notwithstanding. And as poorly as the smaller rosters have done so far this year, they haven't even had to deal with bye weeks yet, so the worst is yet to come.

Yes, it's not a total points at the end of the year contest. As you mention, AJ had 3 down weeks where pairs beat him soundly -- that makes his outscoring more than 97% of the pairs despite those down weeks even more amazing. One of the big advantages of the studs is in some weeks they'll have huge scores, which will help cover for several off weeks/byes from other players. For example, even though my team only used AJ once so far this year, his 33.8 points that week helped cover for Chris Johnson's 7.8 weeks that week. Likewise, the two weeks I didn't use AJ, Chris Johnson's 29 and 24.5 points helped cover for AJ's off weeks. Since I have 7 "studs," I always have some studs helping to cover for the off weeks of others, as well as 7 cheaper players (Mike Williams and Louis Murphy have also helped cover for those guys' down weeks). Last year, with far fewer studs affordable, one didn't have that luxury as much.The stud-led rosters need to get lucky with the weekly variances, so when they have a couple of studs on bye, injured, or putting up duds, they have either other studs or cheaper players covering for them. However, the same applies to the larger rosters to a certain extent -- every week, they need to have their top 8 skill players keep up with the top 8 from stud-led teams, which can have mostly studs filling those slots. With good player selection, it's doable, but it's not easy.

For both stud-led and larger rosters, you have to be lucky with picking the right players for the right weeks. The advantage for the stud-led rosters is the big weeks many studs will have, while the advantage for the larger rosters is quantity. The stud-led rosters have not done poorly so far, but rather they have been surviving at a very high rate. The test will be the bye weeks, and those who survive those should do very well the rest of the way. The object of the contest isn't to just survive the bye weeks, but rather to also score highest in the finals weeks. This year, I think those stud-led teams who can survive the bye weeks will have a big advantage in the finals.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I grabbed the rosters that were eliminated in weeks 1-3, so now I have a complete database of all 13,061 entries.

Re: the "stud-led" concept, I grouped rosters into small (18-21 players), medium (22-26 players) and large (27-30 players). Here are survival rates for teams with the top "studs", broken out by roster size:

Aaron Rodgers owners:

Small 69.4%

Medium 83.5%

Large 86.2%

Chris Johnson owners:

Small 68.0%

Medium 79.0%

Large 79.5%

Andre Johnson owners:

Small 68.2%

Medium 80.0%

Large 86.5%

Antonio Gates owners:

Small 81.1%

Medium 88.3%

Large 100.0%

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

On the flip side... there were 310 teams with: Arian Foster, Louis Murphy, Mike Williams (TB) and Aaron Hernandez ($30 total). 303 are still alive. 97.7% survival rate.Hmm... note to self... next year... pick the top player at each spot, the highly hyped RB everyone will own (last season it was Rice, this year Foster, there is bound to be one next year), plus own the cheap player(s) consensus that is floating around. fill in remaining $ with bye week coverage depth and style of choice (min / middle / or max roster size). But then I won't be able to waste hours flipping multitudes of lineups!

Yep, I had all 4 of them until I switched out Hernandez for Gresham because of NE's schedule and the uncertainty of the distribution between Hernandez, Gronkowski, and Crumpler. I was looking for a complement to Finley, and NE plays @Pit during Finley's week 10 bye.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I grabbed the rosters that were eliminated in weeks 1-3, so now I have a complete database of all 13,061 entries.

Re: the "stud-led" concept, I grouped rosters into small (18-21 players), medium (22-26 players) and large (27-30 players). Here are survival rates for teams with the top "studs", broken out by roster size:

Aaron Rodgers owners:

Small 69.4%

Medium 83.5%

Large 86.2%

Chris Johnson owners:

Small 68.0%

Medium 79.0%

Large 79.5%

Andre Johnson owners:

Small 68.2%

Medium 80.0%

Large 86.5%

Antonio Gates owners:

Small 81.1%

Medium 88.3%

Large 100.0%

A couple questions, one of which is probably more obtainable than the other:1) What about average team scores? What does that show as opposed to the ownership percentages.

2) What are the performance rates (survival percentage and average team scores) for the guys that are more likely to be on a smaller roster than on a bigger roster and vice versa? What do the numbers show for say, Berrian, who I presume is more prevalent on the big rosters but hasn't produced.

-QG

 

[comfortably numb]

I walked into a fantasy football thread, and a math convention broke out.

WTF

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

A couple questions, one of which is probably more obtainable than the other:1) What about average team scores? What does that show as opposed to the ownership percentages.2) What are the performance rates (survival percentage and average team scores) for the guys that are more likely to be on a smaller roster than on a bigger roster and vice versa? What do the numbers show for say, Berrian, who I presume is more prevalent on the big rosters but hasn't produced.-QG

Average scores by what, roster size? Larger rosters did better than smaller rosters in weeks 1 and 3; smaller rosters did slightly better in week 2, possibly because high-priced players like Jahvid Best, Andre Johnson, Frank Gore, etc. were the top scorers? (I assume, without checking, that players like those are more likely to be on the smaller rosters). Anyway, the weekly averages by roster size are:Roster Size Avg Wk 1 Avg Wk 2 Avg Wk 318 158.8 165.9 163.919 162.8 165.2 166.320 165.2 165.1 167.721 167.3 165.5 168.622 169 164.7 170.123 170.9 164.1 171.324 171.9 167.2 171.525 173.1 165.5 172.126 173 163.7 174.127 171.9 164.6 175.428 173.1 162.2 173.129 168.3 163.4 174.730 171.3 164.8 175.9If we want to look at teams that own specific players, I can and will get that. Survival percentages are already available through Doug's query form, unless you're saying you want to see a breakdown by player and roster size (e.g. 18-man Berrian owners vs. 30-man Berrian owners). That will take a little work. I'm in the process of adding some new fields to the DB so I can throw in some flags to make the queries easier to run. You're right that Berrian is more prevalent on larger rosters - he was on just 14% of 18-man rosters but 34% of 24-man rosters and 42% of 30-man rosters. To get the overall survival percentages and average weekly scores, I'll need to do a little work on the DB first.

 

[da_budman]

I love this thread!

oh and the power rankings like me at least a little... 410 power ranking, 1419 UQ... I'll take it for now.

proxy theiguana

 

[sinatravolta]

One other thing about having the least unique roster:Of the 64 entries that have all 6 of the most-owned choice at each of the 6 positions, 62 are still in the contest. That's an incredible percentage.None were eliminated in week one.None were eliminated in week two.Two were eliminated in week three. Both of these entries finished less than 1 point below the cut line.While it will be very difficult for any of these entries to break out of the pack and finish on top, it will be very very difficult for them to get knocked out of the contest. You should have a nice long run, entry number 102775 -QG

Thank you - appreciate the thought - although point well taken about it being hard to differentiate myself down the stretch. Only chance would be guys like Marion Barber and Vernon Davis who are less owned going off. But I could be in for a tough week. I knew that I had 3 WRs on a bye this week - but figured I'd be ok with them being cheap guys and having 5 others. However, of those 5, Garcon and Robinson are almost surely not playing and Andre Johnson may not play either - leaving me only Louie Murphy and Brian Hartline at WR (Murphy is questionable himself but supposedly going to play). But hopefully it's early enough in the year that enough people are in even worse shape and/or my commonly owned guys come through this week.

 

[kevzilla]

I walked into a fantasy football thread, and a math convention broke out.WTF

 

[QuizGuy66]

I walked into a fantasy football thread, and a math convention broke out.WTF

Numby needs to watch out - we have sharpened protractors -QG

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

Weird tidbit for this morning... I was just flagging all the "junk" entries in the database, and I thought I had some kind of glitch where I was double-counting the rows because I kept coming up with 2472. I couldn't figure out what the problem was, though. Then I remembered that I had added all the eliminated entries since the last time I ran this, and as it turns out, there were exactly 1236 junk entries that have already been eliminated. That is, there were 2472 junk entries to start the contest, and exactly half of them have been eliminated so far. Not very interesting, I suppose, but I just thought it was strange.

 

[WisWolvrns]

As Joe might say... "a glitch in the matrix"

Good luck through the byes week. Hopefully most of us posting here make it through to the other side!