The arguement for an RB-weighted system (1 Viewer)

[ceo3west]

So yesterday's discussion turned into a debacle I'll admit. But I would like to thank all of you for your thoughts on the topic. I know some of you may want to bash me again and probably will, but I want to try and convey my real point in all this - why a scoring system should be weighted towards running backs. Any thoughts and opinions are welcomed.

I think we can all agree that it is more difficult to pick RB's that will be sucessful compared to QB's that will be sucessful. History has shown that QB's predicted to be in the top 15 have landed there more often than the RB's that had been predicted to land there. This by definition makes it more difficult to predict RB's.

Given this, I'd like opinions (not slams) as to why you would have a scoring system that would give QB's more or equal value to RB's. If it's more difficult to predict which RB's will produce, then isn't it logical to place a higher value on RB's and reward the owner accordingly?

Some people have used the Droughns/Manning argument, saying it's ridiculous that Droughns would have more value. I say he should, because it's much more difficult to predict what he's going to do than what Manning is going to do.

Again, I know yesterday was a debacle. This may be my first year on the msg boards but I have been with FBG since day one when some poeple still weren't online and the site was free, so I'm not a newbie. If someone can convince me that this is illogical I would like to hear why. Thanks.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

That argument could be extrapolated to argue we should have Fantasy Football most heavily weighted towards Kickers as most feel they are the least predictable position.

 

[ceo3west]

That argument could be extrapolated to argue we should have Fantasy Football most heavily weighted towards Kickers as most feel they are the least predictable position.

Valid point. However my response to that is just like the QB's - history has shown that those kickers predicted to land in the top 15 have done so much more than RB's, making RB's more difficult to predict. No?

 

[valhallan]

Everyone plays fantasy football for different reasons, be it for competition among friends, for boredom at work, to have an a extra bit of interest in Sundays games, to make money, to prove you're some kind of expert talent evaluator, etc. These motivations push us toward certain league types that fulfill our needs. You found a liking for RB-heavy league types. Great, then play in them. I think they're bland, so I'll play in a different kind of league.

 

[ImTheScientist]

So yesterday's discussion turned into a debacle I'll admit.  But I would like to thank all of you for your thoughts on the topic.  I know some of you may want to bash me again and probably will, but I want to try and convey my real point in all this - why a scoring system should be weighted towards running backs.  Any thoughts and opinions are welcomed.

I think we can all agree that it is more difficult to pick RB's that will be sucessful compared to QB's that will be sucessful.  History has shown that QB's predicted to be in the top 15 have landed there more often than the RB's that had been predicted to land there.  This by definition makes it more difficult to predict RB's.

Given this, I'd like opinions (not slams) as to why you would have a scoring system that would give QB's more or equal value to RB's.  If it's more difficult to predict which RB's will produce, then isn't it logical to place a higher value on RB's and reward the owner accordingly?

Some people have used the Droughns/Manning argument, saying it's ridiculous that Droughns would have more value.  I say he should, because it's much more difficult to predict what he's going to do than what Manning is going to do.

Again, I know yesterday was a debacle.  This may be my first year on the msg boards but I have been with FBG since day one when some poeple still weren't online and the site was free, so I'm not a newbie.  If someone can convince me that this is illogical I would like to hear why.  Thanks.

The one thing I do not understand is why 2 RB's are always started. This is what give's RB's their weight. 1QB 1RB 2WR 1TE 1K 1D with 1Flex (either RB,WR,or TE) would make the most sense. It is the most realistic. I would like to know if there are any league that use this format. If I had to choose between weighting: QBs stronger than RB's, RB's stronger than QBs or equal weight. I prefer RB's have stronger weight than QB's just because it adds to the difficulty of FF.

 

[ceo3west]

Everyone plays fantasy football for different reasons, be it for competition among friends, for boredom at work, to have an a extra bit of interest in Sundays games, to make money, to prove you're some kind of expert talent evaluator, etc. These motivations push us toward certain league types that fulfill our needs. You found a liking for RB-heavy league types. Great, then play in them. I think they're bland, so I'll play in a different kind of league.

Hey, that's great and I totally respect that. But I guess what I'm trying find out is when guys call the RB weighted system "stupid" or "dumb", I would like a reason for it, thats all. I gave reasons above why I don't think its stupid, and I made a logical argument for the system.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Everyone plays fantasy football for different reasons, be it for competition among friends, for boredom at work, to have an a extra bit of interest in Sundays games, to make money, to prove you're some kind of expert talent evaluator, etc. These motivations push us toward certain league types that fulfill our needs. You found a liking for RB-heavy league types. Great, then play in them. I think they're bland, so I'll play in a different kind of league.

If you play in a league that starts 2RB's it is Running back heavy by default.

 

[valhallan]

Everyone plays fantasy football for different reasons, be it for competition among friends, for boredom at work, to have an a extra bit of interest in Sundays games, to make money, to prove you're some kind of expert talent evaluator, etc. These motivations push us toward certain league types that fulfill our needs. You found a liking for RB-heavy league types. Great, then play in them. I think they're bland, so I'll play in a different kind of league.

If you play in a league that starts 2RB's it is Running back heavy by default.

Not true.

 

[valhallan]

Everyone plays fantasy football for different reasons, be it for competition among friends, for boredom at work, to have an a extra bit of interest in Sundays games, to make money, to prove you're some kind of expert talent evaluator, etc. These motivations push us toward certain league types that fulfill our needs. You found a liking for RB-heavy league types. Great, then play in them. I think they're bland, so I'll play in a different kind of league.

Hey, that's great and I totally respect that. But I guess what I'm trying find out is when guys call the RB weighted system "stupid" or "dumb", I would like a reason for it, thats all. I gave reasons above why I don't think its stupid, and I made a logical argument for the system.

Well guys like that probably aren't going to take part in a logical debate, so I wouldn't waste too much time on them if I were you.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Everyone plays fantasy football for different reasons, be it for competition among friends, for boredom at work, to have an a extra bit of interest in Sundays games, to make money, to prove you're some kind of expert talent evaluator, etc.  These motivations push us toward certain league types that fulfill our needs.  You found a liking for RB-heavy league types.  Great, then play in them.  I think they're bland, so I'll play in a different kind of league.

If you play in a league that starts 2RB's it is Running back heavy by default.

Not true.

I would like to see your scoring system if its not. In a 12 team league there are 24 spots for starting RB's and 12 for starting QB's. There are 32 NFL teams, 32 starting NFL QB's and only 9-11 RB's which are not RBBC and 24 RB roster spots to fill.

Explain to me how that system is not weighted towards RB's?

 

[anborn]

That argument could be extrapolated to argue we should have Fantasy Football most heavily weighted towards Kickers as most feel they are the least predictable position.

Valid point. However my response to that is just like the QB's - history has shown that those kickers predicted to land in the top 15 have done so much more than RB's, making RB's more difficult to predict. No?

The higher the chance of injury for the position, the more difficult it is to predict the position.

 

[ookook]

I think it largely has to do with what people (myself included) think is more interesting and involves more skill.

A league I run (drafting now) has standard scoring but manipulates supply and demand by starting 2QB, 2RB, 4WR, 2TE, 2DEF/ST, 2K.

It makes conventional drafting srategies obsolete so we cannot just rely on ADP or any canned cheatsheet.

Makes the draft fun and skillful.

With that said, is still "RB weighted" in any sense of the term. But a little less so is all.

With that also said, I disagree with the premise that something that is hard to predict should be weighted more.

Random die rolls are VERY hard to predict. Shall we weight random variance heavily? "Hard to predict" very often means error from a prediction standpoint.

 

[valhallan]

Everyone plays fantasy football for different reasons, be it for competition among friends, for boredom at work, to have an a extra bit of interest in Sundays games, to make money, to prove you're some kind of expert talent evaluator, etc. These motivations push us toward certain league types that fulfill our needs. You found a liking for RB-heavy league types. Great, then play in them. I think they're bland, so I'll play in a different kind of league.

If you play in a league that starts 2RB's it is Running back heavy by default.

Not true.

I would like to see your scoring system if its not. In a 12 team league there are 24 spots for starting RB's and 12 for starting QB's. There are 32 NFL teams, 32 starting NFL QB's and only 9-11 RB's which are not RBBC and 24 RB roster spots to fill.

Explain to me how that system is not weighted towards RB's?

10-team league, start 2 qb, 2 rb, 3 wr, 1 te, 1 k, 1 d/st1/10 rush/rec, 1/25 pass, 6 pts rush/rec TD, 4pts pass TD, -1 ints, PPR

Top 30 last year:

# Player Pts1 Alexander, Shaun SEA RB 3552 Tomlinson, Ladainian SDC RB 3363 Johnson, Larry KCC RB 3144 Barber, Tiki NYG RB 3115 Smith, Steve CAR WR 3046 James, Edgerrin ARI RB 2977 Jordan, Lamont OAK RB 2858 Fitzgerald, Larry ARI WR 2819 Johnson, Chad CIN WR 27810 Holt, Torry STL WR 27611 Palmer, Carson CIN QB 27012 Moss, Santana WAS WR 26613 Boldin, Anquan ARI WR 26514 Harrison, Marvin IND WR 25615 Brady, Tom NEP QB 25116 Chambers, Chris MIA WR 25017 Gates, Antonio SDC TE 24818 Manning, Peyton IND QB 24619 Galloway, Joey TBB WR 24420 Portis, Clinton WAS RB 23921 Johnson, Rudi CIN RB 23422 Jackson, Steven STL RB 22623 Hasselbeck, Matt SEA QB 22524 Smith, Rod DEN WR 22425 Brees, Drew NOS QB 22326 Manning, Eli NYG QB 22327 Vick, Michael ATL QB 22328 Ward, Hines PIT WR 22229 Bledsoe, Drew DAL QB 21730 Westbrook, Brian PHI RB 216That's 10 RBs, 11 WRs, 8 QBs, and 1 TE.Average starter points:

QB 13.8

RB 14.7

WR 13.0

TE 10.8

K 6.8

DEf 7.9

Argue all you want, but not a single owner in that league will tell you it was RB-heavy.

 

[bjlmonster]

First let me state that one of my 5 leagues starts 3RB, 4WR + RB TD's are worth 8 pts, WR/QB worth 6 points.

Second, it is all a matter of opinion. Those who like RB heavy leagues probably are good at picking out RB's and drafting that type of team. Those who say it is "dumb" most likely can't adjust their drafting skills from a more balanced style league, so they just don't like it.

I had the same problem when I branched out from my first RB heavy league to a balanced league. I kept picking RB's and 6 weeks into the season, I realized I didn't need so many RB's and should have stocked up on a few other positions.

It is just a matter of preference and mind set on draft day.

 

[CalBear]

Average starter points:

QB 13.8

RB 14.7

WR 13.0

TE 10.8

K 6.8

DEf 7.9

Argue all you want, but not a single owner in that league will tell you it was RB-heavy.

The issue is not how many points each position scores; the issue is how valuable each position is. Despite the fact that QBs scored almost as many points as RBs in your league, I'm sure at least five times as many RBs were taken in the first two rounds as QBs.

 

[ceo3west]

Random die rolls are VERY hard to predict. Shall we weight random variance heavily? "Hard to predict" very often means error from a prediction standpoint.

Ok, but there is no skill or research going into a die roll. In FF you are making predictions on where players are going to land, and if you make an error in that prediction you should be penalized for it, no?As for the injury argument someone else just posted, I do understand this. RB's have a greater tendency to get injured. However, I say then draft the backup. If you drafted Holmes last year and weren't wise enough to draft LJ, you probably got what you deserved anyway. But again, this is just my opinion.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Everyone plays fantasy football for different reasons, be it for competition among friends, for boredom at work, to have an a extra bit of interest in Sundays games, to make money, to prove you're some kind of expert talent evaluator, etc.  These motivations push us toward certain league types that fulfill our needs.  You found a liking for RB-heavy league types.  Great, then play in them.  I think they're bland, so I'll play in a different kind of league.

If you play in a league that starts 2RB's it is Running back heavy by default.

Not true.

I would like to see your scoring system if its not. In a 12 team league there are 24 spots for starting RB's and 12 for starting QB's. There are 32 NFL teams, 32 starting NFL QB's and only 9-11 RB's which are not RBBC and 24 RB roster spots to fill.

Explain to me how that system is not weighted towards RB's?

10-team league, start 2 qb, 2 rb, 3 wr, 1 te, 1 k, 1 d/st1/10 rush/rec, 1/25 pass, 6 pts rush/rec TD, 4pts pass TD, -1 ints, PPR

Top 30 last year:

#  Player                      Pts1  Alexander, Shaun SEA RB     3552  Tomlinson, Ladainian SDC RB 3363  Johnson, Larry KCC RB       3144  Barber, Tiki NYG RB         3115  Smith, Steve CAR WR         3046  James, Edgerrin ARI RB      2977  Jordan, Lamont OAK RB       2858  Fitzgerald, Larry ARI WR    2819  Johnson, Chad CIN WR        27810 Holt, Torry STL WR          27611 Palmer, Carson CIN QB       27012 Moss, Santana WAS WR        26613 Boldin, Anquan ARI WR       26514 Harrison, Marvin IND WR     25615 Brady, Tom NEP QB           25116 Chambers, Chris MIA WR      25017 Gates, Antonio SDC TE       24818 Manning, Peyton IND QB      24619 Galloway, Joey TBB WR       24420 Portis, Clinton WAS RB      23921 Johnson, Rudi CIN RB        23422 Jackson, Steven STL RB      22623 Hasselbeck, Matt SEA QB     22524 Smith, Rod DEN WR           22425 Brees, Drew NOS QB          22326 Manning, Eli NYG QB         22327 Vick, Michael ATL QB        22328 Ward, Hines PIT WR          22229 Bledsoe, Drew DAL QB        21730 Westbrook, Brian PHI RB     216That's 10 RBs, 11 WRs, 8 QBs, and 1 TE.Average starter points:

QB 13.8

RB 14.7

WR 13.0

TE 10.8

K 6.8

DEf 7.9

Argue all you want, but not a single owner in that league will tell you it was RB-heavy.

My arguement is based of conventional systems..... most leagues start 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1TE (and or Flex)If you add an extra QB then yes it does even things out

 

[valhallan]

Average starter points:

QB 13.8

RB 14.7

WR 13.0

TE 10.8

K 6.8

DEf 7.9

Argue all you want, but not a single owner in that league will tell you it was RB-heavy.

The issue is not how many points each position scores; the issue is how valuable each position is. Despite the fact that QBs scored almost as many points as RBs in your league, I'm sure at least five times as many RBs were taken in the first two rounds as QBs.

Don't have the draft results handy, but I know for a fact that Manning, Culpepper, and McNabb went first round.Our system is designed to allow for owners to use different strategies and they do. Another factor to consider is our strict roster requirements which force owners to carry 3-4 QBs, 4-5 RBs, 5-6 WRs, 1-2 TEs, 1-2 Ks, and 2 D/STs at all times among 17 roster spots. The winning squad was:

Delhomme

Holcomb

J.Martin

McNair

Gore

Jordan

C.Williams

R.Williams

Burress

Engram

Holt

A.Johnson

R.Smith

Gonzo

Rackers

Bucs

Jets

This owner originally had Westbrook and Bulger but dropped them late in the season due to injuries. Also had Brooks, Vick, and Portis at different points of the season.

You guys don't have to like it, but we do. And it's not RB-heavy.

Edit: meant Bulger, not Jordan

 

[valhallan]

My arguement is based of conventional systems..... most leagues start 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1TE (and or Flex)

If you add an extra QB then yes it does even things out

For the most part, but it still takes some more tweaking.

 

[CalBear]

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that you were starting two QBs. Certainly a start 2 QB league is a lot less RB-heavy, for the same reason that a 1QB, 2RB league is RB-heavy (scarcity).

 

[CalBear]

As for the injury argument someone else just posted, I do understand this. RB's have a greater tendency to get injured. However, I say then draft the backup. If you drafted Holmes last year and weren't wise enough to draft LJ, you probably got what you deserved anyway. But again, this is just my opinion.

QBs have a greater tendency to get injured than RBs, therefore QBs are harder to predict, therefore scoring should be weighted towards QBs. QED.

 

[valhallan]

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that you were starting two QBs. Certainly a start 2 QB league is a lot less RB-heavy, for the same reason that a 1QB, 2RB league is RB-heavy (scarcity).

Gotya. I got riled up when Scientist said any league that starts 2 RBs is RB-heavy.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I didn't read most of this so maybe it was mentioned, but if you want a game that tests your ability to be correct on the tough projections, the FBG subscriber contest sounds perfect for you.

 

[ceo3west]

QBs have a greater tendency to get injured than RBs, therefore QBs are harder to predict, therefore scoring should be weighted towards QBs. QED.

Not sure that's ture, but even if that is the case, it doesn't make QB's harder to predict. The fact that more QB's that were predicted to finish top 15 or 20 will end up there (in contrast to RB's) makes RB's harder to predict, no?

 

[CalBear]

QBs have a greater tendency to get injured than RBs, therefore QBs are harder to predict, therefore scoring should be weighted towards QBs. QED.

Not sure that's ture, but even if that is the case, it doesn't make QB's harder to predict. The fact that more QB's that were predicted to finish top 15 or 20 will end up there (in contrast to RB's) makes RB's harder to predict, no?

Prove it. Would you have predicted before 2005 that four of the top 6 QB starters would be Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Tom Brady, and Drew Bledsoe?

 

[The Redbeard]

QBs have a greater tendency to get injured than RBs, therefore QBs are harder to predict, therefore scoring should be weighted towards QBs. QED.

Not sure that's ture, but even if that is the case, it doesn't make QB's harder to predict. The fact that more QB's that were predicted to finish top 15 or 20 will end up there (in contrast to RB's) makes RB's harder to predict, no?

I feel like I have to jump in here - harder to predict = weigh it more in their favor?Seems to me that you are arguing in favor of rewarding those with the first 4-5 picks in a redraft and those who take a flyers on the Willie Parker's in the 8th rounds the advantage in your league. So, you get a sure thing at the top, or you get lucky in the middle - we'd like to reward your draft position and your luck by weighting RBs more heavily?

I am of the mind that all TDs should be worth the same value and the balance of power should be adjusted via point per reception and starting requirements as many above have suggested. I'm not calling your arguement stupid - but I must say that I fail to see the logical jump from the "more difficult to project" to "let's wight them more heavily". Seems that you could almost argue the opposite and be well founded.

edited to fix my crappy typing

 

[ceo3west]

Prove it. Would you have predicted before 2005 that four of the top 6 QB starters would be Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Tom Brady, and Drew Bledsoe?

Here are some numbers from last year. The predictions are from FBG last year based on standard scoring - 4pt passing, 6pt rushing/rec; 1-10 yardage RB/WR; 1-20 yardage QB. Final fantasy points are from btgsports.com - the main FBG site is blocked by my company (but the Msg Board isnt, go figure):2005 Predictions -- 2005 Actual Pts

1 LaDainian Tomlinson -- Shaun Alexander  363.8

2 Shaun Alexander -- Larry Johnson 335.3

3 Priest Holmes -- LaDainian Tomlinson  317.6

4 Edgerrin James -- Tiki Barber  307

5 Deuce McAllister -- Edgerrin James  268.3

6 Willis McGahee -- Clinton Portis  246.1

7 Domanick Davis -- Rudi Johnson  226.8

8 Kevin Jones -- LaMont Jordan 226.8

9 Julius Jones -- Thomas Jones 201.8

10 Tiki Barber -- Mike Anderson 200.6

11 Clinton Portis -- Steven Jackson  196.6

12 Corey Dillon -- Warrick Dunn 187.6

13 Brian Westbrook -- Willis McGahee  172.5

14 Steven Jackson -- Reuben Droughns 172.1

15 Rudi Johnson -- Willie Parker 172

2005 Predictions 2005 Actual Pts

1 Peyton Manning -- Carson Palmer  318.9

2 Daunte Culpepper -- Tom Brady  310.4

3 Donovan McNabb -- Peyton Manning  293.9

4 Marc Bulger -- Eli Manning 282.1

5 Kerry Collins -- Matt Hasselbeck  278.4

6 Trent Green -- Drew Bledsoe 275

7 Brett Favre -- Drew Brees  270.7

8 Michael Vick -- Trent Green  267.9

9 Tom Brady -- Kerry Collins  265.9

10 Jake Plummer -- Michael Vick  262.9

11 Aaron Brooks -- Jake Plummer  261.4

12 Matt Hasselbeck -- Jake Delhomme 260.2

13 Drew Brees -- Brett Favre  253.3

14 Carson Palmer -- Mark Brunell 246.6

15 Steve McNair -- Steve McNair  231

I hilighted the guys that cracked the top 15 that were not projected to. As you can see, there were seven RB's who cracked the top 15 that were not projected to compared to four QB's. I've found this to be a trend year after year. By definition, this makes RB's harder to predict.

 

[JohnnyTitan]

They are all huge jumps in logic:

- RBs are hardest to predict (debatable)

- Difficult to predict means those who navigate successfully are more skilled (not in the case of injuries)

- More difficult to predict = weight the system in favour of this (maybe but maybe not)

I'm from the school believing that the positions should be balanced as perfectly as possible. All the leagues I run are 2 QB leagues and champions build there teams in a variety of fashions, they don't just draft the top RB and pray for his health.

 

[CalBear]

I hilighted the guys that cracked the top 15 that were not projected to. As you can see, there were seven RB's who cracked the top 15 that were not projected to compared to four QB's. I've found this to be a trend year after year. By definition, this makes RB's harder to predict.

Your measure is poor. For QBs, #2, #3, and #4 overall didn't make the top 15; that's a lot more important than #13 Brian Westbrook winding up as RB18.

 

[ceo3west]

I hilighted the guys that cracked the top 15 that were not projected to.  As you can see, there were seven RB's who cracked the top 15 that were not projected to compared to four QB's.  I've found this to be a trend year after year.  By definition, this makes RB's harder to predict.

Your measure is poor. For QBs, #2, #3, and #4 overall didn't make the top 15; that's a lot more important than #13 Brian Westbrook winding up as RB18.

Point taken. But in general, based on this information, RB's are more difficult to predict than QB's. That's all Im saying Cal.

 

[CalBear]

I hilighted the guys that cracked the top 15 that were not projected to. As you can see, there were seven RB's who cracked the top 15 that were not projected to compared to four QB's. I've found this to be a trend year after year. By definition, this makes RB's harder to predict.

Your measure is poor. For QBs, #2, #3, and #4 overall didn't make the top 15; that's a lot more important than #13 Brian Westbrook winding up as RB18.

Point taken. But in general, based on this information, RB's are more difficult to predict than QB's. That's all Im saying Cal.

I'm saying your data don't support your conclusion.

 

[Hagger]

I would say WR's are harder to predict than RB's. Haven't researched it, just basing that statement from 10 years of being in the hobby. You need a larger sample than just last year to make your claim though.

The bottom line is it's all opinion. To you RB's are the hardest to predict, therefore it takes more skill and knowledge to draft the right ones, and therefore the league should weigh that more heavily. I understand that, I just don't agree with it - at all.

To me fantasy should try and reflect the real NFL as much as possible. QB's should be given a lot more weight than what they are, simply because that's reality in the NFL. QB is arguably the most important and hardest position in the game... therefore QB should be weighed the heaviest. There is a problem when a shmuck like Droughns is being drafted before an all time great like Brady.

 

[GregR_2]

...If it's more difficult to predict which RB's will produce, then isn't it logical to place a higher value on RB's and reward the owner accordingly?

There's more than one thing that many people want to see in their FF league. Many want to see skill be able to play a factor in winning (vs random luck).Many also want a similarity or symmetry between the FF game and the real NFL. In the NFL, the QB is far and away the most valuable position on the team. You may find exceptions (one might argue LT) but they are just that, exceptions.It's up to the individual how they want to balance things. Frankly I'd rather see the top QB, who is probably one of the top 3 most valuable players in the NFL, worth more in FF than is a middling RB.There's plenty of ways in which skill can differentiate itself in the game of FF. There is as much, or even more, skill to putting together a solid team that manages your risks, as there is to individual player predictions, given how hard those are to do for any position.

 

[ImTheScientist]

I hilighted the guys that cracked the top 15 that were not projected to.  As you can see, there were seven RB's who cracked the top 15 that were not projected to compared to four QB's.  I've found this to be a trend year after year.  By definition, this makes RB's harder to predict.

Your measure is poor. For QBs, #2, #3, and #4 overall didn't make the top 15; that's a lot more important than #13 Brian Westbrook winding up as RB18.

Point taken. But in general, based on this information, RB's are more difficult to predict than QB's. That's all Im saying Cal.

I'm saying your data don't support your conclusion.

I agree

 

[ceo3west]

I hilighted the guys that cracked the top 15 that were not projected to.  As you can see, there were seven RB's who cracked the top 15 that were not projected to compared to four QB's.  I've found this to be a trend year after year.  By definition, this makes RB's harder to predict.

Your measure is poor. For QBs, #2, #3, and #4 overall didn't make the top 15; that's a lot more important than #13 Brian Westbrook winding up as RB18.

Point taken. But in general, based on this information, RB's are more difficult to predict than QB's. That's all Im saying Cal.

I'm saying your data don't support your conclusion.

I'm not sure I understand. My argument is that RB's are more difficult to predict therefore should be weighted more heavily. You asked me to prove that more RB's finish outside the top 15 than QB's, and I did that. Not sure how you can say the data doesn't support that. It speaks for itself I believe, no? The fact the QBs' 2-4 didn't finish in the top 15 is irrelevant in this particular argument. In addition, RB's 3, 5 and 7 didn't make their top 15, so there's not a whole lot of difference in that respect anyway.

 

[ImTheScientist]

I hilighted the guys that cracked the top 15 that were not projected to.  As you can see, there were seven RB's who cracked the top 15 that were not projected to compared to four QB's.  I've found this to be a trend year after year.  By definition, this makes RB's harder to predict.

Your measure is poor. For QBs, #2, #3, and #4 overall didn't make the top 15; that's a lot more important than #13 Brian Westbrook winding up as RB18.

Point taken. But in general, based on this information, RB's are more difficult to predict than QB's. That's all Im saying Cal.

I'm saying your data don't support your conclusion.

I'm not sure I understand. My argument is that RB's are more difficult to predict therefore should be weighted more heavily. You asked me to prove that more RB's finish outside the top 15 than QB's, and I did that. Not sure how you can say the data doesn't support that. It speaks for itself I believe, no? The fact the QBs' 2-4 didn't finish in the top 15 is irrelevant in this particular argument. In addition, RB's 3, 5 and 7 didn't make their top 15, so there's not a whole lot of difference in that respect anyway.

If they are harder to predict wouldn't you be more likely to go with something known with your first few picks?

 

[ceo3west]

If they are harder to predict wouldn't you be more likely to go with something known with your first few picks?

Only if ther is more value (position-wise) in taking that player. For example, if Im in an RB heavy league, I wouldn't take Manning first just because he's a sure thing - he's got less value in this league. I would be forced to determine which RB is closest to a sure thing..

 

[thayman]

How RB heavy are you talking about??

 

[parasaurolophus]

I hilighted the guys that cracked the top 15 that were not projected to.  As you can see, there were seven RB's who cracked the top 15 that were not projected to compared to four QB's.  I've found this to be a trend year after year.  By definition, this makes RB's harder to predict.

Your measure is poor. For QBs, #2, #3, and #4 overall didn't make the top 15; that's a lot more important than #13 Brian Westbrook winding up as RB18.

this measure is very poor actually. A better way would be to compare the top 10 qbs vs the top 20 rbs and calculate the variance in pts per week that the predictions were off.

You also use your scoring system to justify the difficulty of predictions. The difficulty of predicting positions is what you use to justify your scoring system.

Your scoring system serves to bunch QBs closer together, which naturally makes the number fall in line to having a smaller variance.

just to take a simple statistical look...the difference from #1 to #15 in RBs in your league is 191.8 pts. The difference from #1 to #15 QBs is 88. It is BECAUSE you devalue QBs that they are easier to predict.

 

[The Redbeard]

If they are harder to predict wouldn't you be more likely to go with something known with your first few picks?

Only if ther is more value (position-wise) in taking that player. For example, if Im in an RB heavy league, I wouldn't take Manning first just because he's a sure thing - he's got less value in this league. I would be forced to determine which RB is closest to a sure thing..

Harder to predict vs. not harder to predict. We can run around all day and use different criteria (scoring rules), larger range of players (Top 25, 30) and even get a larger sample size (multiple years). . .BUT, what I would like to hear is ANY valid argument as to why, even if RB's are slighty more diffuclut to predict, that should be rewarded by making them signifigantly more valuable? Please explain the logic behind this line of thought as it seems completely counter-intuative.

 

[ImTheScientist]

If they are harder to predict wouldn't you be more likely to go with something known with your first few picks?

Only if ther is more value (position-wise) in taking that player. For example, if Im in an RB heavy league, I wouldn't take Manning first just because he's a sure thing - he's got less value in this league. I would be forced to determine which RB is closest to a sure thing..

Curious, in a "RB heavy" league where is your cut off point? At what point do you decide not to go RB and go WR or QB, because a choice at RB is too much risk? (12 man league, performance scoring, (4pt per td pass), no ppr)

 

[ImTheScientist]

If they are harder to predict wouldn't you be more likely to go with something known with your first few picks?

Only if ther is more value (position-wise) in taking that player. For example, if Im in an RB heavy league, I wouldn't take Manning first just because he's a sure thing - he's got less value in this league. I would be forced to determine which RB is closest to a sure thing..

Harder to predict vs. not harder to predict. We can run around all day and use different criteria (scoring rules), larger range of players (Top 25, 30) and even get a larger sample size (multiple years). . .BUT, what I would like to hear is ANY valid argument as to why, even if RB's are slighty more diffuclut to predict, that should be rewarded by making them signifigantly more valuable? Please explain the logic behind this line of thought as it seems completely counter-intuative.

They shouldn't be! I have been playing FF for 12 years now and the gold standard has always been START: 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1K, 1D (I know there are strange leagues that don't do this....so no need to post your 8 man league that starts 4QBs)Maybe the founding fathers of performance based FF (who ever they are) made these requirments..........should be changed!

 

[The Redbeard]

If they are harder to predict wouldn't you be more likely to go with something known with your first few picks?

Only if ther is more value (position-wise) in taking that player. For example, if Im in an RB heavy league, I wouldn't take Manning first just because he's a sure thing - he's got less value in this league. I would be forced to determine which RB is closest to a sure thing..

Harder to predict vs. not harder to predict. We can run around all day and use different criteria (scoring rules), larger range of players (Top 25, 30) and even get a larger sample size (multiple years). . .BUT, what I would like to hear is ANY valid argument as to why, even if RB's are slighty more diffuclut to predict, that should be rewarded by making them signifigantly more valuable? Please explain the logic behind this line of thought as it seems completely counter-intuative.

They shouldn't be! I have been playing FF for 12 years now and the gold standard has always been START: 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1K, 1D (I know there are strange leagues that don't do this....so no need to post your 8 man league that starts 4QBs)Maybe the founding fathers of performance based FF (who ever they are) made these requirments..........should be changed!

I guess I was asking ceo3west, as he seems to be putting a lot of time, and multiple days into asking the same question and I can't seem to get past his basic logical appraisal of the situation.

 

[Mario Kart]

See my sig for a variety of options that attempt to weigh positions equally. It does this by allowing teams to run different systems and in all the arguments ever made the basic premise is that the starting requirements make the importance of position. Starting 2 RB's make them more important while starting 3 WR's increases their importance however not as much as starting 2 RB's due to supply and demand.

 

[ceo3west]

BUT, what I would like to hear is ANY valid argument as to why, even if RB's are slighty more diffuclut to predict, that should be rewarded by making them signifigantly more valuable? Please explain the logic behind this line of thought as it seems completely counter-intuative.

I make them more valuable for this reason - I think (barring injury) it is tougher to predict the year end rankings for lets say Tiki Barber vs. Steven Jackson, compared to predicting Tom Brady vs. Matt Hasselbeck. Chances are, Brady & Hasselbeck will end up somewhere close to each other in final rankings (again, barring injury). However, history has shown (and again, you can use the data I presented earlier) that there is a greater chance one of the top RB's will bust - I must determine which will be the safer bet.I realize not everyone agrees with this, but in my mind, anyone can pick Jake Plummer, Aaron Brooks, Kurt Warner, Jake Delhomme. Those decisions are not that difficult because assuming a normal scoring system (say, 6pt TD's and 1-20 yardage), they will not finish that far apart form each other - again barring injury. However, when you get down to guys like Tatum Bell, Thomas Jones, Joseph Addai, there are a lot more questions you need to answer about these guys and it takes more skill. You can claim that taking these guys are flyers, but it was no flyer last year when I have Thomas Jones who is a better fit for that offense and was ahead of a rookie holdout that was picked ahead of him in drafts on average.You may not agree with all of this and thats fine, but I like that I'm rewarded in my league for picking a guy like Jones rather than a guy like Palmer who was predicted to finish top 15 anyway.

 

[CalBear]

BUT, what I would like to hear is ANY valid argument as to why, even if RB's are slighty more diffuclut to predict, that should be rewarded by making them signifigantly more valuable? Please explain the logic behind this line of thought as it seems completely counter-intuative.

I make them more valuable for this reason - I think (barring injury) it is tougher to predict the year end rankings for lets say Tiki Barber vs. Steven Jackson, compared to predicting Tom Brady vs. Matt Hasselbeck. Chances are, Brady & Hasselbeck will end up somewhere close to each other in final rankings (again, barring injury). However, history has shown (and again, you can use the data I presented earlier) that there is a greater chance one of the top RB's will bust - I must determine which will be the safer bet.

The data you presented earlier don't show that at all. Three of the top four QBs busted and only one of the top four RBs.I agree that, even if you can prove that RBs are less predictable than QBs (which you haven't), it still doesn't imply that they should be worth more in scoring. Ks and Ds are less predictable than RBs.

 

[ImTheScientist]

See my sig for a variety of options that attempt to weigh positions equally. It does this by allowing teams to run different systems and in all the arguments ever made the basic premise is that the starting requirements make the importance of position. Starting 2 RB's make them more important while starting 3 WR's increases their importance however not as much as starting 2 RB's due to supply and demand.

Formation Based Fantasy Football ----- The future of FF IMO

 

[ceo3west]

I agree that, even if you can prove that RBs are less predictable than QBs (which you haven't), it still doesn't imply that they should be worth more in scoring. Ks and Ds are less predictable than RBs.

Good point, but a league where kickers and D's scores more than QB/RB/WR woudn't be all that exciting in my mind. I'm talking about weighting the skill positions only.

 

[ceo3west]

The data you presented earlier don't show that at all. Three of the top four QBs busted and only one of the top four RBs.

Just one more note on thsi Cal - those three QB's all missed time with injury, two significant time. Who's to say QB's 9-11 don't get injured this year rather than 2-4? If youre going to use the argument that the higher ranking QB's busted in comparison to higher ranking RB's, it has to exclude injury.

 

[CalBear]

The data you presented earlier don't show that at all. Three of the top four QBs busted and only one of the top four RBs.

Just one more note on thsi Cal - those three QB's all missed time with injury, two significant time. Who's to say QB's 9-11 don't get injured this year rather than 2-4? If youre going to use the argument that the higher ranking QB's busted in comparison to higher ranking RB's, it has to exclude injury.

QBs miss more time with injury than RBs do; that's one of the reasons QBs are harder to predict. In your RB listing, two of the top five busted, and both of those were due to injury (Holmes and McAllister). You've shown no work at all to prove that RBs are less predictable than QBs when injuries are removed.