The Hard Truth (1 Viewer)

[DreadedParms]

Submitted this article to FBG:

FOOTBALLGUYS.COM PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

2001-2005

Overview

When I began this project of evaluating the projections of Footballguys.com, it was initially an attempt to quantify the variance of wide receivers performance with their projected performance, hopefully gaining some insight as to the definite worth of wide receivers during the draft. Once I had gotten all the projections and statistics together, I simply expanded the scope to include the other main positions – quarterbacks, running backs and tight ends. It became an enlightening, if not startling endeavor, to say the least. This analysis is not meant to be a critique of the projections at Footballguys.com, but rather an indication of the true worth of projections, regardless of source.

Method

As we all know, due to the popularity of fantasy football, the scoring systems used in this hobby vary widely. For the sake of this study, I assigned 1 point per ten yards rushing and receiving, 6 points per touchdown rushed or received, 1 point per 20 yards passing and 4 points per passing touchdown. I also assumed that a standard league would contain 12 teams, starting 1 quarterback, 2 running backs, 2 wide receivers and a tight end. My final statistics were derived from the Historical Data Dominator on Footballguys.com, and the projections used were from the VBD excel spreadsheets provided at Footballguys.com. Bruce Henderson and other FBG were kind enough to forward me copies of years not available on the site.

Once I compiled all stats and projections into one spreadsheet per year and the appropriate fantasy points for each set of data, I calculated the deviation of actual fantasy points to projected fantasy points for the starters in the league and for the league as a whole. I assumed that there would be 30 quarterbacks in the league, 60 running backs, 60 wide receivers and 30 tight ends. I designated each deviation that fell within 15% of projected fantasy stats as “generally correct” and each deviation that fell outside of 50% of projected fantasy stats, either way, as “inaccurate”. These percentages, while arbitrary, seemed to be reasonable assumptions. I’m sure cases can be made for other percentages or bench marks. The other shortcoming in all this is the source of the projections. I have not quantified how accurate the projections are in comparison with projections from other sources, and have gone forward with the assumption that the projections are reasonable, rational estimations of fantasy productivity.

Results

Starting Quarterbacks Entire Draft Population

Year St. Dev. "Correct" Pct. "Inaccurate" Pct. St. Dev. "Correct" Pct. "Inaccurate" Pct.

2001 106.14 7 58.33% 2 16.67% 92.79 14 46.67% 4 13.33%

2002 97.1 7 58.33% 2 16.67% 96.5 12 40.00% 9 30.00%

2003 114.77 7 58.33% 3 25.00% 110.08 12 40.00% 11 36.67%

2004 70.3 6 50.00% 1 8.33% 92.86 12 40.00% 7 23.33%

2005 71.98 7 58.33% 1 8.33% 81.28 12 40.00% 4 13.33%

Total 92.06 6.8 56.67% 1.80 15.00% 94.70 12.4 41.33% 7.00 23.33%

Starting Running Backs Entire Draft Population

Year St. Dev. "Correct" Pct. "Inaccurate" Pct. St. Dev. "Correct" Pct. "Inaccurate" Pct.

2001 86.49 6 25.00% 7 29.17% 86.97 11 18.33% 25 41.67%

2002 67.31 8 33.33% 2 8.33% 65.1 14 23.33% 20 33.33%

2003 74.15 6 25.00% 6 25.00% 64.11 17 28.33% 21 35.00%

2004 74.89 4 16.67% 5 20.83% 66.43 13 21.67% 20 33.33%

2005 73.74 7 29.17% 5 20.83% 65 21 35.00% 18 30.00%

Total 75.316 6.2 25.83% 5 20.83% 69.522 15.2 25.33% 20.8 34.67%

Starting Wide Receivers Entire Draft Population

Year St. Dev. "Correct" Pct. "Inaccurate" Pct. St. Dev. "Correct" Pct. "Inaccurate" Pct.

2001 54.14 6 25.00% 5 20.83% 53.32 12 20.00% 18 30.00%

2002 36.53 10 41.67% 1 4.17% 46.12 21 35.00% 14 23.33%

2003 50.13 4 16.67% 4 16.67% 47.48 9 15.00% 15 25.00%

2004 58.92 12 50.00% 3 12.50% 57.71 16 26.67% 19 31.67%

2005 63.01 7 29.17% 7 29.17% 54 18 30.00% 18 30.00%

Total 52.546 7.8 32.50% 4 16.67% 51.726 15.2 25.33% 16.8 28.00%

Starting Tight Ends Entire Draft Population

Year St. Dev. "Correct" Pct. "Inaccurate" Pct. St. Dev. "Correct" Pct. "Inaccurate" Pct.

2001 30.65 4 33.33% 2 16.67% 28.97 5 16.67% 8 26.67%

2002 24.86 3 25.00% 4 33.33% 27.25 7 23.33% 12 40.00%

2003 32.61 4 33.33% 3 25.00% 29.99 6 20.00% 15 50.00%

2004 40.54 2 16.67% 3 25.00% 38.53 3 10.00% 11 36.67%

2005 32.10 5 41.67% 1 8.33% 27.00 9 30.00% 9 30.00%

Total 32.15 3.6 30.00% 2.60 21.67% 30.35 6 20.00% 11.00 36.67%

The initial observation is that the accuracy for quarterbacks, being correct about 50% of the time, and the draft population of quarterbacks as a whole being 40% correct is definitely greater than that of other positions. The other positions were only correct one-fourth to one-third of the time.

But even more surprising than that is the general inaccuracy of all positions. About one in three starters is going to be “correctly” projected. Another one in five is going to be not in the same ballpark that you projected, while the other forty percent is somewhere in between. The accuracy gets worse once you move away from the projected starters.

Analysis of Results

Bluntly put, projections aren’t that trustworthy, even good ones. Like I said Different sources would more than likely have little or no statistical difference. The reason for the inaccuracy is that football is a complex and violent game. Injuries occur, players fail to progress or fail to keep up with other players competing for playing time. We all want to think we “know” the game, but we can’t truly know what’s going to happen, from a standpoint of how all twenty-two players on the field, dozens of coaches and hours of practice are going to actually play out for the purposes of our fantasy game. We can only make educated guesses, based upon limited observations on Sunday, some statistical analysis and whatever information we can glean from the media. Our alternative to inherently and inevitably fallible projections? None. We have to make some educated guess, otherwise we might as well pick names out of a hat.

The moral of this lesson? Well, staying the course on the draft is a rational plan – VBD to hopefully maximize the “value” of our picks, but I think we need to add to that a willingness to have fun. Relax, draft the players you want, even it means forfeiting some of their perceived “value”, and enjoy yourself. The end result of our draft is mainly out of our control.

 

[lebowski]

Anyway your table could be more clear. I tried to follow it but I'm not sure what columns were supposed to be what columns. But overall the article was interesting

(editted for grammar)

 

[joffer]

Our alternative to inherently and inevitably fallible projections? None. We have to make some educated guess, otherwise we might as well pick names out of a hat.

 

[Couch Potato]

The fact that future football stats are so difficult to accurately predict is, I think, one of the major reasons for the fantasy game's exploding popularity. If we ever could develop a universal method to fine tune projections so that there was consistent accuracy, much of the appeal would be lost. We'd all have the same knowledge and projections, and drafts would be dull. The "I'm gonna try to be a better guesser than you" factor, knowing it's so unpredictable and challenging, is what has held my interest for so long. As inaccurate as all projections are, some are definitely much better than others and that does show in the long run.

By the way, it might be good to look at your percentages from a PPG standpoint. While we can project stats based on POTTS (Production = Opportunity + talent + team talent + system), we cannot be held accountable for injury. If Tomlinson breaks his leg in week 1, his projections don't become 'inaccurate', they become meaningless and should be removed from the calculation for the games missed. Using PPG does that.

 

[Couch Potato]

(editted for grammar)

You might want to edit 'editted.'

 

[LHUCKS]

Why is it the "hard Truth"??

Link to your projections please.

 

[MLBrandow]

Why is it the "hard Truth"??

Link to your projections please.

I think his point is that making such detailed player projections is a lost cause, and you should just go into a draft with a general idea of each player and what you expect.I guess...

I think he has a very valid point, but unfortunately, I don't believe this is something new. Everyone here knows that predictions is an abstract artform at best. We simply like to think that we're the best at it, which is why we're here.

And whether you agree with the mind-numbing statistical predictions for RB36, the analysis here is second to none, and people come in droves to absorb some of the key insight.

 

[LHUCKS]

Why is it the "hard Truth"??

Link to your projections please.

I think his point is that making such detailed player projections is a lost cause, and you should just go into a draft with a general idea of each player and what you expect.

I do detailed projections and I pretty much kick everybody's ###.

Creating detailed projections is an essential part of completely understanding each players factors IMHO. If one disagrees, they should jump in a league with me and see what happens.

 

[J-Rock]

Why is it the "hard Truth"??

Link to your projections please.

I think his point is that making such detailed player projections is a lost cause, and you should just go into a draft with a general idea of each player and what you expect.

I do detailed projections and I pretty much kick everybody's ###.

Teach me

 

[LHUCKS]

Why is it the "hard Truth"??

Link to your projections please.

I think his point is that making such detailed player projections is a lost cause, and you should just go into a draft with a general idea of each player and what you expect.

I do detailed projections and I pretty much kick everybody's ###.

Teach me

Pay me...a lot of money.

 

[Couch Potato]

MODESTY LEAGUE RANKINGS

Team 1 ................. 10-3

Team 2 ................... 8-5

Team 3 ................... 7-6

Team 4 ................... 7-6

Team 5 ................... 7-6

Team LHUCKS ....... 0-13

 

[Joe_]

MODESTY LEAGUE RANKINGS

Team 1 ................. 10-3

Team 2 ................... 8-5

Team 3 ................... 7-6

Team 4 ................... 7-6

Team 5 ................... 7-6

Team LHUCKS ....... 0-13

 

[Bri]

I hope by posting it here you didn't hurt your chances of having them select it. Thanks for sharing

 

[Deuce'sWild]

Teach me

my ribs hurt from that one

God love LHUCKS....he's not short on confidence

 

[LHUCKS]

MODESTY LEAGUE RANKINGS

Team 1 .................  10-3

Team 2 ...................  8-5

Team 3 ...................  7-6

Team 4 ...................  7-6

Team 5 ...................  7-6

Team LHUCKS .......  0-13

 

The analysis and moreso its conclusions are totally flawed...it annoyed me because it's totally misleading in terms of showing people how to become better at ff. It's a veiled shot at FBG...and I just get sick of the shots, especially when they lack the necessary substance. Almost every big time ff'er I know frequents this site, there's a reason for that and it's not because projectsions in general have a low percentage of accuracy...which is something every statistician would have told you before this study, in addition to anyone who has experience with projections.

 

[Musesboy]

I like what you tried to achieve here.

It would be interesting to add some thoughts about how to use these findings. How would this knowledge translate into an advantage in our drafts for example? Would the fact that QBs are the easiest position to predict help us in any way?

What percentage of the picks that were incorrect were due to injury?

I have often thought about Peyton Manning's value in drafts. He has never missed a game because of injury, and has been in the top four every year since his rookie year. Looking at RB predictions, only four or five of the projected top ten end up there at the end of the season.

Was Manning's 49 TD season considered an inaccurate prediction?

Interesting stuff anyway. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Deuce'sWild]

MODESTY LEAGUE RANKINGS

Team 1 .................  10-3

Team 2 ...................  8-5

Team 3 ...................  7-6

Team 4 ...................  7-6

Team 5 ...................  7-6

Team LHUCKS .......  0-13

 

The analysis and moreso its conclusions are totally flawed...it annoyed me because it's totally misleading in terms of showing people how to become better at ff.

You are one of the only posters on here that consistently pimps yourself. I've won my league, most of which belong to this site, 5 out of 7 years now. I don't put it in my sig, and brag about how much I'll kick your ###. But of course, my league is full of fish you'll say....cuz you're the best.

 

[LHUCKS]

MODESTY LEAGUE RANKINGS

Team 1 .................  10-3

Team 2 ...................  8-5

Team 3 ...................  7-6

Team 4 ...................  7-6

Team 5 ...................  7-6

Team LHUCKS .......  0-13

 

The analysis and moreso its conclusions are totally flawed...it annoyed me because it's totally misleading in terms of showing people how to become better at ff.

I don't put it in my sig, and brag about how much I'll kick your ###.

I wasn't bragging, I was making a point as to why detailed projections aren't useless...if they're useless, come into some of my "expert" leagues and put your hypothesis to the test. Until then they hold no water with me.

 

[Deuce'sWild]

I like what you tried to achieve here.

It would be interesting to add some thoughts about how to use these findings. How would this knowledge translate into an advantage in our drafts for example? Would the fact that QBs are the easiest position to predict help us in any way?

What percentage of the picks that were incorrect were due to injury?

I have often thought about Peyton Manning's value in drafts. He has never missed a game because of injury, and has been in the top four every year since his rookie year. Looking at RB predictions, only four or five of the projected top ten end up there at the end of the season.

Was Manning's 49 TD season considered an inaccurate prediction?

Interesting stuff anyway. Thanks for sharing.

I went back and checked in my big money league, and the owner with Manning on his team has NEVER won in 7 years now. The reason, I think, is because by taking a QB early, it's so hard to catch up in other positions. And in most leagues it's only 1 out of 10 roster spots.It was interesting to check on that though. I may do the same for drafting tendencies....like guys who went RB, RB, or took at TE early...etc.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I do detailed projections and I pretty much kick everybody's ###.

First major fallacy of false cause I've noticed this preseason.

 

[Musesboy]

I like what you tried to achieve here.

It would be interesting to add some thoughts about how to use these findings. How would this knowledge translate into an advantage in our drafts for example? Would the fact that QBs are the easiest position to predict help us in any way?

What percentage of the picks that were incorrect were due to injury?

I have often thought about Peyton Manning's value in drafts. He has never missed a game because of injury, and has been in the top four every year since his rookie year. Looking at RB predictions, only four or five of the projected top ten end up there at the end of the season.

Was Manning's 49 TD season considered an inaccurate prediction?

Interesting stuff anyway. Thanks for sharing.

I went back and checked in my big money league, and the owner with Manning on his team has NEVER won in 7 years now. The reason, I think, is because by taking a QB early, it's so hard to catch up in other positions. And in most leagues it's only 1 out of 10 roster spots.It was interesting to check on that though. I may do the same for drafting tendencies....like guys who went RB, RB, or took at TE early...etc.

Just thinking out loud.Sometimes it's hard to see the truth.

Success ultimately depends on your performance in the entire draft.

It was impressive winning last year without Alexander or Johnson on the roster. So many teams had one of those two.

 

[Deuce'sWild]

I like what you tried to achieve here.

It would be interesting to add some thoughts about how to use these findings. How would this knowledge translate into an advantage in our drafts for example? Would the fact that QBs are the easiest position to predict help us in any way?

What percentage of the picks that were incorrect were due to injury?

I have often thought about Peyton Manning's value in drafts. He has never missed a game because of injury, and has been in the top four every year since his rookie year. Looking at RB predictions, only four or five of the projected top ten end up there at the end of the season.

Was Manning's 49 TD season considered an inaccurate prediction?

Interesting stuff anyway. Thanks for sharing.

But it's caused me to think about looking at tendencies and how they relate to success. I think it would be an interesting article/find to see how drafting tendencies relate to ff success. Especially for things like taking a stud TE, or drafting RB, RB, RB....vs going RB, WR, WRI went back and checked in my big money league, and the owner with Manning on his team has NEVER won in 7 years now. The reason, I think, is because by taking a QB early, it's so hard to catch up in other positions. And in most leagues it's only 1 out of 10 roster spots.

It was interesting to check on that though. I may do the same for drafting tendencies....like guys who went RB, RB, or took at TE early...etc.

Just thinking out loud.Sometimes it's hard to see the truth.

Success ultimately depends on your performance in the entire draft.

It was impressive winning last year without Alexander or Johnson on the roster. So many teams had one of those two.

 

[Deuce'sWild]

I like what you tried to achieve here.

It would be interesting to add some thoughts about how to use these findings. How would this knowledge translate into an advantage in our drafts for example? Would the fact that QBs are the easiest position to predict help us in any way?

What percentage of the picks that were incorrect were due to injury?

I have often thought about Peyton Manning's value in drafts. He has never missed a game because of injury, and has been in the top four every year since his rookie year. Looking at RB predictions, only four or five of the projected top ten end up there at the end of the season.

Was Manning's 49 TD season considered an inaccurate prediction?

Interesting stuff anyway. Thanks for sharing.

I went back and checked in my big money league, and the owner with Manning on his team has NEVER won in 7 years now. The reason, I think, is because by taking a QB early, it's so hard to catch up in other positions. And in most leagues it's only 1 out of 10 roster spots.It was interesting to check on that though. I may do the same for drafting tendencies....like guys who went RB, RB, or took at TE early...etc.

Just thinking out loud.Sometimes it's hard to see the truth.

Success ultimately depends on your performance in the entire draft.

It was impressive winning last year without Alexander or Johnson on the roster. So many teams had one of those two.

But it's caused me to think about looking at tendencies and how they relate to success. I think it would be an interesting article/find to see how drafting tendencies relate to ff success. Especially for things like taking a stud TE, or drafting RB, RB, RB....vs going RB, WR, WR

 

[rzrback77]

MODESTY LEAGUE RANKINGS

Team 1 .................  10-3

Team 2 ...................  8-5

Team 3 ...................  7-6

Team 4 ...................  7-6

Team 5 ...................  7-6

Team LHUCKS .......  0-13

 

The analysis and moreso its conclusions are totally flawed...it annoyed me because it's totally misleading in terms of showing people how to become better at ff.

I don't put it in my sig, and brag about how much I'll kick your ###.

I wasn't bragging, I was making a point as to why detailed projections aren't useless...if they're useless, come into some of my "expert" leagues and put your hypothesis to the test. Until then they hold no water with me.

Just so I understand, bragging just to be bragging is different than bragging when you are proving a point?

 

[Couch Potato]

MODESTY LEAGUE RANKINGS

Team 1 ................. 10-3

Team 2 ................... 8-5

Team 3 ................... 7-6

Team 4 ................... 7-6

Team 5 ................... 7-6

Team LHUCKS ....... 0-13

The analysis and moreso its conclusions are totally flawed...it annoyed me because it's totally misleading in terms of showing people how to become better at ff.

LHUCKS, you know you're my bud. I just saw a chance to poke a little fun at the 'kick everybody's ###' comment and took it.I guess I'm somewhere between DreadedParms and you. We get the best info available and make our best decisions with it. Some are a lot better at understanding and using the information we all have available, and I do know you are very good at that. I said in my first post 'As inaccurate as all projections are, some are definitely much better than others and that does show in the long run.' Still, there is a lot that can't be predicted until it begins to unfold, and that element keeps it fresh and fun during the season.

 

[Deuce'sWild]

MODESTY LEAGUE RANKINGS

Team 1 .................  10-3

Team 2 ...................  8-5

Team 3 ...................  7-6

Team 4 ...................  7-6

Team 5 ...................  7-6

Team LHUCKS .......  0-13

 

The analysis and moreso its conclusions are totally flawed...it annoyed me because it's totally misleading in terms of showing people how to become better at ff.

I don't put it in my sig, and brag about how much I'll kick your ###.

I wasn't bragging, I was making a point as to why detailed projections aren't useless...if they're useless, come into some of my "expert" leagues and put your hypothesis to the test. Until then they hold no water with me.

Just so I understand, bragging just to be bragging is different than bragging when you are proving a point?

Maybe not, but the point was I don't try to make it known how great I am so that everyone can see it (sig). I know I'm great, but I don't have to convince everyone else of that.

 

[LHUCKS]

MODESTY LEAGUE RANKINGS

Team 1 .................  10-3

Team 2 ...................  8-5

Team 3 ...................  7-6

Team 4 ...................  7-6

Team 5 ...................  7-6

Team LHUCKS .......  0-13

 

The analysis and moreso its conclusions are totally flawed...it annoyed me because it's totally misleading in terms of showing people how to become better at ff.

I don't put it in my sig, and brag about how much I'll kick your ###.

I wasn't bragging, I was making a point as to why detailed projections aren't useless...if they're useless, come into some of my "expert" leagues and put your hypothesis to the test. Until then they hold no water with me.

Just so I understand, bragging just to be bragging is different than bragging when you are proving a point?

There is a difference yes. If you want to see bragging fo to the Anarchy Invitational thread...there it is fun to talk trash with the stiff competition...a little gamesmanship adds to the sport of it all IMHO.Now in this thread I was making the point that most of the successful ffers I know created their own detailed projections and I was using my success as detailed support for that argument.

Sorry if I offended anyone. I got a little fired up.

 

[Deuce'sWild]

It's all in fun...you came looking for punishment when you typed that statement. I totally agree with you, actually. Detailed projections, whether accurate or not, allow you to take a closer look at individuals, and teams. This, more than the prediction itself, is what is valuable in ff. Knowing what guys have the potential for a break out, or are one injury away from a great year, or are consistent producers vs one yr wonders....you get the point.

 

[rzrback77]

MODESTY LEAGUE RANKINGS

Team 1 .................  10-3

Team 2 ...................  8-5

Team 3 ...................  7-6

Team 4 ...................  7-6

Team 5 ...................  7-6

Team LHUCKS .......  0-13

 

The analysis and moreso its conclusions are totally flawed...it annoyed me because it's totally misleading in terms of showing people how to become better at ff.

I don't put it in my sig, and brag about how much I'll kick your ###.

I wasn't bragging, I was making a point as to why detailed projections aren't useless...if they're useless, come into some of my "expert" leagues and put your hypothesis to the test. Until then they hold no water with me.

Just so I understand, bragging just to be bragging is different than bragging when you are proving a point?

There is a difference yes. I was bragging in the Anarchy Invitational thread...because it was fun to win that with the stiff competition and a little gamesmanship adds to the sport of it all IMHO.Now in this thread I was making the point that most of the successful ffers I know created their own detailed projections and I was using my success as detailed support for that argument.

Sorry if I offended anyone. I got a little fired up.

Not offended at all. I enjoy all your clever posts, just checking that you were aware is all.Carry on.

 

[LHUCKS]

Maybe not, but the point was I don't try to make it known how great I am so that everyone can see it (sig). I know I'm great, but I don't have to convince everyone else of that.

I'm pretty sure I don't have to convince...and the sig makes it fun to compete in the leagues...provides some gamesmanship. Apologies if it puts you off.

 

[Musesboy]

But it's caused me to think about looking at tendencies and how they relate to success. I think it would be an interesting article/find to see how drafting tendencies relate to ff success. Especially for things like taking a stud TE, or drafting RB, RB, RB....vs going RB, WR, WR

Yes, it's definitely worth a look.FWIW, I used all kinds of different tactics in my 17 leagues last year. I analyzed my drafts and saw that I took all kinds of positional combinations. I won with a few variations so I still think it comes down to how well you draft rather than what positions you target.

 

[LHUCKS]

It's all in fun...he came looking for punishment when he typed that statement.

at "punishment."P.S. You have the same avatar as Family Matters

 

[Musesboy]

In order to be successful, you only have to predict closer than the rest of your league.

A wildly inaccurate projection may still be closer than anything anybody else comes up with.

When Martin finished in the top five a couple of years back it would only have been necessary to rank him about 15th ahead of the pack's predictions in order to end up with him on many of your rosters.

 

[Deuce'sWild]

It's all in fun...he came looking for punishment when he typed that statement.

at "punishment."P.S. You have the same avatar as Family Matters

Avatar is a work in progress. My old one is not showing up for some reason. Had to do some patchwork.

 

[LHUCKS]

In order to be successful, you only have to predict closer than the rest of your league.

Exactly, that's why projection accuracy percentages are useless.

 

[The Jerk]

Creating detailed projections is an essential part of completely understanding each players factors IMHO.

I can agree with this part of your statement, LHUCKS. And if you're going to run a website or otherwise offer advice, especially to the inexperienced FF player, then continually upgrading your mathematical formulas and massaging the numerical data can improve your efficacy in that capacity.However, if one is already an experienced player, then information on individual NFL teams, such as assessments on offseason changes, positional battles, etc., are far more useful on their own than when they are only incorporated into the model. I would rather make my own value judgment on how these individual factors should influence the positional and overall player rankings on a league-by-league basis, but I'm sure others, especially newcomers to the hobby, would rather just look at projections a day or two before their draft.The other problem with mathematical projections, no matter how accurate, is the luck quotient of FF. Injuries can be addressed to a minor extent, but tackles at the half-yard line, etc. are essentially unpredictable. Eventually they even out, but not necessarily in a given season, and definitely not in a given week. Bottom line: formulas and numbers cannot tell the whole story, so as a result, each of us has to decide exactly how far we want to go with them in our FF preparation.

 

[Couch Potato]

It's all in fun...he came looking for punishment when he typed that statement.

at "punishment."

Hey, I was pretty proud of my MODESTY LEAGUE RANKINGS!It's more fun if I get to think of it as punishment.

 

[Deuce'sWild]

Hey LHUCKS, lets do a mock somewhere if you have time. I'm curious how you draft.

 

[LHUCKS]

However, if one is already an experienced player, then information on individual NFL teams, such as assessments on offseason changes, positional battles, etc., are far more useful on their own than when they are only incorporated into the model. I would rather make my own value judgment on how these individual factors should influence the positional and overall player rankings on a league-by-league basis, but I'm sure others, especially newcomers to the hobby, would rather just look at projections a day or two before their draft.

I incorporate all of those factors into my projections. To be clear on my methodology I don't have static projections. I project a likely low and a likely high for each player.

The other problem with mathematical projections, no matter how accurate, is the luck quotient of FF. Injuries can be addressed to a minor extent, but tackles at the half-yard line, etc. are essentially unpredictable. Eventually they even out, but not necessarily in a given season, and definitely not in a given week.

It's not about predicting exact projections, it's about your projections being X% more accurate than your competition.

Bottom line: formulas and numbers cannot tell the whole story, so as a result, each of us has to decide exactly how far we want to go with them in our FF preparation.

If you take all of those factors that do tell the "whole story" than your numbers can be very useful. I agree to an extent that one static group of projections is not the best way to go for advanced ffers. That's why I use a low projection and high projections for all players in addition to a most likely projection. How I use each of those projections depends on the draft and how it is progressing. Sometimes you need safe numbers sometimes you can afford chasing the risky upside numbers.

Flexibility is the key with projections.

 

[LHUCKS]

Hey LHUCKS, lets do a mock somewhere if you have time. I'm curious how you draft.

Go to the FBG homepage in the Staff v. Messageboard draft...there I wrote pre-draft, post-draft analysis. And obviously you can see how I drafted.

 

[radballs]

In order to be successful, you only have to predict closer than the rest of your league.

Exactly, that's why projection accuracy percentages are useless.

I wouldn't say they're useless and I agree with most of your points in this thread (other than your expertness ). It's a game of percentages and you just hope to have better projections than your opponents. Yours might be off by a ton but you'll do just fine if that is relatively "good" compared to your competitors. Similar to poker it's about putting together projections, a draft plan, and then hoping to put the percentages in your favor.

 

[MLBrandow]

Maybe not, but the point was I don't try to make it known how great I am so that everyone can see it (sig). I know I'm great, but I don't have to convince everyone else of that.

It's one thing to admit that you're confident, and it's another to brag.Not to be a C in an A/B Convo, but LHUCKS is just stating facts here. If his being consistently better than you pisses you off, then maybe you should ask him how he does it instead of saying "you brag". He's good at what he does, and there's nothing wrong with bringing it up from time to time in example of a tangential point.

It's not like he's saying "dude, I was a warrior for playing in the Super Bowl. I could have ended my career, and my QB didn't even care. All he did was bend over and throw up."

 

[The Jerk]

In order to be successful, you only have to predict closer than the rest of your league.

A wildly inaccurate projection may still be closer than anything anybody else comes up with.

When Martin finished in the top five a couple of years back it would only have been necessary to rank him about 15th ahead of the pack's predictions in order to end up with him on many of your rosters.

I agree, yet I still don't think everything is answered purely by numbers and projections. Focusing on the Martin example, I don't think a pure formula would have helped him stand out among other RBs near his ADP for that season. I drafted him and finished first in points that season, but it wasn't projections that led me to select him. The bottom line was that as my third RB selected, I thought I'd rather have him than others still available due to his proven ability to be elite along with durability for most of his career.Relying solely on projections won't usually capture these kinds of intangibles. Sure, you can have multiple variables such as durability, peak season historical factor, whatever, but the formula and its variables are just adding on additional layers of estimation, if not pure guesswork. I'd rather assess the player's intangibles separate from their projections. Literally, I do this by using multiple columns for players in each position based on their consistency, volatility and risk. Am I implicitly using a subconscious formula as I make the list than draft from it? Possibly. But all that proves is if someone compares me to a chimp who can read projections and then pick the player with the next highest total, then there will be different results. Hopefully, I'll be better than the chimp more than 50% of the time!

Also, remember that Martin was my third RB. Drafting for your second vs. third vs. fourth RB changes the equation -- literally. I imagine you could have a spreadsheet with dynamic capabilities that could adjust your projections based on draft scenario, but now we're getting almost to ridiculous levels of complication and still relying on estimation and guesswork.

 

[Musesboy]

I agree, yet I still don't think everything is answered purely by numbers and projections. Focusing on the Martin example, I don't think a pure formula would have helped him stand out among other RBs near his ADP for that season. I drafted him and finished first in points that season, but it wasn't projections that led me to select him. The bottom line was that as my third RB selected, I thought I'd rather have him than others still available due to his proven ability to be elite along with durability for most of his career.

Relying solely on projections won't usually capture these kinds of intangibles. Sure, you can have multiple variables such as durability, peak season historical factor, whatever, but the formula and its variables are just adding on additional layers of estimation, if not pure guesswork. I'd rather assess the player's intangibles separate from their projections. Literally, I do this by using multiple columns for players in each position based on their consistency, volatility and risk. Am I implicitly using a subconscious formula as I make the list than draft from it? Possibly. But all that proves is if someone compares me to a chimp who can read projections and then pick the player with the next highest total, then there will be different results. Hopefully, I'll be better than the chimp more than 50% of the time!

Also, remember that Martin was my third RB. Drafting for your second vs. third vs. fourth RB changes the equation -- literally. I imagine you could have a spreadsheet with dynamic capabilities that could adjust your projections based on draft scenario, but now we're getting almost to ridiculous levels of complication and still relying on estimation and guesswork.

You make some valid points. I also use my gut for most of my selections, whether I have projections that say otherwise or not.Also, once you make your initial pick, other factors come into play. You might want to avoid certain bye weeks. You may choose to handcuff, raising the handcuff's value significantly in your rankings.

You might play QBBC or want two WR2s that have schedules that compliment each other.

You might target or avoid players on the same team as someone you already drafted.

One pick may be a player you consider a risk and you want to balance it by taken a safer player with a lower projected FP total.

Projections are not the only consideration.

 

[The Jerk]

However, if one is already an experienced player, then information on individual NFL teams, such as assessments on offseason changes, positional battles, etc., are far more useful on their own than when they are only incorporated into the model. I would rather make my own value judgment on how these individual factors should influence the positional and overall player rankings on a league-by-league basis, but I'm sure others, especially newcomers to the hobby, would rather just look at projections a day or two before their draft.

I incorporate all of those factors into my projections. To be clear on my methodology I don't have static projections. I project a likely low and a likely high for each player.

The other problem with mathematical projections, no matter how accurate, is the luck quotient of FF. Injuries can be addressed to a minor extent, but tackles at the half-yard line, etc. are essentially unpredictable. Eventually they even out, but not necessarily in a given season, and definitely not in a given week.

It's not about predicting exact projections, it's about your projections being X% more accurate than your competition.

Bottom line: formulas and numbers cannot tell the whole story, so as a result, each of us has to decide exactly how far we want to go with them in our FF preparation.

If you take all of those factors that do tell the "whole story" than your numbers can be very useful. I agree to an extent that one static group of projections is not the best way to go for advanced ffers. That's why I use a low projection and high projections for all players in addition to a most likely projection. How I use each of those projections depends on the draft and how it is progressing. Sometimes you need safe numbers sometimes you can afford chasing the risky upside numbers.

Flexibility is the key with projections.

To clear up your first , I think you're misunderstanding my perspective. I'm not saying that you cannot incorporate these elements into your projections. I AM SAYING that I would rather discuss these factors independent of projections with someone like yourself and many others who frequent this forum. In other words, the rationale you might use to determine the "coefficient" for each of these elements is more important than their composite effect on your personal projections.As to your second , I think we have philosophical differences here. I don't believe the whole story can be captured in formula form. You'll obviously continue to say that it can be done. Yet elsewhere you state

Almost every big time ff'er I know frequents this site, there's a reason for that and it's not because projectsions in general have a low percentage of accuracy...which is something every statistician would have told you before this study, in addition to anyone who has experience with projections.

So either you really are ten times smarter than anyone else who has ever done projections, or you are acknowledging that no one is really close to capturing the "whole story" in FF prognostication, in which case you're saying virtually the same thing I did when you were .

 

[LHUCKS]

As to your second  , I think we have philosophical differences here. I don't believe the whole story can be captured in formula form. You'll obviously continue to say that it can be done. Yet elsewhere you state

Almost every big time ff'er I know frequents this site, there's a reason for that and it's not because projectsions in general have a low percentage of accuracy...which is something every statistician would have told you before this study, in addition to anyone who has experience with projections.

So either you really are ten times smarter than anyone else who has ever done projections, or you are acknowledging that no one is really close to capturing the "whole story" in FF prognostication, in which case you're saying virtually the same thing I did when you were .

There are certain things you can't capture in a projection such as the value of handcuffs in a survivor draft...obviously if you draft Julius Jones, your own perceived value of Marion Barber sky rockets.That being said, I do believe you can capture almost all factors into a range of projections.(I project ranges not a singular static projection) Walstreet Risk Management analysts derive singular values for certain stocks with significantly more factors than any player projection in fantasy football...they don't do that because they have free time.

Like I said before, It's about your projections/rankings being X% better than your competition. It has nothing to do with your QB projections being 42% accurate one year and 44% accurate the next.

 

[The Jerk]

As to your second  , I think we have philosophical differences here. I don't believe the whole story can be captured in formula form. You'll obviously continue to say that it can be done. Yet elsewhere you state

Almost every big time ff'er I know frequents this site, there's a reason for that and it's not because projectsions in general have a low percentage of accuracy...which is something every statistician would have told you before this study, in addition to anyone who has experience with projections.

So either you really are ten times smarter than anyone else who has ever done projections, or you are acknowledging that no one is really close to capturing the "whole story" in FF prognostication, in which case you're saying virtually the same thing I did when you were .

There are certain things you can't capture in a projection such as the value of handcuffs in a survivor draft...obviously if you draft Julius Jones, your own perceived value of Marion Barber sky rockets.That being said, I do believe you can capture almost all factors into a range of projections.(I project ranges not a singular static projection)

Like I said before, It's about your projections/rankings being X% better than your competition. It has nothing to do with your QB projections being 42% accurate one year and 44% accurate the next.

For the most part, I agree with you. I endorse using ranges and/or an upside/downside factor.There is no doubt that having projections that are better than the rest of your league is a prime ingredient to a successful FF team. However, you still need to properly execute your draft to take advantage of your edge in projections.

Anyway, I appreciate your insight. I hope you can acknowledge that people can have a considerable amount of success in FF even if they don't duplicate your precise methodology. More to the point, not everyone has the ability or the desire to use your exact approach.

Thanks for a good discussion.

 

[LHUCKS]

Anyway, I appreciate your insight. I hope you can acknowledge that people can have a considerable amount of success in FF even if they don't duplicate your precise methodology. More to the point, not everyone has the ability or the desire to use your exact approach.

Thanks for a good discussion.

I don't expect anyone to duplicate my strategy for certain. There will come a time when I wont be able to devote as much time and energy to this hobby. Although I'm holding off as long as possible...which reminds me I'm meeting my buddies out for beers at happy hour.

Good luck gents.

 

[hickbones]

It's not like he's saying "dude, I was a warrior for playing in the Super Bowl. I could have ended my career, and my QB didn't even care. All he did was bend over and throw up."

OMG...was that out of his book?...#$#$ing priceless!!

 

[hickbones]

Submitted this article to FBG:

FOOTBALLGUYS.COM PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

2001-2005

Overview

When I began this project of evaluating the projections of Footballguys.com, it was initially an attempt to quantify the variance of wide receivers performance with their projected performance, hopefully gaining some insight as to the definite worth of wide receivers during the draft. Once I had gotten all the projections and statistics together, I simply expanded the scope to include the other main positions – quarterbacks, running backs and tight ends. It became an enlightening, if not startling endeavor, to say the least. This analysis is not meant to be a critique of the projections at Footballguys.com, but rather an indication of the true worth of projections, regardless of source.

Method

As we all know, due to the popularity of fantasy football, the scoring systems used in this hobby vary widely. For the sake of this study, I assigned 1 point per ten yards rushing and receiving, 6 points per touchdown rushed or received, 1 point per 20 yards passing and 4 points per passing touchdown. I also assumed that a standard league would contain 12 teams, starting 1 quarterback, 2 running backs, 2 wide receivers and a tight end. My final statistics were derived from the Historical Data Dominator on Footballguys.com, and the projections used were from the VBD excel spreadsheets provided at Footballguys.com. Bruce Henderson and other FBG were kind enough to forward me copies of years not available on the site.

Once I compiled all stats and projections into one spreadsheet per year and the appropriate fantasy points for each set of data, I calculated the deviation of actual fantasy points to projected fantasy points for the starters in the league and for the league as a whole. I assumed that there would be 30 quarterbacks in the league, 60 running backs, 60 wide receivers and 30 tight ends. I designated each deviation that fell within 15% of projected fantasy stats as “generally correct” and each deviation that fell outside of 50% of projected fantasy stats, either way, as “inaccurate”. These percentages, while arbitrary, seemed to be reasonable assumptions. I’m sure cases can be made for other percentages or bench marks. The other shortcoming in all this is the source of the projections. I have not quantified how accurate the projections are in comparison with projections from other sources, and have gone forward with the assumption that the projections are reasonable, rational estimations of fantasy productivity.

Results

Starting Quarterbacks Entire Draft Population

Year St. Dev. "Correct" Pct. "Inaccurate" Pct. St. Dev. "Correct" Pct. "Inaccurate" Pct.

2001 106.14 7 58.33% 2 16.67% 92.79 14 46.67% 4 13.33%

2002 97.1 7 58.33% 2 16.67% 96.5 12 40.00% 9 30.00%

2003 114.77 7 58.33% 3 25.00% 110.08 12 40.00% 11 36.67%

2004 70.3 6 50.00% 1 8.33% 92.86 12 40.00% 7 23.33%

2005 71.98 7 58.33% 1 8.33% 81.28 12 40.00% 4 13.33%

Total 92.06 6.8 56.67% 1.80 15.00% 94.70 12.4 41.33% 7.00 23.33%

Starting Running Backs Entire Draft Population

Year St. Dev. "Correct" Pct. "Inaccurate" Pct. St. Dev. "Correct" Pct. "Inaccurate" Pct.

2001 86.49 6 25.00% 7 29.17% 86.97 11 18.33% 25 41.67%

2002 67.31 8 33.33% 2 8.33% 65.1 14 23.33% 20 33.33%

2003 74.15 6 25.00% 6 25.00% 64.11 17 28.33% 21 35.00%

2004 74.89 4 16.67% 5 20.83% 66.43 13 21.67% 20 33.33%

2005 73.74 7 29.17% 5 20.83% 65 21 35.00% 18 30.00%

Total 75.316 6.2 25.83% 5 20.83% 69.522 15.2 25.33% 20.8 34.67%

Starting Wide Receivers Entire Draft Population

Year St. Dev. "Correct" Pct. "Inaccurate" Pct. St. Dev. "Correct" Pct. "Inaccurate" Pct.

2001 54.14 6 25.00% 5 20.83% 53.32 12 20.00% 18 30.00%

2002 36.53 10 41.67% 1 4.17% 46.12 21 35.00% 14 23.33%

2003 50.13 4 16.67% 4 16.67% 47.48 9 15.00% 15 25.00%

2004 58.92 12 50.00% 3 12.50% 57.71 16 26.67% 19 31.67%

2005 63.01 7 29.17% 7 29.17% 54 18 30.00% 18 30.00%

Total 52.546 7.8 32.50% 4 16.67% 51.726 15.2 25.33% 16.8 28.00%

Starting Tight Ends Entire Draft Population

Year St. Dev. "Correct" Pct. "Inaccurate" Pct. St. Dev. "Correct" Pct. "Inaccurate" Pct.

2001 30.65 4 33.33% 2 16.67% 28.97 5 16.67% 8 26.67%

2002 24.86 3 25.00% 4 33.33% 27.25 7 23.33% 12 40.00%

2003 32.61 4 33.33% 3 25.00% 29.99 6 20.00% 15 50.00%

2004 40.54 2 16.67% 3 25.00% 38.53 3 10.00% 11 36.67%

2005 32.10 5 41.67% 1 8.33% 27.00 9 30.00% 9 30.00%

Total 32.15 3.6 30.00% 2.60 21.67% 30.35 6 20.00% 11.00 36.67%

The initial observation is that the accuracy for quarterbacks, being correct about 50% of the time, and the draft population of quarterbacks as a whole being 40% correct is definitely greater than that of other positions. The other positions were only correct one-fourth to one-third of the time.

But even more surprising than that is the general inaccuracy of all positions. About one in three starters is going to be “correctly” projected. Another one in five is going to be not in the same ballpark that you projected, while the other forty percent is somewhere in between. The accuracy gets worse once you move away from the projected starters.

Analysis of Results

Bluntly put, projections aren’t that trustworthy, even good ones. Like I said Different sources would more than likely have little or no statistical difference. The reason for the inaccuracy is that football is a complex and violent game. Injuries occur, players fail to progress or fail to keep up with other players competing for playing time. We all want to think we “know” the game, but we can’t truly know what’s going to happen, from a standpoint of how all twenty-two players on the field, dozens of coaches and hours of practice are going to actually play out for the purposes of our fantasy game. We can only make educated guesses, based upon limited observations on Sunday, some statistical analysis and whatever information we can glean from the media. Our alternative to inherently and inevitably fallible projections? None. We have to make some educated guess, otherwise we might as well pick names out of a hat.

The moral of this lesson? Well, staying the course on the draft is a rational plan – VBD to hopefully maximize the “value” of our picks, but I think we need to add to that a willingness to have fun. Relax, draft the players you want, even it means forfeiting some of their perceived “value”, and enjoy yourself. The end result of our draft is mainly out of our control.

I, for one, totally dig your analysis and would love to see it in all its excel glory. This message board doesn't do it justice. I've been asking fbg for years to analyze and report their own projections. Perhaps what LHUCKS has been saying is why they don't (although others do).The inaccuracy of the projections is one of the reasons I favor the Draft Dominator to any other draft program I have seen. It packs so much other information in there that helps me make informed decisions on the fly. The last thing I want to do is turn on the program and pick whatever it tells me to. I know the projections only go so far, so the SOS and Depth Charts help a lot in the draft. I also think it has the most flexibility in tweaking projections as well as weighting certain weeks, etc.