"Top 10" isn't exactly impressive (1 Viewer)

[BigRed]

I see people saying so and so is "Top 10" like that means a player is really good FF wise - given that (I think) most leagues are in the 10-12 team range, "top 10" means that player would be one of the worst starters in the league.

So I'd say calling someone "Top 10" in FF isn't exactly the greatest plug in the whole wide world, at least not for starters (and RB1s etc).

 

[Marc Levin]

means that player would be one of the worst starters in the league.

at QB, K and TE, at RB and WR

 

[On The Rocks]

I see people saying so and so is "Top 10" like that means a player is really good FF wise - given that (I think) most leagues are in the 10-12 team range, "top 10" means that player would be one of the worst starters in the league.

So I'd say calling someone "Top 10" in FF isn't exactly the greatest plug in the whole wide world, at least not for starters (and RB1s etc).

maybe just "top 1" then?

 

[BigRed]

Dunno. "Top 5" maybe.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

It would be more accurate if we went by percentiles, but saying "top 10" is waaaaaaaaaay easier.

 

[Z-Dog]

at some positions, like QB, WR, and TE, there isn't much difference between 10 and 20. Nevertheless, we live in a decimal world, so we're stuck with top 10. Maybe if we had only six fingers, we would have developed a system that would have had more meaning in a fantasy football context...

 

[Marc Levin]

Maybe if we had only six fingers, we would have developed a system that would have had more meaning in a fantasy football context...

Do you have the names of players written on your toes on draft day, too??

 

[MLBrandow]

I see people saying so and so is "Top 10" like that means a player is really good FF wise - given that (I think) most leagues are in the 10-12 team range, "top 10" means that player would be one of the worst starters in the league.

So I'd say calling someone "Top 10" in FF isn't exactly the greatest plug in the whole wide world, at least not for starters (and RB1s etc).

This is a silly thread without any examples. If you're going to scold posters for their idioms, send a pm.add: [/irony]

 

[Marc Levin]

I see people saying so and so is "Top 10" like that means a player is really good FF wise - given that (I think) most leagues are in the 10-12 team range, "top 10" means that player would be one of the worst starters in the league. 

So I'd say calling someone "Top 10" in FF isn't exactly the greatest plug in the whole wide world, at least not for starters (and RB1s etc).

This is a silly thread without any examples. If you're going to scold posters for their idioms, send a pm.

???I don't see anything wrong with the thread - though I don't see much useful info coming out of it.

 

[-OZ-]

I see people saying so and so is "Top 10" like that means a player is really good FF wise - given that (I think) most leagues are in the 10-12 team range, "top 10" means that player would be one of the worst starters in the league.

So I'd say calling someone "Top 10" in FF isn't exactly the greatest plug in the whole wide world, at least not for starters (and RB1s etc).

This is a silly thread without any examples. If you're going to scold posters for their idioms, send a pm.

???I don't see anything wrong with the thread - though I don't see much useful info coming out of it.

To me, "top 10" simply means the player is start-worthy in almost all leagues. It doesn't neccessarily mean "elite", but it isn't supposed to.

 

[Cixelsyd]

You might want to forward your question to David Lettermen....

Your post really makes no sense.... is this your first year?

 

[Sweetness_34]

So is there statistical data that shows that you should win your league >90% of the time or whatever if at every position you have a top 10 player

Say you have a top 10 RB1, RB2 (when compared to other RB2s), WR1 etc.....

 

[Yitbos69]

I see people saying so and so is "Top 10" like that means a player is really good FF wise - given that (I think) most leagues are in the 10-12 team range, "top 10" means that player would be one of the worst starters in the league.

So I'd say calling someone "Top 10" in FF isn't exactly the greatest plug in the whole wide world, at least not for starters (and RB1s etc).

One player is not going to win or lose you a Championship. So if you have the top FF player and not much else who cares.But if you have a team made up of mostly 10 Ten Player at each position then you have a very good chance to win week in and week out.

 

[JMJ]

I see people saying so and so is "Top 10" like that means a player is really good FF wise - given that (I think) most leagues are in the 10-12 team range, "top 10" means that player would be one of the worst starters in the league.

So I'd say calling someone "Top 10" in FF isn't exactly the greatest plug in the whole wide world, at least not for starters (and RB1s etc).

I whole-heartedly disagree. Most leagues are 12 team leagues. Most leagues also start 2 RBs and allow for at least 1 flex RB/WR if not more. So, if all 12 teams are starting an average of 36 combined RBs per week, that means the RBs in the Top -10 would be in the top 27.7%.That's very good.

HTH.

 

[CalBear]

So is there statistical data that shows that you should win your league >90% of the time or whatever if at every position you have a top 10 player

Say you have a top 10 RB1, RB2 (when compared to other RB2s), WR1 etc.....

In 2005, the #10 players for QB1, RB1, RB2, WR1, and WR2 were:QB: Kerry Collins

RB1: Mike Anderson

RB2: Tatum Bell (coincidentally)

WR1: Hines Ward

WR2: Deion Branch

So I'd say, at the bottom end of top 10, no, you wouldn't win your league with that team, although it's not bad.

But "top 10" isn't equivalent to #10, of course, it just means "at least as good as #10." If all rankings for "top 10" are equally likely, you'd wind up with QB#5.5, RB1#5.5, RB2#5.5, etc. I'll round those up to #6, and that gives you:

QB: Drew Bledsoe

RB1: Clinton Portis

RB2: Brian Westbrook

WR1: Torry Holt

WR2: Eddie Kennison

I'd say that team is competitive, certainly has a shot at the title if things go the right way.

If you round down to #5, you get:

QB: Matt Hasselbeck

RB1: Edgerrin James

RB2: Domanick Davis

WR1: Joey Galloway

WR2: Reggie Wayne

A stronger team than #6, perhaps significantly so, but not a shoe-in for the championship or anything like that. The VBD total for this team is 18+125+24+72+19=258. That's not bad, but consider that the Shaun Alexander owner starts out with 221 VBD points. This team, comprised of Alexander, one decent WR, and baseline players at the other positions, scored more points than the "#5" team above:

QB: Jake Delhomme

RB1: Shaun Alexander

RB2: DeShaun Foster

WR1: Donald Driver

WR2: Laverneus Coles

So, it's better to have a couple of top players than a bunch of moderately good ones.

 

[Ozymandias]

4.

It is the neglected number. #1, top 2, top 3, top 5 and top 10.

What's wrong with 4?

 

[-OZ-]

4.

It is the neglected number. #1, top 2, top 3, top 5 and top 10.

What's wrong with 4?

Top 3 = medalsTop 10 = David Letterman

Top 12 = starts in every league (in theory)

Everything else is worthless.

 

[Marc Levin]

So is there statistical data that shows that you should win your league >90% of the time or whatever if at every position you have a top 10 player

Say you have a top 10 RB1, RB2 (when compared to other RB2s), WR1 etc.....

In 2005, the #10 players for QB1, RB1, RB2, WR1, and WR2 were:QB: Kerry Collins

RB1: Mike Anderson

RB2: Tatum Bell (coincidentally)

WR1: Hines Ward

WR2: Deion Branch

So I'd say, at the bottom end of top 10, no, you wouldn't win your league with that team, although it's not bad.

But "top 10" isn't equivalent to #10, of course, it just means "at least as good as #10." If all rankings for "top 10" are equally likely, you'd wind up with QB#5.5, RB1#5.5, RB2#5.5, etc. I'll round those up to #6, and that gives you:

QB: Drew Bledsoe

RB1: Clinton Portis

RB2: Brian Westbrook

WR1: Torry Holt

WR2: Eddie Kennison

I'd say that team is competitive, certainly has a shot at the title if things go the right way.

If you round down to #5, you get:

QB: Matt Hasselbeck

RB1: Edgerrin James

RB2: Domanick Davis

WR1: Joey Galloway

WR2: Reggie Wayne

A stronger team than #6, perhaps significantly so, but not a shoe-in for the championship or anything like that. The VBD total for this team is 18+125+24+72+19=258. That's not bad, but consider that the Shaun Alexander owner starts out with 221 VBD points. This team, comprised of Alexander, one decent WR, and baseline players at the other positions, scored more points than the "#5" team above:

QB: Jake Delhomme

RB1: Shaun Alexander

RB2: DeShaun Foster

WR1: Donald Driver

WR2: Laverneus Coles

So, it's better to have a couple of top players than a bunch of moderately good ones.

Wow - interesting application of the theory.Not sure you are spot on. though. I'd say each of those teams gives you a darned good competitive team and a likely playoff team. That's generally the goal for your draft - draft a playoff quality team and hope it gets hot in December.

Champ quality??? Who knows? That depends a lot on those players' numbers in weeks 13-17.

That said, I agree that I would rather have an outstanding RB, plus one outstanding WR, and a lot of steady "top-20" guys heading into the playoffs. (edit to add - and you need a top-10 QB who doesn't have a sub-10 point game in December)

Also, in my experience, you MUST have top-5 producing k and d during weeks 13-17 to win your championship.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

3 WRs x 12 teams = 36 starting WRs

2 RBs x 12 teams = 24 starting RBs

And that's without a flex. So now since when does top 10 equate to one of the worst starters at their position?

Sure, this applies to QBs/TEs but I rarely see people noting QBs and TEs being top 10, it almost always applies to WRs and RBs at which point they are certainly within the top half or third of all the starters out there.

And since when did anyone ever talk about a top 10 WR3? Top 10 is almost always taken in regards to overall at that position.

 

[LTsharks]

So is there statistical data that shows that you should win your league >90% of the time or whatever if at every position you have a top 10 player

Say you have a top 10 RB1, RB2 (when compared to other RB2s), WR1 etc.....

In 2005, the #10 players for QB1, RB1, RB2, WR1, and WR2 were:QB: Kerry Collins

RB1: Mike Anderson

RB2: Tatum Bell (coincidentally)

WR1: Hines Ward

WR2: Deion Branch

So I'd say, at the bottom end of top 10, no, you wouldn't win your league with that team, although it's not bad.

But "top 10" isn't equivalent to #10, of course, it just means "at least as good as #10." If all rankings for "top 10" are equally likely, you'd wind up with QB#5.5, RB1#5.5, RB2#5.5, etc. I'll round those up to #6, and that gives you:

QB: Drew Bledsoe

RB1: Clinton Portis

RB2: Brian Westbrook

WR1: Torry Holt

WR2: Eddie Kennison

I'd say that team is competitive, certainly has a shot at the title if things go the right way.

If you round down to #5, you get:

QB: Matt Hasselbeck

RB1: Edgerrin James

RB2: Domanick Davis

WR1: Joey Galloway

WR2: Reggie Wayne

A stronger team than #6, perhaps significantly so, but not a shoe-in for the championship or anything like that. The VBD total for this team is 18+125+24+72+19=258. That's not bad, but consider that the Shaun Alexander owner starts out with 221 VBD points. This team, comprised of Alexander, one decent WR, and baseline players at the other positions, scored more points than the "#5" team above:

QB: Jake Delhomme

RB1: Shaun Alexander

RB2: DeShaun Foster

WR1: Donald Driver

WR2: Laverneus Coles

So, it's better to have a couple of top players than a bunch of moderately good ones.

I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone on this board refer to a top 10 RB2 (RB13-RB22 in a 12 team league) or a top 10 WR2.

 

[CalBear]

I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone on this board refer to a top 10 RB2 (RB13-RB22 in a 12 team league) or a top 10 WR2.

See the person I was responding to.

 

[Tau837]

I see people saying so and so is "Top 10" like that means a player is really good FF wise - given that (I think) most leagues are in the 10-12 team range, "top 10" means that player would be one of the worst starters in the league.

So I'd say calling someone "Top 10" in FF isn't exactly the greatest plug in the whole wide world, at least not for starters (and RB1s etc).

It's all about context. Most of the leagues I have played in over the past few years have been 14 team leagues. Top 10 at any position is valuable, but obviously particularly at RB & WR. I have also played in multiple leagues that start multiple QBs, which makes a top 10 QB extremely valuable.