Weekly FBG Cheatsheets (1 Viewer)

[Gravity]

I have been a subscriber now for a few years and I have been wondering about the weekly Cheatsheets.

Is there any data to back up the accuracy? Does FBG do some sort of post-mortem analysis to see what hit/missed and then try and improve on it? If so, how?

Has anyone ever compared the accuracy to other sites?

My point is that every week these cheatsheets come out and they are supposed to be the final FBG say for setting lineups. But how do we know that they are actually helpful any more then choosing out of a hat? Is there any scientific method involved in reviewing and improving?



[i know they are just a guide and we are all responsible for our own lineups, etc...blah, blah. That is not my question.]

 

[DoGdr]

It would be cool to see how good of predictor the are.

 

[Mmen of Steel]

I have been a subscriber now for a few years and I have been wondering about the weekly Cheatsheets.

Is there any data to back up the accuracy? Does FBG do some sort of post-mortem analysis to see what hit/missed and then try and improve on it? If so, how?

Has anyone ever compared the accuracy to other sites?

My point is that every week these cheatsheets come out and they are supposed to be the final FBG say for setting lineups. But how do we know that they are actually helpful any more then choosing out of a hat? Is there any scientific method involved in reviewing and improving?



[i know they are just a guide and we are all responsible for our own lineups, etc...blah, blah. That is not my question.]

My best guesstimate after 3+ years is that FBG is @95% correct.That is amazing, considering the # and depth of positions listed.

CBS does a coach's rating based on the scoring of the actives vs.

bench players and I have always been the #1 or #2 guy

in my league. I am very confident in the accurcy of FBG.

 

[Rogi]

I have been a subscriber now for a few years and I have been wondering about the weekly Cheatsheets.

Is there any data to back up the accuracy? Does FBG do some sort of post-mortem analysis to see what hit/missed and then try and improve on it? If so, how?

Has anyone ever compared the accuracy to other sites?

My point is that every week these cheatsheets come out and they are supposed to be the final FBG say for setting lineups. But how do we know that they are actually helpful any more then choosing out of a hat? Is there any scientific method involved in reviewing and improving?



[i know they are just a guide and we are all responsible for our own lineups, etc...blah, blah. That is not my question.]

I would love to see this too. I'm not a subscriber yet, but seeing some hard facts could close the deal for skeptical person as myself. I always see posts about how much success people have had by subscribing, but how many, if any, subscribers haven't found the subscriber material beneficial?

 

[phillzphan]

I have been a subscriber now for a few years and I have been wondering about the weekly Cheatsheets.

Is there any data to back up the accuracy? Does FBG do some sort of post-mortem analysis to see what hit/missed and then try and improve on it? If so, how?

Has anyone ever compared the accuracy to other sites?

My point is that every week these cheatsheets come out and they are supposed to be the final FBG say for setting lineups. But how do we know that they are actually helpful any more then choosing out of a hat? Is there any scientific method involved in reviewing and improving?



[i know they are just a guide and we are all responsible for our own lineups, etc...blah, blah. That is not my question.]

My best guesstimate after 3+ years is that FBG is @95% correct.That is amazing, considering the # and depth of positions listed.

CBS does a coach's rating based on the scoring of the actives vs.

bench players and I have always been the #1 or #2 guy

in my league. I am very confident in the accurcy of FBG.

they're good....but nowhere near 95%. Sometimes I have 3 recievers in the top 5 and only 1 gets in the top 10. they are good. they are better than others predicting. but they're not close to 95%. noone is.

 

[my man otis]

I have been a subscriber now for a few years and I have been wondering about the weekly Cheatsheets.

Is there any data to back up the accuracy? Does FBG do some sort of post-mortem analysis to see what hit/missed and then try and improve on it? If so, how?

Has anyone ever compared the accuracy to other sites?

My point is that every week these cheatsheets come out and they are supposed to be the final FBG say for setting lineups. But how do we know that they are actually helpful any more then choosing out of a hat? Is there any scientific method involved in reviewing and improving?



[i know they are just a guide and we are all responsible for our own lineups, etc...blah, blah. That is not my question.]

My best guesstimate after 3+ years is that FBG is @95% correct.That is amazing, considering the # and depth of positions listed.

CBS does a coach's rating based on the scoring of the actives vs.

bench players and I have always been the #1 or #2 guy

in my league. I am very confident in the accurcy of FBG.

If they could model 95% accuracy in anything the staff could be million-billionaires right now after 50%+ annual returns in their hedge fund.

 

[Fishnic]

i would put a conservative opinion at 65% depending mostly on your ability to draft players. I followed FBG cheatsheets for 4 years (this being my 4th). I had 2 great years. 1 horrible (no wins due mostly to my draft of COULDBEES) and this year #1 in my division.

I used draft dominator this year for the first time and drafted mostly with the programs recomendations. My players are doing well as predicted. I put 90% faith into their cheatsheets, then revise a very few to get my weekly lineup.

 

[shuke]

I have been a subscriber now for a few years and I have been wondering about the weekly Cheatsheets.Is there any data to back up the accuracy? Does FBG do some sort of post-mortem analysis to see what hit/missed and then try and improve on it? If so, how?Has anyone ever compared the accuracy to other sites?

There used to be a site that compared the pre-season accuracy of about 20 sites and you could get the info for free. They also compared the weekly rankings but you had to pay for that. I remember FBG being #1 in pre-season accuracy about 3 or 4 years ago, but after that year the site stopped doing the comparisons.I can't remember the name of the site right now, though.

 

[PRE42]

I have been a subscriber now for a few years and I have been wondering about the weekly Cheatsheets.Is there any data to back up the accuracy? Does FBG do some sort of post-mortem analysis to see what hit/missed and then try and improve on it? If so, how?Has anyone ever compared the accuracy to other sites?

There used to be a site that compared the pre-season accuracy of about 20 sites and you could get the info for free. They also compared the weekly rankings but you had to pay for that. I remember FBG being #1 in pre-season accuracy about 3 or 4 years ago, but after that year the site stopped doing the comparisons.I can't remember the name of the site right now, though.

thoughts, FBS's? thoughts. where is shick when you need him? jk

 

[zoonation]

95% is laughable.

I would like to know as well, and would guess that they are wrong way more often than right.

Cheatsheets have very limited utility IMO.

 

[Kleck]

Cheatsheets have very limited utility IMO.

I agree 100%. For me the cheatsheets have always been very low on the value scale. I see the cheetsheets as the equivalent of advice. I don't like advice. I like informaiton. I will continue to view FBG.com as a source of constantly flowing information. How you use that information is up to you. If you allow someone else to make decisions for you, it ceases to be "your" team. I understand why folks like the cheetsheets. It's comforting to hear the opinion of an expert like David Dodds. His opinions carry a lot of weight. He has earned a high level of respect in this hobby.

 

[abricru]

I have been a subscriber now for a few years and I have been wondering about the weekly Cheatsheets.Is there any data to back up the accuracy? Does FBG do some sort of post-mortem analysis to see what hit/missed and then try and improve on it? If so, how?Has anyone ever compared the accuracy to other sites?

There used to be a site that compared the pre-season accuracy of about 20 sites and you could get the info for free. They also compared the weekly rankings but you had to pay for that. I remember FBG being #1 in pre-season accuracy about 3 or 4 years ago, but after that year the site stopped doing the comparisons.I can't remember the name of the site right now, though.

I think it was called "No Freakin' Logic" or something like that.

 

[Kleck]

My best guesstimate after 3+ years is that FBG is @95% correct.

95% of what? Where is this number coming from?

 

[radballs]

My best guesstimate after 3+ years is that FBG is @95% correct.

95% of what? Where is this number coming from?

Maybe he means relatively versus other sites. As in FBGs is usually more correct than his other source in general, but one out of 20 times his other source is more accurate. Just a thought.

 

[webslinger]

I have never changed my lineup because of the cheat sheet. I take pride in doing my own lineups. However, they are usually pretty close to what I have as a lineup. I learned the hard way to start your studs every week, when you don't, because of some cheat sheet, it always bites you in the ###. Draft solid, watch the wire and fa, check the ir, and always start your studs. That more than anything will give you the best chance to win.

 

[Lowen1]

I have been a subscriber now for a few years and I have been wondering about the weekly Cheatsheets.

Is there any data to back up the accuracy? Does FBG do some sort of post-mortem analysis to see what hit/missed and then try and improve on it? If so, how?

Has anyone ever compared the accuracy to other sites?

My point is that every week these cheatsheets come out and they are supposed to be the final FBG say for setting lineups. But how do we know that they are actually helpful any more then choosing out of a hat? Is there any scientific method involved in reviewing and improving?



[i know they are just a guide and we are all responsible for our own lineups, etc...blah, blah. That is not my question.]

I would love to see this too. I'm not a subscriber yet, but seeing some hard facts could close the deal for skeptical person as myself. I always see posts about how much success people have had by subscribing, but how many, if any, subscribers haven't found the subscriber material beneficial?

Like Shick! commented above, the information FBG provides is the real value. The cheatsheets are nice. I can't attest to the accuracy of the cheatsheets, although I do use them to confirm/validate my thoughts, or question my thoughts if I have players ranked differently. I can tell you that my main league has been around for 6 years. There are two of us who use FBG. We've both made the playoffs each year. I've been to 4 superbowls (won 2) and he's been to 2 (lost both). But we are by far the two most consistent teams. No other team has made the playoffs more than 4x.

To me, this means the info we get from FBG has led to winning seasons. Cheatsheets are just a very small part of the info. But, based on the other info provided by FBG, and by how I mostly agree with the cheatsheet ranking, and by my success, I think the cheatsheets do a very good job of ranking players. Especially because in the subscriber section, you can get customized cheatsheets for your league scoring system.

 

[Mmen of Steel]

95% is laughable.I would like to know as well, and would guess that they are wrong way more often than right.Cheatsheets have very limited utility IMO.

There is nothing laughable about it. Its true.The fact that you think cheatsheets have limited utility islaughable. Considering you are on a site that started out as cheatsheets.net.You can buy into it oru ou can laugh at it. I really don't care.This site has boosted the team of my performance over theyears. The $25 has a way of paying itself back over the course of 16 weeks.And no, I am in no way affiliated with the site. I am a happy customer singing the praises of a service that REALLY delivers.How about this? Let me come into your league, use this data,and take your moolah. And then we can see if you change your tune.

 

[Mmen of Steel]

Cheatsheets have very limited utility IMO.

I agree 100%. For me the cheatsheets have always been very low on the value scale. I see the cheetsheets as the equivalent of advice. I don't like advice. I like informaiton. I will continue to view FBG.com as a source of constantly flowing information. How you use that information is up to you. If you allow someone else to make decisions for you, it ceases to be "your" team. I understand why folks like the cheetsheets. It's comforting to hear the opinion of an expert like David Dodds. His opinions carry a lot of weight. He has earned a high level of respect in this hobby.

I can see what you are saying here Shick. And let me address your other comment aboutmy now infamous '95% estimate'.

The cheatsheets have been very good for me in making a lot of tough calls between WRs,

TEs, Ks and DSTs. That's where I find the value.

Do I need a cheatsheet to tell me to start Peyton Manning over Jake Plummer? Nope.

Did I like to have a second opinion when I am starting a Marques Colston over a Jericho

Cotchery in the early part of the season? Yep.

If Colston is #12 and Cotchery is #13, I take the 12 and get on with life. Do the weekly

projections fall in line exactly with the cheatsheets? Heck no. That would be ridiculous

to expect something like that. But I would say that FBG's advice is 95% correct when

I need to go to the well to make a call like the one above.

I still consider my team to be 'my team', regardless of where i get my information.

Like any decision in life (no matter how big or how small) it is our own personal

responsibility to plug in the best information and make our own best efforts.

I hope this doesn't sound like some kool-aid fueled rant, but I really do

appreciate the info/advice/insight that I get here - on the cheatsheets, the waiver

wire reports, and even the message board (when the tools get put away properly).

 

[Rogi]

I'm not a subscriber, but do the FBGs draft cheetsheats rank QBs on scoring 6 points per touchdown or 4 points per touchdown.

 

[elpasotexan]

FBG cheatsheets can be customized to your scoring system for the most part.

 

[Kleck]

I'm not a subscriber, but do the FBGs draft cheetsheats rank QBs on scoring 6 points per touchdown or 4 points per touchdown.

It's 4, but I can assure you that this is an off-season agenda item. PPR will also be discussed.

 

[PrinceofDarkness]

I have been a subscriber now for a few years and I have been wondering about the weekly Cheatsheets.

Is there any data to back up the accuracy? Does FBG do some sort of post-mortem analysis to see what hit/missed and then try and improve on it? If so, how?

Has anyone ever compared the accuracy to other sites?

My point is that every week these cheatsheets come out and they are supposed to be the final FBG say for setting lineups. But how do we know that they are actually helpful any more then choosing out of a hat? Is there any scientific method involved in reviewing and improving?



[i know they are just a guide and we are all responsible for our own lineups, etc...blah, blah. That is not my question.]

My best guesstimate after 3+ years is that FBG is @95% correct.That is amazing, considering the # and depth of positions listed.

CBS does a coach's rating based on the scoring of the actives vs.

bench players and I have always been the #1 or #2 guy

in my league. I am very confident in the accurcy of FBG.

Funny thing is, I'm always at the bottom of the league in the coaches ranking (and damn proud of it). I actually have a very balanced and deep team (that is unfortunately 4-5), and my "Coaches Rating" takes a hit because I have a deep bench. For example, my QBs are Vick, Kitna, and Leftwich. That has been a money combo this season, but CBS Sportline thinks I'm a "bad" coach because my bench has good fantasy options (Reggie Brown, Colston, Maroney). So I don't take CBS's ranking as an indication of the success of the weekly cheetsheats, rather the preseason sleepers that FBGs (and this forum) nail year after year.

 

[BassNBrew]

Is there any data to back up the accuracy?

Yes, do a search on "Dodds" and "smoking crack".Everytime someone has called out Dodds' rankings on the messageboard, they proceed to get oVVned on Sunday.

 

[smackdaddies]

hrrrm - Ken Hamlin anyone? I rode that pick as the no. 1 DB for the week to a near loss.

Having said that, the cheatsheats to me are a roster check - I have Vick and Eli - I am thinking one, but the CS have the other higher. So I look into it - read the other material on the board (passing matchups, for example), review other material, than make a decision. I do not have time to do full research, thats why I use a service like FBGs

In general, I think the CS are a great service, as are the 250 best going forward.

I do not expect them to get every pick exactly right.

I do have alot of other owners in my IDP leauge wondering how I can pull out all these great IDP (Hamlin not withstanding) and keep leading in IDP scoring even though I took the "scraps" during the draft. The CS are a huge help in id'ing the best for the week.

 

[coolnerd]

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'm not a subscriber, but do the FBGs draft cheetsheats rank QBs on scoring 6 points per touchdown or 4 points per touchdown.

It's 4, but I can assure you that this is an off-season agenda item. PPR will also be discussed.

As one of the loud voices for the 6 points per TD I am glad to hear this. I am also against the PPR side of the equation as I don't think a reception is worth anything without yards or TD's just as a carry isn't worth anything without yards or a TD attached.And yes I am aware the clock moves.Shick I agree about the cheat sheets. I pick my own lineup and then there are usually one or 2 spots I may look to see what Dodds says. sometimes I agree and sometimes I don't. I don't think they are too accurate, but then again I don't think it is possible to be so accurate either.

 

[R.White]

The cheat sheets are nothing more than an educated guess of what may happen in the future. No one on this planet can tell us what will happen tomorrow in any part of our lives. For instance you look at tomorrow and try to predict "your day", and what may or may not happen. Life is so unpredictable, it's impossible for you to, with 100% accuracy, foresee what tomorrow will bring. However, (and this is what sets David, and Footballguys apart from all the rest) if you strategically plan ahead, giving careful consideration to your normal life schedule, and what you hope to accomplish tomorrow, you should be able to predict your life for tomorrow fairly accurately. Now you should certainly be able to project "your life" for tomorrow, much more accurately than anyone else could. It's "THAT" specific knowledge that only you possess, that sets you apart from everyone else in determining "your day tomorrow". Now if you shared every minuscule detail about your life, plans, schedule etc, with me, then I now can also accurately predict "your tomorrow" as well.

With that said, Footballguys has more fantasy related content than anyone. Not to mention the brilliant minds, statisticians, and years of overall fantasy experience. Armed with all the exceptional content and resources here at Footballguys, is why David and FBG's can be as precise with their projections as anyone in this business. It's that "knowledge" that fuels the projections, and sets Footballguys apart from the rest. The projections are nothing more than an exceptionally educated guess, and a template for us to follow or use as comparison in determining our line-ups. Those who make the best decisions every week, generally are most successful in fantasy football, and Footballguys is best at preparing us for those decisions.

RW

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

I'm not a subscriber, but do the FBGs draft cheetsheats rank QBs on scoring 6 points per touchdown or 4 points per touchdown.

It's 4, but I can assure you that this is an off-season agenda item. PPR will also be discussed.

However, you can enter a customer cheetsheet for 6 pts.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

I agree with the people who use it to validate thier thoughts. Last week, I saw that Seneca Wallace was ranked too high for my taste. I started a thread in the forum looking for thoughts on why FBGs was so high on him. People posted thier opinions and I did not start Wallace but at least I know that I didn't miss anything. No one is infallible. I like as an opinion to check against my own.

 

[Kleck]

As one of the loud voices for the 6 points per TD I am glad to hear this. I am also against the PPR side of the equation as I don't think a reception is worth anything without yards or TD's just as a carry isn't worth anything without yards or a TD attached.

I'm hoping we make a big push to collect some data on what people are predominatly using. If 75% of the leagues are using PPR we can't ignore that. If we're going to have a standard FBG scoring system for staff rankings I feel it should reflect what the majority of leagues are using.

 

[cr8f]

[i know they are just a guide and we are all responsible for our own lineups, etc...blah, blah. That is not my question.]

My best guesstimate after 3+ years is that FBG is @95% correct.That is amazing, considering the # and depth of positions listed.

That would be amazing if it were true. The best are preobably only about 55% accurate.

 

[David Dodds]

There is a site called Fantasyhounddog.com that ranks 43 experts. It is a pay site. We are included in this group each week. We have been Top 10 every week but one (finished 14th in week 8), despite losing points in their algorithm (flawwed in my opinion) because we don't predict full TDs (We end up with a lot more near misses and no exact hits as they judge yards, TDs and fantasy points. Since no one can have 0.6 TDs, we always miss on the TDs category). After week 7, we were the only expert to have ranked in the Top 10 every week.

Here are their results:

Week 1: 1st place (out of 38)

Week 2: 8th place (out of 39)

Week 3: 9th place (out of 41)

Week 4: 6th place (out of 40)

Week 5: 4th place (out of 40)

Week 6: 7th place (out of 43)

Week 7: 10th place (out of 43)

Week 8: 14th place (out of 43)

Week 9: 7th place (out of 43)

Again without fully knowing their algorithm, I am not sure what they are doing is completely accurate. It looks to me like we are getting penalized for fractional projections. I think the best approach would be to look at fantasy points only against some scoring system (which I do not believe they are doing).

 

[David Dodds]

This is something I am going to strongly consider adding to content next year. A completely objective algorithm that we compare the top 15 QBs, top 20 RBs, top 30 WRs and top 15 TEs each week. It's a labor intensive effort though, but I am still considering putting someone on it so that we have objective data within the industry.

Every study that has ever looked at this we have finished at or near the top of all experts. This isn't a fluke. It starts with framing statistics within the model that is the NFL games. I have a complicated algorithm (Game Predictor) that does this. The Game Predictor gets a lot of criticism sometimes because the one thing it doesn't do as good a job is to predict the final score. But it's real good at predicting probablity of yards and TDs. It fails on the score because turnovers play a HUGE role in the final outcomes.

Footballguys.com projections are framed within league stats. Add up all of our fractional rushing TDs and we should be very close to what happens this week. Same with passing yards, rushing yards, etc. When experts are routinely predicting 325 passing yards and 3 TDs, they can't be close to predicting fantasy points because they have an inflation factor of 20+% on the stars in the leagues while under-stating the role players.

If we take on the algorithm project, we will convert everything to fantasy points and then compare against that same scoring system. I contend that if we do it this way, we will clearly be at the head of the class regarding projections. If I am wrong, I will be thankful for what the data shows me. Do we hit every projection? Nope. But we frame the numbers around what we know from history. And I think that eliminates unnecessary error even when we are incorrect about a player/matchup.

 

[BassNBrew]

This is something I am going to strongly consider adding to content next year. A completely objective algorithm that we compare the top 15 QBs, top 20 RBs, top 30 WRs and top 15 TEs each week. It's a labor intensive effort though, but I am still considering putting someone on it so that we have objective data within the industry. Every study that has ever looked at this we have finished at or near the top of all experts. This isn't a fluke. It starts with framing statistics within the model that is the NFL games. I have a complicated algorithm (Game Predictor) that does this. The Game Predictor gets a lot of criticism sometimes because the one thing it doesn't do as good a job is to predict the final score. But it's real good at predicting probablity of yards and TDs. It fails on the score because turnovers play a HUGE role in the final outcomes. Footballguys.com projections are framed within league stats. Add up all of our fractional rushing TDs and we should be very close to what happens this week. Same with passing yards, rushing yards, etc. When experts are routinely predicting 325 passing yards and 3 TDs, they can't be close to predicting fantasy points because they have an inflation factor of 20+% on the stars in the leagues while under-stating the role players.If we take on the algorithm project, we will convert everything to fantasy points and then compare against that same scoring system. I contend that if we do it this way, we will clearly be at the head of the class regarding projections. If I am wrong, I will be thankful for what the data shows me. Do we hit every projection? Nope. But we frame the numbers around what we know from history. And I think that eliminates unnecessary error even when we are incorrect about a player/matchup.

That's nifty and everything, but I prefer the method where a poster asks "Is Dodds on crack?" and calls you out in the shark pool only to get totally embarrassed on Sunday.

 

[commisholio]

This is something I am going to strongly consider adding to content next year. A completely objective algorithm that we compare the top 15 QBs, top 20 RBs, top 30 WRs and top 15 TEs each week. It's a labor intensive effort though, but I am still considering putting someone on it so that we have objective data within the industry. Every study that has ever looked at this we have finished at or near the top of all experts. This isn't a fluke. It starts with framing statistics within the model that is the NFL games. I have a complicated algorithm (Game Predictor) that does this. The Game Predictor gets a lot of criticism sometimes because the one thing it doesn't do as good a job is to predict the final score. But it's real good at predicting probablity of yards and TDs. It fails on the score because turnovers play a HUGE role in the final outcomes. Footballguys.com projections are framed within league stats. Add up all of our fractional rushing TDs and we should be very close to what happens this week. Same with passing yards, rushing yards, etc. When experts are routinely predicting 325 passing yards and 3 TDs, they can't be close to predicting fantasy points because they have an inflation factor of 20+% on the stars in the leagues while under-stating the role players.If we take on the algorithm project, we will convert everything to fantasy points and then compare against that same scoring system. I contend that if we do it this way, we will clearly be at the head of the class regarding projections. If I am wrong, I will be thankful for what the data shows me. Do we hit every projection? Nope. But we frame the numbers around what we know from history. And I think that eliminates unnecessary error even when we are incorrect about a player/matchup.

That's nifty and everything, but I prefer the method where a poster asks "Is Dodds on crack?" and calls you out in the shark pool only to get totally embarrassed on Sunday.

GB Keerock.

 

[bonesman]

Cheatsheets have very limited utility IMO.

I agree 100%. For me the cheatsheets have always been very low on the value scale. I see the cheetsheets as the equivalent of advice. I don't like advice. I like informaiton. I will continue to view FBG.com as a source of constantly flowing information. How you use that information is up to you. If you allow someone else to make decisions for you, it ceases to be "your" team. I understand why folks like the cheetsheets. It's comforting to hear the opinion of an expert like David Dodds. His opinions carry a lot of weight. He has earned a high level of respect in this hobby.

I can see what you are saying here Shick. And let me address your other comment aboutmy now infamous '95% estimate'.

The cheatsheets have been very good for me in making a lot of tough calls between WRs,

TEs, Ks and DSTs. That's where I find the value.

Do I need a cheatsheet to tell me to start Peyton Manning over Jake Plummer? Nope.

Did I like to have a second opinion when I am starting a Marques Colston over a Jericho

Cotchery in the early part of the season? Yep.

If Colston is #12 and Cotchery is #13, I take the 12 and get on with life. Do the weekly

projections fall in line exactly with the cheatsheets? Heck no. That would be ridiculous

to expect something like that. But I would say that FBG's advice is 95% correct when

I need to go to the well to make a call like the one above.

I still consider my team to be 'my team', regardless of where i get my information.

Like any decision in life (no matter how big or how small) it is our own personal

responsibility to plug in the best information and make our own best efforts.

I hope this doesn't sound like some kool-aid fueled rant, but I really do

appreciate the info/advice/insight that I get here - on the cheatsheets, the waiver

wire reports, and even the message board (when the tools get put away properly).

i can't believe you used that 95% figure again.they're nowhere near that.... obviously they are good... but c'mon w/ the 95%!!!!!!!

 

[radballs]

There is a site called Fantasyhounddog.com that ranks 43 experts. It is a pay site. We are included in this group each week. We have been Top 10 every week but one (finished 14th in week 8), despite losing points in their algorithm (flawwed in my opinion) because we don't predict full TDs (We end up with a lot more near misses and no exact hits as they judge yards, TDs and fantasy points. Since no one can have 0.6 TDs, we always miss on the TDs category). After week 7, we were the only expert to have ranked in the Top 10 every week. Here are their results:Week 1: 1st place (out of 38)Week 2: 8th place (out of 39)Week 3: 9th place (out of 41)Week 4: 6th place (out of 40)Week 5: 4th place (out of 40)Week 6: 7th place (out of 43)Week 7: 10th place (out of 43)Week 8: 14th place (out of 43)Week 9: 7th place (out of 43)Again without fully knowing their algorithm, I am not sure what they are doing is completely accurate. It looks to me like we are getting penalized for fractional projections. I think the best approach would be to look at fantasy points only against some scoring system (which I do not believe they are doing).

If you could determine an appropriate algorithm for measurement, this could be a fantastic type of subscriber contest. Maybe that's just too much work, but someone who leads in a season long contest like that would certainly know their stuff.

 

[Mmen of Steel]

Cheatsheets have very limited utility IMO.

I agree 100%. For me the cheatsheets have always been very low on the value scale. I see the cheetsheets as the equivalent of advice. I don't like advice. I like informaiton. I will continue to view FBG.com as a source of constantly flowing information. How you use that information is up to you. If you allow someone else to make decisions for you, it ceases to be "your" team. I understand why folks like the cheetsheets. It's comforting to hear the opinion of an expert like David Dodds. His opinions carry a lot of weight. He has earned a high level of respect in this hobby.

I can see what you are saying here Shick. And let me address your other comment aboutmy now infamous '95% estimate'.

The cheatsheets have been very good for me in making a lot of tough calls between WRs,

TEs, Ks and DSTs. That's where I find the value.

Do I need a cheatsheet to tell me to start Peyton Manning over Jake Plummer? Nope.

Did I like to have a second opinion when I am starting a Marques Colston over a Jericho

Cotchery in the early part of the season? Yep.

If Colston is #12 and Cotchery is #13, I take the 12 and get on with life. Do the weekly

projections fall in line exactly with the cheatsheets? Heck no. That would be ridiculous

to expect something like that. But I would say that FBG's advice is 95% correct when

I need to go to the well to make a call like the one above.

I still consider my team to be 'my team', regardless of where i get my information.

Like any decision in life (no matter how big or how small) it is our own personal

responsibility to plug in the best information and make our own best efforts.

I hope this doesn't sound like some kool-aid fueled rant, but I really do

appreciate the info/advice/insight that I get here - on the cheatsheets, the waiver

wire reports, and even the message board (when the tools get put away properly).

i can't believe you used that 95% figure again.they're nowhere near that.... obviously they are good... but c'mon w/ the 95%!!!!!!!

Disprove the 95% then.Go ahead.

 

[tonystrong]

I would like to see a feature on a Tuesday or Wednesday where the footballguys critique thier 3 best and worst calls of the week (relating to their cheatsheets). That would be their 3 best and worst by position.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

There is a site called Fantasyhounddog.com that ranks 43 experts. It is a pay site. We are included in this group each week. We have been Top 10 every week but one (finished 14th in week 8), despite losing points in their algorithm (flawwed in my opinion) because we don't predict full TDs (We end up with a lot more near misses and no exact hits as they judge yards, TDs and fantasy points. Since no one can have 0.6 TDs, we always miss on the TDs category). After week 7, we were the only expert to have ranked in the Top 10 every week. Here are their results:Week 1: 1st place (out of 38)Week 2: 8th place (out of 39)Week 3: 9th place (out of 41)Week 4: 6th place (out of 40)Week 5: 4th place (out of 40)Week 6: 7th place (out of 43)Week 7: 10th place (out of 43)Week 8: 14th place (out of 43)Week 9: 7th place (out of 43)Again without fully knowing their algorithm, I am not sure what they are doing is completely accurate. It looks to me like we are getting penalized for fractional projections. I think the best approach would be to look at fantasy points only against some scoring system (which I do not believe they are doing).

This is something I am going to strongly consider adding to content next year. A completely objective algorithm that we compare the top 15 QBs, top 20 RBs, top 30 WRs and top 15 TEs each week. It's a labor intensive effort though, but I am still considering putting someone on it so that we have objective data within the industry. Every study that has ever looked at this we have finished at or near the top of all experts. This isn't a fluke. It starts with framing statistics within the model that is the NFL games. I have a complicated algorithm (Game Predictor) that does this. The Game Predictor gets a lot of criticism sometimes because the one thing it doesn't do as good a job is to predict the final score. But it's real good at predicting probablity of yards and TDs. It fails on the score because turnovers play a HUGE role in the final outcomes. Footballguys.com projections are framed within league stats. Add up all of our fractional rushing TDs and we should be very close to what happens this week. Same with passing yards, rushing yards, etc. When experts are routinely predicting 325 passing yards and 3 TDs, they can't be close to predicting fantasy points because they have an inflation factor of 20+% on the stars in the leagues while under-stating the role players.If we take on the algorithm project, we will convert everything to fantasy points and then compare against that same scoring system. I contend that if we do it this way, we will clearly be at the head of the class regarding projections. If I am wrong, I will be thankful for what the data shows me. Do we hit every projection? Nope. But we frame the numbers around what we know from history. And I think that eliminates unnecessary error even when we are incorrect about a player/matchup.

bump for people complaining about Vick this week

 

[Gravity]

I have been a subscriber now for a few years and I have been wondering about the weekly Cheatsheets.

Is there any data to back up the accuracy? Does FBG do some sort of post-mortem analysis to see what hit/missed and then try and improve on it? If so, how?

Has anyone ever compared the accuracy to other sites?

My point is that every week these cheatsheets come out and they are supposed to be the final FBG say for setting lineups. But how do we know that they are actually helpful any more then choosing out of a hat? Is there any scientific method involved in reviewing and improving?



[i know they are just a guide and we are all responsible for our own lineups, etc...blah, blah. That is not my question.]

Why do you hate America?

Ummmm, say what?

 

[Ausdog]

There is a site called Fantasyhounddog.com that ranks 43 experts. It is a pay site. We are included in this group each week. We have been Top 10 every week but one (finished 14th in week 8), despite losing points in their algorithm (flawwed in my opinion) because we don't predict full TDs (We end up with a lot more near misses and no exact hits as they judge yards, TDs and fantasy points. Since no one can have 0.6 TDs, we always miss on the TDs category). After week 7, we were the only expert to have ranked in the Top 10 every week. Here are their results:Week 1: 1st place (out of 38)Week 2: 8th place (out of 39)Week 3: 9th place (out of 41)Week 4: 6th place (out of 40)Week 5: 4th place (out of 40)Week 6: 7th place (out of 43)Week 7: 10th place (out of 43)Week 8: 14th place (out of 43)Week 9: 7th place (out of 43)Again without fully knowing their algorithm, I am not sure what they are doing is completely accurate. It looks to me like we are getting penalized for fractional projections. I think the best approach would be to look at fantasy points only against some scoring system (which I do not believe they are doing).

How did you go in weeks 10-14?

 

[posty]

There is a site called Fantasyhounddog.com that ranks 43 experts. It is a pay site. We are included in this group each week. We have been Top 10 every week but one (finished 14th in week 8), despite losing points in their algorithm (flawwed in my opinion) because we don't predict full TDs (We end up with a lot more near misses and no exact hits as they judge yards, TDs and fantasy points. Since no one can have 0.6 TDs, we always miss on the TDs category). After week 7, we were the only expert to have ranked in the Top 10 every week. Here are their results:Week 1: 1st place (out of 38)Week 2: 8th place (out of 39)Week 3: 9th place (out of 41)Week 4: 6th place (out of 40)Week 5: 4th place (out of 40)Week 6: 7th place (out of 43)Week 7: 10th place (out of 43)Week 8: 14th place (out of 43)Week 9: 7th place (out of 43)Again without fully knowing their algorithm, I am not sure what they are doing is completely accurate. It looks to me like we are getting penalized for fractional projections. I think the best approach would be to look at fantasy points only against some scoring system (which I do not believe they are doing).

How did you go in weeks 10-14?

This would be interesting to know as well...

 

[Legion of Doom]

There is a site called Fantasyhounddog.com that ranks 43 experts. It is a pay site. We are included in this group each week. We have been Top 10 every week but one (finished 14th in week 8), despite losing points in their algorithm (flawwed in my opinion) because we don't predict full TDs (We end up with a lot more near misses and no exact hits as they judge yards, TDs and fantasy points. Since no one can have 0.6 TDs, we always miss on the TDs category). After week 7, we were the only expert to have ranked in the Top 10 every week. Here are their results:Week 1: 1st place (out of 38)Week 2: 8th place (out of 39)Week 3: 9th place (out of 41)Week 4: 6th place (out of 40)Week 5: 4th place (out of 40)Week 6: 7th place (out of 43)Week 7: 10th place (out of 43)Week 8: 14th place (out of 43)Week 9: 7th place (out of 43)Again without fully knowing their algorithm, I am not sure what they are doing is completely accurate. It looks to me like we are getting penalized for fractional projections. I think the best approach would be to look at fantasy points only against some scoring system (which I do not believe they are doing).

How did you go in weeks 10-14?

This would be interesting to know as well...

nipsey

 

[David Dodds]

This site is very slow at updating things, but I finished 7th (out of 39) in week 10 and 5th (out of 39) in week 11. They have not updated for weeks 12 - 14 yet.

 

[wadegarrett]

Cheatsheets have very limited utility IMO.

I agree 100%. For me the cheatsheets have always been very low on the value scale. I see the cheetsheets as the equivalent of advice. I don't like advice. I like informaiton. I will continue to view FBG.com as a source of constantly flowing information. How you use that information is up to you. If you allow someone else to make decisions for you, it ceases to be "your" team. I understand why folks like the cheetsheets. It's comforting to hear the opinion of an expert like David Dodds. His opinions carry a lot of weight. He has earned a high level of respect in this hobby.