Which Projection Was Better? (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

For argument's sake, let's use PLAYER X for a running back, and EXPERT 1 and EXPERT 2 as the analysts.

EXPERT 1 projects PLAYER X for 1500 total yards and 10 total TD.

EXPERT 2 projects PLAYER X for 1200 total yards and 8 total TD.

The season goes by and PLAYER X produces 1500 total yards and 10 total TD and ranked as the #10 RB. On the surface, EXPERT 1 hit the nail right on the head.

But on further reivew, EXPERT 1 had PLAYER X ranked as the #20 RB in the preseason with 19 other guys projected ahead of PLAYER X.

EXPERT 2 had PLAYER X ranked as the #10 ranked RB with only 9 guys slotted ahead of him in his projections.

Which is the "better" projection?

I would argue that EXPERT 2's projection was a better representation of what happened than EXPERT 1's. IMO, it's the relative rankings that are more important than the actual production totals.

 

[Z-Dog]

We're gonig to find ourselves in a 'how to do projections' argument now. If you use actual real-world returns to shape your projections, you're no longer independently evaluating the given player (and you're factoring in things like injuries and so forth). If you just go with projections of what each projected player will do if healthy for 16 games, you're going to overshoot the numbmers.

Which is better? Well, I'd say that hitting the numbers right on has almost no value, because what really matters in defining player worth is his production relative to other players. So yeah, hitting the ordinal ranking is more important than hitting the actual production numbers.

 

[Islander]

Expert 2, no hesitation on my part.

 

[RageRhino]

i would have to agree. the goal is not to predict the exact numbers for one player. but rather to try and predict the order in which players will produce at seasons end relative to others at the same position.

theoretically you want to have the numbers right as well, for the sake of VBD. but i think in having the choice of one or the other, you would always want the player you predicted to be the #10 RB, to be the #10 RB.

 

[JayMan]

For argument's sake, let's use PLAYER X for a running back, and EXPERT 1 and EXPERT 2 as the analysts.

EXPERT 1 projects PLAYER X for 1500 total yards and 10 total TD.

EXPERT 2 projects PLAYER X for 1200 total yards and 8 total TD.

The season goes by and PLAYER X produces 1500 total yards and 10 total TD and ranked as the #10 RB. On the surface, EXPERT 1 hit the nail right on the head.

But on further reivew, EXPERT 1 had PLAYER X ranked as the #20 RB in the preseason with 19 other guys projected ahead of PLAYER X.

EXPERT 2 had PLAYER X ranked as the #10 ranked RB with only 9 guys slotted ahead of him in his projections.

Which is the "better" projection?

I would argue that EXPERT 2's projection was a better representation of what happened than EXPERT 1's. IMO, it's the relative rankings that are more important than the actual production totals.

I respectfully disagree with this argument and this is why:The obvisous need is to "rank" the players - to make sure you can grab the RB5 instead of the RB10... but, how do you know what RB is RB5 and which one is RB10?... by the numbers you are projecting for them - which are related to your league setup (roster, starters, scoring, etc.) that can be very different from the "expert" setup...

Also, you need to project "tiers" more than "ranks"... and how do you project tiers? by the numbers your think thses guys will produce...

You don't want to draft RB8 if you project RB9 and RB10 to score only 3 FF points less - but rather go after WR3 if you think WR4 is 25 points lower...

My 2 cents...

 

[ookook]

Expert #1.

VBD is based on relative value across positions, which can only be determined well by accurate raw predictions. Getting ranks right within positions does not help with this.

 

[joffer]

In the grand scheme, neither were very good. One projected most of the other RBs wrong, the other underestimated overall RB production drastically (no AVT check). If I couldn't do my own projections and HAD to use either expert 1 or expert 2, I'd go with expert 1. He got the projection for player X correct, expert 2 just got lucky IMO.

 

[T Man]

The fact that Expert #1 hit the nail on the head with his projections is more impressive and football significant; however, the ranking by Expert #2 is more important for fantasy football purposes.

 

[Capt Hook]

The fact that Expert #1 hit the nail on the head with his projections is more impressive and football significant; however, the ranking by Expert #2 is more important for fantasy football purposes.

We need to be right in ranking the players not guessing their actual yardage

I know some will say you have to do the projections to get the rank, but in fact the rank is really what you are seeking, not the methodology. I would go to a palm reader if they could get the rankings right every year.

Put a scarf with a jewel on it over your head DD

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

The fact that Expert #1 hit the nail on the head with his projections is more impressive and football significant; however, the ranking by Expert #2 is more important for fantasy football purposes.

Well not really. It seems to me that he projected 19 guys ahead of the player, half of which (at least) overshot the mark by quite a bit. Obviously his stat projections for those other players were way off.Secondly, if you have your #20 ranked RB getting 1500 yards and 10 TDs, you might want to revisit your projections for everyone.

Without knowing everyone else, it seems EXPERT 2 projected more players correctly.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

EXPERT 1's projections were better for that player, although it appears his projections were worse for a lot of the other players.

As for who's rankings were better, we don't have enough information to answer. If the nine guys that EXPERT 2 had ranked ahead of PLAYER X all finished with zero fantasy points, EXPERT 1's rankings could have been better than EXPERT 2's.

 

[mightyeskimo]

If I know Expert 1 is going to nail the actual production of a player then that is what I'm going to use. I want to know how many fantasy points this player is going to give me first, the ranking is secondary and can be calculated using the projection. The reason I select players is to score fantasy points, period. That is my goal. Fantasy points are generated by production which is represented most accurately by stat projection and not ranking. Projections are the the horse, rankings are the cart. I'm taking the pony!

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Without knowing everyone else, it seems EXPERT 2 projected more players correctly.

We really don't have enough information to say. He could have been 5,000 yards off on every single player other than PLAYER X (assuming that he sometimes projected negative yards).

 

[avoiding injuries]

I think the majority of people looking at projections are doing so to create their own cheat sheet. In doing so, it's nice to see the yardage projections, but the rankings is where it's really at.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

As for who's rankings were better, we don't have enough information to answer.

And here's why. Let's say we're talking about the guy who finished at RB5 instead of RB10, so I can do less typing.
Finish EXPERT1 EXPERT2RB1 1 9RB2 6 8RB3 3 7RB4 4 6RB5 9 5RB6 5 4RB7 7 3RB8 2 2RB9 8 1EXPERT2 had the RB5 guy ranked at #5, which looks accurate at first glance. But in fact, EXPERT1 ranked the RB5 guy a lot more accurately than EXPERT2 did. What matters is how they ranked other players relative to RB5. EXPERT1 was correct about how RB5 would finish relative to RB1, RB3, RB4, RB7, and RB8 -- so he was right on five counts and wrong on three counts.EXPERT2, on the other hand, was wrong about how RB5 would finish relative to every other RB. He was right on zero counts and wrong on eight counts.

 

[ravnzfan]

For argument's sake, let's use PLAYER X for a running back, and EXPERT 1 and EXPERT 2 as the analysts.

EXPERT 1 projects PLAYER X for 1500 total yards and 10 total TD.

EXPERT 2 projects PLAYER X for 1200 total yards and 8 total TD.

The season goes by and PLAYER X produces 1500 total yards and 10 total TD and ranked as the #10 RB.  On the surface, EXPERT 1 hit the nail right on the head.

But on further reivew, EXPERT 1 had PLAYER X ranked as the #20 RB in the preseason with 19 other guys projected ahead of PLAYER X.

EXPERT 2 had PLAYER X ranked as the #10 ranked RB with only 9 guys slotted ahead of him in his projections.

Which is the "better" projection?

I would argue that EXPERT 2's projection was a better representation of what happened than EXPERT 1's.  IMO, it's the relative rankings that are more important than the actual production totals.

there are alot of reasons why Ex1 had those projections ranked 20th, when the player actually finished 10th...ie injury, demotion, suspensionI want the production, (ie PPG) accurate...I can make the inseason adjustments to my roster/lineup accordingly, once the factors that have the player rated as RB10 instead of RB20 know to me

please don't try to sell me on "I nailed the ranking right--just missed the projections by 20%"...

...IMO, the VBD authors need to chime in on this one, as the importance of the numbers are called into question here

 

[David Yudkin]

MT -

You are making this far more complicacted than it needs to be. I didn't ask about any other ranking or projection for anyone other than PLAYER X. Simon said PLAYER X. Simon did not say PLAYERS A, B, or C.

The issue at hand was a simple one. Do people feel that hitting the right total fantasy points scored for a player (but way off on where he ranked) is better than having the wrong total but the right ranking or interval.

To ask in a different way . . .

Who's better, Brady or Manning. MT, you are essentially saying you can't tell because you don't know who the other QBs are. I'm not asking about the other QBs (or in this case projections), I'm only asking about this one particular one.

The bottom line was NO MATTER WHAT THE OTHER PROJECTIONS WERE that EXPERT ONE was off by 10 rankings and 0 total production while EXPERT 2 was off by 0 rankings but 300 yards and a couple TD. Obviously the other projections by either expert could impact the outcome in determining whose total projections were better.

Maybe I need to make this more concrete so there are no loopholes . . .

EXPERT 1 hits EXACTLY the totals for 10 of his Top 25 projected players. But they all are significantly off in the final rankings. (By extension, some of the other projections would have to be WAY OFF for things to work out that way.

EXPERT 2 hits on NONE of his production projections but gets the rankings of all 23 of the Top 25 projections all within 1-2 rankings. For argument's sake, let's say he underprojected all players by 20% but they all fell very close to the order he ranked them.

So the new question would be which is better--the guy that hit on 10 exactly but the ordering in the rankings was way off. Or the other guy who hit on none of them exactly but all fell within 1-2 spots in the final rankings.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

MT -

You are making this far more complicacted than it needs to be. I didn't ask about any other ranking or projection for anyone other than PLAYER X. Simon said PLAYER X. Simon did not say PLAYERS A, B, or C.

The issue at hand was a simple one. Do people feel that hitting the right total fantasy points scored for a player (but way off on where he ranked) is better than having the wrong total but the right ranking or interval.

To ask in a different way . . .

Who's better, Brady or Manning. MT, you are essentially saying you can't tell because you don't know who the other QBs are. I'm not asking about the other QBs (or in this case projections), I'm only asking about this one particular one.

The bottom line was NO MATTER WHAT THE OTHER PROJECTIONS WERE that EXPERT ONE was off by 10 rankings and 0 total production while EXPERT 2 was off by 0 rankings but 300 yards and a couple TD. Obviously the other projections by either expert could impact the outcome in determining whose total projections were better.

Maybe I need to make this more concrete so there are no loopholes . . .

EXPERT 1 hits EXACTLY the totals for 10 of his Top 25 projected players. But they all are significantly off in the final rankings. (By extension, some of the other projections would have to be WAY OFF for things to work out that way.

EXPERT 2 hits on NONE of his production projections but gets the rankings of all 23 of the Top 25 projections all within 1-2 rankings. For argument's sake, let's say he underprojected all players by 20% but they all fell very close to the order he ranked them.

So the new question would be which is better--the guy that hit on 10 exactly but the ordering in the rankings was way off. Or the other guy who hit on none of them exactly but all fell within 1-2 spots in the final rankings.

I was going to touch on the underprojecting thing earlier but didn't want to start complicating things. If he underprojects across all positions a similar amount, expert 2 was far and away the better projector.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Who's better, Brady or Manning.

Whoever scores more points, for the most part.

MT, you are essentially saying you can't tell because you don't know who the other QBs are.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that we can't tell whether EXPERT1 ranked Brady ahead of Manning or not.

The bottom line was NO MATTER WHAT THE OTHER PROJECTIONS WERE that EXPERT ONE was off by 10 rankings and 0 total production while EXPERT 2 was off by 0 rankings but 300 yards and a couple TD.

And we can't tell from that whose ranking of that player was better. (We can tell, however, that EXPERT1 had better projections for that particular player.)

EXPERT 2 hits on NONE of his production projections but gets the rankings of all 23 of the Top 25 projections all within 1-2 rankings.

This would obviously be pretty good. But we can't tell this from your initial post. He could have been way off on everybody but RB10, and therefore he could have been way off on RB10 with respect to all the other RBs, which is what matters.

For argument's sake, let's say he underprojected all players by 20% but they all fell very close to the order he ranked them.So the new question would be which is better--the guy that hit on 10 exactly but the ordering in the rankings was way off. Or the other guy who hit on none of them exactly but all fell within 1-2 spots in the final rankings.

The guy who ordered them better had the better rankings. No question about that. My point was that saying that he ranked the RB10 as the #10 guy tells us nothing about how well his rankings were ordered. We needed more information. If you're now telling us that he generally did a good job of ordering all the RBs, then that's sufficient to say he did a good job with his rankings.

 

[John Mamula]

Expert #1.

VBD is based on relative value across positions, which can only be determined well by accurate raw predictions. Getting ranks right within positions does not help with this.

which is exactly why VBD doesn't work.

 

[John Mamula]

i'd take #2 in a heart beat.

#1 obviously over-projects stats for all his players making the majority of the relative numbers when comparing intra and inter positional players worthless.

 

[JayMan]

MT -

You are making this far more complicacted than it needs to be. I didn't ask about any other ranking or projection for anyone other than PLAYER X. Simon said PLAYER X. Simon did not say PLAYERS A, B, or C.

The issue at hand was a simple one. Do people feel that hitting the right total fantasy points scored for a player (but way off on where he ranked) is better than having the wrong total but the right ranking or interval.

To ask in a different way . . .

Who's better, Brady or Manning. MT, you are essentially saying you can't tell because you don't know who the other QBs are. I'm not asking about the other QBs (or in this case projections), I'm only asking about this one particular one.

The bottom line was NO MATTER WHAT THE OTHER PROJECTIONS WERE that EXPERT ONE was off by 10 rankings and 0 total production while EXPERT 2 was off by 0 rankings but 300 yards and a couple TD. Obviously the other projections by either expert could impact the outcome in determining whose total projections were better.

Maybe I need to make this more concrete so there are no loopholes . . .

EXPERT 1 hits EXACTLY the totals for 10 of his Top 25 projected players. But they all are significantly off in the final rankings. (By extension, some of the other projections would have to be WAY OFF for things to work out that way.

EXPERT 2 hits on NONE of his production projections but gets the rankings of all 23 of the Top 25 projections all within 1-2 rankings. For argument's sake, let's say he underprojected all players by 20% but they all fell very close to the order he ranked them.

So the new question would be which is better--the guy that hit on 10 exactly but the ordering in the rankings was way off. Or the other guy who hit on none of them exactly but all fell within 1-2 spots in the final rankings.

This statement is very different from the one posted originally... and would thus make EXPERT 2 the better one...

 

[SSOG]

Just in regards to this one particular RB, I like expert #1 better, but that has a lot to do with how I do my projections. Usually, when doing projections, I will come up with my own estimate, and then look at everyone else's estimates to see if they're in the same ballpark, or if maybe those people know something that I don't. I don't look at the ordinal rankings, just the numbers. As a result, Expert #1 would have been a lot more helpful to me that season.

With that said, regarding everyone else, Expert #1 would have likely been far more UNHELPFUL (since he obviously had a lot of players drastically overprojected).

 

[ravnzfan]

Expert #1.

VBD is based on relative value across positions, which can only be determined well by accurate raw predictions. Getting ranks right within positions does not help with this.

which is exactly why VBD doesn't work.

David?Joe?

"the system" is being thrown under the bus here...curious where you guys stand on this

I think the question is vague---there are reasons why the ranking by Ex1 could be off other than the huge leap some guys are making that "obviouslly everyone is overprojected" by Ex1

I say no....it's not obvious---there are many reasons why players don't the hit projections we make

I find the PPG projections to be most valuable, as I can tweak the roster/lineup accordingly

Carson Plamer is a great example right now...rankings/projections are all over the board on him

what I want is accurate projections for Palmer, as opposed to where he is going to finish in the rankings---this is so I can project PPG, then draft and configure my roster accordingly

another example is Culpepper...I just grabed him as QB in a league, as my QB 1 1/2, with TGreen and Brunell

 

[John Mamula]

Expert #1.

VBD is based on relative value across positions, which can only be determined well by accurate raw predictions. Getting ranks right within positions does not help with this.

which is exactly why VBD doesn't work.

David?Joe?

"the system" is being thrown under the bus here...curious where you guys stand on this

I think the question is vague---there are reasons why the ranking by Ex1 could be off other than the huge leap some guys are making that "obviouslly everyone is overprojected" by Ex1

I say no....it's not obvious---there are many reasons why players don't the hit projections we make

just curious how you think VBD is effective if someone's projections are so out of whack with what will happen that your baselines will inherently be completely botched?any value number spit out will have 0% reliability.

think of it as a sliding scale.

with 100% information (using known points as Joe does in his example) VBD works flawlessly as you know with 100% certainty who will outperform who.

now take reality and projections. as your projections start to slide down the scale away from 100% and closer to 75%, or 50%, or 25% accuracy, the value is continuously deteriorated to the point where vbd and baselines are uselss because there is no reliability on your projections.

not throwing the system under the bus, just pointing out the inherant flaw in it.

there is a great reason why joe uses an example as to where the points are known (and it is only a 1 round draft). it works. once the points are more unknown and there are multiple rounds and everyone evaluates players differently, all of a sudden the waters have become muddied and that example no longer works.

you are on the right track though with PPG as the appropriate benchmark for players.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Expert #1.

VBD is based on relative value across positions, which can only be determined well by accurate raw predictions. Getting ranks right within positions does not help with this.

which is exactly why VBD doesn't work.

David?Joe?

"the system" is being thrown under the bus here...curious where you guys stand on this

A few thoughts:1. VBD is not "based on" relative value across positions. It tries to determine relative value across positions. (That may be what ookook meant.) As an oversimplification, it is based on the idea that, when comparing Peyton Manning to LaDainian Tomlinson, it is more important to compare Manning's projected points to the QB12's projected points (or whatever baseline you use) than to compare Manning's projected points to Tomlinson's projected points.

2. Getting ranks right within positions does help getting overall ranks right.

3. VBD does "work." Or at least, it is better than any other published method of ranking players that I've seen.

 

[Liquid Tension]

For argument's sake, let's use PLAYER X for a running back, and EXPERT 1 and EXPERT 2 as the analysts.

EXPERT 1 projects PLAYER X for 1500 total yards and 10 total TD.

EXPERT 2 projects PLAYER X for 1200 total yards and 8 total TD.

The season goes by and PLAYER X produces 1500 total yards and 10 total TD and ranked as the #10 RB. On the surface, EXPERT 1 hit the nail right on the head.

But on further reivew, EXPERT 1 had PLAYER X ranked as the #20 RB in the preseason with 19 other guys projected ahead of PLAYER X.

EXPERT 2 had PLAYER X ranked as the #10 ranked RB with only 9 guys slotted ahead of him in his projections.

Which is the "better" projection?

I would argue that EXPERT 2's projection was a better representation of what happened than EXPERT 1's. IMO, it's the relative rankings that are more important than the actual production totals.

DY, very interesting topic! My first reaction was to go to #2, however after giving it some thought, #1 is the better choice. My reasoning is that ranking isn't as valuable as tiering and IF the projections are spot on for every player than you are set to draft accordingly. I would say give me the correct projections over the correct rankings any day and I will beat you because I have more information at my disposal from a tiering perspective.If we drafted where I know the exact total fantasy points for a player (of course game by game that could vary) and you knew the exact finished ranking of every player, I SHOULD be able to draft and beat you. therefore #1 is the correct answer and the minority would be correct.

 

[joffer]

just curious how you think VBD is effective if someone's projections are so out of whack with what will happen that your baselines will inherently be completely botched?

because "VBD" isn't synonymous with projections. there are flaws, that doesn't mean it "doesn't work".

 

[John Mamula]

just curious how you think VBD is effective if someone's projections are so out of whack with what will happen that your baselines will inherently be completely botched?

because "VBD" isn't synonymous with projections. there are flaws, that doesn't mean it "doesn't work".

but isn't VBD completely based on your projections?any errors in your projections flow through to your VBD value #s.

 

[joffer]

just curious how you think VBD is effective if someone's projections are so out of whack with what will happen that your baselines will inherently be completely botched?

because "VBD" isn't synonymous with projections. there are flaws, that doesn't mean it "doesn't work".

but isn't VBD completely based on your projections?any errors in your projections flow through to your VBD value #s.

I guess it depends on what you consider the scope to be when someone says that they are "using VBD". To me, if I know not to draft Peyton Manning with the 1st pick just because he scores the most points in my scoring system, I'm using VBD. I don't need a projection to know I should take my top rated RB with that pick. That's the concept of VBD, and it works.That said, I agree that you that the inherent errors in projections will lead to faulty X-values and many times a faulty comparison across positions. However, projections are still the best way to rank players for me.

 

[Adam Sommer]

Well, I have two answers:

1. For the casual fantasy player: Expert #2 is a better projection.

Casual players typically draft off a list or ranking from some magazine, website, or hopefully FBG. They do not typically take the time to do a lot of research or study different sets of projections and stats. In this case, the ranking and cheat sheet is the key to success, therefore, expert #2 would be better.

2. For the expert fantasy player: Expert #1 is the better projection.

Expert players do not simply look at rankings or cheat sheets, rather, they look at the reasoning behind those rankings. An expert player would spend the time to judge for himself the merits of each ranking and the repsective projections. In this case, actual statistical projections are the key, therefore, expert #1 would be better.

 

[coolnerd]

Well, I have two answers:

1. For the casual fantasy player: Expert #2 is a better projection.

Casual players typically draft off a list or ranking from some magazine, website, or hopefully FBG. They do not typically take the time to do a lot of research or study different sets of projections and stats. In this case, the ranking and cheat sheet is the key to success, therefore, expert #2 would be better.

2. For the expert fantasy player: Expert #1 is the better projection.

Expert players do not simply look at rankings or cheat sheets, rather, they look at the reasoning behind those rankings. An expert player would spend the time to judge for himself the merits of each ranking and the repsective projections. In this case, actual statistical projections are the key, therefore, expert #1 would be better.

For me, the ranking is more important. My conception of rankings/tiers is that to arrive at a ranking, a projection is used with some calculation of the probability of that player reaching or exceeding projection. in other words, rankings have the projections built in. FGB magazine is set-up nicely with both projections (dodds), rankings (staff) and explanations. In any manner, I would not blindly look at either a projection or ranking w/o explanation, and as an active fantasy player draft according to my own tastes.

 

[John Mamula]

just curious how you think VBD is effective if someone's projections are so out of whack with what will happen that your baselines will inherently be completely botched?

because "VBD" isn't synonymous with projections. there are flaws, that doesn't mean it "doesn't work".

but isn't VBD completely based on your projections?any errors in your projections flow through to your VBD value #s.

I guess it depends on what you consider the scope to be when someone says that they are "using VBD". To me, if I know not to draft Peyton Manning with the 1st pick just because he scores the most points in my scoring system, I'm using VBD. I don't need a projection to know I should take my top rated RB with that pick. That's the concept of VBD, and it works.That said, I agree that you that the inherent errors in projections will lead to faulty X-values and many times a faulty comparison across positions. However, projections are still the best way to rank players for me.

oh i agree.i was referring to vbd not working in terms of the quantitative aspects of it, not the qualitative aspects of it.

 

[John Mamula]

Well, I have two answers:

1. For the casual fantasy player: Expert #2 is a better projection.

Casual players typically draft off a list or ranking from some magazine, website, or hopefully FBG. They do not typically take the time to do a lot of research or study different sets of projections and stats. In this case, the ranking and cheat sheet is the key to success, therefore, expert #2 would be better.

2. For the expert fantasy player: Expert #1 is the better projection.

Expert players do not simply look at rankings or cheat sheets, rather, they look at the reasoning behind those rankings. An expert player would spend the time to judge for himself the merits of each ranking and the repsective projections. In this case, actual statistical projections are the key, therefore, expert #1 would be better.

But Expert #1's projections are completely off for the majority of players.

 

[rascal]

Personally I take Expert 2, but then this year I'm adopting a combination of VBD and tier rankings to determine who I want to draft. That way it eliminates the internal flaw of having incorrect projections in VBD while utilizing it's strengths in comparing cross position players for best value.

 

[Adam Sommer]

But Expert #1's projections are completely off for the majority of players.

We don't know that for sure. Although if its true, I would agree with you.

I was saying that for the fantasy shark, accurate projections of actual stats are more important than simple player rankings.

 

[David Yudkin]

I was saying that for the fantasy shark, accurate projections of actual stats are more important than simple player rankings.

The point of this whole things stemmed from an off-shoot of a different Player Spotlight thread (I believe it was Rivers).Long story short, Maurile reduced his projections to account for injuries at each position universally. In the case of QB, he projected 14 games played for QB (more if there were existing injury concerns).To that end, some people wanted to discredit his projections as being too low and thus not worth much. Many people INFLATE projections or err on the high side, ssuming that all players will go all 16 games.Thus this thread, which was suppose to query peopl as to why EXPERT 1 might be considered more accurate (even though his projections were too high and clearly out of order) vs. EXPERT 2 who might have had the right ordering of players but simply choice to take a conservative approach to projections.Apparently this somehow got lost in translation, but that was the intent of this thread.

 

[Adam Sommer]

That is why I stated Expert #1, accurate projections, are better for fantasy sharks.

Expert players will look at how the projections were determined and re-assess those projections himself.

If, however, I were simply taking the rankings of these two "experts", of course I would want Expert #2 as he had the players in a more accurate order.

For myself, I take into account both staff rankings and projections, and then reorder them in a way that I feel is accurate....

Concerning the discount due to injurys per position, for example, I would look at it on the player level, not the position level. So I would not take that Phillip Rivers projection without making changes.

For example, I would project Peyton Manning and Brett Farve at 16 games (they rarely get injured), but someone like Bryon Leftwitch or Daunte Culpepper at fewer than 16 full games.

 

[GregR_2]

just curious how you think VBD is effective if someone's projections are so out of whack with what will happen that your baselines will inherently be completely botched?

because "VBD" isn't synonymous with projections. there are flaws, that doesn't mean it "doesn't work".

but isn't VBD completely based on your projections?any errors in your projections flow through to your VBD value #s.

Where exactly are you going bagger? If someone's opinion of what will happen is so wrong it shouldn't be used, then no technique that works with them will be effective, will it?It shows you the value in the projections you give it. How you choose to incorporate what it shows you into your decision making is up to you, just like how you choose to deal with the uncertainty and expected error in your beliefs is up to you.

 

[John Mamula]

Where exactly are you going bagger? If someone's opinion of what will happen is so wrong it shouldn't be used, then no technique that works with them will be effective, will it?

This is correct.

It shows you the value in the projections you give it. How you choose to incorporate what it shows you into your decision making is up to you, just like how you choose to deal with the uncertainty and expected error in your beliefs is up to you.

Agreed. However, some people treat VBD values as holy gospel when they knowingly inflate stats across the board while not getting them at least in the relative range of historical values for each positional rank.In this example I would much rather have the correct ranking because I could apply average historical values to each of those rankings and be much closer to reality of points projected than hitting on a specific player and have his ranking be off.

 

[NOSRAC247]

If you were to rely on one of the two, you have to go with actual stats/rankings. Projections are alwasy ALWAYS off. It's something for so-called experts and journalists to write about in the offseason. Do you think 25 years ago they had player projections? No, because they are pointless

 

[GregR_2]

I was saying that for the fantasy shark, accurate projections of actual stats are more important than simple player rankings.

The point of this whole things stemmed from an off-shoot of a different Player Spotlight thread (I believe it was Rivers).Long story short, Maurile reduced his projections to account for injuries at each position universally. In the case of QB, he projected 14 games played for QB (more if there were existing injury concerns).

To that end, some people wanted to discredit his projections as being too low and thus not worth much. Many people INFLATE projections or err on the high side, ssuming that all players will go all 16 games.

Thus this thread, which was suppose to query peopl as to why EXPERT 1 might be considered more accurate (even though his projections were too high and clearly out of order) vs. EXPERT 2 who might have had the right ordering of players but simply choice to take a conservative approach to projections.

Apparently this somehow got lost in translation, but that was the intent of this thread.

Glad you said something, because I don't see how the intended topic has anything to do with this thread so would never have guessed that was the intent.I don't see where the issue is. If the goal of the spotlight threads is to get a consensus of what the player will perform expressed numerically, then the projections submitted should adhere to the same standard. Whether that standard be accounting for possible injuries or not doesn't matter, as long as there is a standard.

If there is such a standard set, then don't count his projections unless they get adjusted to fit the standard. If there isn't a standard set, then that's a problem that staff needs to fix. Dodds wouldn't produce projections with half his RBs accounting for his injury beliefs and the other half ignoring them, and neither should the Player Spotlights.

 

[joffer]

If you were to rely on one of the two, you have to go with actual stats/rankings. Projections are alwasy ALWAYS off. It's something for so-called experts and journalists to write about in the offseason. Do you think 25 years ago they had player projections? No, because they are pointless

huh? what are these stats you speak of?

 

[GregR_2]

If you were to rely on one of the two, you have to go with actual stats/rankings. Projections are alwasy ALWAYS off. It's something for so-called experts and journalists to write about in the offseason. Do you think 25 years ago they had player projections? No, because they are pointless

Ok, so question for you. You have your rankings for each position. You know this RB is ahead of this one and behind that one, and you know the same for QBs and every other position.Clearly you are ready to decide which RB you take over another RB. But how do you plan to decide on whether to take a QB over a RB or a WR or a TE at any given pick?

Other than a dartboard, is there a reasonable answer that doesn't requires expressing the separation between the players, and not just their order?

What do you think projections are, if not a method to express what you believe that separation to be? If you "do it in your head", how is the process any different than doing projections but not taking the time to write them down, where you don't have to try to juggle so much in your head, and where with a quick manipulation in Excel you can convert quickly and easily between different league scoring systems?

 

[Liquid Tension]

I was saying that for the fantasy shark, accurate projections of actual stats are more important than simple player rankings.

The point of this whole things stemmed from an off-shoot of a different Player Spotlight thread (I believe it was Rivers).Long story short, Maurile reduced his projections to account for injuries at each position universally. In the case of QB, he projected 14 games played for QB (more if there were existing injury concerns).

To that end, some people wanted to discredit his projections as being too low and thus not worth much. Many people INFLATE projections or err on the high side, ssuming that all players will go all 16 games.

Thus this thread, which was suppose to query peopl as to why EXPERT 1 might be considered more accurate (even though his projections were too high and clearly out of order) vs. EXPERT 2 who might have had the right ordering of players but simply choice to take a conservative approach to projections.

Apparently this somehow got lost in translation, but that was the intent of this thread.

I think there is a major flaw in that the staff is not conforming to a standard set of rules. Obviously, having different values for players is acceptable, but if one member is "assuming" an injury and another isn't that really throws off the rankings. It must be decided that assuming healthy what their numbers should be or have everyone adjust based on assuming injuries, but having half do it one way or half do it another is statistically not valid.

 

[Adam Sommer]

I was saying that for the fantasy shark, accurate projections of actual stats are more important than simple player rankings.

The point of this whole things stemmed from an off-shoot of a different Player Spotlight thread (I believe it was Rivers).Long story short, Maurile reduced his projections to account for injuries at each position universally. In the case of QB, he projected 14 games played for QB (more if there were existing injury concerns).

To that end, some people wanted to discredit his projections as being too low and thus not worth much. Many people INFLATE projections or err on the high side, ssuming that all players will go all 16 games.

Thus this thread, which was suppose to query peopl as to why EXPERT 1 might be considered more accurate (even though his projections were too high and clearly out of order) vs. EXPERT 2 who might have had the right ordering of players but simply choice to take a conservative approach to projections.

Apparently this somehow got lost in translation, but that was the intent of this thread.

I think there is a major flaw in that the staff is not conforming to a standard set of rules. Obviously, having different values for players is acceptable, but if one member is "assuming" an injury and another isn't that really throws off the rankings. It must be decided that assuming healthy what their numbers should be or have everyone adjust based on assuming injuries, but having half do it one way or half do it another is statistically not valid.

I think the "expert" in this case is assuming injury by position.Quote:

"Long story short, Maurile reduced his projections to account for injuries at each position universally. In the case of QB, he projected 14 games played for QB"

So he is assuming ALL QBs will miss two games. I think this is a poor judgement as certain players are known for never missing and some known for missing alot.

Brett Farve for example has not missed a game in over a decade. Its highly probable that he will not miss any games in 2006 either (due to injury anyway). On the other hand, it is probably a safe bet that Chad Pennington might miss a few games due to injury.....the point is, it should be done on the player level, not the position level.

Injury risk should be taken into account IMO. It would not be accurate to assume and make projections on a full 16 games for say B. Edwards as we all know he will miss at least half the season.....so I would make projections based on his estimated start date....

But you are right, you cannot really compare projections based on different criteria.....sorry for another post not related to the topic

 

[John Mamula]

I was saying that for the fantasy shark, accurate projections of actual stats are more important than simple player rankings.

The point of this whole things stemmed from an off-shoot of a different Player Spotlight thread (I believe it was Rivers).Long story short, Maurile reduced his projections to account for injuries at each position universally. In the case of QB, he projected 14 games played for QB (more if there were existing injury concerns).

To that end, some people wanted to discredit his projections as being too low and thus not worth much. Many people INFLATE projections or err on the high side, ssuming that all players will go all 16 games.

Thus this thread, which was suppose to query peopl as to why EXPERT 1 might be considered more accurate (even though his projections were too high and clearly out of order) vs. EXPERT 2 who might have had the right ordering of players but simply choice to take a conservative approach to projections.

Apparently this somehow got lost in translation, but that was the intent of this thread.

I think there is a major flaw in that the staff is not conforming to a standard set of rules. Obviously, having different values for players is acceptable, but if one member is "assuming" an injury and another isn't that really throws off the rankings. It must be decided that assuming healthy what their numbers should be or have everyone adjust based on assuming injuries, but having half do it one way or half do it another is statistically not valid.

I disagree.Once you start to constrain the individual from how he does his projections then those no longer become his projections. People will ask why did you project x for Player A? He will respond, well I would have had a different projection but I am being forced to do it this way.

Not a good precedent.

Projections should be different and unique to the individual doing them, and shows why averaging them across the board doesn't give you the best information.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think there is a major flaw in that the staff is not conforming to a standard set of rules.

We do have a standard set of rules. I'm not sure if it's in the current version that's been released, but if not it will be in the next version: everyone is listing projected games played along with projected TDs and stuff. (Of course, we are allowed to disagree with each other about how many TDs each guy will throw, and we are also allowed to disagree with each other about how many games each guy will play.)

 

[GregR_2]

I was saying that for the fantasy shark, accurate projections of actual stats are more important than simple player rankings.

The point of this whole things stemmed from an off-shoot of a different Player Spotlight thread (I believe it was Rivers).Long story short, Maurile reduced his projections to account for injuries at each position universally. In the case of QB, he projected 14 games played for QB (more if there were existing injury concerns).

To that end, some people wanted to discredit his projections as being too low and thus not worth much. Many people INFLATE projections or err on the high side, ssuming that all players will go all 16 games.

Thus this thread, which was suppose to query peopl as to why EXPERT 1 might be considered more accurate (even though his projections were too high and clearly out of order) vs. EXPERT 2 who might have had the right ordering of players but simply choice to take a conservative approach to projections.

Apparently this somehow got lost in translation, but that was the intent of this thread.

I think there is a major flaw in that the staff is not conforming to a standard set of rules. Obviously, having different values for players is acceptable, but if one member is "assuming" an injury and another isn't that really throws off the rankings. It must be decided that assuming healthy what their numbers should be or have everyone adjust based on assuming injuries, but having half do it one way or half do it another is statistically not valid.

I disagree.Once you start to constrain the individual from how he does his projections then those no longer become his projections. People will ask why did you project x for Player A? He will respond, well I would have had a different projection but I am being forced to do it this way.

Not a good precedent.

Projections should be different and unique to the individual doing them, and shows why averaging them across the board doesn't give you the best information.

They shouldn't be different and unique to the point of representing completely different things. They should be unique in reflecting the person's view on the criteria being examined.

 

[Thorpe]

I realize I am in the minority, but I go with Expert 1.

To me, a projection for a player is independent of what other players do. If 10 out of the top 15 QBs get hurt in week 8, then this fact should have no bearing how good my projection is for a QB that doesn't get hurt. I may have that QB as QB15 and he may finish as QB4, but if my numbers are good then my projection was good, regardless of rank.