Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Who else (besides FBG) has a top 250 forward type list (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Texican
- Start date
+1It's amazing how rankings range from site to site. One site says a RB is a top 10 this week, another says he's outta the top 30!
Butters
Footballguy
The ESPN projections irk me because they project whole touchdowns. So, they'll look at a guy and say, "Yeah, peg him for 65 yards and a score ... 12 points." They'll look at another guy and say, "Hmmmm, he'll go for 90 but no TD." It's way too binary for my liking. I like FBGs approach of trying to calculate an overall expected value.
even if your a beginner and use espn to play fantasy....just wondering if you think FBG is only for the more advanced fantasy player
Last edited by a moderator:
Pictus Cat
Footballguy
Speaking of the 250,
why is Big Ben much lower,
than other paid fbg content?
why is Big Ben much lower,
than other paid fbg content?
yinzer
Footballguy
Im not a huge fan of the Top 250 because I think they tend to drop/jump people a little too much based on a game than they shouldMaybe it all works out, but if youre considering a trade on a tuesday and you check this out, it may skew your perception (for instance)I think its a good guideline, but in 1 week:JT O'Sullivan is QB10 now? (from QB18)Roethlisberger is QB14 now? (from QB7, against a premier D)Greg Jennings WR7 now? (from WR14, and ahead of Smith, Burress, Boldin)Braylon Edwards WR16 now? (from WR6, and theyve played DAL, PIT, BAL)..I like the thought, but for a SEASON long thing, they change it up way too much week to week - an these arent even based on injury
bonesman
Footballguy
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
I agree but FBG rarely projects a QB to throw over 2 TD passes and rarely projects a RB to score more than a TD. The result is the rankings jumble together and you see like a 2-3 point difference between QB4 and QB20 for the week. And that isn't realistic either.
Butters
Footballguy
I understand what you are saying. It isn't realistic AFTER the fact, when you look back and see what actually happened. But it is painfully realistic in reflecting the uncertainty of performances going into the week, IMO.
blake
Footballguy
wow, thanks a ton - that's really helpful; i'm going to go look for that now.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
What is the point of projecting the uncertainty of performances if you don't ever take a chance with who is going to explode or bomb in a given week?This week alone 1.8 is highest number of TD passes projected and 22 of the 26 QBs are projected throw at least 1 touchdown. In 2008 alone, between 7 and 9 QB each week after thrown for at least two touchdowns each week and 11 times they have hit three of more. On average at least 25% of the guys are throwing at least two and 10% throwing at least three. When you project no one to even hit two each week, the projections become close to meaningless, IMO.At RB, one player this week is projected to reach the 1 touchdown mark. One? Most are in the 0.6 and 0.7 range. One RB is projected to reach 100 yards this week too. It's just not very realistic. The best projections, IMO, are the ones that go out on a limb but then carry an explanation with why said player is so high or low.
Kuz
Footballguy
Very..
But it is painfully realistic in reflecting the uncertainty of performances going into the week, IMO.
What is the point of projecting the uncertainty of performances if you don't ever take a chance with who is going to explode or bomb in a given week?
This week alone 1.8 is highest number of TD passes projected and 22 of the 26 QBs are projected throw at least 1 touchdown. In 2008 alone, between 7 and 9 QB each week after thrown for at least two touchdowns each week and 11 times they have hit three of more. On average at least 25% of the guys are throwing at least two and 10% throwing at least three. When you project no one to even hit two each week, the projections become close to meaningless, IMO.
At RB, one player this week is projected to reach the 1 touchdown mark. One? Most are in the 0.6 and 0.7 range. One RB is projected to reach 100 yards this week too. It's just not very realistic.
The best projections, IMO, are the ones that go out on a limb but then carry an explanation with why said player is so high or low.
your a poet....very well put, why does anyone care if there RB is going to score .6 or .7 of a percent of a touchdown....come on!
rankings mean nothing to me w/o an explanation!!
What is the point of projecting the uncertainty of performances if you don't ever take a chance with who is going to explode or bomb in a given week?
This week alone 1.8 is highest number of TD passes projected and 22 of the 26 QBs are projected throw at least 1 touchdown. In 2008 alone, between 7 and 9 QB each week after thrown for at least two touchdowns each week and 11 times they have hit three of more. On average at least 25% of the guys are throwing at least two and 10% throwing at least three. When you project no one to even hit two each week, the projections become close to meaningless, IMO.
At RB, one player this week is projected to reach the 1 touchdown mark. One? Most are in the 0.6 and 0.7 range. One RB is projected to reach 100 yards this week too. It's just not very realistic.
The best projections, IMO, are the ones that go out on a limb but then carry an explanation with why said player is so high or low.
your a poet....very well put, why does anyone care if there RB is going to score .6 or .7 of a percent of a touchdown....come on!
rankings mean nothing to me w/o an explanation!!
mozzy84
Footballguy
dunno, but I always like looking at this list. (its weekly though, not full season)http://www.fantasysportscentral.com/footba...ycheatsheet.asp
Last edited by a moderator:
blake
Footballguy
i usually cycle through rotoworld and fantasy football sharks but they clash a lot. i'm looking over ESPN's weekly right now and they use 4 guys, and i'm starting to like their averages a lot. i'd definitely be open to discovering more sites to compare though, maybe like the huddle.i'd be curious in what rankings people feel are the best too.
blake
Footballguy
what sites have full season rankings? i don't know of any, but would love to see some.
mozzy84
Footballguy
top 60 on fox is all I know of anyways, someone post the espn link.http://msn.foxsports.com/fantasy/football/...L-Fantasy-Fifty
blake
Footballguy
wow - thanks for posting this. i think my weekly preparation just got modified - this is going to be a must visit website from now on.
Butters
Footballguy
Because it provides the projections that do the best job of minimizing the error of points projected against actual. That's why. To each his own. If you like the sites that "go out on a limb", go for it. It's likely that the mistakes will be larger but also that some of the darts will hit. So long as the errors are random the team totals will likely be consistent in the aggregate. Personally, I think it's a fool's errand to say, like ESPN is saying this week, that Lynch is six points better than Barber because he's going to get two TDs while Barber only gets one. That COULD very well end up happening, but it is almost just as likely that Barber gets two and Lynch gets one. I'd much rather see the FBG projections that, to me, capture the uncertainty better. I can make my own gut calls.edit: Sorry for going off topic in this thread. Total hijack from the OP's question.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tenacious
Footballguy
Yeah, just to voice an opinion, I much prefer the FBG method, it's a much more statistically sound way of looking at the projected data. I've used the ESPN and other "out on a limb" lists before, I don't anybody does a better job than FBG.
Here's the link Blake. I agree they've got this kinda buried. I had to search on "Rotowski" to find it again.http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/football...grotowski2K8wk4
From that page:
blake
Footballguy
thanks so much for following up - i appreciate it.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
How is it more statistically sound when you project every week that a certain target will not be hit when 25% of the starters that week usually hit said target?For the record, I don't think you can point to one specific site or person as having better projections because at the end of the day it's just a guess and so many things can happen during the game to affect that guess. How many 60 yards passes (Rivers to V Jackson) end at the 1 yard line for a Tomlinson TD? That one yard affects the score of three players by six points each that week! Impossible to predict.But by never predicting a QB to ever throw 2 TD in a given week you are already wrong before you start. I have no problems with the decimal method over the round figure method and actually prefer it. My issue is that the numbers thrown out there each week do not correlate to what actually happens every single week at all.
for example:
ESPN has Forte #16, C Perry #13 and Portis # 7, Bills D #2, Ravens D #3, N. Kaeding # 13
FBG has Forte #8, C Perry #7 and Portis #11, Bills D # 5, Ravens D #6, N. Kaeding # 1
i agree its all a guess, and i truly like getting my FF info from FBG....i've read everything in this thread and it still doesn't make sense how there can be such a big difference b/w rankings
ESPN has Forte #16, C Perry #13 and Portis # 7, Bills D #2, Ravens D #3, N. Kaeding # 13
FBG has Forte #8, C Perry #7 and Portis #11, Bills D # 5, Ravens D #6, N. Kaeding # 1
i agree its all a guess, and i truly like getting my FF info from FBG....i've read everything in this thread and it still doesn't make sense how there can be such a big difference b/w rankings
Last edited by a moderator:
Nate
Footballguy
As far as I know, FBG doesn't correspond with ESPN before publishing the cheatsheets...Everyone's got different opinions, just like anything. Just pay attention to whoever you think has the most informed opinion.
Doug Drinen
Moderator
Because the goal of projections isn't to project the overall distribution of rushing TDs or passing yards or whatever. It's to give the most realistic projection possible for each individual player.The difference between group projections and individual projections has been discussed many times here, mostly with regard to preseason projections.
Since 2000, the top passing yardage performance of the week has averaged 381 yards. Would you really feel more comfortable with our projections if we projected Cutler with 381 yards this week? The top receiving yardage per week averages 170 yards. Do you really think Dodds should project some individual to get 170 receiving yards this week? On average, the highest-scoring team of the week scores 43 points, but it would be crazy to project any given team to score 43 in a given week.Note that Vegas projects the same way Dodds does. Since 2000, the average of the largest victory margin of the week is 31 points. Would you take any team and lay 31 points, ever? 95% of the time, the biggest victory margin of the week is 20 points or more. But yet we never see a line as big as 20 points. Why not? It's because Vegas isn't trying to set lines that, as a group, match up with the distribution of victory margins for that week. They're trying to set lines that are the as accurate as possible for each individual game.
There is no doubt that the FBG projections for the player who ends up at QB1 will be too low. But we're not interested in accurately projecting the stats of the player who ends up at QB1. We're interested in accurately projecting the stats of Jay Cutler. Even if we happen to think that Jay Cutler has the best chance of being QB1 in a given week, those are two very different things.
Agreed...1.8 TDs per game over a season is 28.9 (29 rounded). Shouldn't the average prediction (ie, decent matchup, not great, not bad, everyone's healthy) for Romo/Brees/Cutler/etc be at least 2.0 TD, and then vary it up or down in other weeks based on the matchup factors ?
Actually I'd be pretty comfortable guessing that FBGs do as well or better than anyone else in scaling their overall numbers to match reality.So for instance let's say we know right now, on Friday night, that there will be 35 TD passes thrown in this weekend's games.
FBGs is going to distribute those 35 TDs across the 26 (or so, including a few backups) QBs as they see fit, using fractional precision rather than binary precision. Fractional precision > binary precision.
So while you might give 3 of those 35 TDs to Romo and 2 to McNabb, FBGs go one step better, by giving Romo 2.8 and McNabb 2.2. The total's still 5 out of the 35 total.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
If you want to put your theory to work, use weeks 1-3 and add up their projections with reality and see how close they were. My guess is FBG projections are way less than the actual number of TDs
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Doug, using the #1 player each week at a position isn't fair because there is always one or two statistical outliers in a given week. Since 2000, what is the #6 passer average per week? Also, comparing these projections to how Vegas determines betting lines is apples and oranges to me. With projections, one is using them to compare one player against another this week and determine who is more likely to score and by how much. With Vegas, they set a betting line and you're choosing over or under. If Denver is -14.5 this week against KC, you decide if they will win by 15 or more and bet accordingly. I'm not looking at Tony Romo and betting if he is going to throw more or less than 1.6 TD this week.
I just like to see people take chances with their projections and back them up with comments.
Doug Drinen
Moderator
The opposite, actually. Dodds has projected 124 passing TDs this year, and there have only been 107. In 2005, Dodds projected 712 and there were 644.In 2006, Dodds projected 660 and there were 647.In 2007, Dodds projected 687 and there were 720.So the 3+ year total is: Dodds 2183, actual 2118.Ramblin Wreck said:
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Thanks for the numbers and helping the lazy. I never put much consideration into the other side where the Thigpens, Flaccos, and what not get projected for scores each week but often don't throw one.
protoslacker
Footballguy
Impressive. But I want to suggest the actual number of TDs is irrelevant, so long as the relative scoring amongst the players for that week is correct. (QB1>QB2>QB3...). That is a real challenge for WRs and TEs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug Drinen
Moderator
Here's a summary you might find interesting. This includes all QB projections since 2005 (except those projected under 0.7 TDs):
Code:
+-----------------------+-------------------+--------------------+| projected passing TDs | number of players | average actual TDs |+-----------------------+-------------------+--------------------+| 2.3 or more | 21 | 2.7 || 2.2 | 16 | 2.2 || 2.1 | 20 | 2.2 || 2.0 | 30 | 1.8 || 1.9 | 43 | 1.7 || 1.8 | 77 | 1.8 || 1.7 | 127 | 1.6 || 1.6 | 151 | 1.5 || 1.5 | 216 | 1.3 || 1.4 | 266 | 1.4 || 1.3 | 264 | 1.1 || 1.2 | 294 | 1.0 || 1.1 | 259 | 1.1 || 1.0 | 187 | 0.9 || 0.9 | 128 | 0.9 || 0.8 | 84 | 0.9 || 0.7 | 37 | 0.8 |+-----------------------+-------------------+--------------------+Nigel Incubator-Jones
Footballguy
Pictus Cat
Footballguy
Sit Hines Ward...
Nigel Incubator-Jones
Footballguy
She isn't the one that said to sit him, she says...Sit Hines Ward...
Pictus Cat
Footballguy
I like the stats approach,
in addition to Bob Henry's sleeper article for those looking for players that might outperform those stats
plus using last minute info on injuries to make a sit or start decision.
In a previous post, I asked why the top 250 was different than the other pay material on Big Ben.
What process is causing that?
in addition to Bob Henry's sleeper article for those looking for players that might outperform those stats
plus using last minute info on injuries to make a sit or start decision.
In a previous post, I asked why the top 250 was different than the other pay material on Big Ben.
What process is causing that?
Similar threads
