Wild stallion or Old reliable Eddie? (1 Viewer)

[JayMan]

Obvisouly, this discussion is for H2H leagues...

We all know and have discussed about players consistency and whether we need to focus on guys that will give us the usual 'average' 7pts production week-in week-out or try and swing for the fences and get that young potential guy that will give you the occasional 12pts on a few weeks and not much otherwise.

We all understand that if your player scores big weekly (i.e. high mean) you don't want him to be inconsistent (i.e. scoring equally big each week) to help your team win... and if your player doesn't score too many points (i.e low mean) you want his standard deviation to be as high as possible (in order for him to have some valuable weeks). Hence, this discussion is not about LT and plugging him into your lineup each week or Aaron Rodgers and benching him each week...

This discussion is about whether you want Vincent Jackson or Eddie Kennison as your WR3... It's not about which of these two guys you think will get 85/1100/10 this year!... It's about, which one you want on your team... since we all know that if a player is on your bench all season - he has no value...

Thus, let's assume that we predict that Jackson and Kennison will each score 128 FPts this year... Let's also assume, for simplicity that Kennison will get 8pts every week - while Jackson will get 16pts in 8 games and 0pt in the other 8...

We also understand that depending on your starting requirement and team depth - Kennison or Jackson might be more realible (i.e. looking for a constant 8pts per week in order to help your team win each week and letting your studs lead the way or looking for Jackson's 16pts on some weeks to put you ahead of your opponent)

The million dollar question here is... can we predict the weeks where Jackson will get his 16pts (and thus, knowing when he'll lay an egg)?...

In my humble opinion, that's the only relevant underlying question about the old 'consistency' / 'standard deviation' / 'boom-or-bust' theories... can we make educated guesses as to when the 'wild stallions' will catch fire? Or, is that just pure speculation and we find ourselves kicking ourselves on sunday night when we see that Jackson went for 1/14/0 against the bleeping Rams defense! while Kennison grabbed his usual 4/71/0 against the tough Ravens?!

If the answer is, on average, yes... then we need to stack up on the Jackson's of the world and make sure our theory on finding the 'good weeks' is bulletproof... if the answer is, on average, no... shouldn't we pick Kennison instead?...

We can argue to death whether you want to bet on wild Stallion or old reliable Eddie... but, if we knew when Stallion would run like a stallion and when he'll eat the grass along the fences - we'd know who to bet on at the racetrack...

I've always looked for that kind of study when reading about FF 'consistency' / 'standard deviation' but no to avail... only discussions about who you should have on your team: Stallion or Eddie... beating a dead horse... anything on the subject?...

It seems to me that the only answers I can get on this is the hindsight of guys 'knowing' (on monday morning obviously) that the Bears Pass Def was not that good agaisnt a tall 2nd year WR coming from a southern university that has a purple uniform - and it was certain that Jackson would go for 9/163/2 against them... or, on the other hand - guys that are consistenly banging their heads on the wall on monday morning since they always change their lineup at 12h52 and put Stallion in when he goes for 2/21/0 and they lose by .53 pts... or even better, those that 'marked down' the wonderful game and are fast to point this out, while forgetting about their previous 6 'mark down' failures...

 

[zed2283]

So if the question is can we predict the Stallion games with any certainty (enough so that the points balance swings in our direction) then I would have to say that the answer is no.

The best lineups are the ones you don't have to think about too much. When you get yourself in a situation to where you're playing matchups every week, more often than not it seems to not work out very well (unless you get on some sort of lucky streak).

More supporting evidence... how many times have you read your two favorite "start 'em/sit 'em" columns only to find the player you are concerned about is in the "start 'em" list in one column because they have 5+ receptions in the last three games, but they are in the "sit 'em" list on the other because they are facing a tough secondary this week? I HATE that!

I tend to feel that if you're going to get a player's given points for the season, then you've got to start that player every week. So it's still up to you whether or not you want V.Jackson's 16 points every other week or Kennison's 8 every week, but until someone shows me some sort of "foolproof" method for predicting Stallion weeks, I think the answer to your question (if I understand the question) will be no.

 

[JayMan]

So if the question is can we predict the Stallion games with any certainty (enough so that the points balance swings in our direction) then I would have to say that the answer is no.The best lineups are the ones you don't have to think about too much. When you get yourself in a situation to where you're playing matchups every week, more often than not it seems to not work out very well (unless you get on some sort of lucky streak).More supporting evidence... how many times have you read your two favorite "start 'em/sit 'em" columns only to find the player you are concerned about is in the "start 'em" list in one column because they have 5+ receptions in the last three games, but they are in the "sit 'em" list on the other because they are facing a tough secondary this week? I HATE that!I tend to feel that if you're going to get a player's given points for the season, then you've got to start that player every week. So it's still up to you whether or not you want V.Jackson's 16 points every other week or Kennison's 8 every week, but until someone shows me some sort of "foolproof" method for predicting Stallion weeks, I think the answer to your question (if I understand the question) will be no.

Your understanding is correct... that was exactly the kind of reply I was looking for!I have been amazed when reading that some guys want the stallions on their teams at all cost, rather than the reliable oldies... because of the 16pts possibility - but they have no clue whatsoever when it's going to happen...The only valid argument here is the 'when the stallion will learn how to run efficiently, he'll win most of his races' and that one I agree with... You want VJackson on your team because if it clicks this season - he can post 80/1200/10 (higher ceiling than Kennison)... but, until he learns the old tricks - he's certainly not more valuable than Kennison and can cause more harm to your team then you think (one general mistake made by FFers in my opinion) because we have no clue when he's going to post a stallion week...

 

[CalBear]

Why do you think Kennison is "old reliable"? In 2006, he had four games with more than 13 points, and 11 games with fewer than 8. In the range of 8-13, he had exactly one game. So one of your premises is questionable--I would suggest that not only can you not predict what games someone will blow up in (would you have predicted Kennison for 144 yards and a TD, his best game of the season, against Jacksonville, the #2 defense?), but you also cannot predict who will be reliable and who will be streaky.

 

[zed2283]

... but, until he learns the old tricks - he's certainly not more valuable than Kennison and can cause more harm to your team then you think (one general mistake made by FFers in my opinion) because we have no clue when he's going to post a stallion week...

Ha ha... I agree with you on this one. We tend to think too much. And even knowing that, I'm certainly as guilty as anyone.

 

[JayMan]

Why do you think Kennison is "old reliable"? In 2006, he had four games with more than 13 points, and 11 games with fewer than 8. In the range of 8-13, he had exactly one game. So one of your premises is questionable--I would suggest that not only can you not predict what games someone will blow up in (would you have predicted Kennison for 144 yards and a TD, his best game of the season, against Jacksonville, the #2 defense?), but you also cannot predict who will be reliable and who will be streaky.

I was just throwing out Jackson and Kennison to put names on 'stallions' and 'old reliable'... not saying that they are the perfect example to the definition... but I understand your concern - and I agree with it to a certain degree - that there is no way of knowing with certainity which players will be 'stallions' and which ones are 'old reliable' (from year to year or even from week-to-week)...Is this to say that any and every discussion about 'consistency' or 'standard deviation' related to FF is flawed from the get-go? (recalling Drinen's study)... or is it possible to identify (a few weeks into the season maybe?) guys that will post unspectacular but helpful FF points on a weekly basis?

 

[RavensUNFL]

I like the old reliable theory, i joined a 32 team dynasty league and 3 (Could start up to 5) of my possible week to week WR starters were, Kennison, Galloway and Glenn, I had a great defense consistent WR'ers and finished 21-3 (And the highest scoring team in the league) and lost the championship game by 1/2 a point, my rb for that game was Tyson Thompson, he was the only RB left on my team that was even seeing the field due to injuries. I think FF is about consistency, I will take my 8-10pts week in week out as appose to 0-16pts week in week out and i feel I will win most the time.

The 2nd year in the league, (I have not had a single rookie pick yet as I have traded them all away) I won the league and my RB's were Dayne and Rhodes, my record was not as good as the 1st year and my scoring was down, but again I was pretty consistent with my regular starters.

The great thing about FF is, you can win in a variety of ways, and this is 2 of them, if you like the occasional "homerun" games, the young stallion is probably more for you, if your like me and don't worry about the monster games and just like to see everyone scoring every week, old reliable is where it's at.

jmho.

 

[CalBear]

Is this to say that any and every discussion about 'consistency' or 'standard deviation' related to FF is flawed from the get-go? (recalling Drinen's study)... or is it possible to identify (a few weeks into the season maybe?) guys that will post unspectacular but helpful FF points on a weekly basis?

My guess, not backed by analysis, is that there is very little predictive value between similar players in whatever measure you come up with for "consistency." I think you might be able to make some measurements about different kinds of players, for example, WR1 on a bad team might be more consistent than WR2 on a good team who scores about the same. But I don't think you'll be able to figure out whether (say) Jerricho Cotchery or Isaac Bruce will be more consistent.

 

[CalBear]

I like the old reliable theory, i joined a 32 team dynasty league and 3 (Could start up to 5) of my possible week to week WR starters were, Kennison, Galloway and Glenn

I don't think those are three examples of "old reliable" receivers, in terms of fantasy scoring. (They're not consistent--they're just old).

 

[RavensUNFL]

I like the old reliable theory, i joined a 32 team dynasty league and 3 (Could start up to 5) of my possible week to week WR starters were, Kennison, Galloway and Glenn

I don't think those are three examples of "old reliable" receivers, in terms of fantasy scoring. (They're not consistent--they're just old).

I see... So Galloway:83 1287 15.5 10Glenn:62 1136 18.3 7Kennison:68 1102 16.2 5These are not consistent/reliable numbers to you? I guess everyone has a different opinion of consistency.

 

[houdini]

It all depends on the rest of your team. If your team is above average, Mr. Dependable saves you from losing games you shouldn't. If your team is below average, Mr. AllOrNothing is you best shot at having a chance to make up the difference.

 

[houdini]

I see... So Galloway:83 1287 15.5 10Glenn:62 1136 18.3 7Kennison:68 1102 16.2 5These are not consistent/reliable numbers to you? I guess everyone has a different opinion of consistency.

Season totals have nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's the variation amongst the weekly scores over the course of the season that's the topic here. Do you want your 160 points as ten per week every week or as twenty in some weeks and none in others?

 

[JayMan]

It all depends on the rest of your team. If your team is above average, Mr. Dependable saves you from losing games you shouldn't. If your team is below average, Mr. AllOrNothing is you best shot at having a chance to make up the difference.

Correct... but suppose you have them both on your team - would you plug in Mr. Dependable week-in week-out or would you try and hit for the fences with Mr. AllOrNothing some weeks?...I'm guessing that your answer is 'it all depends on my opponent'... if I'm favored -> Mr. Dependable... if I'm the underdog -> Mr. AllOrNothing...Do you think there's a possible way to know which weeks Mr. AllOrNothing will be Mr. All ?

 

[CalBear]

These are not consistent/reliable numbers to you? I guess everyone has a different opinion of consistency.

The topic is week-to-week consistency. Galloway and Kennison were extremely inconsistent week-to-week in 2006.

 

[RavensUNFL]

These are not consistent/reliable numbers to you? I guess everyone has a different opinion of consistency.

The topic is week-to-week consistency. Galloway and Kennison were extremely inconsistent week-to-week in 2006.

Agreed, I only had them the year I posted their numbers for, which both were pretty consistent. I kept Glenn, who then had another consistent year last year. Which in hindsight, all those moves seemed pretty good, and I got Housh for Galloway, which turned out to be pretty good also. Good to be lucky.