Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Two sets of dynasty rankings


SSOG

Recommended Posts

I was thinking about what a guy's rankings tell you about his philosophy, and it inspired me to try a rather unique exercise. I approached two people with a relatively similar dynasty outlook, gave them a list of names, and asked them to each provide a set of rankings of those names (assumptions: 12 team league, 1/2/3/1 starting lineup with no flex, standard FBGs scoring). I then collated the rankings side to side and uploaded them. What do you notice about each set? Whose rankings are, on the whole, better? What calls do you like from Ranker A vs. what calls you like from Ranker B? Where do you think both guys are off base, or they both got it right? Can you make any assumptions about what type of owner Ranker A or Ranker B is? After the thread has been going for a little while, I'll tell you who each ranker is and where I got the rankings, but to start off with, I'd rather avoid giving out any potentially prejudicial details that might influence first impressions.

In order to keep this workable, I've put all rankings side by side right here, with an extra column highlighting the difference between the two. Hopefully the format reads well enough. I look forward to hearing what you all think about the exercise!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you said "2 sets of dynasty rankings" I assumed you meant 1 for "win now" and 1 for "rebuilding".

He did say "I approached two people with a relatively similar dynasty outlook". Then again, it almost looks like it was one guy doing two sets of rankings maybe a week apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you said "2 sets of dynasty rankings" I assumed you meant 1 for "win now" and 1 for "rebuilding".

He did say "I approached two people with a relatively similar dynasty outlook". Then again, it almost looks like it was one guy doing two sets of rankings maybe a week apart.

Yeah, the jig is up, I did both sets of rankings using two radically different methodologies. I was hoping they'd turn out a bit more... different, but it is what it is.

Basically, for one set I did my standard rankings thing- pore over every name, dig up 4 years worth of back stats, examine draft position, compare everyone in an elaborate head-to-head before deciding who I liked better, the whole nine yards. For the other set, I wrote all the names on index cards, shuffled them up, set an egg timer for 3 minutes, and produced a blitzkrieg ranking. The only rules were I wasn't allowed to hesitate and think, and once I put a name down I couldn't pick it back up or move it. It was actually surprisingly stressful.

I was hoping to use the two sets of rankings to illustrate my own unconscious biases, and I was hoping everyone would weigh in on those biases and give me an idea of where I'm over thinking (where my blitzkrieg rankings outperform my traditional ones) and where I need to guard better against my biases. For instance, I could tell from this exercise that apparently I secretly hate Jermaine Gresham, and also that my unconscious mind doesn't like the swing-for-the-fences types nearly as much as my conscious mind.

So, anyway, now that the cat's out of the bag, anyone else have any thoughts to add on the rankings? One set or both sets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you said "2 sets of dynasty rankings" I assumed you meant 1 for "win now" and 1 for "rebuilding".

He did say "I approached two people with a relatively similar dynasty outlook". Then again, it almost looks like it was one guy doing two sets of rankings maybe a week apart.

Yeah, the jig is up, I did both sets of rankings using two radically different methodologies. I was hoping they'd turn out a bit more... different, but it is what it is.

Basically, for one set I did my standard rankings thing- pore over every name, dig up 4 years worth of back stats, examine draft position, compare everyone in an elaborate head-to-head before deciding who I liked better, the whole nine yards. For the other set, I wrote all the names on index cards, shuffled them up, set an egg timer for 3 minutes, and produced a blitzkrieg ranking. The only rules were I wasn't allowed to hesitate and think, and once I put a name down I couldn't pick it back up or move it. It was actually surprisingly stressful.

I was hoping to use the two sets of rankings to illustrate my own unconscious biases, and I was hoping everyone would weigh in on those biases and give me an idea of where I'm over thinking (where my blitzkrieg rankings outperform my traditional ones) and where I need to guard better against my biases. For instance, I could tell from this exercise that apparently I secretly hate Jermaine Gresham, and also that my unconscious mind doesn't like the swing-for-the-fences types nearly as much as my conscious mind.

So, anyway, now that the cat's out of the bag, anyone else have any thoughts to add on the rankings? One set or both sets?

No henchman involved...slightly disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha how in the hell is Tannenhill 13 in both? Makes no sense.

Should he be higher or lower? 13 sounds about right for him.
Based on what? He wasn't impressive last year.

I think he deserves a bit of a break considering he was a rookie who had Brian Hartline as his top target to throw to. I'd have him a couple of spots lower myself, but QB 13 isn't far off considering they've added some weapons and he'll most likely improve in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha how in the hell is Tannenhill 13 in both? Makes no sense.

Should he be higher or lower? 13 sounds about right for him.
Based on what? He wasn't impressive last year.

Not compared to Griffin, Luck, or Wilson... but compared to every rookie QB in history, Tannehill looks pretty solid. Tanny is 14th all-time in passing yards per game as a rookie (minimum 10 games played), ahead of Wilson and within 10 yards of Griffin. 6.8 YPA is a solid mark for a rookie, and actually ranks ahead of names like Peyton Manning (6.5) and Matt Stafford (6.0). Not too shabby for a guy who was still a wide receiver when the BP oil spill happened. I give him credit for the fact that he's still learning the ropes and give him a nice value upgrade because of his team's commitment to surrounding him with weapons and because the guy was a 1,000 yard receiver in a BCS conference, which means you know he's got wheels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you said "2 sets of dynasty rankings" I assumed you meant 1 for "win now" and 1 for "rebuilding".

He did say "I approached two people with a relatively similar dynasty outlook". Then again, it almost looks like it was one guy doing two sets of rankings maybe a week apart.

Yeah, the jig is up, I did both sets of rankings using two radically different methodologies. I was hoping they'd turn out a bit more... different, but it is what it is.

Basically, for one set I did my standard rankings thing- pore over every name, dig up 4 years worth of back stats, examine draft position, compare everyone in an elaborate head-to-head before deciding who I liked better, the whole nine yards. For the other set, I wrote all the names on index cards, shuffled them up, set an egg timer for 3 minutes, and produced a blitzkrieg ranking. The only rules were I wasn't allowed to hesitate and think, and once I put a name down I couldn't pick it back up or move it. It was actually surprisingly stressful.

I was hoping to use the two sets of rankings to illustrate my own unconscious biases, and I was hoping everyone would weigh in on those biases and give me an idea of where I'm over thinking (where my blitzkrieg rankings outperform my traditional ones) and where I need to guard better against my biases. For instance, I could tell from this exercise that apparently I secretly hate Jermaine Gresham, and also that my unconscious mind doesn't like the swing-for-the-fences types nearly as much as my conscious mind.

So, anyway, now that the cat's out of the bag, anyone else have any thoughts to add on the rankings? One set or both sets?

No henchman involved...slightly disappointed.

Man, you and me both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be interested in the quarterback analysis between the two rankings. This is an area where you have one starter and I would think the top ten would be most similar. There are some descrepancies within the top ten and particular the "new-comers" that are difficult to rank (Luck, RG3, Kaep, Wilson). I would be interested in your opinion in why they ended up so different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you rank them through 56 people...? In a 12 team league I would assuming 3 QB's per team giving that 36 QB's owned.

Clearly you don't like Eli Manning and love these younger QB's like Osweiler, Mallett, Dixon, that have been "sitting" behind elite QB's for years. Seems like you're putting A LOT of faith in these guys putting them that high, above consistent starters like Schaub and even Alex Smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you said "2 sets of dynasty rankings" I assumed you meant 1 for "win now" and 1 for "rebuilding".

He did say "I approached two people with a relatively similar dynasty outlook". Then again, it almost looks like it was one guy doing two sets of rankings maybe a week apart.

Yeah, the jig is up, I did both sets of rankings using two radically different methodologies. I was hoping they'd turn out a bit more... different, but it is what it is.

Basically, for one set I did my standard rankings thing- pore over every name, dig up 4 years worth of back stats, examine draft position, compare everyone in an elaborate head-to-head before deciding who I liked better, the whole nine yards. For the other set, I wrote all the names on index cards, shuffled them up, set an egg timer for 3 minutes, and produced a blitzkrieg ranking. The only rules were I wasn't allowed to hesitate and think, and once I put a name down I couldn't pick it back up or move it. It was actually surprisingly stressful.

I was hoping to use the two sets of rankings to illustrate my own unconscious biases, and I was hoping everyone would weigh in on those biases and give me an idea of where I'm over thinking (where my blitzkrieg rankings outperform my traditional ones) and where I need to guard better against my biases. For instance, I could tell from this exercise that apparently I secretly hate Jermaine Gresham, and also that my unconscious mind doesn't like the swing-for-the-fences types nearly as much as my conscious mind.

So, anyway, now that the cat's out of the bag, anyone else have any thoughts to add on the rankings? One set or both sets?

Which of the two rankings did you do first? If you did your standard one first, it may have had more influence on the second.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mendenhall is about 15-20 spots too low, but that's to be expected. :)

I am tempted to say that Peterson is extremely overrated right now. Certainly a lot of the variables are working against him. He's got the whole career year/recency bias thing going for him. And he's pretty old by RB standards. I also think it's possible that he was on PEDs last year. Even so, he's Adrian Peterson. Rare talent. My compromise is this: he might be worth RB3 prices if you plan to draft and hold, but just realize that his trade value will fall by the minute and you'll be stuck with him for better or worse.

Pretty harsh ratings for Mike Williams. He's no superstar, but no worse than Decker/Torrey/A Brown/Maclin/Danario in my eyes. Actually better than some of those guys.

Michael Floyd is too low on both lists, especially the left one. No reason to put him below the likes of Jenkins, Jeffery, Hill, V Brown, Broyles, Sanders, and Quick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you rank them through 56 people...? In a 12 team league I would assuming 3 QB's per team giving that 36 QB's owned.

Clearly you don't like Eli Manning and love these younger QB's like Osweiler, Mallett, Dixon, that have been "sitting" behind elite QB's for years. Seems like you're putting A LOT of faith in these guys putting them that high, above consistent starters like Schaub and even Alex Smith.

Some people have deeper leagues. When making my lists, I basically added names until I reached my pain point and cried uncle. It'd be hard to have intelligent opinions on any more players than this. It's hard enough to have halfway-intelligent opinions even on this many- when doing my speed rankings, there were guys who I couldn't recall fast enough and I'll admit sometimes I just said "well, I'm getting vaguely positive-ish feelings about this name, so while I can't immediately recall who he plays for, I'll just sort of stick him here". Hopefully as I continue grinding out rankings, I'll start to form firmer opinions on those guys, so my blitzkrieg rankings match up with my thought out rankings at the bottom of the list as well as they do at the top.

As for Manning... he's only once in his career finished higher than 12th in ppg (a 7th place finish in 2011). He's a guy who has historically gotten his owners killed if they ever have to start him. He's a top-notch backup, but if you're starting him more than 2-4 times a year, you're in trouble.

As for the backups... when you're looking at low-end qb2s or qb3s, upside is the name of the game. You can get a crappy starter at any time as a throw-in, so why value them highly? How much value did Matt Cassel or Alex Smith provide their fantasy owners over the last few years? If a guy has no shot at the top 12, I don't care about him. I'd much rather roster a very talented, high-upside backup than a crappy, "what you see is what you get" type starter. I've been pretty consistent about this, which has led in the past to me overrating guys like Josh Johnson, Chad Henne, and Joe Webb. Of course, at qb20-30 valuations, you can afford to have some swings and misses- you aren't out much value. And this philosophy has also led to some ridiculous steals- Michael Vick in the 30th round of a startup and Colin Kaepernick in the 22nd, to name two. Guys like Aaron Rodgers, Philip Rivers, Matt Schaub, and Russell Wilson were once nothing more than high-upside backups, too. Like I said, the prices are cheap enough where one hit can offset a half dozen misses and then some, and you're far more likely to get outrageous steals by rostering very highly regarded backups than proven duds like Kolb or Fitzpatrick who happen to have lucked into a starting job. And hey, even schlubs like Kolb and Fitzpatrick were once backups who later saw modest value bumps once they won their own starting jobs.

When you said "2 sets of dynasty rankings" I assumed you meant 1 for "win now" and 1 for "rebuilding".

He did say "I approached two people with a relatively similar dynasty outlook". Then again, it almost looks like it was one guy doing two sets of rankings maybe a week apart.
Yeah, the jig is up, I did both sets of rankings using two radically different methodologies. I was hoping they'd turn out a bit more... different, but it is what it is.

Basically, for one set I did my standard rankings thing- pore over every name, dig up 4 years worth of back stats, examine draft position, compare everyone in an elaborate head-to-head before deciding who I liked better, the whole nine yards. For the other set, I wrote all the names on index cards, shuffled them up, set an egg timer for 3 minutes, and produced a blitzkrieg ranking. The only rules were I wasn't allowed to hesitate and think, and once I put a name down I couldn't pick it back up or move it. It was actually surprisingly stressful.

I was hoping to use the two sets of rankings to illustrate my own unconscious biases, and I was hoping everyone would weigh in on those biases and give me an idea of where I'm over thinking (where my blitzkrieg rankings outperform my traditional ones) and where I need to guard better against my biases. For instance, I could tell from this exercise that apparently I secretly hate Jermaine Gresham, and also that my unconscious mind doesn't like the swing-for-the-fences types nearly as much as my conscious mind.

So, anyway, now that the cat's out of the bag, anyone else have any thoughts to add on the rankings? One set or both sets?

Which of the two rankings did you do first? If you did your standard one first, it may have had more influence on the second.

I thought of that- anchoring bias says that I'm going to unconsciously prefer to keep players where I had them. I did the blitzkrieg rankings first, wrote them down, then shuffled the cards and put them away for a day or two before coming back for the real rankings, which were a multi-day process (to try to prevent a certain environment or mood from influencing too much).

Nice rankings. I'm curious why DHB is so low in both sets of rankings? Do you not believe in his talent? It seems like he is in a nice situation.

I don't believe in his talent. Best case scenario is he gets to do a Devery Henderson impersonation for a year and then find himself back on the market.

Mendenhall is about 15-20 spots too low, but that's to be expected. :)

I am tempted to say that Peterson is extremely overrated right now. Certainly a lot of the variables are working against him. He's got the whole career year/recency bias thing going for him. And he's pretty old by RB standards. I also think it's possible that he was on PEDs last year. Even so, he's Adrian Peterson. Rare talent. My compromise is this: he might be worth RB3 prices if you plan to draft and hold, but just realize that his trade value will fall by the minute and you'll be stuck with him for better or worse.

Pretty harsh ratings for Mike Williams. He's no superstar, but no worse than Decker/Torrey/A Brown/Maclin/Danario in my eyes. Actually better than some of those guys.

Michael Floyd is too low on both lists, especially the left one. No reason to put him below the likes of Jenkins, Jeffery, Hill, V Brown, Broyles, Sanders, and Quick.

Mendenhall is getting a year splitting time in the worst rushing offense in the league, then back on the market. Thanks, but no thanks.

I thought a lot about the Peterson ranking. At the end of the day, you know I'm not as big on factoring anticipated trade value as highly in my rankings, so I figured what you did- if you hold Peterson until the wheels fall off, he'll reward you. It helps that there's a huge dearth of young RB talent. McCoy is the only other guy in the conversation under 26. After that, what, Rice? Charles? Spiller? Peterson's only two years older, will be more productive per year, and I'd bet on him playing to an older age than those guys, anyway.

I'll agree that Williams is a comparable talent to Decker/Torrey/Brown/Maclin, but I like all of those guys' situations a lot more. Danario is a lot more talented, although obviously risky. At a time where the top-tier WR talent is so good, though, I give a little bump to guys like Danario and Britt who are risky as can be, but are two of the rare people outside of the top tier capable of producing at those levels.

We've discussed Floyd before. He was a better prospect than those guys, but he's stuck in a nightmare situation with no path to viability. The guys you mentioned are all in situations where they could conceivably provide immediate returns, and at the worst case, we'll find out a lot about them this year. Floyd could potentially be a roster albatross that you have to carry for years before you finally find out if he's any good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've discussed Floyd before. He was a better prospect than those guys, but he's stuck in a nightmare situation with no path to viability. The guys you mentioned are all in situations where they could conceivably provide immediate returns, and at the worst case, we'll find out a lot about them this year. Floyd could potentially be a roster albatross that you have to carry for years before you finally find out if he's any good.

In general, I think I put a little more stock in talent than most folks. I would rather have a potential star like Bryce Brown or Michael Floyd with no route to playing time than a mediocrity like Isaiah Pead or Emmanuel Sanders who happens to be high on the depth chart at this given moment in time. All of the opportunity in the world won't matter if you can't play. I think it's inconsistent to talk about the value of a potential difference maker when justifying high rankings for guys like Alexander and Britt while simultaneously ranking Floyd below middle round prospects and never-weres. He is exactly the kind of player who has the potential to be a perennial top 15 guy down the road.

I'm actually not sky high on Floyd and don't even own him in any leagues, but I would have to rank him around WR20-WR30 based on his background and potential. Top 15 pick. #1 WR size/speed combo. Dominant collegiate player billed as an elite prospect from year one. His production was excellent last season when you account for the situation. Had 562 yards on 86 targets in the same offense where Fitz only managed 798 yards on 153 targets. If you put him on the Browns, would he have had Josh Gordon's numbers? Would he have done even better? I just think the guy is being punished way too much for factors outside his control. Arizona sucked last year and he was never going to be asked to carry the load from day one with Fitz and Roberts in the fold. Fitz is 30, Roberts is a FA after this season, the Cardinals QB situation can only get better. I don't think Floyd is a can't-miss guy or anything like that, but in general he seems to be underrated by about 15-25 spots on most dynasty WR lists. Taking a punt on a first round WR who's slow out of the gate is how you get Roddy White, Reggie Wayne, and Demaryius Thomas before they become Roddy White, Reggie Wayne, and Demaryius Thomas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lefty's WR rankings make more sense, especially outside the top 40, but there are some guys that look out of place on both of them. I'm surprised to see Santonio Holmes & Malcom Floyd so low - they both have a strong track record as WR3s (not that different from Lance Moore), although there is some uncertainty about their roles going forward. You're really high on Vincent Brown. Righty has a surprisingly wide gap between AJ Jenkins and Brian Quick. Marvin Jones & Sanu look too high, especially for righty - they don't have the draft pedigree, the track record, or the upside. Denarius Moore behind both of them, and guys like Kerley, Benn, and LaFell?

There are a few places where righty seems closer than lefty: Michael Floyd (#54 is too low), Pead (#23 is too high), and Brees (#2 is too high).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give him credit for the fact that he's still learning the ropes and give him a nice value upgrade because of his team's commitment to surrounding him with weapons and because the guy was a 1,000 yard receiver in a BCS conference, which means you know he's got wheels.

You threw me here. I thought you meant 1,000 yards in a season, which he never did. He did, though, have over 1,500 yards receiving in his college career.

I really like Tanny as he's obviously still growing at the position, and in my mind makes a great pair with older QBs like Manning and Brady or even Brees in a dynasty league. Those guys are all going later in drafts due to age, and when they do start to decline or decide to hang them up, Tanny will be hitting the stride of his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've discussed Floyd before. He was a better prospect than those guys, but he's stuck in a nightmare situation with no path to viability. The guys you mentioned are all in situations where they could conceivably provide immediate returns, and at the worst case, we'll find out a lot about them this year. Floyd could potentially be a roster albatross that you have to carry for years before you finally find out if he's any good.

In general, I think I put a little more stock in talent than most folks. I would rather have a potential star like Bryce Brown or Michael Floyd with no route to playing time than a mediocrity like Isaiah Pead or Emmanuel Sanders who happens to be high on the depth chart at this given moment in time. All of the opportunity in the world won't matter if you can't play. I think it's inconsistent to talk about the value of a potential difference maker when justifying high rankings for guys like Alexander and Britt while simultaneously ranking Floyd below middle round prospects and never-weres. He is exactly the kind of player who has the potential to be a perennial top 15 guy down the road. I'm actually not sky high on Floyd and don't even own him in any leagues, but I would have to rank him around WR20-WR30 based on his background and potential. Top 15 pick. #1 WR size/speed combo. Dominant collegiate player billed as an elite prospect from year one. His production was excellent last season when you account for the situation. Had 562 yards on 86 targets in the same offense where Fitz only managed 798 yards on 153 targets. If you put him on the Browns, would he have had Josh Gordon's numbers? Would he have done even better? I just think the guy is being punished way too much for factors outside his control. Arizona sucked last year and he was never going to be asked to carry the load from day one with Fitz and Roberts in the fold. Fitz is 30, Roberts is a FA after this season, the Cardinals QB situation can only get better. I don't think Floyd is a can't-miss guy or anything like that, but in general he seems to be underrated by about 15-25 spots on most dynasty WR lists. Taking a punt on a first round WR who's slow out of the gate is how you get Roddy White, Reggie Wayne, and Demaryius Thomas before they become Roddy White, Reggie Wayne, and Demaryius Thomas.
It's not that Floyd has no path to playing time, it's that he has no path to relevance. I like Bryce Brown and think he has plenty of path to relevance- RBs have high injury rates, Chip Kelly is going to have a lot of carries to spread around, and it's very rare for a team to pony up for a second good RB when they already have a first (Carolina notwithstanding). Floyd, though? He'll pass Fitz in the pecking order when hell freezes over. #2 (at best) WRs on crappy offenses are never fantasy relevant. And teams have no compunction against paying multiple WRs like they do with RBs. So, worst case scenario, he's a bust (which is always a 50/50 proposition for guys with his profile). Best case scenario, he's a second option on a crappy offense for 3 or 4 more years. No way am I paying top 30 prices for that when I can get better odds than that for so much cheaper elsewhere.

Lefty's WR rankings make more sense, especially outside the top 40, but there are some guys that look out of place on both of them. I'm surprised to see Santonio Holmes & Malcom Floyd so low - they both have a strong track record as WR3s (not that different from Lance Moore), although there is some uncertainty about their roles going forward. You're really high on Vincent Brown. Righty has a surprisingly wide gap between AJ Jenkins and Brian Quick. Marvin Jones & Sanu look too high, especially for righty - they don't have the draft pedigree, the track record, or the upside. Denarius Moore behind both of them, and guys like Kerley, Benn, and LaFell? There are a few places where righty seems closer than lefty: Michael Floyd (#54 is too low), Pead (#23 is too high), and Brees (#2 is too high).

Left was my blitz rankings, so I'm surprised to hear you like his rankings better past the top 40 WRs. My slow-and-measured self (aka "Righty") would say that Lefty was too afraid to take risks and dramatically underrated upside on guys so deep on the depth chart that upside should be the only factor that mattered. Santonio is low because he's a malcontent. I agree he's got a similar profile to, say, Lance Moore... but Moore's not a locker-room cancer (Chase, a Jets fan, has been praying for New York to just cut him outright, despite their dire WR situation). Floyd being low is related to Brown being high- I see Floyd's role diminishing, and then you're left with a 32 year old WR who is not even putting up WR3 numbers. Marvin/Sanu might be too high, but I really like that wr2 position in Cincy if one of them can manage to lock it down and put the other away. Denarius isn't a guy I'm a fan of. How many sleepers has Oakland produced in the last 3 years? Murphy, Moore, Ford, Schilens, Streater, Criner? And yet the best season over that span still came from recently-cut Heyward-Bey. Streater and Criner are still around, and Oakland is still the worst franchise in the league. I can see why someone might like Moore, but I'm not really buying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. To me, the similarity of the results proves the minimal value of advanced metrics and super in-depth research once a base level of knowledge and dynasty competence is reached (and anyone spending time reading this thread is probably already at that point).

In order to be good at the dynasty format, you have to develop an intuitive feel for player value. That comes from watching football, talking to people about football, and processing on-line information & opinions in regards to football...something we all do on a daily basis. Your values might be different than someone else's, but your internal reasoning for ranking a veteran player in a certain range is not going to be effected too much because some formula comes out differently than you expected (VBD, DVOA, BMI, Speed Score, deep stat analysis, etc). Just by hanging around the Shark Pool on a regular basis, we all have access to more than enough information on any given player to make an accurate (from a personal rankings standpoint) value judgement on him very quickly.

This is the main reason why trying to explain a rejected trade offer to another competent owner in the hopes of getting him to reconsider is almost always a complete waste of time. EBF likes Mendenhall a lot more than you, and no amount of information is going to get either of you to change your rankings much.

Now, if you really had found two separate people to do the rankings and they came back so strikingly similar, that would really be something!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. To me, the similarity of the results proves the minimal value of advanced metrics and super in-depth research once a base level of knowledge and dynasty competence is reached (and anyone spending time reading this thread is probably already at that point).

That's a big reason why I ran the experiment- I wanted to see how much of an edge all the extra grinding was really getting me. I think there are a couple of ways to interpret the results:1. Your intuitions are king, and all the grinding in the world won't really move you off them2. When you grind, you internalize the results so much that your intuition reflexively mirrors themWere my top 10s so similar because I intuitively feel that's how it should look and then use motivated cognition while grinding to support my intuitions? Or were they similar because when I've been grinding in the past, I've formed strong opinions which I now intuitively repeat? If it's the former, then I can save myself a lot of time and effort going forward, using my subconscious and intuitions to produce rankings that are roughly similar in quality in a tiny fraction of the time. If it's the latter, then there aren't any shortcuts- I still need to do all the grinding and the time-consuming comparisons in order to form and internalize my beliefs to the point where I can intuitively recall them later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I continue to be dumb founded with Hartline being dismissed so easily. Tannehill gets a pass from a lot of guys as being a rookie and his limited playing qb experience and the sky is the limit for him. Yet Hartline who had this raw rookie qb throwing to him and had little to no one to ease the coverage coming his way managed to catch 74 balls for 1083 yards.

Now I don't see Hartline as a stud that will be a top 12 WR. But in one of your rankings you have him at 69 and then the other one not even ranked in the top 100. Miami believes in this guy and he is playing in a very passer friendly system. I happen to think Wallace coming to Miami will make Hartline consistent week in and week out. He can be had so cheaply and is 26 years old with at least some upside as that offense moves forward.

I know I have taken a beating defending Hartline on these boards and in my main dynasty league, but he is not getting enough credit for being a good WR last year. Hartline is not slow, and he often times catches DB's off guard. There were a number of times that Hartline had beaten coverage but Tannehill failed to connect on some of those throws. Hartline ran a 4.52 forty at the combine in 2009 and had a very quick 3 cone drill.

What am I missing with him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I continue to be dumb founded with Hartline being dismissed so easily. Tannehill gets a pass from a lot of guys as being a rookie and his limited playing qb experience and the sky is the limit for him. Yet Hartline who had this raw rookie qb throwing to him and had little to no one to ease the coverage coming his way managed to catch 74 balls for 1083 yards. Now I don't see Hartline as a stud that will be a top 12 WR. But in one of your rankings you have him at 69 and then the other one not even ranked in the top 100. Miami believes in this guy and he is playing in a very passer friendly system. I happen to think Wallace coming to Miami will make Hartline consistent week in and week out. He can be had so cheaply and is 26 years old with at least some upside as that offense moves forward. I know I have taken a beating defending Hartline on these boards and in my main dynasty league, but he is not getting enough credit for being a good WR last year. Hartline is not slow, and he often times catches DB's off guard. There were a number of times that Hartline had beaten coverage but Tannehill failed to connect on some of those throws. Hartline ran a 4.52 forty at the combine in 2009 and had a very quick 3 cone drill. What am I missing with him?

Honestly, I'm probably underrating him a bit, but I have a bias against low-ceiling players (IMO, justifiably so). I think Hartline could put up a lot of 800 or 900 yard, 4 TD seasons for Miami, I just don't value those kinds of seasons at all. He has 6 career TDs in 4 years, which you would expect to eventually regress a bit, bit which is a pretty strong indicator that he's always going to be a low-TD guy (even if "low" means 4 a year instead of 1 a year). Also, a quarter of his yards last year came in a single game, which positively screams red flag to me. He's in the top 100 in both rankings, though- 69th on the left (my blitz rankings) and 73rd on the right (my grind rankings).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Your intuitions are king, and all the grinding in the world won't really move you off them2. When you grind, you internalize the results so much that your intuition reflexively mirrors them

As with anything, I'd say it's more subtle and a combination of the two. You certainly internalize the results when you grind through the data, but there is a difference between doing it for rookies or other relatively unknown players and doing it for veterans. Your opinion on the vets has been informed and influenced by way more than just your stat grinding and has probably set in to the point that no amount of new information is going to change it much. Your grinding on a player is part of your opinion on him, but so is other peoples' opinions, the eye test, gameday disappointments/surprises, etc. You can probably tell from my responses that I'm not a stat grinder, but I don't necessarily think that puts me at a disadvantage. I'm sure I could gain something by doing it, but I don't think the amount of effort required would be enough to overcome the uncertainty that is inherent in the hobby. It's my belief that assuming a base level of competence, being wrong happens at about the same rate to grinders and non-grinders, possibly just for different reasons. A non-grinder might be slightly less informed and miss an angle here and there. A hardcore grinder might put too much faith in numbers which don't end up being predictive and over/under value because of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I continue to be dumb founded with Hartline being dismissed so easily. Tannehill gets a pass from a lot of guys as being a rookie and his limited playing qb experience and the sky is the limit for him. Yet Hartline who had this raw rookie qb throwing to him and had little to no one to ease the coverage coming his way managed to catch 74 balls for 1083 yards. Now I don't see Hartline as a stud that will be a top 12 WR. But in one of your rankings you have him at 69 and then the other one not even ranked in the top 100. Miami believes in this guy and he is playing in a very passer friendly system. I happen to think Wallace coming to Miami will make Hartline consistent week in and week out. He can be had so cheaply and is 26 years old with at least some upside as that offense moves forward. I know I have taken a beating defending Hartline on these boards and in my main dynasty league, but he is not getting enough credit for being a good WR last year. Hartline is not slow, and he often times catches DB's off guard. There were a number of times that Hartline had beaten coverage but Tannehill failed to connect on some of those throws. Hartline ran a 4.52 forty at the combine in 2009 and had a very quick 3 cone drill. What am I missing with him?

Honestly, I'm probably underrating him a bit, but I have a bias against low-ceiling players (IMO, justifiably so). I think Hartline could put up a lot of 800 or 900 yard, 4 TD seasons for Miami, I just don't value those kinds of seasons at all. He has 6 career TDs in 4 years, which you would expect to eventually regress a bit, bit which is a pretty strong indicator that he's always going to be a low-TD guy (even if "low" means 4 a year instead of 1 a year). Also, a quarter of his yards last year came in a single game, which positively screams red flag to me.He's in the top 100 in both rankings, though- 69th on the left (my blitz rankings) and 73rd on the right (my grind rankings).

Ok thanks for the response and I totally agree that low ceiling players carry less value. However, sometimes a low ceiling player for a cheap price ends up producing years that are not low ceiling.

Td's are hard to predict for any player but especially for Hartline at this time. He has started for 1 year. In that year Tannehill threw for 12 td's. That number will come up and we don't know how those TD's will be distributed. Educated guess would indicate that Hartline is never going to be a high TD guy. But whose to say that he does not end up for the next few years in the 6-9 td range.

Also, at this time I don't know how anyone can slate Hartline in the 800-900 yard range. In that system which is one that simulates the Packers system we have seen multiple WR's produce strong numbers.

I think many view Hartline like Davone Bess. Bess is coming off a season where he caught 61 balls for 778 yards. Bass 2 years ago also caught 80 balls for 817 yards. Bess is an after thought in Miami and the team is moving on from him. Thus Hartline > Bess both as a player and in that system.

I think the time line for Hartline indicates one for a player coming into his own.

Miami signs a coach who brings over a pass friendly system from the Packers. He then holds a camp which is completely open at the WR position even bringing in a vet type in Ocho to compete. Camp notes indicate the coach loves Hartline and says he is underrated. We have an inexperienced rookie QB throwing to Hartline who has a career year. At the same time Bess has an ok year as well. Hartline gets rewarded with a very nice contract and the team, organization speaks highly of him. In fact, rumor has it that the Patriots may have been intrerested in Hartline had he not signed. He played the Patriots twice last year where he caught 5 passes for 84 yards in the first game and 5 passes for 69 yards in the second game.

Hartline proved he can have big games as you indicated with his 12 catch 253 yard game. He also proved to be fairly consistent catching 4 plus passes in 9 other games. I guess I am not yet willing to say that Hartline is a 800-900 yard type guy when he very well could be a 1000-1200 yard guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Floyd, though? He'll pass Fitz in the pecking order when hell freezes over. #2 (at best) WRs on crappy offenses are never fantasy relevant. And teams have no compunction against paying multiple WRs like they do with RBs. So, worst case scenario, he's a bust (which is always a 50/50 proposition for guys with his profile). Best case scenario, he's a second option on a crappy offense for 3 or 4 more years. No way am I paying top 30 prices for that when I can get better odds than that for so much cheaper elsewhere.

Too much emphasis on short term situation. Teams don't just stand pat and allow themselves to suck indefinitely (unless they're the Browns). The Cardinals have already upgraded their QB situation dramatically. Sometimes all it takes to kick start an offense is a QB change. Look at Jacksonville last year. WR graveyard. Then they put Henne in there and all of a sudden the team had two top 15 ppg WRs. There were 9 NFL teams that produced two top 30 FF WRs last year. Most of them had above average QBs, but nevertheless it can be done. Nevermind the fact that Floyd is six years younger than Fitz and not destined to be stuck with him forever.

Look at some of the guys you have ranked ahead of him. Broyles, Hill, Jeffery, V Brown, Jenkins, and Quick were drafted lower, rated lower by every scouting source you'll find, and all have fewer career receptions and receiving yards. Those are situation > talent rankings 100%. There are also quite a few journeymen and aging stars ranked above him who probably have inferior expected values going forward. I would move Welker, L Moore, S Rice, Sanders, Maclin, Wayne, or Danario for Floyd too.

Speaking of Maclin, at what point do people move on from him? Four years in the NFL and his season best is 964 receiving yards. He's a one trick pony who can't function in the possession game. No reason to rank him 15 spots above Mike Williams, a better all-around WR with two seasons that match or exceed Maclin's best. As I mentioned previously, Williams should be up there with guys like A Brown, Decker, Torrey, Stevie, and DeSean. He's not going to be your WR1, but neither are any of those guys. Being 26 years old with two top 20 finishes in three NFL seasons has to be worth the price of a WR2-WR3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've discussed Floyd before. He was a better prospect than those guys, but he's stuck in a nightmare situation with no path to viability. The guys you mentioned are all in situations where they could conceivably provide immediate returns, and at the worst case, we'll find out a lot about them this year. Floyd could potentially be a roster albatross that you have to carry for years before you finally find out if he's any good.

In general, I think I put a little more stock in talent than most folks. I would rather have a potential star like Bryce Brown or Michael Floyd with no route to playing time than a mediocrity like Isaiah Pead or Emmanuel Sanders who happens to be high on the depth chart at this given moment in time. All of the opportunity in the world won't matter if you can't play. I think it's inconsistent to talk about the value of a potential difference maker when justifying high rankings for guys like Alexander and Britt while simultaneously ranking Floyd below middle round prospects and never-weres. He is exactly the kind of player who has the potential to be a perennial top 15 guy down the road. I'm actually not sky high on Floyd and don't even own him in any leagues, but I would have to rank him around WR20-WR30 based on his background and potential. Top 15 pick. #1 WR size/speed combo. Dominant collegiate player billed as an elite prospect from year one. His production was excellent last season when you account for the situation. Had 562 yards on 86 targets in the same offense where Fitz only managed 798 yards on 153 targets. If you put him on the Browns, would he have had Josh Gordon's numbers? Would he have done even better? I just think the guy is being punished way too much for factors outside his control. Arizona sucked last year and he was never going to be asked to carry the load from day one with Fitz and Roberts in the fold. Fitz is 30, Roberts is a FA after this season, the Cardinals QB situation can only get better. I don't think Floyd is a can't-miss guy or anything like that, but in general he seems to be underrated by about 15-25 spots on most dynasty WR lists. Taking a punt on a first round WR who's slow out of the gate is how you get Roddy White, Reggie Wayne, and Demaryius Thomas before they become Roddy White, Reggie Wayne, and Demaryius Thomas.
It's not that Floyd has no path to playing time, it's that he has no path to relevance. I like Bryce Brown and think he has plenty of path to relevance- RBs have high injury rates, Chip Kelly is going to have a lot of carries to spread around, and it's very rare for a team to pony up for a second good RB when they already have a first (Carolina notwithstanding). Floyd, though? He'll pass Fitz in the pecking order when hell freezes over. #2 (at best) WRs on crappy offenses are never fantasy relevant. And teams have no compunction against paying multiple WRs like they do with RBs. So, worst case scenario, he's a bust (which is always a 50/50 proposition for guys with his profile). Best case scenario, he's a second option on a crappy offense for 3 or 4 more years. No way am I paying top 30 prices for that when I can get better odds than that for so much cheaper elsewhere.

Lefty's WR rankings make more sense, especially outside the top 40, but there are some guys that look out of place on both of them. I'm surprised to see Santonio Holmes & Malcom Floyd so low - they both have a strong track record as WR3s (not that different from Lance Moore), although there is some uncertainty about their roles going forward. You're really high on Vincent Brown. Righty has a surprisingly wide gap between AJ Jenkins and Brian Quick. Marvin Jones & Sanu look too high, especially for righty - they don't have the draft pedigree, the track record, or the upside. Denarius Moore behind both of them, and guys like Kerley, Benn, and LaFell? There are a few places where righty seems closer than lefty: Michael Floyd (#54 is too low), Pead (#23 is too high), and Brees (#2 is too high).

Left was my blitz rankings, so I'm surprised to hear you like his rankings better past the top 40 WRs. My slow-and-measured self (aka "Righty") would say that Lefty was too afraid to take risks and dramatically underrated upside on guys so deep on the depth chart that upside should be the only factor that mattered.Santonio is low because he's a malcontent. I agree he's got a similar profile to, say, Lance Moore... but Moore's not a locker-room cancer (Chase, a Jets fan, has been praying for New York to just cut him outright, despite their dire WR situation). Floyd being low is related to Brown being high- I see Floyd's role diminishing, and then you're left with a 32 year old WR who is not even putting up WR3 numbers.Marvin/Sanu might be too high, but I really like that wr2 position in Cincy if one of them can manage to lock it down and put the other away. Denarius isn't a guy I'm a fan of. How many sleepers has Oakland produced in the last 3 years? Murphy, Moore, Ford, Schilens, Streater, Criner? And yet the best season over that span still came from recently-cut Heyward-Bey. Streater and Criner are still around, and Oakland is still the worst franchise in the league. I can see why someone might like Moore, but I'm not really buying.

I see the wr2 position in Cincy as being a lot like the wr2 position in Arizona. Green is locked in as the wr1 there, which caps their upside unless the passing offense emerges as the kind of top ~8 offense that can support two top fantasy receivers (or one of them has so much talent that the offense is forced to feature its top 2 WRs).

With Malcom Floyd, one nice thing about him is that his question marks are likely to be resolved by the start of the season. If Danario Alexander stays healthy enough to get one starting job and Vincent Brown beats him for the other, then you can cut Floyd and free up a roster space. But if Floyd hangs on to a starting spot, then he has a good shot at being a WR3.

I generally look for two types of players at WR - receivers who have a good shot to start some games for me this year, and receivers who could become fantasy WR2's or better. I'm not going to hang on to a receiver just to wait for him to emerge as a VBD-baseline starter. A lot of the guys ahead of Malcom Floyd have very little chance of ever becoming a fantasy WR2, and are significantly less likely than Floyd to crack my lineup this year (e.g., Kerley, Hawkins, Bess, Keshawn Martin).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To address the (crying) elephant in the room... in case anyone had missed it, I have a fancy new staff account now. On the off chance that anyone was worried, I still plan on posting and discussing my rankings and remaining active on the message boards- the only thing that's changed is you should send PMs to this account instead of the other one. Cool? Cool.

Floyd, though? He'll pass Fitz in the pecking order when hell freezes over. #2 (at best) WRs on crappy offenses are never fantasy relevant. And teams have no compunction against paying multiple WRs like they do with RBs. So, worst case scenario, he's a bust (which is always a 50/50 proposition for guys with his profile). Best case scenario, he's a second option on a crappy offense for 3 or 4 more years. No way am I paying top 30 prices for that when I can get better odds than that for so much cheaper elsewhere.

Too much emphasis on short term situation. Teams don't just stand pat and allow themselves to suck indefinitely (unless they're the Browns). The Cardinals have already upgraded their QB situation dramatically. Sometimes all it takes to kick start an offense is a QB change. Look at Jacksonville last year. WR graveyard. Then they put Henne in there and all of a sudden the team had two top 15 ppg WRs. There were 9 NFL teams that produced two top 30 FF WRs last year. Most of them had above average QBs, but nevertheless it can be done. Nevermind the fact that Floyd is six years younger than Fitz and not destined to be stuck with him forever.

Look at some of the guys you have ranked ahead of him. Broyles, Hill, Jeffery, V Brown, Jenkins, and Quick were drafted lower, rated lower by every scouting source you'll find, and all have fewer career receptions and receiving yards. Those are situation > talent rankings 100%. There are also quite a few journeymen and aging stars ranked above him who probably have inferior expected values going forward. I would move Welker, L Moore, S Rice, Sanders, Maclin, Wayne, or Danario for Floyd too.

Speaking of Maclin, at what point do people move on from him? Four years in the NFL and his season best is 964 receiving yards. He's a one trick pony who can't function in the possession game. No reason to rank him 15 spots above Mike Williams, a better all-around WR with two seasons that match or exceed Maclin's best. As I mentioned previously, Williams should be up there with guys like A Brown, Decker, Torrey, Stevie, and DeSean. He's not going to be your WR1, but neither are any of those guys. Being 26 years old with two top 20 finishes in three NFL seasons has to be worth the price of a WR2-WR3.

Pretty much all the guys you listed have much more immediacy to them- we'll know within a year whether they can hack it or not, and if not, we can start making plans to move on from them. As I said, Floyd has the potential to turn into a roster albatross, taking up space for years before we finally get a good enough read on what he is, and when we do, it's possible that read still comes up "bust". My best success at finding quality WRs comes when I can constantly churn the bottom of my roster, giving players short auditions and then moving on. Adding Floyd ties up a roster spot and dramatically reduces the amount of churning I can do.

As for Maclin... I'm actually not a fan of his at all, but right now, everyone associated with the Eagles offense is benefiting from a Chip Kelly "halo effect". I think Kelly is an offensive genius, and I want whatever pieces of that pie I can get my hands on before everyone else realizes it. Vick, Foles, Dixon, Desean, Maclin, McCoy, Brown... I'm probably higher than consensus on every one of them.

I see the wr2 position in Cincy as being a lot like the wr2 position in Arizona. Green is locked in as the wr1 there, which caps their upside unless the passing offense emerges as the kind of top ~8 offense that can support two top fantasy receivers (or one of them has so much talent that the offense is forced to feature its top 2 WRs).

With Malcom Floyd, one nice thing about him is that his question marks are likely to be resolved by the start of the season. If Danario Alexander stays healthy enough to get one starting job and Vincent Brown beats him for the other, then you can cut Floyd and free up a roster space. But if Floyd hangs on to a starting spot, then he has a good shot at being a WR3.

I generally look for two types of players at WR - receivers who have a good shot to start some games for me this year, and receivers who could become fantasy WR2's or better. I'm not going to hang on to a receiver just to wait for him to emerge as a VBD-baseline starter. A lot of the guys ahead of Malcom Floyd have very little chance of ever becoming a fantasy WR2, and are significantly less likely than Floyd to crack my lineup this year (e.g., Kerley, Hawkins, Bess, Keshawn Martin).

Regarding Cincy, it's certainly a possibility. I'm *MUCH* more bullish on their offense than I am on Arizona's, and while Green is a beast, I don't think he's as much of a target hog as Fitzgerald, which leaves a lot more room for complementary WRs to thrive.

Regarding Floyd- I love the concept of immediacy, and use it all the time (as you see from my response to Mr. Bay Funk). I just don't see short-term WR3 upside from him. If I did, I'd have him rated higher, and if you do, I couldn't blame you in the slightest for doing the same. I think his best case scenario is an older Lance Moore in a worse offense. I do agree that we should have a much clearer idea of his role going forward pretty soon, and as such, if I owned him I'd be more inclined to hold-and-see than to sell. If I didn't own him, though, I don't think he's the type of guy I'd be looking to speculate on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much all the guys you listed have much more immediacy to them- we'll know within a year whether they can hack it or not, and if not, we can start making plans to move on from them. As I said, Floyd has the potential to turn into a roster albatross, taking up space for years before we finally get a good enough read on what he is, and when we do, it's possible that read still comes up "bust". My best success at finding quality WRs comes when I can constantly churn the bottom of my roster, giving players short auditions and then moving on. Adding Floyd ties up a roster spot and dramatically reduces the amount of churning I can do.

He also has the potential to start as early as next season. I'm an Andre Roberts fan, but if Floyd is as good as he was billed to be then he might win that battle in camp now that he has a year of learning under his belt. Either way, Roberts is a FA after this season and should command enough money on the open market that it won't make sense for Arizona to keep him.

I just don't see this as being some grim, hopeless situation. You're right that guys like Sanders, V Brown, and Quick have more short term opportunity as of this exact moment (though that's likely to change in about 8 days), but what they don't have is a lot of talent. Based on historical odds, a top 15 overall pick like Floyd is probably 2-3x more likely to become a top player down the road than a 2nd-3rd round pick like Brown or Quick. I'd rather wait 2-3 years for a potential #1 receiver than have a mediocrity right away.

I've hit some massive home runs in the past grabbing premium talents on the cheap (Aaron Rodgers, Larry Johnson) when they were mired in short term situations that scared people away. That's how you get a Bernard Pierce in the 2nd-3rd round of your rookie draft when people are spending first round picks on Pead and Hillman. It's about the talent, ultimately. Not the depth chart at any given moment.

Judging by your list and Couch Potato's, I would say Floyd is a great buy low candidate. A player with his background should be ranked a lot higher. However, he's a guy like Blackmon for whom the actual price of acquisition is higher than what you'd think just looking at generic rankings because the people who own him spent high picks on him and aren't inclined to punt him away cheaply. Combine that with the fact that I'm not 100% sold on him, and I'm not quite willing to go all-in to get him. If he's really valued around WR30-40 in startup drafts then he's a massive steal based on risk/reward though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSOG, on 18 Apr 2013 - 11:47, said:

flat_earth, on 18 Apr 2013 - 11:36, said:Interesting. To me, the similarity of the results proves the minimal value of advanced metrics and super in-depth research once a base level of knowledge and dynasty competence is reached (and anyone spending time reading this thread is probably already at that point).

That's a big reason why I ran the experiment- I wanted to see how much of an edge all the extra grinding was really getting me. I think there are a couple of ways to interpret the results:1. Your intuitions are king, and all the grinding in the world won't really move you off them2. When you grind, you internalize the results so much that your intuition reflexively mirrors them
Does everyone have rankings? I used to make rankings each year for redraft, but when I started playing dynasty 5-6 years ago, I stopped. Now, I just have two buckets - guys I like and guys I don't like. Does anyone else approach it this way?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSOG, on 18 Apr 2013 - 11:47, said:

flat_earth, on 18 Apr 2013 - 11:36, said:Interesting. To me, the similarity of the results proves the minimal value of advanced metrics and super in-depth research once a base level of knowledge and dynasty competence is reached (and anyone spending time reading this thread is probably already at that point).

That's a big reason why I ran the experiment- I wanted to see how much of an edge all the extra grinding was really getting me. I think there are a couple of ways to interpret the results:1. Your intuitions are king, and all the grinding in the world won't really move you off them2. When you grind, you internalize the results so much that your intuition reflexively mirrors them
Does everyone have rankings? I used to make rankings each year for redraft, but when I started playing dynasty 5-6 years ago, I stopped. Now, I just have two buckets - guys I like and guys I don't like. Does anyone else approach it this way?
The amount of time I have to devote to this hobby has waxed and waned over the years, so I've developed some systems to try to get maximum return on minimum time spent. One of the systems I used in lean years was to basically ignore about half the league. About half the league were guys I didn't really have an opinion on, one way or another. Instead, I'd spend that time really getting comfortable with the other half of the league. My thinking was, if I could consistently get calls right within "my half" (who was overrated, who was underrated), then it didn't matter that I was leaving potential opportunities on the board with the guys I just didn't know much about. That wasn't "these are guys I like and these are guys I don't" so much as "these are guys I feel comfortable evaluating and these are guys I have no opinion on". Worked well enough, and made it a lot easier and quicker to follow "my guys".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Your intuitions are king, and all the grinding in the world won't really move you off them2. When you grind, you internalize the results so much that your intuition reflexively mirrors them

As with anything, I'd say it's more subtle and a combination of the two. You certainly internalize the results when you grind through the data, but there is a difference between doing it for rookies or other relatively unknown players and doing it for veterans. Your opinion on the vets has been informed and influenced by way more than just your stat grinding and has probably set in to the point that no amount of new information is going to change it much. Your grinding on a player is part of your opinion on him, but so is other peoples' opinions, the eye test, gameday disappointments/surprises, etc.You can probably tell from my responses that I'm not a stat grinder, but I don't necessarily think that puts me at a disadvantage. I'm sure I could gain something by doing it, but I don't think the amount of effort required would be enough to overcome the uncertainty that is inherent in the hobby.It's my belief that assuming a base level of competence, being wrong happens at about the same rate to grinders and non-grinders, possibly just for different reasons. A non-grinder might be slightly less informed and miss an angle here and there. A hardcore grinder might put too much faith in numbers which don't end up being predictive and over/under value because of it.

:goodposting:

Rather than doing a lot of "grinding" myself, I prefer to identify those guys whose opinions I trust and use their articles and rankings to balance my own intuitive rankings of players, along with quality discussion of rankings that occurs in threads like this one, the original F&L Dynasty Rankings thread, and CP's current thread.

Personally, I value the rankings and opinions of three FBG staff members: Bloom, Hammond, and SSOG. And I value Wesseling's rankings also. Otherwise, I currently don't really pay attention to others who are doing this professionally. I also value discussion with a lot of the informed posters in this forum, like Bia, Coop, and EBF. I'd rather read and participate in these threads than spend a lot of time grinding through stats. But I'm glad some others who I respect do that grinding and share their results. :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Maclin, at what point do people move on from him? Four years in the NFL and his season best is 964 receiving yards. He's a one trick pony who can't function in the possession game. No reason to rank him 15 spots above Mike Williams, a better all-around WR with two seasons that match or exceed Maclin's best. As I mentioned previously, Williams should be up there with guys like A Brown, Decker, Torrey, Stevie, and DeSean. He's not going to be your WR1, but neither are any of those guys. Being 26 years old with two top 20 finishes in three NFL seasons has to be worth the price of a WR2-WR3.

:goodposting:

I've never quite gotten the love for Maclin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this for two sets of dynasty rankings.

Make the first set your normal rankings of how you feel about players.

Next set, make "trade value rankings" based on what you think the overall consensus would be of those players.

I bet this way you get a couple different sets of rankings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Maclin, at what point do people move on from him? Four years in the NFL and his season best is 964 receiving yards. He's a one trick pony who can't function in the possession game. No reason to rank him 15 spots above Mike Williams, a better all-around WR with two seasons that match or exceed Maclin's best. As I mentioned previously, Williams should be up there with guys like A Brown, Decker, Torrey, Stevie, and DeSean. He's not going to be your WR1, but neither are any of those guys. Being 26 years old with two top 20 finishes in three NFL seasons has to be worth the price of a WR2-WR3.

:goodposting:

I've never quite gotten the love for Maclin.

I think Maclin would fair much better with a traditional style QB. He did well when Foles was at QB last year.

I have moved on from thinking Maclin will be a "stud", but in PPR he did almost score 200 last year and missed a couple games. His points per game wasn't all that bad, and hasn't been all that bad the past few seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this for two sets of dynasty rankings. Make the first set your normal rankings of how you feel about players. Next set, make "trade value rankings" based on what you think the overall consensus would be of those players. I bet this way you get a couple different sets of rankings.

Aren't "trade value rankings" basically just ADP data?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this for two sets of dynasty rankings. Make the first set your normal rankings of how you feel about players. Next set, make "trade value rankings" based on what you think the overall consensus would be of those players. I bet this way you get a couple different sets of rankings.

Aren't "trade value rankings" basically just ADP data?

Based on, yes. But I see some guys with lower ADPs with higher trade values it seems than guys that go earlier.

But I am talking about personal rankings. I know there are some guys I personally rank higher than other guys that definitely have higher trade value in the general population.

When I have guys with a higher trade value than other guys I want that I rank higher, I try to use that trade value to get the player I want, plus more. I think that in itself is what makes successful dynasty owners, which is essentially just making good rankings and then using those to your advantage based on trade values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSOG, on 18 Apr 2013 - 11:47, said:

flat_earth, on 18 Apr 2013 - 11:36, said:Interesting. To me, the similarity of the results proves the minimal value of advanced metrics and super in-depth research once a base level of knowledge and dynasty competence is reached (and anyone spending time reading this thread is probably already at that point).

That's a big reason why I ran the experiment- I wanted to see how much of an edge all the extra grinding was really getting me. I think there are a couple of ways to interpret the results:1. Your intuitions are king, and all the grinding in the world won't really move you off them2. When you grind, you internalize the results so much that your intuition reflexively mirrors them
Does everyone have rankings? I used to make rankings each year for redraft, but when I started playing dynasty 5-6 years ago, I stopped. Now, I just have two buckets - guys I like and guys I don't like. Does anyone else approach it this way?
The amount of time I have to devote to this hobby has waxed and waned over the years, so I've developed some systems to try to get maximum return on minimum time spent. One of the systems I used in lean years was to basically ignore about half the league. About half the league were guys I didn't really have an opinion on, one way or another. Instead, I'd spend that time really getting comfortable with the other half of the league. My thinking was, if I could consistently get calls right within "my half" (who was overrated, who was underrated), then it didn't matter that I was leaving potential opportunities on the board with the guys I just didn't know much about. That wasn't "these are guys I like and these are guys I don't" so much as "these are guys I feel comfortable evaluating and these are guys I have no opinion on". Worked well enough, and made it a lot easier and quicker to follow "my guys".

Sort of in the same boat as you Hoosier -- I've never done a full ranking of prospects and never intend to. I form an opinion on players coming into the league and stick with it until they either break out or are in the dynasty morgue.

Players I like that are cheap, I buy or roster off the WW. Players I didn't like as rookies almost never end up on my roster, so I pretty much ignore them. And if I do scoop up an obvious short-term/trade value player that's not one of my guys I usually work pretty quickly to flip him for someone I do like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSOG, on 18 Apr 2013 - 11:47, said:

flat_earth, on 18 Apr 2013 - 11:36, said:Interesting. To me, the similarity of the results proves the minimal value of advanced metrics and super in-depth research once a base level of knowledge and dynasty competence is reached (and anyone spending time reading this thread is probably already at that point).

That's a big reason why I ran the experiment- I wanted to see how much of an edge all the extra grinding was really getting me. I think there are a couple of ways to interpret the results:1. Your intuitions are king, and all the grinding in the world won't really move you off them2. When you grind, you internalize the results so much that your intuition reflexively mirrors them
Does everyone have rankings? I used to make rankings each year for redraft, but when I started playing dynasty 5-6 years ago, I stopped. Now, I just have two buckets - guys I like and guys I don't like. Does anyone else approach it this way?
The amount of time I have to devote to this hobby has waxed and waned over the years, so I've developed some systems to try to get maximum return on minimum time spent. One of the systems I used in lean years was to basically ignore about half the league. About half the league were guys I didn't really have an opinion on, one way or another. Instead, I'd spend that time really getting comfortable with the other half of the league. My thinking was, if I could consistently get calls right within "my half" (who was overrated, who was underrated), then it didn't matter that I was leaving potential opportunities on the board with the guys I just didn't know much about. That wasn't "these are guys I like and these are guys I don't" so much as "these are guys I feel comfortable evaluating and these are guys I have no opinion on". Worked well enough, and made it a lot easier and quicker to follow "my guys".

Sort of in the same boat as you Hoosier -- I've never done a full ranking of prospects and never intend to. I form an opinion on players coming into the league and stick with it until they either break out or are in the dynasty morgue.

Players I like that are cheap, I buy or roster off the WW. Players I didn't like as rookies almost never end up on my roster, so I pretty much ignore them. And if I do scoop up an obvious short-term/trade value player that's not one of my guys I usually work pretty quickly to flip him for someone I do like.

Not a bad way to go about it. It is hard and quite time consuming to keep tabs on EVERY player. Even active players, let alone rookies coming in and how they do in camps and preseason.

Sometimes limiting your evaluations can keep you from overthinking things, but more importantly maybe you can get the guys you do actually look at correct in whether you want them or not.

I try to get tabs on as many guys as I can, but would rather get enough info on half the guys than little bits of info on EVERY guy. So many players, and so much changes all the time.

It's no coincidence that the dynasty players who spend the most time on fantasy football seem to do better than the people who spend less time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...