Which of you twits...

[Al B. Sure!]

Okay what I meant by the fantasy football reference was nothing to do with how we're doing. I mentioned it to express how I have a habit of going off on statistical tangents and trying to model things, a la:

I guess the best metric would be one that answers "How many players were available that would have been a better pick at this point?"

Keep in mind that this does not address the fact that many of the better picks were later round picks that one could have had as well as a less valuable selection in the early rounds. Obviously, if the chance existed to have both, you would take the 'less than perfect' pick early knowing that he wouldn't be around later and grabbed the 'better than most 1st rounders though a late round selection' gems later. Hence, why, if you knew in advance what the Week 11 rankings were, you wouldn't pick Arian Foster with the #1 overall pick but would pick AP instead.

That's obvious but just want to make it clear for any readers.

So the ideal question would be "How many players were available (that would NOT have been available with a later round pick) that would have been a better pick at this point?"

So given that, let's look at the top 5 RB's:

1. Chris Johnson 6th
2. Maurice Jones-Drew 7th
3. Ray Rice 11th
4. Adrian Peterson 2nd
5. Frank Gore 5th

So 5 RB's would have been a better pick than CJ at #1 (Arian Foster, AP, Peyton Hillis, McCoy and Gore).

Only two of them would be off the board by the time of the #1 picker's next pick so the CJ-drafter could have potentially grabbed Foster, Hillis, or McCoy with the next pick or the one after that or so forth. Only Gore and AP would have been gone.

So, therefore, the better selection at #1 would've been AP or Gore, NOT Chris Johnson.

Similarly, MJD at #2 was outperformed by the same group plus CJ. But with CJ off the board, the #2 pick should have been AP or Gore, not MJD.

See... nothing to do with our performances in the game. But I guess it came off to people on the thread like 'what the **** is he on about?'. That's the same thing about the above stuff when I posted in it in that thread.

[Al B. Sure!]

Oh and Jaguar got ****ing lucky He's using hindsight to express skill. I thought I had demonstrated to him clearly that his methodology of using DVOA was flawed because while he claimed to have accurately predicted the success of Arian Foster and Jamaal Charles using their previous year's DVOA's, I showed how had he been consistent in that methodology, he would have missed out on all the leading backs who had piss-poor previous year DVOA's (McCoy, Bradshaw, McFadden) in favor of mediocre players this year who excelled the previous year (can't remember off the top of my head whom).

It's possible he was informed by other factors but he himself claimed that was how he knew Foster and Charles would be successful, just off of DVOA. That is bull****. I'm sorry. Or, more likely, he just got lucky.

[Jaguar]

If I remember this right, your claim was something to the effect that four running backs (the other two being Shonn Greene and Jerome Harrison) had roughly equivalent end-of-year stretches. I disagreed on the grounds that JC and Foster played with high efficiency, while Greene and Harrison just happened to get a huge pile of attempts at the end of the year. I judged the former to be more trustworthy and repeatable than the latter, in that case. I acted on it, and I was right, which is why JC and Foster are tearing it up on 2/3 and 3/3 of my teams, respectively.

[Krill]

Please keep this thread on topic... it's for posting googled information about poly posters who are *******s and/or twits.

I feel left out

[Asher]

There are few things more boring in the world than NFL talk and economics talk.

They include:
1) Power Rangers
2) Barney
3) The English Patient

[MikeH]

4) Canada

[Asher]

There's nothing at all boring about a massive, majestic country with intelligent, loving people and a love for the greatest sport in the history of mankind.

The UK, on the other hand, is a dreary, has-been place corrupted by widespread poverty, chavs, and financial problems. It's definitely up there in the list of boring places.

[DanS]

You have no qualifications relevant to finance or economics. You have 9 months experience in the finance industry in a back room job. You do not have the credentials, or the expertise, to back up your mouth.

It appears that you have an entry level backroom job at Goldman Sachs as an analyst and you seem to be pretending to have some sort of Gordon Gecko style job.

It turns out you are a puffed up little rooster.

This is poor form by you. As far as I am aware, KH has never misrepresented himself on these forums. And he has never hidden behind his login name. Furthermore, an analyst position is not a backroom job. Lastly, he wouldn't have that job if his credentials didn't warrant it.

[KrazyHorse]

Why bother, Dan? The twit's just embarrassed that he didn't realize I would notice him stalking me on linkedin...

Furthermore, the fact that a somebody with as little formal training in econ and finance as myself finds it so pathetically easy to continually whup his and albie's asses in any econthread should really just embarrass them more.

BTW I am not going to go into the details of my roles and responsibilities on a public forum. I was hired as a PhD physicist quant. If you believe that this equates to "backroom, entry-level" then you are welcome to your opinion.

[ColdWizard]

There's nothing at all boring about a massive, majestic country with intelligent, loving people and a love for the greatest sport in the history of mankind.

The UK, on the other hand, is a dreary, has-been place corrupted by widespread poverty, chavs, and financial problems. It's definitely up there in the list of boring places.

Curling

Conquerors of the Welsh

[Dauphin]

If you believe that this equates to "backroom, entry-level" then you are welcome to your opinion.

Depends, are you entering or being entered?

[KrazyHorse]

[DanS]

[Al B. Sure!]

If I remember this right, your claim was something to the effect that four running backs (the other two being Shonn Greene and Jerome Harrison) had roughly equivalent end-of-year stretches. I disagreed on the grounds that JC and Foster played with high efficiency, while Greene and Harrison just happened to get a huge pile of attempts at the end of the year. I judged the former to be more trustworthy and repeatable than the latter, in that case. I acted on it, and I was right, which is why JC and Foster are tearing it up on 2/3 and 3/3 of my teams, respectively.

Okay, Jaguar, slow down. You turned to DVOA as your means by which you claimed to predict that Charles and Foster would be good:

Rushing DVOA, last year:

Arian Foster +25%
Jamaal Charles +20%
Shonn Greene +5%
Jerome Harrison +1%

Guess which two are on my fantasy team. Guess which two are good.

The thing is, like I pointed out, if you used DVOA as the arbiter for your decisions beyond just for those four, you would have been screwed, placing guys like Justin Forsett and Felix Jones not just higher, but way higher, than McFadden, McCoy, Mendenhall, etc.

As I pointed out:

And yet let's look at some other guys who had high DVOA numbers last year:

Willis McGahee 19.7%
Justin Forsett 18.2%
Felix Jones 17%

Umm yeah... real winners that bunch!

And among the low guys are these studs:
Ahmad Bradshaw 9.7%
Frank Gore 4.7%
Adrian Peterson 3.2%
Rashard Mendenhall -0.8% (!!!!)
LeSean McCoy -4.5%
Darren McFadden -30.7% (!!!!)

I mean that's like the best backs in football not named Arian Foster and they all have pitiful and even NEGATIVE DVOA's from last year.

I also noted that, by looking at previous years, if you had a strategy of selecting the guys with high previous year DVOA's that you would have drafted as many scrubs as stars and would have ignored the guys who would explode the next year, like CJ2K and MJD in 2009.

Let's go back another year.

Two of the top guys in 2008 were Jacobs and Ward, the two Giants 1000 yard rushers. Jacobs had 22.4% DVOA and Ward had a 25.8% DVOA. Only Deangelo Williams had a higher DVOA than either of them.

Yet somehow Jacobs would rush for only 835 yards and a 3.7 ypc the next year and Ward would do even worse with Tampa mustering 409 yards and 3.6 ypc.


Even more fun, what was Chris Johnson's 2008 DVOA? You know, the year before he was CJ2K? A measely 9.2% less than such luminaries as Mewelde Moore, Sammy Morris, and Deuce McAllister.

MJD that year only had a 4.4% DVOA and he was almost as phenomenal as CJ last year.

Yet you responded to that with a bizarre post stating Chris Johnson has been consistently good over the years. Yet, his DVOA was barely better than Shonn Greene's DVOA! Really weird post because Chris Johnson exploding after a blah with respect to DVOA previous year is evidence for MY case, not YOURS!

Umm... CJ's DVOA the year before he was CJ2K was 9% which is marginally higher than Shonn Greene's last year and well below the guys you describe.

Jacobs and Ward got hundreds of carries and they had the #3 and #2 DVOA's on their big years but the next year sucked.

You're not making a compelling argument if I can easily find examples that destroy your hypothesis that the previous year's DVOA is good indicator of next year's performance.

In this year alone, the performances of McCoy, Mendenhall, and McFadden who all had NEGATIVE DVOA'S show there's a definite problem with using DVOA to determine how good a player will be next year.

In sum, the hypothesis that previous year DVOA is positively correlated with fantasy performance the following year is not demonstrated by the available data.

[N35t0r]

Get some reading comprehension skills and then get a statistics class.