Fantasy Football Discussion II

[Ben Kenobi]

Wow, no confidence in my team? Remember, Houston is out week 10, when I face EPW.

I can see myself dropping 2 (to Zopper and Slowwy).

[EPW]

Wow, no confidence in my team? Remember, Houston is out week 10, when I face EPW.

I can see myself dropping 2 (to Zopper and Slowwy).

Nope, you are only 6th in total scoring and have a tough schedule. I do have you beating me in week 10 btw.

[snoopy369]

Greedy

Not really. I'm fairly likely, given the easier schedule, to make the playoffs (I only have to go 3-2, given my high scoring output). Once I make the playoffs, there's not a huge difference between 6th and 3rd... I'd rather be 2nd and get the bye

[Ben Kenobi]

There's still two more bye weeks, and I'm done.

Surprisingly I've caught up to Jag. I think I go 3-2 over the rest of it, remember I did similarly as well in the start of the season with a brutal schedule and managed to win Chargers bye.

This week is probably going to be one of my toughest weeks.

[snoopy369]

I have no idea why you think your schedule was 'brutal' ... not only have you faced none of the other teams in the top 5 yet, but your total schedule involved only three teams that scored over 120. My total schedule, for example, includes only two teams that scored under 120, and they scored 110 and 117.

[EPW]

I think a good way to calculate the actual ability of a team, besides total points, is to calculate its' win-loss record if it played every team every week. If we do this for the Jedibolts we find out that they aren't nearly as good as their record indicates:

Week...........Actual Outcome........Weekly Record
1. 152.08.........W..........................10-3..........
2. 144.39.........W..........................6-7............
3. 123.82.........L...........................5-8............
4. 142.26.........W..........................10-3..........
5. 120.74.........W..........................6-7............
6. 162.46.........W..........................10-3..........
7. 158.52.........W..........................9-4............
8. 135.71.........W..........................8-5............
....................6-2........................ 64-40
...................750......................... .615

You'll notice that the 61.4% winning percentage is exactly what you would end up with if you go 2-3 in the next 5 weeks.

For sake of comparison, here is the analysis of my team:

Week...........Actual Outcome........Weekly Record
1. 135.99.........W..........................4-9..........
2. 161.98.........L...........................10-3............
3. 166.90.........W..........................12-1............
4. 110.06.........L...........................1-12..........
5. 208.48.........W..........................13-0............
6. 183.18.........W..........................11-2..........
7. 175.81.........W..........................12-1............
8. 159.22.........W..........................11-2............
.....................6-2........................ 74-30........
.....................750......................... .711.........

Which is fairly close, and my upcoming schedule is easier overall, IMO, than what I have faced so far, which is why I think 4-1 or, if I am unlucky, 3-2 is probable.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. 152.08.........W..........................10-3..........
2. 144.39.........W..........................6-7............
3. 123.82.........L...........................5-8............
4. 142.26.........W..........................10-3..........
5. 120.74.........W..........................6-7............
6. 162.46.........W..........................10-3..........
7. 158.52.........W..........................9-4............
8. 135.71.........W..........................8-5

Umm, I beat out 10 teams in week four and still lost.

I won both my 6-7 matches.

What this shows me is that I have a worse record than I should, assuming 6-7/7-6 are identical due to the fact that we have an odd number of teams. I should be 7-1.

Thing to note, I have never finished worse than 9th in any week. IIRC, I'm the most consistant team. Never had a week under 120, and that was with 5 offensive starters out. I also have a low 'ceiling' with 162. My variance is only 42. (120-162).

You, on the other hand are far more erratic with a 110 week, and a 200 week. You've won a week when you were outclassed, and lost when you beat out 10 other teams.

It's interesting, the result of this Chargers 'experience' seems to show that it is less erratic rather than more erratic as some folks predicted. My points get capped but they also have a high floor.

[snoopy369]

So far the Chargers themselves have been pretty consistent, so that works to your favor. A similar "Saints" team would do about the same - because the Saints have been, also, fairly consistent.

I don't think that on balance it's a good idea, because of the playoffs. You're going to both have the risk of a Chargers implosion, and be facing teams that have a decent shot at beating your 'cap'. I also think it wasn't a good idea because you were 'aiming' for players, meaning you ended up with players a bit earlier than they should've been taken, according to the market pricing; that's worked in your favor other than LT, though, in that Rivers and Vincent Jackson have performed better than their market pricing. I think that if you did this strategy over a number of seasons you'd do badly; but certainly this season it's worked well.

Also ... your range is 42. Variance is an entirely different term, and without doing the math your variance is probably about 15.

Finally, the fact that you 'won' both of your 6-7 matchups is not a statement that your team is good. It's actually a statement that your team is not as good as it looks; you finished 8th out of 14 teams in that week, and would've typically lost that week.

What I think is more telling in fact is the number of losses each week. Notice that you've never finished in the top 3 scorers of any week. That's an indication your team isn't terribly likely to win in the playoffs - you have to beat the best of the best in the playoffs. Teams that land in the top 2 or 3 regularly will do much better, I'd think. The one factor in your favor is that you don't tend to score badly, meaning it's less likely that an implosion hurts you and thus you drop out after a bad week against a team you should beat; but you're not likely to meet three teams that all have 'bad' weeks, either.

But in the end, we'll see... that's why they play the games

[-Jrabbit]

I'm especially amused by Ben "managing" to win the Week 5 bye -- when he played the winless Love Wow. Scoring is scoring, but winning is all about the matchups.

[snoopy369]

Ben played Calamitous Intent week 5. Otherwise accurate.

In that case of course, CI has been a classic boom/bust team. Trading Forte for Gore was of course unlucky (although it's possible that trade won't look as bad in the later weeks!), but even that aside his players like Matt Ryan, Sproles, Thomas Jones, etc., are very streaky - they do very well one week, very poorly another. He after all has scored over 150 several times, but managed to lose to a team who couldn't even make 100 another week.

[Ben Kenobi]

I spanked love wow by 69.69

What I think is more telling in fact is the number of losses each week. Notice that you've never finished in the top 3 scorers of any week. That's an indication your team isn't terribly likely to win in the playoffs - you have to beat the best of the best in the playoffs. Teams that land in the top 2 or 3 regularly will do much better, I'd think. The one factor in your favor is that you don't tend to score badly, meaning it's less likely that an implosion hurts you and thus you drop out after a bad week against a team you should beat; but you're not likely to meet three teams that all have 'bad' weeks, either.

Dunno, slowwy has a low range as well. The erratic teams are more likely to suffer from a loss which bounces them out of the playoffs. Points are great, but in the end, the only thing that matters is the matchup for the week. EPW, CI, BM, and you have all had terrible weeks.

I also tend to manage according to the team. If I'm up, I don't bother to max out points beyond 20 or so. I don't tend to experiment much, and stick with the players with the low floor. When it's tight, I tend to try to squeeze out every point I can, and I open it up.

[-Jrabbit]

Ben played Calamitous Intent week 5. Otherwise accurate.

In that case of course, CI has been a classic boom/bust team. Trading Forte for Gore was of course unlucky (although it's possible that trade won't look as bad in the later weeks!), but even that aside his players like Matt Ryan, Sproles, Thomas Jones, etc., are very streaky - they do very well one week, very poorly another. He after all has scored over 150 several times, but managed to lose to a team who couldn't even make 100 another week.

My bad. Sorry, I can't be arsed to actually engage in research.
And everyone spanks the Love Wow. He's only had one week where his QB exceeded 24 points. (Lost Pennington, Cassel invisible).

[snoopy369]

Sloww certainly isn't my favorite to win it all, though he consistently scores in the 140s-150s, and has scored 180+ twice, winning one week. I think his team is a lot more solid than yours, although the QB play is the one question mark.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well with the PT cruiser you are definitely a threat now. I just wish I'd have beat you in that close matchup.

You are like the Chargers. Lots of talent, and a .500 record.

Me, I'm like the Ravens last year. Just win baby.

[snoopy369]

My defense is better than the Chargers'.