Fantasy Football Discussion Thread

[Ben Kenobi]

You've kept the same chart all this while. Why change it?

[-Jrabbit]

In a league I'm in, I would like to share these transactions that occurred just before kick off all by a single guy in the league:

CK dropped Jason Snelling, Atl to FA
CK added Javon Ringer, Ten from FA to BE
CK dropped Derrick Mason, Bal to FA
CK added Devin Aromashodu, Chi from FA to BE
CK dropped Dustin Keller, NYJ to FA
CK added Brandon Lloyd, Den from FA to BE

He dropped Jason Snelling (186 yards 3 TDs), Dustin Keller (115 yards 1 TD), and Derrick Mason (31 yard 1 TD) for Javon Ringer (1 yard), Devin Aromashodu (0 yards), and Brandon Lloyd (53 yards)... 332 yards and 5 TD's dropped so he could bring on 54 total yards and no TDs from the waiver wire

can you make worse decisions?

That looks for all the world like someone dropping prospects for a friend to snatch up. Check out where those guys end up. If they all end up on the same team, I would scream bloody murder.

[Donegeal]

I disagree. If you accept that the game is purely a derivative of statistics then realism never enters into your head.

Of course real football is not based solely on stats (Stats are like your brother-in-law. Stats lie.), but seeing as thats all we got to go on (for FF), why not take those stats and at least make them make a difference in a manor that resembles reality. Please, if you have time, check out http://mrcarlson.150m.com/SWFFL/ and go to the rules tab and/or the results page to see a game. Its FF where who you play actually determines how well your team does and the average total score is around 50 points.

[-Jrabbit]

Aha! So you did have a point...

[Al B. Sure!]

That looks for all the world like someone dropping prospects for a friend to snatch up. Check out where those guys end up. If they all end up on the same team, I would scream bloody murder.

I don't know. The thing is on Sunday morning, Snelling, Keller, and Mason didn't look like they were going to amount to anything and Lloyd and Aromashodu both played very well in Week 1. I think it was just incredibly unlucky that the guys he dropped all had big days while the guys he signed did absolutely nothing in Week 2.

[-Jrabbit]

Ah. Didn't know the timing. Never mind.

[EPW]

You've kept the same chart all this while. Why change it?

If we are really going to have this inane argument, let me first refute your accusation:
1. You'd still have been ranked 4th on the old style chart
2. You'd have gotten a -3, indicating that you have been somewhat lucky. Yes, the -3 INDIRECTLY shows that you are the first place team, but that's not it's primary purpose.
3. The new chart also indirectly shows that you are the first place team by giving the winning percentage and the average point per game.

I decided to change it because for a few reasons:
1. I thought it was confusing. The fact that I had to have a sentence trying to explain it at the beginning was not a good. It's self-explanatory in the new version. "+"s indicated bad luck - even though pluses are positive. Vice-versa for the minuses.
2. It made input errors easier. Not hard to be 1 off or put a + where there should have been a minus.
3. The new system is more straight forward and says essentially the same thing. I guess I could post the difference between the Luck Chart Winning PCT and the Actual Winning PCT, but I think everyone here knows how to subtract.

Why did I wait till now? I can't really say that I thought much about it earlier. I thought about on adding the Winning PCT back,(I think I had it in an early version last year), and I decided to add the other columns as well while I was at it. Since I was making the other changes, it seemed like a good time to make the change.

[-Jrabbit]

You guys are adorable! I love this league.

[Al B. Sure!]

Are they really arguing about why EPW changed the formatting of a chart?

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, the -3 INDIRECTLY shows that you are the first place team, but that's not it's primary purpose.

I didn't find the earlier chart confusing at all. I just find this observation amusing.

[Al B. Sure!]

I don't get the issue... I thought the purpose of the chart was to rank teams based on how they would be if they played against every other team in the league... Ben wasn't the leading scorer for two straight weeks or anything so he would have lost 8 of the possible 22 games... he belongs at #4 by this measure.

[Al B. Sure!]

What I find interesting are Pornhuskers and Topeka Twisters having average points that would lend you to think they would be higher up on that would-be wins chart, but they had so much variability in their scoring. There's another factor of luck... not just who you happened to be matched up against but also how consistent or not is your scoring, especially compared to everyone else.

[Ben Kenobi]

Variability is important. So are roster decisions. Team strength includes points off the bench. A team with points left on the bench will appear to be weaker than they really are by this measure.

[Al B. Sure!]

Variability is important. So are roster decisions. Team strength includes points off the bench. A team with points left on the bench will appear to be weaker than they really are by this measure.

Well but still points on the bench don't help you one bit in terms of winning...

[Ben Kenobi]

But it's not about winning. This chart is looking at luck. Managers starting the wrong player is luck.