Fantasy Football Discussion Thread

[SlowwHand]

What? Read up. Mendenhall looks like he's being blasted by Al. I took him with the 10 pick and he's tied for 8th in yards. I'm saying, Al is an ass. What's your point?

I took my QB way later and he's doing fine. Bradshaw, still later and he's doing fine. WR? Doing fine. Do you understand fantasy football?

[MRT144]

Dude, your point was he wascarrying the steelers on his back, something that doesn't mean **** in fantasyfootball. And al rightly dissed him. Did you forget tds count?

[-Jrabbit]

Alby's an alarmist. We see these variations from draft position to actual performance every year. There's absolutely nothing here that surprises me, and nothing to make me think that those early picks (except the rookies) weren't perfectly viable. Sure, guys like Bradshaw and LT outperformed their draft positions, but the further down the boards you go, the easier that is to do.

The tricky bit is predicting those epic fails and incredible late values in August.

When you have a system for that, do let me know.

[Al B. Sure!]

Okay, Jaguar, maybe I should instead look for how many RB picks were made after this RB was picked before a RB was picked that out-performed the RB in question? A little convoluted. How many RB picks until a better RB was picked?

RB's:
First Round:
1. Chris Johnson 6th 3 picks (AP)
2. Maurice Jones-Drew 7th 2 picks (AP)
3. Ray Rice 11th 1 pick (AP)
4. Adrian Peterson 2nd 37 picks (Arian Foster)
5. Frank Gore 5th 36 picks (Foster)
6. Michael Turner 16th 1 pick (Mendenhall)
7. Rashard Mendenhall 12th 4 picks (Charles)
8. Steven Jackson 14th 3 picks (Charles)
9. Ryan Matthews 41st 2 picks (Charles)
Second Round:
10. DeAngelo Williams 45th 1 pick (Charles)


In this case, the more picks til a better RB was picked, the better that selection was at that point in the draft until there would be no better players and then you got the player at the ideal point.

Before I check out the QB's and WR's, what do you suppose is a good cut-off value? Obviously, 36 or 37 picks til a better RB was taken for AP and Gore meant that they were clearly the best selection given draft position but how was Mendenhall with 4 RB picks til the next best available RB (Charles) was taken? How would you grade that compared to Ray Rice who was outperformed by the very next two picks?




I like the previous method better but the Slowwhand problem is a problem.

There needs to be some way to account for the sheer number of players that outperformed the player in question and how available these players were to the owner when it came to his successive picks; Subtracting out the ones that he could have had, leaving only the best available players that were not available with latter picks.

[Al B. Sure!]

Alby's an alarmist. We see these variations from draft position to actual performance every year. There's absolutely nothing here that surprises me, and nothing to make me think that those early picks (except the rookies) weren't perfectly viable. Sure, guys like Bradshaw and LT outperformed their draft positions, but the further down the boards you go, the easier that is to do.

The tricky bit is predicting those epic fails and incredible late values in August.

When you have a system for that, do let me know.

No. No alarmist anything. I'm not trying to prove any point. I'm just analyzing the data and presenting it to get some grip on how risky different positions are.

I find this all very fascinating.

[-Jrabbit]

Obviously. You go, boy. Have fun.

[SlowwHand]

A person can go with one of two thoughts in the draft, Al. When picking late and RB's are going before your pick, you can either get the seemingly best one available or skip to another position and take a chance that a serviceable 2 RB's will be available later. Hindsight doesn't really mean too much to me. Maybe I'm alone and that's fine. I deal with real-time issues. You spend your time on crap.
I'm also saying that I don't have a problem with my draft in hindsight.

MRT, as far as your point goes, Mendenhall carrying the team hurt his performance because he was missing the starting QB that would have added suspense for the opposing defense, but again, I have no problem with his output, not even in Al's hindsight.

I guess bottom line is that I don't feel the need to justify my picks to anyone.

[EPW]

"Play every team every Week" Luck Chart - IDP League - Week 11

Team	Wins	Loses	Last Week	Luck-O-Meter*	PCT	Actual PCT	Average Score	STDEV
1. Mountain Goats	86	35	11-0	+2	.682	.636	162.47	25.85
2. KenobilovesLT	81	40	10-1	-1	.669	.727	157.52	22.74
3. Pornhuskers	71	50	7-4	+2	.587	.545	153.17	27.47
4. Dallas Dwarf Tossers	69	52	6-5	+3	.570	.455	146.44	17.59
5. Random Encounter	62	59	0-11	+1	.512	.455	148.03	22.69
6. Topeka Twisters	61	60	5-6	-2	.509	.636	146.29	19.53
7. Deviations	58	63	8-3	+2	.493	.364	140.34	19.68
8. Teh Peeled Bananas	56	65	4-7	-6	.463	.727	138.91	22.7
9. Calamitous Intent	54	67	9-2	-1	.446	.455	134.36	28.74
10. Hairball Express	46	75	1-10	0	.380	.364	131.7	34.78
11. Forte's Fireman	42	79	3-8	0	.347	.364	128.12	25.09
12. Vicious Rabbits	40	81	2-9	0	.331	.273	134.77	20.89

*Back by Popular demand. "+#" and "-#" in parenthesis indicate difference from actual standings. For example, someone ranked 3rd on this chart but whose 1st in the real standings would get a (-2), or 2 ranks below their actual position. Thus, pluses usually indicates bad luck and and minuses good look.

[MRT144]

MRT, as far as your point goes, Mendenhall carrying the team hurt his performance because he was missing the starting QB that would have added suspense for the opposing defense, but again, I have no problem with his output, not even in Al's hindsight.

Stats disagree. He had a higher PPG average the first 4 weeks of the season than the last 6 weeks even if you use his 4 highest point games in the last 6 weeks..

[MRT144]

Another example of where poor drafting strategy really hurt not only his own team but others was Famous Celebs picking up 3 QBs all of whom are top 6 QBs at this point. Evidence that the rest of his team suffered for that choice? 34% of his teams points come from the QB position alone. The orton trade didn't have an effect on his team's scoring because he never played him. Another amazing stat is that his WRs only composes 15% of scoring. Imagine if he had taken a good WR instead of Orton of Matty Ice.

I can see the reasoning behind his moves BUT he was relying on trades that never developed. I'd argue that Chestor's Tailors could have really benefitted from having Orton or Matty, netting an extra 120 points and possibly a few more wins. (Let's not forget though that he's had the WORST luck of any team in terms of scheduling.) The result of the trade was that Berz wound up with no significant gain or drop off in QB (his WRs didn't suffer either) while Famous gained about 2 pts per week from the trade.

[MRT144]

Al is another case where having a bad QB situation really hurt him. 15% of all points are from his QBs while 35% are from his RBs.

[MRT144]

The sad thing about Imran's team is that not only did he stop caring to check his team and change players for bye weeks, it would have only netted him an extra 34.3 points over two weeks using best available player to sub. In week 9, one of his RBs was on bye an got 0 points; the other two bench RBs got 0 and -3 points.

[Al B. Sure!]

The result of the trade was that Berz wound up with no significant gain or drop off in QB (his WRs didn't suffer either) while Famous gained about 2 pts per week from the trade.

I said it at the time. By holding QB's 'hostage', joncha facilitated a trade in which he got something out of literally nothing. I'm amazed that not only did joncha not lose any production which was evident by trading a backup QB but berz didn't even gain anything, though. Even better trade from joncha's standpoint because the trade wasn't even mutually beneficial.

[Al B. Sure!]

Wow, MRT. You have only 1 RB in the top-25 at the position... Brandon Jackson at #20.

You're #2 in points with complete crap at RB. Thank god for Aaron Rodgers, Calvin Johnson, Antonio Gates, and Steve Johnson, right?

[Al B. Sure!]

MRT, I think something that would be compelling would be to see not only what % of total points came from the positions but what the absolute numbers were. That way, seeing that 20% of the points on Jaguar's high-scoring team came from WR's will be given a better frame of reference when compared to let's say what % percentage of points came from WR's on duke o' york's 800-point team.

Using your %'s and your total of 1443 points,

QB: 332 points
WR: 418 points
RB: 245 points
TE: 173 points
K: 115 points
D: 159 points

Very interesting to see how your WR's score vastly more than your RB's, even considering you were probably flexing WR's and how a single TE scored fairly close to your RB's.

Jag meanwhile had 577 points from RB's, though he presumably flexed them. Still significant difference.