IDP Fantasy Football 2010 - Rules & Draft

[EPW]

Hey, I think I almost got 50% of my picks right.

[SlowwHand]

That's a losing percentage.

[Al B. Sure!]

that's like a coin flip.

[EPW]

Oh, you guys. Your both too clever for me.

[-Jrabbit]

"You're"...

[EPW]

Looks like BK lost this week 128.59-124.72.

[Al B. Sure!]

Looks like BK lost this week 128.59-124.72.

Where are you getting those numbers from? Did two teams in a head-to-head happen to be all Vikings and Saints?

[Al B. Sure!]

That's pretty funny, EPW.

By the way, it's funny how shockingly wrong projections can be. In my opinion, they're always overstated. On ESPN, Percy Harvin was expected to get just under 100 yards and 1 TD when in actuality, he had 1 catch for 12 yards. Adrian Peterson, Brett Favre, Drew Brees, Colston, Vikings defense, etc. also performed far worse than projected. The only one who had around his projection was Shiancoe who had a monstrous game (monstrous game seem to be routine for the projections). Projections always seem to be overly optimistic.

[Ben Kenobi]

Colston had 8.1 points, which is better percentage wise than Brees. He would have been over if he had caught that one bomb.

The real killer for me was the DE who only got a point. Projections wise that puts me about 3 points down, though realistically my matchup with Berz will go until Monday and the Chiefs/Chargers game.

Where are you getting those numbers from? Did two teams in a head-to-head happen to be all Vikings and Saints?

Projections adjusted for the perfomance of the players. I was expected to get 16 points, and I only got 9. I had a lead of about 4, and now I'm behind by 3, assuming all my remaining players, and all of Berz's players make their projections.

[Al B. Sure!]

Projections adjusted for the perfomance of the players. I was expected to get 16 points, and I only got 9. I had a lead of about 4, and now I'm behind by 3, assuming all my remaining players, and all of Berz's players make their projections.

Yeah but I would be shocked if a single player on either team exactly meets their projections or that either team combines to make their team projection. Projections are complete bs.

Maybe before the Sunday night game (or when either of you have no or nearly no players left to play games), you can more meaningfully say someone is winning or losing. After one game, it's laughable to say someone is winning or losing.

Like in the D/ST, I have Brett who played and Imran had no one so I'm up ~15-0. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing. My projection - (Favre's projection - actual) is still > than Imran's projection but I'm not going to claim I'm winning.

[SlowwHand]

They're not total bull****. They're based off the statistics that so many of you throw around.

[Al B. Sure!]

They're not total bull****. They're based off the statistics that so many of you throw around.

Past performance does not predict future returns. The best you can do is use past statistics to make general inferences in aggregate such as Peyton Manning will throw for over 4000 yards and over 30 TD's or Chris Johnson will run for at least 1300 yards, assuming he's healthy. It's completely meaningless and unfounded to make statements like in Week 3, Santana Moss will have 64 yards receiving and a TD, as the predictions do. See the difference?

[SlowwHand]

I use "Forecasting" every day. Naturally, you build off a historical, if you don't have future considerations firmed up.You think what you want though, I don't care.

[Al B. Sure!]

I use "Forecasting" every day. Naturally, you build off a historical, if you don't have future considerations firmed up.You think what you want though, I don't care.

Well why are the game to game projections oh so wrong then? We can check it out if you want. Compare projections to actual this week. I am confident almost no one's actual will be reasonably close (ie- within 10 yards for RB's and WR's) to the projection.

[snoopy369]

I think the projections don't claim that degree of specificity. Projections should be the 50% of likely performance - so there's an equal chance the player will exceed as fail to meet the projection, weighted by performance (so, there might be a higher chance the player underperforms slightly and a lower chance the player exceeds the projections by a significant amount). However, the variance is so high that they don't appear to be particularly close even if they did get the 50% mark dead on. A small sample size of fifteen or so isn't nearly enough for the best projections to appear as such even over the whole team.

Y!'s projections aren't all that good, but they probably accomplish what they ought: giving you an idea of which player is more likely to succeed. I wouldn't use them as a primary tool, but if a player has a substantially lower projection than usual, that's at least a clue that he has a tough opponent, and for comparing players you're really not familiar with, it's not unreasonable.

They do not, however, have the accuracy needed to suggest using the projections to determine likely winner But this is a longstanding absurdity of Ben's, so I wouldn't waste too much of your posts on it