Jump to content
Francis J Underwood

The Official 2017 DG Fantasy Football Thread

Recommended Posts

Jazz    5067
Just now, Francis J Underwood said:

Disagree. avg pts per week is better measure. Overall pts is more of a reflection of how many spike week players yoi drafted or found on waivers. 

 

You mean median? Avg takes into account spikes. Avg is just total / games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Jazz said:

Hopkins is a top 5 receiver in the league, by the way, and the true outlier he had was last year. Sure, this is a career year, but he was drafted way too low considering how much worse his situation with Osweiler was last year. He simply produces when paired with a competent QB:

 

Screen Shot 2017-12-14 at 2.58.27 PM.png

Deshaun watson is a variance outlier. For context he threw tds at a higher rate than brady rodgers rivers etc . . . Clearly hes not that good and that isnt sustainable. No surprise that hopkins and fuller benefitted from that. Thats not a knock on hopkins or fuller but explains spiked weeks. Further it isnt a matter os kill because that level of unsustainable produxtion is unpredictable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jazz said:

 

You mean median? Avg takes into account spikes. Avg is just total / games

Yes thats still better than overall pts. I didnt say it was perfect but its better than overall pts which weights the variance much more heavily

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe.    4932
1 hour ago, Francis J Underwood said:

Yes thats still better than overall pts. I didnt say it was perfect but its better than overall pts which weights the variance much more heavily

I meant overall points scored for players you decided to use lol. Not because you have three backup QBs lol. AVG points scored per week = most points (it is just that number times 13...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Joe. said:

I meant overall points scored for players you decided to use lol. Not because you have three backup QBs lol. AVG points scored per week = most points (it is just that number times 13...)

Avg pts = players you used so i have no idea what the point of this post was

 

overall is the same so this is basically irrelevant

 

heres the difference 

 

wk1:200 w2:50 week 3 50 = overall of 300

 

vs 

 

wk1: 100 wk2: 100 w3: 100 = overall 300

 

overall rates both these performances the same. It does not reward player 2 for being consistent (which is a sign of skill) even tho he would have won 2/3 between the two. 

 

Its the same for theie avg as both avgd 100 per week but again player 2 doesnt get rewarded for being consistent

 

most weeks as top scorer does reward that consistency to a higher degree altho luck may still play a role. It at least minimizes it somewhat by requiring that you consistently be lucky

 

To make the point even clearer pretend player 1 scored 51 week 2. Idt player 1 should ever be rewarded for that bs over player 2 

Edited by Francis J Underwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe.    4932
On 12/15/2017 at 1:13 PM, Francis J Underwood said:

Avg pts = players you used so i have no idea what the point of this post was

 

overall is the same so this is basically irrelevant

 

heres the difference 

 

wk1:200 w2:50 week 3 50 = overall of 300

 

vs 

 

wk1: 100 wk2: 100 w3: 100 = overall 300

 

overall rates both these performances the same. It does not reward player 2 for being consistent (which is a sign of skill) even tho he would have won 2/3 between the two. 

 

Its the same for theie avg as both avgd 100 per week but again player 2 doesnt get rewarded for being consistent

 

most weeks as top scorer does reward that consistency to a higher degree altho luck may still play a role. It at least minimizes it somewhat by requiring that you consistently be lucky

 

To make the point even clearer pretend player 1 scored 51 week 2. Idt player 1 should ever be rewarded for that bs over player 2 

This is such a silly point. That gets equated over the entirety of the season. Average points per week is the most successful predictable of fantasy football performance. It isn't even a debatable point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Joe. said:

This is such a silly point. That gets equated over the entirety of the season. Average points per week is the most successful predictable of fantasy football performance. It isn't even a debatable point. 

Not always. What alvin kamara is doing, for example, isnt sustainable. Same deal with deshaun watson or chris Thompson. The fact is that variance doesnt always correct over the course of a single season.

 

and if you really believed that about avg pts you should have no prob with my method since more weeks than not you should be in the running for highest overall score. Btw nice job changing your argument from overall pts to avg pts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jazz    5067

Average points and overall points are based on the same underlying statistics. No predictor is perfect, but avg points/overall points is the best way to assess a team without delving into the subjectivity of roster analysis.

 

What you're saying is that week to week consistency matters more that anything else. I just don't agree and I don't understand your point. The team with the lowest variance in scores is often not the best team. Low variance does not equal great team. Some teams show low variance because they are incapable of scoring big due to a lack of quality players. Many of the teams producing spiked weeks in our league are in fact the best teams. Any team can average 100 points a week, but only the best teams have the ceiling to put up 160+ for multiple weeks. That quality is reflected in the average much better than it is in the variance.

 

I think what you really want is to reward the team with the highest median amount of points. That I could get behind but math literacy in this country is too low for that to be adopted across the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe.    4932
7 hours ago, Francis J Underwood said:

Not always. What alvin kamara is doing, for example, isnt sustainable. Same deal with deshaun watson or chris Thompson. The fact is that variance doesnt always correct over the course of a single season.

 

and if you really believed that about avg pts you should have no prob with my method since more weeks than not you should be in the running for highest overall score. Btw nice job changing your argument from overall pts to avg pts

 

Average points and overall points is literally the EXACT SAME thing. I am not changing my argument AT ALL. Overall points is your average points times 13. Literal like arguing - "I want to be evaluated on total points and not test average."

 

More frequently highest weekly points is a far more illogical measurement. Now THAT starts to consider the effects of huge outliers. Now you are starting to value 165 over 160. Those small differences are washed out by evaluating overall average point output.

 

Median is okay. I don't think the mean gets thrown off by much due to outliers in fantasy though - which is why I think mean is still fine. I had a week with my point total in the 70s. Still finished first in points (and by default - first in average points). The single outlier didn't really throw off my mean. 136.57 (average points per week) is still fairly typical of my point distribution. Not counting playoffs - my median was 138.90. So yeah, both central tendencies were fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jazz    5067

A better argument against rewarding whoever scores the most points during the regular season would be that it is not the object of the game. The object of the game is to win weekly match ups and set yourself up for success in the playoffs. That may lead to strategies and decisions where one does not score as many points as one could week to week on purpose. For example, starting RBs in the flex to get a higher median projection, instead of starting a WR with a high ceiling/low floor. Alternatively, you could manage your roster with an eye on the playoffs at the expensive of improving your projected performance on a particular week.

 

Another big issue with rewarding the team that scores the most points comes with injuries and/or suspensions. Rewarding teams for scoring the most points disproportionally favors teams that had good injury luck and could roster their best players all season. It also hurts teams that rostered players who got hurt early in the game and exited after putting up a dud.

 

In fact, I missed the playoffs in this league on the overall point tie breaker by about 20 points. My record was 6-7 so I wasn't too salty about it, but I was really looking forward to the playoffs and I could have definitely competed for the crown. That 20 point difference could have easily been made up by the 2 weeks I started Greg Olsen, the 1 week I started Manny Sanders, and the 1 week started Ty Montgomery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe.    4932
14 minutes ago, Jazz said:

A better argument against rewarding whoever scores the most points during the regular season would be that it is not the object of the game. The object of the game is to win weekly match ups and set yourself up for success in the playoffs. That may lead to strategies and decisions where one does not score as many points as one could week to week on purpose. For example, starting RBs in the flex to get a higher median projection, instead of starting a WR with a high ceiling/low floor. Alternatively, you could manage your roster with an eye on the playoffs at the expensive of improving your projected performance on a particular week.

 

Another big issue with rewarding the team that scores the most points comes with injuries and/or suspensions. Rewarding teams for scoring the most points disproportionally favors teams that had good injury luck and could roster their best players all season. It also hurts teams that rostered players who got hurt early in the game and exited after putting up a dud.

 

In fact, I missed the playoffs in this league on the overall point tie breaker by about 20 points. My record was 6-7 so I wasn't too salty about it, but I was really looking forward to the playoffs and I could have definitely competed for the crown. That 20 point difference could have easily been made up by the 2 weeks I started Greg Olsen, the 1 week I started Manny Sanders, and the 1 week started Ty Montgomery.

I won first in points in a far more competitive league (everyone pays attention) - with Zeke and ARod being injured/suspended. I also lost Watson. Heck, I lost Palmer AND Cutler the weeks they got hurt too. I had 3 weeks with a starting QB under 5 points due to injury. Whole year still balanced it all out.

Edited by Joe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jazz    5067
13 minutes ago, Joe. said:

I won first in points in a far more competitive league (everyone pays attention) - with Zeke and ARod being injured/suspended. I also lost Watson. Heck, I lost Palmer AND Cutler the weeks they got hurt too. I had 3 weeks with a starting QB under 5 points due to injury. Whole year still balanced it all out.

 

QB is the most streamable / replaceable position so that's not a great example. 3 weeks with less than 5 is pretty bad though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Jazz said:

A better argument against rewarding whoever scores the most points during the regular season would be that it is not the object of the game. The object of the game is to win weekly match ups and set yourself up for success in the playoffs. That may lead to strategies and decisions where one does not score as many points as one could week to week on purpose. For example, starting RBs in the flex to get a higher median projection, instead of starting a WR with a high ceiling/low floor. Alternatively, you could manage your roster with an eye on the playoffs at the expensive of improving your projected performance on a particular week.

 

Another big issue with rewarding the team that scores the most points comes with injuries and/or suspensions. Rewarding teams for scoring the most points disproportionally favors teams that had good injury luck and could roster their best players all season. It also hurts teams that rostered players who got hurt early in the game and exited after putting up a dud.

 

In fact, I missed the playoffs in this league on the overall point tie breaker by about 20 points. My record was 6-7 so I wasn't too salty about it, but I was really looking forward to the playoffs and I could have definitely competed for the crown. That 20 point difference could have easily been made up by the 2 weeks I started Greg Olsen, the 1 week I started Manny Sanders, and the 1 week started Ty Montgomery.

1

Both of these arguments were made already. 

 

Your last paragraph touches on my gripe but kind of misses it. My gripe is more with Joe trying to say that overall points is a measure of skill when its just as easily a measure of variance from players such as those previously mentioned along with as you mentioned injuries and even something as arbitrary as having the #1 waiver claim a week where a stud backup becomes relevant because a star player went down. And unlike Joe claims, this clearly doesnt always balance itself out over the course of the season (Todd Gurley Y1 - Y2 (Y3 the efficiency has finally somewhat settled but it wasnt the insanity it was Y1 nor as bad as Y2), RG3, I mean take your pick on players that course corrected the following year.). I expect kamara and deshaun watson will be the same because their production just isn't sustainable (Kamara is theoretically better than J Charles, and DeShaun Watson was better than Brady and Rodgers).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe.    4932
7 hours ago, Francis J Underwood said:

Both of these arguments were made already. 

 

Your last paragraph touches on my gripe but kind of misses it. My gripe is more with Joe trying to say that overall points is a measure of skill when its just as easily a measure of variance from players such as those previously mentioned along with as you mentioned injuries and even something as arbitrary as having the #1 waiver claim a week where a stud backup becomes relevant because a star player went down. And unlike Joe claims, this clearly doesnt always balance itself out over the course of the season (Todd Gurley Y1 - Y2 (Y3 the efficiency has finally somewhat settled but it wasnt the insanity it was Y1 nor as bad as Y2), RG3, I mean take your pick on players that course corrected the following year.). I expect kamara and deshaun watson will be the same because their production just isn't sustainable (Kamara is theoretically better than J Charles, and DeShaun Watson was better than Brady and Rodgers).

 

If there is something I've learned with yearly fantasy football - the points guys like Kamara score are not flukes. I am trying to win leagues. Kamara, Thompson and Watson were/are monsters. Watson would have regressed to the mean a bit - but he would have put up top 5 QB numbers had he not had an injury. Thompson would have finished top 10 had he not been hurt. 

 

Robert Woods is another example. Guy was not exciting in Buffalo - but you cannot ignore his numbers this year. I don't care about career averages, corrections the following year. I care about how many points you are going to score when I insert you into my lineup. 

7 hours ago, Jazz said:

 

QB is the most streamable / replaceable position so that's not a great example. 3 weeks with less than 5 is pretty bad though.

But the injury happened while using the player. Rodgers had under a point that week, Cutler/Palmer had under 5. Those are 3 weeks of roughly 50-60 points that I lost out on. Still won first in points at the end of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joe. said:

If there is something I've learned with yearly fantasy football - the points guys like Kamara score are not flukes. I am trying to win leagues. Kamara, Thompson and Watson were/are monsters. Watson would have regressed to the mean a bit - but he would have put up top 5 QB numbers had he not had an injury. Thompson would have finished top 10 had he not been hurt. 

 

Robert Woods is another example. Guy was not exciting in Buffalo - but you cannot ignore his numbers this year. I don't care about career averages, corrections the following year. I care about how many points you are going to score when I insert you into my lineup. 

But the injury happened while using the player. Rodgers had under a point that week, Cutler/Palmer had under 5. Those are 3 weeks of roughly 50-60 points that I lost out on. Still won first in points at the end of the day.

1. Not sustainable. Like theres no arguing this unless you think all of those guys are hall of fame hostorically great players. Asfor not caring, theres a difference between riding the wave vs finding someone. Not saying dont rise the wave, but the wave can bottom out whenever. 

 

2. Im not gonna argue woth you about your league winning oveeall in pts cause idk nearly enough about it to make a judgment but if you took multiple near 0 several weeks in a row and won overall in pts either your league is not as good as you think or you had spike weeks those same weeks. I had a similar situation this year and went 0-13 because for 10 straight weeks i took a 0 due to a player getting hurt on a stacked roster otherwise. 

Edited by Francis J Underwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe.    4932

They are sustainable for the season in question. Do you really think Kamara/Watson would have significantly regressed this year?

 

Another example. Houston gives up 28 points to Paul Richardson then 35 points to TY Hilton. I decide to start Robert Woods the week he scores 38 because similar receivers put up big numbers with Houston. I hit the high end of Woods ceiling - but he still established himself as a consistent high floor/high ceiling player. 35 isn't sustainable - but 15 sure is. That wins leagues. You should be rewarded for navigating that stuff. Overall points (or points per week) do that.

 

The big determining factor between 120 and 150 was if Zeke or Bell scored 35+. Those weeks my scores went towards 140 or 150. But the team was still consistent from start to finish. Guys have spikes - but that is fantasy. Top guys have more spike weeks. That is why you draft them highly. I am not sure what measurements you use to draft your teams - but I try and score as many points as possible.

Screen Shot 2017-12-19 at 10.38.47 AM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jazz    5067
4 hours ago, Joe. said:

If there is something I've learned with yearly fantasy football - the points guys like Kamara score are not flukes. I am trying to win leagues. Kamara, Thompson and Watson were/are monsters. Watson would have regressed to the mean a bit - but he would have put up top 5 QB numbers had he not had an injury. Thompson would have finished top 10 had he not been hurt. 

 

Robert Woods is another example. Guy was not exciting in Buffalo - but you cannot ignore his numbers this year. I don't care about career averages, corrections the following year. I care about how many points you are going to score when I insert you into my lineup. 

But the injury happened while using the player. Rodgers had under a point that week, Cutler/Palmer had under 5. Those are 3 weeks of roughly 50-60 points that I lost out on. Still won first in points at the end of the day.

 

But they were only 3 weeks of reduction at a replaceable position. What's really killer is losing skill guys early in a game that you cannot come close to replacing 50% production for multiple weeks. That compounds the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe.    4932
1 minute ago, Jazz said:

 

But they were only 3 weeks of reduction at a replaceable position. What's really killer is losing skill guys early in a game that you cannot come close to replacing 50% production for multiple weeks. That compounds the problem.

Do you mean going forward? Sure. Losing OBJ or David Johnson would have been crushing. There is absolutely a ton of luck in that regard. The closest thing I had this year was losing Zeke for 6 weeks. Having Alex Collins and McKinnon gave me a reasonable replacement - but absolutely agree. The thing with fantasy is - I think regular season dominance should be awarded. And sometimes you just don't get a fair crack at it because of injuries. When that happens - just try again the next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe. said:

They are sustainable for the season in question. Do you really think Kamara/Watson would have significantly regressed this year?

 

Another example. Houston gives up 28 points to Paul Richardson then 35 points to TY Hilton. I decide to start Robert Woods the week he scores 38 because similar receivers put up big numbers with Houston. I hit the high end of Woods ceiling - but he still established himself as a consistent high floor/high ceiling player. 35 isn't sustainable - but 15 sure is. That wins leagues. You should be rewarded for navigating that stuff. Overall points (or points per week) do that.

 

The big determining factor between 120 and 150 was if Zeke or Bell scored 35+. Those weeks my scores went towards 140 or 150. But the team was still consistent from start to finish. Guys have spikes - but that is fantasy. Top guys have more spike weeks. That is why you draft them highly. I am not sure what measurements you use to draft your teams - but I try and score as many points as possible.

Screen Shot 2017-12-19 at 10.38.47 AM.png

Sustainable for the season in question. Lol. Why not just say sustainable for the game in question? Either way more luck than skill.

 

Matchup argument is pointless because no one is disputing that aspect. 

 

The graphic doesnt really tell me anything about the aspects i commented on. Id need to see the rosters, the drafted rosters and the individual matchups. But again if youre taking a 0 from a qb for three to five weeks and winning by 10 plus pts, something is off there. Either you hD a maasive edge on the field (meaning the league likely isnt that good) or there was a spike week for you or down week for your oppns.the only stat i gleaned from the graphic is that your oppns scored over 120 3x all season while you did almost every week

Edited by Francis J Underwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe.    4932
1 hour ago, Francis J Underwood said:

Sustainable for the season in question. Lol. Why not just say sustainable for the game in question? Either way more luck than skill.

 

Matchup argument is pointless because no one is disputing that aspect. 

 

The graphic doesnt really tell me anything about the aspects i commented on. Id need to see the rosters, the drafted rosters and the individual matchups. But again if youre taking a 0 from a qb for three to five weeks and winning by 10 plus pts, something is off there. Either you hD a maasive edge on the field (meaning the league likely isnt that good) or there was a spike week for you or down week for your oppns.the only stat i gleaned from the graphic is that your oppns scored over 120 3x all season while you did almost every week

 

I had very strong drafts in my two leagues. Landry/Thielen with great value. Bell was a monster. Zeke had great weeks. A few keys adds (ex. Watson), good trades (Hogan for Newton when Watson went down) and this squad was great. There really wasn't anything off. Good drafting, some health - and you have sustainability. Landry, Thielen, Bell, Zeke and Allen were all very consistent each week - so 120 was almost guaranteed. One of them going off is what contributed to 140 point weeks. 

 

You should be able to draft a team that scored 125 points on average. That is the target. They will score 110-120 more weeks - and the variance is when they score 140+. Either way - very consistent, very likely to win most weeks.

Screen Shot 2017-12-19 at 2.06.44 PM.png

Edited by Joe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe. said:

 

I had very strong drafts in my two leagues. Landry/Thielen with great value. Bell was a monster. Zeke had great weeks. A few keys adds (ex. Watson), good trades (Hogan for Newton when Watson went down) and this squad was great. There really wasn't anything off. Good drafting, some health - and you have sustainability. Landry, Thielen, Bell, Zeke and Allen were all very consistent each week - so 120 was almost guaranteed. One of them going off is what contributed to 140 point weeks. 

 

You should be able to draft a team that scored 125 points on average. That is the target. They will score 110-120 more weeks - and the variance is when they score 140+. Either way - very consistent, very likely to win most weeks.

Screen Shot 2017-12-19 at 2.06.44 PM.png

Yeah I mean you hit on some guys no doubt but again I told you what I needed above. I'd rather see the draftboard than just your roster, but either way this is sort of a tangent to the overall point. 

Edited by Francis J Underwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gospel    365

I personally do not care what is chosen but I think that choosing to give something to the team that scores the most points at the end of the season changes up waiver pick ups and who is played at the end of the season. For example I could have picked up riskier options and just went for a home run since I knew I was in playoffs already, I think that changes the strategy a bit and some people are already out of the race for that prize early in the season. On the other hand it is miniature in terms to the actual prize pool which is why it does not matter to me.

 

I would actually prefer to see like $5 taken out of the prize per week and given to the top scoring team overall for the week. That way it keeps people whose teams are out of the league to keep playing and being active as they could get a portion of their entry back in. If we did it this way for this season Joe and I would have won $15 each so far, Jazz and Chris would have made $10 each and Nelson, Kid Rock and Mariota Bros would have made $5 each. Besides Joe and Myself these other 5 guys did not make playoffs and they equate for 7 of the top 13 weekly scores of the league (Not counting playoffs). I just think something like this rewards people for playing the whole season and trying to make the best of things.

 

Also I would be remiss to not ask, do you want to chop 1st and 2nd Joe?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe.    4932
3 hours ago, Gospel said:

I personally do not care what is chosen but I think that choosing to give something to the team that scores the most points at the end of the season changes up waiver pick ups and who is played at the end of the season. For example I could have picked up riskier options and just went for a home run since I knew I was in playoffs already, I think that changes the strategy a bit and some people are already out of the race for that prize early in the season. On the other hand it is miniature in terms to the actual prize pool which is why it does not matter to me.

 

I would actually prefer to see like $5 taken out of the prize per week and given to the top scoring team overall for the week. That way it keeps people whose teams are out of the league to keep playing and being active as they could get a portion of their entry back in. If we did it this way for this season Joe and I would have won $15 each so far, Jazz and Chris would have made $10 each and Nelson, Kid Rock and Mariota Bros would have made $5 each. Besides Joe and Myself these other 5 guys did not make playoffs and they equate for 7 of the top 13 weekly scores of the league (Not counting playoffs). I just think something like this rewards people for playing the whole season and trying to make the best of things.

 

Also I would be remiss to not ask, do you want to chop 1st and 2nd Joe?

 

I like this idea too. I’d happily do that next year.

 

Ill also happily split (170 and 60 right?). Play for bragging rights is perfectly fine to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe.    4932
17 hours ago, Francis J Underwood said:

Yeah I mean you hit on some guys no doubt but again I told you what I needed above. I'd rather see the draftboard than just your roster, but either way this is sort of a tangent to the overall point. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nOZrsgKNVFfcsQQyKrLOXBhJ6y8MxFEEvKV7XGBMvoI/edit?usp=sharing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×