|
I just discovered Eagle Eye in the Sky and I think it might be one of my favorites. Just listened to an interview with Tony Dungy on the history and theory of the Tampa 2 defense - not the kind of access you'd see on other pods.
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Preliminary BeerSheet... Oh my god, Tom Brady. I guess this takes into account the 4-game suspension. Would not have figured Olsen was behind anyone but Gronk. Remind me what's the SK column, again? Really like the colors. Really like the names being separate from the team/bye week, makes it easier to sort ranges, copy/paste into rotoworld, etc. Not sure I'd put Zeke above Charles, even with Charles' injury history.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
The Zeke hype train is out of loving control.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
You guys get that these aren't B4TBG's projections, right? That isn't how beersheets work Edit: ^^^^ yeah it is
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Sataere posted:You guys get that these aren't B4TBG's projections, right? That isn't how beersheets work Yes, of course.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Oh my god, Tom Brady. I guess this takes into account the 4-game suspension. SK is skewness. I'm goofing around with using nonparametric skew since it's easier for me to comprehend and the Wikipedia article includes a quantitative definition of a significant amount of skew. It represents the extent to which the data is unevenly distributed, suggesting the possibility that a player's calculated value could change significantly if the highest or lowest values were truncated. A positive sign indicates that someone might be dragging down a player's value, negative sign means the opposite. I use it as a way to differentiate players within a tier. If someone with a background in statistics could help me understand if this is a terrible idea I'd appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
RVProfootballer posted:Yes, of course. Just checking. The way the responses are framed makes it seem as if beer is culpable.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Sataere posted:Just checking. The way the responses are framed makes it seem as if beer is culpable. Yeah, I know, it's tough to frame it accurately. Anything like "I would have so and so ranked higher" implies Beer ranked them lower, at least that's the default for me. Insert an implied "[than Beersheets have them]" rather than "[than Beer ranked them]" and I think it's good.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
RVProfootballer posted:Yeah, I know, it's tough to frame it accurately. Anything like "I would have so and so ranked higher" implies Beer ranked them lower, at least that's the default for me. Insert an implied "[than Beersheets have them]" rather than "[than Beer ranked them]" and I think it's good. I definitely think you are right about Jordy, but I also think he is likely to finish top five. Olsen should be the consensus two this year, because consistency matters. I also think leagues are going to be won this year at the running back position, because nobody knows how to value them.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
I wrote a thing about the Ezekiel Elliott Hype Train: http://theinscribermag.com/sports/fantasy-football-beware-the-ezekiel-elliott-hype-train.html I honestly think the Cowboys are going to take it easier with Elliott because they need a direction with the offense after Romo dies. A poo poo-ton of offensive lineman and a foundational back could run the NFCE for years as long as they don't run him into the ground this year.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
RVProfootballer posted:Yeah, I know, it's tough to frame it accurately. Anything like "I would have so and so ranked higher" implies Beer ranked them lower, at least that's the default for me. Insert an implied "[than Beersheets have them]" rather than "[than Beer ranked them]" and I think it's good. It's okay. I don't take it personally and since I'm the one aggregating all these projections it's fair to call my methods out. For example Tom Brady definitely doesn't deserve to be that low.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:It's okay. I don't take it personally and since I'm the one aggregating all these projections it's fair to call my methods out. For example Tom Brady definitely doesn't deserve to be that low. Is it really a methodology issue? You are just stating what the current consensus is?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Sataere posted:Is it really a methodology issue? You are just stating what the current consensus is? Yup. I don't put any personal input into the system if that's what you mean. What I do is have each estimate calculate player value relative to a baseline and then run statistics on the collection of values. The method inherently depreciates anyone who misses games due to injury or suspension. For example if I took Brady's projections and divided them by 11 games instead of 15 it would result in a much higher value and he would likely be viable at his ADP. You could probably stream a QB to make up for the lost games, but the sheets don't take into account the possibility of streaming two players for a season. It's one of the reasons I added the result of the previous season; I wanted a rubric for showing how consistent a player could be. For example last year Eric Decker was at least a WR3 in all fourteen games he played, but he was only a WR1 for one of them. That's a pretty good floor; even Antonio Brown missed out on being a WR3 in five of his games. Obviously previous performance is not always an indicator of future potential, but it's better than nothing. Some folks use my sheets like a ranking list and grab whoever has the highest value. That method can work, but I'm doing my best to make a tool that's even more powerful than that.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Early question for the upcoming year. Who to keep out of Jamaal Charles, Eddie Lacy, Thomas Rawls and CJ Anderson? No penalties or rounds to worry about, just keep 2. I've been thinking Charles/Rawls but keep hearing that Lacy looks really good. I got burned by him last year...am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Silly Burrito posted:Early question for the upcoming year. Who to keep out of Jamaal Charles, Eddie Lacy, Thomas Rawls and CJ Anderson? No penalties or rounds to worry about, just keep 2. For how long can you keep a player. If it's years and years, I'd go Rawls Lacy, Charles only has a season or two left in him, and if lacy turns it around you can get a lot of good seasons from him. Same for rawls If it's just one season then you are forced to give them up, go Charles and lacy. Rawls seems to have a ton of ???s surrounding his injuries and the teams faith and o-line Regarding what you're missing: lacy was called upon to do a lot of stuff out of his wheelhouse to compensate for the jordy injury. And he's slimmed down
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Drunk Nerds posted:For how long can you keep a player. If it's years and years, I'd go Rawls Lacy, Charles only has a season or two left in him, and if lacy turns it around you can get a lot of good seasons from him. Same for rawls Thanks. I keep 2 this year and 1 next year. What you're saying makes sense, it's just hard to trust a player after they had a flop of a year. No risk, no reward though.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Silly Burrito posted:Early question for the upcoming year. Who to keep out of Jamaal Charles, Eddie Lacy, Thomas Rawls and CJ Anderson? No penalties or rounds to worry about, just keep 2. Keep two this year, one next is interesting. What are the actual rules? That you can keep two players for their first year or one player for their second? I would keep Charles and Lacy. I don't like that Seattle picked up all that competition for Rawls.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
I'm wary of Charles, he's 29 now and will be 30 before the season is out. On top of that, he's coming off an ACL. He's a great player but I think there's risk there.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Keep two this year, one next is interesting. What are the actual rules? That you can keep two players for their first year or one player for their second? It's on a three year cycle. You keep any two players this year (my only other keepers I'd consider would be Mike Evans/Tom Brady). Next year, you only get one keeper (does not have to be the same as previous year). The third year, there are no keepers and everyone is in the draft pool. We also determine draft order by who wins the consolation bracket of the playoffs, not worst team. Whoever wins that bracket gets whatever pick from 1-14. Second in that bracket gets next pick, and so on. Worst two teams end up picking seventh/eighth, and then the playoff bracket teams in reverse order. Using the consolation bracket gives everyone something to play for and discourages deliberate tanking. One guy pulled all his starters in the last week (he forgot about the rule), giving his opponent an easy win, and he slid to second worst record, just missing the consolation bracket. We laughed at him. 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Silly Burrito posted:Using the consolation bracket gives everyone something to play for and discourages deliberate tanking. One guy pulled all his starters in the last week (he forgot about the rule), giving his opponent an easy win, and he slid to second worst record, just missing the consolation bracket. We laughed at him. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Silly Burrito posted:It's on a three year cycle. You keep any two players this year (my only other keepers I'd consider would be Mike Evans/Tom Brady). Next year, you only get one keeper (does not have to be the same as previous year). The third year, there are no keepers and everyone is in the draft pool. That's kind of cool, and honestly depending on the rules Mike Evans might not be a bad pick.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Mike Evans is going to have a huge season, I am targeting him everywhere. I would keep him. There's some regression to the mean coming with his super low TD numbers from last year, and the dude still put up 1200 yards with a billion drops and a rookie QB.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Holy poo poo Mike Evans only caught two red zone passes (both TDs) last year. At 6'5" 230, that's uhh... not good.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Cervixalot posted:Mike Evans is going to have a huge season, I am targeting him everywhere. I would keep him. It's the drops that have me slightly concerned. I think he'll probably be available to redraft at picks 13/16 if I want him again, whereas Charles/Lacy/Rawls may be scooped up by then.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Super fun kicker chat. I'm starting to think that drafting Gostkowski a few rounds before the end of the draft isn't the dumbest idea in the world.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Super fun kicker chat. So you're telling me to draft him with my next pick in the slow draft?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Super fun kicker chat. I noticed that Gostkowski was on something like 30%+ of league-leading teams on yahoo last year (it's their "fantasy MVP" list, which seems to be deleted every year in anticipation of the next). He was like in the top-15 most owned players by champtionship teams or something. Format looks slick by the way! I like it.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
VietCampo posted:So you're telling me to draft him with my next pick in the slow draft? Probably.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Upon further review, Mike Evans had fewer red zone targets than Cole Beasley and Richard Rodgers (1 per game started) and only caught 2. He also did all this without ASJ so I don't know about TD regression.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Super fun kicker chat. How many more points did he average per game than the 12th highest-scoring kicker? In 2014 it was a slim 2.2
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Super fun kicker chat. If the value is there the pick isn't bad. I have taken defenses as high as 5th rd, and kicker in the 6th rd in standard lineup formats (q/2r/3wr/te/+-flex) and won leagues. Getting a prime Vinatieri or Ravens defense can be a beautiful thing.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Drunk Nerds posted:How many more points did he average per game than the 12th highest-scoring kicker? In 2014 it was a slim 2.2 2.2 PPG is the difference between the WR24 and the WR12. It's not slim.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:2.2 PPG is the difference between the WR24 and the WR12. It's not slim. Yeah, my first reaction was drat, can't believe that kind of positional advantage is possible at kicker.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
RVProfootballer posted:Yeah, my first reaction was drat, can't believe that kind of positional advantage is possible at kicker. Set-it-and-forget-it 7+pts at kicker with negligible risk has value. But I think it is more the effect of the Patriots offense being good under almost any circumstances. Even when they lost Tom Brady of all people Matt Cassel ran the offense fairly well. More or less a consistent offense equals a consistently good kicker. No surprise there.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Chen Kenichi posted:Set-it-and-forget-it 7+pts at kicker with negligible risk has value. I think that's the conventional wisdom, but I'm not sure it's borne out. From comments on Beer's reddit post: quote:Well, I just did a quick correlation between the top 16 kicker fantasy ppg, for kickers that played at least 12 games in 2015, and their team's NFL ppg. For Boswell and Barth, who only played 12 games, I corrected their team's ppg to exclude the games they missed, but the rest of the top 16 kickers played in 15 or 16 games (and I didn't correct ppg for the kickers that only missed 1 game). quote:Very interesting. Since you have the data already, can you find the correlation between kicker points and total offensive yards (since yards is a better indicator of offensive talent than points scored)? quote:Sure. First, doing just 2015 numbers, and this time not correcting for the 4 games missed by Boswell and Barth (shouldn't make much difference anyway), the correlation coefficient between kicker fantasy ppg and NFL team yards per game drops to 0.49, for an R2 of ~0.24. If I use a multiple linear regression model, where I try to predict kicker points per game from both yards and NFL points per game, NFL points per game approaches significance (p = 0.087), but neither variable is strictly significant. The model as a whole does a decent job, though, which we would expect given the correlation between NFL points per game and kicker points. Sort of fits the other conventional wisdom that kickers are unpredictable as hell and we're better off without them. Edit: I have never really looked, because lol kickers. But does anyone else remember seeing anyone actually testing the general wisdom of "pick a kicker on a good offense" vs. "pick a kicker with a funny name or haircut"? sourdough fucked around with this message at 16:25 on May 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
I said to start taking a really good kicker like Gostkowski a couple rounds early because everyone else will be taking a K & DEF in the last two rounds so if you take them in the third or fourth to last round your dumb sleeper TE you drop week three will still be there. and goons laughed
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
The problem with trying to get Gostkowski is that unless you play with all sharps, you have the "I must fill out my starting lineup before I draft my bench" people, and they will always take Gostkowski first in like round 9 or 10 while we would still be looking for extra WR or RB depth in that round. Same thing with trying to get the Seattle or SF defense 2, 3, 4 years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Kickers are weird. They score more (fantasy) points when their teams are bad at getting to the red zone and their coaches believe they're reliable at scoring the long ball, but also score less real life points when their teams are generally bad. Then there's kickers on terrible teams that lose by big margins and will go for it on 4th within FG range because they're down by 21 in the last quarter and need TDs, and then there's teams that are so good they usually just score a TD instead of trying a FG. And then there's those teams that are just good enough to give their kickers several shorter FG attempts, and also not be so far behind in team score that they'd go for the TD on 4th downs inside ~35 yards or so. And finally there's kickers who just get 5 to 7 extra point tries every game because their teams score like crazy and their production isn't relying on FGs anyway. But each of those different types of teams have good, medium, or bad kickers. And of course, playing outdoors affects kicker accuracy, when the weather is anything but perfect. This is why you don't look at past statistics and just go for the Ghost. I don't think Beer's analysis is deep enough. Any given kicker on any given year may be at the top of the heap, and if so, their good score probably does correlate to things like team situation, but that's not necessarily predictive. Back-test this theory against 10 years of data and see if you can find the top kicker in a given year and predict they'll outperform the following, and you've got something. Until then, kickers are still garbage and nobody should use them in their fantasy football.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Kickers are weird. They score more (fantasy) points when their teams are bad at getting to the red zone and their coaches believe they're reliable at scoring the long ball, but also score less real life points when their teams are generally bad. Then there's kickers on terrible teams that lose by big margins and will go for it on 4th within FG range because they're down by 21 in the last quarter and need TDs, and then there's teams that are so good they usually just score a TD instead of trying a FG. And then there's those teams that are just good enough to give their kickers several shorter FG attempts, and also not be so far behind in team score that they'd go for the TD on 4th downs inside ~35 yards or so. And finally there's kickers who just get 5 to 7 extra point tries every game because their teams score like crazy and their production isn't relying on FGs anyway. I guess this boils down to what you want in a kicker - do you want a write-in floor value, or do you want someone like Blair Walsh who can score 1 point in two games and 3 in another, but also can score you 20 points a couple of times a year and finish top 3? Personally I want the floor as having to rely on a kicker to boom is really a crap-shoot, and although past performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance due to factors beyond their control, there is still something to be said about three straight years of outstanding performance. I would not touch another kicker before any run on them, but Gostkowski's history of consistency makes a good case to buck the trend.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
Love me some sick pre-pre-pre-season Rotoburns:Rotoworld posted:
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 00:41
|
|