Announcement

**Clay** · 04-15-2008, 05:51 AM

Thanks for posting this... I think the creator's formula still needs work. The 2nd String QB has 3 attempt which seems strange when there are QB's, like Jon Soriano, who had multiple starts and over 100 attempts and a couple wins.

**Lintyfresh85** · 04-15-2008, 06:49 AM

The first string guy only went 6-8 on the season.

Not to harp, but Fleeger, my QB had over 300 completions and a 72% percentage... tops in league history.

Thing definitely need tweaking.

**Clay** · 04-15-2008, 08:20 AM

Yeah, I didn't even look at all the stats. Nicky Cortez (CB) also had a nice season starting all 16 games... he should definately be at least 2nd String.

I think someone forgot to carry a 1 in one of their formulas. :)

**tarcone** · 04-15-2008, 08:33 AM

Phoenix QB Lorenzo Kaplan laughs at the 1st and 2nd string QBS

**Guest** · 04-15-2008, 09:32 AM

I'd read the post linked to carefully. Zero-sum evaluations are much better at determining worth compared to the norm, but it really doesn't make sense to do a rookie team with them. Most rookies come out negative, as they should--especially at QB. And as a result, a guy who barely played and got a tiny positive score is going to have greater value.

**liquidcrash** · 04-15-2008, 09:42 AM

I have both first team WRs. Not bad for 3rd and 5th round picks. Hopefully they keep improving and we might actually have an offense next season.

**Clay** · 04-15-2008, 09:42 AM

No, I read it... I just disagree that "worth" can be measured with a black and white number that says that playing less and therefore causing fewer errors/negative stats, makes a player more valuable (worth more) to a team... Rookie or otherwise.

Take a case like Jon Soriano... my backup QB who was thrust into a few starts due to injuries to BJ the Jiz. Yes, playing more, by nature is going to cause him to have more negative stats than a player who only throws three balls. Similarly, only being a backup with limited time will also not allow him to accumulate enough positive stats to counteract the negative. However... bottomline... to say that a player thrust into a starting spot is "worth" less than a guy who took 5 or 6 snaps is a misleading notion.

I know a little bit about statistics... barely enough to be dangerous... but what I think this formula is likely missing is a way to factor in statistics on a sliding scale based on the number of plays in which the player participated.

That being said... I think it's damn impressive any and all things that members of this or any other community do above and beyond on their own personal time. Damn impressive!

Just popping in 2 cents.

**Guest** · 04-15-2008, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Clay View Post

Thanks for posting this... I think the creator's formula still needs work. The 2nd String QB has 3 attempt which seems strange when there are QB's, like Jon Soriano, who had multiple starts and over 100 attempts and a couple wins.

71.1 QB rating, 4:5 INT/TD ratio, below average yards per attempt. -12.9

Originally posted by Lintyfresh85 View Post

The first string guy only went 6-8 on the season.

Not to harp, but Fleeger, my QB had over 300 completions and a 72% percentage... tops in league history.

Thing definitely need tweaking.

...and a 13/15 TD/INT ratio, and only 6.09 ypa. He comes in as just slightly below average: -3.4

Originally posted by Clay View Post

Yeah, I didn't even look at all the stats. Nicky Cortez (CB) also had a nice season starting all 16 games... he should definately be at least 2nd String.

I think someone forgot to carry a 1 in one of their formulas. :)

Actually, he didn't have a nice season. 0 interceptions, only 13 defended, 43 catches allowed: a 77.0 PDPct (average for starting corners is 79.2). He earned his -3.1 for pass defense, imho.

Originally posted by tarcone View Post

Phoenix QB Lorenzo Kaplan laughs at the 1st and 2nd string QBS

74.7 Rating, 5.83ypa, 16/17 TD/INT ratio. The only thing above average for him is his slightly-above 62.5%. Definitely a negative performance.

**Clay** · 04-15-2008, 09:52 AM

So, it's less about "value" and more about "values".

**Guest** · 04-15-2008, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Clay View Post

I know a little bit about statistics... barely enough to be dangerous... but what I think this formula is likely missing is a way to factor in statistics on a sliding scale based on the number of plays in which the player participated.

The point is this (similar to VORP in baseball). A zero or negative value signifies that *ANY* ol' mediocre player could and would put up the same or better numbers. The value of a rookie is forward, not now. In most cases, players with a negative-value QB would have gotten better stats this season if they'd played a 35/35 veteran in that slot. Like I said, the formulas work well for what they're intended to represent, and are far more intuitive than what we've done in the past, due to there being clear and logical breakpoints, but I wouldn't use them for an all-rookie team. (We are looking into using a piece of the embarrassingly-simplistic old system in the future for all-rookie at POTW reports at some point in the future.)

**Clay** · 04-15-2008, 10:08 AM

Believe me, I understand the intent and definitely see the corollary to VORP, I just got hung up on value and worth because that's usually what is being measured on an "All-Insert Whatever' Team. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
It's one of those age old things where a guy comes off the bench for 2 minutes of garbage time in the NBA and scores 2 points and grab a rebound. Extrapolate that over 48 minutes and it's move over Bill Russell. However, compared to a Rookie thrust into that 6th or 7th man role that gets 14-17 minutes scores 4 points, commits 3 fouls, turns it over once and grabs a couple boards... he looks better in a formula. But then you get into factoring in things like the fact that he is spelling an All-Star so that he can get a blow in the 2nd and early 4th... who's more valuable?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Unfortuantely that's part of the mystery of these text based games. We get a whole hell of a lot of information... but we never get the whole story.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Again though.... KUDOS for the work that you do!!! It's people like you that make leagues and games like these thrive.

**Guest** · 04-15-2008, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Clay View Post

Believe me, I understand the intent and definitely see the corollary to VORP, I just got hung up on value and worth because that's usually what is being measured on an "All-Insert Whatever' Team.

Right. And it doesn't matter when the sample size is large enough (ie OPOY). You have enough positive-value players in that instance that the best guy shows up as the best guy. Keep in mind that it's still just multiplicative in nature. Every rushing yard is worth .034 points, or whatever. (Don't know them off the top of my head.) So, a guy who comes off the bench and throws one 15-yard pass for a TD and never plays again will have a 158.3 QB rating, 100% completion percentage, an infinite TD/INT ratio, but will still only net a very small positive score (3.9). It takes a full season of solid performing (or a half-ish season of MVP-level performing), to get to 100 for a skill position player. For example, Bruce Foy of Memphis had a stellar 36 attempts this season (115.1 rating), and only scored 14.6 in passing. There's zero chance of replacement players being an issue anywhere other than with rookies. Greg and I are both working on a way to handle this. We may just end up with two entirely different sets of formulas that are both used under the hood: zero-sum for season, league-wide, and career awards, fantasy for rookie and POW awards.

Incidentally, with regard to the CB mentioned, the old-style fantasy formulas are being used for defense still. (It's virtually impossible to do zero-sum for defense; stats there just aren't meaningful enough.) There were five rookie corners who played full-time or near full-time with just plain better numbers than Cortez. So I reckon he makes the third team. :D

**dkgojackets** · 04-15-2008, 11:23 AM

good thing I got my rookie QB in for garbage time

**tomr1962** · 04-15-2008, 09:36 PM

I also disagree, It is the same thing as saying a CF who batted 3-5 with a HR is rookie of the year over a guy who hit say .275-15-59 with 22 SB's. There has to be a league minimum for attempts , etc

Announcement

Presenting: 2009 Stelmack All-Rookie Awards

Presenting: 2009 Stelmack All-Rookie Awards

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment