|
||||
|
Title: Luck and Fantasy Football Post by StegRock on Jan 1st, 2006, 6:57pm Inspired by the following post on our "between the 20's Fantasy MVP's of Week 16" thread, I start this thread: on 12/31/05 at 10:30:09, junkyardjake wrote:
I have thoughts, deep ones, about this. But, I am going to hold back for now. I don't want to taint the pool. I'd first like to see what you, my fellow hard-core fantasy-footballing Gridironers, have to say about the age-old topic of "Luck and Fantasy Football"... FIRE AWAY!!! |
||||
|
Title: Re: Luck and Fantasy Football Post by junkyardjake on Jan 1st, 2006, 9:05pm Oh, there's no doubt that luck plays a large part in whether or not your team wins in a head-to-head format. Of course, decent planning on draft day can help, and smart waiver wire moves are also essential. 'Planning' on draft day sounds easy, but it's not. For example, acknowledging the importance of weeks 14-16, you can attempt to evaluate close draft picks on the basis of matchups in these weeks. Sounds like a great idea, and although I personally try to do it, I can't recall ever making a draft decision on the basis of weeks 14-16. [smiley=dunce.gif] (This is especially useful for choosing your defensive team). But Steg, as I think you mentioned somewhere [smiley=lost.gif], the CBFL concept is very interesting in that it mitigates the blind luck factor, and to win in a format like that is definitely a better reflection of forecasting skill and the ability to assemble a team correctly. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Luck and Fantasy Football Post by Chumpzilla on Jan 2nd, 2006, 9:23pm on 01/01/06 at 21:05:12, junkyardjake wrote:
Is it though? Forecasting reuslts is one thing. You know what you should get from a Tomlinson or Manning. But who can forecast injuries? Sure, some players are hurt more often than others but... Also, who can forecast player behavior? Yes, we know T.O. is an ass but would we have predicted that he would have missed such a large chunk of the season? Could one have predicted the other behavior/substance abuse suspensions? I understand what you are saying but I think luck comes into play to a significant part in all formats. A solid draft puts you "in the game." Smart free agent moves can keep you in the game. Good luck can push you over the edge. Here are two personal illustrations of luck (one good and one bad) this year. #1 - Giants of the Gridiron, I ended the season with a 16-0 record. I had a solid base but 16-0 was extremely lucky (almost proven by a loss in the Super Bowl). #2 - Had the best record and most points scored in our work league. Consistently had one of the highest scores each week. In the Super Bowl in week #16 I scored my lowest point total in all 16 weeks and my opponent scored his highest in 16 weeks. :-/ This same league also tracked points scored and points scored against. There were teams that scored a ton of points but also had a ton of points scored against them . Demonstrating one team was unlucky in that other teams had big weeks when they played their team (also evidenced by looking at season trends with regard to head-to-head match-ups and team scoring). So, after being loooooong-winded, I guess I'm saying is a good draft, being active with free agent transactions (where permitted), and luck are all extremely important to a successful season in all formats. ;D 8-) |
||||
|
Title: Re: Luck and Fantasy Football Post by StegRock on Jan 3rd, 2006, 12:13am on 01/02/06 at 21:23:37, Chumpzilla wrote:
Not that this is what you are arguing Ray, but just to be clear on this... It is not so much that the CBFL itself is a league in which luck is greatly minimized. It's a bit the contrary, actually. With such an early draft, no trading or acquiring free-agents, etc., etc., there is quite a bit of luck involved. BUT, it's that facet of the "Best Ball" format that mitigates luck and if the "Best Ball" format were applied to a "regular" league that drafted at a normal time and allowed for player transactions, rather than one "frozen" like the CBFL, there are no two ways about it that it would put a significant dent in one HUGE area whence luck springs forth, namely that of having your stronger performances on your bench while having weaker ones on the fantasy gridiron. I think that's a fairly straightforward fact, though the CBFL is not at all the best "case in point" because of its other anomalies. Quote:
Well, I'm still going to hold back on my take... But, I'll say this much... This is one of the most revealing sentences in Ray's whole post. [smiley=hmmmm.gif] |
||||
|
Title: Re: Luck and Fantasy Football Post by gridiron_legends on Jan 4th, 2006, 2:54pm A slight switch in subjects . . . I've noticed, of course, as has been said, that injuries play a large role in fantasy football, which is the same as saying luck plays a large role. A personal example: I had, as my #1 receiver this year, Javon Walker. So as of Week 1 (I think), I no longer had my #1 receiver. Furthermore, fantasy playoffs are mostly luck, at least the ones I play in (yahoo fantasy football). Why on earth anyone would hold fantasy playoffs in Weeks 15-17 is completely beyond my understanding. Those are the weeks when there should be NO fantasy football games, since it is luck that determines winners. Do I have to say why? Those players that are on winning teams (which means, many of the best fantasy players) are benched during this time, so their owners get screwed because they own good players on good teams. Doesn't make any sense. It does mean though that luck plays the largest role. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Luck and Fantasy Football Post by KillerKingSting on Feb 17th, 2006, 12:07pm your game RULES and their DYNAMICS play a HUGE role in part to Lady Luck. TD weighted league? More LUCK than A yardage weighted league. LESS starters in your lineup? = more LUCK than a lineup that is bulked. Many things here! |
||||
|
Title: Re: Luck and Fantasy Football Post by StegRock on May 29th, 2006, 9:03pm The post right above by KKS sets the tone for where I am going to go with this... A friend once said to me that "luck is when opportunity meets hard work" or, I take it, "effort", and while that too does not tell the whole story, for sure, it gets this post off on the right foot... First off, unless the game being played involves 100% luck, like craps I suppose, then you play for whatever isn't luck. Furthermore, the luck factor, whatever it is, 99%, 50%, 10%, etc., it's the same for everybody across the board at the outset, so no crying. But, in any event, where the game is "played" is in that, respectively speaking, 1%, 50%, 90%, etc., window. The luck is the luck; the dice are the dice. Nothing you can do to affect that. All you can do is play (for) the part that isn't and get the most out of the cards you've been dealt, so to speak. The game of Monopoly provides a great analogy... Monopoly is a game that is underlain by the luck of the dice. Don't kid yourself... The roll of the dice is the bottom line in Monopoly, and you have absolutely no control over that bottom line. I'd venture to say that, if you play according to the standard rules of Monopoly, it dictates 75% of the game. Of course, though, as stated above, that's the same for everybody at the board at the outset of the game, so all everybody can do is do their best to "stretch" that 25%. Along those lines, I don't think anybody thinks that you win or lose at Monopoly according the roll of the dice (I sure don't). Actually, the dice rolling almost seems peripheral to the game... when, in fact, it is controlling up to perhaps 75% or more of the game. The point is that you are "playing" the remaining 25% of the game. The outcomes of the rolls of the dice are just the circumstances you have to navigate, and it's how well you do that that, much more often than not, is what dictates the outcome of a game. The game is hardly decided by the dice rolls even though they control perhaps 75% of the game. Nobody relies on the rolls of the dice in Monopoly (if for no other reason than they know that is the part of the game over which they have no control). (Quite frankly, I didn't take this tack because I didn't want to get too abstract with this, but it's not all too different than real life. You make the most out of the cards you are dealt. You have to do your best to get the most of out what you are in control of and find "the" way to go with the flow of what you're not. Anyway...) Now, between two even opponents, it may come down to the rolls of the dice if they made for a significant disparity, but in Monopoly, like fantasy football, the game allows for variations that can further minimize (what I am very roughly tabulating to be) the 75% luck factor of the game. You can allow for the purchase and trading of all holdings of value, i.e. not just properties or companies, but things like "get out of jail free" cards. You can allow for shared ownership, and allow open-bidding on unpurchased properties or companies that are landed on. These all make the roll of the dice less and less significant, reducing the luck factor of the dice to less than 50% efficacy, perhaps to a number as low as 25%. As KKS suggests above, these kinds of tactics to reduce the effect of luck, which, mind you, as I suggest above, the real game is "played around" anyway, can readily be implemented in fantasy football too even though the techniques may not be so clear and, actually, may not fulfill their intended roll of reducing luck if you are not careful. The sad reality is that most of your run-of-the-mill fantasy-football systems not only do not minimize luck, but maximize it, or at least the appearance of it. To be quite frank, that's why I think fantasy footballers have the tendency to over-inflate the influence of luck. This is the case, most notably, with your typical "head-to-head, cumulative points" systems. Here guys feel cheated when cumulative points for the season would put them (perhaps way) ahead of where they are in the standings, which are based on their head-to-head record (in games decided by weekly cumulative points, mind you), and guys feel lucky when the opposite is the case for them. This is just a lame system that not only maximizes luck but also magnifies its appearance. No wonder fantasy footballers think the game is so much determined by luck! One really easy way to disabuse this is to just chuck the head-to-head format out the window. If you want to use cumulative points as your barometer, then just let your standings be determined by cumulative points. Get rid of the artificial implementation of a head-to-head format. Alternatively, if you want to keep a head-to-head format, which I totally understand as it's more fun, make your system "authentically" head-to-head by adopting a rotisserie-style system to score games, like the one used in the GBRFL-style leagues (to see what I mean go to: http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/gbrfl/scoring.htm) where, in short, fixed points are awarded in statistical categories (with optional bonuses). To make for a "genuine" head-to-head format, you need to "relativize" the scoring of games, i.e., you need to make the games so that they "really" are "between" the two teams. This rotisserie-style set-up does just that. In any event, both of the aforementioned options minimize both luck itself as well as the feeling that luck is (even) playing a role (making luck more like the luck of dice-rolling in Monopoly, i.e. inconspicuous). Now, speaking more generally, I see six other areas where fantasy football leagues can be tweaked so as to decrease the influence of luck... Mind you, as KKS suggests above, it is needless to say that TD-only leagues are just about sheer luck. As I used to say back in the day, any league that values Cory Schlesinger more than (many seasons as much as two times more than) Barry Sanders is just whack. But, that's really besides the point, which is that TD's are just tough to predict, especially week in and week out which is what you need to do in a head-to-head format. Head-to-head TD-only leagues are almost tantamount to craps as far as I am concerned. First, and this is not a new horn I'll be blowing, make your league a keeper league instead of a run-of-the-mill turnover league where you conduct a total redraft every year. When you do a redraft league, injuries to top picks (in the first five or so rounds) become devastating to teams. Injuries mark probably the biggest luck factor in fantasy football, and redrafting players every year maximizes this factor. In a keeper league, owners at least have the opportunity to capitalize in future seasons or by way of trade, since players still have future value (remember the idea of keeper league implies the idea of a continuation league), on top picks who sustain injuries. This reduces this luck factor. The deeper the keeper league, the more the luck factor involving injuries is reduced, but there does appear to me to be a limit. I would say that no more than half to two-thirds of a roster should be maintained (in the GBRFL, per team, we have 12 protection spots and 21 roster spots; that's 57%). On the other hand, having only one to four keepers I don't think does much of anything because,... well,... first of all that's just not enough to really make a difference, especially just one or two keepers, and, furthermore, you are minimizing the (long-term) values of later picks. But, on yet another hand, I think dynasty leagues, in which every player is protected, is too much. For one, it tightens things up and takes away the potential trade value of protection spots themselves (this is actually a problem if there are two few protection spots, as well). Anytime reasonable avenues for trading are cut off, the owners sphere of influence has been reduced and luck plays a greater proportional part. So, opting for a keeper league in lieu of a turnover league is one way to significantly reduce luck. A second way regards how lineups are comprised. It's what KKS is talking about above, but I'd like to tease it out. As mentioned above, the "best ball" format, like that of the CBFL (info on that here: http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cbfl/scoring.htm), is one extreme option that without a doubt limits the effects of luck, but only at the expense of a significant area of play and source of fun, namely weekly start-bench decisions. That's a hefty price. On the other hand, run-of-the-mill 10-to-12-team leagues requiring the starting of only 1 quarterback and 2 running backs are woefully inadequate with respect to combatting the influence of lady luck. In an effort to minimize luck, a better configuration would be, say, a 10-team league (I actually believe that the ideal number of teams for a fantasy league is 8 or 10, NOT the usual 12; the reasoning behind this is discussed more below) that requires the fielding of 2 (or even 3 if you want to be maverick) quarterbacks and 3 running backs. The configuration in the 10-team GBRFL is 2 and 3, respectively. You could perhaps tinker with other positions. Two that come to mind are team defense and kicker. The thing there, though, is the nature of those positions is such that starting more than one may just lead to diluting the field and leveling the competition at those positions. Ironically, vis-a-vis quarterback, running back, and receiver, starting more than one at kicker or team defense would probably increase the luck factor at those positions. In any event, the closer the configuration of the starting lineup, with respect to quarterback, running back, and receiver at least, is to what's actually available in the NFL, the better situated you are to decrease lady luck's influence. The more slack there is between the number of quarterbacks, running backs and receivers starting/playing significant minutes in the NFL and your fantasy league, the more chance you leave for unpredictable choices to be made and, therefore, the more room you leave to chance/luck. A third way, and this one seems drastic to the common sensibility but is really very doable, is to rid your league of playoffs. I've been down this road many times with many of you. Playoffs for "real" sports are surely the way to go. Fans, revenue, hype, suspense, parity, the list of "real-world" reasons goes on and on. But, none of the "real-world" reasons for implementing playoffs nor the dynamics thereof, like players playing "up" for the playoffs, in "real" sports hold for "fantasy" sports. Playoffs in fantasy football do one thing, increase the luck factor. First, playoffs force leagues to cut out at least the final one or two weeks worth of stats for the season because nobody wants their playoffs played when a handful of good players may be getting rested. Forget about all the guys who are playing, right? I've always considered it a greater sin to not count the stats of the majority for the sake of a handful of players on NFL playoff-bound teams. But, that's what having playoffs in a fantasy league dictates. In any event, though, playoffs in fantasy sports are just too big of an equalizer, and the more teams you let in, the more luck becomes a factor. It's not like the seatings have the weight they do in real sports... with real humans able to react and home-field advantages and such (and artificial point allotments in fantasy football that are supposed to "mirror" home-field advantage in the NFL are... forced to say the least; I just think dumb). Outside of spending 13 or so weeks merely narrowing down the field, the winner of the final two- or three-week "new" playoff season tacked on at the end, i.e. the champion, is determined in a way that is virtually totally disconnected from the 13 or so prior weeks. YIKES! Talk about opening the door wide-open to lady luck... You're welcoming her in. One obvious way to shut the door on this is to simply eliminate playoffs and let the standings determine your champion. I think that is a decent way to go (that's what we did in the GBRFL for years), but it may be a bit anti-climactic for some people's tastes. A fantastic alternative that we in the GBRFL adopted a few years back, borne out of my experience of playing in a bowling league at the time, is the "bumper week" format. It's better for me to just show you how this works than trying to explain it. You can see how it works in the GBRFL here: http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/gbrfl/schedule.htm. I could envision a number of variations on the "bumper week" format that could be devised. In any event, the "bumper week" format is a hybrid between having playoffs and letting the championship simply be determined by the standings. Instead of forcing things like a simple playoff format would require you to do if you want to minimize luck, the "bumper week" format maintains the standings, appropriately awarding the records teams have earned, mainly the guy who earned the top spot (by having him play the last-place team in one of his two games as is done in the GBRFL format), while giving teams within striking distance of the championship a chance but one only relative to what they really earned during the rest of the season. By not letting your league be determined by a clean slate the last two or so weeks of the season, and cutting off two or three weeks of stats in the process, mind you, and letting your league's champion simply be determined by the standings or, better yet, adopting a "bumper week" format will reduce the impact luck has on your league immensely. Way number four regards one of the worst commonplace practices in fantasy football. First-come-first-serve waiver wires/free-agent availability is a plague on fantasy football that allows "real-world" chance circumstance and, thus, luck to creep into our fantasy game. The insidious thing about first-come-first-serve is that it gives you the feeling that you are rewarding effort. WRONG! I mean to some degree perhaps you are (rewarding obsession), but if all the dudes in your league are into it roughly to the same degree, which is what should be the case (in any good league), then you're just making it a race to the computer. So, then, you have to factor in people's schedules and personal lives. Once you get into this, it's all about luck. Getting rid of first-come-first-serve and adopting a worst-to-first waiver wire is the simple, straightforward and, I think, best way to eliminate luck with respect to free-agency. At least, you should have a worst-to-first round or two... or more of free-agency before opening the waiver wire up to owners on a first-come-first-serve basis. The last two areas where luck can be minimized do not regard so much the rules and structure of a league as practice. The fifth way luck can be kept at a minimum was actually already implied by the first, maintaining a long-term league rather than just getting whoever together year in and year out, which, first of all, implies a "turnover" league, which, in and of itself, lays the groundwork for luck. However, what I want to speak to here is something more (over-arching), making repeatability and long-term success a part of your game. A guy wins a solidly put-together and well-maintained league with a low rate of attrition one time over 10, 15, 20+ years, that may have been luck, whereas, a guy's winning it three, four, five+ times is no longer mere luck. Point being, even with the implementation of everything I mentioned above, there is/may be no way to eliminate luck, but there is at least definitely a strong argument that repeated success in the long run is no longer about mere luck. All things roughly equal over the long haul, there is something that is separating the successful owner from the unsuccessful ones. This cannot (even) be appreciated in a (turnover) league where the owners are always changing. Finally, while it can be said that the fifth way above may have a little to do with the structuring of your league, way number six has absolutely nothing to do with the rules or structure of a league (other than indirectly in that it probably limits your choices, moreover, by the run-of-the-mill stuff, which sucks... and, as suggested above, opens the door to lady luck)... Stop using league-management software that babies owners by doing all the research for them! League management software that simply tells the owners what free-agents are available and, worse yet, gives fantasy-points rankings and news links reduces the impact of effort. Unlike first-come-first-serve free-agency, which is an unhealthy way of rewarding effort, making owners figure out who's available and doing the research themselves is a healthy way to allow owners to reap the rewards of their efforts and separate themselves from the pack. If you level the playing field too much with respect to the impact of effort, you are increasing the proportion luck plays into things. Stop using league-management software that does all the hard work for your owners and make the owners in your league do the grunt work for themselves and earn their championships and in the process reduce the impact luck plays in your game. The last thing I want noted is that notice that I did NOT mention tinkering with the number of teams in a league as a way to reduce the impact of luck. The fact of the matter is that the number of teams in a league, in and of itself, does nothing with respect to decreasing the impact of luck as some may perceive it does, and, in fact, in two particular respects in light of the above it can contribute to increasing the impact luck has. As a matter of fact, in the usual 12-team league, starting 3 running backs and 3 receivers is too much, but 1 or 2 isn't enough (as per the "second way to reduce luck" explained above). 12 is actually a terrible number of teams to have in a fantasy league in light of a 32-team NFL. Manipulating the number of teams in a league is a very dicey issue vis-a-vis luck. If your league grows to an excess that necessitates more than one division, you now need to have playoffs (which goes against the "third way to reduce luck" explained above). Anytime a league is divided into divisions and playoffs are required to determine a champion, all the aforementioned luck that comes with playoffs becomes part of your game. So, how much is luck a part of fantasy football? It varies, and your take is going to be relative to your experience. In my 18 years of participating in fantasy football, I have found that it is not that big of a factor, no more than in real life, and the aforementioned ways I have found effective in limiting it so it resembles the luck found in real life more than that found in gambling. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Luck and Fantasy Football Post by StegRock on Jul 20th, 2006, 5:55am [offtopic]With the season now fast approaching, I want to bump this thread up for our newcomers. That post of mine right above was just too much of a magnum opus :P for me to just let this drop as we enter the high time for fantasy football! Enjoy this rerun, fellaz![/offtopic] |
||||
|
Title: Re: Luck and Fantasy Football Post by Takamine305 on Jul 20th, 2006, 9:08am Wow, thanks for the "war & peace" explanation of luck. sheesh!! I look at this completely differently though. What you all seem to call "luck," I like to refer to as good management. So i pick up someone on the waiver that has a big week. Is that luck or did i just make a phenomenal move?? As far as for owners complaining cause they score more points then everyone but still have and average or less record. well, welcome to the real world!!! The superbowl champion pittsburgh steelers were the 9th best in scoring last year. the 5th and 6th top scorers (san diego and kansas city) didn't even make the playoffs!! I guess by most of your interpretations the Pittsburgh Steelers are just "lucky" and not a team that made the right moves and put the right players in to make the super bowl run!! So, you can call it luck......<cough><cough> sore losers....or you can give credit where credit is due when someone can come out of nowhere and win it all. It's how the NFL it, it's how fantasy football is, and it's how life is. "Luck" is what you make it!!!! I'll take the guy that spends the entire preseason and season studying the picks and sniffing out the sleepers then the guy that drafts a team and doesn't touch it all season EVERY TIME!!!! With all that said............good luck this year in your fantasy football endeavors!!! ahahaha. ;) |
||||
|
Title: Re: Luck and Fantasy Football Post by StegRock on Jul 20th, 2006, 4:02pm on 07/20/06 at 09:08:01, Takamine305 wrote:
Don't quite take too well to this part of your commentary. >:( Quote:
I think,... nay,... KNOW that someone here with an inclination to disagree with you and was clever enough could,... nay,... would ask, "What exactly do you mean, besides that single little example of yours, by 'good management'?" I believe that is where my "sheesh-conducing" "War & Peace" explanation (which I really should have published as an article rather than just posted on the boards here) picks up and goes on to fill in all the blanks. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Luck and Fantasy Football Post by Takamine305 on Jul 21st, 2006, 11:36am It simply referred to the length of a post in a thread. I apologize for stepping on any toes and you yourself considered it to be a lengthy post. Anyways, as far as defining "good management" for you....It would have to include a prepared for draft followed by constant surveying of the FA pool to see who might have slipped through the draft or be in line for a big week due to injuries and/or matchups. These things should all be a given though. I'll be more careful with descriptions and try not to hurt anyone's feelings. ;D |
||||
|
Title: Re: Luck and Fantasy Football Post by StegRock on Jul 21st, 2006, 4:29pm We're just back at square one now,... and on a path (of debate) that ultimately leads to a truly teased-out post like mine,... until someone then comes along and shoves the merry-go-round around again. And, then, we go in circles, circles... |
||||
|
Title: Re: Luck and Fantasy Football Post by MordecaiCourage on Jul 21st, 2006, 5:08pm I love the merry-go-round ;D [smiley=assinface.gif]so...here we go [smiley=tonguin.gif]...There is certainly skill involved in picking up a player who has a lucky week!!!!! [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=gonecrazy.gif] [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif] Seems to me that all of this thread could be summed up like that. Luck makes no sense..it's random...if anyone should entertain the thought that they won anything in the fantasy realm without this "random" luck having some part in it is sadly mistaken....all "our" superior skills aside!! Yes, you have a better winning percentage using your brilliance as a fantasy guru....but we've all won some and lost some due to a random bit of luck or bad luck as it may be. That's all I have to say 'bout that http://mud.mm-a2.yimg.com/image/551986089 |
||||
|
Title: Re: Luck and Fantasy Football Post by StegRock on Jul 21st, 2006, 5:28pm on 07/21/06 at 17:08:03, MordecaiCourage wrote:
That doesn't really "respond" to what I'm sayin'... I don't disagree with that... There's nothing there not to agree with... Frankly speaking,... you're not really saying anything... meaningful, no less revolutionary,... except that you like "merry-go-rounds", which, in this sense, I hate! |
||||
|
Title: Re: Luck and Fantasy Football Post by MordecaiCourage on Jul 21st, 2006, 7:18pm on 07/21/06 at 17:28:14, StegRock wrote:
uh....ok. That was kinda my point (you know..using Gump and everything) I was using sarcastic humor that showed that your point of further debate on the luck thing and being played out is like being on a merry-go-round. I'm not trying to rewrite the Declaration or anything. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Luck and Fantasy Football Post by StegRock on Jul 21st, 2006, 7:58pm Okay... Well, at least we can agree to disagree on merry-go-rounds... You love 'em. I hate 'em. That much I get! ;D |
||||
|
Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.1! YaBB © 2000-2002, Xnull. All Rights Reserved. |