Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
what about playing against every team in your league every week. if you have the top score you go 13-0 for the week. if you have the second best score you go 12-1 and so on... doesn't that tip the scale to skill? I would be in your corner the whole way on this one Gekko!
Another angle to consider
Another angle to consider
First, you cannot quantify and separate luck from skill when it comes to player performance, which I am sure even you will admit. Not objectively anyway. This is the crux of the reason why I feel it is impossible to judge "whose projections were better", be it football, baseball or monkey boxing.
Second, aren't you assuming that luck is not random? The team that has +10 units of performance luck is just as likely to have -10 units of scheduling luck as he is +10 of scheduling luck. Then let's not put a quantitative unit on it and keep the discussion qualitative (is that a word? it is now).
No, luck of this variety is indeed random (although I have a philosophy in fantasy games that the skilled owner can put themself in a better position to enjoy good luck, but that's a thread for another day). I don't see how this is extracted from my argument. Fact is, that team was also just as likely to have had -10 units of performance luck when this all began.
I'll just say that I would prefer that a team that has enjoyed some degree of luck with respect to performance also at least has the opportunity for some bad fortune to temper their success--and vice versa by the way. There are instances where a team had bad luck with respect to performance and get good luck with scheduling.
[ December 05, 2004, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Todd Zola ]
Second, aren't you assuming that luck is not random? The team that has +10 units of performance luck is just as likely to have -10 units of scheduling luck as he is +10 of scheduling luck. Then let's not put a quantitative unit on it and keep the discussion qualitative (is that a word? it is now).
No, luck of this variety is indeed random (although I have a philosophy in fantasy games that the skilled owner can put themself in a better position to enjoy good luck, but that's a thread for another day). I don't see how this is extracted from my argument. Fact is, that team was also just as likely to have had -10 units of performance luck when this all began.
I'll just say that I would prefer that a team that has enjoyed some degree of luck with respect to performance also at least has the opportunity for some bad fortune to temper their success--and vice versa by the way. There are instances where a team had bad luck with respect to performance and get good luck with scheduling.
[ December 05, 2004, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Todd Zola ]
"No one cares about your team but you."
Another angle to consider
Originally posted by Todd Zola:
quote: First, you cannot quantify and separate luck from skill when it comes to player performance, which I am sure even you will admit. Not objectively anyway. This is the crux of the reason why I feel it is impossible to judge "whose projections were better", be it football, baseball or monkey boxing.
Second, aren't you assuming that luck is not random? The team that has +10 units of performance luck is just as likely to have -10 units of scheduling luck as he is +10 of scheduling luck. Then let's not put a quantitative unit on it and keep the discussion qualitative (is that a word? it is now).
No, luck of this variety is indeed random (although I have a philosophy in fantasy games that the skilled owner can put themself in a better position to enjoy good luck, but that's a thread for another day). I don't see how this is extracted from my argument. Fact is, that team was also just as likely to have had -10 units of performance luck when this all began.
I'll just say that I would prefer that a team that has enjoyed some degree of luck with respect to performance also at least has the opportunity for some bad fortune to temper their success--and vice versa by the way. There are instances where a team had bad luck with respect to performance and get good luck with scheduling. [/QUOTE]Here is my point, at the risk of beating this to death:
Minimizing the impact of scheduling luck has no impact on other luck because both types are random - keeping luck A because it could offset luck B doesn't make sense because is it just as likely to offset skill. Therefore, eliminating it can only be good, not bad, if your goal is to bring forth skill.
Formula = if luck A + luck B + skill = results,
and luck A is not related to luck B, then
= the only impact of reducing luck A is to increase the proportionate impact of skill.
quote: First, you cannot quantify and separate luck from skill when it comes to player performance, which I am sure even you will admit. Not objectively anyway. This is the crux of the reason why I feel it is impossible to judge "whose projections were better", be it football, baseball or monkey boxing.
Second, aren't you assuming that luck is not random? The team that has +10 units of performance luck is just as likely to have -10 units of scheduling luck as he is +10 of scheduling luck. Then let's not put a quantitative unit on it and keep the discussion qualitative (is that a word? it is now).
No, luck of this variety is indeed random (although I have a philosophy in fantasy games that the skilled owner can put themself in a better position to enjoy good luck, but that's a thread for another day). I don't see how this is extracted from my argument. Fact is, that team was also just as likely to have had -10 units of performance luck when this all began.
I'll just say that I would prefer that a team that has enjoyed some degree of luck with respect to performance also at least has the opportunity for some bad fortune to temper their success--and vice versa by the way. There are instances where a team had bad luck with respect to performance and get good luck with scheduling. [/QUOTE]Here is my point, at the risk of beating this to death:
Minimizing the impact of scheduling luck has no impact on other luck because both types are random - keeping luck A because it could offset luck B doesn't make sense because is it just as likely to offset skill. Therefore, eliminating it can only be good, not bad, if your goal is to bring forth skill.
Formula = if luck A + luck B + skill = results,
and luck A is not related to luck B, then
= the only impact of reducing luck A is to increase the proportionate impact of skill.
Another angle to consider
Minimizing the impact of scheduling luck has no impact on other luck because both types are random - keeping luck A because it could offset luck B doesn't make sense because is it just as likely to offset skill. Therefore, eliminating it can only be good, not bad, if your goal is to bring forth skill. From am academic/intellectual level, I completely understand this argument, I really do. From what I will label a practical application, I still prefer not to eliminate one but not the other by the means of bumping a team with a better record out of the playoffs in favor of a team with a lesser record.
"No one cares about your team but you."
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 7222
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:00 pm
Another angle to consider
you guys are funny. i can't even follow the thread anymore...
good luck + bad luck + no luck + luck D + luck ABC - luck xyz * 2 + luck gg ...
good luck + bad luck + no luck + luck D + luck ABC - luck xyz * 2 + luck gg ...
Is my "weekend warrior" prep better than your prep?
Another angle to consider
You cannot generally say that the team with the highest points scored is the best team..what if a team owner had a really good draft and was putting up great points every week but his reserve roster players were putting better numbers up...can you actually say that his team wasn't better then some other teams with better w-l or active cumulative points..you have to take in consideration won-loss and overall points...but if you were weigh overall points more heavily why not bench players points also... like in draftmasters or draft champions....isn't that luck also who to start or who to bench...according to matchups etc..etc...anyhow we can all try to bend the rules to our own benefit..but what it comes down to is the rules are the rules...as of now....
"Fortis fortuna adiuvat"-"Fortune favors the brave"
Another angle to consider
LUCK, or "the bounce of the ball" is that intangible part of sport that must be there for sports to be appealing...
if the better team always won, why would we play the games?
i have a chance to win my league as the games will go right down to the monday nighter..
i feel like i have been VERY unlucky in some ways (fortunate in others) and thats all part of the game...
i have the BEST QB, two top ten RB's from the draft...i have a top 2 kicker and the number one defense in the league... you would expect me to have weak WR's, but i was able to draft FIVE WR's that are the #1 or 2 options from their teams... yet none of them have been productive or healthy in the least at ANY point this season... this coming in a huge passing/receiver friendly season...
yet guys who were fortunate to take stokley, houshmandzadeh, clayton, bruce, wayne and many others got way better production then they could have ever expected...
no one even wanted tiki barber with the pre season rumors and his fumbling past... now look at him... was that a brilliant owner who took him? or someone who was lucky and took him because he was one of the last RB's left?
thats part of the game.. the ONLY way to determine who REALLY drafted the best team would be to do the draft...and then have a panel of "experts" look at "projections" and break down who put together then best team on PAPER...
aside from that we have to play the games and put together the best game format/style that is the fairest...
i think the one the nffc has is great... H2H is important, but so is total points...
after that, you hope you get the "bounce of the ball" because there are not too many different ways we can streamline this thing past what has already been done....
if the better team always won, why would we play the games?
i have a chance to win my league as the games will go right down to the monday nighter..
i feel like i have been VERY unlucky in some ways (fortunate in others) and thats all part of the game...
i have the BEST QB, two top ten RB's from the draft...i have a top 2 kicker and the number one defense in the league... you would expect me to have weak WR's, but i was able to draft FIVE WR's that are the #1 or 2 options from their teams... yet none of them have been productive or healthy in the least at ANY point this season... this coming in a huge passing/receiver friendly season...
yet guys who were fortunate to take stokley, houshmandzadeh, clayton, bruce, wayne and many others got way better production then they could have ever expected...
no one even wanted tiki barber with the pre season rumors and his fumbling past... now look at him... was that a brilliant owner who took him? or someone who was lucky and took him because he was one of the last RB's left?
thats part of the game.. the ONLY way to determine who REALLY drafted the best team would be to do the draft...and then have a panel of "experts" look at "projections" and break down who put together then best team on PAPER...
aside from that we have to play the games and put together the best game format/style that is the fairest...
i think the one the nffc has is great... H2H is important, but so is total points...
after that, you hope you get the "bounce of the ball" because there are not too many different ways we can streamline this thing past what has already been done....
Another angle to consider
Originally posted by DIESEL02:
You cannot generally say that the team with the highest points scored is the best team..what if a team owner had a really good draft and was putting up great points every week but his reserve roster players were putting better numbers up...can you actually say that his team wasn't better then some other teams with better w-l or active cumulative points..you have to take in consideration won-loss and overall points...but if you were weigh overall points more heavily why not bench players points also... like in draftmasters or draft champions....isn't that luck also who to start or who to bench...according to matchups etc..etc...anyhow we can all try to bend the rules to our own benefit..but what it comes down to is the rules are the rules...as of now.... I have not heard anyone discuss or suggest that rules be changed for anything BUT the future, so to make a token allegation that people are trying to change rules for their own benefit isn't accurate in the sense you are using. It's true that I think better rules that reduce some of the luck factors and therefore I would like to think it would benefit me.
But to dismiss all of this converastion as 'people trying to change the rules to help their teams this year' is just stupid.
Dave
You cannot generally say that the team with the highest points scored is the best team..what if a team owner had a really good draft and was putting up great points every week but his reserve roster players were putting better numbers up...can you actually say that his team wasn't better then some other teams with better w-l or active cumulative points..you have to take in consideration won-loss and overall points...but if you were weigh overall points more heavily why not bench players points also... like in draftmasters or draft champions....isn't that luck also who to start or who to bench...according to matchups etc..etc...anyhow we can all try to bend the rules to our own benefit..but what it comes down to is the rules are the rules...as of now.... I have not heard anyone discuss or suggest that rules be changed for anything BUT the future, so to make a token allegation that people are trying to change rules for their own benefit isn't accurate in the sense you are using. It's true that I think better rules that reduce some of the luck factors and therefore I would like to think it would benefit me.
But to dismiss all of this converastion as 'people trying to change the rules to help their teams this year' is just stupid.
Dave
The Wonderful thing about Dyv's is I'm the only one!
Another angle to consider
I have a great way to eliminate luck for next year. Let's play the 2005 NFFC with 2004 stats.
Seriously though, the ultimate rule set can not eliminate all luck -- in fact, the luck of the accidental sleeper pick is one of the pure joys of FF and couldn't be eliminated anyway.
The goal should be to eliminate as much luck as possible, and I believe that is the motivating factor behind most of these ideas -- whether or not you agree with them.
Seriously though, the ultimate rule set can not eliminate all luck -- in fact, the luck of the accidental sleeper pick is one of the pure joys of FF and couldn't be eliminated anyway.
The goal should be to eliminate as much luck as possible, and I believe that is the motivating factor behind most of these ideas -- whether or not you agree with them.
Hello. My name is Lee Scoresby. I come from Texas, like flying hot-air balloons, being eaten by talking polar bears and fantasy football.
Another angle to consider
Originally posted by I Cojones:
Seriously though, the ultimate rule set can not eliminate all luck -- in fact, the luck of the accidental sleeper pick is one of the pure joys of FF and couldn't be eliminated anyway.
The goal should be to eliminate as much luck as possible, and I believe that is the motivating factor behind most of these ideas -- whether or not you agree with them. Well said Cojones. We're not trying to eliminate luck when it comes to who gets injured, who plays better than expected, etc. But scheduling-based luck is pure BS.
Schedule is set at the beginning of the yr, tm 1 plays tm 14 in wk 1, then tm 2 in wk 2, or whatever the formula is. Change the schedule around and standings could be upside down for some teams. That is just plain wrong for a game of skill.
If I sit down at a slot machine I understand the nature of the odds. I can sit there for 14 hrs and the second I leave it could hit a million bucks, or I could be that guy that just sat down. But FF is a game of skill and I want whoever wins to be either me because I had a great season or someone who had a better season than me.
Seriously though, the ultimate rule set can not eliminate all luck -- in fact, the luck of the accidental sleeper pick is one of the pure joys of FF and couldn't be eliminated anyway.
The goal should be to eliminate as much luck as possible, and I believe that is the motivating factor behind most of these ideas -- whether or not you agree with them. Well said Cojones. We're not trying to eliminate luck when it comes to who gets injured, who plays better than expected, etc. But scheduling-based luck is pure BS.
Schedule is set at the beginning of the yr, tm 1 plays tm 14 in wk 1, then tm 2 in wk 2, or whatever the formula is. Change the schedule around and standings could be upside down for some teams. That is just plain wrong for a game of skill.
If I sit down at a slot machine I understand the nature of the odds. I can sit there for 14 hrs and the second I leave it could hit a million bucks, or I could be that guy that just sat down. But FF is a game of skill and I want whoever wins to be either me because I had a great season or someone who had a better season than me.