There has been a ton of discussion in an attempt to eliminate or at least minimize the bad luck a team incurs over the course of the fantasy season, primarily as relates to one's schedule. The idea being a team with more points is left out of the playoffs.
The obvious correlation being the team with more points is the better team (a point I have contended may not always be true, but let's leave that in another thread).
Is however, the team with more points, aka the better team, necessarily owned by the more skilled owner, or at least owned by the owner who did a more skillful job at that particular draft, or is there something else involved?
Thus far, we have concentrated solely on the bad luck side of the equation. Let's talk about the good luck side. I'm not talking about the guy who faced the Manning team when he was on bye and faced Priest when he was hurt, I'm talking about the team that drafted Drew Brees to be their bye-week QB, hoping he still had the job at that time, and ended up with anywhere between the 4th and 7th best OVERALL QB. I'm talking about the team that drafted Curtis Martin to be a decent number 2 RB and ended up with a solid TOP TEN OVERALL RB. I'm talking about the team that picked Javon Walker because Favre has to throw to somebody and ended up with a stud, TOP FIVE WR.
The point I am making of course is some owners were LUCKIER than their fellow owners. Yes, some were better, but I feel it is indisputable that some were the benefit of good fortune.
So while some portion of the highest scores in the league are definitely due to being a superior fantasy football player, there is a portion that needs to be attributed to nothing more than dumb luck.
Why aren't we discussing ways Greg and Tom need to minimize the good luck involved in the NFFC?
While some are contending the overall points leader is by definition the best team and is therefore deserved of the $100,000, I submit the overall points leader was NOT NECESSARILY the MOST SKILLED owner in the competition, but was in all liklihood amongst the luckiest.
By bumping a team with a better H2H record out of the playoffs in favor of a team that scored more points, we might not be bumping a less skilled owner in favor of a more skilled one, but rather a less lucky owner in favor of a more lucky owner.
Until we address the ways to minimize the good luck owners incur, I am perfectly content to accept the bad luck.
Another angle to consider
Another angle to consider
"No one cares about your team but you."
Another angle to consider
Todd, your previous post brought out some real good points. But this one ...
There is good and bad luck in life that is beyond control. Nothing you can do about it. But some things can be controlled. Your argument here equates to: Since you can't make it perfect, why bother trying? .... I couldn't disagree with you more.
Secondly, your comment about good versus bad luck is misplaced. This is a zero sum game. Someone's un-deserving bad luck is someone else's un-deserving good luck, and v-v. They are one in the same. Minimizing someone's bad luck is also minimizing someone else's good luck.
I do agree with you that most points scored may not necessarily equal the best team, but that has nothing to do with looking for ways to minimize the impact of random scheduling.
[ December 05, 2004, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
There is good and bad luck in life that is beyond control. Nothing you can do about it. But some things can be controlled. Your argument here equates to: Since you can't make it perfect, why bother trying? .... I couldn't disagree with you more.
Secondly, your comment about good versus bad luck is misplaced. This is a zero sum game. Someone's un-deserving bad luck is someone else's un-deserving good luck, and v-v. They are one in the same. Minimizing someone's bad luck is also minimizing someone else's good luck.
I do agree with you that most points scored may not necessarily equal the best team, but that has nothing to do with looking for ways to minimize the impact of random scheduling.
[ December 05, 2004, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
Another angle to consider
Your argument here equates to: Since you can't make it perfect, why bother trying? .. And my interpretation of the other argument is "I don't want to be screwed by someone else's good luck with regards to favorable scheduling but I couldn't care less if I screw them because I got lucky with a significant portion of my picks"
I do agree with you that most points scored may not necessarily equal the best team, but that has nothing to do with looking for ways to minimize the impact of random scheduling. No, it doesn't and that was not my argument. What it does do is let the team who was luckier with respect to his players performance benefit TWICE. First with respect to how many points they score and second with respect with how many they have scored against them.
You are amongst the league leaders in posts, you SHOULD have one of the best records. You don't. This means you were unlucky in your points against. We need to correct that. So not only are you now lucky because your team overachieved, you are doubly lucky because we balanced the schedule and your overachieving team which would have been in the consolation bracket made the main event bracket.
So my argument is that since all the luck cannot be eliminated, I would prefer not to eliminate only a portion of it which has the end result of doubly benefitting a lucky team.
Using your sum-zero argument, by leveling out the bad luck, the good luck becomes more of the deciding factor. Leaving things as is at least gives the chance for someone who has had good luck to also receive bad luck.
[ December 05, 2004, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Todd Zola ]
I do agree with you that most points scored may not necessarily equal the best team, but that has nothing to do with looking for ways to minimize the impact of random scheduling. No, it doesn't and that was not my argument. What it does do is let the team who was luckier with respect to his players performance benefit TWICE. First with respect to how many points they score and second with respect with how many they have scored against them.
You are amongst the league leaders in posts, you SHOULD have one of the best records. You don't. This means you were unlucky in your points against. We need to correct that. So not only are you now lucky because your team overachieved, you are doubly lucky because we balanced the schedule and your overachieving team which would have been in the consolation bracket made the main event bracket.
So my argument is that since all the luck cannot be eliminated, I would prefer not to eliminate only a portion of it which has the end result of doubly benefitting a lucky team.
Using your sum-zero argument, by leveling out the bad luck, the good luck becomes more of the deciding factor. Leaving things as is at least gives the chance for someone who has had good luck to also receive bad luck.
[ December 05, 2004, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Todd Zola ]
"No one cares about your team but you."
Another angle to consider
So... Todd are you claiming there's no way to attribute picking up Brees or Javon Walker to a 'skillful' move and it's simply dumb luck?
I can tell you right now I targetted Javon Walker EXPLICITLY. He's been better than I expected, but not any better than I had hoped. I ended up getting McNair as my primary QB and backing him up with Plummer. As it turns out I netted a top 4-7 QB like I thought I would but ended up with Jake The Snake leading the charge so far. While I will grant you that I didn't pick Jake figuring he'd be a powerful QB I did pick him over a number of other guys on the board because I liked the Denver offense and was hopeful he would be growing into it. If we're going to call all of this 'blind luck' then I'm afraid the whole game should degenerate into randomly drafted teams getting assigned to their owners.
I think Zefurs points here are telling. You cannot legislate someone making good or bad picks. To each their own and good LUCK with your choices. Your picks are in your domain of control. You can make them good or bad. The scheduling, however, is like random acts of violence. It's out of your control. Sure, you could benefit by it... but if you believe yourself to be a GOOD gamer you would rather the skill/experience/research rules and gives you a better chance to win.
Would you support switching baseball to pure H2H formats because you WANT the luck factor as part of your fantasy game??
Dyv
[ December 05, 2004, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Dyv ]
I can tell you right now I targetted Javon Walker EXPLICITLY. He's been better than I expected, but not any better than I had hoped. I ended up getting McNair as my primary QB and backing him up with Plummer. As it turns out I netted a top 4-7 QB like I thought I would but ended up with Jake The Snake leading the charge so far. While I will grant you that I didn't pick Jake figuring he'd be a powerful QB I did pick him over a number of other guys on the board because I liked the Denver offense and was hopeful he would be growing into it. If we're going to call all of this 'blind luck' then I'm afraid the whole game should degenerate into randomly drafted teams getting assigned to their owners.
I think Zefurs points here are telling. You cannot legislate someone making good or bad picks. To each their own and good LUCK with your choices. Your picks are in your domain of control. You can make them good or bad. The scheduling, however, is like random acts of violence. It's out of your control. Sure, you could benefit by it... but if you believe yourself to be a GOOD gamer you would rather the skill/experience/research rules and gives you a better chance to win.
Would you support switching baseball to pure H2H formats because you WANT the luck factor as part of your fantasy game??
Dyv
[ December 05, 2004, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Dyv ]
The Wonderful thing about Dyv's is I'm the only one!
Another angle to consider
There is good and bad luck in life that is beyond control. Nothing you can do about it. But some things can be controlled. Your argument here equates to: Since you can't make it perfect, why bother trying? .... I couldn't disagree with you more. Let me try it this way.
If I believed fixing a portion of the game tipped the skill-luck balance more towards skill, I would jump on that bandwagon without hesitation.
Problem is, until someone can convince me otherwise, my take is fixing one portion, the imbalanced schedule, serves to further tip the balance towards the luck enjoyed by the Brees/Martin/Walker owner.
Again borrowing the zero-sum argument. There is a good luck/bad luck balance with respect to scheduling and a good luck/bad luck balance with respect to performance. So we minimize if not eliminate the scheduling balance. What is left is the performance balance to stand on its own. I want there to be a chance one of the good luck/bad luck pairs offsets the other as opposed to fully burdening the other.
If I believed fixing a portion of the game tipped the skill-luck balance more towards skill, I would jump on that bandwagon without hesitation.
Problem is, until someone can convince me otherwise, my take is fixing one portion, the imbalanced schedule, serves to further tip the balance towards the luck enjoyed by the Brees/Martin/Walker owner.
Again borrowing the zero-sum argument. There is a good luck/bad luck balance with respect to scheduling and a good luck/bad luck balance with respect to performance. So we minimize if not eliminate the scheduling balance. What is left is the performance balance to stand on its own. I want there to be a chance one of the good luck/bad luck pairs offsets the other as opposed to fully burdening the other.
"No one cares about your team but you."
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 7222
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:00 pm
Another angle to consider
Originally posted by Todd Zola:
If I believed fixing a portion of the game tipped the skill-luck balance more towards skill, I would jump on that bandwagon without hesitation.
doesn't all-play tip the skill-luck balance more towards skill. get ready to jump on the bandwagon.
[ December 05, 2004, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]
If I believed fixing a portion of the game tipped the skill-luck balance more towards skill, I would jump on that bandwagon without hesitation.
doesn't all-play tip the skill-luck balance more towards skill. get ready to jump on the bandwagon.
[ December 05, 2004, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]
Is my "weekend warrior" prep better than your prep?
-
Walla Walla
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:00 pm
Another angle to consider
One thing a total points league has over head to head is the issue of dead teams. While a dead team could give an unfair advantage in head to head it would have no impact on an overall points league. Being that Todd owned a dead team in baseball I'm sure he's aware of this problem.
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 7222
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:00 pm
Another angle to consider
Originally posted by Walla Walla:
Being that Todd owned a dead team in baseball I'm sure he's aware of this problem. is this true?
Being that Todd owned a dead team in baseball I'm sure he's aware of this problem. is this true?
Is my "weekend warrior" prep better than your prep?
Another angle to consider
So... Todd are you claiming there's no way to attribute picking up Brees or Javon Walker to a 'skillful' move and it's simply dumb luck?
I can tell you right now I targetted Javon Walker EXPLICITLY I hesitated to use real names in my example and in retrospect should have used more generic terms because I knew someone would turn this into I knew Brees/Martin/Walker would kick ass thread.
Congrats on your Walker pick but let's make up a straw man's to overshadow the obvious point I was trying to make. There is a great deal of good luck incurred in fantasy football, in conjunction with the high level of skill necessary to compete.
Would you support switching baseball to pure H2H formats because you WANT the luck factor as part of your fantasy game??
The short answer is no but I have an issue with the way this question is presented which I will address in a second.
I don't want to turn this into a baseball versus football battle, but the games are different, thus the skills involved in both are different. The ability to project performance is shared by both. The acumen it takes to set up draft lists or determine auction values is shared by both. The difference is that there are strategical aspects involved with rotisserie style scoring prevalent in baseball I do not wish to eliminate.
Now, if the question was "would you favor a switch to football using roto-style scoring?", I would absolutely love that. And for those that are unaware, some challenge games utilize that format.
OK, now to address the implication of the question that I have issue with. It is not that I want the luck factor to be part or not be part. It IS part. No matter what tweaks are made, luck will always be a part. I am totally for eliminating any element of luck that has no other repercussions, that is by eliminating it the balance is tipped towards skill. As I have explained, in my eyes, eliminating the scheduling inequities impacts other elements of the game, specifically serving to amplify other types of luck.
As I am writing this I am seeing a pretty big contradiction in my own words--any elimination of luck will serve to burden the luck remaining, but yet I just stated "I am totally for eliminating any element of luck that has no other repercussions". One repercussion will always be the remaining luck is amplified so there will never be any tweaks that have no repercussions so I will never be in favor of any channge.
The key is the admittedly subjective "the balance is tipped towards skill." Presently, from where I sit, eliminating the scheduling inequity does not significantly tip that balance towards skill, in fact it may tip it in the opposite direction.
[ December 05, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Todd Zola ]
I can tell you right now I targetted Javon Walker EXPLICITLY I hesitated to use real names in my example and in retrospect should have used more generic terms because I knew someone would turn this into I knew Brees/Martin/Walker would kick ass thread.
Congrats on your Walker pick but let's make up a straw man's to overshadow the obvious point I was trying to make. There is a great deal of good luck incurred in fantasy football, in conjunction with the high level of skill necessary to compete.
Would you support switching baseball to pure H2H formats because you WANT the luck factor as part of your fantasy game??
The short answer is no but I have an issue with the way this question is presented which I will address in a second.
I don't want to turn this into a baseball versus football battle, but the games are different, thus the skills involved in both are different. The ability to project performance is shared by both. The acumen it takes to set up draft lists or determine auction values is shared by both. The difference is that there are strategical aspects involved with rotisserie style scoring prevalent in baseball I do not wish to eliminate.
Now, if the question was "would you favor a switch to football using roto-style scoring?", I would absolutely love that. And for those that are unaware, some challenge games utilize that format.
OK, now to address the implication of the question that I have issue with. It is not that I want the luck factor to be part or not be part. It IS part. No matter what tweaks are made, luck will always be a part. I am totally for eliminating any element of luck that has no other repercussions, that is by eliminating it the balance is tipped towards skill. As I have explained, in my eyes, eliminating the scheduling inequities impacts other elements of the game, specifically serving to amplify other types of luck.
As I am writing this I am seeing a pretty big contradiction in my own words--any elimination of luck will serve to burden the luck remaining, but yet I just stated "I am totally for eliminating any element of luck that has no other repercussions". One repercussion will always be the remaining luck is amplified so there will never be any tweaks that have no repercussions so I will never be in favor of any channge.
The key is the admittedly subjective "the balance is tipped towards skill." Presently, from where I sit, eliminating the scheduling inequity does not significantly tip that balance towards skill, in fact it may tip it in the opposite direction.
[ December 05, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Todd Zola ]
"No one cares about your team but you."
Another angle to consider
Originally posted by Walla Walla:
Being that Todd owned a dead team in baseball I'm sure he's aware of this problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is this true? And I also owned a team that was 3-8 in the NY auction that took down the 11-0 team last week, primarily due to remaining active and picking up some decent free agents late.
Anyone who wants to talk with me about what happened this past summer in the NFBC, shoot me an e-mail or a PM and I'll be happy to find a time to chat with you.
Being that Todd owned a dead team in baseball I'm sure he's aware of this problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is this true? And I also owned a team that was 3-8 in the NY auction that took down the 11-0 team last week, primarily due to remaining active and picking up some decent free agents late.
Anyone who wants to talk with me about what happened this past summer in the NFBC, shoot me an e-mail or a PM and I'll be happy to find a time to chat with you.
"No one cares about your team but you."