Week 8
11/6/09
Every industry has experts; those sages that dispense wisdom
and truth from atop the mountain. In philosophy these learned men
wear long, flowing robes and an equally lengthy beard is required.
In fantasy football, a backwards ball cap, clipboard of notes, and
half empty bottle of Coors Light is more likely. But are these guys
truly experts? Do they know any better than the rest of us schmucks?
Each week Analyzing the Experts will take aim at one or more of
these so-called oracles and find out…
Continuing with our Expert interviews, I selected Football Guys
and AOL Fanhouse at random and not really expecting much cooperation
from either of them. Pay sites are notoriously grumpy about people
criticizing their results and AOL is one of those corporate sites
that doesn’t provide contact information for anyone. The response
I received was, in a word, unexpected. I was amazed at how defensive
and combative some of our Experts can be when forced into a corner
and asked to explain themselves. I know I can be a real ass, but
come on guys. You spend your days analyzing fantasy football. I
love football too, but it’s important to keep things in perspective.
You write about a hobby that is loosely based on a sport. No one
is inventing cold fusion, pondering faster than light space travel,
or negotiating peace in the Middle East here. Relax. Have a beer
or three. Of course, I’m even more pathetic. I write about
people who write about a hobby that is loosely based on a sport.
Luckily I know that I’m not competing with Vonnegut or Shakespeare
in these articles…. Football Guys declined to participate
in an interview on two grounds. First, the standard “no
one has ever designed a system that can properly evaluate our
rankings, systems, and methodologies”. Full disclosure –
those are my words, not theirs, although it accurately summarizes
their position. Second, the head ranker dude just didn’t
have time, which I completely respect. He did follow up with a
multi-page email listing 37 different mistakes I am making with
Analyzing the Experts though. So, obviously time wasn’t
the real issue. I won’t bore everyone with his diatribe
as it was neither interesting nor particularly helpful, but I
will share my response.
Me: All your points are valid in one way or
another. The misconception is that this is a scientific study.
It isn't. Like regular fantasy football leagues, it is a contest
with arbitrary rules that all Experts are graded on equally. I'm
not planning on making this a PhD dissertation, just a fun way
of getting a quick glance at the overall abilities of various
Experts.
Regardless of the methodology, there will always be something
"unfair", meaning that - according to you - no one could
ever properly evaluate your work. My goal was simply to get some
quick (maybe even funny) responses to a few questions that readers
have asked or items I was curious about.
I hope this clears up the intent of the series. Overall, it is
65% science and 35% humor. Yes, those are the exact proportions.
It provides a system for evaluating Experts. Even if it is flawed,
it is still better than what readers had before, which was nothing.
One of the questions Football Guys refused to answer was, “There
are a many, many, free fantasy sites out there. Why should someone
pay to use yours?” That was a bit disappointing as I’m
still looking for someone to justify this and was hoping FB Guys,
with their success this year in our contest, would be the one
to do so….I guess I’ll have to stick with my original
idea that there is no justification for paying gobs of money when
the same information is free elsewhere.
Our second victim this week was AOL Fanhouse. It took some work
to contact a warm body at the website, but Snyder was kind enough
to share some of his time. His one caveat was that I publish his
answers uncut and unedited or, in his words, “instead of
just conveniently grabbing portions of answers in an attempt to
make yourself look clever and us look dumb.” In my defense,
I seldom look even vaguely competent much less clever. However,
because of that condition and space constraints, I won’t
be able to cover all of his responses.
The first question was concerning the fairness of our contest
and, to be plain, Snyder is not a fan of this series on any level
and for many reasons. I don’t have the space to list all
my offenses, but they are many and appalling. Blah, blah, blah….On
to some of the other questions….
Me: Your writers post their rankings in a blog
format early in the week but never seem to update them. Am I missing
something or are they sticking with those rankings days later?
AOL: We pride ourselves in interactivity.
We have a two and a half hour chat on gameday where we guarantee
to answer every single question. We also constantly make injury
updates. However, you have a very fair complaint on this front
and we need to get better. If someone doesn't want to get in the
chat and only looks at the rankings, we badly shortchanged them
in Mendenhall's breakout game (which you called us out for, and
rightfully so).
Me: AOL Fanhouse has struggled in this
competition. What in particular has held you back from success?
AOL: Haphazard coincidence. I care when I
make a bad call (like Darren McFadden having a breakout season)
or a really great one (like Steve Slaton as a sleeper last preseason).
When I make a legitimate mistake, I'm fully accountable (I actually
do a post after the season to praise myself and then call myself
out). But I couldn't care less about this exercise because I don't
think it's an accurate reflection of our work. When I first saw
the title of your column, after your email, I was excited to see
how we were doing because I enjoy putting myself under the microscope.
Instead, I was left disappointed because I didn't come away with
much (other than us needing to better update the rankings).
Me: Same question I asked FF Today last week - Should we expect
anything different in the second half of our competition? Changes
in methodology? Posting ranking updates later in the week?
AOL: I do think we need to do a better job of updating,
as I said above. As far as methodology, there aren't any secrets.
Everyone uses the stats for 75 percent of the rankings and their
gut for the other 25 percent. You win some, you lose some. I actually
don't believe in calling anyone an expert (otherwise, where are
the guys who had Alex Smith with three TDs last week or Ryan Moats
going ballistic this week?). I consider us all fantasy analysts.
We analyze the data, but don't have a magical crystal ball, thus,
mistakes are inevitable.
I want to thank Snyder for agreeing to answer my often boorish
and uncomfortable questions and, at the same time, apologize if
I left anything important out from his comments. On to the contest
itself….
This week’s team plays its home games at Fitchburg State
College near Worcester, MA. Matt’s team has a lot of players
on it, but I’m not sure how deep it is, particularly at
the running back position. He also has Westbrook sitting injured
on the sidelines, so it isn’t as bad as it seems.
- QB: Orton, Rodgers, Russell, Sanchez
- RB: Buckhalter, Forsett, Harrison, T. Jones, C. Wells
- WR: Bess, Breaston, Driver, Housh, A. Johnson
- TE: Celek, Davis
- K: Janikowski, Rackers
- Def: Bears, Dolphins
A number of our Experts didn’t rank Forsett, Bess, and
Janikowski. With the exception of the fat, drunken kicker it didn’t
matter as Forsett and Bess were last at their respective positions.
Week Eight’s Games
| Pick Color Codes |
|
| Correct |
|
| Missed by: 1 |
|
| Missed by: 2 |
|
| Missed by: 3 |
|
|
| |
O
r
t
o
n |
R
o
d
g
e
r
s |
R
u
s
s
e
l
l |
S
a
n
c
h
e
z |
B
u
c
k
h
a
l
t
e
r |
F
o
r
s
e
t
t |
H
a
r
r
i
s
o
n |
T.
J
o
n
e
s |
C.
W
e
l
l
s |
B
e
s
s |
B
r
e
a
s
t
o
n |
D
r
i
v
e
r |
H
o
u
s
h |
A.
J
o
h
n
s
o
n |
C
e
l
e
k |
D
a
v
i
s |
J
a
n
i
k
o
w
s
k
i |
R
a
c
k
e
r
s |
B
e
a
r
s |
D
o
l
p
h
i
n
s |
TPts |
| Correct |
3 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
| FFToolbox |
2 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
92 |
| FF
Sharks |
1 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
NR |
4 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
88 |
|
All of our Experts had a solid effort and 88 actually tied for our
low score this week. I’m not sure if it was this particular
team, seven previous weeks of game history, or just a boring week
in the NFL, but everyone did a great job on the rankings this week.
Shark’s man-love for Kyle Orton and some stumbles at receiver
hurt.
| |
O
r
t
o
n |
R
o
d
g
e
r
s |
R
u
s
s
e
l
l |
S
a
n
c
h
e
z |
B
u
c
k
h
a
l
t
e
r |
F
o
r
s
e
t
t |
H
a
r
r
i
s
o
n |
T.
J
o
n
e
s |
C.
W
e
l
l
s |
B
e
s
s |
B
r
e
a
s
t
o
n |
D
r
i
v
e
r |
H
o
u
s
h |
A.
J
o
h
n
s
o
n |
C
e
l
e
k |
D
a
v
i
s |
J
a
n
i
k
o
w
s
k
i |
R
a
c
k
e
r
s |
B
e
a
r
s |
D
o
l
p
h
i
n
s |
TPts |
| Correct |
3 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
| FFToday |
2 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
91 |
| FB
Guys |
2 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
90 |
|
This one came down to the wire. Notice that their rankings are identical
except at the tight end position. FF Today received nine points
for the defensive picks, meaning the only way they could win was
if Celek beat out Davis. Unfortunately for FB Guys, FF Today was
correct this time around.
| |
O
r
t
o
n |
R
o
d
g
e
r
s |
R
u
s
s
e
l
l |
S
a
n
c
h
e
z |
B
u
c
k
h
a
l
t
e
r |
F
o
r
s
e
t
t |
H
a
r
r
i
s
o
n |
T.
J
o
n
e
s |
C.
W
e
l
l
s |
B
e
s
s |
B
r
e
a
s
t
o
n |
D
r
i
v
e
r |
H
o
u
s
h |
A.
J
o
h
n
s
o
n |
C
e
l
e
k |
D
a
v
i
s |
J
a
n
i
k
o
w
s
k
i |
R
a
c
k
e
r
s |
B
e
a
r
s |
D
o
l
p
h
i
n
s |
TPts |
| Correct |
3 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
| Yahoo! |
2 |
1 |
NR |
3 |
3 |
4 |
NR |
1 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
NR |
1 |
1 |
2 |
92 |
| CBS |
2 |
1 |
NR |
3 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
NR |
4 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
NR |
1 |
1 |
2 |
94 |
|
CBS tied the high score this week. I think that’s the first
time I’ve ever said that….For both of these contestants,
the picks were close to ideal. As much as it hurts me to admit,
I have nothing mean to say about either of them today.
| |
O
r
t
o
n |
R
o
d
g
e
r
s |
R
u
s
s
e
l
l |
S
a
n
c
h
e
z |
B
u
c
k
h
a
l
t
e
r |
F
o
r
s
e
t
t |
H
a
r
r
i
s
o
n |
T.
J
o
n
e
s |
C.
W
e
l
l
s |
B
e
s
s |
B
r
e
a
s
t
o
n |
D
r
i
v
e
r |
H
o
u
s
h |
A.
J
o
h
n
s
o
n |
C
e
l
e
k |
D
a
v
i
s |
J
a
n
i
k
o
w
s
k
i |
R
a
c
k
e
r
s |
B
e
a
r
s |
D
o
l
p
h
i
n
s |
TPts |
| Correct |
3 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
| FF
Cafe |
2 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
94 |
| Rotoworld |
2 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
92 |
|
Same score as above and FF Cafe comes out on top here. Once again
the tight end position decides who wins. At the same time, Rotoworld’s
streak ends.
| |
O
r
t
o
n |
R
o
d
g
e
r
s |
R
u
s
s
e
l
l |
S
a
n
c
h
e
z |
B
u
c
k
h
a
l
t
e
r |
F
o
r
s
e
t
t |
H
a
r
r
i
s
o
n |
T.
J
o
n
e
s |
C.
W
e
l
l
s |
B
e
s
s |
B
r
e
a
s
t
o
n |
D
r
i
v
e
r |
H
o
u
s
h |
A.
J
o
h
n
s
o
n |
C
e
l
e
k |
D
a
v
i
s |
J
a
n
i
k
o
w
s
k
i |
R
a
c
k
e
r
s |
B
e
a
r
s |
D
o
l
p
h
i
n
s |
TPts |
| Correct |
3 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
| Huddle |
2 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
NR |
4 |
1 |
2 |
NR |
3 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
89 |
| Fox |
2 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
90 |
|
The Huddle had this one in the bag if they had come even close on
Johnson. I give them props for thinking outside the box, but I don’t
understand the low ranking for one of the NFL’s premier receivers,
nagging injury or not.
| |
O
r
t
o
n |
R
o
d
g
e
r
s |
R
u
s
s
e
l
l |
S
a
n
c
h
e
z |
B
u
c
k
h
a
l
t
e
r |
F
o
r
s
e
t
t |
H
a
r
r
i
s
o
n |
T.
J
o
n
e
s |
C.
W
e
l
l
s |
B
e
s
s |
B
r
e
a
s
t
o
n |
D
r
i
v
e
r |
H
o
u
s
h |
A.
J
o
h
n
s
o
n |
C
e
l
e
k |
D
a
v
i
s |
J
a
n
i
k
o
w
s
k
i |
R
a
c
k
e
r
s |
B
e
a
r
s |
D
o
l
p
h
i
n
s |
TPts |
| Correct |
3 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
| ESPN |
2 |
1 |
NR |
3 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
NR |
4 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
NR |
1 |
1 |
2 |
92 |
| KFFL |
1 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
88 |
|
I have definitely said this before: KFFL ties once again for the
low score. It is a pleasantly high score, with much bigger numbers
than they are used to. Unfortunately, it is still another loss for
them. Some things never change.
| |
O
r
t
o
n |
R
o
d
g
e
r
s |
R
u
s
s
e
l
l |
S
a
n
c
h
e
z |
B
u
c
k
h
a
l
t
e
r |
F
o
r
s
e
t
t |
H
a
r
r
i
s
o
n |
T.
J
o
n
e
s |
C.
W
e
l
l
s |
B
e
s
s |
B
r
e
a
s
t
o
n |
D
r
i
v
e
r |
H
o
u
s
h |
A.
J
o
h
n
s
o
n |
C
e
l
e
k |
D
a
v
i
s |
J
a
n
i
k
o
w
s
k
i |
R
a
c
k
e
r
s |
B
e
a
r
s |
D
o
l
p
h
i
n
s |
TPts |
| Correct |
3 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
| NFL |
2 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
NR |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
NR |
1 |
1 |
2 |
90 |
| AOL |
2 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
NR |
4 |
1 |
2 |
NR |
4 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
NR |
1 |
1 |
2 |
90 |
|
Here is our only tie of the week, which is surprising considering
how well our Experts did across the board. Astute readers may have
noticed that all of the other games are divisional but this one
isn’t. And these two teams have played each other before.
Yeah, I’m an idiot. Trying to play just divisional games is
difficult when you have seven teams in a division. I was stuck randomly
picking teams for the “idiot game”. And a tie makes
it moot this week anyway.
| ATE Week 8
Standings - East |
| EAST |
Record |
Pts |
| Rotoworld |
5-3 |
668 |
| Fox |
4-2-2 |
664 |
| FF Cafe |
3-2-3 |
658 |
| ESPN |
3-2-3 |
655 |
| The Huddle |
2-6 |
640 |
| AOL |
1-4-3 |
656 |
| KFFL |
1-6-1 |
634 |
|
|
| ATE Week 8
Standings - West |
| WEST |
Record |
Pts |
| FF Toolbox |
5-1-2 |
672 |
| Football Guys |
5-2-1 |
668 |
| CBS |
5-1-2 |
660 |
| FF Sharks |
4-2-2 |
654 |
| NFL |
2-4-2 |
657 |
| Yahoo! |
2-5-1 |
656 |
| FF Today |
2-4-2 |
649 |
|
|
The only change in the standings was FF Toolbox retaking its spot
atop the West Division. With five games left, I am removing AOL
and KFFL from life support and calling Week Eight as time of death.
Mathematically they can still get to the playoffs, but it’s
unrealistic to expect them to gain three games in the short time
remaining.
One item that an Expert brought up during the interview process
is the tight range for total points. FB Guys believes it indicates
that nothing is really being determined and just blind luck is
at work. An interesting sentiment for a team near the top of the
standings, but I can understand where the misconception comes
from since we only have a 34 point spread in points. Doesn’t
seem like much does it? That is an unfortunate by-product of the
scoring system. I wanted to make it mirror fantasy football, so
I set five points as the maximum for each player, totaling 100
points each week. One of the unintended side effects is that it
is almost impossible to score less than 70 in any given week,
making the scores look closer than they actually are. For example,
based on a maximum of 100 points for each of eight weeks, FF Toolbox
has an 84% accuracy rate. Meanwhile, at the bottom is KFFL with
79%. Five percent is significant to many people. A better way
of looking at it is the 34-point difference over the contest.
This means, with the given team each week, FF Toolbox’s
rankings are on average four spots better than KFFL. Making four
better picks each week is certainly significant and the difference
between a respectable 5-1-2 record and being a laughingstock at
1-6-1.
|
