Jordy, Jordy, Jordy...time to drop?

[brotherbock 349]

Nelson has had 10 lucky years of 561 lucky receptions for 8074 lucky yards, and 70 very, very lucky TDs. Man, who could have seen a good game coming from this unknown stiff? I just noticed he has had only 2 fumbles total in his last 7 years of play. How lucky can you get?

 

Pretty lucky in college too, that guy. I ever tell you I was dreaming of the NFL years ago? I mean, I never played in high school. Or college. I kept thinking the college coach would randomly dial my number and be all like "Hey Brother, you're on the team!" But never happened. And then the lucky call from an NFL team never materialized. I guess I could still play now. I'm around Brady's age. Still never played competitively. But some NFL team is out there right now, emailing random people and hoping someone will randomly say yes. I could be a...hold on, rolling a die...weak side linebacker!

[tanatastic 2,061]

Nelson has had 10 lucky years of 561 lucky receptions for 8074 lucky yards, and 70 very, very lucky TDs. Man, who could have seen a good game coming from this unknown stiff? I just noticed he has had only 2 fumbles total in his last 7 years of play. How lucky can you get?

 

Hes saying Its just funny how a guy everyone wrote off and says sucks can just have a huge game no one sees coming. Jordy is super talented. Doesnt change the fact that any given Sunday stuff like this happens. Lets say you had Hopkins and Julio and your opponent had Calvin Ridley and Jordy. Youd have laughed him out of the league then gotten destroyed.

 

Oh hey, you even started AJ green alongside those two and oh my your opponent started Josh Gordon who didnt even play! Your gonna outscore his WRs by at least 100 now! Nope, still destroyed.

[brotherbock 349]

He’s saying It’s just funny how a guy everyone wrote off and says sucks can just have a huge game no one sees coming. Jordy is super talented. Doesn’t change the fact that any given Sunday stuff like this happens. Let’s say you had Hopkins and Julio and your opponent had Calvin Ridley and Jordy. You’d have laughed him out of the league then gotten destroyed.

 

Seafoam and I are just continuing to poke fun at the 'it's all luck' argument. No question Jordy's day was a surprise. But it shouldn't have been the biggest surprise in the world. Previously very talented player takes a couple of weeks into the season to adjust to a new team? Or for Ridley, really talented kid they've been talking up all summer has a big game? Not really 'stunners'. Eyebrown raisers, but not the level of Mike Gillislee putting up 4 TDs in a game next week.

[tanatastic 2,061]

Seafoam and I are just continuing to poke fun at the 'it's all luck' argument. No question Jordy's day was a surprise. But it shouldn't have been the biggest surprise in the world. Previously very talented player takes a couple of weeks into the season to adjust to a new team? Or for Ridley, really talented kid they've been talking up all summer has a big game? Not really 'stunners'. Eyebrown raisers, but not the level of Mike Gillislee putting up 4 TDs in a game next week.

 

Yes, you can use hindsight to rationalize everything and say we should have seen it coming though.

 

It is all luck. Dan Bailey scored me zero and I lost by a few points. I should have done more research? All we do in this game is guess. Sometimes we guess right, sometimes wrong. Sometimes we guess right and still lose. You cant control your opponent outscoring you, thats called an unavoidable variable.

[brotherbock 349]

Yes, you can use hindsight to rationalize everything and say we should have seen it coming though.

 

It is all luck. Dan Bailey scored me zero and I lost by a few points. I should have done more research?

 

I didn't say we should have seen it coming. If that's how you read what I just wrote, I respectfully say you should read it again. I in fact said that it was "no question" that Jordy's day was a surprise.

[tanatastic 2,061]

I didn't say we should have seen it coming. If that's how you read what I just wrote, I respectfully say you should read it again. I in fact said that it was "no question" that Jordy's day was a surprise.

I’m well aware of what you wrote. Again, hindsight can rationalize everything in FF and give it the illusion of predictability.

[brotherbock 349]

I’m well aware of what you wrote. Again, hindsight can rationalize everything in FF and give it the illusion of predictability.

 

Funny, cause you don't seem aware of what I wrote if you're saying that.

 

Here's what I said just a page ago about Jordy: "And, in fact, it may not be certain he won't start producing at some point. He didn't spring from the womb with a rapport with Rodgers, he might be able to build one with Carr."

 

That's a pretty soft sell--may not be certain, might be able to. The position that makes sense to hold is that Jordy has been a good player for a long time, and therefore there is more reason to think he'll come around than some other players...say an Allen Hurns. There's less reason to think he'll outperform Tyreek Hill. These things, as anything, are not perfectly predictable, but there are probabilities that can be compared. Hence, not 'all' luck.

 

The problem is that you are treating 'predictable' as if it's a binary thing--something is either 'predictable' or it isn't. That's not how predicting works. If I play poker and I count cards (and don't get caught and kicked out of the casino), I can't 'predict', if you mean 'with 100% certainty', that a certain card will come up at any given time. But I can make better predictions, more accurate more of the time, than I can if I don't count cards. That's why something like poker isn't 'all' luck, even though you have this big part of the game--the card order--that isn't perfectly predictable.

[tanatastic 2,061]

Funny, cause you don't seem aware of what I wrote if you're saying that.

 

Here's what I said just a page ago about Jordy: "And, in fact, it may not be certain he won't start producing at some point. He didn't spring from the womb with a rapport with Rodgers, he might be able to build one with Carr."

 

That's a pretty soft sell--may not be certain, might be able to. The position that makes sense to hold is that Jordy has been a good player for a long time, and therefore there is more reason to think he'll come around than some other players...say an Allen Hurns. There's less reason to think he'll outperform Tyreek Hill. These things, as anything, are not perfectly predictable, but there are probabilities that can be compared. Hence, not 'all' luck.

 

The problem is that you are treating 'predictable' as if it's a binary thing--something is either 'predictable' or it isn't. That's not how predicting works. If I play poker and I count cards (and don't get caught and kicked out of the casino), I can't 'predict', if you mean 'with 100% certainty', that a certain card will come up at any given time. But I can make better predictions, more accurate more of the time, than I can if I don't count cards. That's why something like poker isn't 'all' luck, even though you have this big part of the game--the card order--that isn't perfectly predictable.

I agree with your concepts and of course its not crazy that Jordy broke out. Talented players break out, theres just no telling when. There are guys right now doing nothing that will have a big second half of the season and finish as a top 10 guy. There are guys in the current top 10 that will bust the second half and be garbage. We use educated guessing. In a short season like the nfl, thats not enough time to gain the long term advantage like you say in poker. 14 games, like 14 hands of poker, is very short. imo of course.

[brotherbock 349]

I agree with your concepts and of course its not crazy that Jordy broke out. Talented players break out, theres just no telling when. There are guys right now doing nothing that will have a big second half of the season and finish as a top 10 guy. There are guys in the current top 10 that will bust the second half and be garbage. We use educated guessing. In a short season like the nfl, thats not enough time to gain the long term advantage like you say in poker. 14 games, like 14 hands of poker, is very short. imo of course.

 

I think we just disagree if you really mean that there's 'no' telling when. There are indications that will lead to better accuracy, right? A breakout is more likely against a worse defense, for just one example. I mean, that's what gambling relies on, from both sides--the ability to accurately predict over multiple events when you can't predict with 100% certainty over any one event. Jordy's breakout was 'more' predictable yesterday than if Carr had gotten hurt in practice this week, 'less' predictable than if he'd had four or five 'near miss' almost TDs the week before. There's a lot we can do to improve the accuracy of our FF play--we're doing it right now on these forums. There are no guarantees, But there's significant skill all the same.

[tanatastic 2,061]

I think we just disagree if you really mean that there's 'no' telling when. There are indications that will lead to better accuracy, right? A breakout is more likely against a worse defense, for just one example. I mean, that's what gambling relies on, from both sides--the ability to accurately predict over multiple events when you can't predict with 100% certainty over any one event. Jordy's breakout was 'more' predictable yesterday than if Carr had gotten hurt in practice this week, 'less' predictable than if he'd had four or five 'near miss' almost TDs the week before. There's a lot we can do to improve the accuracy of our FF play--we're doing it right now on these forums. There are no guarantees, But there's significant skill all the same.

It’s the illusion of skill and you either understand the advanced variable concepts I’m talking about or you don’t. We will never agree and that’s fine.

[brotherbock 349]

It’s the illusion of skill and you either understand the advanced variable concepts I’m talking about or you don’t. We will never agree and that’s fine.

 

Maybe we won't. I just don't see the research into trends and stats as an illusion. It's something I actually do, where some others in my leagues don't, and I end up with higher winning percentages year after year. Yes, there's a lot of info out there for the relatively easy grabbing (compared to even a decade ago, or 20 or 30 years ago). So the level of skill needed to reach a minimal competency has been diluted. But there's so much info to search through that things are evening out again. 'Air Yards' is a good example of a stat that some guys I play against don't do much with, but seems to have predictive value. To do some research and learn about that, then to do weekly research into the stats--well, it seems to work. The folks I know who pay attention to those things win more than those who don't. It takes time and effort and reasoning ability. I don't see the illusion in that at all. I place a bet on this hand because the odds are good for me--skill tells me that. I am not guaranteed to win. But that skill will put me on top over others without it more often than not.

 

I used to play a lot of Risk as a kid. That game involves heavy dice usage. But there's still a lot of strategy and skill, even if it all blows up in your face sometimes with a die roll. There are 'better' players, and they win more often, and it isn't 'all' luck, or illusion.

 

Anyway, I gotta get to freaking work for once today Later.

[tanatastic 2,061]

Bock, those factors are not where we disagree. Im well, WELL aware of the concepts at play of player performance. No one seems to get the part that Im focusing on. Ill try to explain it but it rarely sticks. The factor I am talking about is that you cannot interact with your opponents score. You can use all the research in the world, you can find diamonds in the rough, have your lineup play great, and still lose 155-160. This week I lost to the highest score with the 2nd highest score. My team played great.

 

You cannot control what your opponent scores, thus in a league where managers are of relative competence, winning and losing is simply a roll of the dice of who the schedule paired you up with that week. I would have beaten every other team. This factor makes winning and losing in h2h an almost entirely luck based proposition. As I said before, and I do not mean this condescendingly...you either understand the concepts Im talking about or you dont. If you dont, thats fine, not many do.

 

All I focus on when discussing here is trying to score as much as possible week to week. Winning and losing is not a concern because I know its not in my control. You can be top 3 in scoring and miss the playoffs or win it all with bottom 3 scoring.

[seafoam1 1,879]

Bock, those factors are not where we disagree. Im well, WELL aware of the concepts at play of player performance. No one seems to get the part that Im focusing on. Ill try to explain it but it rarely sticks. The factor I am talking about is that you cannot interact with your opponents score. You can use all the research in the world, you can find diamonds in the rough, have your lineup play great, and still lose 155-160. This week I lost to the highest score with the 2nd highest score. My team played great.

 

You cannot control what your opponent scores, thus in a league where managers are of relative competence, winning and losing is simply a roll of the dice of who the schedule paired you up with that week. I would have beaten every other team. This factor makes winning and losing in h2h an almost entirely luck based proposition. As I said before, and I do not mean this condescendingly...you either understand the concepts Im talking about or you dont. If you dont, thats fine, not many do.

This is why your league should have 2 games a week. 1 against an opponent (which creates an additional level of interest and fun), and 1 against league average which helps those teams which are simply managed better.

 

I find it hard to believe that the folks on this site who think FF is 100% luck, keep offering up projections, comments, ratings, insider scoops, and whatever additional stances on league structure and how to win at this game, spend a good portion of their free time here.

 

That's like saying it would be just as interesting to spend a lot of time on a site that chats about the weekly picking of a number between 1 and 10,000 and on Sundays the random winning number is revealed.

[tanatastic 2,061]

This is why your league should have 2 games a week. 1 against an opponent (which creates an additional level of interest and fun), and 1 against league average which helps those teams which are simply managed better.

 

I completely agree. The problem I have with FF is not the stuff we discuss and projections etc. even though injuries alone make a HUGE amount of that trivial (I lost by a few points, both Engram and AJG got hurt.). My problem is with the head to head format. It gives people the illusion of control. A guy won with 80 and I lost with 140. He’s bragging and saying his team is so great and mine is crap.

 

FF can give an edge to those who are better at the parts we can control (very little), but head to head largely makes that edge irrelevant imo. This is my stance that is very hard to discuss with people because we are all so entrenched in H2H and it causes friction.

[brotherbock 349]

Bock, those factors are not where we disagree. Im well, WELL aware of the concepts at play of player performance. No one seems to get the part that Im focusing on. Ill try to explain it but it rarely sticks. The factor I am talking about is that you cannot interact with your opponents score. You can use all the research in the world, you can find diamonds in the rough, have your lineup play great, and still lose 155-160. This week I lost to the highest score with the 2nd highest score. My team played great.

 

You cannot control what your opponent scores, thus in a league where managers are of relative competence, winning and losing is simply a roll of the dice of who the schedule paired you up with that week. I would have beaten every other team. This factor makes winning and losing in h2h an almost entirely luck based proposition. As I said before, and I do not mean this condescendingly...you either understand the concepts Im talking about or you dont. If you dont, thats fine, not many do.

 

All I focus on when discussing here is trying to score as much as possible week to week. Winning and losing is not a concern because I know its not in my control. You can be top 3 in scoring and miss the playoffs or win it all with bottom 3 scoring.

 

My take on it is that winning and losing is as much in your control as whether you arrive safely at home or die in a fiery car wreck. I.E. it's not perfectly in your control, but significant parts of it are. You have no control over whether the guy in the oncoming lane suddenly swerves right into the front of your car at 70mph. If it happens too late, you can't even react. That's a coin toss. The driver who gets hit, as he's dying on the side of the road, says "I would have gotten home safely on any other road but this one", or "I would have gotten home safely if any other driver but that one was in the oncoming lane."

 

But that doesn't mean your arriving home safely is pure luck, or 'entirely out of your control'. There are many factors at play, and many of those factors are in your control. Even if, sometimes, one big factor outside of your control is the ruling factor.

 

Look, here's where it comes to--the way you're using 'control' and 'skill' and 'luck' here will make every single thing we do in the world 'just luck'. Why? Because I can only do anything given the pure luck that the world isn't destroyed by an asteroid or massive solar flares--things out of my control entirely.

 

So the game of chess I just played and won? 'Out of my control' that I won it, because, had I been playing when the world blew up, or when a terrorist shot me, or when I had a massive stroke...I wouldn't have won. So chess, a game of pure skill, becomes 'the illusion of skill'.

 

But that's just not true. Winning that game of chess is partially, and a significant part, in my control. As is driving home safely. As is winning my FF match. Not entirely. And sometimes something can make all my skill void in that one instance. But that doesn't mean the game overall and my performance is pure luck.

[tanatastic 2,061]

Bock you simply aren’t grasping my concept of not having control over what the opponent scores. Your examples are extreme. Injuries are not an asteroid or a fire. They are weekly common occurrences. But don’t focus on that. Focus on the first sentence. You are not in control of wether your opponent outscores you or not.

[brotherbock 349]

Bock you simply aren’t grasping my concept of not having control over what the opponent scores. Your examples are extreme. Injuries are not an asteroid or a fire. They are weekly common occurrences. But don’t focus on that. Focus on the first sentence. You are not in control of wether your opponent outscores you or not.

 

Just like you're not in control of whether the guy in the other lane runs into you.

 

Your argument is "I am not in control of one important factor--therefore there is no skill". That just doesn't follow. What I've given you is any number of examples of other events in which you would not be in control of one important factor and yet in which we'd say you were still in control of large parts of it and using skill/ability. What you've done is every single time just say "Yeah but there's this one part I don't control".

 

There's skill in blackjack, and you're not in control of the cards your opponent gets. There's skill in Risk, and you're not in control of the dice rolls your opponent has. There's skill in a free throw shooting contest, and you're not in control of how your opponent shoots. There's skill in running a race, and you're not in control of how fast your opponent runs. There's skill in a pie eating contest, and you're not in control of how many pies your opponent eats. There's skill in a poetry contest, and you're not in control of the poems your opponents write.

 

Some contests involving skill do let you affect your opponent's performance--the actual game of football, for example. But many contests involving skill do not. Like that list right above. A free throw shooting contest, on your view, is entirely up to luck. No skill at all. Ok.

 

 

I used to do a lot of martial arts. And at one point I was going to a lot of tournaments. One thing we'd do was forms, kata, competition. You do your pre-rehearsed kata, your opponents do theirs, and the best performed kata wins. Sometimes you'd just smash it--you'd perform your best. And sometimes you wouldn't. Sometimes you'd medal, sometimes you wouldn't. I had a bad tournament one day, and one of my instructors said something about how any specific loss or win is not a measure of your ability, because, as you would point out, I can't control who I'm up against.

 

But of course, if I don't practice, and I suck, my odds of winning drop dramatically. My winning therefore is partially, and significantly, in my control. But not entirely. I do my very best, someone else does better, they win. But that doesn't mean that the tournament was just 'luck'.

[tanatastic 2,061]

That’s a great argument, I agree.

[brotherbock 349]

Here's another way of thinking about it I just thought of.

 

1) Whether I win the free throw contest with Fred is either all luck, or there's some skill on my part.

2) I can't control how Fred performs.

3) If my skill isn't important because I can't control how an opponent performs, then my skill in this contest is not important.

4) But Fred can't control my performance.

5) Thus Fred's skill isn't important either, based on your same premise.

6) So neither my skill nor Fred's skill is important to which one of us wins the free throw shooting contest.

 

If that's how you want to go, I guess I really don't have anything more to say. Personally, I think skill would be important in that sort of contest. Even though I can't control my opponent's performance.

 

 

Edit:

 

 

 

That’s a great argument, I agree.

 

Oh cool. I'm glad you agree.

[tanatastic 2,061]

On second though I have found holes in what I thought was a sound free throw contest example. In a free throw contest, your skill at shooting is the sole determining factor of your score. In FF this is inarguably not the case. Your studs can bust, get hurt, ball bounce, penalty, I dont need to tell you this, its obvious. Its completely different. Your shooting skill is the only factor in your outcome, so regardless of control over opponent, its who is the better shooter that wins. This is again inarguably not the case in FF.

 

The concepts of your argument won me over, but the context is heavily flawed.

[brotherbock 349]

On second though I have found holes in what I thought was a sound free throw contest example. In a free throw contest, your skill at shooting is the sole determining factor of your score. In FF this is inarguably not the case. Your studs can bust, get hurt, ball bounce, penalty, I dont need to tell you this, its obvious. Its completely different. Your shooting skill is the only factor in your outcome, so regardless of control over opponent, its who is the better shooter that wins. This is again inarguably not the case in FF.

 

The concepts of your argument won me over, but the context is heavily flawed.

 

I agree that there are differences with FF and free throws. Absolutely. But it's a matter of degrees, I think. I'm not a basketball guy, but the bounce off the rim isn't really controllable. You don't hit all net and sometimes it's in, sometimes it's not. Random bounce sometimes. And there's definitely more you're not in control of with FF. It's not a perfect analogy. It's just an analogy of something with (some) luck, and something with your opp out of your control, where there's still skill.

 

That's really all I've been saying, though--it's not all luck. I've tried hard to avoid trying to say 'how much' of it is luck. You're right that injuries are about luck, and ball bounce too. Penalties? We really can rely on some teams to have more of those than others. The Packers yesterday? Not expected. The 1990s Raiders? Expected. Maybe these days, as penalties seem to be ramping up, they are less predictable. So yeah, a week or so ago I said it was only injuries that were luck. You've convinced me I was wrong there. But the luck isn't the only important factor, even with other kinds of luck involved.

[tanatastic 2,061]

Agreed again. Like I said, you made sound arguments that won me over. I still think I am right in my convictions, but you have argued your side better and won that. Also with the new BS rules the penalty factor is absolutely ramped up. One BS roughing call can lead to entire drives and huge swings that may not have been called previously.

 

I also apologize to the thread for derailing. This debate isn’t healthy as it largely just goes around in circles since there’s lots of opinion at play.

[brotherbock 349]

Agreed again. Like I said, you made sound arguments that won me over. I still think I am right in my convictions, but you have argued your side better and won that. Also with the new BS rules the penalty factor is absolutely ramped up. One BS roughing call can lead to entire drives and huge swings that may not have been called previously.

 

I also apologize to the thread for derailing. This debate isn’t healthy as it largely just goes around in circles since there’s lots of opinion at play.

 

I apologize for NOTHING!

 

Okay, yeah, I apologize too. But it is a really good conversation--thanks Tanatastic And I didn't see the Dallas and Packer roughing plays live, but I just looked them up. Just insane. I think the only way to avoid a penalty on a sack now is to do this right after you hit him:

 

[seafoam1 1,879]

Also with the new BS rules the penalty factor is absolutely ramped up. One BS roughing call can lead to entire drives and huge swings that may not have been called previously.

 

 

Yeah, but that is real life for football teams. Fantasy just reflects it. But this is a bothersome issue for fan enjoyment outside of fantasy. This new rule caused a knee injury to a def. lineman in Miami.

 

https://www.thephinsider.com/miami-dolphins-injuries/2018/9/24/17896446/william-hayes-acl-out-for-year-injured-reserve-miami-dolphins-derek-carr-sack-oakland-raiders

 

 

"The Miami Dolphins have lost defensive end William Hayes for the season with an ACL injury, according to head coach Adam Gase. Hayes was injured during the team’s 28-20 win over the Oakland Raiders on Sunday. He sacked quarterback Derek Carr early in the second quarter, with his knee appearing to buckle slightly just as the two players were heading to the ground and the defensive lineman tried to adjust himself to avoid landing with his full body weight on the quarterback. Hayes immediately reached toward his leg, then crawled in pain through the endzone before trainers came out to get him."

[brotherbock 349]

Yeah, but that is real life for football teams. Fantasy just reflects it. But this is a bothersome issue for fan enjoyment outside of fantasy. This new rule caused a knee injury to a def. lineman in Miami.

 

https://www.thephinsider.com/miami-dolphins-injuries/2018/9/24/17896446/william-hayes-acl-out-for-year-injured-reserve-miami-dolphins-derek-carr-sack-oakland-raiders

 

 

"The Miami Dolphins have lost defensive end William Hayes for the season with an ACL injury, according to head coach Adam Gase. Hayes was injured during the team’s 28-20 win over the Oakland Raiders on Sunday. He sacked quarterback Derek Carr early in the second quarter, with his knee appearing to buckle slightly just as the two players were heading to the ground and the defensive lineman tried to adjust himself to avoid landing with his full body weight on the quarterback. Hayes immediately reached toward his leg, then crawled in pain through the endzone before trainers came out to get him."

 

And if you hit him and wrap up, but you try to not land on top of him by say spinning so you're on the bottom, they'll flag you for whipping the QB around.

 

You need to hit him, wrap up, and then, before he hits the ground, you need to let go and somersault over him.

 

Would this be an acceptable QB sack?