nfl fantasy live

[Ray_T 740]

I'm watching this show now.... its like a train wreck you cant turn away from.

its like they take the most stupid questions and answer them.   Makes me really appreciate what we have here.

That said, it is funny that some people can be this dumb.    its basically like buying a book called fantasy football for dummies.

[GobbleDog 985]

I've never watched NFL fantasy. I have read lots of ff articles and listened to various podcasts - some better than others. The worst one's are full of "I just sorta feel this player will ..." with no analysis.  Fantasy Footballers is a popular show on Youtube and they do occasionally have interesting takes. But a few weeks ago one of them was explaining why a certain Rb wouldn't do well this year. Metrics, team situation, recent history? Nope.

"Because he was drafted in the 4th rd last year and historically 4th rd Rbs haven't done well. Here's the historical data on 4th rd Rbs... " 

[wolves111 104]

I watch it for the entertainment value. Cynthia Fruland has one smoking body for a 44 year old woman. 
 

[plasma george 62]

1 hour ago, wolves111 said:

I watch it for the entertainment value. Cynthia Fruland has one smoking body for a 44 year old woman. 
 

I stare at her the whole hour

shocked she’s 44, some good genes 

[Showboat 252]

I don't know.  Over-analysis with a lot of statistics is not always helpful either.  I think Berry has had an annual column where he compared a set of stats for two players.  The better stats always belonged to some JAG while the lesser stat were from a Mahomes or Jefferson.  A lot of FF success is based on hunches with just a bit of logic behind them.

[GobbleDog 985]

4 minutes ago, Showboat said:

Over-analysis with a lot of statistics is not always helpful either.  

A lot of FF success is based on hunches with just a bit of logic behind them.

I'll take metrics over hunches. Particularly metrics supported with situation, otherwise the data isn't meaningful.

Najee Harris finished #2 and #4 his first two years breaking the 1st tackle!  Awesome. And he did absolutely nothing with the ball after that. The o-line was terrible and the worthless Qb couldn't keep defenses honest. But he sure juked that first tackle.

Hunches?  "Well, I just feel that... " I can't turn off a podcast or stop reading an article fast enough if that's all they got.

[Ray_T 740]

1 minute ago, GobbleDog said:

I'll take metrics over hunches. Particularly metrics supported with situation, otherwise the data isn't meaningful.

Najee Harris finished #2 and #4 his first two years breaking the 1st tackle!  Awesome. And he did absolutely nothing with the ball after that. The o-line was terrible and the worthless Qb couldn't keep defenses honest. But he sure juked that first tackle.

Hunches?  "Well, I just feel that... " I can't turn off a podcast or stop reading an article fast enough if that's all they got.

each is a tool.   they have their place and their uses.

I like the eye test.   when I see players do something special I dont care if they are JAG.   once they start doing stuff like that, its only a matter of time til more special stuff appears in their game.

the metrics can be helpful in predicting a breakout before the breakout happens.   Depending of course on which metrics and how you use them in your analysis.

Metrics by themselves are useless if you dont know what they mean or how to use them.   just like good metrics can mean nothing if the coach wont give the player the playing time he needs to perform.   Lots of factors to consider and you need to look at them all.

I once picked a player because of metrics alone.  it did not work out.   the analytics said he should be a breakout candidate.   after I drafted him he didnt do much.   i looked at tape to see why.   it was because the player had a very specific skillset and the coach used him in a very specific way.    the metrics were good.   but when they increased the playing time it was discovered that he couldnt do some of the other things on different kinds of plays.   teams knew to key on the one type he was good at because the other type he wasnt.

so the guy who only succeeds on inside runs but cant bounce it outside eventually gets figured out.    Metrics may not tell you that until you get a large enough sample size.   and even then, you need to be looking for it.

thats where the eye test becomes important.  looking at usage.    line play, team play.   its a nice tapestry with a mix of everything.

but to rely on analytics alone?   Not wise.   you need context.   if the analyitics change for a player, you also need to know why and whether the conditions that led to the change (positive or negative) still exist.  if they do not, you can expect a regression back to the average in many cases.

food for your thoughts.