So it's been a while, but I'm back. Missed you all.

So here's the STDV on the three main positions. I've been using this as an add on for a few years so I already had the numbers crunched. The scoring used is relatively normal with a few abnormalities. +1 for rec, +.5 for RB rec., +3 for TD's over 40 and the rest is normal. If anyone wants the entire breakdown, just let me know.

The scoring is week 1-17 and the STDV is based on all weeks where points were scored. If anyone managed a goose egg but played, that week is omitted for ease to me.

Dude, I hope you don't think I'm stealing any of your thunder, but I know these take some time to compile and I already had them all. I just had to do some screen shots.

As for the entire argument, STDV can be used but not as the end all be all. Plus it all depends on if you want a consistant player or not. Some people will some people won't and that's your choice. But if you do, then these numbers will help. I actually use these numbers through the year as well. If I am playing a team that is weaker, then I go for the most consistant lineup if and only if I have a toss up between 2 players.

I'm sure I'll chime in with more thoughts along the way of this thread, but these numbers should give you all something to discuss (not argue) for a while.

Mercer Boy wrote:I'd still rather have a RB that gets me 10-15 points each week than have one that gets 30 one week and 5 the next. Same thing goes for QB's and WR's with different numbers thrown in (especially WR because they are as inconsistent as hell).

If I had 3 RB's that were those 30-5 guys and you had 3 RB's that were 10-15 "consistent" guys*, I'd outscore you at least 67% of the time. And if I were able to play the matchups well, that percentage would go up! I'll take those 30-5 guys every time. > *example considering 2 starting RB's

In what draft are you going to get three 30-5 RBs? 30-5 RBs go early because they have the ability to score 30 points in a game. It's more likely that you will end up with one 30-5 guy, and two 15-5 guys versus Mercer's two or three 10-15 guys (It would be very reasonable to think you could get Rudi Johnson, Reuben Droughns, and Ron Dayne on your team).

And it's not like 30-5 means they will score 30 points half the time and 5 points half the time. It's more like they have 4-5 30 point games per season, and the rest are duds. I doubt that type of scoring profile would give you the 67% win rate you are talking about.

I was just using the example of 30-5 that was used in an earlier post. But to further state my point, if I had 3 RB's that scored >15-0 (doesn't have to be 30-5) and the other guy had 3 RB's that were 10-15 consistent guys, I should be able to win at least 67% of the time.

Now for some basic analysis of the charts to moreso prove the point that Dude and Mercer are trying to make. And yes this is all off of last year's data and does not take into account injury proneness.

QB's - Bulger is a safer pick than McNabb. Yes at the end of the season McNabb would have more points and a higher AVG, but he is also more likely to give you 35 one week and 5 the next where as Bulger would most likely give you between 15 and 25 on a weekly basis making your team more consistant and not as up and down. And look at McNown. His numbers show/prove he will either blow up or implode which we all saw happen last year.

RB's - The top 4 backs all have high deviations. Why? Because they all had multiple games where TD's came in bunches and or high yardage games that no one would expect week in and week out. But as we reach the mid-tier RB's, we can see that Portis and DD were more consistant than Westbrook. Even moreso moving down a few more spots, we have a Caddy and Dunn debate. Dunn was consistantly around 10 points give or take while Caddy had the games that made us all rush to him, only to start putting up 3RB numbers. Yes, the blow up games may have won you some games, but who here hasn't lost multiple games because their player didn't even come close to their avg?

WR's - Now is where the STDV plays an even bigger role. All WR's seem to have huge games and then games where you wonder if they are even playing especially as you work down the tier. Again this is not as usefull for the higher end WR's because they are high end WR's because of their blowup ability. But moving down, look at Branch and Porter. Dead even avg at year's end, but 90% of us would have preferred Branch as a 3WR as opposed to Porter. Why? Because you pretty much knew with Branch what you would get points wise, but Porter either played like a top ten guy or bench warmer most of the time. Again consistancy at certain spots for your starters is need.

So, this is just something to add tactical planning to later draft picks. Of course with the higher picks you want the most points almost no matter what. But when you are looking for role players and/or bye week players, you want to know what you are most likely getting. No one wants a 30-5 player to fill in on a bye week and then get you 5 points.

Using STDV for these role players is almost the same as snagging handcuffs during your draft. They are not the superstars of your team but they play a role. And just as in real sports, the role players are what will make and/or break your team.

Pete123444 wrote:I was just using the example of 30-5 that was used in an earlier post. But to further state my point, if I had 3 RB's that scored >15-0 (doesn't have to be 30-5) and the other guy had 3 RB's that were 10-15 consistent guys, I should be able to win at least 67% of the time.

I'm just curious where your math on this 67% is coming in. Even if a guy score > 15 - 0, it doesnt mean he does it with any even distribution. He might score < 10 twice as often as he scores > 20. So where exactly are you pulling these numbers from?

I think you need to throw out the top 2-3 and bottom 2-3 games per season per player (the outliers), just looking at the deviation on a 10-12 game basis. I think that COULD have a more meaningful gauge of performance... every player is going to have a few bust and boom games, so we don't really care BY HOW MUCH those points are (a FF win is a win and a loss is a loss) - so don't let those game points skew the results.

From your own chart, Steve Smith had a standard deviation of 13 pts... his peers only about an 8... this would have lead you to pick Smith around 6th... when in reality he was the uncontested #1 last year.

And again, hate to belabor this point, but Standard Deviation does not give an indicator of HOW MANY GAMES the player vastly under or overperformed.

Pete123444 wrote:I was just using the example of 30-5 that was used in an earlier post. But to further state my point, if I had 3 RB's that scored >15-0 (doesn't have to be 30-5) and the other guy had 3 RB's that were 10-15 consistent guys, I should be able to win at least 67% of the time.

I'm just curious where your math on this 67% is coming in. Even if a guy score > 15 - 0, it doesnt mean he does it with any even distribution. He might score < 10 twice as often as he scores > 20. So where exactly are you pulling these numbers from?

The only foreseeable way that I would use this is if I had to set my lineup at the beginning of the year for the entire year. Otherwise, it's really useless in my opinion. But if Y'all like it, use it.

Twisted Sister wrote:I think you need to throw out the top 2-3 and bottom 2-3 games per season per player (the outliers), just looking at the deviation on a 10-12 game basis. I think that COULD have a more meaningful gauge of performance... every player is going to have a few bust and boom games, so we don't really care BY HOW MUCH those points are (a FF win is a win and a loss is a loss) - so don't let those game points skew the results.

From your own chart, Steve Smith had a standard deviation of 13 pts... his peers only about an 8... this would have lead you to pick Smith around 6th... when in reality he was the uncontested #1 last year.

And again, hate to belabor this point, but Standard Deviation does not give an indicator of HOW MANY GAMES the player vastly under or overperformed.

Your fooling yourselves with false precision.

There is no need to throw out the high and/or low end games because everyone will have them. I agree that the STDV does not show you how many times the highs and lows happened and agree your method is also a positive one. Using them together would be the best approach. But there is a place for STDV within the realm of FF. I redid the charts to include a key point that many are overlooking and hopefully this will clear some things up.

You can not look at one persons STDV when compared to another and not take into account each individual's AVG point production. So the charts below will also incorporate a players STDV relative to their point totals. Discussion will follow after this post.

Now, for debates sake, I will only focus on the WR's. I admit that 3 of the 4 WR's in this post had injuries or did not play, but it should help to prove my point assuming they would have played all 16 games as SSmith did.

Again, STDV should not be used as a tool to pick where people get drafted. It should be used as a tool to decide between 2 WR's that you feel are deserved of being picked at the same spot roughly. STDV is pretty much the same as saying I can pick (this is an example and not based on actual schedule) Dunn or Droughns as my 3 RB but Dunn has the same bye week as my number 1 RB, so I'll take Droughns. STDV is more like a tiebreaker if you will.

So looking at the WRs. Owens had a higher AVG score, lower STDV, and lower relative STDV when compared to SSmith. So given the choice, and assuming all else is equal, TO would be the more logical pick. Of course TO is in a different setting this year so his value could change drastically, but you see the point I am getting at.

On the same level, let's say you had the choice between SSmith and Holt. Yes SSmith had a higher AVG score, but Holt had a lower STDV and lower relative STDV. My argument would be that week in and week out Holt would be a more consistant WR. Looking at the hard numbers from Twisteds method, you can see that SSmith actually outscored Holt more weeks than Holt outscored SSmith, but there is not one week when Holt would have cost you a game, which unfortunately SSmith did a few times last year. Yes it is nice to see to 40+ weeks from a player, but we have all probably lost because our stud decided to put up a whooping 5 points or something to that effect.

So I hope the additional charts give a better understanding of what I use STDV for. And it should be said that this also goes along with the type of owner you are. Some owners are more of the gambling type and would prefer the boom or bust type player, whereas some would want the week in and week out performer. And depending on your stance, or stance at a particular pick in the draft, you can use STDV and relative STDV to help make that decision.