Consistency Ratings (a must read!)

[GreatestShowOnEarth]

You see 10 pts as a bad week?

Also how can you count on having your inconsistent alternate from good to bad weeks? Yes you might get lucky like that but i sure wouldnt want to stake a season on that.

This argument is pointless. im obviously right.

[ShoelessJoe]

You see 10 pts as a bad week?

I was just using that as an example.

Also how can you count on having your inconsistent alternate from good to bad weeks? Yes you might get lucky like that but i sure wouldnt want to stake a season on that.

If the two events are equally likely that is the best way to predict it. I'm not saying that is exactly what will happen every week, but I think the part that you're forgetting is that different guys are scoring well from week to week and different guys are scoring poorly, they don't all get 30 points one week and then 10 the next.

[GreatestShowOnEarth]

This argument is pointless. im obviously right.

see above.

[bagobonez]

For the record though, I'd have to say that I'd rather have the higher scorer than the consistent guy because in the long run the person who scores the more points wins. FF is about the long-run, not the short run. If you average more points over the course of the season, simple logic says that you are more likely to win than if you average less points yet are more consistent.

Your wrong there. Being the high scorer in head to head leauges means absolutely nothing. Its great that you can score 150 pts one week but cabut not so great when you can only muster 40 the next week. That kills you in H2H fantasy football. Consistency is key to winning H2H. to argue otherwise is just rediculous.

Consistency with your TEAMS scoring, yes. But I disagree with consistency from players wins in fantasy football. And the word is spelled ridiculous.

How can you differentiate between team consistency and player consistency? if your players are consistent your team will be consistent. I dont know why anyone wouldnt want a plalyer that is reliable. Looks like i need to join some of your leagues.

If you have a set of players who are all equally inconsistent (we'll assume that it's random) then why don't you win in the long run? If you have a QB who scores either 30 or 10 each week and the same at your two RB positions and two WR positions then you average 20 at each of those positions. You might score 150 one week and 50 the next.

However, let us break this down more into position-by-position scoring. If the inconsistent players are randomly inconsistent, let's take an example. QB scores 30, RB1 scores 10, RB2 scores 30, WR1 scores 10, WR2 scores 20. This week you score 100. The next week that inconsistent QB scores 10, RB1 scores 30, RB2 scores 10, WR1 scores 20, and WR2 scores 30. This week you score 100 once again.
Let's compare that to a team with a bunch of players who are consistent, let's say that they score 18 points EVERY week. That means that they scored 90 points both weeks. Therefore the consistent team lost both weeks.

If you have a bunch of inconsistent players I don't see the problem with that as they will balance each other out and in the long-run you will have a higher PPG.

THat's still awfully generous scoring when you're trying to make a point about players being inconsistent in the 2nd week of your example. Week 2 might look more like this. QB scores 10, RB scores 15, RB scores 5, WR scores 25, WR scores 10. You scored 65. Not enough to win in most weeks.

Bottom line is, if your fantasy team can score 85-95 points each week, you're going to be in the mix, period. What difference does it make if you beat a team 130-60? A win is a win. It's no different than the guy who wins his game 90-88.

The downside of inconsistency is that you're going to have some bad games where you may only score 60-70 points, and your opponent may score 75. A consistent team will win when his opponent scores 75. An inconsistent one may not.

Then you factor in single elimination playoffs, and you can see how consistency is even more important. SO what if you lead your league in total points in H2H if your one bad game happens to occur in the playoffs?

[ShoelessJoe]

THat's still awfully generous scoring when you're trying to make a point about players being inconsistent in the 2nd week of your example. Week 2 might look more like this. QB scores 10, RB scores 15, RB scores 5, WR scores 25, WR scores 10. You scored 65. Not enough to win in most weeks.

Bottom line is, if your fantasy team can score 85-95 points each week, you're going to be in the mix, period. What difference does it make if you beat a team 130-60? A win is a win. It's no different than the guy who wins his game 90-88.

The downside of inconsistency is that you're going to have some bad games where you may only score 60-70 points, and your opponent may score 75. A consistent team will win when his opponent scores 75. An inconsistent one may not.

Then you factor in single elimination playoffs, and you can see how consistency is even more important. SO what if you lead your league in total points in H2H if your one bad game happens to occur in the playoffs?

I was using those numbers to show that the average of the inconsistent team is higher than that of the consistent team, that's why i used those numbers. Maybe it would be more appropriate to make it 105 and 95 or 110 and 90. We were discussing how if the averages of the two teams are the same... obviously you take the team that is more consistent, but I was saying if the averages are different... I'd take the team that averages more weekly as opposed to the consistent team.

To be honest, I think I'm gonna wash my hands of this argument here as it seems to be a lot of 'what ifs' and hypotheticals that just cannot be accurately quantified. We could go on all day with hypotheticals about how one is better than the other. Don't take these posts the wrong way though bago... I really appreciated that original post.

[moochman]

Nice read bago! Not exactly buying the consistancy over stellar performance implication though.

By your scale S Smith is a worse WR than Houshmanspazo? That points out a big flaw in the logic, IMO,: That a team with consistant players will beat a team of supernovas. The assumtion is that the weeks that player X (supernova) blew would have cost you a win that week and that the weeks that Player Y(mr consistancy) were consistant you would win. Forgotten is that players who score huge one week tend to be very talented players in good systems and often will score in other weeks. I'll gamble on the rest of my team picking up S Smith's slack when he gets kicked out of a game or scores 3 and laugh like hell when he lights it up and wins so many games for me the rest of the season.

Even FF is a team sport and a team that has more players with potential to blow up will be the better team.

[Pete123444]

Bottom line is, if your fantasy team can score 85-95 points each week, you're going to be in the mix, period.

In the majority of the leagues that I'm in, if you score 95 each week, you will be 0-14. I don't play in but a few of those smaller leagues.

[bagobonez]

Bottom line is, if your fantasy team can score 85-95 points each week, you're going to be in the mix, period.

In the majority of the leagues that I'm in, if you score 95 each week, you will be 0-14. I don't play in but a few of those smaller leagues.

What are your scoring rules? 15 points for a touchdown?

[Pete123444]

Bottom line is, if your fantasy team can score 85-95 points each week, you're going to be in the mix, period.

In the majority of the leagues that I'm in, if you score 95 each week, you will be 0-14. I don't play in but a few of those smaller leagues.

What are your scoring rules? 15 points for a touchdown?

No, it's 4 for passing TD's and 6 for all others.
I think the leagues you are referring to have starting lineups like;

QB,RB,RB,WR,WR,TE,K,DT

the leagues I most often play in are;

QB,RB,RB,WR,WR,WR,TE,K,P,DL,DL,DL,LB,LB,LB,DB,DB,DB

So 95 points won't cut it. This may also explain why I have the view I have on consistency when it comes to players? With larger lineups the consistency factor plays a smaller role IMO.

[Free Bagel]

A consistent team will win when his opponent scores 75. An inconsistent one may not.

The opposite can be said as well. An inconsistent team that either blows up or dies is much more likely to win when his opponent scores 115. And in those playoffs the consistency guys keep bringing up you're much more likely to play against someone putting up 115 than you are against someone playing 75. A consistent team can consistently beat the bad teams, but that's not who they play in the playoffs.

Ya know, I used to be a HUGE proponent of consistency. My thinking was always if I can get 10 pts out of all my guys from week to week, that's ~ 90-100pts a week which is usually good enough to win.

But, this last year or so I got to really thinking about it, and I can't remember the last time one of those teams won the championship in one of my more competitive leagues. There's always that consistently good team that coasts into the playoffs but I can't say I've ever actually see them win it, it's always that team with a handful of playmakers that gets hot at just the right time. You guys keep mentioning how one bad game in the playoffs can knock you out, but let's not forget most playoffs are only 2 or 3 weeks so it's certainly not unlikely that you end up with a couple of those boom weeks in a row and win it all.

The other major fault in the whole consistency argument is that week to week consistency is, to a fault, inconsistent from year to year. Case in point....Shaun Alexander is a staple of consistency in the original post, the same Shaun Alexander who was previously generally regarded as the poster boy of inconsistency. I always laugh when I see people talking about how they're going to take the "safe" and "consistent" player, because I know that chances are that seemingly consistent guy is the one that's going to let them down (think Gonzo vs. Gates and LT for #1 RB last year....people who preferred Gonzo and LT all raved about their consistency, meanwhile Gates and KC RB owners laughed all the way to the bank).

I dunno, it just seems that every championship team I look at is filled with those guys that "win" you games some weeks by putting up 35pts. Chad Johnson is a consensus top 3 WR to most, and I've seen a lot of Chad Johnson owners in the playoffs, but I can't think of any that I saw winning it all that didn't have someone else putting up those 35pts for them.

I don't think one way is "right" and one way is "wrong", but I can't fault someone for going after the playmakers or the consistency guys, they're both viable strategies.