bagobonez wrote: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.
I agree with that as well. You made alot of good points.
Definately taking this to my draft in a couple weeks. Deleted spaces and resized to 4 pages. I also think its interesting to see which teams they played during those weeks when deciding who to start/bench for next year especially for receivers to see which defensive backs they do poorly/good against.
If your parents weren't able to have children... chances are neither will you.
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.
Well, sure when you add 9-10 more players to the starting lineup than a normal no kidding 95 points won't cut it. That's far from a standard league, though and most people try to refer to standard scoring formats and lineups unless otherwise stated.
I'm just curious how you figure with large lineups consistency is less important? If anything, its more. If you only start say 3 players each, well if one guy blows up for 30+ points, your opponent has a lot less chances to combat that with only 3 guys himself. Thus, the inconsistent boom/bust player has significant value, he's a game winner. If your opponent has 18 players at his disposal, that one big game is much more easily overcome just on sheer probability that one of those guys will have a big day as well.
Of course, boom/bust guys won't hurt your team as much either, as you have more players to make up the difference, but that's my point. Huge days, and laying an egg have less significancy the more players you have, therefore consistency should have more influence and generate more wins.