Blatantly obvious FF articles - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Blatantly obvious FF articles

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: Blatantly obvious FF articles

Postby smackthefirst » Sat Sep 27, 2008 1:35 pm

treat24 wrote:Since this thread is out here... Does anyone have any suggestions to make our Start/Sit section better? :-D


I actually think the Cafe start/sit section is one of the better ones out there for 2 main reasons. The first is that it's not just one person's views. Obviously, the more people's input you have, the better your projections will be overall because it balances out the anomalies. I'm also a fan that we now include the "likelihood" that someone plays. The only other possible suggestion I could make is adding a range.

There used to a FF site which is long gone today that used to give the same information the Cafe gives now but they would also provide a low end and high end projection number. This helped a lot for that last minute flex decision where you were debating between two people and you could more easily see if a player was consensus performer or more of a boom or bust player and go the direction you felt your team needed.

As an example using treat and I and this week, let's say I project Rivers for 18 points and treat projects him for 15 points and I project Warner for 21 points and treat projects him for 12 points. Both players would be equal once our projections were average at 16.5. But when you have multiple people providing projections, it might be helpful to some to show what the highest and lowest projections were. This way, I could make a more informed guess between Rivers and Warner in terms of whether I should play it safer with Rivers or take more of a gamble with Warner.

And assuming the Cafe takes projections from each contributor and averages them for the final results, this could be very easy to implement. If it doesn't come to fruition, don't worry because I'll still love you guys. ;-)
Image
My Playoff Team - Please Comment
MSchaub, DMcNabb, JFreeman, KKolb
SJackson, THightower, CWells, JForsett, JSnelling, CJennings, QGanther
RWayne, RMoss, RMeachem, MCrabtree, DBowe
VDavis
smackthefirst
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Graphics ExpertEagle EyeMatchup Meltdown Survivor
Posts: 2646
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: MD

Re: Blatantly obvious FF articles

Postby uncabomb » Sat Sep 27, 2008 1:41 pm

He's hit or miss with a lot of people but I really like Matthew Berry's (ESPN) Waiver wire pick ups on Tuesday and goes pretty deep on waiver wire pick ups.

And in reference to the Start/Sit column, I key would be nice. What is the 'Value" section based on and what is FVIP mean. Maybe just a legend for guys that are entering the cafe or just guys that have never tried to figure it out. I do however base some of my tough decisions on your start/sit. Another thing I like is, since becoming an avid fantasy football player for 4 years now and winning or coming in in the top 3 in most of my leagues (thanks to the cafe) is to know why you prefer someone over someone else. yahoo has a small comment section where they say why you make the decisions you make. I trust the cafe but I wouldn't mind learning a lil more about your logic behind the rankings.
uncabomb
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar

Posts: 966
Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: North Carolina

Re: Blatantly obvious FF articles

Postby treat24 » Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:33 pm

smackthefirst wrote:
treat24 wrote:Since this thread is out here... Does anyone have any suggestions to make our Start/Sit section better? :-D


I actually think the Cafe start/sit section is one of the better ones out there for 2 main reasons. The first is that it's not just one person's views. Obviously, the more people's input you have, the better your projections will be overall because it balances out the anomalies. I'm also a fan that we now include the "likelihood" that someone plays. The only other possible suggestion I could make is adding a range.

There used to a FF site which is long gone today that used to give the same information the Cafe gives now but they would also provide a low end and high end projection number. This helped a lot for that last minute flex decision where you were debating between two people and you could more easily see if a player was consensus performer or more of a boom or bust player and go the direction you felt your team needed.

As an example using treat and I and this week, let's say I project Rivers for 18 points and treat projects him for 15 points and I project Warner for 21 points and treat projects him for 12 points. Both players would be equal once our projections were average at 16.5. But when you have multiple people providing projections, it might be helpful to some to show what the highest and lowest projections were. This way, I could make a more informed guess between Rivers and Warner in terms of whether I should play it safer with Rivers or take more of a gamble with Warner.

And assuming the Cafe takes projections from each contributor and averages them for the final results, this could be very easy to implement. If it doesn't come to fruition, don't worry because I'll still love you guys. ;-)


Each ranker gives ranks. a FVIP and a PP. The highest and lowest projections are taken out. If there are 7 rankers, the middle 5 projections are averaged. I will think about a way to include individual ranker's rankings... my guess is it would become cluttered. Maybe an extra page would work and link the article to it. Or maybe put it in a thread and link the article to that thread (possibly the discussion thread). I think this would be more likely to come to fruition than simply putting hi and low in the article. That doesn't mean it won't. I'll run it up the flag pole. :)

uncabomb wrote:He's hit or miss with a lot of people but I really like Matthew Berry's (ESPN) Waiver wire pick ups on Tuesday and goes pretty deep on waiver wire pick ups.

And in reference to the Start/Sit column, I key would be nice. What is the 'Value" section based on and what is FVIP mean. Maybe just a legend for guys that are entering the cafe or just guys that have never tried to figure it out. I do however base some of my tough decisions on your start/sit. Another thing I like is, since becoming an avid fantasy football player for 4 years now and winning or coming in in the top 3 in most of my leagues (thanks to the cafe) is to know why you prefer someone over someone else. yahoo has a small comment section where they say why you make the decisions you make. I trust the cafe but I wouldn't mind learning a lil more about your logic behind the rankings.


The paragraph before the tables says what those things mean. I don't suppose it would hurt to make a small legend somewhere in the article and maybe replace that paragraph. Like you said, it might be easier on new people wandering in. :)

our start/sit section wrote:The first set is a value between 1-20, given based on a player’s Fantasy Value If Playing (FVIP). The second set is that player’s Playing Probability (PP). These two sets are thrown into a giant machine, twisted around a little, mixed up, sorted, resorted, then eventually darts are thrown at the results.


As for comments, since our rankings are based on a group of ranker's projections... each ranker has different reasonings for their rankings that might differ from the final result. This makes comments tough. That's why Nick and I write the blurbs in between the Position Tables...

    Example: Let's say I, and a few others, rank Adrian Peterson 10th this week and the other rankers still rank him first. Some rankings were based on the Vikings lack of TDs this year and Tennessee's Defense. The others rank him more on his super high potential to produce against any team. Last year, SD had one of the best Run Defenses in the NFL when they ran into AD and his 296 yard 3 touchdown day... When his final rank is 6th, what do we put in his comment box? It's a tough one.

    Note: I almost always put an 18-20 FVIP rank on that guy though. This was a fake example based on his real ranking this week.

Would more commented on players be better? More Start/Sits? Or would it just be cooler to have a comment underneath some players in the table itself?

(No better feedback than from the people who use it and check it out weekly :-) )
treat24
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterCafecasterCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18188
Joined: 6 Oct 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: I'm drinking 'til I forget the 1999 NFC Championship game.

Re: Blatantly obvious FF articles

Postby bobbing_headz » Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:45 pm

treat24 wrote:
smackthefirst wrote:
treat24 wrote:Since this thread is out here... Does anyone have any suggestions to make our Start/Sit section better? :-D


I actually think the Cafe start/sit section is one of the better ones out there for 2 main reasons. The first is that it's not just one person's views. Obviously, the more people's input you have, the better your projections will be overall because it balances out the anomalies. I'm also a fan that we now include the "likelihood" that someone plays. The only other possible suggestion I could make is adding a range.

There used to a FF site which is long gone today that used to give the same information the Cafe gives now but they would also provide a low end and high end projection number. This helped a lot for that last minute flex decision where you were debating between two people and you could more easily see if a player was consensus performer or more of a boom or bust player and go the direction you felt your team needed.

As an example using treat and I and this week, let's say I project Rivers for 18 points and treat projects him for 15 points and I project Warner for 21 points and treat projects him for 12 points. Both players would be equal once our projections were average at 16.5. But when you have multiple people providing projections, it might be helpful to some to show what the highest and lowest projections were. This way, I could make a more informed guess between Rivers and Warner in terms of whether I should play it safer with Rivers or take more of a gamble with Warner.

And assuming the Cafe takes projections from each contributor and averages them for the final results, this could be very easy to implement. If it doesn't come to fruition, don't worry because I'll still love you guys. ;-)


Each ranker gives ranks. a FVIP and a PP. The highest and lowest projections are taken out. If there are 7 rankers, the middle 5 projections are averaged. I will think about a way to include individual ranker's rankings... my guess is it would become cluttered. Maybe an extra page would work and link the article to it. Or maybe put it in a thread and link the article to that thread (possibly the discussion thread). I think this would be more likely to come to fruition than simply putting hi and low in the article. That doesn't mean it won't. I'll run it up the flag pole. :)

uncabomb wrote:He's hit or miss with a lot of people but I really like Matthew Berry's (ESPN) Waiver wire pick ups on Tuesday and goes pretty deep on waiver wire pick ups.

And in reference to the Start/Sit column, I key would be nice. What is the 'Value" section based on and what is FVIP mean. Maybe just a legend for guys that are entering the cafe or just guys that have never tried to figure it out. I do however base some of my tough decisions on your start/sit. Another thing I like is, since becoming an avid fantasy football player for 4 years now and winning or coming in in the top 3 in most of my leagues (thanks to the cafe) is to know why you prefer someone over someone else. yahoo has a small comment section where they say why you make the decisions you make. I trust the cafe but I wouldn't mind learning a lil more about your logic behind the rankings.


The paragraph before the tables says what those things mean. I don't suppose it would hurt to make a small legend somewhere in the article and maybe replace that paragraph. Like you said, it might be easier on new people wandering in. :)

our start/sit section wrote:The first set is a value between 1-20, given based on a player’s Fantasy Value If Playing (FVIP). The second set is that player’s Playing Probability (PP). These two sets are thrown into a giant machine, twisted around a little, mixed up, sorted, resorted, then eventually darts are thrown at the results.


As for comments, since our rankings are based on a group of ranker's projections... each ranker has different reasonings for their rankings that might differ from the final result. This makes comments tough. That's why Nick and I write the blurbs in between the Position Tables...

    Example: Let's say I, and a few others, rank Adrian Peterson 10th this week and the other rankers still rank him first. Some rankings were based on the Vikings lack of TDs this year and Tennessee's Defense. The others rank him more on his super high potential to produce against any team. Last year, SD had one of the best Run Defenses in the NFL when they ran into AD and his 296 yard 3 touchdown day... When his final rank is 6th, what do we put in his comment box? It's a tough one.

    Note: I almost always put an 18-20 FVIP rank on that guy though. This was a fake example based on his real ranking this week.

Would more commented on players be better? More Start/Sits? Or would it just be cooler to have a comment underneath some players in the table itself?

(No better feedback than from the people who use it and check it out weekly :-) )


I definitely think more comments after each position would be better. Something more like what Rotoworld does with their weekly rankings.
Image
Less C*** More Rock
bobbing_headz
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 5602
Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: North of the Border

Re: Blatantly obvious FF articles

Postby treat24 » Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:55 pm

TheMaizeAndBlue wrote:I don't know if this would be too much extra work, but something that I like to do is to assign a numerical value to defenses against the pass/run based on their rankings. I think that might be a cool addition to the start/sit column if it's not too much extra work.


Interesting... I need to give this some thought.
treat24
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterCafecasterCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18188
Joined: 6 Oct 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: I'm drinking 'til I forget the 1999 NFC Championship game.

Re: Blatantly obvious FF articles

Postby FatFoot » Sat Sep 27, 2008 3:21 pm

After each category, you have the Start/Sit Blurbs for one player per category. Sometimes more than one is warranted. There isn't a lot of reason to put a "Start" blurb out there for players who are certainly not on the bubble. You have LT? You're starting LT. You have Cutler? You're starting Cutler. The blurbs would be more meaningful if they suggested reasons for starting players who are on the bubble... Are you starting Graham or Stewart as a flex this week? Both of those guys COULD be blurbed. :) I like "blurbed." But the point is, the format doesn't HAVE to be rigid... it'd be no less interesting to read if occasionally 2 or more players were listed as "Start, because of this."

Things are calming down a little with work now, so I should get my butt in there and help rank. Everyone should do that. It adds value to this site, and the site is providing a great deal of value to us.
FatFoot
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe RankerEagle Eye
Posts: 3259
Joined: 28 Aug 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: In the Belly of the Beast

Re: Blatantly obvious FF articles

Postby smackthefirst » Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:37 pm

Treat,

I actually started with the thought of displaying all the individual projections but realized it would be way too cluttered with all the numbers. That's what led me to the high-low idea since that could be absorbed into the current set up. But linking to another grid with all the individual projections would be the best since it provides the most info.

Either way, I'm sure that any changes that come out of this thread will be greatly appreciated. ;-D
Image
My Playoff Team - Please Comment
MSchaub, DMcNabb, JFreeman, KKolb
SJackson, THightower, CWells, JForsett, JSnelling, CJennings, QGanther
RWayne, RMoss, RMeachem, MCrabtree, DBowe
VDavis
smackthefirst
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Graphics ExpertEagle EyeMatchup Meltdown Survivor
Posts: 2646
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: MD

Re: Blatantly obvious FF articles

Postby bagobonez » Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:38 pm

I was thinking the same thing. Start Cutler and Marshall? Wow... genius! Start Romo and Owens? Mind blowing idea! A couple of years back I wrote waiver wire pickup articles for ffauthority.com and trust me, that's a tough job. Trying to find waiver wire scrubs that can fill in for a week and have a good game is not easy to do, but I feel I did a pretty decent job on it. And I got paid next to nothing. Yet these guys can write brilliant articles like "start Cutler" and get paid well enough to pay the mortgage. Something's not right about that.
"90% of the game is half mental" - John Madden
Image
bagobonez
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4463
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Atop my league's fantasy throne

Re: Blatantly obvious FF articles

Postby shagworth » Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:54 pm

I don't think there is a need to put a comment after each player, but if a player is ranked lower than he would normally, such as this week with Westbrook, a little blurb might help those who are unaware of his status and are wondering why he is ranked so low.

And on a totally unrelated note, I was wondering why Rashard Mendenhall isn't even on the list and Willie Parker is number 42.
Image
Props to soty for the sig!
shagworth
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar

Posts: 434
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: At The Computer...Duh

Re: Blatantly obvious FF articles

Postby bagobonez » Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:07 pm

shagworth wrote:I don't think there is a need to put a comment after each player, but if a player is ranked lower than he would normally, such as this week with Westbrook, a little blurb might help those who are unaware of his status and are wondering why he is ranked so low.

And on a totally unrelated note, I was wondering why Rashard Mendenhall isn't even on the list and Willie Parker is number 42.


Probably because neither of them are startable against the Ravens D.
"90% of the game is half mental" - John Madden
Image
bagobonez
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4463
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Atop my league's fantasy throne

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 10:30 hours
(and 55 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact