Bloody Anus Wrote:Here is the final breakdown of the experts picks: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p4ca-9hHgj21EzjRTmuTMFQ&gid=14">http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... MFQ&gid=14</a><!-- m -->

Overall, of the 274 total picks made, the experts picks were good 48% of the time, 133 for 272. 30% (83) were bad, and 21% (58) were neutral. This is slightly above my hypothesized 40%, but this deviation has already been accounted for in my week to week analyses.

I noticed during the course of this experiment that most of the experts did a much better job picking “sit ‘ems” than “start ‘ems”. Not surprisingly, the data fully supports this. There were 139 total “start ‘ems” and the experts were good on just 37% (51) of them, bad on 37% (52) and neutral on 26% (36).
Meanwhile, of the 135 “sit ‘ems”, they performed with 61% (82) accuracy, 23% (31) were bad and 16% (22) neutral.

As you can see, these percentages were consistent across most positions. They had good QB picks 49% of the time, but again just 37% for start ‘ems and 63% for sit ‘ems. Running backs were picked correctly 61% of the time; 45% for start ‘ems and 77% for sit ‘ems. Wide receivers scored at 50% - 30% start ‘em and 70% sit ‘em. Tight ends were picked correctly 52% of the time; 35% start ‘em and 69% sit ‘em.

The only positions that didn’t follow this trend were at kicker and defense. Kickers were picked correctly 25% of the time, 25% each for a start ‘em and sit ‘em. Good picks were made on defenses at a rate of 42%, 47% start ‘em and 38% sit ‘em. There are multiple reasons for this deviation. First of all, there were only 32 total kickers picked all season and 33 defenses compared to 57-60 QB/RB/WR. Then again, there were also only 33 total tight ends picked, so that doesn’t really tell the whole story. Another potential reason is because kickers and defense are more heavily reliant on the team’s performance than any of the other “skill” positions. A team can get blown out by 30 points but still have a WR go for 100+ yards and a touchdown. Or they can be shut out but still net some good yardage. Meanwhile, the kicker for the team that gets shutout will invariably also be shutout. Now as far as the defense goes, well, let’s just take a look at the opponents of the 14 good defense picks our experts made.

Start ‘Em vs:
Tampa Bay
Atlanta
Buffalo
Chicago
St. Louis
Detroit
Atlanta
NY Jets

Sit ‘Em vs:
Dallas
Indianapolis
Pittsburgh
New England
NY Jets
New England

I’m not even going to look at who the defenses were that they suggested starting against these teams. Nor will I investigate the above teams’ offensive rankings, stats, etc. Without looking at stats, I can say with extreme confidence that Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Buffalo, and the Jets were five of the worst offenses this season, and that Dallas, Indianapolis, and New England were not just three of the best, but THE three best offenses in football this year.
Finally, the emphasis on kickers and defense is miniscule in most fantasy football leagues. These are essentially “bonus” points. Kickers and defenses are drafted as an afterthought. It’s far more important to draft a quality QB, RB, WR, and TE than to draft any kicker or defense. If your top QB or RB doesn’t produce, chances are it’s not going to matter how well/poor your kicker performs.

Back in October I hypothesized that my picks would “match or better (the experts’) 48% performance, +/- 5%.” Overall I went 53% on my good picks, bettering the experts’ by an even 5%. Similarly, I found it much easier to pick sit ‘ems than start ‘ems. I went 39% on start ‘ems (compared to the experts’ 37%), and 67% on sit ‘ems (vs. 61%).

I matched the 37% performance in picking start ‘em QB’s, and picked two more sit ‘ems (70% vs. their 63%), for an overall 53% performance vs. their 49%. The one position where I was outperformed was at RB. Overall I went 47% vs. 61%. Start ‘ems were 38% vs. 45%; sit ‘ems 57% vs. their 77%. Wide receivers were predicted at a 48% clip vs. the experts’ 50%. Start ‘ems were even at 30%, sit ‘ems 67% to their 70%. I went 67% to their 52% at TE; 47%-35% for start ‘ems and 88%-69% for sit ‘ems. Kickers I was good for 53%/31%/75% vs. the experts’ 25%/25%/25%. Finally, defenses were accurate 58% of the time (59 start, 56 sit) compared to the experts’ 42%/47%/38%.

So what does all of this mean? Why is there such a discrepancy at running back? I could try to delve into this, compare picks, see who I chose vs. who they chose, take a deeper look at the grading criteria, etc. but what’s the point, really? The fact is, I set out to prove that fantasy football experts don’t exist, and that’s exactly what I’ve done. The fact that I matched or bettered their performance unequivocally proves this. Just because they were better at picking RB’s proves nothing. I am just as good – if not better – at choosing who to start and who to sit than these self proclaimed “experts”. I’m not sure what the official qualifications are to be a fantasy football “expert”, but I’m pretty sure I’ve just met them. Yes, should I choose to, I could easily label myself a fantasy football expert. But seeing as how they don’t exist in the first place, instead I’ll just label myself a fantasy football player that also writes about fantasy football. That’s all these “experts” really are anyway.

The (rather anticlimactic) End.