CDIH

This is a theory I have held for quite some time, and now is as good a time as any to put it to the test. I am so sick of these websites offering “expert” advice on who to sit/start in fantasy football. It’s useless. Nobody knows a god damn thing. Anything can happen. Anybody can just come up with players that should have a good game, but that doesn’t make you an expert. It just means you have a moderate understanding of how to read and interpret statistics. Anybody can do that.

My hypothesis is that the average “expert’s” picks are accurate only about 40% of the time. For this week’s experiment, I will be analyzing one of CBS Sportsline’s “expert” picks, as that is the site that hosts the league I am in this year. These picks can be found here.

Now, in order to adequately test my hypothesis over the course of the season, I must incorporate the opinions of more than just one “expert”. I could dissect Jamey Eisenberg’s picks all season, but all this would prove is that he doesn’t know a god damn thing. To prove that all fantasy “experts” are useless, I must use a larger sample size. Therefore, I will be looking at “expert” picks from a variety of websites, to be determined randomly throughout the season based on how much work I want to put into it that week.

There are no fancy formulas that will be used to judge whether a player had a good game or not. The decision will come strictly from the stats. Each pick will fall into one of three categories:

Good pick – the player had a great game OR the player had a poor game
Bad pick – the player had a poor game OR the player had a great game
Neutral pick – the player had an adequate game. Not too great, but not too poor

With that said, here are this weeks findings:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p...X7a_BBbHAg

Analysis
This self-proclaimed “expert” made 62 selections – 31 “start ‘ems” and 31 “sit ‘ems”. Of those 62 selections, just 23 turned out to be good picks – 37%. Of those 23, just 7 were players he deemed a “start ‘em” vs. 16 “sit ‘ems”. What does this prove? That it’s easier to say “don’t start Bo Scaife” than it is to say “start Owen Daniels.” Wow. Does it really take an expert to offer up that kind of advice?

Now, that 37% is poor enough as it is, but when you take a look at his extra special “one-week sleepers” it becomes clear that this guy is no expert. His sleepers of the week:

Steve McNair: 4 turnovers
DeAngelo Williams: 75 total yards, lost fumble
Joe Horn: 1 catch, 14 yards
David Martin: 1 catch, 7 yards
Sebastian Janikowski: 3 missed field goals
Raiders defense: 36 points allowed

So that’s 0 for 6 on these players that he has given extra value to. This is not even mentioning his “start of the week”; Deuce McAllister and his 45 yards of total offense.

Of course, I could give him the benefit of the doubt, with this being week one and all. But fuck that. This guy is supposed to be an “EXPERT”, isn’t he? His “job” is to tell fantasy owners what their best options are; which players give them the best chance of winning for that given week. And this guy did so with 37% accuracy. 37%! That is not sufficient. What other job can you perform with 37% accuracy and expect to keep a job? If I decided to clean 4 out of every 10 toilets I came across, while smearing feces all over the other 6, I’d have been fired years ago. And CBS calls this guy a “senior fantasy writer”!? You may as well have some down syndrome kid pick names at random out of a hat and flip a coin. Heads is a “start ‘em”, tails a “sit ‘em.” He would be right at about the same frequency, and they can pay him significantly less because of his retard status.

don't forget, a lot of these writers became writers because they didn't like math

I especially like how you incorporated my "you're a janitor" gag in there. Bravo.

but there are sports betting experts (see: me)

Do you realize just how little fantasy "experts" make? It's a joke. I was asked if I'd be interested in submitting an article for review for that TalentedMrRoto site before the guy took over EPSN. I was told that if it got published, I'd make $50 per article.

The vast majority of fantasy "experts" have a regular day job and just do the fantasy thing in their spare time.

There are like 10 people on the planet that make an actual decent living writing fantasy content.

just b/c they were going to pay a half-witted fantasy junkie $50 to write tripe doesn't mean it doesn't pay, in general.

said fantasy junkie isn't stupid enough not to ask questions, fatbody.

touchie touchie

For week 2, I looked at Yahoo! “expert” Brad Evans

The analysis:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p4ca-9hHgj20qlYEyksGobw&gid=1">http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... Gobw&gid=1</a><!-- m -->

He only made 13 picks, dubbing them his “flames” and “lames”. Of those 13, 6 turned out to be good picks – 46%. Though higher than last week’s 37%, this number must be adjusted accordingly, because there are just 13 players involved vs. the 62 from last week. Logically, it would make sense for any self proclaimed “expert” to be able to perform with great accuracy when projecting the performance of only 13 players. To finish the week under 50% is even more unacceptable than last week’s 37%. At least Eisenberg had a much larger sample size to fail from. Furthermore, Evans didn’t even offer any “expert” advice on any tight ends or kickers. Why is this? Are there any leagues out there that don’t use a tight end or kicker? Surely some of us fantasy “novices” needed some kind of advice as to what to do at the tight end and kicker positions. But alas, this expert let us all down.

Also, I would be remiss if I did not mention his “Flame” defense for the week – Cincinnati. Wow. Will there ever be a worse pick all season? He projected 7 points and 208 yards allowed. Oooooh, so close! He was only 44 points and 346 yards off. Not too bad.

So far I have examined 2 “experts” from 2 different sites and both have performed at about the same 40% accuracy as outlined in my hypothesis. Combining last week and this week, there have been 75 total picks made, 29 of which turned out good – 39%. To mix things up a bit for next week, I will be offering up 13 of my own “flames” and “lames”, complete with stat projections and one “he should outperform him and him” at quarterback. These picks will be in by Friday, prior to viewing next week’s ”expert”. My hypothesis is that I will at least match, if not outperform, Brad Evans and his pathetic 6 for 13 performance this week.

Well here are my Week 3 projections, brought to you by google, the only business in the world where logic and problem solving are more important than lying and bullshitting: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p4ca-9hHgj23NDUoCw8RJCA&gid=2">http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... RJCA&gid=2</a><!-- m -->

I was going to offer up analysis and explain the rationale behind these picks, but then decided not to.

I am not playing fantasy football this year. I needed "a break" like Anus and his last year in baseball.

By the by, I likely have a spot opening in a pretty hardcore keeper league for next year: 12 teams, 9 active pitchers; 12 active hitters; 8 man minor league system. Different league, but similar settings to the league you were in last year. $225 buy-in. You can keep up to 6 players based on round picked. For instance, I picked Brandon Phillips in the 10th round, so I can keep him in the 7th next year. Minor leaguers like Gallardo, Pence, and Braun only cost a 27th round pick. Free agents (Shields, Pena) cost a 15th round pick.

You'd be inheriting an existing (though not that good) team and likely wouldn't have a shot at winning next year.

What does the existing team I would be inheriting look like?



My week 3 picks:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p4ca-9hHgj23HpS9N1savWg&gid=2">http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... avWg&gid=2</a><!-- m -->

Out of my 13 picks, I had 7 good ones – 54%, outperforming last week’s “expert” Brad Evans as I predicted.

As for the “expert” picks from week 3, I looked at NFL.com’s Fantasy Editor, Michael Fabiano:
He made the most picks of anyone so far, offering up 45 “start ‘ems” and 45 “sit ‘ems”. The result: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p4ca-9hHgj23HpS9N1savWg&gid=3">http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... avWg&gid=3</a><!-- m -->

Finally, somebody performing better than the expected 40%. Fabiano made 50 good picks out of his 90, 55%. Wow, finally it looks like I found somebody who might actually be an “expert”, right? Wrong. Upon further review and a deeper look into his picks, it becomes clear exactly why he performed with such accuracy.

In week 1, I looked at an expert from CBS Sportsline, who prefaced his picks with the following statement: “We are not in the business of stating the obvious, so you won't be reading here why you need to start Peyton Manning, LaDainian Tomlinson or any other top-tier players.”

Fair enough. However, apparently NFL.com’s “experts” don’t buy into that same logic of not stating the obvious. Of Fabiano’s 45 “start ‘ems”, 8 could easily be considered “top-tier, must start” players:

Tom Brady
Brian Westbrook
Clinton Portis
Shayne Graham
Josh Brown
Vikings DEF/ST
Patriots DEF/ST
Broncos DEF/ST

And that’s not including borderlines such as McNabb, Jordan, and Chambers. So if you take away those 8 picks, you’re left with 47/90 = 52%. Still not too shabby. But let’s examine this further: Much like the CBS “expert” from week 1, Fabiano was far more accurate in selecting “sit ems” than “start ems”. Again, all this proves is that it’s easier to say “don't start David Garrard" than it is to say "start Derek Anderson.” Delving further into Fabiano’s “sit ems” we come up with the following “expert” advice:

Don’t start:

David Garrard against the best secondary in the league
JP Losman, Lee Evans, Marshawn Lynch and Rian Lindell against the Patriots
Matt Leinart against the Ravens
Julius Jones (not their primary RB) against the Bears
Tatum Bell (not their primary RB) against the Eagles
Deuce McAllister (not their primary RB)
Daniel Graham (4 catches in 2 previous games)
Vishante Shiancoe (2 catches in 2 previous games)
Alex Smith (4 catches in 2 previous games)
Mark Clayton (1 catch in previous 2 games)
Texans defense against the Colts
Bills defense against the 38.0 PPG Patriots

This is no different than stating the obvious by telling people to start Brady or Manning or Tomlinson. It doesn’t take an expert – in fact, it doesn’t take any football knowledge whatsoever – to decide to bench a receiver or tight end that rarely sees the ball. Even a fantasy rookie would know not to start any defense against the Colts or Patriots, much less the Texans and Bills defenses.

So yeah, this “expert” performed with 55% accuracy on 90 picks. In fairness, he did make some good calls. Even though a big chunk of his picks came from stating the obvious, I cannot deny that this has been the best “expert” of the bunch. Nevertheless, I am not impressed. Still, I will calculate these picks into the grand total, which is now 79/165 = 48%.

Week 4: ESPN’s Eric Karabell

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p4ca-9hHgj22zvt0mvUwNQA&gid=4">http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... wNQA&gid=4</a><!-- m -->

7/17 = 41%

The interesting thing here is that 2 of his start ‘em receivers are receivers I have in my league. I can only start 2 receivers, with another 2 on the bench. My receivers are: Larry Fitzgerald, Derrick Mason, Calvin Johnson, and Brandon Marshall. Even though Fitzgerald was playing a good Pittsburgh defense, you’ve got to start him every week (just look what Boldin did last week against a good Baltimore defense). So that leaves 3 spots – a banged up, questionable Johnson in a pass happy offense against a banged up Chicago secondary. Mason, their main target, against a terrible secondary. Marshall was a nice option because he’s off to a great start and could have seen the ball more because of the injury to Walker.

All very good options. So, who did I start? Fitzgerald (11 rec, 123 yards) and Mason (10 rec, 78 yards) over two of Karabell’s must starts – Johnson (DNP) and Marshall (3 rec, 23 yards, TD). Who’s the expert again?

Week 5: SI.com’s David Sabino and Adam Duerson. Yes, that’s right: 2 experts this week are combining their vast expertise. Maybe Sports Illustrated thinks that if they have double the experts, they’ll have double the success rate. Or maybe they hired more fantasy football experts than they should have, so just have two of them share the same job. Or maybe one of them is a trainee; an expert in training, and he is working side by side with a mentor to see how it’s done. To see how qualified an individual must be to suggest to the world that Ronnie Brown and Larry Fitzgerald are worth starting. I have both of these players, and was very close to starting Brandon Jackson and Calvin Johnson in their place, before I came across this valuable advice. Thanks, Sports Illustrated!

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p4ca-9hHgj201gLyMjPBADQ&gid=5">http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... BADQ&gid=5</a><!-- m -->


Shocker: These two jerks went 11 for 30 - 37%. Even with the obvious choices of Brown and Fitzgerald, they still ended up below my hypothesized 40%. Not only that, but look at some of their other “A” (good pick) players: Marc Bulger who not only didn’t play but was doubtful most of the week. Tatum Bell is no longer a full-time starter since Jones is healthy. Jamal Lewis got hurt on the first play of the game and never returned. Darrell Jackson had Trent Dilfer as his QB against the Ravens defense. I also like how at the end of the article they say to also sit all Bengals, Eagles, Raiders, and Vikings players because they’re on a bye. Just goes to show how stupid the writers/editors of this garbage think their readers are. Sadly, the mere fact that they still have jobs proves how right they are.

I really hope this expose is being posted somewhere else on the Internet where there are more than 5 readers.

It's an important issue.

In week 6 I reverted back to the week 1 “expert”, CBS’ Jamey Eisenberg. This is coming a week late because I've been unmotivated and, well, he actually did pretty well and I couldn’t think of any way to spin it into making him look like an uneducated ass. But now I have, so here are the results:

36/62 = 58%. The best showing thus far, by quite a large margin. 16 of his 31 start ‘em’s turned out good (52%) and 20 of 31 sit ‘em’s (64%). He didn’t include the likes of Ronnie Brown or Larry Fitzgerald in his start ‘em’s and didn’t really include many obvious choices at all. Sure, I could argue that McNabb, Eli Manning, James, McGahee, Edwards, and Winslow are all good enough to start every week, but even if those six were to be excluded, the results would still be very good.

So what’s his secret? Might he actually be an expert? Has all of my work been for naught? Probably. But that doesn’t mean I’m wrong or that I’m going to stop. Why did this guy do so goddamn well last week? Once again Eisenberg had more success picking sit ‘em’s. So I decided to analyze who he chose as his sit ‘em’s. My hypothesis here is that at least half of his picks (let’s call it 16) are players that are owned on less than half of all fantasy teams. In order to test this, what I ideally wanted to do was look at all 31 sit ‘em’s and what percentage of teams own them across two fantasy sites – CBS and ESPN, and then take the average of the two. However, CBS only provides this information for players who are already owned in the league you are in. Since nine players are not owned at all in my league, I could not obtain the stats on these players. So instead I just looked exclusively at ESPN’s own percentage. Now, these percentages are a bit skewed because they were taken today as opposed to at the time these picks were made. But let’s just chalk this up as part of the 5% margin of error inherent to any statistical experiment.

The results show that not only are 18 of his 31 picks owned in less than 50% of all ESPN fantasy leagues, but that 11 of the 31 are owned in less than 25% of all leagues. 58% of his sit ‘em’s are players that are owned in less than half of all ESPN leagues. Ironically, that’s the same percentage of good picks he made all week. So what does this prove? That Eisenberg takes marginal players, waiver wire fodder that most teams don’t even own in the first place, and suggests not starting them. So if these players are owned at all, it’s probably to fill out the bench, or to serve as an injury or bye replacement, in which case they have no choice but to start the marginal player. In other words, this advice looks all good on the surface, but when digging deeper it turns out that it doesn’t take much skill or expertise to tell people not to start the likes of Gus Frerotte or Roddy White or Olindo Mare or any other player that on most teams would be a third or fourth option at best.

I didn’t look at anything in week 7 because this is all getting annoying and tedious. I now have 6 weeks of data though. To keep me interested in this thing and spice things up a bit, what I will do starting next week is provide my own start em/sit em picks each week and at the end of week 13 compare 6 weeks of “expert” advice vs. 6 weeks of my advice. I will make the same number of picks each week as the expert made in the corresponding week – for example, week 8 will mirror week 1’s picks, week 9 will mirror week 2, and so on. Through six weeks of data, these “experts” produced with 48% accuracy, going 133 for 274. This is higher than my hypothesized 40%, but I’ve already addressed the contributing factors that have led to this. Besides, anything less than 50% is pretty poor when it comes to making “expert” decisions on things. My hypothesis for the next six weeks is that I will match or better their 48% performance, +/- 5%.

Randy Moss is good.

Nigger lover

Here are my Week 8 picks.. Once I have a few weeks of 50%+ success, I will provide the rationale behind all of the picks and show how you too can label yourself a fantasy football expert.

Week 8 results. I went 39/62, 63%. Just because I had nothing better to do on Tuesday night, I also decided to look at Eisenberg’s picks for week 8 and see how I compared. Here are his results. 33/62, 53%. Now, what’s interesting is that of the 62 picks I made, just under half, 30, were players that Eisenberg also picked. And of those 30, only 5 ended up on the different side of the spreadsheet (start ‘em vs. sit ‘em). So of those 25 picks that we shared in common, 16 (64%) of them turned out to be good – 7 start ‘ems and 9 sit ‘ems. 7 of my 15 start ‘ems were shared by Eisenberg; 9 of my 24 sit ‘ems. So what this proves is that we used similar criteria to make our selections, especially in the case of a start ‘em. But I’m getting a bit ahead of myself. This will all be revealed in time. For now, here are my week 9 picks, modeled after Yahoo!’s Brad Evans from week 2. Of course, I already did this back in Week 3, but oh well. Deal with it.