Fantasy football takes no skill (1 Viewer)

[SSOG]

Better idea: write down a list of every offensive player in the NFL. Throw darts at it. Draft who the dart lands on. If FF was all luck, you should be competitive. You'd better hope you're right, though, because you'll need a whole lot of luck after spending your first 7 picks on Nick Foles, Jeremiah Johnson, Devin Hester, Michael Floyd, Blaine Gabbart, Kyle Orton, and Randy Moss. I think it's Calbear who is always saying that FF takes a lot of skill, it's just that most owners piggyback off of someone else's skill (I.e. draft from a cheatsheet). I don't have to have any skill in picking stocks if I just give Warren Buffet my money and let him invest it for me: this does not mean that picking stocks doesn't take skill.

even if applicable, this is pretty irrelevant to the spirit of the discussion.

I don't think so. Nobody would seriously suggest 10-20 years ago that fantasy took no skill. That's because, back then, most people had not yet begun outsourcing their skill-based decisions. Now people make all their decisions from a cheatsheet and think fantasy takes no skill, but that cheatsheet was not created by chance. Owners without skill can now borrow someone else's, but they still need skill (and a whole lot of it) to be competitive.

You are mistaking being informed for being skilled.You can improve your odds relative to others by being informed, but this does not in the least bit change the fact that every single week your performance is based largely on luck.

Being informed isn't a skill. Knowing what to do with that information is a skill. I agree that in any given week, the outcome is largely a function of luck. In any given hand of poker, the outcome is largely a function of luck, too. That doesn't mean poker isn't a game of skill.

 

[3optic]

Better idea: write down a list of every offensive player in the NFL. Throw darts at it. Draft who the dart lands on. If FF was all luck, you should be competitive. You'd better hope you're right, though, because you'll need a whole lot of luck after spending your first 7 picks on Nick Foles, Jeremiah Johnson, Devin Hester, Michael Floyd, Blaine Gabbart, Kyle Orton, and Randy Moss. I think it's Calbear who is always saying that FF takes a lot of skill, it's just that most owners piggyback off of someone else's skill (I.e. draft from a cheatsheet). I don't have to have any skill in picking stocks if I just give Warren Buffet my money and let him invest it for me: this does not mean that picking stocks doesn't take skill.

even if applicable, this is pretty irrelevant to the spirit of the discussion.

I don't think so. Nobody would seriously suggest 10-20 years ago that fantasy took no skill. That's because, back then, most people had not yet begun outsourcing their skill-based decisions. Now people make all their decisions from a cheatsheet and think fantasy takes no skill, but that cheatsheet was not created by chance. Owners without skill can now borrow someone else's, but they still need skill (and a whole lot of it) to be competitive.

You are mistaking being informed for being skilled.You can improve your odds relative to others by being informed, but this does not in the least bit change the fact that every single week your performance is based largely on luck.

Being informed isn't a skill. Knowing what to do with that information is a skill. I agree that in any given week, the outcome is largely a function of luck. In any given hand of poker, the outcome is largely a function of luck, too. That doesn't mean poker isn't a game of skill.

Excellent point BUT I would disagree. Finding quality information does require some skill. Many make a living gathering info. I am around record and book collectors some and while I'd be loathe to call them talented, some are just better than others at sorting through and selecting quality finds. The ever elusive "gut feeling" comes into play here although it's easily confused with subconscious fear based reactions.Navigating one's psyche deftly can be considered a skill and what is more rife with overreaction than sports betting and speculation?

 

[DoubleG]

Better idea: write down a list of every offensive player in the NFL. Throw darts at it. Draft who the dart lands on. If FF was all luck, you should be competitive. You'd better hope you're right, though, because you'll need a whole lot of luck after spending your first 7 picks on Nick Foles, Jeremiah Johnson, Devin Hester, Michael Floyd, Blaine Gabbart, Kyle Orton, and Randy Moss.

I think it's Calbear who is always saying that FF takes a lot of skill, it's just that most owners piggyback off of someone else's skill (I.e. draft from a cheatsheet). I don't have to have any skill in picking stocks if I just give Warren Buffet my money and let him invest it for me: this does not mean that picking stocks doesn't take skill.

even if applicable, this is pretty irrelevant to the spirit of the discussion.

I don't think so. Nobody would seriously suggest 10-20 years ago that fantasy took no skill. That's because, back then, most people had not yet begun outsourcing their skill-based decisions. Now people make all their decisions from a cheatsheet and think fantasy takes no skill, but that cheatsheet was not created by chance. Owners without skill can now borrow someone else's, but they still need skill (and a whole lot of it) to be competitive.

You are mistaking being informed for being skilled.You can improve your odds relative to others by being informed, but this does not in the least bit change the fact that every single week your performance is based largely on luck.

Being informed isn't a skill. Knowing what to do with that information is a skill. I agree that in any given week, the outcome is largely a function of luck. In any given hand of poker, the outcome is largely a function of luck, too. That doesn't mean poker isn't a game of skill.

Now I'm going to weigh in on this side. lol. As SSOG stated earlier, both poker and FF are games of skill masqueardaring as games of chance (or luck). The skill (and the "proof" of it, in that good players win more than bad players) comes in the long haul - in both. But that doesn't mean that skill is not involved - and even involved in a significant way.My only issue with the analogy is that the chance factor (or luck) - can take much longer to actually even out in FF. In SSOG's analogy above he likens a hand of poker to a week in FF. MT compared a FF season to a 4 hour session of live poker. It can take thousands of hands to even come close to balancing variance in poker. Given the 2 comparisons - that'd be 30+ years...at least. Now, that just assumes that you hit a particularly long run of bad (or good) luck - but it is not outside the realm of possibility. Especially if you play in head-to-head, single elimination playoff formats in FF, where the fate of an entire season, can turn on one play (or one turned ankle).

 

[GregR]

Better idea: write down a list of every offensive player in the NFL. Throw darts at it. Draft who the dart lands on. If FF was all luck, you should be competitive. You'd better hope you're right, though, because you'll need a whole lot of luck after spending your first 7 picks on Nick Foles, Jeremiah Johnson, Devin Hester, Michael Floyd, Blaine Gabbart, Kyle Orton, and Randy Moss.

I think it's Calbear who is always saying that FF takes a lot of skill, it's just that most owners piggyback off of someone else's skill (I.e. draft from a cheatsheet). I don't have to have any skill in picking stocks if I just give Warren Buffet my money and let him invest it for me: this does not mean that picking stocks doesn't take skill.

even if applicable, this is pretty irrelevant to the spirit of the discussion.

I don't think so. Nobody would seriously suggest 10-20 years ago that fantasy took no skill. That's because, back then, most people had not yet begun outsourcing their skill-based decisions. Now people make all their decisions from a cheatsheet and think fantasy takes no skill, but that cheatsheet was not created by chance. Owners without skill can now borrow someone else's, but they still need skill (and a whole lot of it) to be competitive.

You are mistaking being informed for being skilled.You can improve your odds relative to others by being informed, but this does not in the least bit change the fact that every single week your performance is based largely on luck.

Being informed isn't a skill. Knowing what to do with that information is a skill. I agree that in any given week, the outcome is largely a function of luck. In any given hand of poker, the outcome is largely a function of luck, too. That doesn't mean poker isn't a game of skill.

Now I'm going to weigh in on this side. lol. As SSOG stated earlier, both poker and FF are games of skill masqueardaring as games of chance (or luck). The skill (and the "proof" of it, in that good players win more than bad players) comes in the long haul - in both. But that doesn't mean that skill is not involved - and even involved in a significant way.My only issue with the analogy is that the chance factor (or luck) - can take much longer to actually even out in FF. In SSOG's analogy above he likens a hand of poker to a week in FF. MT compared a FF season to a 4 hour session of live poker. It can take thousands of hands to even come close to balancing variance in poker. Given the 2 comparisons - that'd be 30+ years...at least. Now, that just assumes that you hit a particularly long run of bad (or good) luck - but it is not outside the realm of possibility. Especially if you play in head-to-head, single elimination playoff formats in FF, where the fate of an entire season, can turn on one play (or one turned ankle).

This depends entirely on the participants and format/situation though. To keep with the analogy, if Phil Ivey is playing some lesser pro who is good but whom Ivey is more skilled than... the extra skill of Ivey's may not have time to show itself consistently in 4 hour sessions. Not unless you have a lot of them.If Phil Ivey is playing my mother in poker, however, 4 hours would probably be more than enough time for you to be able to tell he's more skilled that vast majority of times. The same is true in FF. If you put most any regular from here in a league with 11 FF novices who are competing with their own skill only, you'd see the FF regular placing in the top of the leagues in total points and wins far more often than not.

 

[GregR]

And to build on something I just said about borrowing other's skill.... one of the annoying things about this topic the 10 times it comes up each season is that often what people say and what they defend are two different things.

We always hear "FF is almost all luck". But then in reality what those normally people end up defending would have been better expressed as, "In FF, it's easy for the unskilled to apply the skill of another person". That and, "I play in leagues where everyone is the same skill level so my leagues it's all luck." Neither of which is at all the same as "FF is almost all luck".

 

[kinghill]

When I lose, it's all luck.

When I win, it's all skill.

 

[DoubleG]

This depends entirely on the participants and format/situation though. To keep with the analogy, if Phil Ivey is playing some lesser pro who is good but whom Ivey is more skilled than... the extra skill of Ivey's may not have time to show itself consistently in 4 hour sessions. Not unless you have a lot of them.If Phil Ivey is playing my mother in poker, however, 4 hours would probably be more than enough time for you to be able to tell he's more skilled that vast majority of times. The same is true in FF. If you put most any regular from here in a league with 11 FF novices who are competing with their own skill only, you'd see the FF regular placing in the top of the leagues in total points and wins far more often than not.

Ahh, yes. But FF like poker - the higher the stakes, the better the players. While your premise is certainly true - there aren't too many league that have 11 novices - at least not ones where you can win much money.

 

[GregR]

This depends entirely on the participants and format/situation though. To keep with the analogy, if Phil Ivey is playing some lesser pro who is good but whom Ivey is more skilled than... the extra skill of Ivey's may not have time to show itself consistently in 4 hour sessions. Not unless you have a lot of them.If Phil Ivey is playing my mother in poker, however, 4 hours would probably be more than enough time for you to be able to tell he's more skilled that vast majority of times. The same is true in FF. If you put most any regular from here in a league with 11 FF novices who are competing with their own skill only, you'd see the FF regular placing in the top of the leagues in total points and wins far more often than not.

Ahh, yes. But FF like poker - the higher the stakes, the better the players. While your premise is certainly true - there aren't too many league that have 11 novices - at least not ones where you can win much money.

Which would be a great argument for a thread that contest or big money leagues are mostly luck. Doesn't really have a lot to do with whether FF is mostly luck. For the latter, the 1 skilled owner against 11 novices is about as good of a test of the statement as you can get.Like I just said, most of the people who defend the FF is luck statement actually end up defending "FF is mostly luck when the owners have comparable skill". The big money league thing is just an example of that.

 

[whatadai]

This is a horrible article with no knowledge on how to analyze players in fantasy football at all. I could tear apart the horrible analysis of fantasy football in this article, but if I spent my time doing that with every person on the internet who believes they're a "professional" writer because they post on a website like Bleacher Report...I would hate myself...and probably shoot myself in the face.

 

[DoubleG]

This depends entirely on the participants and format/situation though. To keep with the analogy, if Phil Ivey is playing some lesser pro who is good but whom Ivey is more skilled than... the extra skill of Ivey's may not have time to show itself consistently in 4 hour sessions. Not unless you have a lot of them.

If Phil Ivey is playing my mother in poker, however, 4 hours would probably be more than enough time for you to be able to tell he's more skilled that vast majority of times. The same is true in FF. If you put most any regular from here in a league with 11 FF novices who are competing with their own skill only, you'd see the FF regular placing in the top of the leagues in total points and wins far more often than not.

Ahh, yes. But FF like poker - the higher the stakes, the better the players. While your premise is certainly true - there aren't too many league that have 11 novices - at least not ones where you can win much money.

Which would be a great argument for a thread that contest or big money leagues are mostly luck. Doesn't really have a lot to do with whether FF is mostly luck. For the latter, the 1 skilled owner against 11 novices is about as good of a test of the statement as you can get.

Like I just said, most of the people who defend the FF is luck statement actually end up defending "FF is mostly luck when the owners have comparable skill". The big money league thing is just an example of that.

Post 23, page 1.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

this is correct. more games means less variance and vice versa.the only thing incorrect here is your thread title. just because ff has the most luck involved as compaired to other sports does not mean it is 100% luck.

Almost 100 posts in this thread and the 2nd post was all that was needed...

Except, of course, for the fact that more games doesn't necessarily mean less variance. If scoring is rare enough (like in hockey or soccer), then those sports could still be more variable than football despite the fact that they play more games per week.

 

[ldizzle]

so if FF is all luck explain to me your week 3 game:New York Lions (3-0):(QB) Peyton Manning - 21 fantasy points(WR) Andre Johnson - 13 points(WR) Dwayne Bowe - 7 points(RB) Adrian Peterson - 10 points(RB) Frank Gore - 5 points(TE) Vernon Davis - 11 points(K) Dan Bailey - 10 points(DEF) Green Bay - 2 pointsTotal: 79Opponent's Team (1-2):(QB) Russell Wilson - 14 fantasy points(WR) Robert Meachem - 4 points(WR) Greg Jennings - 3 points(RB) Darren McFadden - 17 points(RB) Kevin Smith - 0 points(TE) Jimmy Graham - 7 points(K) Sebastian Janikowski - 10 points(DEF) Philadelphia - 3 pointsTotal: 58Did you just get lucky to have a much better team than this guy or did he just make horrible lineup decisions? (either is part skill btw)And while we are at it:your draft.New York Lions1. (10) Matt Forte RB2. (11) Adrian Peterson RB3. (30) Andre Johnson WR4. (31) Peyton Manning QB5. (50) Frank Gore RB6. (51) Vernon Davis TE7. (70) Peyton Hillis RB8. (71) Dwayne Bowe WR9. (90) Reggie Wayne WR10. (91) Shonn Greene RB11. (110) Matt Schaub QB12. (111) Green Bay DEF13. (130) Toby Gerhart RB14. (131) Dan Bailey K15. (150) Dallas Clark TE16. (151) Santonio Holmes WRPeyton Manning in the 4th in a 10 team league? Not much skill in making that pick I agree. Not because ff is all luck but apparently you dont have the skill. Dwayne Bowe in the 8th and Shonn greene a starting RB in the 10th????? Doesnt seem like the rest of your league has much skill either. Sounds like you guys dont know much about drafting FF teams and Im guessing managing them either in your league and instead of admitting not being very good at it, you claim its all luck.P.s. poor form joining a site for the sole purpose of pimping your article in hopes of getting a rise ( and new readers) out a FF site and not at least admitting it up front.

This is a horrible article with no knowledge on how to analyze players in fantasy football at all. I could tear apart the horrible analysis of fantasy football in this article, but if I spent my time doing that with every person on the internet who believes they're a "professional" writer because they post on a website like Bleacher Report...I would hate myself...and probably shoot myself in the face.

 

[DoubleG]

this is correct. more games means less variance and vice versa.the only thing incorrect here is your thread title. just because ff has the most luck involved as compaired to other sports does not mean it is 100% luck.

Almost 100 posts in this thread and the 2nd post was all that was needed...

Except, of course, for the fact that more games doesn't necessarily mean less variance. If scoring is rare enough (like in hockey or soccer), then those sports could still be more variable than football despite the fact that they play more games per week.

On top of that, playing in more leagues in the same year doesn't decrease variance necessarily either. If you like players X, Y and Z and draft them all above their ADP in some combination in your leagues. If one them goes down - it hurts you in all of the leagues. If one of them underperforms, it hurts you across all of your leagues. If the team with X, Y or Z is playing in a blizzard or monsoon in week 15, your playoffs could be in jeaporday....across every league in which you own that player.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There's an easy way to tell that fantasy football isn't all luck.

Compare it to a game that is all luck, like roulette. In roulette, no matter what you do, every single bet gives you an expected return of -5.26 percent. There's nothing you can do to be a better-than-average roulette player, and there's also nothing you can do to be a worse-than-average roulette player. Your disadvantage is fixed, and your results depend entirely on chance.

In fantasy football, however, it's very easy to be a worse-than-average player. You can start players on bye; you can start players who are injured; you can bench all your studs. Your results will be horrible. This proves that there's a way to manipulate your results: they do not depend entirely on chance. It's not all luck.

(This is so obvious as to be trivial; but given the thread title, maybe it needed to be pointed out.)

 

[Not Sleeping]

There's an easy way to tell that fantasy football isn't all luck.

Compare it to a game that is all luck, like roulette. In roulette, no matter what you do, every single bet gives you an expected return of -5.26 percent. There's nothing you can do to be a better-than-average roulette player, and there's also nothing you can do to be a worse-than-average roulette player. Your disadvantage is fixed, and your results depend entirely on chance.

In fantasy football, however, it's very easy to be a worse-than-average player. You can start players on bye; you can start players who are injured; you can bench all your studs. Your results will be horrible. This proves that there's a way to manipulate your results: they do not depend entirely on chance. It's not all luck.

(This is so obvious as to be trivial; but given the thread title, maybe it needed to be pointed out.)

Well said! There's a team in my 14-year-running 12 team league which consistently carries two kickers. While it may not take genius to figure out that the predictable variance between kickers does not justify keeping two on the roster, it does result in this team being much less likely to make the playoffs each year. Maybe people resist calling it "skill" when it's really just the ability to seek out, digest, and utilize information (which some might just call "intelligence"), but there's clearly a difference between my 4-time champion team and the 2-kicker team which has made the playoffs once.

 

[Rich Conway]

Level of skill is variable. Force me to run out 22 starters with IDP but only 4 bench slots. That changes the dynamic. Change X in the scoring and settings, it changes the dynamic. Limit me to only X number of roster moves per week, it changes the dynamic. Force me to start 8 WRs a week, it changes the dynamic.

There is absolutely a skill set involved in the ability to understand, process, and properly apply various rule changes in fantasy football. For instance, drafting with the same ESPN cheat sheet would be a disaster in a league that starts 8 WRs versus a standard 2 WR league. Lots of people would never recognize that.

 

[Rich Conway]

There's an easy way to tell that fantasy football isn't all luck.

Compare it to a game that is all luck, like roulette. In roulette, no matter what you do, every single bet gives you an expected return of -5.26 percent. There's nothing you can do to be a better-than-average roulette player, and there's also nothing you can do to be a worse-than-average roulette player. Your disadvantage is fixed, and your results depend entirely on chance.

In fantasy football, however, it's very easy to be a worse-than-average player. You can start players on bye; you can start players who are injured; you can bench all your studs. Your results will be horrible. This proves that there's a way to manipulate your results: they do not depend entirely on chance. It's not all luck.

(This is so obvious as to be trivial; but given the thread title, maybe it needed to be pointed out.)

As usual, MT nails it.

 

[duaneok66]

the thread title was named as such just to get us riled up so we would enter the thread and go to the link with the article.

 

[matuski]

Better idea: write down a list of every offensive player in the NFL. Throw darts at it. Draft who the dart lands on. If FF was all luck, you should be competitive. You'd better hope you're right, though, because you'll need a whole lot of luck after spending your first 7 picks on Nick Foles, Jeremiah Johnson, Devin Hester, Michael Floyd, Blaine Gabbart, Kyle Orton, and Randy Moss.

I think it's Calbear who is always saying that FF takes a lot of skill, it's just that most owners piggyback off of someone else's skill (I.e. draft from a cheatsheet). I don't have to have any skill in picking stocks if I just give Warren Buffet my money and let him invest it for me: this does not mean that picking stocks doesn't take skill.

even if applicable, this is pretty irrelevant to the spirit of the discussion.

I don't think so. Nobody would seriously suggest 10-20 years ago that fantasy took no skill. That's because, back then, most people had not yet begun outsourcing their skill-based decisions. Now people make all their decisions from a cheatsheet and think fantasy takes no skill, but that cheatsheet was not created by chance. Owners without skill can now borrow someone else's, but they still need skill (and a whole lot of it) to be competitive.

You are mistaking being informed for being skilled.You can improve your odds relative to others by being informed, but this does not in the least bit change the fact that every single week your performance is based largely on luck.

Being informed isn't a skill. Knowing what to do with that information is a skill. I agree that in any given week, the outcome is largely a function of luck. In any given hand of poker, the outcome is largely a function of luck, too. That doesn't mean poker isn't a game of skill.

I think a lot of us are just talking past each other.I find that the players that take the time to be informed usually make similar decisions. Information makes the decisions easier IMHO.. so in my mind taking the time to be aware of everything then makes you rely less on anything that could be argued as skill. The right move becomes more and more obvious, requiring less and less "skill".

So what you call skill I am placing under the umbrella of being informed. I absolutely acknowledge some people are better than others, I just feel it is a result of preparation to improve your odds instead of some "skill" that can somehow avoid a tackle at the one yard line costing you 6 points.

Otherwise, what I see in this thread is a lot of people wanting really badly to hear that they are skilled rather than lucky.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Skill?

The only skill in FF is knowing how to use the internet and technology. After that it is all luck.

The poker comparison is terribly wrong.

 

[xander756]

Excellent point BUT I would disagree. Finding quality information does require some skill. Many make a living gathering info. I am around record and book collectors some and while I'd be loathe to call them talented, some are just better than others at sorting through and selecting quality finds. The ever elusive "gut feeling" comes into play here although it's easily confused with subconscious fear based reactions.Navigating one's psyche deftly can be considered a skill and what is more rife with overreaction than sports betting and speculation?

Eh not really. People can just look on Yahoo or ESPN and get all sorts of projections and advice. When it comes to most of the important positions, such as running back, all you really need to do is plug in some big name starters and forget about them.

 

[xander756]

3-0 in that league isn't any more impressive than writing about fantasy lacrosse. You're going to have do a lot better than that before you proclaim yourself as a fantasy football expert.

So basically you are saying I'm not a fantasy expert because my team is TOO good now. Sheesh just can't win with you guys. First you argue that I must be butthurt cuz my team is 0-3 and then when you realize I'm actually dominating you change your argument to saying that the league must be filled with noobs. It's actually a fellow experts league (including one of the Yahoo! experts). That's the only reason I'm even playing it at all is that I was invited. I personally don't even like FF.

 

[footballnerd]

Excellent point BUT I would disagree. Finding quality information does require some skill. Many make a living gathering info. I am around record and book collectors some and while I'd be loathe to call them talented, some are just better than others at sorting through and selecting quality finds. The ever elusive "gut feeling" comes into play here although it's easily confused with subconscious fear based reactions.Navigating one's psyche deftly can be considered a skill and what is more rife with overreaction than sports betting and speculation?

Eh not really. People can just look on Yahoo or ESPN and get all sorts of projections and advice. When it comes to most of the important positions, such as running back, all you really need to do is plug in some big name starters and forget about them.

except players get hurt, you need to have back ups, unless. why don't you try playing in a 14 team league and see how much you need to keep up on backups. there are always variance you can add to leagues to make them more difficult, could it be you're just playing in to small or too standard of a league? find something to challenge you, man, (add more teams, bigger rosters, keepers/dynasty aspects) instead of ripping the hobby and saying it requires no skill. maybe you haven't evolved as much as the hobby has Quit looking at it in a vacuum, there are ways to make it more complicated for yourself and your league mates

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I personally don't even like FF.

 

[duaneok66]

3-0 in that league isn't any more impressive than writing about fantasy lacrosse. You're going to have do a lot better than that before you proclaim yourself as a fantasy football expert.

So basically you are saying I'm not a fantasy expert because my team is TOO good now. Sheesh just can't win with you guys. First you argue that I must be butthurt cuz my team is 0-3 and then when you realize I'm actually dominating you change your argument to saying that the league must be filled with noobs. It's actually a fellow experts league (including one of the Yahoo! experts). That's the only reason I'm even playing it at all is that I was invited. I personally don't even like FF.

NOW you don't even like FF yet you come to post on a FF message board . . . you can't make this stuff up.

 

[Rich Conway]

Skill? The only skill in FF is knowing how to use the internet and technology. After that it is all luck. The poker comparison is terribly wrong.

But as SSOG pointed out earlier, using the internet and technology for research is just the equivalent of outsourcing the skill portion. The skill itself is still required, it's just that you're borrowing someone else's skill.

 

[Rich Conway]

3-0 in that league isn't any more impressive than writing about fantasy lacrosse. You're going to have do a lot better than that before you proclaim yourself as a fantasy football expert.

So basically you are saying I'm not a fantasy expert because my team is TOO good now. Sheesh just can't win with you guys. First you argue that I must be butthurt cuz my team is 0-3 and then when you realize I'm actually dominating you change your argument to saying that the league must be filled with noobs. It's actually a fellow experts league (including one of the Yahoo! experts). That's the only reason I'm even playing it at all is that I was invited. I personally don't even like FF.

Drafting Peyton Manning in the 4th round of a 10-team league shows that at least one of the owners is most definitely not an "expert".

 

[whatadai]

3-0 in that league isn't any more impressive than writing about fantasy lacrosse. You're going to have do a lot better than that before you proclaim yourself as a fantasy football expert.

So basically you are saying I'm not a fantasy expert because my team is TOO good now. Sheesh just can't win with you guys. First you argue that I must be butthurt cuz my team is 0-3 and then when you realize I'm actually dominating you change your argument to saying that the league must be filled with noobs. It's actually a fellow experts league (including one of the Yahoo! experts). That's the only reason I'm even playing it at all is that I was invited. I personally don't even like FF.

Drafting Peyton Manning in the 4th round of a 10-team league shows that at least one of the owners is most definitely not an "expert".

 

[donkshow]

The guy that wrote this must be 0-3.

My team is 0-3 and I am 1st in fantasy points scored in a 14 team league.Point is, there is a LOT of luck each week, but the better teams SHOULD prevail by the end of the season.

 

[xander756]

Drafting Peyton Manning in the 4th round of a 10-team league shows that at least one of the owners is most definitely not an "expert".

Are you saying that is too early for one of the best quarterbacks in the game? How has he done today?

 

[RushHour]

Look at Hartline today vs a tough Zona D in comparison with Julio against a soft Panthers D - tough to say this game is mostly skill.

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

Better idea: write down a list of every offensive player in the NFL. Throw darts at it. Draft who the dart lands on. If FF was all luck, you should be competitive. You'd better hope you're right, though, because you'll need a whole lot of luck after spending your first 7 picks on Nick Foles, Jeremiah Johnson, Devin Hester, Michael Floyd, Blaine Gabbart, Kyle Orton, and Randy Moss. I think it's Calbear who is always saying that FF takes a lot of skill, it's just that most owners piggyback off of someone else's skill (I.e. draft from a cheatsheet). I don't have to have any skill in picking stocks if I just give Warren Buffet my money and let him invest it for me: this does not mean that picking stocks doesn't take skill.

even if applicable, this is pretty irrelevant to the spirit of the discussion.

I don't think so. Nobody would seriously suggest 10-20 years ago that fantasy took no skill. That's because, back then, most people had not yet begun outsourcing their skill-based decisions. Now people make all their decisions from a cheatsheet and think fantasy takes no skill, but that cheatsheet was not created by chance. Owners without skill can now borrow someone else's, but they still need skill (and a whole lot of it) to be competitive.

You are mistaking being informed for being skilled.You can improve your odds relative to others by being informed, but this does not in the least bit change the fact that every single week your performance is based largely on luck.

This is different from poker how?

 

[Dentist]

I actually think a great comparison is poker(which I used to play a lot of).sure, on a specific hand(week) you can lose with a great hand or win with a horrible one. In the grand scheme of things though, one hand(week) is pretty irrelevant. The object of the game is to put yourself in the best possible situation to win and then hope your cards(or players) hold up. The best fantasy football players do not win every week, but they almost always make the playoffs, unless of course they are playing against equals in skill level. people who don't play believe poker is a game of chance, but the people that play a lot know differently, same situation here.

I think it does compare to poker with one HUGE exception:In poker I can get to "the long run" fairly easily especially when i could play online. Your skill advantage doesn't show over 10 hands at ALL and can show just a little over 1000 hands.. but over 10,000 hands you'll definitely notice a difference.It's DAMN hard to get into "the long run" in FFL.Unless you played in DOZENS of leagues over 5-10 years, you wouldn't notice

 

[xander756]

Comparing fantasy football to poker only sort of proves my point that it's all luck. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Poker%27s_all_about_luck,_says_Swiss_Supreme_Court

 

[Rich Conway]

Drafting Peyton Manning in the 4th round of a 10-team league shows that at least one of the owners is most definitely not an "expert".

Are you saying that is too early for one of the best quarterbacks in the game? How has he done today?

1. Far too early because he could have been drafted much later, even if you believed he would return to his prime. Even if you thought Justin Blackmon was the second coming of Jerry Rice, drafting him in the first round would be a mistake, for the same reason. If you think otherwise, then you're not an expert.2. It's the Raiders. They're awful.

 

[Rich Conway]

Comparing fantasy football to poker only sort of proves my point that it's all luck. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Poker%27s_all_about_luck,_says_Swiss_Supreme_Court

Why haven't you responded to SSOG's posts from the first page, or Maurile's post? If it's 100% luck, you should be able to prove them wrong.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Comparing fantasy football to poker only sort of proves my point that it's all luck. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Poker%27s_all_about_luck,_says_Swiss_Supreme_Court

 

[xander756]

Why haven't you responded to SSOG's posts from the first page, or Maurile's post? If it's 100% luck, you should be able to prove them wrong.

Because his post is a fallacious analogy that doesn't deserve a response. Just because fantasy football is decided by chance doesn't mean you should be able to actively attempt to sabotage yourself and then still expect to win. That makes no sense.

 

[hines]

I suspect the "frustration" that comes from the luck aspect of the game is usually a result of diminished returns versus X amount of extra effort. I doubt you get a much larger return in points in most cases putting in 25 hours a week in fantasy than you do if you spent 8, doing research or scouring your wire or exploring trades in your various leagues. I think there is a grind aspect to the effort portion that can frustrate people to the point of wanting to assign how much luck plays into it. Waiting two hours before the game looking for injury updates and spot starters on real teams and making last minute adjustments. Waiting up for waivers to clear. Researching matchups between two guys for one slot on your roster. Researching players who you think might help you several weeks down the road. Watching more games to pick up trends or tendencies. You are, in effect, actually running a team, but without the logistical support structure of an entire staff. You get to "farm out" your scouting a little to various articles and "experts" but there pros and cons to that. And I think like the real game, the single elimination status of the playoffs can be really brutal to some people. You've spent X amount of time on a season, and that's it, Player Y did this instead of that, and those few points cost you and that's it, you are done. Just like the real game, one pass, one block, one second, one inch, and it's all over. I've said this for years on this site, and I hold it to be true, I think this game has a much diminished value to those who have a gambling mentality, an entitlement complex, OCD issues, control issues or poor critical thinking skills. Basically douchebags and spear throwers. There is no shortage of leaking mangina crybaby smegma collecting nipple hairs in this game. The litmust test is this - If you feel relief instead of joy if you win at the end of the season, then I think something is fundamentally wrong with your relationship to the fantasy game. I think these are often the people who get angry about citing luck when pouring 25 hours a week got them no championship and call it luck or call it skill. And conversely there are people who spend an hour a week and get jilted for not winning and want to ride it all down to luck. Fundamentally fantasy isn't just about your capacity for football, but for your capacity for management. That being said, I think fantasy football is a great learning tool for young men out there. I think the game can teach middle schoolers and starting high schoolers the value of research, effort, resource allocation, competition, negotiation, personnel evaluation, timing and that very rarely will things related to management are going to bounce your way all the time. I think the major benefits of learning the basic skill set are lost on most of us veteran players but I think there is a valuable teaching aspect to this game for younger players. I don't think degree of luck is the issue. I think the issue is learning to not let the luck aspect of this game become personal.

bravo, very well said

 

[sporthenry]

Comparing fantasy football to poker only sort of proves my point that it's all luck. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Poker%27s_all_about_luck,_says_Swiss_Supreme_Court

So if a judge rules it a game of skill, does that change your mind b/c here in 'Murica, we call poker a game of skill. http://www.npr.org/2012/08/22/159833145/judge-rules-poker-is-a-game-of-skill-not-luck

 

[Rich Conway]

Why haven't you responded to SSOG's posts from the first page, or Maurile's post? If it's 100% luck, you should be able to prove them wrong.

Because his post is a fallacious analogy that doesn't deserve a response. Just because fantasy football is decided by chance doesn't mean you should be able to actively attempt to sabotage yourself and then still expect to win. That makes no sense.

If fantasy football is decided entirely by chance, then it is impossible to sabotage yourself. That's the point Maurile made, and it is obviously correct.EDIT: Meh, never mind. I'm done with this fishing trip, since no one could be this dumb to believe the things you're posting.

 

[sporthenry]

I suspect the "frustration" that comes from the luck aspect of the game is usually a result of diminished returns versus X amount of extra effort. I doubt you get a much larger return in points in most cases putting in 25 hours a week in fantasy than you do if you spent 8, doing research or scouring your wire or exploring trades in your various leagues. I think there is a grind aspect to the effort portion that can frustrate people to the point of wanting to assign how much luck plays into it. Waiting two hours before the game looking for injury updates and spot starters on real teams and making last minute adjustments. Waiting up for waivers to clear. Researching matchups between two guys for one slot on your roster. Researching players who you think might help you several weeks down the road. Watching more games to pick up trends or tendencies. You are, in effect, actually running a team, but without the logistical support structure of an entire staff. You get to "farm out" your scouting a little to various articles and "experts" but there pros and cons to that. And I think like the real game, the single elimination status of the playoffs can be really brutal to some people. You've spent X amount of time on a season, and that's it, Player Y did this instead of that, and those few points cost you and that's it, you are done. Just like the real game, one pass, one block, one second, one inch, and it's all over. I've said this for years on this site, and I hold it to be true, I think this game has a much diminished value to those who have a gambling mentality, an entitlement complex, OCD issues, control issues or poor critical thinking skills. Basically douchebags and spear throwers. There is no shortage of leaking mangina crybaby smegma collecting nipple hairs in this game. The litmust test is this - If you feel relief instead of joy if you win at the end of the season, then I think something is fundamentally wrong with your relationship to the fantasy game. I think these are often the people who get angry about citing luck when pouring 25 hours a week got them no championship and call it luck or call it skill. And conversely there are people who spend an hour a week and get jilted for not winning and want to ride it all down to luck. Fundamentally fantasy isn't just about your capacity for football, but for your capacity for management. That being said, I think fantasy football is a great learning tool for young men out there. I think the game can teach middle schoolers and starting high schoolers the value of research, effort, resource allocation, competition, negotiation, personnel evaluation, timing and that very rarely will things related to management are going to bounce your way all the time. I think the major benefits of learning the basic skill set are lost on most of us veteran players but I think there is a valuable teaching aspect to this game for younger players. I don't think degree of luck is the issue. I think the issue is learning to not let the luck aspect of this game become personal.

bravo, very well said

I also agree with this post. I also think many who overwork are just wasting their time. Gone are the days when you can find the Steve Slaton on the WW and take you to the championship. There are too many knowledgeable players/websites with the information. Yes, a few pickups here and there can help a lot like perhaps Martellus Bennett but you don't need to scour depth charts to see that. I think people think they can out skill people during the season when most leagues are won/lost in the draft. And there is an amount of luck like if you draft Vick or Cutler over Matt Ryan or RGIII, you'd be in some trouble even though you could have gotten tremendous value. No doubt there is skill and you can load up on some value picks but if you are sitting at the #10 pick in the draft and Chris Johnson or DMC falls to you, it'd be tough not to take them.

 

[sporthenry]

The guy that wrote this must be 0-3.

My team is 0-3 and I am 1st in fantasy points scored in a 14 team league.Point is, there is a LOT of luck each week, but the better teams SHOULD prevail by the end of the season.

Two points. First, I think this is why you'll see a trend to Play All fantasy where you play every team in your league on a weekly basis, it isn't as exciting as heads up but enough people have suffered defeats scoring the 2nd highest points in a week that they'll want to be rewarded but rotisserie is just so tough to move up in the standings. Additionally, playoffs will still be head to head so you'll still get the heads up excitement from that. Secondly, I think this is why consistency might not be the best thing in FF. Would you rather consistently score the median in your league and be 0-3 or have 1 great week and be 1-2. Sure, your chances of being 3-0 are greater with a consistent team but at the end of the day, its about making the playoffs which happen with a better record and not consistency.

 

[Cyclones]

I won the Super Bowl the first three years of the main money league I play in. This is year 14 and I haven't won one since, but I have made the playoffs (6 of ten teams) all but once (took Brady at 1.09 the year he blew out his ACL in week one.)

I have an office job that allows me pretty free internet access, and as such am very active on the waiver wire and generally up to date on player situations. Does that make me more "skilled?" No, I am just lucky to have free time every day to keep up with my team.

Overall, I think "good" fantasy players generally make the playoffs, but once you get to that point, anyone can win. It's the same reason the best team rarely wins the NCAA basketball tournament. In a one and done scenario, crazy things happen.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

My skill got Cruz a touchdown!! OMG I'M AWESOME!

 

[UFGator0587]

Look at Hartline today vs a tough Zona D in comparison with Julio against a soft Panthers D - tough to say this game is mostly skill.

Add in Chris Johnson waiting til he faced the Texans D to finally put up some yards...140 worth. Even though I own him and started him, absolutely no way whatsoever anyone saw that coming. Sometimes logic is just suspended and sheer randomness occurs.

 

[duaneok66]

My skill got Cruz a touchdown!! OMG I'M AWESOME!

way to show off your skill - you should share your secret.

 

[footballnerd]

there is def a luck aspect to the game, but if a particular owner is consistently making playoffs, final fours, putting himself in position to win every year (not necessarily winning it), there has to be a degree of skill in being able to do that. That skill isn't necessarily scouring harder than everyone, but being able to piece things together and get the bigger picture of players, which is a skill.

 

[kinghill]

Skill? The only skill in FF is knowing how to use the internet and technology. After that it is all luck. The poker comparison is terribly wrong.

^^ this guy is doing poorly this year in FF.

 

[xander756]

If fantasy football is decided entirely by chance, then it is impossible to sabotage yourself. That's the point Maurile made, and it is obviously correct.EDIT: Meh, never mind. I'm done with this fishing trip, since no one could be this dumb to believe the things you're posting.

That doesn't even make sense. Rolling the dice is also decided entirely by chance but you can still sabotage yourself by not hitting the back wall, not rolling both dice, throwing the dice off the table, etc. The entire point is that the best you can do is to give yourself an even chance of winning as anybody else. From there, it becomes all luck. But most certainly you could hinder your odds by sabotaging your team (bench all your players, draft all kickers, etc).