2017 Running Back Report

[albedo1986]

As a clinical pharmacist that has published in a few medical journals I can appreciate the effort here, but this feels eerily similar to reading an abstract and moving forward like it's doctrine. Followed by a bunch of confirmation bias from people who like said players listed.

Anyone who has done actual research will tell you that the most important section of any research is the methods, and nothing is actually provided. Hard to evaluate what this even means. Interesting report though.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

Hard to evaluate what this even means.

It means the overwhelming majority of Rb's that have put up multiple 1,000 yard rushing seasons (ideally 3+) that I have data for share a common denominator.

[albedo1986]

Hard to evaluate what this even means.

It means the overwhelming majority of Rb's that have put up multiple 1,000 yard rushing seasons (ideally 3+) that I have data for share a common denominator.

No methods means no one can actually understand any of these denominators, which means from the perspective of everyone else here (and the way-too-many football analysts out there) that you're just "calling it how you see it". So unless any explanation of how this was determined I'm just gonna say you have some gut feelings. There's no other way to judge this

[dynastyninja]

This has been discussed a few times now. Darkness isn't really open to sharing his methodology, but it also seems to be fairly predictive so we reluctantly accept the results.

[dynastyninja]

Sorry DeLorean, not Darkness

[Friction]

Would you rather have him be a Matthew berry type and brag about "his calls" like hunt and Carson 2 months or so AFTER the rest of the fantasy universe has been talking these same guys up?

[clarion contrarion]

To each their own if you'd like to roster M.Lynch over J.Maclin. We are however, just so we are clear, discussing DYNASTY football, not a redraft league.

I will take one year of RB2 production over 2-3 years of WR3-4 production in all my dynasty start 2 RB leagues. I would flex Lynch over Maclin every week if both are healthy in most leagues.
Hard for me to imagine any 16 team start 2RB /2WR/2FLEX Lynch isn't in a starting lineup...Maclin I would believe some teams have better options

yep ^^^ I can trade a 19 2nd or 3rd at nearly any point to get wr4/flex value when I need it but good luck getting a proven rb with bellcow potential -
using DLF adp will get you nowhere if you are playing in leagues bereft of DLF folks due to the built in youth fetish / wr worship and also the incredible reactionary nature of so many posters.

Go read the weekly discussion threads and see how reactionary people were ready to kill and eat sammy in the 1st quarter - then all of a sudden WOW what a player ....... 2 words people XAN......AX !

read further to find that because sammy - believes in flat earth he cannot play wr at a high level - after seeing ocho cinco at the mensa meetings I knew that was a fact . We have people making fun of past scientific beliefs held in past centuries and then blathering about the current scientific facts that are irrefutable not tasting the irony that people of the future will likely have a dynasty spaceball forum chortling at our current scientific facts as a punchline . People would do well to understand that educated and intelligent are horses of a different feather and so much of that poses for science these days is bought and paid for and reaches the conclusions its sponsors need it to reach.

You think you know but you just don't know .... who said that I think it was da vinci but perhaps it was jim mora .

[dynastyninja]

Would you rather have him be a Matthew berry type and brag about "his calls" like hunt and Carson 2 months or so AFTER the rest of the fantasy universe has been talking these same guys up?

I think we are discussing two separate things. I agree we don't want those types. We're just discussing not knowing the methodology behind the report.

[ericanadian]

As a clinical pharmacist that has published in a few medical journals I can appreciate the effort here, but this feels eerily similar to reading an abstract and moving forward like it's doctrine. Followed by a bunch of confirmation bias from people who like said players listed.

Anyone who has done actual research will tell you that the most important section of any research is the methods, and nothing is actually provided. Hard to evaluate what this even means. Interesting report though.

For those of us that have been here for a while, methods were initially provided. I can't remember the details, but it was based on performance of several commonly accepted metrics like dominator rating, speed score, etc. I believe they were dropped from the post because DD got tired of the circular arguments they generated.

[maxhyde]

Hard to evaluate what this even means.

It means the overwhelming majority of Rb's that have put up multiple 1,000 yard rushing seasons (ideally 3+) that I have data for share a common denominator.

No methods means no one can actually understand any of these denominators, which means from the perspective of everyone else here (and the way-too-many football analysts out there) that you're just "calling it how you see it". So unless any explanation of how this was determined I'm just gonna say you have some gut feelings. There's no other way to judge this

Nobody knows Colonel Sanders secret fried chicken recipe either or the Caramilk secret but they exist and are delicious. You may be skeptical or frustrated because you don't have all the information you like but because the process has not been revealed in full to you(or me) doesn't mean it actually doesn't work.

[dynastyninja]

As a clinical pharmacist that has published in a few medical journals I can appreciate the effort here, but this feels eerily similar to reading an abstract and moving forward like it's doctrine. Followed by a bunch of confirmation bias from people who like said players listed.

Anyone who has done actual research will tell you that the most important section of any research is the methods, and nothing is actually provided. Hard to evaluate what this even means. Interesting report though.

For those of us that have been here for a while, methods were initially provided. I can't remember the details, but it was based on performance of several commonly accepted metrics like dominator rating, speed score, etc. I believe they were dropped from the post because DD got tired of the circular arguments they generated.

How long ago was this? I don't remember that, but good to know.

[rubber_duck]

As a clinical pharmacist that has published in a few medical journals I can appreciate the effort here, but this feels eerily similar to reading an abstract and moving forward like it's doctrine. Followed by a bunch of confirmation bias from people who like said players listed.

Anyone who has done actual research will tell you that the most important section of any research is the methods, and nothing is actually provided. Hard to evaluate what this even means. Interesting report though.

For those of us that have been here for a while, methods were initially provided. I can't remember the details, but it was based on performance of several commonly accepted metrics like dominator rating, speed score, etc. I believe they were dropped from the post because DD got tired of the circular arguments they generated.

Albedo, your point is a valid one. DD is sharing the results of his RB prospect analysis and no longer presents the actual work. However, DD's work is fine. Take it as advice from a friend, or leave it. If you'd like to discuss the details of it, he just may share it with you.

As ericcanadian said, there was a long discussion about the methodology used. But, discussions that dive deep into the technical methodologies are not very forum friendly.

[ericanadian]

As a clinical pharmacist that has published in a few medical journals I can appreciate the effort here, but this feels eerily similar to reading an abstract and moving forward like it's doctrine. Followed by a bunch of confirmation bias from people who like said players listed.

Anyone who has done actual research will tell you that the most important section of any research is the methods, and nothing is actually provided. Hard to evaluate what this even means. Interesting report though.

For those of us that have been here for a while, methods were initially provided. I can't remember the details, but it was based on performance of several commonly accepted metrics like dominator rating, speed score, etc. I believe they were dropped from the post because DD got tired of the circular arguments they generated.

How long ago was this? I don't remember that, but good to know.

It's got to be three or four years ago now. I think it was Darkwa's rookie season.

[maxhyde]

Its true. It was posted but people were jackasses about it...damn internet

Look it is new info for you and not always the same things you read everywhere else. Take it for you value you want assign to it. He spends time doing this on his own and produces something to read...be thankful he shares it...accept it at face value or don't.

Some people want to read and literally begged him to post it so quit f*ckin it up for them and making it a negative experience for a guy that is only doing it to share what he has found...just because he is a good guy

Anyway there are plenty of guys that will sell you their versions and you are free to pay up and go poke holes in their methods/process and conclusions

[ericanadian]

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=87927&p=748553#p748553

I believe this was the original and I think the next two versions had the updated methodology as well. I suspect it's changed a bit since, but you can get an idea of what is being looked at.