2019 Running Back Report

General talk about Dynasty Leagues.
User avatar
Cult of Dionysus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2500
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:02 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby Cult of Dionysus » Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:19 pm

Watch his tape and tell me he's only as fast and Jordan Howard.

FantasyFreak
GOAT
GOAT
Posts: 11067
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:03 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby FantasyFreak » Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:40 pm

ericanadian wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:49 pm
hoos89 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:46 pm
Dynasty DeLorean wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:06 pm
If you were wondering if Jon Gruden uses "analytics" or not.

These are only Rb's selected in the first round. Josh Jacobs didn't complete his agility testing so I couldn't compare several other metrics for him, but could compare these.


Full Name ------- College Dominator Rating
Josh Jacobs 13.90%



Full Name ------- Speed Score
Josh Jacobs 90.9


It will be interesting to see how Jacobs pans out.
Given that Jacobs didn't run the 40 at the combine...where is his speed score coming from? Going by combine weight of 220, this is implying a 40 time of 4.69. His pro day times were reported as 4.52-4.56, which equates to a speed score over 100.
He uses playerprofiler.com and my understanding is that they apply an adjustment to Pro Day times +0.05 if I recall correctly. I also believe they used Alabama’s first Pro Day where Jacobs ran a 4.63/4.66. So, if you want to use the second Pro Day, you’d run it as a 4.59 to be comparable.
Yeah, I sent him an E mail about that, but he didn't seem to how enough info to adjust it. Jacobs 2nd pro day time, even with the adjustment, if Rappaport's number are accurate would be sub 4.60.
DLF Early Birds Special/ Year 1 (16 Team SuperFlex 25 man roster Start 10)

Record: 20-5

Wentz, Stafford. Driskel
Chubb, Cook, Carson, Breida, Ekeler, Penny, James White, Sproles
Evans, Sutton, Woods, Agholor, Sanu, Higgins, D Robinson, T Taylor
Kittle, Olsen, McDonald, Ian Thomas, Clay

OhCruelestRanter
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:33 pm

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby OhCruelestRanter » Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:47 am

My instinct here was to thank you for putting this out here first, because you clearly put a lot of work into doing this, but then I noticed that you're actually asking for money to do this. :shock:

My problem with this kind of analysis is that it's a classic case of overfitting. If you're not familiar with the term, overfitting is when your analysis corresponds too closely or even exactly to a limited set of data points, to the point that it may fail to predict future outcomes reliably. This really, unfortunately, undermines the entire point of doing this kind of analysis. Here's a graphical example of what you've done here:
Overfitted_Data.png
Overfitted_Data.png (14.11 KiB) Viewed 546 times
Instead of describing the trend line (the black line) you're describing the blue line. The problem comes when somebody who looks exactly like DeAngelo Williams gets lumped into Tier 4, only they don't end up on a team that perpetually drafts RBs early; or when somebody who looks exactly like Le'Veon Bell lands in Tier 1b, only he doesn't shed a bunch of weight and then end up playing behind the Steelers' O-Line.

The point of analytics is to figure out which traits correlate with success, which traits correlate with failure, and which traits can be safely ignored. The next part is incredibly important: SOME PLAYERS WITH BAD TRAITS WILL STILL SUCCEED, AND SOME PLAYERS WITH GREAT PROFILES WILL FAIL. When you change your model to treat guys like Trent Richardson (who was incredibly productive and posted good athletic marks) and DeAngelo Williams (ditto) as Tier 4 guys, you're doing yourself and everybody who reads this a wild disservice. Again, I think you need to hear this: IT'S OK TO MISS ON TRENT RICHARDSON, BECAUSE EVEN GREAT MODELS SHOULD BE WRONG SOMETIMES.

What are you going to do going forward if Mixon posts another great season, or if Dalvin Cook or Marlon Mack breaks out? How does the model change then? If Christian McCaffery suffers a Zach Miller injury and is done for his career, are you going to drop him back down?

The other problem here is the lack of transparency. Without even identifying the inputs to the model, it's hard to adequately evaluate the science behind it. Telling people you have a model that predicts success, then not disclosing your process, and asking for people to give you money for doing it seems at least a little bit shady. I would strongly, strongly caution anybody from using this information for your fantasy teams.
COOGAN IS A CHEATER AND A THIEF

User avatar
dynastyninja
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2918
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:17 pm

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby dynastyninja » Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:53 am

I'll risk looking dumb here if I'm remembering correctly, but here goes:

DD initially provided the underlying whatever in his model, but the discussion was a big mess so he pulled it. He has since been questioned every single year (by me included) for not letting us peek behind the curtains.

User avatar
Dynasty DeLorean
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5948
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 8:45 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby Dynasty DeLorean » Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:53 am

OhCruelestRanter wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:47 am
When you change your model to treat guys like Trent Richardson (who was incredibly productive and posted good athletic marks) and DeAngelo Williams (ditto) as Tier 4 guys, you're doing yourself and everybody who reads this a wild disservice.
idk where you guys are getting this stuff from. i didn't change anything to put trich or dwill anywhere. it's been like this since about 5 years ago.

According to the report there's a high chance Mixon has another "great" season. So again, the people criticizing what i'm doing here don't even read the report.

I put a link for donations because the data-analysis package is $40. I'm not making any money off of this, in fact i'm losing money.

Online
Ice
All Pro
All Pro
Posts: 1942
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 6:17 pm

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby Ice » Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:00 am

Don’t know your model, don’t trust your model but if it works for you that’s a good thing.

I don’t really evaluate RB’s in groups or predictive outcomes.

It’s all about scouting, system, line play, Ppr value for me and each are uniquely different.

Looks like players like Jacobs are pushed down in your model due to system in college to me.

OhCruelestRanter
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:33 pm

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby OhCruelestRanter » Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:03 am

Dynasty DeLorean wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:53 am
OhCruelestRanter wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:47 am
When you change your model to treat guys like Trent Richardson (who was incredibly productive and posted good athletic marks) and DeAngelo Williams (ditto) as Tier 4 guys, you're doing yourself and everybody who reads this a wild disservice.
idk where you guys are getting this stuff from. i didn't change anything to put trich or dwill anywhere. it's been like this since about 5 years ago.

Mixon is actually "predicted" to likely have another "great" season. So again, the people criticizing what i'm doing here don't even read the report.

I put a link for donations because the data-analysis package is $40. I'm not making any money off of this, in fact i'm losing money.
I read the report. I suppose I could be more clear- I'm not suggesting you changed the report after the fact to move Richardson or Williams down. I'm suggesting that trying to work the model so that they're considered failures is bad process. And, okay change Mixon to two great seasons- then what do you do? And what about Marlon Mack or Dalvin Cook?

You haven't addressed the broad point that you're overfitting at all. It's just bad data analysis.
COOGAN IS A CHEATER AND A THIEF

User avatar
Dynasty DeLorean
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5948
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 8:45 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby Dynasty DeLorean » Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:04 am

FantasyFreak wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:40 pm
ericanadian wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:49 pm
hoos89 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:46 pm


Given that Jacobs didn't run the 40 at the combine...where is his speed score coming from? Going by combine weight of 220, this is implying a 40 time of 4.69. His pro day times were reported as 4.52-4.56, which equates to a speed score over 100.
He uses playerprofiler.com and my understanding is that they apply an adjustment to Pro Day times +0.05 if I recall correctly. I also believe they used Alabama’s first Pro Day where Jacobs ran a 4.63/4.66. So, if you want to use the second Pro Day, you’d run it as a 4.59 to be comparable.
Yeah, I sent him an E mail about that, but he didn't seem to how enough info to adjust it. Jacobs 2nd pro day time, even with the adjustment, if Rappaport's number are accurate would be sub 4.60.
I actually do have to go back and double check Jacob's speed score. But you kind of run into problems if you're kind of picking and choosing which time to use. I typically go by the first legitimate one / combine ideally. Also, at what weight did he run during his 2nd pro day. If we don't have the weight then we can't use the time.


edit: I don't even know why i'm bothering to respond to the troll. I deleted my last post. If he confused anyone with his nonsense feel free to ask any questions you may have.

User avatar
Dynasty DeLorean
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5948
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 8:45 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby Dynasty DeLorean » Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:41 am

Ice wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:00 am
Don’t know your model, don’t trust your model but if it works for you that’s a good thing.

I don’t really evaluate RB’s in groups or predictive outcomes.

It’s all about scouting, system, line play, Ppr value for me and each are uniquely different.

Looks like players like Jacobs are pushed down in your model due to system in college to me.
Jacobs "failed" on multiple levels. But you're right, splitting time in college certainly didn't help.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, most stud rb's have the same few things in common. If that wasn't the case then I wouldn't be making this report. But the other things you listed such as system, line play, etc. i'm sure are great tools to evaluate the majority of rb's in the league.

OhCruelestRanter
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:33 pm

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby OhCruelestRanter » Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:50 am

Dynasty DeLorean wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:04 am
FantasyFreak wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:40 pm
ericanadian wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:49 pm


He uses playerprofiler.com and my understanding is that they apply an adjustment to Pro Day times +0.05 if I recall correctly. I also believe they used Alabama’s first Pro Day where Jacobs ran a 4.63/4.66. So, if you want to use the second Pro Day, you’d run it as a 4.59 to be comparable.
Yeah, I sent him an E mail about that, but he didn't seem to how enough info to adjust it. Jacobs 2nd pro day time, even with the adjustment, if Rappaport's number are accurate would be sub 4.60.
I actually do have to go back and double check Jacob's speed score. But you kind of run into problems if you're kind of picking and choosing which time to use. I typically go by the first legitimate one / combine ideally. Also, at what weight did he run during his 2nd pro day. If we don't have the weight then we can't use the time.


edit: I don't even know why i'm bothering to respond to the troll. I deleted my last post. If he confused anyone with his nonsense feel free to ask any questions you may have.
Are you calling me a troll? This is a troll:
JTLoh wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 11:18 am
This report SUCKS. Useless for Fantasy Football purposes.
I had valid criticism of your analysis, specifically overfitting, that you seem completely unable to address.
COOGAN IS A CHEATER AND A THIEF

User avatar
moishetreats
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame
Posts: 4487
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby moishetreats » Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:32 am

@Dynasty DeLorean: PLEASE publicly correct if I'm way off or off in a small way. And thank you, thank you, thank you again for sharing your thoughts AND for so fastidiously replying to all the questions, comments, and critiques.

----------

My understanding of this report is that it is looking for correlative indicators to success. By entering many points of concrete data (e.g., height, weight, draft slot, etc.) and then by determining what "success" means (e.g., 1,000 yards rushing), you can being to identify which data correlates to success.

I think that many people on this thread are confusing correlation with causation. Just because a player's data does or not fit the successful profile (i.e., correlate) does NOT mean that that player will or will not succeed (i.e., causation). DD's report isn't telling you that Player X will be successful and that Player Y will not be successful. Rather, DD's report is telling you that Player X's concrete data gives him a high, middle, or low likelihood of success based on the how other players with similar metrics ultimately performed.

Note that this kind of data analysis does not answer "why" questions. Why did Player X over-perform or under-perform? Why does Data Point A correlate to predicting success but not Data Point B? How do new schemes and play-calling affect metrics? These are not the questions that DD's report will answer. He's using a data-based approach to predict which RBs profile as more or less likely to succeed.

Indeed, one strength of this model is the ability for correlative indicators to change with more data. That's a good thing!! If there is the occasional outlier, then the correlative indicators won't be affected in anything more than a minimal way. But, if when there are numerous outliers and/or some players that entirely break the model, then the correlative indicators for success would change. Again, that's a good thing: the correlative indicators change because there is now more data to confirm or potentially reject the previous correlative assumptions. That makes the newly-updated correlative indicators MORE reliable!

For those who look at tape, schemes, coaching fit, etc. (i.e., subjective analysis), DD's report is likely not going to be your starting place or even necessarily something on which you would rely heavily. For those who look to survey methodology and data (i.e., concrete information), this is gold.

------------

@DD: Is this close, far off? Helpful, in your estimation, or just confusing people even more? My hope is the former!! And thank you again for your contributions!!
www.fantasyfootballforever.com - SF/2QB website

10 tms 27 plrs PPR
Start: 2QB 2RB 3WR 2TE 2Flex

QB: Rodgers, Wilson, Wentz, Brissett, Daniel
RB: Gurley, Gordon, Mixon, Breida, M Brown, Armstead, Edwards
WR: Hill, Cooper, Hilton, Edelman, Anderson, Meyers, Slayton, Lazard, Pascal
TE: Kelce, Henry, Herndon, Goedert, J Smith, Ellison

2020: 3rd, 4thx2, 5thx3
2021: 2ndx2, 3rd, 5thx2



12 tms 22 plyrs {IR} [Taxi]. Salary Cap $300 PPR
Start: 1QB 2RB 3WR 1TE 1SF 1Flex/ best ball

QB: Brees ($34 through 2020), Winston (2/19), Garappolo (5/20), Brissett (1/21)
RB: Barkley (38/22) Conner (4/19), A Jones (10/19), Mixon (30/20), Lindsay (11/21) {R Anderson (3/21)}, [Dex Williams (4/23), Barnes (1/23), Higdon (1/23), Gaskins (1/23)]
WR: Smith-Schuster, (19/19), Cooper, ($28/20), Allen (29/21), R Anderson (3/21), Ginn (1/19), Meyers (1/21), Gabriel (1/19), Gage (1/19), Hall (1/19) {Patrick (1/19)}
TE: Ertz (22/21), Goedert (8/22), Cook (1/19), Doyle (1/19)
Total+dead cap hits $299

FantasyFreak
GOAT
GOAT
Posts: 11067
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:03 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby FantasyFreak » Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:04 am

Dynasty DeLorean wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:04 am
FantasyFreak wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:40 pm
ericanadian wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:49 pm


He uses playerprofiler.com and my understanding is that they apply an adjustment to Pro Day times +0.05 if I recall correctly. I also believe they used Alabama’s first Pro Day where Jacobs ran a 4.63/4.66. So, if you want to use the second Pro Day, you’d run it as a 4.59 to be comparable.
Yeah, I sent him an E mail about that, but he didn't seem to how enough info to adjust it. Jacobs 2nd pro day time, even with the adjustment, if Rappaport's number are accurate would be sub 4.60.
I actually do have to go back and double check Jacob's speed score. But you kind of run into problems if you're kind of picking and choosing which time to use. I typically go by the first legitimate one / combine ideally. Also, at what weight did he run during his 2nd pro day. If we don't have the weight then we can't use the time.


edit: I don't even know why i'm bothering to respond to the troll. I deleted my last post. If he confused anyone with his nonsense feel free to ask any questions you may have.
I wasn't trolling DD. I should have been more clear. I sent Matt Kelley, the creator of player profiler an E mail in regards to Jacobs time and the 2nd pro day. I wasn't implying I emailed you and you didn't do anything, that would have been disingenuous.
DLF Early Birds Special/ Year 1 (16 Team SuperFlex 25 man roster Start 10)

Record: 20-5

Wentz, Stafford. Driskel
Chubb, Cook, Carson, Breida, Ekeler, Penny, James White, Sproles
Evans, Sutton, Woods, Agholor, Sanu, Higgins, D Robinson, T Taylor
Kittle, Olsen, McDonald, Ian Thomas, Clay

User avatar
Dynasty DeLorean
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5948
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 8:45 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby Dynasty DeLorean » Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:17 am

FantasyFreak wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:04 am
Dynasty DeLorean wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:04 am
FantasyFreak wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:40 pm


Yeah, I sent him an E mail about that, but he didn't seem to how enough info to adjust it. Jacobs 2nd pro day time, even with the adjustment, if Rappaport's number are accurate would be sub 4.60.
I actually do have to go back and double check Jacob's speed score. But you kind of run into problems if you're kind of picking and choosing which time to use. I typically go by the first legitimate one / combine ideally. Also, at what weight did he run during his 2nd pro day. If we don't have the weight then we can't use the time.


edit: I don't even know why i'm bothering to respond to the troll. I deleted my last post. If he confused anyone with his nonsense feel free to ask any questions you may have.
I wasn't trolling DD. I should have been more clear. I sent Matt Kelley, the creator of player profiler an E mail in regards to Jacobs time and the 2nd pro day. I wasn't implying I emailed you and you didn't do anything, that would have been disingenuous.
Not you, someone else

Weknownothing86
Captain
Captain
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:28 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby Weknownothing86 » Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:24 am

moishetreats wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:32 am
@Dynasty DeLorean: PLEASE publicly correct if I'm way off or off in a small way. And thank you, thank you, thank you again for sharing your thoughts AND for so fastidiously replying to all the questions, comments, and critiques.

----------

My understanding of this report is that it is looking for correlative indicators to success. By entering many points of concrete data (e.g., height, weight, draft slot, etc.) and then by determining what "success" means (e.g., 1,000 yards rushing), you can being to identify which data correlates to success.

I think that many people on this thread are confusing correlation with causation. Just because a player's data does or not fit the successful profile (i.e., correlate) does NOT mean that that player will or will not succeed (i.e., causation). DD's report isn't telling you that Player X will be successful and that Player Y will not be successful. Rather, DD's report is telling you that Player X's concrete data gives him a high, middle, or low likelihood of success based on the how other players with similar metrics ultimately performed.

Note that this kind of data analysis does not answer "why" questions. Why did Player X over-perform or under-perform? Why does Data Point A correlate to predicting success but not Data Point B? How do new schemes and play-calling affect metrics? These are not the questions that DD's report will answer. He's using a data-based approach to predict which RBs profile as more or less likely to succeed.

Indeed, one strength of this model is the ability for correlative indicators to change with more data. That's a good thing!! If there is the occasional outlier, then the correlative indicators won't be affected in anything more than a minimal way. But, if when there are numerous outliers and/or some players that entirely break the model, then the correlative indicators for success would change. Again, that's a good thing: the correlative indicators change because there is now more data to confirm or potentially reject the previous correlative assumptions. That makes the newly-updated correlative indicators MORE reliable!

For those who look at tape, schemes, coaching fit, etc. (i.e., subjective analysis), DD's report is likely not going to be your starting place or even necessarily something on which you would rely heavily. For those who look to survey methodology and data (i.e., concrete information), this is gold.

------------

@DD: Is this close, far off? Helpful, in your estimation, or just confusing people even more? My hope is the former!! And thank you again for your contributions!!
Really great explanation for people who dont get this stuff like me. i hate stats with a passion, anything math related gives me a headache like a drank a bottle of tequila. This was a spot on explanation though. I like this report but sometimes explaining it is just too much for me.
If i have to explain my screen name to you than you dont understand Fantasy Football.

OhCruelestRanter
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:33 pm

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby OhCruelestRanter » Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:37 am

I’m pretty sure the troll in question is me. I think, if your work is so hard to defend that your response to criticism of how you do your analysis is to just call people trolls, then your work isn’t worth much.

Still waiting to hear about how the model that has Derrius Guice in Tier 1 and Trent Richardson in Tier 4 hasn’t been overfit.
COOGAN IS A CHEATER AND A THIEF


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bjd5211, Friction, Ice, MSN [Bot], themburns and 8 guests