If it’s any consolation, I don’t see any bad starter decisions. Of course you start Brady over Cousins or Tua. CeeDee and Courtland over Curtis Samuel. And Elliot and Gordon over Michael Carter. The fact you could have made a different decision that would have won the game doesn’t matter. You did the best with the info you had.
At least that’s what I tell myself about every decision start/sit decision I make that doesn’t work out.
I have Retro’s coaching grade as a C, with an actual score of 100.20 to a potential of 130.25. Interestingly, Retro is 8th overall in both actual and potential points this week.
I (obviously) updated my stats program to scrape the data off yahoo, but haven’t yet decided on an output format for discourse. I want to keep it phone friendly. Should hopefully be tonight or tomorrow; I’m busy doing other things today.
And don’t worry, I’ll hide them in details boxes.
EDIT: My grade was a C+; both Retro and I rounded off to 77%, but apparently I was just above the line while he was just below.
Is there anything in your grade concerning depth? Using Retro, doesn’t the fact that his backups are Michael Carter and Curtis Samuel rather than say Marlon Mack and George Perkins mean he’s getting dinged in your coaching grade for having more talent on his bench than others?
I’m going to take a bunch of losses this year, so no shock that I got routed in the first one. Even had I started an optimal lineup I’d have still lost by double digits.
Some thoughts on the rebuild after 1 week.
So overall not a lot of get excited about. The Running Back rebuild is going well…hopefully the rest of the positions shape up before the RBs break down. Let’s see which of you stub your toe against my team of kindergartners this season.
Yeah, but it’s not deep or anything. The coaching grade I come up with is simply how many points you scored divided by how many points you could have scored with perfect play. We are typically in the 60% to 95% range using this stat, so it just happens to fit really well with school-style letter grades. (IIRC The grades this week ranged from B+ to D-, with most of us in the C range.)
Note: Whenever I beat myself up about failing to start the right guys, I remind myself that if I get to pretend I had perfect play, my opponent gets perfect play as well. If I still would have lost when we both get perfect play, no harm no foul starting the “wrong” guys.
Here’s our stats based on actual starters, perfect starters, and the resulting simple grades. (Grade = Actual / Potential)
Also included are “everyone vs everyone” records, which I always liked the idea of as a primary scoring system. Not for this league, just in general. I don’t think yahoo even supports that, though.
SDMB-Dynasty League - Week 1
.
| Week 1 | Actual | Season | Actual |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Peteys | 146.59 | 1. Peteys | 146.59 |
| 2. Ellis | 144.45 | 2. Ellis | 144.45 |
| 3. Hamlet | 132.00 | 3. Hamlet | 132.00 |
| 4. Jules | 127.00 | 4. Jules | 127.00 |
| 5. RNATB | 121.25 | 5. RNATB | 121.25 |
| 6. Gaffer | 103.50 | 6. Gaffer | 103.50 |
| 7. Beef | 101.55 | 7. Beef | 101.55 |
| 8. Retro | 100.20 | 8. Retro | 100.20 |
| 9. Justin | 95.51 | 9. Justin | 95.51 |
| 10. Omni | 83.95 | 10. Omni | 83.95 |
| 11. Mundi | 79.80 | 11. Mundi | 79.80 |
| 12. dale | 79.50 | 12. dale | 79.50 |
| Week 1 | Actual | Season | Actual |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Peteys | 11-0 | 1. Peteys | 11-0 |
| 2. Ellis | 10-1 | 2. Ellis | 10-1 |
| 3. Hamlet | 9-2 | 3. Hamlet | 9-2 |
| 4. Jules | 8-3 | 4. Jules | 8-3 |
| 5. RNATB | 7-4 | 5. RNATB | 7-4 |
| 6. Gaffer | 6-5 | 6. Gaffer | 6-5 |
| 7. Beef | 5-6 | 7. Beef | 5-6 |
| 8. Retro | 4-7 | 8. Retro | 4-7 |
| 9. Justin | 3-8 | 9. Justin | 3-8 |
| 10. Omni | 2-9 | 10. Omni | 2-9 |
| 11. Mundi | 1-10 | 11. Mundi | 1-10 |
| 12. dale | 0-11 | 12. dale | 0-11 |
.
| Week 1 | Potential | Season | Potential |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ellis | 186.80 | 1. Ellis | 186.80 |
| 2. Gaffer | 168.05 | 2. Gaffer | 168.05 |
| 3. Peteys | 164.81 | 3. Peteys | 164.81 |
| 4. Hamlet | 154.80 | 4. Hamlet | 154.80 |
| 5. Jules | 152.10 | 5. Jules | 152.10 |
| 6. RNATB | 143.87 | 6. RNATB | 143.87 |
| 7. Beef | 133.85 | 7. Beef | 133.85 |
| 8. Retro | 130.25 | 8. Retro | 130.25 |
| 9. Justin | 127.45 | 9. Justin | 127.45 |
| 10. dale | 113.39 | 10. dale | 113.39 |
| 11. Omni | 112.18 | 11. Omni | 112.18 |
| 12. Mundi | 107.70 | 12. Mundi | 107.70 |
| Week 1 | Potential | Rnk Season | Potential |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ellis | 11-0 | 1. Ellis | 11-0 |
| 2. Gaffer | 10-1 | 2. Gaffer | 10-1 |
| 3. Peteys | 9-2 | 3. Peteys | 9-2 |
| 4. Hamlet | 8-3 | 4. Hamlet | 8-3 |
| 5. Jules | 7-4 | 5. Jules | 7-4 |
| 6. RNATB | 6-5 | 6. RNATB | 6-5 |
| 7. Beef | 5-6 | 7. Beef | 5-6 |
| 8. Retro | 4-7 | 8. Retro | 4-7 |
| 9. Justin | 3-8 | 9. Justin | 3-8 |
| 10. dale | 2-9 | 10. dale | 2-9 |
| 11. Omni | 1-10 | 11. Omni | 1-10 |
| 12. Mundi | 0-11 | 12. Mundi | 0-11 |
.
| Week 1 | Season | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Peteys | 89% | B+ | 1. Peteys | 89% | B+ |
| 2. Hamlet | 85% | B | 2. Hamlet | 85% | B |
| 3. RNATB | 84% | B | 3. RNATB | 84% | B |
| 4. Jules | 83% | B | 4. Jules | 83% | B |
| 5. Ellis | 77% | C+ | 5. Ellis | 77% | C+ |
| 6. Retro | 77% | C | 6. Retro | 77% | C |
| 7. Beef | 76% | C | 7. Beef | 76% | C |
| 8. Justin | 75% | C | 8. Justin | 75% | C |
| 9. Omni | 75% | C | 9. Omni | 75% | C |
| 10. Mundi | 74% | C | 10. Mundi | 74% | C |
| 11. dale | 70% | C- | 11. dale | 70% | C- |
| 12. Gaffer | 62% | D- | 12. Gaffer | 62% | D- |
.
I just threw these tables together manually and it seems to work a treat. Very phone friendly, which is good because I do almost all my dope reading and fantasy roster setting on my phone. Haven’t fully automated this output format it in my program yet but should be quick and easy.
I like the everyone vs everyone record/scoring system, it’s a good middle point between H2H and points based.
Will be fun to watch myself plummet in these rankings as the weeks go on. I seem to frequently start out the season strong, but after only a few weeks it usually all goes to shit. My team is legitimately better now, though, so we’ll see.
Oh booo, discourse doesn’t support text colors. There are no deltas in the above tables because this is week one, but next week there will be a “+3” or “-5” or whatever signifying your change in position from the week before. (In all tables. Wonder if that’ll make it not fit on my phone?)
Anyway, in the old vBulletin format I colored the + changes green and the - ones red. I really liked that color coding; it was elegant. Easy to absorb at a glance, and didn’t clutter the names as much. Boooo.
EDIT: Like this:
| Week 1 | Actual | Season | Actual |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Peteys +3 | 146.59 | 1. Peteys +1 | 146.59 |
| 2. Ellis -5 | 144.45 | 2. Ellis -2 | 144.45 |
It’s not bad, just not as nice. Wish I could do colors here without changing the font.
Chargers @ Chiefs kickoff in about 4 hours, check your lineups.
EDIT: I don’t know why that’s a reply to myself.
Would it be a lot more work to generate the table with the fancy colors and then post the image of the table in the thread, instead? I think that posting images is possible with the new board format, right?
I feel a little fortunate to have won my first week. As usual, I was well under projection, but it wasn’t the “Jules_Andre Special” where my entire skill position group all failed to score a TD at once and everyone went under projection. So, disappointing, but not terrible or even relatively that bad. I’m optimistic since I think the underperformers can turn it around, and none of the positive performances were that exceptional or outliers. I would like to think that week 1 represents my floor for my team, but of course that won’t hold up with injuries and bye weeks coming. One thing that is nice is not having to worry about my starting lineup’s matchups. Is my guy healthy? Then he plays. There’s no start/sit decision making to worry about yet. I can’t fuck up choices I don’t have!
Not really more work, no, but images are more unwieldy not only in terms of cluttering the thread, but also in terms of adding a new off-site image host as a requirement / failure point. Plus, I think tables have the best chance of properly auto-sizing to fit on my phone in standard portrait mode. It would annoy me to no end to have to scroll right to view the season totals.
Maybe rent a billboard near each of our houses
It is hilarious that I said I don’t have start/sit decisions to make yet, and so the Universe immediately rules one of my players out and I royally blow the start/sit decision. Unreal
I actually considered starting Dotson in my last flex spot, but I thought nah he’s just a rookie in his second game and his first game was flukey, but he put up 15 points and would’ve been the right choice. I haven’t actually watched him - is he looking as good as his stat lines?
30 point 3 TD game from Chubb. Nice. Rashod Bateman 75 yard TD, nice.
Allen Robinson sighting, nice.
But it’s all falling apart. Pitts with a 2nd bad week. My plans for the next 10 years are going down in flames.
Looks like my entire team shit the bed this week. Ouch.
That’s easier for me than barely losing and wondering if I made a wrong decision that would’ve made the difference.
True, I don’t have to beat myself up about stupid decisions. I’ll be in the running for lowest potential score this week I bet.
As I understand It, I can bench my defense for the Monday night game, correct?
Yeah I’m pretty sure we don’t have any rule against it. We have a soft rule that you have to try your best to win every game - you can’t just pull starters late in the season to tank - but that’s not what this is. It’s very reasonable to think that benching your defense in a bad matchup increases your chance of winning, since they are the most likely “player” to get a negative score.