Takes 2 to Tango

[Swiss Cheezhead]

I played in a league years ago that gave two-point bonuses to QB-WR hookups. In that case, there is some value.

 

 

Really? Ya don't say?

 

Lemme see if I have this straight: in this league, QB-to-WR hookups actually get more points than QBs and WRs who aren't on the same team. And SINCE they get more points, they have increased value. Wow. That's a bold statement.

 

 

P.S. The article definitely sounds lame. Makes me feel a little better about skipping my Huddle membership dues this year.

[muck]

I thought someone had done a statistical breakdown here that showed in your standard perf league, a QB/WR hookup would in most cases slightly underperform a "non-hookup" tandem.

 

 

That would have been me...

 

I have witnessed much better teams over the years that had a QB/RB from the same team rather than a QB/WR from the same team. In fact many a team that did have the QB/RB combo won the whole friggin' tamale

 

 

I did an analysis a few years ago where I looked at the week-to-week correlations of points scored between QB, WR1, WR2 and RB from the same team.

 

My analysis was based on the premise that it is significantly better for a FF team to score the same amount each week than it was to have lots of week-to-week volatility. So, for cumulative points leagues (and maybe even all-play leagues), it's less important ... but, for everyone else, having consistent week-to-week scoring is paramount. For the record, I measured performance volatility by measuring the standard deviations in the scores and comparing the standard deviation of weekly scoring and the correlations between the QBs, WR1s, WR2s and RBs to determine what was what.

 

If week-to-week consistency wasn't so important, why would the "scoring consistency" analysis that DMD does each year be so well read?

 

Anyhow...my analysis showed that, among QBs, WR1s, WR2s and RBs that were of similar cumulative performance, that:

 

1) Having QB/WR1 from the same team was a bad idea. Much better to have your #1 FF WR be on a different team than your QB. QB/WR1 from the same team generated a MUCH higher week-to-week volatility than QB/WR1 from different teams. WHY? Having your #1 WR shut down by a great cornerback (or a sloppy field) would pretty much guarantee that your QB wouldn't do very well.

 

2) Having QB/WR2 from the same team was about the same as having your QB and the 2nd WR from that team be any different than having a similar quality WR from a different team. WHY? If the #1 WR is shut down by a great CB, the #2 WR would be more likely to be open...and, so the QBs stats may be down a bit, but the #2 WR would have seen a disproportionate amount of action.

 

3) Having QB/RB from the same team was pretty much indestinguishable from having a QB on a different team than the RB. WHY? Sloppy field = good for the RB ... indoor and turf = good for the QB ... the lead in a tight game = good for the RB ... behind the entire 2nd half = good for the QB ... etc ...

 

So, said another way, take two QBs with pretty much the same performance for the year (for example, Carson Palmer and Peyton Manning from last year) ... and their #1 WRs who also had pretty much the same performance (Chad Johnson & Marvin Harrison) ... your FF team would be much better off (i.e., lower week-to-week volatility) having your QB and WR from different teams. Meaning, you'd be better off having Manning/Johnson than having Manning/Harrison.

 

However, if you had Palmer/Houshmandzadeh you would be pretty much the same week-to-week as if you had Palmer/Wayne.

 

...and, your week-to-week scoring volatility would be pretty much the same with Palmer/Rudi as it would be with Palmer/Edge...

 

So, you probably want to avoid Matt Hasslebeck and Darrell Jackson ... but getting Matt Hasslebeck and Shaun Alexander and/or Bobby Engram wouldn't probably be that bad of a deal. Avoid Carson Palmer and Chad Johnson ... but getting Palmer and Rudi and/or Houshmandzadeh would probably be fine.

[DMD]

Man. who pissed in y'alls Wheaties?

 

Over 50 articles, player writeups, BOW, rankings, projections, etc. so far this year and suddenly everyone wants to grab a baseball bat over a short article? He never said to go out of your way to acquire a hook-up. Personally I evaluate every player individually so while I could end up with a QB-WR hook-up, it wasn't done for that reason. About the only thing I try to avoid are WR's from the same team. You've already spent more words on this than there are in the actual article.

 

It's just something of interest to some people. The "harder" hitting pieces all come out before people draft and since there have already been many drafts, we have offered a few generic sort of pieces. Obviously anything like this has to be compared to the actual league size, starter and scoring rules and such to be fully considered.

 

Man - a ton stuff out so far this year and one rather short article sets people off. He's just offering an observation about something that has worked for him in the past. You don't have to do it. He points out the downside and says it does not "assure a high finish".

 

This is draft time and the next two weeks are all about the rankings and mocks and actual drafts.