You can win a Fantasy Super Bowl without a QB

[keggerz]

I was reading the thread about "How important is a QB match-up for Playoff success" and decided to do a bit of research...

so far i only looked at the SB match-ups but i am going to look at all playoff match-ups.

 

surprisingly the SB winner would have won 92% of the SBs without a QB in their lineup.

 

I am curious if anyone else can look at how their leagues have fared and post them here

 

Well I decided to go and take a look at SB match-ups for the following leagues:

 

In TWELVE SUPER BOWLS 11 of the 12 winning teams would have still won without even having a starting QB

yep 92% would still win without a QB

 

SUPER BOWLS ONLY

Fusion 16 Team IDP

2003: Would still WIN by 4.8pts without a QB

2004: Would still WIN by 11.75pts without a QB

2005: Would still WIN by 18.5pts without a QB

2006: Would have LOST by 5.55 without a QB

 

ConFusion 16 Team IDP

2006*: Would still WIN by 35.85pts without a QB

*inaugural year.

 

GMX 16 Team IDP

2005: Would still WIN by 36.3pts without a QB

2006: Would still WIN by 5.7pts without a QB

 

Dynasty Wars 2: 16 Team IDP

2005: Would still WIN by 49pts without a QB

2006: Would still WIN by 30.5pts without a QB

 

Dynasty Wars 3: 16 Team IDP

2006*: Would still WIN by 23.3pts without a QB

*inaugural year.

 

32 Homers: 32 Team Homer based league with Team QBs

2005: Would still WIN by 23.69pts without a QB

2006: Would still WIN by 13.9pts without a QB

[Donutrun Jellies]

Still, I think I'm going to start one.

 

I wonder how many could have won without their tight end?

[cdrudge]

I think it's unfair to say that regarding QBs without looking at other positions. In that same league, could you take away the highest scoring RB or WR and still win? I'm pretty sure that kickers are expendable (but maybe not). Defenses I could see go either way.

[keggerz]

I think it's unfair to say that regarding QBs without looking at other positions. In that same league, could you take away the highest scoring RB or WR and still win? I'm pretty sure that kickers are expendable (but maybe not). Defenses I could see go either way.

QBs generally dominate the top 25 scorers in every league

[rajncajn]

That's been a strategy I've used for a VERY long time with pretty good success. In my smaller local leagues I will usually play match-ups with QBs & team defenses. I'll pass on both for other positions until very late in the draft resulting in a deeper team to cover byes & injuries.

Edited December 5, 2007 by rajncajn

[xMRogers]

I was reading the thread about "How important is a QB match-up for Playoff success" and decided to do a bit of research...

so far i only looked at the SB match-ups but i am going to look at all playoff match-ups.

 

surprisingly the SB winner would have won 92% of the SBs without a QB in their lineup.

 

I am curious if anyone else can look at how their leagues have fared and post them here

 

Well I decided to go and take a look at SB match-ups for the following leagues:

 

In TWELVE SUPER BOWLS 11 of the 12 winning teams would have still won without even having a starting QB

yep 92% would still win without a QB

 

SUPER BOWLS ONLY

Fusion 16 Team IDP

2003: Would still WIN by 4.8pts without a QB

2004: Would still WIN by 11.75pts without a QB

2005: Would still WIN by 18.5pts without a QB

2006: Would have LOST by 5.55 without a QB

 

ConFusion 16 Team IDP

2006*: Would still WIN by 35.85pts without a QB

*inaugural year.

 

GMX 16 Team IDP

2005: Would still WIN by 36.3pts without a QB

2006: Would still WIN by 5.7pts without a QB

 

Dynasty Wars 2: 16 Team IDP

2005: Would still WIN by 49pts without a QB

2006: Would still WIN by 30.5pts without a QB

 

Dynasty Wars 3: 16 Team IDP

2006*: Would still WIN by 23.3pts without a QB

*inaugural year.

 

32 Homers: 32 Team Homer based league with Team QBs

2005: Would still WIN by 23.69pts without a QB

2006: Would still WIN by 13.9pts without a QB

 

 

I assume this was meant to be funny...but in looking at ll this, most superbowls seem to be relative blowouts - without a Qb ont he winning team, avg margin looks like it was in the 20's....add the QB, and it's 35 easy. That seems real high. We've had some blowouts, but I'd guess avg was 15 pts.

[keggerz]

I assume this was meant to be funny...but in looking at ll this, most superbowls seem to be relative blowouts - without a Qb ont he winning team, avg margin looks like it was in the 20's....add the QB, and it's 35 easy. That seems real high. We've had some blowouts, but I'd guess avg was 15 pts.

nope wasnt meant to be funny....like i said i decided to look at it after reading that other thread on match-ups....i was extremely surprised to see that large a % that could win the SB without a QB....now I am almost done the playoff match-ups for those same leagues(years too) and the % isnt that high but its still VERY high IMO.....but these leagues are all 16 teams with 16 starters/team(excluding 32 homers which is 1TEAMQB, 1RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1TeamK, 1TeamD/ST)....i would be interested to see how this shakes out in some of the 10 and 12 team leagues.

[Caveman_Nick]

You should change the title to say "you can win your 16 team IDP league without a QB"

 

32 homers is really not a good measuring stick for.....well....for anything really

[montster]

i've been waiting for an excuse to cut that good-for-nuthin tom brady.

[xMRogers]

Two points -

 

a, you are right wiht your definition of this. However, that has more to do with the avg margin of victory than the fact the QB wasn't impt. Could have won without any player most of the time when you win by 35 points. Also, for whatever reason, I think the SB's have been blowouts - went back as long as we've been n MFL - this is what we got:

 

Year Won By QB Would have won by

2006 12 9 3

2005 41 21 20

2004 22 15 7

2003 58 31 27

2002 2 0 2

2001 34 19 15

2000 64 27 37

 

Avg 33.3 17.4 15.9

 

This is a 10 team, non-IDP league.

 

All 7 years QB didn't matter, but that's mostly cause it's a 33+ pts a game victory with the one close game having the winner have his QB get hurt on the first play (I remember that one).

 

b - considering QB's are usually your highest scoring player in general (or one of them at least), if you figure "well, going to be a blowout regardless, I'm goign to be a badass and bench a player to prove i can win shorthanded", I'd probably say go with the kicker or tight-end.

 

I don't really think you've proved QB's aren't impt so much as most games are blowouts.

Edited December 5, 2007 by xMRogers

[MTSuper7]

Still, it's an interesting trend even though the sample is taken from a few different 16-team IDP leagues. Still, a lot of the results of these findings will merely show what the SB winner's team strength happens to be. You'll likely find that the SB winners whose QB did make a difference were the teams that had one of the top 5 QBs. Just a hunch.

[MTSuper7]

Two points -

 

a, you are right wiht your definition of this. However, that has more to do with the avg margin of victory than the fact the QB wasn't impt. Could have won without any player most of the time when you win by 35 points. Also, for whatever reason, I think the SB's have been blowouts - went back as long as we've been n MFL - this is what we got:

 

Year Won By QB Would have won by

2006 12 9 3

2005 41 21 20

2004 22 15 7

2003 58 31 27

2002 2 0 2

2001 34 19 15

2000 64 27 37

 

Avg 33.3 17.4 15.9

All 7 years QB didn't matter, but that's mostly cause it's a 33+ pts a game victory with the one close game having the winner have his QB get hurt on the first play (I remember that one).

 

b - considering QB's are usually your highest scoring player in general (or one of them at least), if you figure "well, going to be a blowout regardless, I'm goign to be a badass and bench a player to prove i can win shorthanded", I'd probably say go with the kicker or tight-end.

 

I don't really think you've proved QB's aren't impt so much as most games are blowouts.

 

This is making too many assumptions about the complexion of the teams involved in the Super Bowl as well as the scoring guidelines. In some leagues average QBs can actually score negative points (sacks, INTs, etc.). So, I would say that the decision on who to bench when you say "this is going to be a blowout regardless, so I'll be a badass and bench a player" depends on the complexion of the team and the scoring rules. The team in my sig will need to win without QB help in my league. If you look at my two QBs, they are both averaging less points per game than every single position on my team execpt for flex RB/WR (if you negate Eli's week 1 anomaly).

[Grits and Shins]

LOCAL

2006 MOV = 12.98, victor had FOUR players score less than that - including the QB

2005 MOV = 67.54, victor could have benched multiple players - including the QB

2004 MOV = 42.98, victor could have benched his QB AND just about any other player and could have benched any single player

2003 MOV = 38.54, victor could have benched his QB AND just about any other player and could have benched any single player

2002 MOV = 24.00, victor could have any player on his team including his QB

 

So in the last 5 years the winner of the SB would still have won with out his QB. However, that seems to be a meaningless stat when you consider he could also have benced any other player in most cases and in some cases could have benched multiple players.

[keggerz]

You should change the title to say "you can win your 16 team IDP league without a QB"

 

32 homers is really not a good measuring stick for.....well....for anything really

yeah 32 homers is a different beast....after digging into 2 yrs worth of playoffs in 32 homers it shakes out like this:

 

22 Playoff games(including the SB)

12 teams would have still WON without their QB

10 teams would have lost without their QB

so a team could win 55% of the time without a QB....that is still shocking considering how important a QB is in 32 Homers

 

============================

 

Ok i looked at a total of 50 playoff games(Including SBs)

41 teams would have still WON without a QB 82%

of the 9 Losses only 1 was in the SB and only 2 of the 9 losses

would have been by double digits(18.55 & 15.9)

[keggerz]

LOCAL

2006 MOV = 12.98, victor had FOUR players score less than that - including the QB

2005 MOV = 67.54, victor could have benched multiple players - including the QB

2004 MOV = 42.98, victor could have benched his QB AND just about any other player and could have benched any single player

2003 MOV = 38.54, victor could have benched his QB AND just about any other player and could have benched any single player

2002 MOV = 24.00, victor could have any player on his team including his QB

 

So in the last 5 years the winner of the SB would still have won with out his QB. However, that seems to be a meaningless stat when you consider he could also have benced any other player in most cases and in some cases could have benched multiple players.

how many teams and how many starters?

 

the reason it is "sorta" meaningful is that QBs generally dominate the top 25 of just about every league.

I am not suggesting that you BENCH your QB....rather what made me look at this was the question posed in another thread

about QB playoff match-ups....so far the DATA shows that all you need is a warm body and you give yourself an 80+% chance of winning

your playoff match-up

 

I know that overall team composition matters and that is why I also am asking how many teams and how many starters are in leagues....this may just be a anomaly of leagues that have a larger number of starters but then again it may not be.

 

 

Right now with the data provided by me for 50 playoff match-ups(inluding SBs), Blitz 5 match-ups(SBs only) * Xm 7match-ups(SBs only)

you would be looking at a winning % of 85%

 

say what you want but to me that seems

Edited December 6, 2007 by keggerz

[xMRogers]

Ok, while I agree that choosing betwn manning and campbell in week 16 you may as well go without 9 times out of 10, and that they may not be scoring more than anyone else but you are still winning....(which does prove the fact you dont' need a stud QB as is evidenced in every redraft every year when 15-18 of the first 20 picks are RB), I still think the amazing part of what you discovered isn't that the QB isn't needed so much as what a bunch of blowouts we seem to get in the most important game.

 

Looking throw all this, avg margin is staying in the 30pt+ range for the SB. Now gotta ask - what's the overall margin of victory? I just checked my league this year for the whole season (which has seen more loss fees than ever before so it's a bit above avg (we charge a fee per point you lose by each week - 25 cents weeks 1-10/50 cents 11 to 14).

 

Turns out avg mgn of victory this year is 27.5. This amazes me - if you asked me I woudl have guessed half that.

 

All in all what this is proving is fantasy is about blowouts....

[keggerz]

Ok, while I agree that choosing betwn manning and campbell in week 16 you may as well go without 9 times out of 10, and that they may not be scoring more than anyone else but you are still winning....(which does prove the fact you dont' need a stud QB as is evidenced in every redraft every year when 15-18 of the first 20 picks are RB), I still think the amazing part of what you discovered isn't that the QB isn't needed so much as what a bunch of blowouts we seem to get in the most important game.

Looking throw all this, avg margin is staying in the 30pt+ range for the SB. Now gotta ask - what's the overall margin of victory? I just checked my league this year for the whole season (which has seen more loss fees than ever before so it's a bit above avg (we charge a fee per point you lose by each week - 25 cents weeks 1-10/50 cents 11 to 14).

 

Turns out avg mgn of victory this year is 27.5. This amazes me - if you asked me I woudl have guessed half that.

 

All in all what this is proving is fantasy is about blowouts....

i expanded it to include ALL playoff games and the % is still rather high...but maybe you are correct and the AMOV is normally a blowout....i dont have time today to look at that but i might tomm

 

and instead of your Manning vs Campbell choice I think this helps those trying to decide between the likes of say a Campbell and a Testaverde or even say someone has Peyton and Palmer...this says dont sweat the match-up just play either one and 82% of the time it wont matter...that is if you were going to win in the 1st place

in the end more times then not that choice really wont matter

Edited December 5, 2007 by keggerz

[xMRogers]

I'm actually not disagreeing with what you found stat-wise, but I think you're making a conclusion on it that isn't a conclusion but a symptom. I'm sure if you did all this for TE or K instead of QB, the stats would be even a higher percentage, but it's because the games are being decided by a margin much higher than the avg scoring of any one position. With that in mind, the positions that are more "steady" scoring as opposed to the top RB/WR in each game which is usually a big spike could easily end up as "not needed" in theory.

 

Of course, in saying all this, it's all after the fact - one teams wins by 30, one team loses by 30. If you know ahead of time which is which, then yes, the QB isn't needed for the one that's winning and could make it a closer game......but normally you don't know which team is which.

 

One thing I just noticed about my league - not only have we avg over 30 pts in SB margin, but in 7 years we've hit 7 different ten-point tiers (single digits, teens, 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's).....due for someone to lose by 70 this year

[SuperCharger]

I think what you've proven is those 11 SuperBowls were blowouts.

[xMRogers]

this says dont sweat the match-up just play either one and 82% of the time it wont matter...that is if you were going to win in the 1st place

in the end more times then not that choice really wont matter

 

Now this is true - and actually I'd say if you looked at the winners bench QB and plugged him in instead, you'd be closer to 95% probably. Still more a factor of how unclose (not sure that's a word) these games usually are, and also that QB's score close to each other, so not worth sweating

 

(I'm going to lose my SB because I put in the wrong QB this year - I'm can feel it now)

[keggerz]

I think what you've proven is those 11 SuperBowls were blowouts.

read the entire thread....the data inlcudes a total of 62 playoff games and the % is still 85%

 

you want to go and look at your leagues and report back with some data? if you are to lazy to do it

then just link the leagues here and i will do it for you

Edited December 6, 2007 by keggerz

[keggerz]

I'm actually not disagreeing with what you found stat-wise, but I think you're making a conclusion on it that isn't a conclusion but a symptom. I'm sure if you did all this for TE or K instead of QB, the stats would be even a higher percentage, but it's because the games are being decided by a margin much higher than the avg scoring of any one position. With that in mind, the positions that are more "steady" scoring as opposed to the top RB/WR in each game which is usually a big spike could easily end up as "not needed" in theory.

 

Of course, in saying all this, it's all after the fact - one teams wins by 30, one team loses by 30. If you know ahead of time which is which, then yes, the QB isn't needed for the one that's winning and could make it a closer game......but normally you don't know which team is which.

 

One thing I just noticed about my league - not only have we avg over 30 pts in SB margin, but in 7 years we've hit 7 different ten-point tiers (single digits, teens, 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's).....due for someone to lose by 70 this year

i hear you but again i pulled the QB out 1. because of another thread asking about QB match-ups and 2. because QBs generally dominate the top 25 scorers for most leagues. 3. We can bump this next year when people start talking about taking Brady #1 overall(or even in the 1st round)

[tatz4ever]

I guess I made a good trade then.

Two weeks ago I gave up Peyton, Kevin Jones, Ap (Chi), Boldin, Chambers and got back Eli, LT, Ryan Grant, Chad Johnson, Nate Washington.

I am #2 seed with a bye this week, but if I get to the Superbowl I guess it is good to know, by your reports, that I can win with Eli!

[keggerz]

I guess I made a good trade then.

Two weeks ago I gave up Peyton, Kevin Jones, Ap (Chi), Boldin, Chambers and got back Eli, LT, Ryan Grant, Chad Johnson, Nate Washington.

I am #2 seed with a bye this week, but if I get to the Superbowl I guess it is good to know, by your reports, that I can win with Eli!

and to take it one step further if you lose you probably would have still lost if you used Peyton instead of ELI(even if you keep all the guys you got in the trade)

[DO Jaded]

None of this really means anything. Show me data that I could actually make it into my leagues SB without ever starting a QB and I'll be impressed.