09-17-2007, 08:45 PM
For week 2, I looked at Yahoo! “expert” Brad Evans
The analysis:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p4ca-9hHgj20qlYEyksGobw&gid=1">http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... Gobw&gid=1</a><!-- m -->
He only made 13 picks, dubbing them his “flames” and “lames”. Of those 13, 6 turned out to be good picks – 46%. Though higher than last week’s 37%, this number must be adjusted accordingly, because there are just 13 players involved vs. the 62 from last week. Logically, it would make sense for any self proclaimed “expert” to be able to perform with great accuracy when projecting the performance of only 13 players. To finish the week under 50% is even more unacceptable than last week’s 37%. At least Eisenberg had a much larger sample size to fail from. Furthermore, Evans didn’t even offer any “expert” advice on any tight ends or kickers. Why is this? Are there any leagues out there that don’t use a tight end or kicker? Surely some of us fantasy “novices” needed some kind of advice as to what to do at the tight end and kicker positions. But alas, this expert let us all down.
Also, I would be remiss if I did not mention his “Flame” defense for the week – Cincinnati. Wow. Will there ever be a worse pick all season? He projected 7 points and 208 yards allowed. Oooooh, so close! He was only 44 points and 346 yards off. Not too bad.
So far I have examined 2 “experts” from 2 different sites and both have performed at about the same 40% accuracy as outlined in my hypothesis. Combining last week and this week, there have been 75 total picks made, 29 of which turned out good – 39%. To mix things up a bit for next week, I will be offering up 13 of my own “flames” and “lames”, complete with stat projections and one “he should outperform him and him” at quarterback. These picks will be in by Friday, prior to viewing next week’s ”expert”. My hypothesis is that I will at least match, if not outperform, Brad Evans and his pathetic 6 for 13 performance this week.
The analysis:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p4ca-9hHgj20qlYEyksGobw&gid=1">http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... Gobw&gid=1</a><!-- m -->
He only made 13 picks, dubbing them his “flames” and “lames”. Of those 13, 6 turned out to be good picks – 46%. Though higher than last week’s 37%, this number must be adjusted accordingly, because there are just 13 players involved vs. the 62 from last week. Logically, it would make sense for any self proclaimed “expert” to be able to perform with great accuracy when projecting the performance of only 13 players. To finish the week under 50% is even more unacceptable than last week’s 37%. At least Eisenberg had a much larger sample size to fail from. Furthermore, Evans didn’t even offer any “expert” advice on any tight ends or kickers. Why is this? Are there any leagues out there that don’t use a tight end or kicker? Surely some of us fantasy “novices” needed some kind of advice as to what to do at the tight end and kicker positions. But alas, this expert let us all down.
Also, I would be remiss if I did not mention his “Flame” defense for the week – Cincinnati. Wow. Will there ever be a worse pick all season? He projected 7 points and 208 yards allowed. Oooooh, so close! He was only 44 points and 346 yards off. Not too bad.
So far I have examined 2 “experts” from 2 different sites and both have performed at about the same 40% accuracy as outlined in my hypothesis. Combining last week and this week, there have been 75 total picks made, 29 of which turned out good – 39%. To mix things up a bit for next week, I will be offering up 13 of my own “flames” and “lames”, complete with stat projections and one “he should outperform him and him” at quarterback. These picks will be in by Friday, prior to viewing next week’s ”expert”. My hypothesis is that I will at least match, if not outperform, Brad Evans and his pathetic 6 for 13 performance this week.