TheRock wrote:I've been pondering on this subject a bit lately, I'm interested to hear some input.
It seems the numbers needed to win, while helpful, aren't necessarily realistic ones to use as targets. Final numbers from actual leagues will include stats from bench player used when studs were off, fill-in players used during injuries, "hot" pickups off the wire (let's be honest, guys that were hot, we picked them up then dropped them 2 weeks later because astonishingly they weren't hot anymore), players traded away etc. etc. What I'm saying is you can't take your starting lineup and expect that they'll produce what you saw in practice from previous seasons. Or can you? I dunno, never tried to compare.
Ideally, I think what you would want would be average team production in each category and standard deviation. I'm assuming team production would be normally distributed. Can't think why it wouldn't be. So most teams will be clustered together fairly near the average. A point or two here or there can make a big difference in the standings. Once you approach the outliers, first or last in any category, the differences get bigger. So the most efficient means of placing the highest overall would be to narrowly beat out as many teams as possible in as many categories as possible. I'm assuming this where the targeted third in each cat theory comes from. So target numbers to win would be inflated over what your true target number should be.
Am I thinking along the right lines?
To answer a few things you raise:
1. Yes, team totals for each cat should follow a normal distribution.
2. Your estimate of your own team's performance has to take into account your fill-ins, etc. You can do this either by taking into account your starters estimated playing time in games/ABs/IPs and then including an estimate your bench production (either based on who you drafted or the replacement player for your league size) for the remaining games/ABs/IPs
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."