Trout was a good risk but there were dozens of other good risks too, owning him last year was mostly blind luck. I'd say the luck factor in fantasy is under 20% for sure, it is greater than 5%. I have no clue where in that wide range it falls though. I'm assuming players with a basic competent skillset as well. That still leaves a wide range of player skill levels, I'm just not including the completely clueless.
Ender wrote:Trout was a good risk but there were dozens of other good risks too, owning him last year was mostly blind luck. I'd say the luck factor in fantasy is under 20% for sure, it is greater than 5%. I have no clue where in that wide range it falls though. I'm assuming players with a basic competent skillset as well. That still leaves a wide range of player skill levels, I'm just not including the completely clueless.
Just to re-iterate on the luck thing, if we agree that getting Trout was a stroke of luck then it still doesn't mean that on the whole winning a league is x% luck just because a Mike Trout season comes around just about never.
Other thing is there really weren't many better risks than Trout. He was 1, 2 or 3 on every prospect list and blocked by Borjous and Vernon Wells. I have a private theory that some fantasy players are particularly good at player acquisition in season just like some are particularly adroit at drafting.
A lot of people are saying 80% + for skill? I thought by saying "60% skill" people were going to say that was too high.
Just no way it's 80% + in skill.
Every year and especially in 2012, there is a laundry list of players that perform differently than expectation.
The Fantasy MVP came from nowhere. If you had Mike Trout in a redraft league...there is only one reason why...your Outfield wasn't very good April. That's luck. But it's more than luck. It's an actual punishment to a more skilled player that drafted a balance team and/or have the patience (aka Skill) to hold onto their slow starting outfielders rather than gamble on a Rookie. That's LUCK.
And not just Mike Trout..though he is most obvious. There was a laundry list of surprises on both the good and bad side. Maybe due to injury. Maybe the deeper stats were pointing to a change but that's not reliable. Some of the list Aaron Hill, Chase headley, Josh Reddick, Ricky Romero, Tim Lincecum, Troy Tulowitszki, Evan Longoria, Michael Young, Eric hosmer, Justin Upton, Jacob ellesbery, Matt kemp, Joey Votto, Brett Lwrie.
Then why have I never finished lower than 2nd place in the regular season in my 8 year old H2H league. Why have finished in the top 5 in 38 of my 40 roto leagues I've played in. Skill is definitely a large factor in the game, it just isn't the only factor. There is no way luck is more than 25%, absolutely no question.
Then why have I never finished lower than 2nd place in the regular season in my 8 year old H2H league. Why have finished in the top 5 in 38 of my 40 roto leagues I've played in. Skill is definitely a large factor in the game, it just isn't the only factor. There is no way luck is more than 25%, absolutely no question.
Just depends on what we are talking about...yes, like was mentioned the better question is what % is it to routinely finish top 5 in leagues...that is a lot higher % of skill to do. If we answer the question this thread asks "What % of winning is skill" does that mean what % of winning it this year is luck...that's probably much closer to 50/50.
J35J wrote: Just depends on what we are talking about...yes, like was mentioned the better question is what % is it to routinely finish top 5 in leagues...that is a lot higher % of skill to do. If we answer the question this thread asks "What % of winning is skill" does that mean what % of winning it this year is luck...that's probably much closer to 50/50.
It does bring up a question of semantics for sure. In a 12 team league I technically should win the league 8% of the time if it is just 100% luck. If I end up winning the league 16% of the time that means it was 66% skill and 33% luck. If you say it is 50/50 then I should win this imaginary league about 12% of the time but all of that ignores the important concept that every other player has some sort of skill too. Give me a random 12 players and I'll easily expect to win it more than 16% of the time. Give me a league comprised completely of experts and I'll take the under on that 16% because all of them have a lot of skill.
I used to always play some default yahoo leagues on my secondary account that I used for practice drafting back before you could find mock drafts so many places and my win rate in those default leagues was well over 50% because the people who join random yahoo leagues are pretty terrible. If it is 60% luck I should never be able to do that.
It is sort of a loaded question because quality of competition is a huge part of things and quality of competition is about how SKILLED your competition is. Against the somewhat casual players who still try in my normal leagues I expect to beat them in the standings over 90% of the time. Against the better players in my normal league I expect to finish better than them more like 50% of the time and since there are enough of them that means winning like 15% of the time. Luck only plays a huge factor if the quality of competition is very close to each other.
Ender wrote:I used to always play some default yahoo leagues on my secondary account that I used for practice drafting back before you could find mock drafts so many places and my win rate in those default leagues was well over 50% because the people who join random yahoo leagues are pretty terrible. If it is 60% luck I should never be able to do that.
It is sort of a loaded question because quality of competition is a huge part of things and quality of competition is about how SKILLED your competition is. Against the somewhat casual players who still try in my normal leagues I expect to beat them in the standings over 90% of the time. Against the better players in my normal league I expect to finish better than them more like 50% of the time and since there are enough of them that means winning like 15% of the time. Luck only plays a huge factor if the quality of competition is very close to each other.
I would say more luck than skill...maybe 60% luck, 40% skill. Who can predict when a top ten pick goes down for a majority of the season, such as Tulowitzki last year. Yes there is some skill in picking a breakout guy, or a major sleeper, but injuries mostly come down to luck.
soxfan364 wrote:I would say more luck than skill...maybe 60% luck, 40% skill. Who can predict when a top ten pick goes down for a majority of the season, such as Tulowitzki last year. Yes there is some skill in picking a breakout guy, or a major sleeper, but injuries mostly come down to luck.
says the guy with a lottery scratch ticket for an avater.
Team Izzy C Mauer 1 E5 2 Cano 3 ARam S Rollins CI LaRoche MI Altuve O Melky, Pagan, Morse, Hunter, Ruggiano SP Lee, Fister, Estrada, McCarthy, Lohse RP Chapman, Jansen, Frieri, Fujikawa Bench 1 Hart S Cabrera O Eaton U Ortiz P Marcum P Miller P Fernandez
I love fantasy baseball because I think it's a lot more skill than luck, compared to fantasy football which I think involves a lot more luck.
The lucky/unlucky factor comes in when dealing with injuries though, you can get really unlucky with injuries and have it ruin your chances.
What's great about baseball though is even if you are dealing with a lot of injuries, you can usually find good replacements on the WW if you are active. Good luck finding worthy replacements in fantasy football mid-season.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Ender » Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:50 pm 
