Any thoughts?

Glad to see a little more balance as more people vote. Do people have a rough estimation as to the +/- of accuracy of Yahoo projections?

I definately use it as a quick barometer, but i dont think you can really rely on it. Their preranks are kinda wonky so you have to realize they have some bias (Warner at about 35?)

I meant more specifically their projected pts per week or season rather than the rankings themselves. Their ranking system rarely even matches w/ their overall fantasy pts - esp in IDP.

To me, it's in between a "rough estimate" and "absolutely nothing." If anyone chooses the top option they might need to put in some more time and effort, or they're just extremely casual.

Someone said, a barometer. That sounds about right

I use them as an estimate and then find any other site with projections and go from there.

Any sites have projections for week 1 besides yahoo at this point? Can't seem to find any that are free.

Rotoworld will (or at least have in the past) rank starters by position for free prior to the start of the season. If I remember correctly, they rank them on Tuesday for those who paid for Season Pass and then post it on the actual site on Thursday. I don't remember how they run it on weeks with Thursday games.

I generally look at the rankings only when I'm at a dead end and impossibly confused with a situation. At that point I generally also post an asst. coach looking for any insight I haven't considered. Nice thread!!

Yahoo uses Accuscore's projections and updates them weekly throughout the year. They use regression models using variables such as what defenses give up, what the players past or potential performance is to project a fantasy score per player. And 1,000's of iterations are ran to come up with a point total.

It would be naive to say what they post has no basis or is not an indicator of a potentially good, average, or poor performance per player or defense.

But if you're using it to say ex: Moreno will score 9 and Rice will score 11 so i'm going to play Rice is naive as well without looking at the non quantitative factors. Like if you know Orton is out and Denver is probably more than likely to run the ball, call for quick screens and roll outs Moreno's upside is much higher than what Accuscore is projecting and is probably the better play.

Those are all just examples so when one player is projected to score 9 and another 11 it just helps me examine the situation a little closer to see if i agree or not. But if they're projecting one player for 18 and another for 5 i tend to give that a little more weight and would probably go with the player projected to score 18.

Last year someone told me he found yahoo's weekly points projections to be more accurate than espn's, so I started comparing them. Now, we are talking a very small sample size (my players over 4-5 weeks), but he was right. Yahoo was consistently closer to the actual points scored, while espn's projections were consistently higher than the players actual scores for the week.

Orton's being out is probably something that can be quantified but isn't part of Accuscore's system.

At any rate, I've found Yahoo's weekly projections to be far more accurate than those of ESPN or CBS.

I voted solely on their ranks as YAHOO knows all. I may compare to another site but I usually use their ranks. I like when my opponenet sees that I am projected to outscore him by 30+ points in the matchup screen

Two years ago, I was bored and did a detailed study of this in several of my leagues. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the gist of it was that when Yahoo predicted one team to beat another by < 5 points, it was essentially a worthless prediction (was right about 50% of the time). As the predicted spread grew, the probability of it being right grew. When Yahoo predicted one team to beat another by > 15 points or so, it was right regarding the winner about 80% of the time.

Of course, this is little more than a reflection of basic probabilities.

Good - so if I'm projected to beat someone by 40 pts I'm pretty much guaranteed a win?

the rankings as of now are pretty wack IMO. there are some glaring questionable predictions

I read this article at the end of last (NFL) season and I'm surprised I found it again so easily. It must reflect a certain measure of respect for the author's research (and her credibility in general).

BTW- I voted "Absolutely Nothing" because I don't allow for any rankings not my own to influence anything about my game.

However, the more correct answer would be "Whatever a gamer can get out of them". I know that is a trite statement and one to which "Duh!" is an appropriate response. But rankings (not one's own), when I still did glance at them as external reference sources were useful to monitor player value movement as perceived and reflected by

• A writer
• A formula
• A formula executed by a computer

Thus they can be a useful gauge and that remains true no matter whose rankings you are considering. And one can have a better idea as to whether to make a move on that RB7 with upside or WR BYE-Week filler you have been eying on the WW/FA or if you can likely let him idle for another week.
They can also be a player data resource to gamers not as initiated with all the player movement that the rest of us track through player notes/news, team sites and, of course, Fantasy Sports Forums.

Interesting, but it makes perfect sense...and is little more than a reflection of basic probabilities. But at least we have a few seasons worth of evidence/proof.