RotoGuru - Baseball Feedback Archives

General
Home page
Hall of Fame
Register
Gur-who?

This site's features are best exploited using Netscape Communicator 4.0 or higher. You can download a Netscape browser free by clicking on the Netscape Now icon.

Feedback

This page is devoted to feedback I've received from you. If you have a question to ask or a comment to make, send me an email and if I think it's of general interest, I'll post it here.

Click here to move ahead to current feedback letters.

Guru:
It's nice being retired and having some time to fool with this. Still trying to analyze WR's. I didn't say I'd take a pair of WR's with the same team (I didn't), but it crossed my mind.

Following is a chart of the Top 25 WR's by SWP's, plus Issac Bruce. It lists a team, number of games these WR's have have played against them, the avg of those particular WR's, how they performed against them, plus the number of games the WR was over or under his avg. The chart is sorted on the final column (total SWP's over/under average).

TEAM #G's WR Avg SWP/G O/U avg #G
over #G
under Total
SWP O/U

Pittsburgh 6 171 245 75 5 1 448

San Francisco 7 170 222 52 4 3 365

Baltimore 6 173 229 56 5 1 336

Carolina 7 167 211 44 5 2 310

Minnesota 6 175 224 50 3 3 298

Seattle 3 172 231 59 2 1 177

Arizona 3 165 216 51 2 1 154

Philadelphia 6 170 194 25 4 2 149

Green Bay 9 170 186 16 5 4 146

Chicago 6 168 192 24 2 4 144

Denver 5 166 195 29 3 2 143

New Orleans 9 169 182 13 5 4 120

NY Giants 4 158 172 14 2 2 55

Atlanta 8 167 173 6 3 5 48

Miami 6 171 178 7 3 3 44

Cincinnati 3 184 195 11 1 2 32

San Diego 3 181 190 9 1 2 26

Jacksonville 5 169 167 (1) 3 2 (7)

Detroit 9 189 187 (2) 4 5 (19)

Dallas 6 165 158 (7) 2 4 (42)

St Louis 7 177 169 (9) 1 6 (62)

New England 4 172 120 (52) 1 3 (209)

Tampa Bay 7 177 146 (31) 1 6 (215)

Kansas City 3 169 95 (74) 1 2 (222)

Indianapolis 5 172 126 (45) 1 4 (227)

Oakland 5 167 116 (51) 2 3 (255)

NY Jets 8 171 133 (38) 2 6 (305)

Buffalo 8 166 119 (47) 1 7 (378)

Washington 9 177 122 (54) 3 6 (490)

Tennessee 8 164 86 (78) 1 7 (622)

Pittsburgh is a little surprising, but the WR's have been consistent against them. C Pickens 442, D Scott 272, J Galloway 264, J Lewis 212 + 72 and B Engram 204.

Washington is real surprising the other end, but with 9 games you've got: C Carter 268, E McCaffrey 200, T Owens 186, J Rice 156, JJ Stokes 96, R Smith 94, R Moss 73, M Irvin 26 and J Galloway 2.

Also, there was only a 2 point difference between home and away.

So, for what it worth, some more numbers. Just like all the others, this is what they've done, not what they are going to do against a particular team. Always looking. - Steve Houpt (10/30)

response from Guru:
Wow, Steve - I'm blown away! Quite an effort there. Amen to retirement!

I took a quick look at overall pass defense rankings vs. your table. (The link will open a separate window, so you don't lose access to this page.) Pittsburgh ranks #14 in pass defense - right in the middle. San Fran is #21. Meanwhile, the worst defense vs. the pass, Atlanta, is in the middle of your table. And Tennessee and Washington, which are the best two teams in your table, are tied for 10th overall. It looks as though overall pass defense rankings aren't a very good indicator if you're looking at a key matchup for a leading receiver.

Anyone else have some insights to share? - Guru

Guru:
Is any player worth 15 mill? I wonder if now is the time to sell Terrel. I have a value of $80 mill and can afford Terrell & Steve Young (approx 35% of team combined).

How is Terry Glenn only 710K? Is there an injury I don't know about or is this a buy?

Also Charlie Batch is probably going to rise in value throughout the season. But he may not hit $5 mill until the end. However, he is putting up 30 less SWP/g than the #2 QB for $6m less. What to do? - James A. (10/29)

response from Guru:
Davis may not be worth $15m to you, but to some teams with $90m+ he is. There may be some profit taking next week, but I don't expect a massive selloff, as long as his numbers continue to be so much better than any other RB's.

And yes, I guess you did miss Terry Glenn's injury. Right now, I think John Glenn is in better shape than Terry. He missed last week's game, and is doubtful again this week. Check RotoNews every now and then, and you'll catch things like this.

And Batch may continue to rise if he continues to produce in the upper 200's (SWP/G). But if he falters, people will dump him in favor of higher quality QB's. - Guru

Guru:
I've been following you all baseball season long and I was "touched" by your anti-yankee, pro-indian comments. Since I am not very interested in football and the fantasy baseball season is over, I haven't been to your site in a while. I've looked at your Blurbs and noticed something...how come you never said anything about the Yankees winning the Series?!?! I mean they beat your team fair and square in the ALCS, even Though the umps were against the Yankees (do I remember the Chuck Knoblauch play?), I think you should at least mention their success....125 wins, 114 regular season wins..better than the 1954 Tribe! that didn't win the series!. I think you should dish out some respect where respect should be given, and the Yankees deserve just about all the respect in the world! - Mike G. (10/29)

response from Guru:
This was obviously a very impressive Yankee team. I don't think I ever disparaged their ability. Still doesn't mean I need to root for them. It's my site, and I'll say what I want to say. And what I want to say is that baseball season's over. - Guru

Guru:
I know most people feel it is essential to have Steve Young and Terrell Davis on your roster. But if you are far back of the lead, you should probably try to be different. You can invest your money elsewhere and with football being the most volatile sport points wise, you can cash in. For example, Doug Flutie this week would have been a better buy than Young and you would have about 9 million extra in cap room. Even if Flutie came within a hundred points of Young it would be a good buy because I'm sure you could gain the extra hundred points somewhere with the extra 9 million to improve your weaker positions. All I'm saying is if you're far back, don't conform with everyone else's roster. "To be great, is to be different." (Ralph Waldo Emerson) - Omar H. (10/29)

response from Guru:
I've said this several time before, but it's worth repeating. - Guru

Guru:
As a player of Smallworld Football last year, I thought I would address the "how much higher can TD's price go?" question. I joined the game last year about midseason to get a feel for the game right before basketball starter. I quickly earned a lot of money and was able to pick up the highest priced players, which included Favre and Sanders as I recall. By the end of the season, these players' prices had appreciated to somewhere in the neighborhood of $18-20 million. Assuming that they started at $10-12 million like this year, that is around an $8 million increase over the year. Taking TD's starting price this year of $10.8 million, I look for TD to finish at a price around $19 million. WHY? Mainly because SW players earn money over the season and then pick up the better players (read: TD). - Adam M. (10/29)

response from Guru:
Could be. I don't know whether last year's experience is relevant, though. Pricing frequency was different, roster configuration was different, and price sensitivity may have also been different.

Still, the premier players will continue to be in demand. If you had enough bucks, you'd want him on your roster at any price. - Guru

Guru:
Interesting discussions about the wide receivers. I have not had the greatest of luck in picking them. One talks about which one to take out of Minnesota's trio, mentions San Francisco's trio, and decides it's safer to take a primary receiver like Joey Galloway or Freeman, and another writer agreed. Obviously Freeman is probably your best bet right now for #1 (he is the leader), but Galloway's had 4 games under 130 and his average is the same as Moss and Rice and not far ahead of Owens and Carter. I haven't tried it, but between San Francisco, Minnesota and Denver (with McCaffrey and R. Smith), if Elway stays healthy, maybe you should take them as a pair against a poor pass defense team for your #2 & #3 WRs. You just have to pick which pair. Their numbers as pairs are pretty good from week to week. You won't end up with #1, 2, & 3 for the week, but you probably won't have three under 150 either. - Steve H (10/29)

response from Guru:
Perhaps your suggested strategy should depend on whether you're striving for the top ranking, or trying to keep from falling further. - Guru

Guru:
Omar H. hit the nail on the head when he said "stick to primary receivers". This is one of the basic tenants of Fantasy Football. Most experts will tell you that it's safer to draft the primary receiver on a bad team before you draft a secondary receiver on a good team. I think Omar makes the mistake of overlooking Chris Carter as a primary receiver. This guy's as steady as they come. Look at his numbers over the past few years and especially from game to game this year. He's the type of primary receiver that you hold onto.

Along the same line, you'll notice that most of the other top receivers have scored more than half their points in just 2 games. If you had those receivers (Moss, Galloway, pickens, etc) on your roster for the entire season, big games and small games all average out. However, if you missed all of these receiver's big games, you've been left out in the cold and hopefully you at least gained some monetary satisfaction. If those receivers were on your roster for their big games only, I'll applaud you. It's going to take a few risks, a lot of football knowledge and your share of luck to win this title.

I've been trading receivers quite a bit over the season. I've been very lucky. I suspect that some owners have been much luckier (or are much more knowledgeable) than I. My ranking of #694 suggests that others have not been so lucky. It's very risky to trade receivers week in and week out, but without risks it's very easy to get stuck in the middle of the pack.

Now, let's talk about repricing. Moss got killed just as you and I suspected. I dropped him in the nick of time. The surprise of the week for me was T. Davis. How much higher can his value possibly go? I guess my question is this: If every owner picks this guy up, what will his price be? Is T. Davis the most valuable fantasy player in all major sports? Price-wise that is. I'm not getting into a debate over his worth vs. Steve Young or Mark McGuire just yet. However, that might be an interesting essay topic.

Another interesting topic would be continuing your study of the highest scoring teams each week. What are the top 10 actual weekly scoring totals so far this season? Do you have this historical data from your team rankings section? What were the value of those actual teams vs. the highest possible team for the week. You have already hit on this subject and mentioned that you would be investigating the actual top-scoring teams. Consider this encouragement and anticipation. - Gareth (10/28)

response from Guru:
You make a lot of good points.

How high can Terrell Davis go? A good question. Steve Young peaked (so far) about $5.2 million above his draft price. He's clearly very heavily owned; he started the season strong, and his price was not inordinately high early in the season. Terrell Davis is now up $4.6 million. So I guess he has a little upside remaining, though it wouldn't surprise me to see some profit taking first, especially if he ever has an off week.

Remember, too, that a lot of the Davis buying was from the "late week traders" picking him back up after his bye.

So far, I wouldn't even say Davis is the MVP in SW football, though. Pricewise or pointwise, that honor has to belong to Steve Young. Maybe that will change over the second half of the season, but Young is definitely "da man" through 8 weeks.

I'll take your topic suggestions under advisement. Good ideas. - Guru

Guru:
I read your article on points per million, and I think I have the answer for the graph of team defenses -- most team defenses aren't owned by anybody. Thus, if a team defense performed well last year and finished high (San Fran, Tampa Bay), nobody's going to buy them this year, and they won't inflate or deflate due to their performance.

I think that a great addition to the Smallworld games would be a mathematical mechanism for devaluing players who aren't owned by anybody or by an extremely small percentage. I think that will promote diversity in lineups and induce more trading.

I think the case of team defenses parallels the trading price of Larry Walker in SW baseball this year, and that the ability to slowly devalue a player or team would benefit the system greatly. - Akiva (10/28)

response from Guru:
The other reason for the lack of relationship between points and price for defenses is that managers tend to buy defenses based on the next matchup(s), and not based on prior averages.

I've suggested in the past that there should be a downward drift for players who start the year overpriced. Mookie Blaylock was a prime example in Hoops, and Larry Walker had the same problem in baseball, as you mention. I had thought SW was going to apply that sort of price action in the baseball game, but the evidence doesn't suggest that it was done.

Good idea, though, if I do say so myself - and I have. - Guru

Guru:
I think your article "Money Isn't Everything" points out that Smallworld has made progress toward making their game a more knowledge based game and not just a stock market with emphasis on attaining a high dollar roster value. Simply making only 4 trades available per week has a lot to do with the trend you have illustrated.

In the past, we saw many teams using a large portion of their trades in the first few weeks. Whether they remained competitive or not isn't really the point. Their trading drove the market and inflated players prices because they were chasing top dollar roster value by making large numbers of trades per week.

It was much harder to trade for value this year because with only 4 trades per week you would usually have to burn at least one or two for the bye week. As your weekly best rosters point out, more thought had to be used with only 2 trades remaining. This makes the game better.

However, now that the bye weeks are over, we'll probably be seeing an increase in the importance of roster value. Everyone will have 4 trades per week to use exclusively (barring injuries) to increase value. This is a significant number. If we just estimate that during the bye weeks that every team used 50% of their trades to deal with bye week players, we'll now be seeing that 50% or 250,000+ trades used for dollar value trading.

The flaw in this thinking is not knowing exactly how people used their bye week trades and making the assumption that most trades to deal with byes were for an equal or lesser value. That's probably a bad assumption, but I found that many weeks I had some significant cash left over that just sat in the bank, either due to what players were available for a particular position or not having just that one more trade to make a better deal. Others in my division had the same problem, which makes me think that it might not be so unusual. They are all veterans of this game and they found they had more inactive cash so far this year than usual. If this is part of a bigger trend, it may account for some of the decrease in roster values that we are seeing.

Maybe a poll is in order. Have other players had more cash in the bank the first few weeks? If so, it should start to surface this week. - Don S (10/28)

response from Guru:
I don't necessarily buy your scenario for a couple of reasons:

Although bye trading drove some of the sell transactions, I think gains generally drove the offsetting bye. And to the extent that you picked up a player coming off a bye, that was generally a good gains trade as well. So I think gains-driven trades were much more prevalent during the first half than you suggest.
By now, many rosters have reached a high enough value that gains trading is not of paramount importance. With close to $100 million, you can pretty much own the roster of your dreams, and if you're a bit short of that mark, there are plenty of bargains to pick up. So I think the motivation for gains is diminished for many managers.

The consequence, I think, is that there will be a tendency for teams to go after the highest quality players, regardless of price. Guys like Young are probably already on most rosters, but Terrell Davis, Barry Sanders, and Shannon Sharpe are still going to be in demand. So we may see some price inflation in the highest quality players. Of course, if this is true, then it may drive a need for more gains trading. A vicious circle. - Guru

Guru:
Followup re: Central Plaza's Touchdown FF game, and the question of what happens when the money runs out.

Two observations based on last weekend's posted results:

Points are awarded only to players paid in full
Points/Salary awarded/paid to players in the order they appear on the roster

Of the top 50 teams,

None have enough cash to finish the season
Only one will play seven more weeks
Only two will play two more weeks

- Mike V. (10/27)

response from Guru:
Thanks, Mike. That helps to clarify how the rules will be applied. - Guru

Guru:
Trouble in Minnesota

I have a problem with the three receivers in Minnesota. You never know which one will blow up. Randy Moss had a virtually silent game while Reed and Carter both put up good numbers. My opinion is stick to primary receivers. Galloway, Freeman, even Westbrook (if he ever gets a decent quarterback) would be a safer choice than picking one of the "Minnesota 3."

Also, everyone keeps talking about Carter, Moss, and Reed. What about the 49ers? Why isn't anyone talking about Rice, Stokes, and Owens? These, to me, are the best trio of receivers in the league. What's the deal? - Omar H. (10/26)

response from Guru:
You make an interesting point.

And with respect to the 49ers, someone has to be on the other end of Steve Young's passes. Too bad it's so many different receivers. That does make it tough to figure whose week it will be to flourish. - Guru

Guru:
"Does anybody really know what time it is?"

Some of us live on the edge, so to speak, in setting our Small World Football rosters. We wait for last-minute injury updates and, in some cases, weather reports. However, Small World seems to use a different standard that is several minutes ahead of "real time," as indicated by the discrepancy between the actual time of roster moves and "Small World time." In addition, the caution to avoid making roster changes within *two hours* of the freeze period theoretically imposes an even earlier deadline on Small World managers.

Last year, the SW Football deadline was noon EST, the equivalent of 11:00 a.m. CST; this year, it has been 10:00 a.m. CST. That was fine through October 18, when most of the U.S. was on Daylight Saving Time--it still gave us an hour before the first kickoff each Sunday (except for those weeks with Thursday games). Now that we are in the first week of Standard Time nationwide, however, the deadline, in effect, becomes an hour earlier for most of us.

I believe that Small World should adjust the football freeze period for the remainder of the season, retroactive to October 25, to 11:00 a.m. CST ... and take steps as well to ensure the accuracy of roster move times. - Christine S. (10/26)

response from Guru:
"Does anybody really care?"

Actually, I was under the impression that the freeze period had been at 10:00 am Central Daylight time prior to this week. I just did a trade and checked the time stamp, and although the SW clock is still 7 minutes fast, it is also only an hour behind EST, as expected. Did it used to be 2 hours behind EDT?

In any event, deal with it. - Guru

Guru:
I'm beginning to wonder if there are any stats than can closely predict a teams defensive points (even plus or minus 200). If someone had tried to tell me the Seattle at San Diego game would have had over -1100 points, I'd have laughed at them. Looking at all the numbers again and again, looking for a major flaw in my reasoning, I'd still pick Seattle. The score, 27-20 is not that big of a surprise, but there was 1 sack and no turnovers in the whole game. - Steve H (10/26)

response from Guru:
I had the same disappointment on my team. Just goes to show, "on any given day. . ." - Guru

Guru:
Regarding the question about whether home teams had ever swept an entire weekend in the NFL: There was a clean sweep once, I think in 1983. At least that is what I heard on ABC and ESPN.

One more question I'm interested in. Nobody really goes into kickers, and their price changes. I've had Gary Anderson since the beginning of the season. When the bye week came for him, I thought of trading, but I didn't. I didn't think it was worth wasting 2 trades (if you were going to get him back after the bye week). Even if you didn't get him back and kept the kicker you traded him for, it would lose you at most 150 points. My question is, is a max opportunity loss of 150 points worth a trade? - Gen (10/23)

response from Guru:
Good question, Gen. As it turned out, Adam Vinatieri actually scored 160 SWP that week. But he's probably not the most likely kicker you'd have picked up.

I think the correct answer depends on how many trades you've made so far. If you have a lot of trades banked at this point, then it might make sense to spend a couple. Especially once we pass the bye weeks, four trades per week are likely to be a lot more than anyone needs to remain competitive. So I don't think the scarcity value of a trade in this year's football game is as great as in any prior SW game.

But if don't have many to spare right now, it probably makes sense to conserve them when the opportunity loss is so slight. After all, we're still waiting for Steve Young's annual concussion, and when that happens, you can't afford to be tradeless. - Guru

Guru:
Interesting what you found out about top roster productions and values. Since the top manager is the only one averaging about 1900 SWP per week, and the top roster each week averages 3588 and costs about $62M, lots of people could put a couple of weeks together and jump right into the thick of things.

For example, after being in the top fifty for the first few weeks (and not seeing my name in lights, because they didn't have a worldwide leaders page at the time - grrr...), I've fairly plummeted to 700+, some 2200 points back. With a perfect roster, I make up most of that (dependent of course on how obscure and unowned that roster is) in one week.

In addition, the value of the top rosters doesn't appear to be increasing, at least not as quickly as I'm guessing the average manager's team value is rising. This means that there are lots of managers out there with the potential to get the top roster on any given week. Interestingly, the most expensive top possible roster was in week 2, and of course the average value of players has risen, I'm guessing substantially, since then.

So anyway, to boil it down, everybody's still in this thing!

Another question for you: Among RotoGurupies, what have been the top weeks, and how close to the optimum rosters have we come? - David C. (10/23)

response from Guru:
Good observations, David. I haven't evaluated the weekly RotoGuru team performances yet, though that is something I'll probably do shortly.

It's worthwhile noting that the best possible rosters for the first two weeks were unattainable. The cost of the best week-1 roster was $55 million, and the week-2 roster would have cost almost $75 million, During the first two weeks, though, all actual teams were only worth $50 million. However, from week-3 on, the best rosters were feasible from a cost standpoint. In fact, week 3's best roster would have cost less than $50 million! - Guru

Guru:
I just read the feedback letter regarding all rosters having Young and most having Cunningham. A point to consider is that prices are based on how many teams have a certain player. So if you are looking to build up your value (and grab better players that are higher priced later) you have to pick the players that everyone else has. That is why, after doing a similar check as the writer did and seeing how many teams had Cunningham, I changed one of my QBs from Brunell to Cunningham. It makes it hard to not go with the flow if you don't want to get penalized for being different. - Kirk S. (10/23)

response from Guru:
That's true, as long as you pick up the player before the price increases. But once the gains are attained, it can make a lot of sense to harvest them by selling the player, and looking for more differentiation. Someone made an interesting observation during baseball season that the way to succeed in this game format is to go with the crowd early in the season (in order to build value), but after you've built up your value, the optimal strategy reverses course, as you need to look for attractive opportunities to be different. - Guru

Guru:
Re: Central Plaza's Touchdown FF game, and the question of what happens when the money runs out.

If you'll notice the top teams, that time is now. They can't pay for the next week. In fact, of the top 100 teams, only 17 have over $10K and only 3 have enough money to end the season at their current salary.

The overall standings are going to change significantly over the next few weeks. I look for the 3 Gurupie leagues to rush to the top. - Mike V. (10/23)

response from Guru:
It will be instructive to see how these teams are scored during the week they go bankrupt.

I must confess, I haven't put as much effort as I normally do into my Touchdown teams. I've got some problems to deal with, too - like Rob Johnson. Too injured to keep, but too expensive to drop. What's a manager to do?

And, BTW, there are 5 RotoGuru leagues in this game. - Guru

Gurupies:
My name is Erik Barmack, and I am Small World Sports's Vice President of Production. For the last three years, I have dedicated my time and energy to building SWS games, and making our sports community real, vital and interesting.

I have also been friends with RotoGuru, and welcome his profound contribution to SWS. And when I'm not trying to fix stats or improve server-speed, I come to this site to check our community's pulse.

Because of the energy and fervor of this community, I feel compelled to let you know SWS's focus and future direction:

SERVER-SPEED. Our biggest concern over the last six months was developing games that can scale for large audiences. Much of our time, therefore, has been dedicated to server improvements and other behind-the-scenes tech upgrades. I hope that you will notice that our games on CNN/SI and SWS are faster and more stable than they have been in the past.
CNN/SI. We need production partners to increase our community size and provide us with new distribution opportunities. CNN/SI has been a fair and loyal partner who has made our games better. Our most recent premiere game for them, "Coach's Quest Midseason Football includes sophisticated drafting and trading systems. This relationship with CNN/SI is highly valued and a crucial part of what has made SWS better.
GAME FUNCTIONALITY. Some of you have lamented our downsizing of trading elements in our games. The reason why we have scaled trading back is to make the game more sport-knowledge intensive and less prone to market manipulations. While we realize that this has displeased some users, we want our games to appeal to sports fans and want to avoid situations where select users have stock-piled all-star teams by playing the margins. This element of our games is in constant evolution, and will continue to change over the next year.
COMMUNITY. SWS actively encourages managers to launch websites dedicated to SWS games. RotoGuru's site is not only approved by SWS management, it is actively viewed as a sign that our games and community works. In addition, SWS plans on adding more features like the "Fan's Voice," which will integrate community elements with our games.
ADS AND T-SHIRTS. In order to stay in business, SWS needs money! Clicking on banner ads helps us tremendously in improving our revenue. And buying a T-shirt also helps us out. In fact, if every SWS manager clicked an ad each session and purchased a shirt each game, SWS could guarantee staying in business for a long, long time.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS. We have many games in development. We will continue to develop premiere games with CNN/SI. We are also considering a series of international games and college games. In the end, SWS builds new games based on opportunity, costs and a sense of community direction: we want to build new games when we can afford to do so, and we want to build new games that our managers want to play. It's that simple, really.

What else can I tell you? We are doing our best to build a great online sports experience and community. We don't have the money that an ESPN does, but we have a lot of heart and a desire to make our products as good as they possibly can be given our resources. This is why I love my job and love sites like RotoGuru.com.

If you have any thoughts or questions on the items listed above, feel free to e-mail me (erik@smallworld.com). Thanks for your attention and continued loyalty. - Erik S. Barmack (10/22)

response from Guru:
Thanks for staying in touch, Erik. - Guru

Guru:
I was just looking around the SW Football site and I wondered, since Steve Young is dominating everybody else, how many people actually have him? Well, I looked at the top 50, and every single person had him!!! I thought, holy cow! Who do they have for their other QB? I looked though again and I saw 41 people with Randall Cunningham on their roster. The only other QBs I saw were Brett Favre, Drew Bledsoe and Mark Brunell. Your thoughts on this? - Nick O. (10/21)

response from Guru:
Not surprising. In fact, I'm not sure it's possible to be in the top 50 if you haven't had Steve Young for most of the season. So you didn't really discover that all of the top 50 teams have Young; you discovered that if you don't have Young, you're not strong enough for the top 50.

Of course, this is all looking backward. Will these same players be the best going forward? And more pertinently, if you're already far behind the leaders, can you afford to position your roster to look like the leading rosters? All this does is "lock in" your current point deficit. So, it may make sense to begin to try to differentiate your roster vs. those of the leading teams - at least, if you're trying to catch them, that is. You've got to figure that if they have all of the best players for future games, then you can't catch them anyway. So figure out what has to happen to gain ground, and then position your roster as though that is what will happen. (This is a common strategy for approaching a bridge hand that looks rather hopeless. Figure out what the card distribution needs to be for you to win, and then play as though that is the actual distribution.)

One of these days - probably once all the bye weeks have passed by - I'll do a tally of the top 50 rosters for all positions, as I've done for other SW games from time to time. - Guru

Guru:
With what has been brought up about the advantage of a defense playing at home, I thought it would be interesting to point out that so far this week (including the Thursday game), every single home team has won. If the Pats can keep it up Monday night, it will be a clean sweep for the home teams. While it may not necessarily hold true for each game, the home team on average must have had a higher defensive point total for this week, adding to the argument that home field advantage is indeed a factor when considering which defense to choose. By the way, how rare is this occurence, with the home teams taking home the "V" in every game? - Matt S. (10/19)

response from Guru:
Matt sent this to me before the Monday night game, which obviously broke the string. Does anyone know whether a clean sweep for home teams has happened before?

In the absence of actual historical data, I worked up some crude probabilities for the occurrence. Historically, the winning percentage for home teams is slightly better than 60%. (It was 60.4% for the 1997 season, and is 62.8% so far this season.) Assuming every home team has a 61% probability of winning (which is obviously not true), the statistical likelihood of having 13 home winners in a specific weekend is about 1 in 600 (or .16%). However, the probability of having at least one such week during the whole season is close to 2%. And the probably of having at least one such weekend in a decade is 17% (assuming the current scheduling practices are in effect throughout). When there were fewer teams, the likelihood would have been somewhat higher. So it certainly seems like it could have happened.

(Sometimes I can really be a RotoGeek, can't I?) - Guru

Guru:
I have posted some SW Hockey statistics at the following site: http://members.xoom.com/swhockey. I have checked them a little against the stats that Frank K has (as well as the nearly non-existent SW info) and they seem to agree. I will try to keep it updated at least weekly. Right now it is good through Sunday, and I will try to update it again tonight. - Paul S. (10/20)

response from Guru:
A valuable service. Welcome to the world of stats administration, and all of the misspelled names, missing players, delays, and glitches that go with the territory. You have my best wishes. If nothing else, it's a good character-building exercise.

Thanks, from all Gurupies, I'm sure. - Guru

Guru:
In response to the standings of teams with high roster values: If you sort the standings by Last Weeks score you will find that only 11 of the 123 teams with over 1,700 points had roster values under $65M. So, eventually they should be able to use that value to their advantage. Two weeks ago, I calculated the cost of the best possible team for the week and it was only about $61M and scored about 3,500 points. So you can pick 'em with few dollars.

Also, a quick way to start looking for a defense is to take the Vegas spread and over/under (ie. over/under 37, spread 7, predicted score is 22-15) compare them, and make your best guess. The line also takes home field into account. I believe, over the long haul, the points allowed will correlate to the SWP's defensive point, about -20 per point allowed. It's hard to predict a team causing 6 or 7 turnovers. A bye team is a safe way out right now, but after week 9, everybody plays again. - Steve H. (10/20)

response from Guru:
Interesting approach to using the betting line. - Guru

Guru:
I find it interesting that the teams with the highest franchise value are nowhere close to the top in world wide ranking. When you sort by franchise value, of the top 15 teams, only 1 is in the top 500 world wide with an average ranking of 8,775th. In the top 25, only 1 team in the top 50, with an average rank of 6,239th. Why do you think that is? My explanation is that these could be the managers who are riding the bandwagon. They buy players that did good one week, gain big in franchise value, then don't have a good week the following week. Do you have a different explanation for this? I'd be interested to know. - Frank K. (10/18)

response from Guru:
I think your assessment is probably correct. Football tends to be less of a "hot streak" game than baseball, so a player who has one or two noticeable games isn't necessarily more likely to have another right away. The key is to be able to pick up these players before they have a big game, not after. Easier said than done, obviously.

I haven't tested it yet, but I have a hunch the best possible performing rosters each week aren't particularly expensive rosters. I want to look into that a bit more this week. Stay tuned. - Guru

Guru:
I have been keeping SW hockey stats similar to what you have posted in the past for baseball and now football. So far, I have been 100% accurate with SW listings, although they have not even posted any top 50 lists yet.

I'm not sure what kind of response you got on the 1997 stats Spreadsheet I sent you that you made available for download, but I figured I wouldn't mind doing the same thing with this one before the first price increase, 10/21.

If it would make things easier for you, I don't think I would mind if you gave out my e-mail address to anyone interested in the spreadsheet. Anyone interested could send me a message, then I could just make an e-mail list and send it off.

I'm not as quick as you in my updates, mainly because of work. I figure I can have 10/19 stats ready for Guru'ers on 10/20. Anyone interested should send me an email at frank_kovacs@hotmail.com. - Frank K. (10/18)

response from Guru:
Thanks, Frank. - Guru

Guru:
I have tried to beat the average of -325/pts per week on bye week defenses and have generally done pretty well, with my four teams (two at SWS and two at CNNSI) averaging -202, -204, -259 and -365. It did help having Oakland on all four teams last week. In reviewing your essay on the effect of the opposing team on defensive scores, I was prompted to review the different SWS scores for defenses at home and away and have the following to offer:



TEAM    GAMES   POINTS  PTS/GM  GAMES   POINTS  PTS/GM  AVG     
        AWAY    AWAY    AWAY    HOME    HOME    HOME    DIFF    
                                                                
KC      3       -1725   (575)   3       7       2       577     
NYJ     2       -1416   (708)   3       -874    (291)   417     
ARZ     3       -1532   (511)   3       -428    (143)   368     
MIA     3       -1291   (430)   2       -187    (94)    337     
MINN    3       -1588   (529)   2       -398    (199)   330     
TB      3       -1408   (469)   2       -334    (167)   302     
IND     2       -1466   (733)   4       -1813   (453)   280     
NE      2       -985    (493)   3       -639    (213)   280     
PIT     3       -1477   (492)   2       -450    (225)   267     
DET     3       -1729   (576)   2       -757    (379)   198     
STL     1       -557    (557)   4       -1471   (368)   189     
CIN     2       -1228   (614)   3       -1387   (462)   152     
ATL     3       -1401   (467)   2       -670    (335)   132     
DAL     3       -1308   (436)   3       -930    (310)   126     
CAR     3       -1752   (584)   2       -1065   (533)   52      
BAL     2       -885    (443)   3       -1205   (402)   41      
OAK     3       -1026   (342)   3       -941    (314)   28      
TENN    3       -1197   (399)   2       -862    (431)   (32)    
PHIL    3       -1485   (495)   3       -1617   (539)   (44)    
JAC     2       -725    (363)   3       -1236   (412)   (50)    
BUF     3       -1164   (388)   2       -903    (452)   (64)    
DNV     3       -1039   (346)   3       -1276   (425)   (79)    
GB      2       -635    (318)   3       -1382   (461)   (143)   
NYG     3       -1134   (378)   3       -1579   (526)   (148)   
SDGO    4       -1149   (287)   2       -905    (453)   (165)   
CGO     3       -1140   (380)   3       -1663   (554)   (174)   
SEA     3       -500    (167)   3       -1067   (356)   (189)   
NO      2       -664    (332)   3       -1592   (531)   (199)   
SFO     3       -881    (294)   2       -1029   (515)   (221)   
WASH    3       -1302   (434)   3       -2311   (770)   (336)   
                                                                
TOTAL   81      -35789  (442)   81      -30964  (382)   60

In summary, 17 teams have better defensive efforts at home vs. 13 which do better on the road. However, there are 9 teams more than 200 points better at home while there are only two teams more than 200 points better on the road. Although individual team tendencies may have too small of a sampling to be relevant for each team, overall for the first six weeks of the season, the aggregate defense at home is 60 points better than on the road after 81 NFL games. Food for thought. - Mike J. (10/17)

response from Guru:
Nice work, Mike. - Guru

Guru:
I found your review of team offenses and defenses to be enlightening. My own research on this subject indicates to me that there is one other important consideration when picking a team defense for any particular week. That factor is whether or not the team defense is at Home or on the Road. In general, teams play better defense at Home. I think we all understand intuitively why this might be so. Some teams defenses have taken on a Jeckyl and Hyde mentality depending on where they play - not who they play. The most glaring examples of this are among the teams fans traditionally have considered having good defenses every year - namely Kansas City, Pittsburgh, and New England. From a SWP perspective KC at Home is, on average, a +2 while on the Road they have a -575 average. Pittsburgh at Home is a -225 while on the Road a -493. The Patriots are a -213 at Home while they are averaging a -492 on the Road.

Now this Home vs. Road SWP average difference does not hold true for all teams but it is a factor players should consider when choosing their defensive team. Besides, it is more predictable than the weather! - Glenn R. (10/14)

response from Guru:
Excellent insight. Sounds like I have another research project. - Guru

Guru:
I don't know how you store your data. But I was thinking, would it be possible to generate a page that has all of the league schedule on it? This would be helpful to see if a team has several weeks of "weak" teams that certain players can benefit from. Also, it would be good to see bye weeks for all teams on one page. There are also other benefits. Let me know what you think. - Burt J. (10/13)

response from Guru:
I'm not sure how easy this will be to work with, but it was very easy to produce. So, here it is. I'll add a link on the main menu shortly. - Guru

Guru:
Being new to this (this years baseball was the first fantasy sport I ever played, and it was Small World), it has taken me a little time to figure out some of the different strategies. One habit I carried over from baseball was, when I sold a player, I bought one. Needed a valid roster every day. After the fact this morning, I realized I did something that probably was not real smart. Had cut my self short of trades this week, and had 4 bye players. Three no problem, but the fourth, I wanted R. Moss for E. McCaffrey. Gambled that McCaffrey would drop more than Moss and made the trade. I guess I could of sold McCaffrey today and after Wednesday bought Moss off the bye week. Maybe I'll luck out and he'll go up. Us newcomers are slow sometimes. Correct me if I'm wrong. - Steve H. (10/12)

response from Guru:
You're not wrong. It can be smart to leave your roster incomplete during repricing, if you can correctly anticipate the price moves. In the case of Moss, I suspect he will drop this week, although it's not a slam dunk by any stretch. So if you try this strategy, make sure you have a viable fallback option, just in case Moss jumps up to a level that you can no longer afford. - Guru

Guru:
What is your secret for staying ahead of your wife in SW? I think my wife has more time on the computer than I do. Maybe that's her angle. - name withheld to protect his dignity (10/12)

response from Guru:
My wife is originally from the Buffalo area, and grew up as a Bills fan. Since we've been in Connecticut, she roots for the Giants as well. Consistent with her rooting interests, her team has been saddled with too many Bills and Giants. Although I think she's dumped most of them by now, I've built up a pretty safe point cushion, as well as a $15 million advantage in value. So I'm breathing pretty comfortably for now. - Guru

Guru:
"Best Defense" - great column!! You left out the resulting logical conclusion that the best defense for the rest of the season (playing the weakest offenses) is the Deadskins. You first. - Mike V. (10/11)

response from Guru:
Mike, I think I'll let you take the credit for that pick. - Guru

Guru:
Can you tell me who's on your football team? - MJL (10/11)

response from Guru:
I can, but I won't. - Guru

Guru:
It was with interest that I read your FG essay on defenses. I came to the early conclusion, as in your article, that opposing offense was critical, if not primary, in selecting a defense. So I chose the KC defense when they played Philly (best defense vs. worst offense). Naturally, KC gave up almost 500 pts. With Seattle looming as next week's opponent for KC, as well as an opportunity to take a profit, I decided to return to the tried-and-true -325 bye, which I am still using. As long as the bye weeks last, I think the certainty of the bye week defense is better. For a non-bye defense, too many variables make the risk greater than the reward, plus --and this is a real factor for me-- it becomes one less position that I have to spend time evaluating. - David L. (10/10)

response from Guru:
As Mark Twain said, there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Guru

Guru:
Did not respond to your new poll (on trade timing) due to the fact you did not have an option for both of the above. I trade during both periods. If I want to pick a player up that I think is going up in value, I trade before Wednesday, coming off a bye week or I think is going down, probably after Wednesday. No set pattern. Although, the way some of my players have done, I could put their names in a hat and pick them Sunday morning, but that wouldn't be any fun. Save time though. - Steve H. (10/10)

response from Guru:
I feel your pain. - Guru

Guru:
Do you know what SW's rationale was in moving the price change to Wednesday? You have been doing quite a bit of analysis on bye weeks and price movement. One thing that you haven't mentioned is I think most people just forget to or don't do their moves before Wednesday! This causes their moves to affect price changes after (good or bad) performances. Personally I think the prices should change on Sunday after the freeze time hits (with Thursday games treated like byes). Last year with the changes on Friday it was much more predictable. Also it seems the limit of four changes is also hindering the amount of change occurring (you don't happen to know the SW pricing algorithm?). - C.J. (10/8)

response from Guru:
Actually, last year, in football, prices changed daily, so your memory about the related predictability is faulty.

I think Wednesday was chosen (and I was in favor if it) because it always occurred before the next week's games. Your suggestion about ignoring Thursday contests (I guess that's what you meant) isn't a good solution. And to shift the pricing date from week to week, depending on schedule, gets too confusing. (Remember, many SW players are easily confused!)

Granted, it's tough to be able to anticipate the price action of players going into a bye week, but real markets are fraught with uncertainty as well. So, every trade needn't be a slam dunk.

Anyway, we're already halfway through the bye-week part of the schedule. After week 9, that won't be a factor any more. And one-half of the season comes after week 9.

And if the limit of four trades per week is limiting price movement, then I suspect it's accomplishing its intended effect. Frankly, I don't find 4-per-week to be very limiting, though - especially now that we continue to get 4-per-week throughout the entire season. - Guru

Guru:
When talking about K.C.'s decline (10/8 blurb), don't forget the fact that they play New England this week. I don't want to see my boys slighted. Couple this with the facts that you mentioned: poor performance against Philly, and Seattle on Sunday Night, throw in a bye week following the Pats game and you've got the makings for a price decline. I was surprised too, but I guess I shouldn't have been. - Gareth (10/8)

response from Guru:
I guess you're right. I'll bet a lot of people are kicking themselves for selling prior to the monsoon game. - Guru

Guru:
Everyone has their opinion on why prices are going up and down, and after reading the last 10 or so posts all at the same time, I think I may have found a theory that combines them.

It seems that there are two camps of traders those who go for the money and those who save trades by waiting until game time to make sure their players are going to play. (I'm not sure the validity of saving trades with the amazing amount of trades which we get, but that's another story.) By looking at the price increases over the past two weeks I believe that both of these groups are buying the same players, but at different times. This is best shown by the price of Jerry Rice. Rice had an amazing game against Atlanta in week 4 that made most of us realize that he is still one of the best and a great deal at 5.76. We buy him before prices change and pick up 1.51 million on Wed. Then toward the end of the week the second group of traders go to work, realize that Jerry Rice is still a stud, and buy him. Rice has a average game at best last Sunday, but his price went up 820,000 this week because of those who bought him before the game. In this case if you are in group one and buy players before the price change each week to try to get the bucks, then the best move is to keep that player through the next price change also. A good performance is rewarded through two price changes. In the case of Rice, buying early and hanging on earned this guru-want-to-be 2.33 million.

Of course this is all contingent on the fact that bye weeks did not get in the way here. That is also another story though. - Greg (10/8)

response from Guru:
I think you're probably right. Based on the bye-week price analysis that I showed in today's blurb, the same thing is happening with bye players. - Guru

Guru:
I also made the Moss-Rice deal and got blown away by the huge disparity between their points. That hurt a lot. What hurt even more was trading Cunningham based on the same thought process that you stated for Moss. I lost over 900 points in those two trades, as Chris Chandler did nothing. I guess this shows that people with the sub $60 million teams can still compete in football unlike in baseball, because I have seen one team in my division rack up 4700 points in the last two weeks and he has only about $57 million for his franchise value. SW football does take much more skill than SW baseball because of this. There would be no way that a Smallworld baseball team operating at 20-30% less franchise value than the world leaders could compete, but comparing the top 5 or so teams on your team rankings table, my friend's team has been doing considerably better than even those teams ranked in the top 50 worldwide the last two weeks by a great margin. Unbelievable. - Rocky (10/6)

response from Guru:
Some would say it takes more skill. Others would say it takes more luck. It's hard for me to know. The "experts" weren't expecting Cunningham and Moss to run roughshod over the Packers. If those who kept them on their rosters really thought they had some insight on why they would do well, then my hat's off to them. But I suspect a lot of this is also a function of "being in the right place at the right time."

For example, consider the weather factor in Kansas City. It had to have a material effect in improving the defensive performance. If you switched to one of those defenses based on the weather forecast, then I'm impressed. But most people who had those teams didn't even check the weather forecast, I'll bet.

Over a 17 game season, a lot of those things probably even out. On the other hand, with only 17 games, maybe there isn't enough time for luck to even out. I think it was Arnold Palmer who is quoted as saying "The more I practice, the luckier I get." So, maybe you'd better start checking those weather forecasts. - Guru

Guru:
It almost sounds like you're packing it in. I can tell you from personal experience that a few big weeks will have you right back in it. Last week I scored around 1600 SWP, which I thought was decent. Unfortunately, I dropped about 1500 places in the standings. I was a little shocked at that point. This week I scored over 2600 and I jumped up 3000 spots. Another couple big weeks and who knows? Then again, a couple of down weeks and I could be at the back of the pack. The point is, SW football is not just a sprint.

As for bye week trading, I thought we had it figured out. Now I don't know. Others have stated that there were 2 camps on the trading deadline issue: 1) trade before the deadline or 2.) trade after the deadline. I think people just trade whenever they get their trades in. It just so happened that the Smallworld server was down before the deadline in the early season. Despite the recent feedback, I don't see much consistency in bye week trading. Additionally, I think all the side-switching has confused matters even further. Side-switching is when an owner (like myself) says "oh, last week I traded before the deadline and I didn't gain as much value as I should have. This week I'll wait until after the deadline and see what happens." The trading will settle down sooner or later. - Gareth (10/6)

response from Guru:
Nah, I'm not packing it in. One idiosyncrasy of fantasy football is that you have a week between games, so there's plenty of time to dwell on the past week. If it was a good week, you're pumped; if it sucked, you're bummed. This is a "bummed" week. But there are still 12 weeks to go, with only 5 down, so there's still plenty of time to recover.

But this bye week trading is certainly confounding. Despite that, a lot of teams in the RotoGuru rankings seem to be doing pretty well financially. - Guru

Guru:
I noticed on your website that you won't be doing Smallworld's NHL game. Do you know of anyone on the net that is doing a similar site like yours during the NHL season? I also noticed that you said there might be a problem getting the stats necessary that covered Smallworld's scoring system. A site up in Canada, Slam!, has all the stats covered in Smallworld's scoring system, and even have it set up so you can download the stats from last year. The site is SLAM! Hockey Stats . It even has the hard-to-find game winning goals and game tying goals. - Derek (10/3)

response from Guru:
Looks like a good source, Derek. And if I hear of anyone else doing hockey coverage, I'll pass it along. Here's the opportunity for any of you Guru wannabes. - Guru

Guru:
I'd like give my $.02 on the bye week trading. I think a lot of the price changing has to do with the trades that were made from the previous week price update to Sunday games. I think that the majority of people will wait 'til Friday or Saturday to make roster changes, ignoring the possibility of increasing their roster values by changing the prices before the price changing on Wednesday. If you check out this week's price changes, you will notice that there is only one person (or team) with a week 4 bye among the highest movers. And that team is Miami, a relatively cheap defense, which does not lose points from the bye. This would explain the jump by Fred Taylor this week, since the majority of the people bought him for last week after his price changed and haven't traded him away yet for the upcoming week. I don't have the stats from previous weeks, but I would be curious to see if the trend is similar.

Keep up the great work and Go Tribe. - Ryan K. (10/2)

response from Guru:
Wahoo! - Guru

Guru:
After reading some of the questions in the Feedback section I wanted to add my thoughts about the strange price drops and rises. It looks like there could be 2 distinct groups of traders. One group makes trades on Tuesday or Wednesday morning based on the last game, byes and the like. The other group trades on gameday or the day before, uses the same criteria, and also watches the injury report. The latter group doesn't want to lose a trade to a practice injury, the former group (people like me) probably are more used to the way things were in SW Baseball. The trades made on Saturday or Sunday morning won't affect the price until after the next game and reflect choices based on the game before. Or something like that. From the way prices change I think more people trade on Friday than Tuesday. - Gaylord (10/1)

response from Guru:
Could be. - Guru

Guru:
I was stuck in a job I hated, determined to do as little as possible, so I got into Smallworld Baseball to fill up the hours at work, just after the All-Star break. This was not just my first experience with rotisserie baseball; it was my first sign of interest in baseball since the last strike.

It was fun, but I have a new job now and the league became a drag on my time; I'm not sure if I'll participate next year. Anyway, here's my two cents worth:

The game needs a salary cap! (I know you won't agree.) When the highest rated players sell for ten or twelve million, team values of 110 million are like playing dime-limit poker with a $100 stake. I propose an offshoot game for next year, using the same scoring and prices as the regular game, but with a couple rules changes: all trades would take effect at, say, midnight Saturday, and after all trades were made, roster values would have to be below, say, 60 million.

I think this would make the game more interesting and realistic (Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire don't all play on the same team). It would focus attention on the lower-rated players. And it would (a personal note here...) let late entries compete on an equal footing with earlier ones. - Cliff S. (10/1)

response from Guru:
So why do you think I wouldn't agree? Granted, I was one of those teams with a big value, but as long as we're all on a level playing field, I could live with a salary cap. In fact, I think the game would be more interesting if the mid-tier players were more relevant.

That said, I don't see how this would help late entries compete. You'll still be a half-season behind in point accumulation. I suspect maybe you just meant you could compete on the margin. But new teams would have twice as many trades to use over the second half (actually, probably more than twice as many) vs. teams that were active from day #1, so I still don't think the "footings are equal".

I also don't understand how your salary cap would work. But frankly, I think any type of salary cap would be considered too complicated for Smallworld to use. They have abandoned some much simpler rules in the past because they were too "confusing" to many people. So don't hold your breath. - Guru

Guru:

Why is Randall Cunningham listed as playing in four games? Didn't he only play in three? That moves him up under the SWP/G category.
Please explain the trading trends. Why does Fred Taylor go up? He has a bye, for crying out loud. I traded him for Robert Edwards before Wed and got nothing.
He had a good week, but so did Terry Glenn the week before and he went down. I thought Glenn was a steal at 1.7 and he dropped. Yes I held Glenn and he dropped, traded him because of the bye, then picked him up again. Losing money all along the way.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is how are bye weeks going to affect players? I was hoping Fred Taylor would drop this week due to the bye, so I could turn around again and pick him up cheaper. Sounds logical in theory. What's wrong with the other 80,000 people? - Jason L. (10/1)

response from Guru:
I don't know about Cunningham. Although he didn't get any offensive stats in game 1, he might have taken a snap near the end, because ESPN and Yahoo list him with four games played. However, CBS.Sportsline and NFL.com show him with only 3 games played. I've been using ESPN and Yahoo for most of my stat info, which is why I have him listed with 4. But take your pick. The best number is probably 2.5, if you want to analyze his averages.

I have two plausible explanations regarding Fred Taylor. The "smart" explanation is that a lot of managers figured that he was so cheap at $3 million that they bought him before last week's game. The only "safe" way to keep him at that price was then to hold him through this price change, then sell him before Sunday, and then buy him back before next Wednesday. The "dumb" reason is that a lot of managers forgot about his bye. I suspect it was some of each.

Terry Glenn is a little less mysterious. True, he did drop before his bye last week, and looked relatively cheap at that price. Still, I think all of this week's wide receiver buys went to Jerry Rice, or Michael Westbrook, or Ed McCaffrey. And Billy Davis sorted immediately next to Glenn on the YTD SWP rankings. Since Davis was almost $1.5 million cheaper, those who went looking for Glenn may have gone for Davis instead. Frankly, I was all set to pick up Glenn on Tuesday, but then decided against it because of the better opportunities elsewhere.

Bottom line - as it turns out, 80,000 people weren't necessarily wrong after all. You were. But I don't know how that bodes for next week's trading strategy - particularly Cunningham. (Why don't you tell us what you're going to do, and then we can take the other approach!) - Guru

Click here for prior feedback letters, by month:

September . . . . . August . . . . . July . . . . . June . . . . . May . . . . . April . . . . . March . . . . .

RotoGuru is produced by Dave Hall (a.k.a. the Guru), an avid fantasy sports player. He is neither employed by nor compensated by any of the fantasy sports games discussed within this site, and all opinions expressed are solely his own. Questions or comments are welcome, and should be emailed to Guru<davehall@home.com>.