Fantasy Football 2014 Recap

The 2014 Fantasy Football season went as anticipated and outlined in my 2014 Draft Recap post. Unproven RBs and injuries hamstrung my efforts in my 12 team LDF league, while a deep bench propelled me to victory in my 8 team Bemidji league.


Goal overview -
As set in 2014 Draft Prep post, I was able to achieve two out of three goals, however I fell short of achieving one goal in my LDF league:

1. Make playoffs in all leagues
• Went 2/2
2. Have a 59% overall win rate amongst all leagues
• 16-11 combined record (59% win rate)
3. Finish in the top half of each league with median total weekly points
• Bemidji: 1/8; LDF: 9/12

While I was able to meet the majority of my goals, I am more interested in the process as opposed to the outcome of achieving my goals. I have listed an analysis of my process on both leagues below.

Bemidji Recap - 8 team, 2 QB, ppr (actual draft)

Record: 10-4 (1st place); 1st in total points

• As predicted had a very solid team (2014 Draft Recap)
• Scored the most points in 7 out of 16 weeks and top 3 in points in 14/16 weeks
• Won 9 out of 10 games to end the season
• Lost only Cruz and Ellington to injuries
• Also Floyd and Fitzgerald with the Carson Palmer injury
• Gronk stayed health all year!
• Picking up T.Y. Hilton, C.J. Anderson, and Beckham really helped
• Don’t feel as bad about Beckham as I lost Cruz for the year
• Disappointing year by Stafford
• Injury to Calvin Johnson hurt him. A switch in offensive coordinators likely was a setback as well. Difficult to tell. I thought the addition of an actual 2nd receiver in Golden Tate would have helped more. Only 22 TD passes. 5 less than Flacco and Tannehill.
• Difficult schedule as I had the 2nd most points scored against me
• Looking at the draft board, as much as I want to say I should have taken Antonio Brown, I simply had Stafford ranked in a Tier of his own between the Top 3 and 5 through 17 QBs. I knew I could wait on RB which left me with choosing between a third straight WR (already drafted Calvin and Dez) and a QB.
• I valued flexibility over straight value and I believe this benefited me by being able to take Gronk at 53 overall rather than feeling squeezed to take my first QB.
• Too many good players left on the board allowed me to have a crazy bench in Pierre Thomas, Golden Tate, Rashad Jennings, Michael Floyd
• One mistake was taking a Bill Belichick RB in Vereen over a main RB in Bell

LDF Recap - 12 team, 2 keeper, non-ppr

Record: 6-7 (8th); 9th in total points

• Suffered regular season woes with injuries to Montee Ball, Calvin Johnson, Rashad Jennings, Carson Palmer (large effect on Michael Floyd and Andre Ellington), and lingering injury to Andre Ellington
• Difficult year after missing on Ball, Patterson, Crabtree and injuries to Ellington, Jennings, Johnson, Floyd
• I had picked up Ronnie Hillman, but C.J. Anderson was the Denver RB I needed. I knew one was going to have a great year. I just missed twice :/
• Missed players during draft
• T.Y. Hilton, Emmanuel Sanders, DeSean Jackson
• Not a lot of opportunities. I liked T.Y. Hilton, but I liked Crabtree and Floyd better and I would have had a difficult time drafting Hilton above these two.
• C.J. Anderson and Beckham Jr. were both drafted
• Lost first round playoff game after not starting Baldwin against Philadelphia. Instead I started an injured Rashad Jennings at Tennessee :(

General Player Recap -

• Rookie WRs performed very well
• Beckham, Evans, Benjamin, Cooks, and to a degree Watkins
• 2nd year RBs performed well
• Lacy, C.J. Anderson, Bell
• Top level players all performed relatively well
• Some regression with McCoy, Graham, and Brandon Marshall

Proposed Draft Changes -

• I am well satisfied with my drafting process and see little need for change. This is promising as 2014 was my 11th year of drafting teams.
• In snake type drafts, I believe I thrive on have middle picks rather than end picks. This allows me to better gauge who will be available for my next pick.
• I plan to continue trying to trade into middle picks going forward.
• I was pleased with trading out of the early round picks and drafting a WR or QB in the 1st round. I believe I will continue to do this as well.
• I will revert back to staying away from Bill Belichick running backs. I thought this was the year for Vereen to dominate ppr leagues, but was left disappointed.

I remain well pleased with my current approach to fantasy football and plan to continue outlining my approach in future posts (Part I). After watching a total of three games in 2014, I also firmly believe one does not need to watch games to win their fantasy football league. With another year in the books, I look forward to enjoying three great weeks of playoff football. I predict the Seattle Seahawks repeat as champions with a 4 point victory over the Denver Broncos.

Next Post Topic: Disability Overview

Minimum Wage Part VII: Powerball

Odds to win the Powerball: 

1 in 175,223,510 

(1.75 x 10⁸)

Odds to pick the ideal combination of public assistance programs among 126 federally funded programs: 

1 in 85,070,591,730,234,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 

(8.50 x 10³⁷)

Disclaimer:

Unlike the Powerball where one either wins or loses, there are many combinations of antipoverty programs that may produce results close to the ideal (normal distribution). While the Powerball analogy is imperfect, I hope it highlights the problem of choosing which combination to implement.

Michael Tanner cites 126 federal public assistance programs received $668 billion in 2011. Individual states spent an additional $284 billion dollars funding public assistance programs.

Updated spending from fiscal year 2014 estimates >$1400 billion were spent by the federal government on public assistance programs.

• Includes Social Security and Medicare
• Estimated $880 billion was spent on public assistance excluding Social Security and Medicare
• Source: Christopher Chantrill at usgovernmentspending.com

As detailed previously, I believe current poverty alleviation efforts, including minimum wage, are failing. See:

• Minimum Wage Parts I - VII
• Unemployment Assistance Parts I - VII
• Food Assistance Parts I - II
• Private Charities Parts I - V

To preface, I hold the following assumptions:

1. There is no perfect public assistance system
• All systems and approaches have benefits and drawbacks
2. One size does not fit all
• What works for one community may not work in another
3. Individuals have various definitions of success
4. Systems cannot replace individual integrity, character, or morality
5. One cannot have freedom without personal responsibility

With such an overwhelming number of choices before us, is there any way to increase the chances of selecting an ideal system? Going back to the Powerball, one can increase their chances of winning the jackpot by purchasing additional tickets.

The same mindset could be employed in choosing antipoverty programs. Rather than our current system of the federal government picking a single combination, what if local communities and states were free to choose their own combinations? This would allow for multiple "tickets" (or combinations) to be tried simutaneously thereby increasing the odds of finding a successful combination.

As prefaced, individuals have various definitions of success. I define success as citizens making well informed decisions through a fuller understanding of what they are sacrificing (schools, roads, law enforcement, etc.) to obtain additional public assistance provision.

To optimize the path to “success”, I support the handing of public assistance provision from the federal government to states, and ideally to local communities. Currently the federal government provides ~70% of public assistance funding and states provide ~30%. Seeing this reversed could serve as an initial benchmark. As I believe all systems have benefits and drawbacks, I see the following with making states and local communities the primary source of public assistance program funding:

Potential Benefits -

1. Local communities are unable to hide the true cost of public assistance programs through hidden inflationary taxes under the auspices of the Federal Reserve. 
• Communities and states are required to have a balanced budget or risk bankruptcy (Detroit). This enables elected officials and citizens to fully realize the true cost of public assistance funding (less funding to schools, roads, public services, etc.).
2. Multiple combinations/systems may be simultaneously implemented.
• As with purchasing additional Powerball tickets, by shifting the implementation primarily to states and local communities, we increase the number of systems being tried. The worst will be discarded and the best adopted by other communities.
3. Communities are free to tailor public assistance to their unique needs
• Moves away from the one size fits all approach
4. Local citizens have greater influence in the decision making process and their vote does not get lost in the ocean of millions of others.
5. Less political gridlock and red tape.
• Local officials have numerous political hurdles and barriers removed to pass reform.

Potential Drawbacks -

1. Some communities may have insufficient resources to adequately fund public assistance programs
• I believe this was a greater concern when relocation and transportation was more difficult. Please see Private Charities Part V for additional information.
• I also suggest this may result in a spreading of assistance as those in need would relocate to areas with greater assistance and decrease the rise of impoverished communities.
2. Increased costs
• Centralizing and standardizing processes typically leads to decreased costs (especially administrative costs).
• I would suggest the increased costs may lead to greater effectiveness for the reasons cited above.

Increased complexity

• Our current public assistance system is already extremely complex. Decentralizing and removing current standardization will likely increase the complexity of antipoverty systems, especially if one chooses to relocate to another location.
• As with increased costs, I would suggest overall effectiveness has been sacrificed to reduce complexity.

Increased risk for corruption

• Local communities may have fewer safeguards in place to prevent the abuse and misuse of public funds compared to a federal system.
• I would suggest while the frequency of corruption may be higher, the rewards would be much less. No longer would all the eggs be in one basket.
• In addition, local communities would be able to more quickly vote corrupted officials out of office compared to the sluggishness of the federal government.
• Again, systems cannot replace individual integrity, character, and morality.

This concludes my series on minimum wage. While I do not believe minimum wage accomplishes its intended goal, I applaud the cities of Seattle and Oakland for exercising their freedom to increase their precinct’s minimum wage without waiting for the federal government.

As the original founding fathers and colonies supported, I believe the potential benefits of a limited central government emphasizing individual freedom rather than forced support outweigh the potential drawbacks. I leave you with the position statement of the Republican Liberty Caucus whom I believe summarize this view well:

• WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility; 
• WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people; 
• WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and 
• WHEREAS we believe in upholding the U. S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

Be it resolved the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles 5.0 Welfare:

• 5.1 The US Department of Health and Human Services should be abolished, leaving decision making on welfare and related matters at the state, local or personal level. All Americans have the right to keep the fruits of their labor to support themselves, their families and whatever charities they so choose, without interference from the federal government.

Next Post Topic: Fantasy Football 2015 Recap

Minimum Wage Part VI: Blind Dart Throwers

While blindly throwing darts at moving targets may make for an exciting (albeit dangerous) personal hobby, it is a destructive practice the federal government uses when enacting anti-poverty programs.

Success is frequently ill-defined and continually redefined. Such ambiguity creates a moving target politicians haphazardly throw poverty reduction programs at, often resulting in collateral damage.

In 2012, Michael Tanner with the CATO Institute found the federal government alone has at least 126 anti-poverty programs. Furthermore, Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield with The Heritage Foundation found since 1964, $22 trillion have been spent on anti-poverty measures by federal and state governments (2012 dollars). Furthermore, this $22 trillion excludes Medicare, Social Security, and measures such as minimum wage which is primarily paid for by consumers rather than direct government expenditures.

That’s a lot of darts… Especially considering $22 trillion is more than 3x the amount of money (clearly not human life and disabilities) of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution in 1775.


Today, minimum wage is the anti-poverty drum of choice. Following Tuesday's elections, four states (Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota) easily passed legislation increasing minimum wage. It is anticipated more states, cities, and perhaps the nation will follow.

Please read previous posts for a complete understanding of why I see a need for alternatives to minimum wage legislation:

• Minimum Wage Part I: For and Against
• Minimum Wage Part II: Cited Effects
• Minimum Wage Part III: American Samoa, The Face of Minimum Wage, and Sound Cited Effects
• Minimum Wage Part IV: Uncle Rico, Buzz Lightyear, and Questionable Claims

Disclaimer: I have moved from minimum wage to poverty alleviation efforts as I believe minimum wage proponent’s actual desire is to eliminate poverty and increase prosperity rather than to simply see wages rise. Proponents desire an increase in standards of living which they see being achieved through wage increases.

In the midst of a multiyear recession, the call for poverty alleviation resonates loudly. While I desire increased long term prosperity for all (Part I), I believe minimum wage has few benefits to those it is intended to help (Part V). Having a lack of faith in minimum wage, my search for alternative poverty alleviation measures yielded numerous other programs including: 

• Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Child Tax Credit (CTC), negative income tax, guaranteed basic income, public work programs, public funded training/education programs, targeted credits/subsidies (food assistance, housing assistance, medical assistance), private charity efforts, and others.

Of the many poverty alleviation programs, is there an ideal program or magical combination that will lead to success? Is there a way to discover what program(s) to promote other than blindly throwing darts at a moving target? I encourage you to read the books How Helping Hurts and The Tragedy of American Compassion for further insights into reducing poverty.

It is said the poor will always be with us. Will we choose to continue the status quo of hundreds of programs and trillions of dollars with limited success? Or will we choose to change our approach to poverty? Next post, I will share my convictions on how to improve our approach to reducing poverty.

Next Post: Minimum Wage Part VII: Chaos in the States