Fantasy time

I'm actually not a big-time fantasy sports guy, although I do play one on TV. No, wait. I'm actually not on TV, either, but I do work for a fantasy sports internet company. Oh no, wait. I don't work for them any more, either. But I did work for them, and that, my friends, makes me qualified to comment on fantasy sports. Period!

The great thing about fantasy sports is that it is so rational. None of this "Jeter is a winner" or "Brady is a winner" or "Vick has great leadership" business. Nobody cares about leadership in fantasy sports. They just care about your stats. Lots of people would say that that takes away the soul of sports. In my mind, sports could use a little less soul these days and more focus on measurable on-the-field performance that you can't weasel out of.

Nonetheless, fantasy sports still has its share of idiotic commentary. Hard to believe, when that commentary can be so easily and quantitatively refuted, but nonetheless, there it is. And my all-time pet peeve of fantasy sports commentary is the myth that Running Back Is King in Fantasy Football. Every, every, every single time you ever hear a so-called "fantasy expert" talking about fantasy football, they tell you that you have to get a running back in the first round. They used to say two running backs in the first two rounds at all costs, but after Manning and Culpepper's historic 2004, they now say two RBs in your first three rounds. This is still rubbish.

I was reading a column on Yahoo the other day (sorry, I can't find the link now; Yahoo doesn't seem all that anxious for people to be able to read their fantasy experts' archives) where the guy talked about the draft they just had in his "experts" league, and he was practically bragging about the fact that Culpepper wasn't taken until #28! Ridiculous!

Finally today I just couldn't take it any more, and I composed the following email to Eric Karabell, resident fantasy expert for espn.com. There's not a snowball's chance that he'll actually see this, but I'll post it here so that at least (maybe) somebody will see it:

I don't mean this as an insult, I really don't. But do you experts ever run the numbers in a reasonably intelligent manner before proclaiming year after year after year that "Running Back is King in fantasy football!"?

The number that you're really interested in for a given player is points above the average for his position. Am I wrong? Please explain to me why I'm wrong, if I am. I'm open to suggestions.

Anyway, I ran the numbers for my own FF league over the last two years. Based on the points-above-average-for-position criterion, here are the most valuable players:

1. Peyton Manning
2. LaDainian Tomlinson
3. Daunte Culpepper
4. Priest Holmes
5. Shaun Alexander
6. Tony Gonzalez
7. Torry Holt
8. Ahman Green
9. Randy Moss
10. BAL Defense

Four running backs. That's it.

I think it's great that you got Jake Plummer in the 9th round. Heck, so did I this year. But guess what: the people who had Peyton and Daunte on their teams last year are the ones who won my leagues.

At the very least, I would think that rather than just spout the same old conventional wisdom every year, one of you experts would eventually at least throw out the idea that, hey, if there's a run on a certain position, that might actually, possibly maybe, create an opportunity for an opening at another position. Worth thinking about, no?