AccuScore Chats with SI.com's Jay Clemons

Zach Rosenfield - AccuScore Analyst

AccuScore.com’s managing editor, Zach Rosenfield sits down with SI.com's Atlanta-based NFL editor, Jay Clemons to get his thoughts on Fantasy Sports, man-crushes, guarantees and his new column, Fantasy Clicks.

AccuScore: Hey Jay, thanks for taking the time to speak with us.

Jay Clemons: My pleasure. I'm a big fan of the site.

AS: Glad to hear that. It is an interesting climb for people in the statistical analysis industry to break through with the mainstream media. Tell me a bit about what you do at SI.com

JC: I am essentially the Atlanta-based NFL producer and resident fantasy honk -- to the tune of three columns a week (running Monday, Tuesday and Friday).

But there is plenty of cross over at SI -- handling other sections, writing non-football pieces, orchestrating Olympics coverage. It's a grind, but I wouldn't want any other job in the world.

AS: I think a lot of people who work in our industry would echo your sentiments, especially "fantasy honks." When I grew up we were the castaways in high school, and now you get an office with a cool job title.

JC: Fantasy sports are not for everyone, granted. But I know of no friend who genuinely participated in football, baseball, basketball or hockey and then walked away -- hating that lifestyle. That says a lot to me.

Fantasy players are no longer outcasts. We've emerged from "our parents' basements" (my favorite stereotype) and are taking over the world...

AS: Or at least a section of the SI.com newsroom.

JC: The Atlanta newsroom at SI.com is divided into two factions: Those who are obsessed with fantasy and those who are obsessed with fantasy -- but pretend like they're novice participants.

Thankfully, the super-geeks all sit together, unintentionally, of course.

AS: Life's irony writes another chapter. But I think you are making an interesting point. The industry has seen rapid growth in Fantasy Sports and it is projected to only get bigger. How much of your three weekly columns are dedicated to Fantasy Sports versus other sports related news and content?

JC: Everything has a fantasy tie. When you're writing to a specialized audience, it's important to be funny, interesting, articulate -- blah, blah, blah -- but the biggest priorities are being informative and insightful. Whenever I read fantasy articles on the Web, I often get frustrated by the writers talking down to the audience or, even worse, not giving them something they can use. I try to include insightful nuggets that you'll see nowhere else in Fantasy/Webland.

AS: How do you approach it?

JC: I approach it with one simple rule: There is no right or wrong way to writing “Fantasy Clicks.” Just respect your audience and gorge them with information. In my mind, gluttony works!

AS: For example?

JC: If you think Steven Jackson should be the No. 2 draft pick in standard mixed or PPR leagues, then let me hear your case. Let me know exactly why he shouldn't be condemned for an "off" season in 2007 -- and that owners should still view him as the S-Jax of 2,006 ... where he had, what?, 2,200 yards from scrimmage. Just be passionate and funny...that's all I want from articles. And I try to bring that energy to my own stuff.

I am a big "preparation guy," meaning I will have my columns laid out 5-7 days in advance. But for last Wednesday's Clicks, I abandoned my original concept of highlighting QB tiers for drafts ...and totally focused on that insane game between the Red Sox and Rangers from Tuesday night, the 19-17 pitchers' duel.

We're talking about two of the best offenses in Major League Baseball...scoring 36 runs and tallying 37 hits. How can I not focus on that game, in great detail?

AS: So, as Fantasy Baseball sprints to it's finish and Fantasy Football gets set to launch, what is your personal approach to it? Do you rely on what you see or do you rely on what can be measured? The world of statistics is constantly challenging people to choose between qualitative and quantitative analysis.

JC: If you're in an AL-only league, you have no chance of winning the title without a healthy dose of Red Sox or Rangers hitters -- from Pedroia and Papi to Ian Kinsler (my new man-crush), Josh Hamilton or even the white-hot Marlon Byrd...As for the pitchers, well, that's a different story.

AS: I was offered Placido Palanco for Kinsler early in the season and refused the trade based on our projections for Kinsler. I was put to the test early in having to trust statistics rather than relying on a proven track record. How are you on that trust factor?

JC: I took Kinsler at pick No. 23 in my AL-only league back in March -- a good 13 spots above his projected value. I trusted my own instincts on that one ... and I would certainly trust statistical analysis generated by a computer -- provided the variables were rational. It boggles my mind, as to why people ignore computer forecasts in fantasy world -- use the technology to your advantage at all times!

AS: And that brings us around to what we do in applying the statistical model to projecting games, and not just stats.

JC: Yes it does. I have always embraced statistical analysis. You're talking to someone who's read "Moneyball" twice. I'm not a Bill James geek, per se. He is the god of statistical analysis -- human god, anyway. But if I were a GM of a Major League Baseball team, I would rely heavily on statistical analysis...and I would embrace the media calling me a "sabremetrician."

AS: So Joe Morgan is not target audience?

JC: There was a point in my life when I respected the job Joe Morgan does on ESPN. But those days are gone -- and I'll leave it at that.

AS: It's my experience that the subjects of such analysis hate to think of themselves as predictable based on numbers. Baseball players reject sabremetrics in the same way hot girls at the club hate that "pick up" artists can get their number with a formulaic approach.

JC: I have no comeback to your "hot girls" analogy. Well played. But how's this for absurd? You can win a fantasy title in baseball without watching one second of a game all season. Now, of course, most fantasy players are fans first, geeks second. And you'll watch every game you can. But based on how players do in a 30-day window, for example, you can consistently vie for fantasy titles.

It's all in the numbers.

AS: It sounds like you are bucking for a job at AccuScore. We preach the value of the long sample. And I believe your statement alone is what turns the stomachs of purists and retired players who want to be analysts. They hate that you can project futures without seeing a play.

JC: I am not bucking for any other job. But I definitely see your point. The cold war between numbers geeks and guys who rely on the "Eye Test" for everything still exists.

Let history be your guide. Sure, Adam Dunn hits 40 homers every season -- or so it seems. But does he hit well in the dog-day months of August and September ... especially for a team that's not in pennant contention? You have to look behind the numbers to make the maximum determinations. And I've always been comfortable with that type of discipline.

AS: We measured Dunn's value at 7% in the late season NL West Divisional push. You buying what we're selling?

JC: Since I crunched similar numbers for a column last night (and found similar results)...yes, I will buy, buy, buy on Mr. Dunn theories.

AS: Ba-Boom! Can you tell me a bit about how AccuScore's game projections fits into the new world of fantasy?

JC: It's quite elementary, really. If you have a good sense of how a player will fare on Week 1 of the NFL season compared to Week 6 -- using Anquan Boldin, for example -- how can you not succeed? How can you not compete for titles, year in and year out?

If you're telling me that Boldin will have 1,100 yards and 8 TDs this year. I say, "Great...but every other magazine and Web site on the market is telling me the same thing." I want to know exactly WHEN Boldin will have his season-high games and when he'll be a non-factor in games....Gimme, gimme, gimme!

I crave information. I don't necessarily agree with everything I read ... but at least give me the freedom to decide what I like and what I loathe. I feel the same way about my own columns: I sincerely doubt you'll like everything I write, but at least I'm granting you the power to determine what's gold and what's crap -- based on the sheer volume of nuggets and insight.

AS: Bolden is an important cog in a team we project to be 2nd in the NFC West. I will use that as a smooth segway to discuss YOUR NFL Divisional projections. I am going to put you on the spot here and find out who the official SI.com "Fantasy Clicks" selections are.

JC: I have not made my playoff projections public, or at least at the time of this interview. But ask away on a particular division....

AS: NFC West:

JC: I've been doubting the Seahawks for the last three years. But no more, and especially for Mike Holmgren's coaching swan song.

AS: We agree. We have them at 9-7 and moving on.

JC: Yes, I didn't say they'd be great...just good enough to move on.

AS: NFC South:

JC: Uh, the Saints are the choice here. But I am one of the few people in the media world -- at least those I've read -- who thinks Carolina will return to prominence this season.

In fact, if Jake Delhomme plays in 14 games this year, I will guarantee the Panthers a wild-card spot.

AS: Now we are talking! We have the Panthers with a 30.9% chance of making the playoffs with a healthy Delhomme. There have been worse guarantees, but we like the chutzpa!

AS: NFC East:

JC: I'm still waffling on this one...between the Cowboys and Eagles. But I'll say this much: The Redskins and Giants will miss the playoffs.

With that said, I could not be more impressed by Jason Campbell in the preseason. I would kill for my hometown Detroit Lions to have that kind of stability at QB.

AS: The giggles brought by your guarantee now turn into emphatic head nodding with your view of the NFC East. We like it.

AS: NFC North:

JC: I would love to go with Detroit here…but I’m not an idiot either. I am going to with the Vikings.

AS: Not going to get in early on Rogers mania? JC: He is fine, but I just like Minnesota better.

AS: AFC South:

JC: I'm being dead-serious here: You could make a case for all four teams in the AFC South -- the Jags, Titans, Texans and Colts -- being the Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 teams -- talent-wise -- in the AFC in 2008, behind the Patriots, of course.

But to answer your question, right here, right now, I'm going to side with the Colts. But I reserve the right to change my mind -- especially if Peyton's injury goes beyond garden-variety.

AS: The Texans will be the best team with a bad record this year. 7 games vs. teams in last year's playoffs and 9 games against teams we project for this year's post-season.

JC: I watched every Texans game last year -- because I owned Matt Schaub and Andre Johnson, not because I'm a fan of fans wearing cowboy hats and Bermuda shorts in the stands -- so I fully agree the Texans are ready to make a leap forward.

AS: Chargers and Patriots in their respective division's?

JC: Uh, I cannot sit here and justify any of the teams knocking San Diego or New England out of the division penthouse...and it would be silly to suggest otherwise. Next question.

AS: AFC North:

JC: This is the most fascinating race, in my opinion. All four teams have impossible schedules -- so much that you could make a case for the Steelers being Vegas underdogs (not that I'm a gambler) in 12 of the 16 games -- even though Pittsburgh will be good again ... as always! The schedules will determine everything...

But if I had to choose...call me boring...but I'll go with the Steelers.

AS: We are projecting a bounce with the Browns at 8-8. Thoughts?

JC: I will be shocked if the Browns win in Weeks 1 and 2 versus the Cowboys and Steelers, respectively. This team, although supremely talented, just isn't ready to handle success yet, in my opinion. And last year's 10-6 record doesn't really count, either. You have to make the playoffs first before people take your championship aspirations seriously...

The Browns could have a better year in 2008, production-wise, but have a worse record...maybe 8-8.

AS: It looks like great minds think alike. Jay, thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate you being able to take time out of your day to talk sports with us.

JC: Anytime, Zach. And best of luck in 2008.

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry