Jan./Feb. Issue#1
See what's new in our latest issue!

eModel Magazine Interviews Chinese/Vietnamese Hotie Jennifer Chu

“The Chrysler 300 is a Sexy Mother#@*! Or, Firewall, a Review”
by Rory Coleman

The Time of the Year for Football Fans, The Superbowl By Arnie Weisberg

Chasing the Matrix
By A. Mordente

Thinking Fantasy: A QB Rat for the NBA By Robin Torrance

California Looking by Chad Thad Higgins III

King Kong Review by our Resident Movie Critic Devon Pollard


Triple X-Play - The Rise and Fall of Tech-Goddess Morgan Web by B. Molmikhenry

New Music Artist: Thurst Communication, and the Lack Thereof By Nico Del Castillo

YE OLDE IN & OUT with Fredi Mack and Fani May

Letter from the Editor A.M. Silver

Want to become an eModel? eModel Magazine is currently looking for models for upcoming issues of our digital e-zine. submit a picture to us by email by clicking Casting

Thinking Fantasy: A QB RAT for the NBA

by Robin Torrance

Like countless million other wannabe professional team owners (caught about 300 million short), I've been a basketball fantasy player for years. Wanting to get an edge up and take a few hundred dollars off the 300 million price tag, I've worked at developing a system for calculating a player's worth in basketball.

When building your roto-based fantasy basketball team, you look over players’ stats in the 8 categories and get a holistic feeling about how much he’s worth. Maybe some guy is good in three of the categories, maybe another guy is a four-category guy, but how bad or mediocre are they in the other areas? Decisions, decision. Finally you go with a loose sense of who’s better/best, a gut feeling, and who you like to watch. Good luck.

I like gut, fantasy zines, and I also like some player’s games—they’re exciting to watch on DirecTV. But I propose combining gut, zines, taste, and a TIGHT numeric sense, a quarterback rating type number garnered by applying the following formula:

10(T + B + S) + P + 3A + 2R + 3(FGM) -2 1/3(FG-A) +2(FTM) - 6(FT-A) = FP

Where T is threes, B is blocks, S is steals, P is points, A is assists, R is rebounds, FGM is field goals made, FG-A is field goal missed, FTA is free throws made, FT-A is free throws missed, and FP is fantasy points.

The formula works most simply on a per game basis because no fractions are involved except with field goals missed (and then it’s just a matter of adding a few thirds up and rounding). How did my man Damon Stoudamire (back in the starting lineup, yippee!) do for me tonight? 4 treys, no steals, and no blocks, 40 fantasy points. 20 points, 20 fantasy points, now up to 60 FP. 7 assists, 21FP, now 81FP. 4 rebounds, 8FP, 89FP. 7-16 on FG, still 89FP. 3 free throws made, 6FP, score 95, and since no free throw misses, the final count. Damn good, though he didn’t crack the 100’s, which signifies truly outstanding games. Just a great game. Now if he averaged 95 points he’s be a fantasy superstar. Few players have a season with a 95 or better average.

Perhaps a rationale for the formula is in order:

The fantasy point formula is based on points. Points the marker, the 1 value, basic currency. And the guy who leads the league in points usually averages around 30. 1 real point is 1FP. Now, since there are 8 categories and all are equally weighted in determining your standing in the league, you need to modulate the numbers in the other categories so that the league leader in that category makes the equivalent of 30 points. The leading rebounder usually gets around 15 a game, thus rebounds need to be multiplied by 2 to get to 30. The assist leader is around 10 a night (multiply by 3). The same logic applies to treys, blocks and steals.

FG%, now it gets a bit more complicated. The average guy shoots around 44% (thus the 3 to 2 1/3 ratio, actually ration ought be 3 to 2 2/5, but let’s not split hairs), and average guys shoots 75% from the foul line (thus the 6 to 2 ratio). You would figure that the league leader in FG% and FT% should get the usual 30 FP for his effort, but with my calculus he only gets around 20. Why? Because the FG and FT scale is roughly on a -10 to +20FP scale v. the usual 0-30FP scale. Shaq is way off these two scale in opposite directs. He an anomaly. Don’t think Shaq when thinking about these scales. Actually I drafted Shaq two years ago… as well as Ben Wallace, but I just strategically decided to tank the FT% category. So unlike you, reader, I watched FT attempts without any pain! Just a measly 1FP or 0FP. Of course, you get 3FPs with your makes. If have Steve Nash…

So you’re watching a guy on your fantasy team and he…

Makes a short jumper: 5FP, 2FP for 2 points, and 3FP for the make on the FG % ledger
Gets a put-back: 7FP, 2FP for 2 points, 3FP FG%, and 2FP for the board
Cans a trey: 16FP, 3FP for the points, 3FP for the FG%, 10FP in the trey department
Steals the ball and feeds teammate’s lay-up: 13FP, 3FP for the assist, 10FP for steal
Makes 2 free throws: 6FP, 2 points for 2 FP, 4FP in the FT ledger
Makes 1 or 2 free throws: -3FP loss, 1 point for 1 FP, -4FP in the FT% (2-6=-4)
Misses two free throws: -12FP, ouch (but a trey will make up for it in short order)
Makes two out of three free throws: 0FP, 2 + 4 -6 =0
Blocks a shot, gets the ball, and feeds teammate for lay-up: 15FP, 10FP for B, 2FP for R, 3FP for the assist.

When you’re watching your guy play you’re likely to keep a loose running account of how he’s doing, getting excited as he approaches 100FP. As you do the math, you may be shocked to see that Rashard Lewis ranks way ahead of Tim Duncan! FP value and real basketball value can be very different things, though usually they’re not so much.