What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Time to change FBG passing TDs to 6 pts? (1 Viewer)

GregR_2

GregR_2

Footballguy
In response to a request I made, MFL was kind enough to do a query of their database and see what the breakdown is for how leagues are scoring passing TDs. A big thumbs up to Kevin and the MFL staff for taking the time to do this. :thumbup:

Here was what they found:

4 points per passing TD: 27.3% of all leagues.

6 points per passing TD: 32.8% of all leagues.

other points for passing TD: 39.9% of all leagues.
Click to expand...
It's not a landslide, but 20% more 6 pt leagues on MFL than there are 4 pt leagues is a fairly sizeable difference. I would imagine MFL is representative of high end sites. Take into account then all the lower end public leagues on sites like yahoo that are hard-coded to be 6 pt TDs, and I imagine that lead for 6 pt TDs grows even larger over 4 pt TDs.Wouldn't it be better to make the FBG standard scoring representative of what the largest segment of leagues out there actually use? Especially when that scoring system is used in all the articles, and it's what we try to default discussions to so we're all taking about the same thing?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty cool. What's the other 39.9%? Hard to imagine anything other than the two. Actually, I've been in a couple leagues that are 3. I wonder if there are distance bonuses if this gets thrown into that figure. Very interesting and thanks for inquiring Greg.

 
Pretty cool. What's the other 39.9%? Hard to imagine anything other than the two. Actually, I've been in a couple leagues that are 3. I wonder if there are distance bonuses if this gets thrown into that figure. Very interesting and thanks for inquiring Greg.
Click to expand...
Rad, I play in a league that has 6 pt for under 20 yd TDs, 7 pt for 20-49 yd TDs, and 8 pt for 50+ yd TDs.I assume it is weird leagues like these that are in the "other" category

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a good question GregR. You know we've discussed this every year on the boards. Obviously I don't speak for Joe or David, but I don't imagine the site changing the default. More numbers like what you show above though, and I'd be singing a different tune.

It's mostly irrelevant, however, as I'm sure you know. The correlation coefficient between the top 24 QBs based on FBG projections with 4-pt TDs vs. the same group with 6-pt TDs is 0.983.

Nobody moves more than 2 spots in the rankings other than Vick, who drops six spots. Manning gets a nice boost as well, actually a larger boost than Vick falls.

Here's the list in terms of change in VBD value:

Code: 
20.4	Peyton Manning8.4	Tom Brady8.4	Jake Delhomme8.4	Carson Palmer6.4	Matt Hasselbeck6.4	Drew Bledsoe4.4	Eli Manning4.4	Brett Favre2.4	Donovan McNabb2.4	Jake Plummer2.4	Aaron Brooks2.4	Ben Roethlisberger0.4	Trent Green0.4	Marc Bulger0.4	Philip Rivers0.4	Chris Simms0.4	Mark Brunell-3.6	Billy Volek-3.6	Byron Leftwich-3.6	Jon Kitna-3.6	Drew Brees-5.6	Kurt Warner-9.6	David Carr-11.6	Michael Vick
So while Manning is 42.8 FPs better than Vick under our standard scoring, he's 74.8 FPs better under a 6-pt system, since he is projected to throw 16 more TDs. But in general, it won't change the values of QBs very much, and unless you're in a league where you can play a QB at a flex spot, I'm not sure how important it is.
 
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
It matters, a little, but not nearly as much as changing the starting lineups (like starting 2 QBs or allowing a QB in a flex spot). It matters exactly as much as it shows on that list. Manning moves up a lot, Vick moves down a good amount, and it barely affects anyone else. It makes league scoring a bit higher, which is of course irrelevant.

 
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
No. If all QBs get a similar boost up, the value # won't significantly change.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I disagreed with this comment. I just plugged in WCOFF scoring given the current FBG projections using both 4 and 6 points for TDs. Manning moves from 49th overall to 39th. I don't think all QBs get a similar boost. Those projected to score a lot more TDs than others get an absolute boost over other QBs and a relative boost over all positions. Or am I wrong? If QB passing TDs were 100 points, Peyton Manning would go number one wouldn't he?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
No. If all QBs get a similar boost up, the value # won't significantly change.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I disagreed with this comment. I just plugged in WCOFF scoring given the current FBG projections using both 4 and 6 points for TDs. Manning moves from 49th overall to 39th. I don't think all QBs get a similar boost. Those projected to score a lot more TDs than others get an absolute boost over other QBs and a relative boost over all positions. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I was being very general. You are right that some get more of a boost than others (like Manning as Chase also mentioned above). However most don't get much a variational boost so it doesn't matter.Perhaps I was being too subtle saying if all QBs get a similar boost up (inferring that more or less they do, albeit with some exceptions).

:ph34r:

 
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
No. If all QBs get a similar boost up, the value # won't significantly change.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I disagreed with this comment. I just plugged in WCOFF scoring given the current FBG projections using both 4 and 6 points for TDs. Manning moves from 49th overall to 39th. I don't think all QBs get a similar boost. Those projected to score a lot more TDs than others get an absolute boost over other QBs and a relative boost over all positions. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
It depends what baseline you use.
 
:thumbup:

Never understood the genius of 4 point TDs.
Click to expand...
It was because Favre's 39 TDs compared with every other QB's 20 just wasn't fair. Only time I can remember in FF that the consensus #1 pick was and should have been a QB.
 
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
No. If all QBs get a similar boost up, the value # won't significantly change.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I disagreed with this comment. I just plugged in WCOFF scoring given the current FBG projections using both 4 and 6 points for TDs. Manning moves from 49th overall to 39th. I don't think all QBs get a similar boost. Those projected to score a lot more TDs than others get an absolute boost over other QBs and a relative boost over all positions. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I was being very general. You are right that some get more of a boost than others (like Manning as Chase also mentioned above). However most don't get much a variational boost so it doesn't matter.Perhaps I was being too subtle saying if all QBs get a similar boost up (inferring that more or less they do, albeit with some exceptions).

:ph34r:
Click to expand...
that was what I was saying. It matters in the VBD, not within the position. And, it really does matter. If you disagree, plug it in.
 
instead of getting into the specifics of how much of a boost some qbs get, i was trying to relay the vasic vbd fundamental of the fact that just because total points in a position increases it does not necessarily change their value when analyzing players across positions.

 
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
No. If all QBs get a similar boost up, the value # won't significantly change.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I disagreed with this comment. I just plugged in WCOFF scoring given the current FBG projections using both 4 and 6 points for TDs. Manning moves from 49th overall to 39th. I don't think all QBs get a similar boost. Those projected to score a lot more TDs than others get an absolute boost over other QBs and a relative boost over all positions. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I was being very general. You are right that some get more of a boost than others (like Manning as Chase also mentioned above). However most don't get much a variational boost so it doesn't matter.Perhaps I was being too subtle saying if all QBs get a similar boost up (inferring that more or less they do, albeit with some exceptions).

:ph34r:
Click to expand...
that was what I was saying. It matters in the VBD, not within the position. And, it really does matter. If you disagree, plug it in.
Click to expand...
no it doesn't.i don't use vbd anymore but if all point differentials rise (more or less) equally, it dosn't matter.

if you scored field goals 10 points each would that matter?

 
:thumbup:

Never understood the genius of 4 point TDs.
Click to expand...
It was because Favre's 39 TDs compared with every other QB's 20 just wasn't fair. Only time I can remember in FF that the consensus #1 pick was and should have been a QB.
Click to expand...
not true. i would have much rather had terrell davis.but that year was my first year in fantasy football and i took favre #1 overall...

:pickle:

soooo bad.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
No. If all QBs get a similar boost up, the value # won't significantly change.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I disagreed with this comment. I just plugged in WCOFF scoring given the current FBG projections using both 4 and 6 points for TDs. Manning moves from 49th overall to 39th. I don't think all QBs get a similar boost. Those projected to score a lot more TDs than others get an absolute boost over other QBs and a relative boost over all positions. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I was being very general. You are right that some get more of a boost than others (like Manning as Chase also mentioned above). However most don't get much a variational boost so it doesn't matter.Perhaps I was being too subtle saying if all QBs get a similar boost up (inferring that more or less they do, albeit with some exceptions).

:ph34r:
Click to expand...
that was what I was saying. It matters in the VBD, not within the position. And, it really does matter. If you disagree, plug it in.
Click to expand...
no it doesn't.i don't use vbd anymore but if all point differentials rise (more or less) equally, it dosn't matter.

if you scored field goals 10 points each would that matter?
Click to expand...
Yes. The top field goal kicker would be worth more than the 12th field goal kicker by substantially more points than the top QB would be worth more than the 12th QB. If I had to choose between QB1 (300 points) + PK12 (200 points) and QB12 (220 points) + PK1 (300 points) I choose the latter every time. Of course, if your point was that kickers are notoriously hard to predict, I agree. But that didn't seem like your point.

 
instead of getting into the specifics of how much of a boost some qbs get, i was trying to relay the vasic vbd fundamental of the fact that just because total points in a position increases it does not necessarily change their value when analyzing players across positions.
Click to expand...
But, very few times would this be the case. Where it matters is when comparing QB5 with RB 30, for example. To me, it does not matter at this time what name is at what slot, just the relative value relationship between QB5 and the RBs, WRs, and TEs that have comparitive value.You do not want to get into specifics of how much of a boost some QBs get, but how else will you know its effects.

 
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
No. If all QBs get a similar boost up, the value # won't significantly change.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I disagreed with this comment. I just plugged in WCOFF scoring given the current FBG projections using both 4 and 6 points for TDs. Manning moves from 49th overall to 39th. I don't think all QBs get a similar boost. Those projected to score a lot more TDs than others get an absolute boost over other QBs and a relative boost over all positions. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I was being very general. You are right that some get more of a boost than others (like Manning as Chase also mentioned above). However most don't get much a variational boost so it doesn't matter.Perhaps I was being too subtle saying if all QBs get a similar boost up (inferring that more or less they do, albeit with some exceptions).

:ph34r:
Click to expand...
that was what I was saying. It matters in the VBD, not within the position. And, it really does matter. If you disagree, plug it in.
Click to expand...
no it doesn't.i don't use vbd anymore but if all point differentials rise (more or less) equally, it dosn't matter.

if you scored field goals 10 points each would that matter?
Click to expand...
sure, if PK1 kicks 10 more field goals than PK12i get what you're saying though

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
No. If all QBs get a similar boost up, the value # won't significantly change.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I disagreed with this comment. I just plugged in WCOFF scoring given the current FBG projections using both 4 and 6 points for TDs. Manning moves from 49th overall to 39th. I don't think all QBs get a similar boost. Those projected to score a lot more TDs than others get an absolute boost over other QBs and a relative boost over all positions. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I was being very general. You are right that some get more of a boost than others (like Manning as Chase also mentioned above). However most don't get much a variational boost so it doesn't matter.Perhaps I was being too subtle saying if all QBs get a similar boost up (inferring that more or less they do, albeit with some exceptions).

:ph34r:
Click to expand...
that was what I was saying. It matters in the VBD, not within the position. And, it really does matter. If you disagree, plug it in.
Click to expand...
no it doesn't.i don't use vbd anymore but if all point differentials rise (more or less) equally, it dosn't matter.

if you scored field goals 10 points each would that matter?
Click to expand...
not all differentials rise, just that of QB. And yes, if field goals were scored 10 points, it very much would effect the relative value of kickers versus other positions.I would be interested in hearing why you do not think this is the case.

 
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
No. If all QBs get a similar boost up, the value # won't significantly change.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I disagreed with this comment. I just plugged in WCOFF scoring given the current FBG projections using both 4 and 6 points for TDs. Manning moves from 49th overall to 39th. I don't think all QBs get a similar boost. Those projected to score a lot more TDs than others get an absolute boost over other QBs and a relative boost over all positions. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I was being very general. You are right that some get more of a boost than others (like Manning as Chase also mentioned above). However most don't get much a variational boost so it doesn't matter.Perhaps I was being too subtle saying if all QBs get a similar boost up (inferring that more or less they do, albeit with some exceptions).

:ph34r:
Click to expand...
that was what I was saying. It matters in the VBD, not within the position. And, it really does matter. If you disagree, plug it in.
Click to expand...
no it doesn't.i don't use vbd anymore but if all point differentials rise (more or less) equally, it dosn't matter.

if you scored field goals 10 points each would that matter?
Click to expand...
Yes. The top field goal kicker would be worth more than the 12th field goal kicker by substantially more points than the top QB would be worth more than the 12th QB. If I had to choose between QB1 (300 points) + PK12 (200 points) and QB12 (220 points) + PK1 (300 points) I choose the latter every time. Of course, if your point was that kickers are notoriously hard to predict, I agree. But that didn't seem like your point.
Click to expand...
the numbers you are using are not based in reality.doesn't matter, i think static baselines (or really any baselines in general) are such a horrible way to value players i don't know why i am arguing variations in scoring when trying to use them.

 
:thumbup:

Never understood the genius of 4 point TDs.
Click to expand...
It was because Favre's 39 TDs compared with every other QB's 20 just wasn't fair. Only time I can remember in FF that the consensus #1 pick was and should have been a QB.
Click to expand...
not true. i would have much rather had terrell davis.but that year was my first year in fantasy football and i took favre #1 overall...

:pickle:

soooo bad.
Click to expand...
Terrell Davis was a rookie that year, and Ricky Watters was right next to him in points. Barry Sanders, Terry Allen and Curtis Martin were huge that year too. But after Favre (39 TDs), it went Testaverde (33 out of the blue), Bledsoe (27), all the way down to QBs 10-12, who had 17 each. Ugh.
 
instead of getting into the specifics of how much of a boost some qbs get, i was trying to relay the vasic vbd fundamental of the fact that just because total points in a position increases it does not necessarily change their value when analyzing players across positions.
Click to expand...
But, very few times would this be the case. Where it matters is when comparing QB5 with RB 30, for example. To me, it does not matter at this time what name is at what slot, just the relative value relationship between QB5 and the RBs, WRs, and TEs that have comparitive value.You do not want to get into specifics of how much of a boost some QBs get, but how else will you know its effects.
Click to expand...
QB5's value would go up by 4.4 FPs. That's Eli Manning.It's not something to sneeze at, but it's not that important. And most important of all is that the VBD App and Henderson's Draft Dominator let you input whatever you like. :thumbup:

 
I do not understand Bagger and Chase's position. VBD (as I understand it) = relative value between positions.

Changing how one position is scored does not change the rankings (points) within that position. But, it does change the rankings (points or VBD) across other positions.

Changing TE scoring to 3 ppr changes the VBD. Changing the field goals to 10 points changes the VBD. Changing pass TDs from 4 points to 6 points changes the VBD.

 
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
No. If all QBs get a similar boost up, the value # won't significantly change.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I disagreed with this comment. I just plugged in WCOFF scoring given the current FBG projections using both 4 and 6 points for TDs. Manning moves from 49th overall to 39th. I don't think all QBs get a similar boost. Those projected to score a lot more TDs than others get an absolute boost over other QBs and a relative boost over all positions. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
It depends what baseline you use.
Click to expand...
True. Manning went from 49th overall to 39th overall (changing from 4 to 6 points per TD) using Joe's secret formula (first 100 picks). Manning went from 49th to 33rd overall making the same change in points switching the baseline to worst starter.
 
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
No. If all QBs get a similar boost up, the value # won't significantly change.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I disagreed with this comment. I just plugged in WCOFF scoring given the current FBG projections using both 4 and 6 points for TDs. Manning moves from 49th overall to 39th. I don't think all QBs get a similar boost. Those projected to score a lot more TDs than others get an absolute boost over other QBs and a relative boost over all positions. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I was being very general. You are right that some get more of a boost than others (like Manning as Chase also mentioned above). However most don't get much a variational boost so it doesn't matter.Perhaps I was being too subtle saying if all QBs get a similar boost up (inferring that more or less they do, albeit with some exceptions).

:ph34r:
Click to expand...
that was what I was saying. It matters in the VBD, not within the position. And, it really does matter. If you disagree, plug it in.
Click to expand...
no it doesn't.i don't use vbd anymore but if all point differentials rise (more or less) equally, it dosn't matter.

if you scored field goals 10 points each would that matter?
Click to expand...
not all differentials rise, just that of QB. And yes, if field goals were scored 10 points, it very much would effect the relative value of kickers versus other positions.I would be interested in hearing why you do not think this is the case.
Click to expand...
because the dropoffs are so insignificant compared to their peers that it doesn't matter.even if your static value increase from 50 to 120 from PK1 to PK12, you are assuming that:

1. that is indeed the actual choice you are presented with

2. who you project to be PK1 and PK12 are accurate

3. there are no other alternatives at other positions in those same rounds to choose from.

4. most importantly, even at 10 PPFG at a basline difference of 120 (using 2005 actual data) you still have the smallest dropoff at any position...and that is using this extreme example.

it doesn't matter in the overall draft. but i am sure that because some # spits out of the draft dominator it is gospel as to a player's worth.

 
I do not understand Bagger and Chase's position. VBD (as I understand it) = relative value between positions.

Changing how one position is scored does not change the rankings (points) within that position. But, it does change the rankings (points or VBD) across other positions.

Changing TE scoring to 3 ppr changes the VBD. Changing the field goals to 10 points changes the VBD. Changing pass TDs from 4 points to 6 points changes the VBD.
Click to expand...
Hey wannabee,I think we're all saying the same thing. It's vague words like 'it doesn't matter' or 'it makes a big difference' that are causing the problem. What doesn't matter to some is a big difference to others.

The sentence I bolded is incorrect. Mike Vick, for example, moves down a few spots if you value passing TDs more. This makes sense of course.

It also changes interpositional rankings. But it just doesn't change it much. And like I wrote before, the important thing is that the Draft Dominator and VBD App are so customizable. If anyone can nail Eli Manning's projections so closely that those 4.4 FPs of VBD value across positions becomes important, then we need to hire them on staff.

Giving TE's 3 points per reception is much, much more significant than increasing passing TDs across the board by 2 points.

 
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
No. If all QBs get a similar boost up, the value # won't significantly change.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I disagreed with this comment. I just plugged in WCOFF scoring given the current FBG projections using both 4 and 6 points for TDs. Manning moves from 49th overall to 39th. I don't think all QBs get a similar boost. Those projected to score a lot more TDs than others get an absolute boost over other QBs and a relative boost over all positions. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I was being very general. You are right that some get more of a boost than others (like Manning as Chase also mentioned above). However most don't get much a variational boost so it doesn't matter.Perhaps I was being too subtle saying if all QBs get a similar boost up (inferring that more or less they do, albeit with some exceptions).

:ph34r:
Click to expand...
that was what I was saying. It matters in the VBD, not within the position. And, it really does matter. If you disagree, plug it in.
Click to expand...
no it doesn't.i don't use vbd anymore but if all point differentials rise (more or less) equally, it dosn't matter.

if you scored field goals 10 points each would that matter?
Click to expand...
not all differentials rise, just that of QB. And yes, if field goals were scored 10 points, it very much would effect the relative value of kickers versus other positions.I would be interested in hearing why you do not think this is the case.
Click to expand...
because the dropoffs are so insignificant compared to their peers that it doesn't matter.even if your static value increase from 50 to 120 from PK1 to PK12, you are assuming that:

1. that is indeed the actual choice you are presented with

2. who you project to be PK1 and PK12 are accurate

3. there are no other alternatives at other positions in those same rounds to choose from.

4. most importantly, even at 10 PPFG at a basline difference of 120 (using 2005 actual data) you still have the smallest dropoff at any position...and that is using this extreme example.

it doesn't matter in the overall draft. but i am sure that because some # spits out of the draft dominator it is gospel as to a player's worth.
Click to expand...
It does matter because at 10 points per field goal, kickers would be drafted earlier. It would matter because getting a top kicker (say Vinateri in 2006) would give your team a huge advantage over a team starting Mare at kicker. This alone might induce you to take a kicker in round 10 instead of round 20.
 
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
No. If all QBs get a similar boost up, the value # won't significantly change.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I disagreed with this comment. I just plugged in WCOFF scoring given the current FBG projections using both 4 and 6 points for TDs. Manning moves from 49th overall to 39th. I don't think all QBs get a similar boost. Those projected to score a lot more TDs than others get an absolute boost over other QBs and a relative boost over all positions. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I was being very general. You are right that some get more of a boost than others (like Manning as Chase also mentioned above). However most don't get much a variational boost so it doesn't matter.Perhaps I was being too subtle saying if all QBs get a similar boost up (inferring that more or less they do, albeit with some exceptions).

:ph34r:
Click to expand...
that was what I was saying. It matters in the VBD, not within the position. And, it really does matter. If you disagree, plug it in.
Click to expand...
no it doesn't.i don't use vbd anymore but if all point differentials rise (more or less) equally, it dosn't matter.

if you scored field goals 10 points each would that matter?
Click to expand...
not all differentials rise, just that of QB. And yes, if field goals were scored 10 points, it very much would effect the relative value of kickers versus other positions.I would be interested in hearing why you do not think this is the case.
Click to expand...
because the dropoffs are so insignificant compared to their peers that it doesn't matter.even if your static value increase from 50 to 120 from PK1 to PK12, you are assuming that:

1. that is indeed the actual choice you are presented with

2. who you project to be PK1 and PK12 are accurate

3. there are no other alternatives at other positions in those same rounds to choose from.

4. most importantly, even at 10 PPFG at a basline difference of 120 (using 2005 actual data) you still have the smallest dropoff at any position...and that is using this extreme example.

it doesn't matter in the overall draft. but i am sure that because some # spits out of the draft dominator it is gospel as to a player's worth.
Click to expand...
It does matter because at 10 points per field goal, kickers would be drafted earlier. It would matter because getting a top kicker (say Vinateri in 2006) would give your team a huge advantage over a team starting Mare at kicker. This alone might induce you to take a kicker in round 10 instead of round 20.
Click to expand...
That's correct wannabee.
 
if you scored field goals 10 points each would that matter?
Click to expand...
Heck yeah, it would.
Click to expand...
i looked at 2005. the difference between PK1 and PK12 using 3 PPFG and 1 PPXP was ~50. switching the scoring to 10 PPFG the difference was ~120. that is still the smallest variance among a position and given the other reasons stated above you shouldn't change your draft strategy.bottom line, supply and demand is still a greater force in the draft than some static baseline based on an arbitrary benchmark. and bottom line you will always be able to pick up multiple kickers off the waiver wire who are guaranteed to start.

i am sure there is a point on the draft to where it does matter, but it is so extreme it doesn't belong in a rational conversation. 2 PPTD for a QB is meaningless in the overall scope of things.

 
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
No. If all QBs get a similar boost up, the value # won't significantly change.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I disagreed with this comment. I just plugged in WCOFF scoring given the current FBG projections using both 4 and 6 points for TDs. Manning moves from 49th overall to 39th. I don't think all QBs get a similar boost. Those projected to score a lot more TDs than others get an absolute boost over other QBs and a relative boost over all positions. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I was being very general. You are right that some get more of a boost than others (like Manning as Chase also mentioned above). However most don't get much a variational boost so it doesn't matter.Perhaps I was being too subtle saying if all QBs get a similar boost up (inferring that more or less they do, albeit with some exceptions).

:ph34r:
Click to expand...
that was what I was saying. It matters in the VBD, not within the position. And, it really does matter. If you disagree, plug it in.
Click to expand...
no it doesn't.i don't use vbd anymore but if all point differentials rise (more or less) equally, it dosn't matter.

if you scored field goals 10 points each would that matter?
Click to expand...
Yes. The top field goal kicker would be worth more than the 12th field goal kicker by substantially more points than the top QB would be worth more than the 12th QB. If I had to choose between QB1 (300 points) + PK12 (200 points) and QB12 (220 points) + PK1 (300 points) I choose the latter every time. Of course, if your point was that kickers are notoriously hard to predict, I agree. But that didn't seem like your point.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: We're assuming that current projections are accurate. More inconsistent positions still have relatively little value even if they score an absurd amount of points.
 
It does matter because at 10 points per field goal, kickers would be drafted earlier. It would matter because getting a top kicker (say Vinateri in 2006) would give your team a huge advantage over a team starting Mare at kicker. This alone might induce you to take a kicker in round 10 instead of round 20.
Click to expand...
this flawed thinking also makes people take QBs and TEs early.i am not saying people wouldn't take kickers earlier...i am saying they shouldn't.

but to believe that you need to take the blue pill and be extracted from this "reality" of vbd. ;)

 
I do not understand Bagger and Chase's position.  VBD (as I understand it) = relative value between positions.

Changing how one position is scored does not change the rankings (points) within that position.  But, it does change the rankings (points or VBD) across other positions.

Changing TE scoring to 3 ppr changes the VBD.  Changing the field goals to 10 points changes the VBD.  Changing pass TDs from 4 points to 6 points changes the VBD.
Click to expand...
Hey wannabee,I think we're all saying the same thing. It's vague words like 'it doesn't matter' or 'it makes a big difference' that are causing the problem. What doesn't matter to some is a big difference to others.

The sentence I bolded is incorrect. Mike Vick, for example, moves down a few spots if you value passing TDs more. This makes sense of course.

It also changes interpositional rankings. But it just doesn't change it much. And like I wrote before, the important thing is that the Draft Dominator and VBD App are so customizable. If anyone can nail Eli Manning's projections so closely that those 4.4 FPs of VBD value across positions becomes important, then we need to hire them on staff.

Giving TE's 3 points per reception is much, much more significant than increasing passing TDs across the board by 2 points.
Click to expand...
Chase, you yourself said:It's mostly irrelevant, however, as I'm sure you know. The correlation coefficient between the top 24 QBs based on FBG projections with 4-pt TDs vs. the same group with 6-pt TDs is 0.983.

Nobody moves more than 2 spots in the rankings other than Vick, who drops six spots. Manning gets a nice boost as well, actually a larger boost than Vick falls.

This is what sparked this debate in the first place. Vick is basically the only one that moves much. But, saying that it is irrelevant is not a matter of semantics. It is relevant. I have played with the DD some because of different leagues with different scoring. And, yes, you are right. It does affect Vick. It would affect more QBs, but there does not seem to be as many QBs that accumulate rushing TDs as in the past.

 
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
No. If all QBs get a similar boost up, the value # won't significantly change.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I disagreed with this comment. I just plugged in WCOFF scoring given the current FBG projections using both 4 and 6 points for TDs. Manning moves from 49th overall to 39th. I don't think all QBs get a similar boost. Those projected to score a lot more TDs than others get an absolute boost over other QBs and a relative boost over all positions. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I was being very general. You are right that some get more of a boost than others (like Manning as Chase also mentioned above). However most don't get much a variational boost so it doesn't matter.Perhaps I was being too subtle saying if all QBs get a similar boost up (inferring that more or less they do, albeit with some exceptions).

:ph34r:
Click to expand...
that was what I was saying. It matters in the VBD, not within the position. And, it really does matter. If you disagree, plug it in.
Click to expand...
no it doesn't.i don't use vbd anymore but if all point differentials rise (more or less) equally, it dosn't matter.

if you scored field goals 10 points each would that matter?
Click to expand...
Yes. The top field goal kicker would be worth more than the 12th field goal kicker by substantially more points than the top QB would be worth more than the 12th QB. If I had to choose between QB1 (300 points) + PK12 (200 points) and QB12 (220 points) + PK1 (300 points) I choose the latter every time. Of course, if your point was that kickers are notoriously hard to predict, I agree. But that didn't seem like your point.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: We're assuming that current projections are accurate. More inconsistent positions still have relatively little value even if they score an absurd amount of points.
Click to expand...
this assumption is also taking into consideration a 2 team league where only 1 QB and 1 PK is taken.what value is that?

vbd works great in these hypotheticals. it completely breaks down in a multi round multi team draft even assuming projections are accurate...which is a HUGE leap of faith, and comepletely ignores the biggest factor of drafting value...drafting players who are undervalud by the masses and passing on players overvalued by the masses.

 
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
No. If all QBs get a similar boost up, the value # won't significantly change.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I disagreed with this comment. I just plugged in WCOFF scoring given the current FBG projections using both 4 and 6 points for TDs. Manning moves from 49th overall to 39th. I don't think all QBs get a similar boost. Those projected to score a lot more TDs than others get an absolute boost over other QBs and a relative boost over all positions. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I was being very general. You are right that some get more of a boost than others (like Manning as Chase also mentioned above). However most don't get much a variational boost so it doesn't matter.Perhaps I was being too subtle saying if all QBs get a similar boost up (inferring that more or less they do, albeit with some exceptions).

:ph34r:
Click to expand...
that was what I was saying. It matters in the VBD, not within the position. And, it really does matter. If you disagree, plug it in.
Click to expand...
no it doesn't.i don't use vbd anymore but if all point differentials rise (more or less) equally, it dosn't matter.

if you scored field goals 10 points each would that matter?
Click to expand...
Yes. The top field goal kicker would be worth more than the 12th field goal kicker by substantially more points than the top QB would be worth more than the 12th QB. If I had to choose between QB1 (300 points) + PK12 (200 points) and QB12 (220 points) + PK1 (300 points) I choose the latter every time. Of course, if your point was that kickers are notoriously hard to predict, I agree. But that didn't seem like your point.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: We're assuming that current projections are accurate. More inconsistent positions still have relatively little value even if they score an absurd amount of points.
Click to expand...
Quite right. But kickers aren't all that hard to predict. Here's some stuff on that from five years ago, but I don't think the conclusions would be all that much different today. (Well, the article was written five years ago; the data is from six to eight years ago.) Kickers are slightly harder to predict than WRs and TEs, but easier to predict than QBs or DEFs. The reason they're not worth nearly as much as QBs isn't that they're hard to predict, but that their scoring is all bunched up pretty close together.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But, Chase, it does matter across positions when evaluating VBD, right?
Click to expand...
No. If all QBs get a similar boost up, the value # won't significantly change.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I disagreed with this comment. I just plugged in WCOFF scoring given the current FBG projections using both 4 and 6 points for TDs. Manning moves from 49th overall to 39th. I don't think all QBs get a similar boost. Those projected to score a lot more TDs than others get an absolute boost over other QBs and a relative boost over all positions. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I was being very general. You are right that some get more of a boost than others (like Manning as Chase also mentioned above). However most don't get much a variational boost so it doesn't matter.Perhaps I was being too subtle saying if all QBs get a similar boost up (inferring that more or less they do, albeit with some exceptions).

:ph34r:
Click to expand...
that was what I was saying. It matters in the VBD, not within the position. And, it really does matter. If you disagree, plug it in.
Click to expand...
no it doesn't.i don't use vbd anymore but if all point differentials rise (more or less) equally, it dosn't matter.

if you scored field goals 10 points each would that matter?
Click to expand...
Yes. The top field goal kicker would be worth more than the 12th field goal kicker by substantially more points than the top QB would be worth more than the 12th QB. If I had to choose between QB1 (300 points) + PK12 (200 points) and QB12 (220 points) + PK1 (300 points) I choose the latter every time. Of course, if your point was that kickers are notoriously hard to predict, I agree. But that didn't seem like your point.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: We're assuming that current projections are accurate. More inconsistent positions still have relatively little value even if they score an absurd amount of points.
Click to expand...
Quite right. But kickers aren't all that hard to predict. Here's some stuff on that from five years ago, but I don't think the conclusions would be all that much different today. Kickers are slightly harder to predict than WRs and TEs, but easier to predict than QBs or DEFs. The reason they're not worth nearly as much as QBs isn't that they're hard to predict, but that their scoring is all bunched up pretty close together.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine kickers are a lot easier to predict now that Capy's around. ;)
 
I do not understand Bagger and Chase's position.  VBD (as I understand it) = relative value between positions.

Changing how one position is scored does not change the rankings (points) within that position.  But, it does change the rankings (points or VBD) across other positions.

Changing TE scoring to 3 ppr changes the VBD.  Changing the field goals to 10 points changes the VBD.  Changing pass TDs from 4 points to 6 points changes the VBD.
Click to expand...
Hey wannabee,I think we're all saying the same thing. It's vague words like 'it doesn't matter' or 'it makes a big difference' that are causing the problem. What doesn't matter to some is a big difference to others.

The sentence I bolded is incorrect. Mike Vick, for example, moves down a few spots if you value passing TDs more. This makes sense of course.

It also changes interpositional rankings. But it just doesn't change it much. And like I wrote before, the important thing is that the Draft Dominator and VBD App are so customizable. If anyone can nail Eli Manning's projections so closely that those 4.4 FPs of VBD value across positions becomes important, then we need to hire them on staff.

Giving TE's 3 points per reception is much, much more significant than increasing passing TDs across the board by 2 points.
Click to expand...
Didn't you yourself say it was an irrelevant difference in your earlier post. Seems odd that you point one out and not the other. I think we both over-stepped the verbage. It is does matter in a year-to-year basis. We seem to be short-sighted and only look at it through 2006 glasses. I bet (without looking it up) the difference was larger during the years that we had several QBs that had decent running stats, including TDs. I am sure that in the future, this will be true again and the difference between 4 and 6 points for pass TD will be more obvious.
 
I do not understand Bagger and Chase's position. VBD (as I understand it) = relative value between positions.

Changing how one position is scored does not change the rankings (points) within that position. But, it does change the rankings (points or VBD) across other positions.

Changing TE scoring to 3 ppr changes the VBD. Changing the field goals to 10 points changes the VBD. Changing pass TDs from 4 points to 6 points changes the VBD.
Click to expand...
Hey wannabee,I think we're all saying the same thing. It's vague words like 'it doesn't matter' or 'it makes a big difference' that are causing the problem. What doesn't matter to some is a big difference to others.

The sentence I bolded is incorrect. Mike Vick, for example, moves down a few spots if you value passing TDs more. This makes sense of course.

It also changes interpositional rankings. But it just doesn't change it much. And like I wrote before, the important thing is that the Draft Dominator and VBD App are so customizable. If anyone can nail Eli Manning's projections so closely that those 4.4 FPs of VBD value across positions becomes important, then we need to hire them on staff.

Giving TE's 3 points per reception is much, much more significant than increasing passing TDs across the board by 2 points.
Click to expand...
Didn't you yourself say it was an irrelevant difference in your earlier post. Seems odd that you point one out and not the other. I think we both over-stepped the verbage. It is does matter in a year-to-year basis. We seem to be short-sighted and only look at it through 2006 glasses. I bet (without looking it up) the difference was larger during the years that we had several QBs that had decent running stats, including TDs. I am sure that in the future, this will be true again and the difference between 4 and 6 points for pass TD will be more obvious.
Click to expand...
Sure, it matters, and some guys move up and some move down. But it's just not a huge difference.I still don't see why it matters much: do you use the VBD App and/or the Draft Dominator?

 
I do not understand Bagger and Chase's position.  VBD (as I understand it) = relative value between positions.

Changing how one position is scored does not change the rankings (points) within that position.  But, it does change the rankings (points or VBD) across other positions.

Changing TE scoring to 3 ppr changes the VBD.  Changing the field goals to 10 points changes the VBD.  Changing pass TDs from 4 points to 6 points changes the VBD.
Click to expand...
Hey wannabee,I think we're all saying the same thing. It's vague words like 'it doesn't matter' or 'it makes a big difference' that are causing the problem. What doesn't matter to some is a big difference to others.

The sentence I bolded is incorrect. Mike Vick, for example, moves down a few spots if you value passing TDs more. This makes sense of course.

It also changes interpositional rankings. But it just doesn't change it much. And like I wrote before, the important thing is that the Draft Dominator and VBD App are so customizable. If anyone can nail Eli Manning's projections so closely that those 4.4 FPs of VBD value across positions becomes important, then we need to hire them on staff.

Giving TE's 3 points per reception is much, much more significant than increasing passing TDs across the board by 2 points.
Click to expand...
Didn't you yourself say it was an irrelevant difference in your earlier post. Seems odd that you point one out and not the other. I think we both over-stepped the verbage. It is does matter in a year-to-year basis. We seem to be short-sighted and only look at it through 2006 glasses. I bet (without looking it up) the difference was larger during the years that we had several QBs that had decent running stats, including TDs. I am sure that in the future, this will be true again and the difference between 4 and 6 points for pass TD will be more obvious.
Click to expand...
i believe chase was saying that it wasn't a big enough difference to worry about.stop looking at extreme examples of QB#1 vs QB #12 and look at the difference between #7 and #8, or a dropoff of 2 or 3 QBs which would be likely between your current pick and your next pick. the change in scoring over the course of a season is ridiculously minimal on a PPG basis.

when i say it doesn't matter i am not saying there is 0.00000000 difference. i am saying that in the real world for all intents and purposes it doesn't matter.

 
I do not understand Bagger and Chase's position.  VBD (as I understand it) = relative value between positions.

Changing how one position is scored does not change the rankings (points) within that position.  But, it does change the rankings (points or VBD) across other positions.

Changing TE scoring to 3 ppr changes the VBD.  Changing the field goals to 10 points changes the VBD.  Changing pass TDs from 4 points to 6 points changes the VBD.
Click to expand...
Hey wannabee,I think we're all saying the same thing. It's vague words like 'it doesn't matter' or 'it makes a big difference' that are causing the problem. What doesn't matter to some is a big difference to others.

The sentence I bolded is incorrect. Mike Vick, for example, moves down a few spots if you value passing TDs more. This makes sense of course.

It also changes interpositional rankings. But it just doesn't change it much. And like I wrote before, the important thing is that the Draft Dominator and VBD App are so customizable. If anyone can nail Eli Manning's projections so closely that those 4.4 FPs of VBD value across positions becomes important, then we need to hire them on staff.

Giving TE's 3 points per reception is much, much more significant than increasing passing TDs across the board by 2 points.
Click to expand...
Didn't you yourself say it was an irrelevant difference in your earlier post. Seems odd that you point one out and not the other. I think we both over-stepped the verbage. It is does matter in a year-to-year basis. We seem to be short-sighted and only look at it through 2006 glasses. I bet (without looking it up) the difference was larger during the years that we had several QBs that had decent running stats, including TDs. I am sure that in the future, this will be true again and the difference between 4 and 6 points for pass TD will be more obvious.
Click to expand...
i believe chase was saying that it wasn't a big enough difference to worry about.stop looking at extreme examples of QB#1 vs QB #12 and look at the difference between #7 and #8, or a dropoff of 2 or 3 QBs which would be likely between your current pick and your next pick. the change in scoring over the course of a season is ridiculously minimal on a PPG basis.

when i say it doesn't matter i am not saying there is 0.00000000 difference. i am saying that in the real world for all intents and purposes it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
I was not the one that brought up QB1 vs QB12. I do not look at things like that. It just seemed ironic that he said it when correcting me (rightly so) that it does change the rankings, but then goes on to say that the differences are irrelevant. The difference for me, and how it affects the VBD, is what it does to rounds 4-8 in a draft. These are the rounds most people get a QB so they are looking at what other players (at different positions) could be had instead. I am a wait on QB guy, so I never look for the difference between QB1 and QB12. I am always at the tail end of things so the slight differences help me know if I can wait one more round because with 4 points pass TD, Vick is now equal (for example purpose only) to Bledsoe.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was not the one that brought up QB1 vs QB12. I do not look at things like that. It just seemed ironic that he said it when correcting me (rightly so) that it does change the rankings, but then goes on to say that the differences are irrelevant.

The difference for me, and how it affects the VBD, is what it does to rounds 4-8 in a draft. These are the rounds most people get a QB so they are looking at what other players (at different positions) could be had instead. I am a wait on QB guy, so I never look for the difference between QB1 and QB12. I am always at the tail end of things so the slight differences help me know if I can wait one more round because with 4 points pass TD, Vick is not equal (for example purpose only) to Bledsoe.
Click to expand...
fair enough.
 
Pretty cool. What's the other 39.9%? Hard to imagine anything other than the two. Actually, I've been in a couple leagues that are 3. I wonder if there are distance bonuses if this gets thrown into that figure. Very interesting and thanks for inquiring Greg.
Click to expand...
This would be my thought. The number represents All passing TDs 4 points, ALL Passing TDs 6 points, and any deviation from ALL is lumped into the ~ 40%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Shark Pool Home League #4 (FBG Home Leagues)
2 3
Replies
149
Views
2K
OldMilwaukee
OldMilwaukee
F
Shark Pool Home League #3 (FBG Home Leagues)
3 4 5
Replies
206
Views
5K
NumberOneFan
N
Scoresman
2025 Shark Pool Rankings Contest - Taking Submissions - Consensus Rankings are here! Sort of...
Replies
12
Views
1K
Scoresman
Scoresman

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top