What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

PPR - Are We Over Correcting in the Modern NFL? (2015 update post #92) (1 Viewer)

FreeBaGeL

FreeBaGeL

Footballguy
PPR has become, by far, the dominant scoring format in fantasy football. However, with arguably an increase in RBBC and inarguably a massive increase in the amount of passing around the league, I'm wondering if the format isn't overcorrecting for a problem that no longer exists, tilting the balance of power almost as strongly towards WRs as it used to be towards RBs. It used to be that a QB could throw for 3200/18 and be considered a strong fantasy asset. Now a guy can throw for 4300/26 and he's considered a disappointment. There are a lot more receptions and receiving yards to go around. This is compounded in dynasty leagues where WRs/TEs have the additional advantage of significantly longer careers.

FBGs consensus dynasty rankings have 6 of the top 10 players as WRs, 8 of the top 10 as either WRs or TEs. Only 2 RBs find themselves in the top 15, and more than half of the top 20 are WRs.

Chad Parsons dynasty rankings have WRs as 14 of the top 18 players, with only 1 RB in the top 15. The top 6 are all WRs. That sounds eerily similar (though not quite as bad) to the way things used to be at the top of drafts with RB after RB coming off the board.

I think that the value disparity becomes even more apparent once you get into existing leagues. The top handful of WRs are almost untouchable. From monitoring the trade thread, it seems that moving from the #1 RB (McCoy) to the #5 WR still requires adding quite a bit to the deal even though McCoy is the best combination of youth and production there has been at the #1 RB spot in quite a while.

What's the solution? I'm not sure. But I think, especially in dynasty leagues, the combination of the league's significantly increased passing numbers, significantly longer careers, and a point per reception have created an inbalance towards WRs somewhat similar to the one we used to see towards RBs. We can't do anything about the league's increased passing numbers or the longer careers of WRs, but scoring system is something we've always had control over. Maybe it's time to start tweaking it again, especially in dynasty leagues. Maybe 0.5ppr is enough or maybe even less.

Thoughts?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In my 1PPR / 0.1PPY / 6pt TD league (fairly standard):

​

Top 10 Scorers by Position

2013:
RB: 5 (including the top 4)

WR: 4

TE: 1

2012:
RB: 6 (including the top 3)

WR: 4

TE:

:shrug:

 
[icon] said:
In my 1PPR / 0.1PPY / 6pt TD league (fairly standard):

​

Top 10 Scorers by Position

2013:

RB: 5 (including the top 4)

WR: 4

TE: 1

2012:

RB: 6 (including the top 3)

WR: 4

TE:

:shrug:
Click to expand...
I noticed you left QBs out, which I think make it pretty clear that there is a lot more to positional value than just points scored.

Care to comment on the value of those players? How many of those 5 RBs could you move in a trade for any of those 4 WRs?

With most leagues starting more WRs than RBs and with WRs having double the length in careers, you don't think that makes them significantly more valuable than those RBs if the scoring system has them scoring equally? You don't see a problem with 14 of the top 18 players being from the same position in a respected staff member's rankings? That's exactly the kind of thing that led to the creation of PPR in the first place, back when it was on the other side.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL said:
[icon] said:
In my 1PPR / 0.1PPY / 6pt TD league (fairly standard):

​

Top 10 Scorers by Position

2013:

RB: 5 (including the top 4)

WR: 4

TE: 1

2012:

RB: 6 (including the top 3)

WR: 4

TE:

:shrug:
Click to expand...
I noticed you left QBs out, which I think make it pretty clear that there is a lot more to positional value than just points scored.

Care to comment on the value of those players? How many of those 5 RBs could you move in a trade for any of those 4 WRs?

With most leagues starting more WRs than RBs and with WRs having double the length in careers, you don't think that makes them significantly more valuable than those RBs if the scoring system has them scoring equally? You don't see a problem with 14 of the top 18 players being from the same position in a respected staff member's rankings? That's exactly the kind of thing that led to the creation of PPR in the first place, back when it was on the other side.
Click to expand...
This is the argument I use whenever the discussion to change to PPR comes up in my leagues. PPR was implemented to mitigate the overwhelming advantage RBs had where 11 of the first 12 picks were RBs. It was a way to increase the value of WRs. Now the league (NFL) has swung the other way.

PPR is outdated imo.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you taking Calvin or Charles/McCoy at #1 in PPR? Some will take Calvin but the vast majority are taking Charles/McCoy. Therefore, no, the system isn't over-correcting. It's properly correcting.

And just because Chad Parsons only takes 1 RB in the top 15 of dynasty doesn't mean it's correct. I'd call it foolish.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL said:
[icon] said:
In my 1PPR / 0.1PPY / 6pt TD league (fairly standard):

​

Top 10 Scorers by Position

2013:

RB: 5 (including the top 4)

WR: 4

TE: 1

2012:

RB: 6 (including the top 3)

WR: 4

TE:

:shrug:
Click to expand...
You don't see a problem with 14 of the top 18 players being from the same position in a respected staff member's rankings? That's exactly the kind of thing that led to the creation of PPR in the first place, back when it was on the other side.
Click to expand...
I notice you're cherry-picking one single staffer's rankings as if it's gospel. Maybe take a look at the others?

 
I've never been a PPR supporter. It isn't intuitive that a reception has value in and of itself. A reception for 0 yards should not be worth any points, yet it is in PPR. Nor should a 5 yard run be worth 0.5 points and a 5 yard reception worth 1.5 points, yet that is typically the case in PPR.

It would be better if league sites had more depth in statistics so we could track other metrics, like first downs. A first down has value in and of itself and could be worth bonus points. That would probably result in a slight boost for receivers over RBs, assuming more first downs are achieved via passing than running.

But I don't think most sites have that capability. In the meantime, I agree with the OP that PPR is overkill, which is why I prefer non-PPR.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just Win Baby said:
I've never been a PPR supporter. It isn't intuitive that a reception has value in and of itself. A reception for 0 yards should not be worth any points, yet it is in PPR.
Click to expand...
Since your players are all on different teams and not playing directly against your opponent's players, fantasy football in general isn't really all that intuitive. Perhaps you should draft all of your players from the same offense and only play against defensive fantasy players in that NFL matchup?

That would be much more intuitive. And boring.

 
Its another stat to base your scoring on and that's fine. I play in PPR leagues as well. But the reason it was introduced is no longer valid. WRs/TEs/QBs have caught up to the value of the RB by virtue of today's NFL being so pass-oriented and the diminishing value it places on the RB.

 
Warrior said:
Just Win Baby said:
I've never been a PPR supporter. It isn't intuitive that a reception has value in and of itself. A reception for 0 yards should not be worth any points, yet it is in PPR.
Click to expand...
Since your players are all on different teams and not playing directly against your opponent's players, fantasy football in general isn't really all that intuitive. Perhaps you should draft all of your players from the same offense and only play against defensive fantasy players in that NFL matchup?

That would be much more intuitive. And boring.
Click to expand...
I didn't say all aspects of fantasy football are or should be intuitive. The scoring in leagues I play in typically have some correlation to real world value. We get points for yards gained, TDs, FGs, XPs, defensive sacks, fumble recoveries, interceptions, and safeties, and, in some cases, good performance in yards allowed and/or points allowed. Literally the only aspect of scoring that has no correlation with real world value is giving points for receptions.

Bottom line, this is an artificial scoring change that was made for a specific reason that no longer exists, as stated in the OP.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL said:
[icon] said:
In my 1PPR / 0.1PPY / 6pt TD league (fairly standard):

​

Top 10 Scorers by Position

2013:

RB: 5 (including the top 4)

WR: 4

TE: 1

2012:

RB: 6 (including the top 3)

WR: 4

TE:

:shrug:
Click to expand...
I noticed you left QBs out, which I think make it pretty clear that there is a lot more to positional value than just points scored.

Care to comment on the value of those players? How many of those 5 RBs could you move in a trade for any of those 4 WRs?

With most leagues starting more WRs than RBs and with WRs having double the length in careers, you don't think that makes them significantly more valuable than those RBs if the scoring system has them scoring equally? You don't see a problem with 14 of the top 18 players being from the same position in a respected staff member's rankings? That's exactly the kind of thing that led to the creation of PPR in the first place, back when it was on the other side.
Click to expand...
I left it out because QB's are not directly affected by PPR, and scoring systems for QB's vary dramatically (50 vs 25yds per point, 4 vs 6 points per TD, 1 vs 2 Points per INT, etc). If you must know, In this system the vast majority of the top scoring players were QB's still (25yds/pt/6ptTD/-2ptINT), which is another reason why I removed them.

IMO If you're talking about using PPR or not... you discuss how it impacts the value of players who are affected by it (RB/WR/TE). Your post implied that PPR makes it so WR's are overpowered compared to RB's and that simply isn't true. I think your reliance on one obscure staffer's dynasty rankings as gospel has a lot to do with this perception.

If you're concerned about the impact of PPR, then look into hyrbid systems like 1PPR for RB/TE and 0.5PPR for WR, or adjust your starting requirements. However I feel that's unjustified as you've not shown any hard data reflecting PPR dramatically actually overpowering WRs in recent scoring.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amused to Death said:
This is the argument I use whenever the discussion to change to PPR comes up in my leagues. PPR was implemented to mitigate the overwhelming advantage RBs had where 11 of the first 12 picks were RBs. It was a way to increase the value of WRs. Now the league (NFL) has swung the other way.

PPR is outdated imo.
Click to expand...
Until leagues start drafting WRs with 11 of the first 12 picks, I think PPR is doing it's job perfectly, and corrected the problems from years past. My league still drafts only 3 or 4 WRs in the first round each year.

PPR, in some form, whether it be 0.5 PPR or PPFDR, will always be relevent IMO.

 
TheCommish said:
Amused to Death said:
This is the argument I use whenever the discussion to change to PPR comes up in my leagues. PPR was implemented to mitigate the overwhelming advantage RBs had where 11 of the first 12 picks were RBs. It was a way to increase the value of WRs. Now the league (NFL) has swung the other way.

PPR is outdated imo.
Click to expand...
Until leagues start drafting WRs with 11 of the first 12 picks, I think PPR is doing it's job perfectly, and corrected the problems from years past. My league still drafts only 3 or 4 WRs in the first round each year.

PPR, in some form, whether it be 0.5 PPR or PPFDR, will always be relevent IMO.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY. I've never seen a draft where WR outpaced RB in the first round. Possibly the second round, but that's only after a 80-90% RB first round.

 
[icon] said:
TheCommish said:
Amused to Death said:
This is the argument I use whenever the discussion to change to PPR comes up in my leagues. PPR was implemented to mitigate the overwhelming advantage RBs had where 11 of the first 12 picks were RBs. It was a way to increase the value of WRs. Now the league (NFL) has swung the other way.

PPR is outdated imo.
Click to expand...
Until leagues start drafting WRs with 11 of the first 12 picks, I think PPR is doing it's job perfectly, and corrected the problems from years past. My league still drafts only 3 or 4 WRs in the first round each year.

PPR, in some form, whether it be 0.5 PPR or PPFDR, will always be relevent IMO.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY. I've never seen a draft where WR outpaced RB in the first round. Possibly the second round, but that's only after a 80-90% RB first round.
Click to expand...
Your league is drafting 10 or 11 RBs in the 1st round in PPR? The current FBGs PPR redraft rankings has 5 in the top 12, and a total of 12 RBs in the top 24.

ETA: comparing the standard to PPR redraft, both have 4 RBs in the top 5 with 1 WR. PPR from 6-12 though goes TE,WR,WR,WR,WR,WR,RB

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amused to Death said:
Your league is drafting 10 or 11 RBs in the 1st round in PPR? The current FBGs PPR redraft rankings has 5 in the top 12, and a total of 12 RBs in the top 24.
Click to expand...
2013 (12T PPR)

7 RB

3 WR

2QB

2012 (12T PPR)

6RB

3WR

1TE

2QB

The bottom line is:

1) The outcome in total points isn't leading to WR's being overpowered

2) The outcome in drafts isn't leading to WR's being gobbled up excessively.

If you TRULY believe that PPR increases the value of WR's to such a level that it reflects what the OP is talking about... It seems a good approach should be raking in the cash in FF by way of a WR WR RB drafting approach?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just Win Baby said:
I've never been a PPR supporter. It isn't intuitive that a reception has value in and of itself. A reception for 0 yards should not be worth any points, yet it is in PPR. Nor should a 5 yard run be worth 0.5 points and a 5 yard reception worth 1.5 points, yet that is typically the case in PPR.

It would be better if league sites had more depth in statistics so we could track other metrics, like first downs. A first down has value in and of itself and could be worth bonus points. That would probably result in a slight boost for receivers over RBs, assuming more first downs are achieved via passing than running.

But I don't think most sites have that capability. In the meantime, I agree with the OP that PPR is overkill, which is why I prefer non-PPR.
Click to expand...
I have also never liked PPR from an underlying theory standpoint, but I have no problem with it from a positional balance standpoint... in redraft. Of course, I have other preferred methods of achieving the same balance (points per first down in leagues that can handle it, or differentiated positional yardage scoring in leagues that can't).

With that said, I think a scoring system that is designed to balance the positions in redraft is self-evidently wholly inappropriate for dynasty, which already has positonally-varying career lengths providing a series of checks and balances. In dynasty, you don't WANT WRs to be worth as much as RBs from year to year, because WR careers last 50% longer and therefore WRs become 50% more valuable overall. Totally skews the positional balance. That's what Parsons is picking up on in his dynasty rankings, and while I think his is taken more to an extreme, it's the same reason why 7 of my top 8 dynasty players right now are pass catchers.

Of course, positional trends right now, especially in dynasty, are also dramatically impacted by the absolute dearth of young RB talent that has entered the league in the last five years. I would say the natural equilibrium of PPR dynasty leagues wouldn't be quite so WR-heavy, but that's what happens when recent drafts give you Dez, Demaryius, Harvin, Julio, Graham, Gronk, Green, Jeffery, Gordon, and the like, while arguably the only RB of comparable quality drafted since 2009 is LeSean McCoy.

 
[icon] said:
FreeBaGeL said:
[icon] said:
In my 1PPR / 0.1PPY / 6pt TD league (fairly standard):

​

Top 10 Scorers by Position

2013:

RB: 5 (including the top 4)

WR: 4

TE: 1

2012:

RB: 6 (including the top 3)

WR: 4

TE:

:shrug:
Click to expand...
I noticed you left QBs out, which I think make it pretty clear that there is a lot more to positional value than just points scored.

Care to comment on the value of those players? How many of those 5 RBs could you move in a trade for any of those 4 WRs?

With most leagues starting more WRs than RBs and with WRs having double the length in careers, you don't think that makes them significantly more valuable than those RBs if the scoring system has them scoring equally? You don't see a problem with 14 of the top 18 players being from the same position in a respected staff member's rankings? That's exactly the kind of thing that led to the creation of PPR in the first place, back when it was on the other side.
Click to expand...
I left it out because QB's are not directly affected by PPR, and scoring systems for QB's vary dramatically (50 vs 25yds per point, 4 vs 6 points per TD, 1 vs 2 Points per INT, etc). If you must know, In this system the vast majority of the top scoring players were QB's still (25yds/pt/6ptTD/-2ptINT), which is another reason why I removed them.

IMO If you're talking about using PPR or not... you discuss how it impacts the value of players who are affected by it (RB/WR/TE). Your post implied that PPR makes it so WR's are overpowered compared to RB's and that simply isn't true. I think your reliance on one obscure staffer's dynasty rankings as gospel has a lot to do with this perception.

If you're concerned about the impact of PPR, then look into hyrbid systems like 1PPR for RB/TE and 0.5PPR for WR, or adjust your starting requirements. However I feel that's unjustified as you've not shown any hard data reflecting PPR dramatically actually overpowering WRs in recent scoring.
Click to expand...
My point in bringing up QBs was to illustrate that using "fantasy points scored" as a baseline is irrelevant. I never made the claim that WRs were scoring more points than RBs, which they don't have to do to be overvalued compared to RBs. If they're scoring nearly equal, than they're worth a lot more due to the other advantages they have, which I think is bared out in the associated values of players. As I mentioned, I'm mostly talking about dynasty here where their increased career length adds huge value on top of their nearly equal scoring.

Parson's rankings are on the far end, sure, but they're not alone. FBG consensus currently has the following in their top 10:

6 WRs

2 RBs

1 TE

1 QB

One of these things is not like the other.

The #5 WR in FBG consensus dynasty is the #6 player overall. The #5 RB is the #19 player overall. And again, I think this shift becomes even stronger in looking at player value in established leagues where people don't still have that little voice in the back of their head from 10 years ago telling them they need to draft a RB early. You can't currently trade the #1 RB for the #5 WR. The gap grows every year as we move further and further away from the time where people thought they had to draft RBs.

I think Amused to Death hit the nail on the head here. PPR was created to balance the positional value of WRs. Then the NFL corrected itself on that front, and PPR still sits in place, essentially doubling up on it. It's like a short kid wearing 4 inch heels to get to average height, and then keeping the 4 inch heels on when he grows 3 inches. Your suggestion for fixing it is akin to them cutting his hair shorter to get him down an inch, instead of just removing or reducing the artificially placed booster that is no longer needed (heels/PPR) to the same extent.

 
Bazinga! said:
I would imagine someone has tried this before but I haven't seen it.

I am working on a scoring system that has points per yard just like a normal scoring system, although the ratio's will be different. It then subtracts for carries and targets. This ends up rewarding efficiency more, which is more realistic imo. A player still needs lots of carries or targets, so it isn't just ypc or ypt, but I neutralizes the average rb/wr that is just average but gets a ton of carries/targets.

I am still tweaking the numbers, but the early indication is it creates a bigger ppg spread for studs vs good vs average. I am adjusting the scoring to do what ppr was supposed to do in making the scoring between rb and wr a little more even. I will post the results when I am done.
Click to expand...
I've got an article in the works that attempts to create a scoring system with similar goals, though I do not penalize for targets and carries because I believe targets and carries are an indicator of player quality.

 
Adam Harstad said:
In dynasty, you don't WANT WRs to be worth as much as RBs from year to year, because WR careers last 50% longer and therefore WRs become 50% more valuable overall. Totally skews the positional balance. That's what Parsons is picking up on in his dynasty rankings, and while I think his is taken more to an extreme, it's the same reason why 7 of my top 8 dynasty players right now are pass catchers.
Click to expand...
Now this I'm buying... :thumbup:

In dynasty I can see this as a valid argument... but in ReDraft it's simply not the case.

Had the OP made the distinction I think he might get a little more support to his position.

 
Adam Harstad said:
Of course, positional trends right now, especially in dynasty, are also dramatically impacted by the absolute dearth of young RB talent that has entered the league in the last five years. I would say the natural equilibrium of PPR dynasty leagues wouldn't be quite so WR-heavy, but that's what happens when recent drafts give you Dez, Demaryius, Harvin, Julio, Graham, Gronk, Green, Jeffery, Gordon, and the like, while arguably the only RB of comparable quality drafted since 2009 is LeSean McCoy.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think some of the names on this list attest to the positional bias the scoring system has created. How different is Harvin than guys like CJ Spiller or Ryan Mathews? First round talents that have been great in spurts but have struggled with injuries.

How different is Alshon Jeffery than a guy like Lacy? 2nd round talents that have exploded with a single big individual season in their early 20's.

Yet in each case, the WR is rated significantly higher in FBG consensus dynasty rankings.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
....

This is compounded in dynasty leagues where WRs/TEs have the additional advantage of significantly longer careers.

....
Click to expand...
You have four or more different factors conspiring to make WRs/TEs have additional value. PPR is just one contributing factor. The number of teams in your league, depth of roster, positional starting requirements and flex positions also contribute to the change in draft strategy.

I used to be a person that stuck to non-PPR because it mirrored on field production but I finally gave up on that idea. It is called fantasy football for a reason. Just roll with it.

 
icon said:
Now this I'm buying... :thumbup:

In dynasty I can see this as a valid argument... but in ReDraft it's simply not the case.

Had the OP made the distinction I think he might get a little more support to his position.
Click to expand...
:kicksrock:

FreeBaGeL said:
This is compounded in dynasty leagues where WRs/TEs have the additional advantage of significantly longer careers
Click to expand...
FreeBaGeL said:
FBGs consensus dynasty rankings
Click to expand...
FreeBaGeL said:
Chad Parsons dynasty rankings
Click to expand...
FreeBaGeL said:
I think, especially in dynasty leagues
Click to expand...
FreeBaGeL said:
Maybe it's time to start tweaking it again, especially in dynasty leagues
Click to expand...
FreeBaGeL said:
As I mentioned, I'm mostly talking about dynasty here
Click to expand...
FreeBaGeL said:
The #5 WR in FBG consensus dynasty
Click to expand...
FreeBaGeL said:
Yet in each case, the WR is rated significantly higher in FBG consensus dynasty rankings.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bazinga! said:
Adam Harstad said:
Bazinga! said:
I would imagine someone has tried this before but I haven't seen it.

I am working on a scoring system that has points per yard just like a normal scoring system, although the ratio's will be different. It then subtracts for carries and targets. This ends up rewarding efficiency more, which is more realistic imo. A player still needs lots of carries or targets, so it isn't just ypc or ypt, but I neutralizes the average rb/wr that is just average but gets a ton of carries/targets.

I am still tweaking the numbers, but the early indication is it creates a bigger ppg spread for studs vs good vs average. I am adjusting the scoring to do what ppr was supposed to do in making the scoring between rb and wr a little more even. I will post the results when I am done.
Click to expand...
I've got an article in the works that attempts to create a scoring system with similar goals, though I do not penalize for targets and carries because I believe targets and carries are an indicator of player quality.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree completely, but that will not be the case consistently. Additionally if the player is picking up yards due to the carry, they should still be producing positive points provided they actually gain yards, so I don't see subtracting points for carries as a penalty.
Click to expand...
It won't be the case always, but it will be the case pretty consistently. To illustrate... pick a random year, and create a top-10 list using WR targets, DYAR, or WR fantasy points (the so-called "volume stats"). Then create another top-10 list using Yards per Target, DVOA, or Points per Opportunity (the so-called "efficiency stats"). I can pretty much guarantee you that no matter what year you choose to use, which volume stat you choose to list by, and which efficiency stat you choose to list by, the first list will look MARKEDLY more impressive than the second. Volume stats are not foolproof, but they're going to be as close as you can get with a single statistic.

 
[icon] said:
If you TRULY believe that PPR increases the value of WR's to such a level that it reflects what the OP is talking about... It seems a good approach should be raking in the cash in FF by way of a WR WR RB drafting approach?
Click to expand...
Funny because a few of us in my dynasty league had a discussion about the team make up of recent champs. The McCoy/Charles/Peterson owners have been losing to the Brees, Manning, Graham, Calvin, AJ owners. Our league has been won by stud QB/TE/WRs over the top RBs in recent years. Teams overpaying for RBs have been losing. Non-PPR.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
Adam Harstad said:
Of course, positional trends right now, especially in dynasty, are also dramatically impacted by the absolute dearth of young RB talent that has entered the league in the last five years. I would say the natural equilibrium of PPR dynasty leagues wouldn't be quite so WR-heavy, but that's what happens when recent drafts give you Dez, Demaryius, Harvin, Julio, Graham, Gronk, Green, Jeffery, Gordon, and the like, while arguably the only RB of comparable quality drafted since 2009 is LeSean McCoy.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think some of the names on this list attest to the positional bias the scoring system has created. How different is Harvin than guys like CJ Spiller or Ryan Mathews? First round talents that have been great in spurts but have struggled with injuries.

How different is Alshon Jeffery than a guy like Lacy? 2nd round talents that have exploded with a single big individual season in their early 20's.

Yet in each case, the WR is rated significantly higher in FBG consensus dynasty rankings.
Click to expand...
Remember that you're talking to an ardent Harvin supporter, so my answer is of course going to be "radically different". Harvin was a much better player than Spiller or Mathews when healthy (he garnered legitimate MVP buzz in 2012), and he performed over a much larger timeline (Harvin has as many top-24 positional finishes as Spiller and Mathews combined, despite top-24 finishes being harder to come by at WR than RB).

I'm more sympathetic to the idea that Alshon and Lacy are broadly similar players, and debated leaving Jeffery off my list or adding Lacy on. Of course, since I have Eddie Lacy at 14th overall and Alshon Jeffery at 15th overall in my most recent dynasty rankings, this isn't really a great data point for the idea that WRs are overly valuable when compared to RBs of comparable quality...

 
I am not going to analyze too much here other than to say that ppr is more fun. It is way more exiting going into a Monday night game knowing that even a 20 or 30 point swing can be had by a good ppr performance of one player.

Sorry fellas, but you are arguing over nothing. I get that there are a small amount of purists out there who feel a sacred vow to try and match up fantasy football with real life football, but that ship sailed around 10 years ago. Most people who play ppr love it, because it is simply more exciting to play.

 
meatwad1 said:
I am not going to analyze too much here other than to say that ppr is more fun. It is way more exiting going into a Monday night game knowing that even a 20 or 30 point swing can be had by a good ppr performance of one player.

Sorry fellas, but you are arguing over nothing. I get that there are a small amount of purists out there who feel a sacred vow to try and match up fantasy football with real life football, but that ship sailed around 10 years ago. Most people who play ppr love it, because it is simply more exciting to play.
Click to expand...
Not really relevant to the original point I was trying to make, but I actually feel the opposite.

I actually find PPR leagues less fun because they put more emphasis on WRs, who get far fewer touches than most of the other players on your team. I've owned Calvin Johnson in a dynasty league for 5 years with NFL Sunday Ticket and I rarely watch the Lions to see him. That's the most exciting WR in the game we're talking about, but he just doesn't touch the ball enough. And even when he does, he's typically off the screen for most of the play.

I much prefer watching the RBs/QBs I have play on Sunday because they're touching the ball regularly, and it makes it that much more fun investing heavily in a guy via a trade when he's a guy you get to see have the ball a lot. You can flip to their game for a few minutes and be pretty sure that you're going to see them get you some fantasy points.

Regardless, that part of it is going to come down to personal preference and is mostly outside the bounds of the discussion I was trying to provoke.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just Win Baby said:
Warrior said:
Just Win Baby said:
I've never been a PPR supporter. It isn't intuitive that a reception has value in and of itself. A reception for 0 yards should not be worth any points, yet it is in PPR.
Click to expand...
Since your players are all on different teams and not playing directly against your opponent's players, fantasy football in general isn't really all that intuitive. Perhaps you should draft all of your players from the same offense and only play against defensive fantasy players in that NFL matchup?

That would be much more intuitive. And boring.
Click to expand...
I didn't say all aspects of fantasy football are or should be intuitive. The scoring in leagues I play in typically have some correlation to real world value. We get points for yards gained, TDs, FGs, XPs, defensive sacks, fumble recoveries, interceptions, and safeties, and, in some cases, good performance in yards allowed and/or points allowed. Literally the only aspect of scoring that has no correlation with real world value is giving points for receptions.

Bottom line, this is an artificial scoring change that was made for a specific reason that no longer exists, as stated in the OP.
Click to expand...
I don’t buy that there is no real world value in catching a pass.

Unlike a handoff just because a pass is thrown to a receiver doesn’t mean he is going to catch it.

What’s that old saying about passes? Something like there are 3 things that can happen on a pass play and 2 of them are bad.

A caught pass means that it wasn’t intercepted – I consider this a real world value

A caught pass means that the clock is still running – this could be either good or bad depending on the situation

 
In some respects, with the advent of RBBC throughout most of the league, I think you almost *need* PPR to keep RBs not named Peterson, Charles, McCoy, Forte - and a relatively limited handful of others - relevant when it comes to position equity.

 
There was a very good reader contributed article a number of years ago talking about equalizing scoring across positions. It graphically represented a number of years of data for scoring for each position with a VBD approach and then compared the positions. Ultimately it concluded (going off memory) that PPR didn't affect things much between RB vs WR. It mainly amplified and increased the value of elite pass catching players vs others. So for example Andre Johnson who caught over 100 passes every year (but never broke double digit TD's) was worth boatloads. Dual threat, 3 down pass catching RB's were worth boatloads (see McCoy & Jamaal now.)

To really equalize the positions you had to change the number of starters (ie change the baseline.) Lots of leagues have done this dropping RB down to one required, or upping to something like 3 WR plus flex spots (1-2-3-1 plus flexes seems extremely popular.)

So I think you are seeing the results of all these factors plus the increased passing stats plus some disappointing RB classes amplifying the value of WR's. PPR has made elite WR's untouchable (and in 1.5 or 2PPR leagues for TE's Graham & Gronk are priceless.) Increased WR spots and flex starters has made WR's worth a lot more compared to RB's (and especially QB's since many leagues are reluctant to go to superflex or 2QB.)

How to correct for this the other way, idk. Maybe go back to 1-2-2-1 with 1 flex. Maybe a graduated PPR system with fewer starters. I'd love to see that article updated with more recent years stats to see how things look now.

 
meatwad1 said:
I am not going to analyze too much here other than to say that ppr is more fun. It is way more exiting going into a Monday night game knowing that even a 20 or 30 point swing can be had by a good ppr performance of one player.

Sorry fellas, but you are arguing over nothing. I get that there are a small amount of purists out there who feel a sacred vow to try and match up fantasy football with real life football, but that ship sailed around 10 years ago. Most people who play ppr love it, because it is simply more exciting to play.
Click to expand...
That pendulum swings both ways. Higher scores from PPR means that you can make up larger gaps at once during the Monday night game... but it simultaneously means that you'll be facing larger gaps, on average, heading into the Monday night game. It is not at all apparent to me that Monday night comebacks should be any more common in PPR than they are in PPR.

 
Donnybrook said:
FreeBaGeL said:
....

This is compounded in dynasty leagues where WRs/TEs have the additional advantage of significantly longer careers.

....
Click to expand...
You have four or more different factors conspiring to make WRs/TEs have additional value. PPR is just one contributing factor. The number of teams in your league, depth of roster, positional starting requirements and flex positions also contribute to the change in draft strategy.

I used to be a person that stuck to non-PPR because it mirrored on field production but I finally gave up on that idea. It is called fantasy football for a reason. Just roll with it.
Click to expand...
I can't roll with it. For me it's an irrational pet peeve that just drives me nuts. The way I feel when a 1 yard reception is awarded the same as an 11 yard run is how most people feel when they hear someone misuse the term "literally" or say "I could care less".

Maybe if I played in 30 leagues where I couldn't possible keep track anyway it wouldn't bother me as much. But in only 2 leagues I'm watching a lot of these guys. My RB rips off an 8 yard gain is cancelled out by my opponent who's caught a swing pass and got tackled 2 yards behind the line of scrimmage. :wall:

 
Amused to Death said:
This is the argument I use whenever the discussion to change to PPR comes up in my leagues. PPR was implemented to mitigate the overwhelming advantage RBs had where 11 of the first 12 picks were RBs. It was a way to increase the value of WRs. Now the league (NFL) has swung the other way.

PPR is outdated imo.
Click to expand...
This is what I've been saying for a few years. As bellcow backs have been phased out, PPR has become less and less necessary to sway this perceived need to balance positional value. Yet, you always hear PPR apologists cry that the game is changing, so fantasy needs to keep up. Say what? There is more passing so we need to emphasize passing stats more? Then you've got the fools who think they've got a better chance at MNF comebacks just because it's easier to score points in PPR. Guess what? You'd need less points to come back if you didn't have this scoring system that inflates the score. Duh. People... sometimes all you can do is shake your head.

PPR has always seemed silly to me, even when there were a dozen RBs getting 300 carries. You didn't HAVE to draft RB-RB to win if you knew where to find a 250 carry back in the middle rounds (think Mike Anderson, Willie Parker 2005 - I did an "upside down draft" with those guys before I even heard that phrase). RB-RB drafting was all perception. Plus, the millenials who play now think more points = more better, so PPR is here to stay. I also think it makes the waiver wire more fertile. If you've got a thin lineup, you can plug in a goal line back OR a third down back into the flex. In 0ppr, that third down back is much less appealing. Next thing you know, they'll want return yards included so even more marginal players can be finagled into a position to score double digit points per week.

 
The reason I like PPR for redraft is that it normalizes the WR position so your WR2s and WR3s aren't a total crapshoot every week. It's an important position in the NFL and I think PPR gives it the right level of value in fantasy.

But it's the wrong way to go for Dynasty leagues. WRs are already valuable enough in that format due to their longevity and consistency year after year. Add PPR to the equation and WRs become way overvalued. Over half of the first round in startup PPR drafts are WRs

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Other ways we've normalized things in one of my money leagues I commish:

12 Team PPR:
Start QB/RB/WR/WR/FLEX/FLEX/TE/PK/DEF

The two flex positions allows folks the freedom to draft the best player they feel is available instead of feeling compelled to jump on runs. In addition it allows additional weekly flexibility with regards to roster composition, so you're not having to dip into the wire quite as often.

There are LOTS of ways to tweak your league...

 
I think that WRs shooting up draft boards has more to do with fantasy players wanting more sure things in their lineup rather than crap shoots. The scoring system almost doesn't matter. Calvin, Thomas, Green, Jones, Dez. These guys are going to get 220-200 points or so every year in standard. Who those RBs getting those numbers varies nearly every year, mostly because of injury.

Getting as many sure things as possible and then picking up fliers later is a stronger backbone to a team than trying to predict the RB who goes early who will stay playing and produce as a workhorse. For instance I like Montee Ball this year. I'm a Wisconsin homer and he plays for Manning. I'll own him 0 times this year. His range of outcomes is too high for a first round pick. Someone gets Jamaal Charles and your counter to beating him is Montee Ball instead of say D.Thomas or Jimmy Graham?

WRs and Graham moving up is really just about how sure people are of their elite production. Last year showed why this SHOULD happen and it's refreshing that people are actually onto this finally.

 
Ironically, in this modern age of football, the most traditional stars work best. No PPR, passing TDs=6.

 
If you want a simple scoring system that may add balance to your scoring: .5 ppr-rb, 1.0rb, 1.5 te. Award 6 pts. for a td pass.

When we did our initial auction in a start up a few years back, the positional balance was fairly even. While there were only 2 or 3 te taken, the remaining 20 or so players were about 6/7/6 when broken down by position.

 
Amused to Death said:
FreeBaGeL said:
[icon] said:
In my 1PPR / 0.1PPY / 6pt TD league (fairly standard):

​

Top 10 Scorers by Position

2013:

RB: 5 (including the top 4)

WR: 4

TE: 1

2012:

RB: 6 (including the top 3)

WR: 4

TE:

:shrug:
Click to expand...
I noticed you left QBs out, which I think make it pretty clear that there is a lot more to positional value than just points scored.

Care to comment on the value of those players? How many of those 5 RBs could you move in a trade for any of those 4 WRs?

With most leagues starting more WRs than RBs and with WRs having double the length in careers, you don't think that makes them significantly more valuable than those RBs if the scoring system has them scoring equally? You don't see a problem with 14 of the top 18 players being from the same position in a respected staff member's rankings? That's exactly the kind of thing that led to the creation of PPR in the first place, back when it was on the other side.
Click to expand...
This is the argument I use whenever the discussion to change to PPR comes up in my leagues. PPR was implemented to mitigate the overwhelming advantage RBs had where 11 of the first 12 picks were RBs. It was a way to increase the value of WRs. Now the league (NFL) has swung the other way.

PPR is outdated imo.
Click to expand...
But that's wrong. RB had value throughout the 90's and 00's because leagues had 2 mandatory starting RB and in some cases 3 of them. Supply and demand forced RB value to be so high. Not PPR or not.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Amused to Death said:
FreeBaGeL said:
[icon] said:
In my 1PPR / 0.1PPY / 6pt TD league (fairly standard):

​

Top 10 Scorers by Position

2013:

RB: 5 (including the top 4)

WR: 4

TE: 1

2012:

RB: 6 (including the top 3)

WR: 4

TE:

:shrug:
Click to expand...
I noticed you left QBs out, which I think make it pretty clear that there is a lot more to positional value than just points scored.

Care to comment on the value of those players? How many of those 5 RBs could you move in a trade for any of those 4 WRs?

With most leagues starting more WRs than RBs and with WRs having double the length in careers, you don't think that makes them significantly more valuable than those RBs if the scoring system has them scoring equally? You don't see a problem with 14 of the top 18 players being from the same position in a respected staff member's rankings? That's exactly the kind of thing that led to the creation of PPR in the first place, back when it was on the other side.
Click to expand...
This is the argument I use whenever the discussion to change to PPR comes up in my leagues. PPR was implemented to mitigate the overwhelming advantage RBs had where 11 of the first 12 picks were RBs. It was a way to increase the value of WRs. Now the league (NFL) has swung the other way.

PPR is outdated imo.
Click to expand...
But that's wrong. RB had value throughout the 90's and 00's because leagues had 2 mandatory starting RB and in some cases 3 of them. Supply and demand forced RB value to be so high. Not PPR or not.
Click to expand...
I find both your statements to be spot on. Oddly enough they work together.

I play in a league that is 25 years old that has an off season owners meeting (75% show up) and discuss the rules every year.

We have spent hours upon hours on the message boards discussing the minutia then reaching a consensus when we get together in July of each year.

Mandatory 2RB, then 1RB and eventually no-RB was the best address of the situation. Not ppr or even .5ppr. But ppr worked for a bit while people were still figuring things out.

Like using an auction, because serpentine to was to weighted in one direction, until the Banzai Method fixed all that.

The league (NFL) has also had adjustments to its stat production which coincide with the noppr and no-RB being a better option.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ack88 said:
If you want a simple scoring system that may add balance to your scoring: .5 ppr-rb, 1.0rb, 1.5 te. Award 6 pts. for a td pass.

When we did our initial auction in a start up a few years back, the positional balance was fairly even. While there were only 2 or 3 te taken, the remaining 20 or so players were about 6/7/6 when broken down by position.
Click to expand...
If you don't like awarding points for receptions, I've been tweaking yardage settings to try to achieve a good balance, and I really like the results that you get from using 1 points per 12 yards passing, 1 point per 8 yards rushing/receiving for QBs, 1 point per 4.5 yards rushing/receiving for RBs, 1 point per 4 yards rushing/receiving for WRs, 1 point per 3 yards rushing/receiving for TEs, and 6 points for all TDs. Achieves a very good positional balance, stops running QBs from having their value skewed quite so much (since rushing is only worth 1.5 times passing, instead of 2-2.5 times), keeps those scores nice and high, and makes weekly performance a bit more predictable (since yards make up a much larger percentage of overall scoring).

 
Adam Harstad said:
Ack88 said:
If you want a simple scoring system that may add balance to your scoring: .5 ppr-rb, 1.0rb, 1.5 te. Award 6 pts. for a td pass.

When we did our initial auction in a start up a few years back, the positional balance was fairly even. While there were only 2 or 3 te taken, the remaining 20 or so players were about 6/7/6 when broken down by position.
Click to expand...
If you don't like awarding points for receptions, I've been tweaking yardage settings to try to achieve a good balance, and I really like the results that you get from using 1 points per 12 yards passing, 1 point per 8 yards rushing/receiving for QBs, 1 point per 4.5 yards rushing/receiving for RBs, 1 point per 4 yards rushing/receiving for WRs, 1 point per 3 yards rushing/receiving for TEs, and 6 points for all TDs. Achieves a very good positional balance, stops running QBs from having their value skewed quite so much (since rushing is only worth 1.5 times passing, instead of 2-2.5 times), keeps those scores nice and high, and makes weekly performance a bit more predictable (since yards make up a much larger percentage of overall scoring).
Click to expand...
I like this.

Oddly enough, in traditional scoring (non-ppr) dynasty leagues the biggest problem/disparity is probably QB rushing yards, not WR value (at least not anymore). Yet the major scoring adjustment in modern scoring is one that boosts WR value (past where it should be) and does nothing about QB rushing yards.

Have you tried those settings out in an actual league yet?

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Amused to Death said:
FreeBaGeL said:
[icon] said:
In my 1PPR / 0.1PPY / 6pt TD league (fairly standard):

​

Top 10 Scorers by Position

2013:

RB: 5 (including the top 4)

WR: 4

TE: 1

2012:

RB: 6 (including the top 3)

WR: 4

TE:

:shrug:
Click to expand...
I noticed you left QBs out, which I think make it pretty clear that there is a lot more to positional value than just points scored.

Care to comment on the value of those players? How many of those 5 RBs could you move in a trade for any of those 4 WRs?

With most leagues starting more WRs than RBs and with WRs having double the length in careers, you don't think that makes them significantly more valuable than those RBs if the scoring system has them scoring equally? You don't see a problem with 14 of the top 18 players being from the same position in a respected staff member's rankings? That's exactly the kind of thing that led to the creation of PPR in the first place, back when it was on the other side.
Click to expand...
This is the argument I use whenever the discussion to change to PPR comes up in my leagues. PPR was implemented to mitigate the overwhelming advantage RBs had where 11 of the first 12 picks were RBs. It was a way to increase the value of WRs. Now the league (NFL) has swung the other way.

PPR is outdated imo.
Click to expand...
But that's wrong. RB had value throughout the 90's and 00's because leagues had 2 mandatory starting RB and in some cases 3 of them. Supply and demand forced RB value to be so high. Not PPR or not.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, the typical roster requirements were 2 RBs and 3 WRs. If you had a flex, people wanted the 3rd RB in their lineup because they were so much more dependable than a WR. RBs got the touches. Who were the WRs going in the 1st round besides Moss? Were there any QBs? And it was crazy to even consider a TE before the 3rd round. Wasn't PPR introduced to even that out? I don't recall any leagues that switched to 0 or 1 RB mandatory. That may have been the correct answer, but 1 RB leagues weren't trending in the '90s.

 
You guys are arguing about the wrong thing.

It is the starting lineup requirements which truly affects a players value.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Scoresman
Non-Playoff teams - What went wrong?
Replies
25
Views
626
Desert_Power
Desert_Power
ignatiusjreilly
What are the best/worst draft slots for 2023?
Replies
3
Views
767
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
Gatorman
Who is the most "tradeable" player in Round 1 (best ROI)
Replies
10
Views
717
da_budman
D

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top