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.

I hope this revolutionizes fantasy football.. (1 Viewer)

Do you think my new scoring is better?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 10.1%

  • No

    Votes: 98 89.9%
  • Total voters
    109
J. Cyrus

J. Cyrus

Footballguy
EDIT: It was brought to my attention that my mission with this wasn't clearly stated by my original post. I'm going to quote another FBG who explains it quite well -- please read this before responding!:

'Greg Russell said:
Something to consider for the future... the thread went downhill from the start mostly because of the opening statement on what the thread was about. It didn't describe accurately the perceived problem that was being addressed, and it also made a statement that most people here would know was false. Most people won't get past that part to actually figure out what it was you were really doing and focus on it.

Most readers here know that mediocre to bad QBs are not more valuable than really good RB/WR/TE. So opening with a statement that they are and this thread is about fixing that problem immediately casts doubt on everything that follows. Reading back, you can see how many people's only real contribution to the thread was to address the error in that statement.

It became clear from your comments in subsequent posts that the issue you saw and were addressing was something very different. If the thread had opened with something like this I believe it would have gone much better.

Though bad QBs are not more valuable than really good RB/WR/TE... they still outscore them in total points in a standard scoring system. Total points does a fair job of expressing value within a position, but not across positions. I would like to have a system where total points is a better reflection of value across positions as well, so I came up with the following...

The other comment I'd make then is that for what was done, the results posted need to show both value and total points for a reader to be able to make a meaningful evaluation. Just posting the before and after player list sorted by total points doesn't show that what changed reflects the goal. It requires the reader to have to supply his own guesstimates of what the value of each of those players is before he can reach any conclusion. Better to include it explicitly.
Click to expand...
The main point here is to stop making mediocre to bad QBs more valuable than really good RB/WR/TE while still preserving the dominance of elite QBs. This accomplishes that.

5 yards = 1 point, rushing, receiving AND passing

(yes, these are negative point values):

-1 per pass attempt

-0.3 per rush attempt

-0.2 per catch

The end result is that offensive scoring is bumped up about 20-25% across the board... interpositional rankings aren't changed much.. but INTRApositional dynamics change so that only elite players accumulate elite fantasy point totals. Here were the top 25 in my proposed system last year vs. the top 25 in a more "standard" format:

MY SYSTEM:

Aaron Rodgers 699.9

(GB - QB)

Drew Brees 697

(NO - QB)

Tom Brady 624.1

(NE - QB)

Matthew Stafford 511.2

(Det - QB)

Cam Newton 490.7

(Car - QB)

Eli Manning 478.9

(NYG - QB)

Calvin Johnson 440.9

(Det - WR)

Tony Romo 425.8

(Dal - QB)

Ray Rice 419.5

(Bal - RB)

Matt Ryan 376.8

(Atl - QB)

Philip Rivers 372.6

(SD - QB)

Victor Cruz 368.34

(NYG - WR)

Rob Gronkowski 364.72

(NE - TE)

Wes Welker 361.84

(NE - WR)

LeSean McCoy 355.3

(Phi - RB)

Jordy Nelson 350

(GB - WR)

Maurice Jones-Drew 343.5

(Jac - RB)

Arian Foster 343.2

(Hou - RB)

Larry Fitzgerald 338.2

(Ari - WR)

Michael Vick 331.2

(Phi - QB)

Steve Smith 320.4

(Car - WR)

Jimmy Graham 310.2

(NO - TE)

Darren Sproles 306.96

(NO - RB)

Ben Roethlisberger 303.2

(Pit - QB)

Mike Wallace 299.1

(Pit - WR)
Click to expand...
STANDARD SYSTEM:

Drew Brees 562.3

(NO - QB)

Aaron Rodgers 540.75

(GB - QB)

Tom Brady 491.85

(NE - QB)

Matthew Stafford 462.3

(Det - QB)

Cam Newton 428.05

(Car - QB)

Tony Romo 377.2

(Dal - QB)

Eli Manning 362.95

(NYG - QB)

Matt Ryan 358.95

(Atl - QB)

Philip Rivers 331.2

(SD - QB)

Ray Rice 320.85

(Bal - RB)

LeSean McCoy 295.8

(Phi - RB)

Calvin Johnson 291

(Det - WR)

Mark Sanchez 287.1

(NYJ - QB)

Ben Roethlisberger 283.95

(Pit - QB)

Ryan Fitzpatrick 280.9

(Buf - QB)

Michael Vick 272.65

(Phi - QB)

Rob Gronkowski 270.12

(NE - TE)

Maurice Jones-Drew 264.9

(Jac - RB)

Alex Smith 264.1

(SF - QB)

Arian Foster 262

(Hou - RB)

Andy Dalton 259.3

(Cin - QB)

Wes Welker 253.64

(NE - WR)

Josh Freeman 248.7

(TB - QB)

Joe Flacco 246.2

(Bal - QB)

Matt Hasselbeck 245.85

(Ten - QB)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I forgot to mention that I also added the following:

[*]-2 against QBs for sacks

[*]+3 for 40 yard plays for all passers, receivers and rushers

[*]+0.2 and -0.3 for passing completions and incompletions respectively (functions as a slight reward for completion percentages above 60%)

 
For the sake of being rational I'd invite anyone who votes "no" to actually provide a rationale for doing so. A "no" vote followed by no response is highly unproductive for me. Thanks!

 
Creating a scoring system backwards, IE purposely making a system that gives you the top players you're looking for, is poor methodology.

 
So what is the attempt here?

I don't see anything that says - "Wow that is an improvement"

Charging the QB for a sack? WTF

 
'ConnSKINS26 said:
Creating a scoring system backwards, IE purposely making a system that gives you the top players you're looking for, is poor methodology.
Click to expand...
^What is your take on the results?Or a better question.. Do you think Mark Sanchez and Calvin Johnson should receive an equal amount of credit for their respective performances last season?
 
'Captain Hook said:
So what is the attempt here?I don't see anything that says - "Wow that is an improvement"Charging the QB for a sack? WTF
Click to expand...
^honestly, the QB sack demerit is very secondary here, focus on the main post.. but I will say "yes" on a macro level.. many times the sack is the QB's fault.. many times it is not.. I split the difference between the two outcomesif there were hypothetically a way to state with certainty that all sacks were always the QB's fault, I'd have subtracted moreBut to answer your question, the point is to stop making mediocre to bad QBs more valuable than really good RB/WR/TE while still preserving the dominance of elite QBs. This accomplishes that.
 
'J. Cyrus said:
'Captain Hook said:
Charging the QB for a sack? WTF
Click to expand...
^honestly, the QB sack demerit is very secondary here, focus on the main post.. but I will say "yes" on a macro level.. many times the sack is the QB's fault.. many times it is not.. I split the difference between the two outcomesif there were hypothetically a way to state with certainty that all sacks were always the QB's fault, I'd have subtracted more
Click to expand...
^actually, in light of the above reasoning it may be better to reduce the sack penalty to -1.. which I'm leaning towards ATM
 
Someone who agrees with me on this said I should post this excerpt from our chat conversation:

the reasoning is that elite players perform better on a per play basisWes Welker was the 4th best WR in my system with 122 catches so it obviously isn't gonna hurt great playersbut guys like Jordy Nelson, Victor Cruz, Mike Wallacethey are elite because of how many yards per catch they generate over a high volume of attemptsbut there are guys who get thrown to a lot and don't do much with it on bad teamssimply cuz they are the only optionwho might be overrated in traditional systems
Click to expand...
 
Creating a further separation between the elite QBs and others is an interesting approach. Historically, the standard scoring system has reduced the value of the QB position because you only start one each week. It isn't hard to figure out that with 32 NFL teams, and only 12 fantasy teams, there are more than enough QBs for everyone to have at least one 'serviceable' QB. The only way to put value back into the QB position is to 'stretch' the point value separating each fantasy QB to that getting an average QB puts you at a significant disadvantage.

Under standard scoring, in 2011) the difference between Aaron Rodger's fantasy points per game (32.4) and Phillip Rivers fantasy points per game (19.1) is 11.3 points per week. Under your system, the difference between these two QB would be 20.4 points, almost twice as much.

I like this as a mechanism to put a higher value on the top QBs. But a good question is: What should the top QB's value be compared to the top RB? In your system the ratio between Rogers to Rice is 699.9 to 419.5, or 1.67:1. This means that the top QB is worth about 1 and a half as much as the top RB. Seeing as you start 2 RBs each week, I actually think this is a great ratio.

Good job.

 
'J. Cyrus said:
'ConnSKINS26 said:
Creating a scoring system backwards, IE purposely making a system that gives you the top players you're looking for, is poor methodology.
Click to expand...
^What is your take on the results?Or a better question.. Do you think Mark Sanchez and Calvin Johnson should receive an equal amount of credit for their respective performances last season?
Click to expand...
If you are looking at just their fantasy point totals, who cares? In no league was Sanchez anywhere near as valuable as Johnson last year. David Akers scored 166 points last year; that doesn't make him more valuable than Aaron Hernandez.
 
Any boob can pick the best QB's each year, I don't see the need to make having them more of an advantage. There's a reason the game's called "fantasy football" and not "reality football." Changing scoring to make leagues more fun/challenging is great, but to make it more realistic is misguided IMO.

 
'J. Cyrus said:
'ConnSKINS26 said:
Creating a scoring system backwards, IE purposely making a system that gives you the top players you're looking for, is poor methodology.
Click to expand...
^What is your take on the results?Or a better question.. Do you think Mark Sanchez and Calvin Johnson should receive an equal amount of credit for their respective performances last season?
Click to expand...
The guy who started Calvin Johnson also got to start a QB, while the guy who started Sanchez started a WR that didn't do anything close to Calvin. Calvin's value is still there.To get a league to a point where if you don't have one of the top QBs, you have a massive obstacle to overcome in order to make the playoffs, I'm not interested.
 
I honestly just skimme dyour post, but don't let the haters get you down..

I always wanted some way to add, maybe, 10% to players on a winning team, or deduct 10% from losers.

that'd get people a little more involved in handicapping the games and not just the player stats, I think.

 
'Kool-Aid Larry said:
I honestly just skimme dyour post, but don't let the haters get you down..I always wanted some way to add, maybe, 10% to players on a winning team, or deduct 10% from losers.that'd get people a little more involved in handicapping the games and not just the player stats, I think.
Click to expand...
Like your thinking here Larry. Adding bonus points when a player's team wins would be an interesting scoring nuance. Subtracting when a player's team loses as well. Seems most pertinent in the case of QB's and team defenses, but that's not to say you couldn't incorporate it with other positions as well. Outside of QB & team defenses, I'd keep the bonus (or deduction for losses) small.
 
'J. Cyrus said:
'Captain Hook said:
So what is the attempt here?I don't see anything that says - "Wow that is an improvement"Charging the QB for a sack? WTF
Click to expand...
^honestly, the QB sack demerit is very secondary here, focus on the main post.. but I will say "yes" on a macro level.. many times the sack is the QB's fault.. many times it is not.. I split the difference between the two outcomesif there were hypothetically a way to state with certainty that all sacks were always the QB's fault, I'd have subtracted moreBut to answer your question, the point is to stop making mediocre to bad QBs more valuable than really good RB/WR/TE while still preserving the dominance of elite QBs. This accomplishes that.
Click to expand...
Not particularly. Even in YOUR scoring, 11 of the top 25 scores belong to QBs. So in a 12-team league, everyone gets one, and makes the position just as irrelevant as in any other scoring system.
 
'J. Cyrus said:
For the sake of being rational I'd invite anyone who votes "no" to actually provide a rationale for doing so. A "no" vote followed by no response is highly unproductive for me. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Applaud you for attempting to derive a scoring system that is most representative of how you value players. Obviously not everyone will agree with you, but that's not the point anyway.If I have one critique that pushes me toward the 'no' vote it is I prefer a scoring system that is complicated enough to provide a realistic value of players across positions while still simple enough for the members of your league to calculate it in their head while the games are going on (or when looking at a boxscore). Yours leans a bit toward the unnecessarily complicated for my taste. I'm guessing YOU can compute it on the the fly, but can everyone in your league?That's the question I'd ask (along with your desire to get the optimum scoring system, of course). Good luck.
 
'J. Cyrus said:
The main point here is to stop making mediocre to bad QBs more valuable than really good RB/WR/TE while still preserving the dominance of elite QBs. This accomplishes that.
Click to expand...
You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Tell me, how many times in your league last year was a mediocre-to-bad QB traded for a really good RB/WR/TE? It didn't happen a single time in any one of my leagues, and I'm in quite a few. I would wager it didn't happen in any of your leagues, either. Why not? Because there are very, very, very few scoring systems where mediocre QBs are worth more than really good skill players. And almost all of those scoring systems overrate QBs because of starting requirements, not points scored (i.e. mediocre QBs are gold in start 2 QB leagues, and worthless in any other type of league).
 
'Synesthesia said:
'J. Cyrus said:
The main point here is to stop making mediocre to bad QBs more valuable than really good RB/WR/TE while still preserving the dominance of elite QBs. This accomplishes that.
Click to expand...
You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Tell me, how many times in your league last year was a mediocre-to-bad QB traded for a really good RB/WR/TE? It didn't happen a single time in any one of my leagues, and I'm in quite a few. I would wager it didn't happen in any of your leagues, either. Why not? Because there are very, very, very few scoring systems where mediocre QBs are worth more than really good skill players. And almost all of those scoring systems overrate QBs because of starting requirements, not points scored (i.e. mediocre QBs are gold in start 2 QB leagues, and worthless in any other type of league).
Click to expand...
Good point... Just because a mediocre QB scores the same or more points than a good RB/WR in a given week (or for the season), that does not make the QB more valuable. Positional requirements alone factor in to ultimately determine that.
 
I voted no. I don't need to do more math. Scoring in FF is not an issue. Learn the league rules and play accordingly.

 
Voted no. Not better because number of points scored is largely irrelevant when you try to compare QB to RB or WR.

 
a qb that scores 15 ppg is not equal to an rb that scores 15 ppg in normal ff.

the reason is that the low end qb's, the guys that you would end up with if you were to be one of the last to take a player in that position (schuab, freeman, cutler ect...) score higher than an rb that you would have if you were to wait until everyone else has selected their rb's (dwill, d brown, bjge ect...)

these low value players represent the minimum that you should expect if you were to be the last to address that position in a draft. these minimum value qb's score about 4-6 ppg (depending on your scoring) more than the rb's, just like rodgers and brees will score 4-6 ppg more than foster or mccoy.

also, if what you say was really an issue, than you would see qb's go a lot earlier in drafts as it would be a successful strategy. you would see the mediocre qb's go in the 2nd/3rd round as opposed to the 5th-7th like they do now. this is not what actually happens because of what i explained above.

 
As others have alluded to, it seems like you are equating raw points scored with value, when in reality, the two are not the same.

And I don't mean to come off snarky, but I just find that kind of ironic given that one of the major bases of this site is Joe Bryant's ground-breaking article that illustrates this difference.

 
lol.. I just caught up on all this, so here are my thoughts:

- thanks to those who replied in a mature fashion with good intentions, whether you liked my idea or not.

- it's amazing how much needless condescending sarcasm a group of grown men can generate over something as benign as a new idea for fantasy football.

- in my opinion, any fantasy game should try to capture the real live VALUE and RAW PRODUCTION of any given player, using fantasy points as a means to express those two things. And yes, I understand the difference, and thoroughly I might add (I will touch on this point more later).

- to the person who said "learn the league rules and play accordingly" -- this is obvious and beside the point. I've done this in many leagues and will continue to. I'm talking about reevaluating how the game is played and looking at making improvements. People who had my mindset 20-30 years ago helped make the game what it is today.

- it's amazing how stuck in their ways *some* people are simply because it's what they're used to

- to those who think it makes elite QBs so valuable that it would invalidate the rest of the league's draft, your idea is poorly thought out, even in a snake draft. There is potential for unfairness there, but the effect would not be nearly as great as has been suggested. I will also add that I only play in auction leagues so this would literally be a non issue, as everyone has free access to bid on and acquire said elite QBs and the market would dictate their value.

That all being said, I'd like to touch on the "value vs. raw points scored" point a bit more. I have designed and commished fantasy leagues for over a decade and have probably spent way too much time on these endeavors lol. I have tinkered with every setting you can imagine and explored how the dynamics change in various ways, including using the VBD sheet FBG provides. I'm intimately familiar with these processes and outcomes.

Also, aside from "value over replacement player" being manipulated by the laws of supply and demand (e.g. positional requirements), I think there is merit to the idea of the raw point totals themselves being in a logical alignment with reality.

I'm not doing this for individuals who don't care very much about making changes, this is geared towards people like myself who care about fantasy value aligning as closely as possible with real-life value. I may be in the minority but I'm certainly not alone.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And oh.. I forgot to add.. whoever can't easily multiply something like 8 x 0.2 (or 17 x 0.3) in their head and then subtract said answer from the yardage FP total has bigger problems than fantasy football and should probably revisit 5th grade math class. And honestly, even setting that point aside.. with smartphones being widespread and internet access around every corner, who sits there adding up fantasy points these days anyways? Every major site has live scoring. There are even 3rd party apps that do it for you. I don't really see how this part of it is a consideration for most people anymore most of the time, even the mathematically challenged.

 
lol.. I just caught up on all this, so here are my thoughts:

- thanks to those who replied in a mature fashion with good intentions, whether you liked my idea or not.

- it's amazing how much needless condescending sarcasm a group of grown men can generate over something as benign as a new idea for fantasy football.

i think your being a little sensative

- in my opinion, any fantasy game should try to capture the real live VALUE and RAW PRODUCTION of any given player, using fantasy points as a means to express those two things. And yes, I understand the difference, and thoroughly I might add (I will touch on this point more later).

in the nfl, you dont really stand a chance if you do not have a top level qb. if you translate that 100% to fantasy football, half the league, those without the elite guys, wouldn't have a chance, which is not good. also, if you manage to translate the nfl's importance of the qb to ff 100%, id's say there would be 10 qb's that are picked in the first round of a draft on a consistent bases. if nicks is out for the season, the giants could still make a playoff run. if eli is out for the season, they are looking at maybe a 6-10 record. i dont think this is good for ff. and so, i think this desire to attempt to more accurately mimic the importance of an nfl qb with an ff qb is going in the wrong direction.

- to the person who said "learn the league rules and play accordingly" -- this is obvious and beside the point. I've done this in many leagues and will continue to. I'm talking about reevaluating how the game is played and looking at making improvements. People who had my mindset 20-30 years ago helped make the game what it is today.

- it's amazing how stuck in their ways *some* people are simply because it's what they're used to

ppr wasn't around in the beginning. now, lots of people play that. also, its easy to find many "strange" leagues. 2qb, 1.5 te, best ball ect... ff'ers are generally not "stuck in thier ways". again, i think you are being too sensitive here.

- to those who think it makes elite QBs so valuable that it would invalidate the rest of the league's draft, your idea is poorly thought out, even in a snake draft. There is potential for unfairness there, but the effect would not be nearly as great as has been suggested. I will also add that I only play in auction leagues so this would literally be a non issue, as everyone has free access to bid on and acquire said elite QBs and the market would dictate their value.

look at 2 qb leagues. the value vs points scored effect is diminished because you are not limited to 1 at that position. the result is that you do not have a chance to compete unless you have at least 1 elite qb.

That all being said, I'd like to touch on the "value vs. raw points scored" point a bit more. I have designed and commished fantasy leagues for over a decade and have probably spent way too much time on these endeavors lol. I have tinkered with every setting you can imagine and explored how the dynamics change in various ways, including using the VBD sheet FBG provides. I'm intimately familiar with these processes and outcomes.

Also, aside from "value over replacement player" being manipulated by the laws of supply and demand (e.g. positional requirements), I think there is merit to the idea of the raw point totals themselves being in a logical alignment with reality.

I'm not doing this for individuals who don't care very much about making changes, this is geared towards people like myself who care about fantasy value aligning as closely as possible with real-life value. I may be in the minority but I'm certainly not alone.

are you implying that we don't like ff as much as you do because we don't like your scoring system?

 
'J. Cyrus said:
And oh.. I forgot to add.. whoever can't easily multiply something like 8 x 0.2 (or 17 x 0.3) in their head and then subtract said answer from the yardage FP total has bigger problems than fantasy football and should probably revisit 5th grade math class. And honestly, even setting that point aside.. with smartphones being widespread and internet access around every corner, who sits there adding up fantasy points these days anyways? Every major site has live scoring. There are even 3rd party apps that do it for you. I don't really see how this part of it is a consideration for most people anymore most of the time, even the mathematically challenged.
Click to expand...
You requested constructive criticism from those who voted 'no' and for the most part, that is exactly what you received. Yet your responses come off clearly defensive. Most of the guys here are veteran fantasy football enthusiasts who aren't exactly limited to simplistic re-draft leagues. And the overwhelming vote and critiques paint a pretty clear picture of what guys think of your scoring.Sorry that it isn't going to revolutionize fantasy football. Doesn't necessarily make your scoring system ridiculous any more than it should make those opposed to it appear inflexible to you.Ultimately, if you and the guys in your league endorse your scoring system, that is all that really matters. I believe most of the responses here were measured and valid. Certainly nothing to get your panties in a wad about. Good luck using your scoring in your league. Just don't get upset when it isn't met with universal acceptance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'J. Cyrus said:
And oh.. I forgot to add.. whoever can't easily multiply something like 8 x 0.2 (or 17 x 0.3) in their head and then subtract said answer from the yardage FP total has bigger problems than fantasy football and should probably revisit 5th grade math class. And honestly, even setting that point aside.. with smartphones being widespread and internet access around every corner, who sits there adding up fantasy points these days anyways? Every major site has live scoring. There are even 3rd party apps that do it for you. I don't really see how this part of it is a consideration for most people anymore most of the time, even the mathematically challenged.
Click to expand...
You mention earlier responses in mature fashion and with good intentions. Listen to your own advice.That said, I voted no. My reasoning is really because of the fact that I tend to play in leagues where there is a draft and I believe that this actually makes the elite QB's too valuable and that if you are in a 12+ team league (dynasty draft, redraft, etc...) as most are, that it makes those with later picks start out behind the 8 ball a bit more than I would like to see. JMO, I appreciate the thought you have put into it however and I think in an auction style league this would be an approach I would be willing to try.
 
I'm not sufficiently motivated to go through the responses point-by-point again, but I'll touch on a few things briefly:

- This is academic for me, and I am pretty honest and straightforward in what I say for the most part. When I say someone should revisit 5th grade math class if they cannot perform 5th grade math, I mean that with no malice lol. I simply mean it because it's true. I do understand how my statement could be construed that way, but if you read the actual words I used there was nothing at all untrue or unnecessary about the statement of fact.

- I was not implying that those who disagree with the scoring automatically like FF less than I do.

- some of the examples used to rebut my points were isolated/non-standard, and I would not pair them with this scoring

- I agree that many responses in this thread were not malicious at all, which is why I said "some" in my response

But yeah, everything else aside it was useful to get a quick look at a population sample's immediate impression here. Thanks for the feedback. I'll continue to monitor this thread for responses as well..

 
For me, it's hard to give too much consideration to a system where you have points taken away for actions that, if unperformed, would hurt the team.

-1 per pass attempt

-0.3 per rush attempt

-0.2 per catch

To me that feels like you're backing into a number.

 
'J. Cyrus said:
The main point here is to stop making mediocre to bad QBs more valuable than really good RB/WR/TE while still preserving the dominance of elite QBs. This accomplishes that.
Click to expand...
Fun thread. It's cool to play with ideas like this: it's what May and June are for. :) That said, I don't think it's true that mediocre QBs are worth more than good RBs. If you look at the way most drafts go, the top 12-15 RBs are often off the board before the fifth QB is taken. Compared to their NFL importance, QBs seem to have discounted values in most fantasy scoring systems.

The most thorough attempt I've seen to try to equalize the values of different fantasy positions is here. It's worth a read.

(And note that if you want to make players at a certain position more valuable, you can't do so just by making players at that position score more points. If you gave every quarterback an extra 10 points each week, it would not change any quarterbacks' value at all [except as flex players, if allowed].)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'candymanvandyfan said:
For me, it's hard to give too much consideration to a system where you have points taken away for actions that, if unperformed, would hurt the team.-1 per pass attempt-0.3 per rush attempt-0.2 per catchTo me that feels like you're backing into a number.
Click to expand...
There's some logic to it. An attempt is an innately negative thing, it just happens to be the only way to produce positive value. Think of it this way: a team only has so many offensive plays. Every time a player takes one of those plays, that leaves the offense with fewer to work with going forward. Or, to put it more simply, if an RB had 10 carries for 50 yards, did he have a good day or a bad day? If that same RB had 50 carries for 50 yards, did he have a good day or a bad day? Taking the exact same production and adding 40 carries turns a relatively good day into an historically awful day. Logically, then, since adding more carries subtracted value, the only possible conclusion is that carries, in and of themselves, have negative value. Most of the time, that negative value is offset by the yards and TDs and first downs produced by those carries, but that doesn't change the fact that the carry itself is a negative statistic.
 
'Chase Stuart said:
'J. Cyrus said:
'ConnSKINS26 said:
Creating a scoring system backwards, IE purposely making a system that gives you the top players you're looking for, is poor methodology.
Click to expand...
^What is your take on the results?Or a better question.. Do you think Mark Sanchez and Calvin Johnson should receive an equal amount of credit for their respective performances last season?
Click to expand...
If you are looking at just their fantasy point totals, who cares? In no league was Sanchez anywhere near as valuable as Johnson last year. David Akers scored 166 points last year; that doesn't make him more valuable than Aaron Hernandez.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
 
'Synesthesia said:
'candymanvandyfan said:
For me, it's hard to give too much consideration to a system where you have points taken away for actions that, if unperformed, would hurt the team.-1 per pass attempt-0.3 per rush attempt-0.2 per catchTo me that feels like you're backing into a number.
Click to expand...
There's some logic to it. An attempt is an innately negative thing, it just happens to be the only way to produce positive value. Think of it this way: a team only has so many offensive plays. Every time a player takes one of those plays, that leaves the offense with fewer to work with going forward. Or, to put it more simply, if an RB had 10 carries for 50 yards, did he have a good day or a bad day? If that same RB had 50 carries for 50 yards, did he have a good day or a bad day? Taking the exact same production and adding 40 carries turns a relatively good day into an historically awful day. Logically, then, since adding more carries subtracted value, the only possible conclusion is that carries, in and of themselves, have negative value. Most of the time, that negative value is offset by the yards and TDs and first downs produced by those carries, but that doesn't change the fact that the carry itself is a negative statistic.
Click to expand...
These are some serious mental gymnastics here. Don't pull anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'J. Cyrus said:
I'm not sufficiently motivated to go through the responses point-by-point again, but I'll touch on a few things briefly:

- This is academic for me, and I am pretty honest and straightforward in what I say for the most part. When I say someone should revisit 5th grade math class if they cannot perform 5th grade math, I mean that with no malice lol. I simply mean it because it's true. I do understand how my statement could be construed that way, but if you read the actual words I used there was nothing at all untrue or unnecessary about the statement of fact.

- I was not implying that those who disagree with the scoring automatically like FF less than I do.

- some of the examples used to rebut my points were isolated/non-standard, and I would not pair them with this scoring

- I agree that many responses in this thread were not malicious at all, which is why I said "some" in my response

But yeah, everything else aside it was useful to get a quick look at a population sample's immediate impression here. Thanks for the feedback. I'll continue to monitor this thread for responses as well..
Click to expand...
35 No 4 Yesmaybe its just not a good idea?

 
'Maurile Tremblay said:
'J. Cyrus said:
The main point here is to stop making mediocre to bad QBs more valuable than really good RB/WR/TE while still preserving the dominance of elite QBs. This accomplishes that.
Click to expand...
Fun thread. It's cool to play with ideas like this: it's what May and June are for. :) That said, I don't think it's true that mediocre QBs are worth more than good RBs. If you look at the way most drafts go, the top 12-15 RBs are often off the board before the fifth QB is taken. Compared to their NFL importance, QBs seem to have discounted values in most fantasy scoring systems.

The most thorough attempt I've seen to try to equalize the values of different fantasy positions is here. It's worth a read.

(And note that if you want to make players at a certain position more valuable, you can't do so just by making players at that position score more points. If you gave every quarterback an extra 10 points each week, it would not change any quarterbacks' value at all [except as flex players, if allowed].)
Click to expand...
^Thanks a bunch for the reply Maurile, I was hoping to get some staffers in hereJust a few things in response to your post:

- I'm not increasing QB raw scoring in a linear fashion across the board -- I'm creating further separation between the great and mediocre QBs (check out the rankings list I provided for a quick look at how this works out)

- I think my system strikes a good balance by bringing the importance of the QB position closer to true NFL importance, yet still maintaining the dynamic present in fantasy football that having a great QB is not the end-all be-all in terms of having team success.

- elevating the importance of a player like Calvin Johnson above a player like Mark Sanchez is, in my estimation, a better reflection of reality than having them in a virtual deadlock in raw fantasy points

- I completely understand the dynamics at work in creating value thru positional scarcity (i.e. 200 point WR can be more valuable than 230 point QB based on lineup requirements), I just think there is also merit to ensuring that point totals themselves also reflect reality more closely

Thanks again for the input, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this response.

 
'ConnSKINS26 said:
'Synesthesia said:
'candymanvandyfan said:
For me, it's hard to give too much consideration to a system where you have points taken away for actions that, if unperformed, would hurt the team.-1 per pass attempt-0.3 per rush attempt-0.2 per catchTo me that feels like you're backing into a number.
Click to expand...
There's some logic to it. An attempt is an innately negative thing, it just happens to be the only way to produce positive value. Think of it this way: a team only has so many offensive plays. Every time a player takes one of those plays, that leaves the offense with fewer to work with going forward. Or, to put it more simply, if an RB had 10 carries for 50 yards, did he have a good day or a bad day? If that same RB had 50 carries for 50 yards, did he have a good day or a bad day? Taking the exact same production and adding 40 carries turns a relatively good day into an historically awful day. Logically, then, since adding more carries subtracted value, the only possible conclusion is that carries, in and of themselves, have negative value. Most of the time, that negative value is offset by the yards and TDs and first downs produced by those carries, but that doesn't change the fact that the carry itself is a negative statistic.
Click to expand...
These are some serious mental gymnastics here. Don't pull anything.
Click to expand...
LOL this whole thread is mental gymnastics
 
'Synesthesia said:
'candymanvandyfan said:
For me, it's hard to give too much consideration to a system where you have points taken away for actions that, if unperformed, would hurt the team.-1 per pass attempt-0.3 per rush attempt-0.2 per catchTo me that feels like you're backing into a number.
Click to expand...
There's some logic to it. An attempt is an innately negative thing, it just happens to be the only way to produce positive value. Think of it this way: a team only has so many offensive plays. Every time a player takes one of those plays, that leaves the offense with fewer to work with going forward. Or, to put it more simply, if an RB had 10 carries for 50 yards, did he have a good day or a bad day? If that same RB had 50 carries for 50 yards, did he have a good day or a bad day? Taking the exact same production and adding 40 carries turns a relatively good day into an historically awful day. Logically, then, since adding more carries subtracted value, the only possible conclusion is that carries, in and of themselves, have negative value. Most of the time, that negative value is offset by the yards and TDs and first downs produced by those carries, but that doesn't change the fact that the carry itself is a negative statistic.
Click to expand...
^Thank. You. lol.Saved me from typing up an explanation. Yours was perfect.
 
'J. Cyrus said:
'Maurile Tremblay said:
'J. Cyrus said:
The main point here is to stop making mediocre to bad QBs more valuable than really good RB/WR/TE while still preserving the dominance of elite QBs. This accomplishes that.
Click to expand...
Fun thread. It's cool to play with ideas like this: it's what May and June are for. :) That said, I don't think it's true that mediocre QBs are worth more than good RBs. If you look at the way most drafts go, the top 12-15 RBs are often off the board before the fifth QB is taken. Compared to their NFL importance, QBs seem to have discounted values in most fantasy scoring systems.

The most thorough attempt I've seen to try to equalize the values of different fantasy positions is here. It's worth a read.

(And note that if you want to make players at a certain position more valuable, you can't do so just by making players at that position score more points. If you gave every quarterback an extra 10 points each week, it would not change any quarterbacks' value at all [except as flex players, if allowed].)
Click to expand...
^Thanks a bunch for the reply Maurile, I was hoping to get some staffers in hereJust a few things in response to your post:

- I'm not increasing QB raw scoring in a linear fashion across the board -- I'm creating further separation between the great and mediocre QBs (check out the rankings list I provided for a quick look at how this works out)

- I think my system strikes a good balance by bringing the importance of the QB position closer to true NFL importance, yet still maintaining the dynamic present in fantasy football that having a great QB is not the end-all be-all in terms of having team success.

- elevating the importance of a player like Calvin Johnson above a player like Mark Sanchez is, in my estimation, a better reflection of reality than having them in a virtual deadlock in raw fantasy points

- I completely understand the dynamics at work in creating value thru positional scarcity (i.e. 200 point WR can be more valuable than 230 point QB based on lineup requirements), I just think there is also merit to ensuring that point totals themselves also reflect reality more closely

Thanks again for the input, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this response.
Click to expand...
From the link Maurile just posted, I'd say this road has already been down big guy lol
 
'wiscstlatlmia said:
'J. Cyrus said:
I'm not sufficiently motivated to go through the responses point-by-point again, but I'll touch on a few things briefly:

- This is academic for me, and I am pretty honest and straightforward in what I say for the most part. When I say someone should revisit 5th grade math class if they cannot perform 5th grade math, I mean that with no malice lol. I simply mean it because it's true. I do understand how my statement could be construed that way, but if you read the actual words I used there was nothing at all untrue or unnecessary about the statement of fact.

- I was not implying that those who disagree with the scoring automatically like FF less than I do.

- some of the examples used to rebut my points were isolated/non-standard, and I would not pair them with this scoring

- I agree that many responses in this thread were not malicious at all, which is why I said "some" in my response

But yeah, everything else aside it was useful to get a quick look at a population sample's immediate impression here. Thanks for the feedback. I'll continue to monitor this thread for responses as well..
Click to expand...
35 No 4 Yesmaybe its just not a good idea?
Click to expand...
^Maybe, but a strong ideological rebuttal carries a lot more weight in my eyes than a vote tally. Some of the best ideas in history were unpopular upon their introduction, lol. :loco:
 
'wiscstlatlmia said:
From the link Maurile just posted, I'd say this road has already been down big guy lol
Click to expand...
^lol, I read the link. The research was definitely useful, but I think our goals are somewhat different. It seems he was trying to equalize positional values in a vacuum, whereas I'm trying to determine what raw fantasy point formula will result in the most realistic individual player evaluations, mostly irrespective whether or not that results in even intrapositional values
 
'J. Cyrus said:
'wiscstlatlmia said:
'J. Cyrus said:
I'm not sufficiently motivated to go through the responses point-by-point again, but I'll touch on a few things briefly:

- This is academic for me, and I am pretty honest and straightforward in what I say for the most part. When I say someone should revisit 5th grade math class if they cannot perform 5th grade math, I mean that with no malice lol. I simply mean it because it's true. I do understand how my statement could be construed that way, but if you read the actual words I used there was nothing at all untrue or unnecessary about the statement of fact.

- I was not implying that those who disagree with the scoring automatically like FF less than I do.

- some of the examples used to rebut my points were isolated/non-standard, and I would not pair them with this scoring

- I agree that many responses in this thread were not malicious at all, which is why I said "some" in my response

But yeah, everything else aside it was useful to get a quick look at a population sample's immediate impression here. Thanks for the feedback. I'll continue to monitor this thread for responses as well..
Click to expand...
35 No 4 Yesmaybe its just not a good idea?
Click to expand...
^Maybe, but a strong ideological rebuttal carries a lot more weight in my eyes than a vote tally. Some of the best ideas in history were unpopular upon their introduction, lol. :loco:
Click to expand...
And some of the worst were also, lol
 
'ConnSKINS26 said:
These are some serious mental gymnastics here. Don't pull anything.
Click to expand...
RB1 has 15 carries for 60 yards and a score, with 5 first downs. RB2 has 40 carries for 60 yards and a score, with 5 first downs. Who had a better day?QB1 went 15/20 for 250 yards, 2 scores, and 0 interceptions. QB2 went 15/50 for 250 yards, 2 scores, and 0 interceptions. Who had the better day?Hell, just look at the stats we use to evaluate RBs and QBs- yards per attempt. How do you improve your YPA? By either getting more yards, or having fewer attempts. The very nature of the statistics that we use to evaluate players accepts the fact that attempts are a bad thing that should be penalized. We don't evaluate QBs with yards per TD. Why not? Because any stat where a player can do worse by scoring more TDs would be rightly rejected as a backwards, useless statistic. Because TDs are a good thing which should be rewarded, not penalized. And yet we have no problem with penalizing for attempts. Every wonder why? Hint: it has nothing to do with mental gymnastics.
 
'Synesthesia said:
'ConnSKINS26 said:
These are some serious mental gymnastics here. Don't pull anything.
Click to expand...
RB1 has 15 carries for 60 yards and a score, with 5 first downs. RB2 has 40 carries for 60 yards and a score, with 5 first downs. Who had a better day?QB1 went 15/20 for 250 yards, 2 scores, and 0 interceptions. QB2 went 15/50 for 250 yards, 2 scores, and 0 interceptions. Who had the better day?Hell, just look at the stats we use to evaluate RBs and QBs- yards per attempt. How do you improve your YPA? By either getting more yards, or having fewer attempts. The very nature of the statistics that we use to evaluate players accepts the fact that attempts are a bad thing that should be penalized. We don't evaluate QBs with yards per TD. Why not? Because any stat where a player can do worse by scoring more TDs would be rightly rejected as a backwards, useless statistic. Because TDs are a good thing which should be rewarded, not penalized. And yet we have no problem with penalizing for attempts. Every wonder why? Hint: it has nothing to do with mental gymnastics.
Click to expand...
So let me guess, the quote J Cyrus mentioned earlier , the one he was having with his buddy. that buddy was you? lol
 
'Synesthesia said:
'ConnSKINS26 said:
These are some serious mental gymnastics here. Don't pull anything.
Click to expand...
RB1 has 15 carries for 60 yards and a score, with 5 first downs. RB2 has 40 carries for 60 yards and a score, with 5 first downs. Who had a better day?QB1 went 15/20 for 250 yards, 2 scores, and 0 interceptions. QB2 went 15/50 for 250 yards, 2 scores, and 0 interceptions. Who had the better day?Hell, just look at the stats we use to evaluate RBs and QBs- yards per attempt. How do you improve your YPA? By either getting more yards, or having fewer attempts. The very nature of the statistics that we use to evaluate players accepts the fact that attempts are a bad thing that should be penalized. We don't evaluate QBs with yards per TD. Why not? Because any stat where a player can do worse by scoring more TDs would be rightly rejected as a backwards, useless statistic. Because TDs are a good thing which should be rewarded, not penalized. And yet we have no problem with penalizing for attempts. Every wonder why? Hint: it has nothing to do with mental gymnastics.
Click to expand...
and yes, I do understand what your saying, valid point.
 
'wiscstlatlmia said:
'Synesthesia said:
'ConnSKINS26 said:
These are some serious mental gymnastics here. Don't pull anything.
Click to expand...
RB1 has 15 carries for 60 yards and a score, with 5 first downs. RB2 has 40 carries for 60 yards and a score, with 5 first downs. Who had a better day?QB1 went 15/20 for 250 yards, 2 scores, and 0 interceptions. QB2 went 15/50 for 250 yards, 2 scores, and 0 interceptions. Who had the better day?Hell, just look at the stats we use to evaluate RBs and QBs- yards per attempt. How do you improve your YPA? By either getting more yards, or having fewer attempts. The very nature of the statistics that we use to evaluate players accepts the fact that attempts are a bad thing that should be penalized. We don't evaluate QBs with yards per TD. Why not? Because any stat where a player can do worse by scoring more TDs would be rightly rejected as a backwards, useless statistic. Because TDs are a good thing which should be rewarded, not penalized. And yet we have no problem with penalizing for attempts. Every wonder why? Hint: it has nothing to do with mental gymnastics.
Click to expand...
So let me guess, the quote J Cyrus mentioned earlier , the one he was having with his buddy. that buddy was you? lol
Click to expand...
No. I'm the guy who posted in the thread already saying that the whole alternate scoring system was useless, trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I can dislike a scoring system and still defend the merits of certain parts of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Synesthesia said:
'ConnSKINS26 said:
These are some serious mental gymnastics here. Don't pull anything.
Click to expand...
RB1 has 15 carries for 60 yards and a score, with 5 first downs. RB2 has 40 carries for 60 yards and a score, with 5 first downs. Who had a better day?QB1 went 15/20 for 250 yards, 2 scores, and 0 interceptions. QB2 went 15/50 for 250 yards, 2 scores, and 0 interceptions. Who had the better day?Hell, just look at the stats we use to evaluate RBs and QBs- yards per attempt. How do you improve your YPA? By either getting more yards, or having fewer attempts. The very nature of the statistics that we use to evaluate players accepts the fact that attempts are a bad thing that should be penalized. We don't evaluate QBs with yards per TD. Why not? Because any stat where a player can do worse by scoring more TDs would be rightly rejected as a backwards, useless statistic. Because TDs are a good thing which should be rewarded, not penalized. And yet we have no problem with penalizing for attempts. Every wonder why? Hint: it has nothing to do with mental gymnastics.
Click to expand...
Did you ever take a math course in which your professor used a logical proof to prove something ridiculous, but step by step it made sense? If A > B, and B > C, then...you get the idea.That's what this is. It all works out. It makes sense. But coming to the conclusion that a carry or a pass attempt is an inherently negative thing, mainly based on the truth that more attempts at the same yardage = lower average per attempt, DOES qualify as engaging in mental gymnastics. Impressive mental gymnastics, but a real stretch all the same. It works out. But it doesn't provide a meaningful conclusion. Carries and pass attempts are not inherently negative statistics, as much as the metrics we value vs. the metrics we would not value would indicate. You need the attempts, both passing and rushing, to accumulate statistics. High per-attempt averages do indicate efficiency, yes. But drawing the conclusion that because using these metrics, attempts are a negative thing in and of themselves...that's just digging too deep to be useful. If that makes sense. It does, however, lead to a scoring system where the more efficient players are more valuable, and score higher. If that is desirable, and for the OP, it is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hot Sauce Guy
Guillotine style post-season leagues
Replies
4
Views
311
Bankerguy
Bankerguy
JohnnyU
Post NFL DRAFT Dynasty or DEVY Drafts
3 4 5
Replies
227
Views
13K
eric rymer
eric rymer
I
***2023 Free Agency Thread***
5 6 7
Replies
311
Views
14K
Terpman22
Terpman22

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top