Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
BoltBacker

Fantasy Football: Evolving or Devolving?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, BoltBacker said:

I think another great adjustment to better reflect that Antonio Brown and Julio Jones are much, Much, MUCH more talented players than players like Melvin Gordon is to give some negative decimal point for every opportunity. If a guy gets 60 yards on 9 carries he had a better game than a guy that had 60 yards on 21 carries. Just like the first downs, and the 3RR drafting, it just seems obvious that more efficient players should get at least a SLIGHT bonus for producing as much or more on fewer opportunities. It doesn't even seem like a debatable point to me. If you are getting a bunch of opportunities you should be getting TD's/first downs/receptions/yards/whatever. If you are getting opportunities and not producing anything...... you are negatively impacting your team. Right?

Even that is too complicated for me. I mean the guy with 60 yards on 9 carries could have had 8 carries for 8 yards and then his 9th carry the blocking was perfect, the linebacker slipped and the RB was able to just sprint straight for 52 yards. Is that really impressive? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BoltBacker said:

I think another great adjustment to better reflect that Antonio Brown and Julio Jones are much, Much, MUCH more talented players than players like Melvin Gordon is to give some negative decimal point for every opportunity. If a guy gets 60 yards on 9 carries he had a better game than a guy that had 60 yards on 21 carries. Just like the first downs, and the 3RR drafting, it just seems obvious that more efficient players should get at least a SLIGHT bonus for producing as much or more on fewer opportunities. It doesn't even seem like a debatable point to me. If you are getting a bunch of opportunities you should be getting TD's/first downs/receptions/yards/whatever. If you are getting opportunities and not producing anything...... you are negatively impacting your team. Right?

There is value in having a workhorse back that gets 21 carries even if the ypc is low.   That back is running the clock and serving a purpose that may be in the game plan for that team.  Ball control and long, sustained drives.  There is value in that as well.  I wouldn't necessarily say a guy with 9 for 60 had a better game than a guy with 20 for 60.  Too many factors to make that such a simple evaluation. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

Even that is too complicated for me. I mean the guy with 60 yards on 9 carries could have had 8 carries for 8 yards and then his 9th carry the blocking was perfect, the linebacker slipped and the RB was able to just sprint straight for 52 yards. Is that really impressive? 

These type of explanations never resonate with me.

Yeah, each play is a result of multiple people doing their job. The performance of every player ultimately depends on how another player is doing their job. This is how so many leagues go down the wrong path, imo, because an INT may not be "the complete fault of the QB". Well no play good or bad is due to the player and only that player. To me that's just an argument whether or not to play fantasy football.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gally said:

There is value in having a workhorse back that gets 21 carries even if the ypc is low.   That back is running the clock and serving a purpose that may be in the game plan for that team.  Ball control and long, sustained drives.  There is value in that as well.  I wouldn't necessarily say a guy with 9 for 60 had a better game than a guy with 20 for 60.  Too many factors to make that such a simple evaluation. 

IMO, ball control offense with long sustained drives results in the player getting first downs. I am the one that wants more FF leagues to value first downs MORE, not LESS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BoltBacker said:

These type of explanations never resonate with me.

Yeah, each play is a result of multiple people doing their job. The performance of every player ultimately depends on how another player is doing their job. This is how so many leagues go down the wrong path, imo, because an INT may not be "the complete fault of the QB". Well no play good or bad is due to the player and only that player. To me that's just an argument whether or not to play fantasy football.

Of course and guys used on short yardage more would be punished in your system. My point is the same one you are making: football is really complex so saying 50 yards from one player is more valuable than 50 players from another player doesn't make sense to me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BoltBacker said:

IMO, ball control offense with long sustained drives results in the player getting first downs. I am the one that wants more FF leagues to value first downs MORE, not LESS.

Your initial comment was about efficiency and you wanted to give a bump in value to more efficient play because "it wasn't debatable" that more efficient was better.  I just provided a reason where a workhorse RB grinding yards has a purpose and value to a team. 

 

I have no issue with awarding points for first downs but that wasn't what you were commenting on in that particular post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to quit trying to find the perfect system...let fantasy just be fantasy and enjoy it....trying to recreate the NFL in our fantasy world is never really going to happen....saw a thing on TV (think there were even some shows about it)....said that in a real NFL game there are like 4-5 key moments/plays that really make the difference and "impact" the whole game...it could be a batted down pass, it could be a defender slipping, it could be a tipped INT return TD, a penalty at a bad time, etc...every new rule (like PPFD) could have its negative side like my Gurley/Goff example above....and in the league I commish we don't penalize for turnovers or incompletions, etc..often a QB throws a perfect pass but it's the WR fault why it was picked or incomplete....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, zed2283 said:

PPR is and always will be stupid.

back in the day when if you had Emmit Smith you had a huge weekly advantage on the rest of the group and stud RB was really the way you had to go....PPR helped balance that out a little....but when the league changed rules to become more focused on the passing games, it may have tilted back a little too far the other way...seems like we are kind of on a teeter totter...0.5 PPR seems about right to me...although I think in order to get the 0.5 PPR you need to have advanced  the ball past the line of scrimmage...but that might be too hard to score...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2018 at 0:03 PM, CalBear said:

The problem is that players aren't valued by the points they score, they're valued by the relative scarcity at their position of points scored over the baseline. That's why kickers aren't valuable despite scoring lots of points, and changing the scoring so kickers score more won't make them substantially more valuable. In my league last year, 43 of the top 50 scoring players were QB, K, or D, but that didn't make those positions valuable.

If you really want the positions to be equally valuable, you have to level the scoring, and then get rid of positional requirements in the starting lineup. If you want to start 8 kickers, go ahead. Call it StupidFlex.

The problem with kickers, unlike TEs is that no matter how much research and skill an owner has, picking a kicker is largely a totally random exercise.  This is because of the way we score kickers.  While many can predict offensive success, predicting FG opportunities is the equivalent of throwing darts with your eyes closed. 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, if you want to make Kickers valuable without changing the how many start or how many are available, make their scoring more predictable. 

Make all XP and FG within 40 yards worth 2 points.  Kicks from 40-49 are worth 3 points and kicks over 50 are worth 6 points. 

Now certain kickers will become far more predictable, and thus more valuable for fantasy.  he kicker's on high scoring offenses become much more valuable (they wont get on 5 points for 5 Xps when the team scores 35)  as will those kickers that are continually trusted with the 'risky' FG attempts over 50 yards.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Brisco54 said:

The problem with kickers, unlike TEs is that no matter how much research and skill an owner has, picking a kicker is largely a totally random exercise.  This is because of the way we score kickers.  While many can predict offensive success, predicting FG opportunities is the equivalent of throwing darts with your eyes closed. 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, if you want to make Kickers valuable without changing the how many start or how many are available, make their scoring more predictable. 

Make all XP and FG within 40 yards worth 2 points.  Kicks from 40-49 are worth 3 points and kicks over 50 are worth 6 points. 

Now certain kickers will become far more predictable, and thus more valuable for fantasy.  he kicker's on high scoring offenses become much more valuable (they wont get on 5 points for 5 Xps when the team scores 35)  as will those kickers that are continually trusted with the 'risky' FG attempts over 50 yards.  

Kickers will not be valuable no matter what you do to the scoring, because they just don't generate value above the baseline. Plug last year's stats into your formula, and you'll see.

The #12 kicker had 33 XPM. The #24 kicker had 25. That's a difference, in your system, of exactly one point per game from a dozen guys you could pick up on the waiver wire.

For the whole season, the #1 kicker (Zuerline) comes out at 198 points. The #12 kicker (Succop) is at 156, a difference of 2.6 points per game. Compare that to RB, where the #1 RB (Gurley) scored 319 points, while #12 (Lewis) scored 165, a difference of 14 points per game. And if you start two RBs, the #24 RB (McKinnon) scored just 124, 16.7 points per game less than Gurley.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, CalBear said:

Kickers will not be valuable no matter what you do to the scoring, because they just don't generate value above the baseline. Plug last year's stats into your formula, and you'll see.

The #12 kicker had 33 XPM. The #24 kicker had 25. That's a difference, in your system, of exactly one point per game from a dozen guys you could pick up on the waiver wire.

For the whole season, the #1 kicker (Zuerline) comes out at 198 points. The #12 kicker (Succop) is at 156, a difference of 2.6 points per game. Compare that to RB, where the #1 RB (Gurley) scored 319 points, while #12 (Lewis) scored 165, a difference of 14 points per game. And if you start two RBs, the #24 RB (McKinnon) scored just 124, 16.7 points per game less than Gurley.

Fair point, but I do get different numbers than you.  By my count Zuerlein had 200 points under the system I propose (36 points for 6 FG over 50, 36 points for 12 FG 40-49 + 128 points for 20 FG less than 40 plus 44 xp) whereas the 12th kicker (Jake Elliot) had only 125, or a healthier 75 total 4.6 points per game difference.  I show Succop as the #9 not the #12 K.  

More importantly, i am not saying that a K will be as valuable as the top RB, only more valuable than they are now.  The top handful of RB can put up very strong numbers compared to the rest at that position.... but drop below that handful and suddenly there is not so much separation. 

On that 75 total points/4.6 ppg between the #1 and #12 kicker?  That's more separation than between the #8 RB Leonard Fornette with 194 points standard scoring and the #27 RB Buck Allen 120 points standard scoring.  It is also more than the difference between the #27 RB and the #70 RB.  Note that using your numbers, the difference between the #12 to the #24 RB was only 41 points.... not all that much more than the difference between the 33 points separating the #12 and #24 K in my system.    

Currently Kickers are selected after RB5s and RB6s in drafts.  If I knew I could safely pursue the equivalent of jumping from RB27 to RB8 in points, I would be going after a top kicker before my RB3.

Edited by Brisco54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Brisco54 said:

Fair point, but I do get different numbers than you.  By my count Zuerlein had 200 points under the system I propose (36 points for 6 FG over 50, 36 points for 12 FG 40-49 + 128 points for 20 FG less than 40 plus 44 xp) whereas the 12th kicker (Jake Elliot) had only 125, or a healthier 75 total 4.6 points per game difference.  I show Succop as the #9 not the #12 K.  

More importantly, i am not saying that a K will be as valuable as the top RB, only more valuable than they are now.  The top handful of RB can put up very strong numbers compared to the rest at that position.... but drop below that handful and suddenly there is not so much separation. 

On that 75 total points/4.6 ppg between the #1 and #12 kicker?  That's more separation than between the #8 RB Leonard Fornette with 194 points standard scoring and the #27 RB Buck Allen 120 points standard scoring.  It is also more than the difference between the #27 RB and the #70 RB.  Note that using your numbers, the difference between the #12 to the #24 RB was only 41 points.... not all that much more than the difference between the 33 points separating the #12 and #24 K in my system.    

Currently Kickers are selected after RB5s and RB6s in drafts.  If I knew I could safely pursue the equivalent of jumping from RB27 to RB8 in points, I would be going after a top kicker before my RB3.

I don't see where you get 125 points for Elliot. He had:

9 FGM < 40 = 9*2 = 18

12 FGM 40-49 = 12*3 = 36

5 FGM 50+ = 5*6 = 30

39 XPM = 39*2 = 78

78+30+36+18 = 162. I have him as the #10 kicker under this system in 2017.

Furthermore, your hypothesis is that kickers will be more valuable because they're predictable under this system. In this system Zuerlein was coming off seasons of 109 and 99 points and he surely would not have been selected as the #1 overall kicker, or even in the top 5. And, you wouldn't have predicted Matt Bryant's 2016, or Graham Gano's 2015, or Dan Bailey's 2014 either.

And finally, your RB3 has upside and your kicker does not. Kareem Hunt and Mark Ingram were fifth-round fantasy picks; Kamara and Lewis were even later than that. Those are the picks that win your fantasy league. Even if you had selected Zeurlein in the fifth it wouldn't have provided a whole lot of value. And if you'd selected Justin Tucker, who was the top kicker by ADP in 2017, you would have gotten the #5 kicker, at 19 points over the baseline over the season. That's chump change.

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

Of course and guys used on short yardage more would be punished in your system.

I don't think that's true at all.

I think TD's and first downs should be more important, and yards/receptions should be less important than they currently are. Short yardage guys are already tragically under-valued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gally said:

Your initial comment was about efficiency and you wanted to give a bump in value to more efficient play because "it wasn't debatable" that more efficient was better.  I just provided a reason where a workhorse RB grinding yards has a purpose and value to a team. 

 

I have no issue with awarding points for first downs but that wasn't what you were commenting on in that particular post.

Yes, and I am explaining to you that I think those workhorse RB's would get enough first downs that they ARE being efficient and should be rewarded for getting a lot of first downs and TD's. Efficiency isn't a measure of how many opportunities you have had, it's a measure of your production with a certain amount of opportunities.

If a workhorse back is getting a bunch of opportunities and isn't getting many first downs or TD's.... he shouldn't be scoring a lot of fantasy points imo. But that's not the definition of a workhorse RB. That's the definition of a bad RB, or at least a very ineffective RB. It's my position that ineffective players shouldn't be scoring nearly as much as they are right now in fantasy football just based on volume of opportunities alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Stinkin Ref said:

I think we need to quit trying to find the perfect system..

But I'm not quibbling over small points in scoring. I'm trying to just make the logical argument that (first down)>(yard). In a vast, vast majority of fantasy football leagues out there a yard counts in fantasy football and a first down means nothing. Just admitting that a first down means more than a yard in football isn't trying to find a "perfect" scoring system. It's setting a framework to hopefully find a better scoring system than one that was used 25 years ago before computers were calculating the stats for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2018 at 8:07 AM, BoltBacker said:

Honest question: Should 1 yard be scored as more fantasy points than 1 first down?

Your derail question has nothing to do with my response. To answer it: you can create any league scoring format you want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2018 at 6:07 AM, ImTheScientist said:

Fantasy Football is fine.... message boards are a thing of the past. So to many of you it seems interest in fantasy is down when in reality it’s just the slow death of message boards you are seeing.

Prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2018 at 5:54 AM, BoltBacker said:

I think at least having the ability to flex up to 2 QB and flex up to 3 TE is a big step. But I also think if you are starting fewer than 11 players you are leaving way too much up to luck on a weekly basis. The more starters and the deeper your roster the more advantage a skilled FF player has imo.

:goodposting:

The single best change any commissioner can make to reduce the impact of luck (randomness) in his league is increasing the size of the starting lineups and rosters. Many people talk about how 16-team leagues are "more skill-oriented" and "more challenging" because of their depth - well, you can effectively duplicate the depth of a 9-starter / 5-bench 16-teamer even in a 10-team league if you're willing to go to 14 starters and 22 draft rounds.

I'm personally of the belief that average-sized (10-12 team) leagues would be better off with no start-1 positions at all - not even PK or DST (personally I'd prefer to eliminate the former and double up on the latter). But I realize that's a bridge too far for most FF owners.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

:goodposting:

The single best change any commissioner can make to reduce the impact of luck (randomness) in his league is increasing the size of the starting lineups and rosters. Many people talk about how 16-team leagues are "more skill-oriented" and "more challenging" because of their depth - well, you can effectively duplicate the depth of a 9-starter / 5-bench 16-teamer even in a 10-team league if you're willing to go to 14 starters and 22 draft rounds.

I'm personally of the belief that average-sized (10-12 team) leagues would be better off with no start-1 positions at all - not even PK or DST (personally I'd prefer to eliminate the former and double up on the latter). But I realize that's a bridge too far for most FF owners.

I've fought to increase roster size in most every league I'm in, usually with little to no success (often voted down completely, when an increase does occur it's only like 2-3 spots). I agree with the degree of difficulty for 16 team leagues and larger starting lineups; I'm in one 12 teamer but all my others are 16 teams w IDP. These leagues are more fun, more challenging, more interesting, much less random luck based.

Opposition to roster size increases is invariably something along the lines of "then waivers are useless and there's nothing on the WW". This is absolutely not true-I've been in leagues with 65 man rosters and teams still try to turnover those last few spots. I was in 2 32 team single player copy leagues with large rosters. Waivers were still active, I remember a dispute over Freddy Martino if you can believe that.

Smaller rosters are only to keep disengaged owners in leagues IMO. The guys who don't even keep full rosters, don't come to league sites for months, etc. At least in leagues that don't use BB for their waivers because then these teams invariably get the top WW player (who can be very valuable).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ranethe said:

I've fought to increase roster size in most every league I'm in, usually with little to no success (often voted down completely, when an increase does occur it's only like 2-3 spots). I agree with the degree of difficulty for 16 team leagues and larger starting lineups; I'm in one 12 teamer but all my others are 16 teams w IDP. These leagues are more fun, more challenging, more interesting, much less random luck based.

Opposition to roster size increases is invariably something along the lines of "then waivers are useless and there's nothing on the WW". This is absolutely not true-I've been in leagues with 65 man rosters and teams still try to turnover those last few spots. I was in 2 32 team single player copy leagues with large rosters. Waivers were still active, I remember a dispute over Freddy Martino if you can believe that.

Smaller rosters are only to keep disengaged owners in leagues IMO. The guys who don't even keep full rosters, don't come to league sites for months, etc. At least in leagues that don't use BB for their waivers because then these teams invariably get the top WW player (who can be very valuable).

So so true, particularly the bolded.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IDP rather than full defenses,  might help.. it makes the draft more interesting and keeps owners engaged. weekly payouts for wins or highest point total of the week gets $75-100.. make the league fees higher, meaning more payouts for playoff teams and SB champ + runner up. making the playoffs should be a break-even point, you get back what you paid in league dues, minus waivers/trades..

 in 30 years of playing FF I've found that smaller rosters dont keep disengaged owners in the league nor do the larger rosters..you could have a 4 team league and you'd still have disengaged owners. you need to find football junkies who want to join, not just the guys to take spots  #9,10 to fill out the league. 

do your own DFS league, where everyone gets a new team every week, and make it a big payout on a weekly basis for the total pts winner..treat it like a weekly Texas Hold 'em game where everyone pays $20-$40, and winner takes all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's actually look at the difference between a "traditional" league(let's use the vanilla MFL10 format because that's the general format most drafts have been this season) vs an "advanced" format that actually takes into account many of the other stats MyFantasyLeague allows you to use that go unused all too often imo. The advanced scoring uses distance TD, 1st downs, lightly weighted yards/completions... and oddly enough turning the ball over is actually a big play that hurts your team.

"traditional" MFL10 scoring.....  http://www58.myfantasyleague.com/2018/top?L=13796&SEARCHTYPE=BASIC&COUNT=250&YEAR=2017&START_WEEK=1&END_WEEK=16&CATEGORY=overall&POSITION=*&DISPLAY=points&TEAM=*

"advanced" scoring... https://www64.myfantasyleague.com/2018/top?L=16813&SEARCHTYPE=BASIC&COUNT=250&YEAR=2017&START_WEEK=1&END_WEEK=16&CATEGORY=overall&POSITION=*&DISPLAY=points&TEAM=*

Here are a few sample of differences in the player performance rankings from 2017:

Advanced Scoring(pos#/overall#) - Player(pos) - Traditional Scoring(pos#/overall#)

(1/2) - Wentz(QB) - (5/7)

To me the advanced scoring is much more reflective of reality. Wentz gets bonus points for gaining so many 1st downs and it reflects in his ranking. 

 

(27/119) - Manning(QB) - (22/43)

Manning was a top-50 player last season according to the traditional scoring? Really?

 

(9/57) - Lewis(RB) - (19/82)

Lewis had a pretty great season last year. Definitely had a better year than Eli, and that's reflected more clearly in the new scoring. 

 

(28/128) - Anderson(RB) - (18/78)

Remember all those threads over the YEARS around here clamoring how good Anderson would be if he was ever actually healthy for an entire season? 

 

(23/38) - Smith-Schuster(WR) - (30/88)

Again, which side does a better job reflecting how good a season this rookie had?

 

(38/85) - Cooper(WR) - (42/121)

This just shows efficiency isn't all about TD's. You can be a good player without getting many TD's and still do better in the advanced scoring just by taking advantage of your opportunities.

 

In all these cases and think advanced scoring shows how weak and antiquated the traditional MFL10 scoring really is. This isn't a criticism of MFL, quite the opposite. Because MFL offers so many advanced scoring options there is really no reason to take advantage of their flexibility in scoring unless we as a FF community are just too lazy to try moving toward better scoring systems. We aren't scanning through the USAToday anymore on Monday mornings... MFL is doing all the work for us. So why not take full advantage of that fact?

I can understand quibbling about how much more important a first down is than a yard. Or how much more a TD should be worth than a reception. But what I don't understand is the whole, "Well we all have our preferences in scoring systems". Well, ok, if you can find 11 other guys that think a pass incompletion should be worth 3x what a TD is..... that's fine. But as a general community can't we all agree that a TD > 1st down > yard?! Shouldn't a player that gets a TD in two carries get more points than a player that gets a TD in 25 carries? 

Are there really people out there that think Eli Manning had a better year than Smith-Schuster last season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BoltBacker As for the Eli rating, QBs are always the highest scoring players but so what? They still aren't valuable for traditional fantasy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2018 at 3:16 PM, Ilov80s said:

@BoltBacker As for the Eli rating, QBs are always the highest scoring players but so what? They still aren't valuable for traditional fantasy. 

They aren't valuable for fantasy football because there isn't much difference between the good ones and the bad ones..... you just need a guy that is starting.

Leagues that reward more for TD's and punish the bad ones for turning the ball over and not being productive even when they have a large number of attempts more accurately reflect how players are actually performing, imo.

Eli may not have even been the 119th best player last season, but at least in my opinion, he was much closer to that than he was to being the 43rd best player in the NFL last season. So what? Well, the reason for this thread is to point out that the scoring is simply out of whack and it could accurately reflect the players that are actually making differences in the real game of football better than the old, easy, lazy scoring system(s) used in the past ~20 years. A big reason a lower tier QB can score like a top 50 player is because passing yards inflates the value of QB's playing poorly. The Giants led the league in pass attempts last season, Eli didn't play well. That's the whole point of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BoltBacker said:

They aren't valuable for fantasy football because there isn't much difference between the good ones and the bad ones..... you just need a guy that is starting.

Leagues that reward more for TD's and punish the bad ones for turning the ball over and not being productive even when they have a large number of attempts more accurately reflect how players are actually performing, imo.

Eli may not have even been the 119th best player last season, but at least in my opinion, he was much closer to that than he was to being the 43rd best player in the NFL last season. So what? Well, the reason for this thread is to point out that the scoring is simply out of whack and it could accurately reflect the players that are actually making differences in the real game of football better than the old, easy, lazy scoring system(s) used in the past ~20 years. A big reason a lower tier QB can score like a top 50 player is because passing yards inflates the value of QB's playing poorly. The Giants led the league in pass attempts last season, Eli didn't play well. That's the whole point of this thread.

How did the scoring adjustment impact a guy like Brady or Wilson? In these advanced leagues are they and other QBs going in the 1st round? 

Also, I am not entirely sure to the exact extent efficiency is better than volume. That is a complex question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2018 at 7:21 AM, Mr. Irrelevant said:

:goodposting:

The single best change any commissioner can make to reduce the impact of luck (randomness) in his league is increasing the size of the starting lineups and rosters. Many people talk about how 16-team leagues are "more skill-oriented" and "more challenging" because of their depth - well, you can effectively duplicate the depth of a 9-starter / 5-bench 16-teamer even in a 10-team league if you're willing to go to 14 starters and 22 draft rounds.

I'm personally of the belief that average-sized (10-12 team) leagues would be better off with no start-1 positions at all - not even PK or DST (personally I'd prefer to eliminate the former and double up on the latter). But I realize that's a bridge too far for most FF owners.

 

Here's a different take. Don’t remove kickers from your league! Don’t make the roster sizes huge and kill the waiver wire!

One of the biggest threats to the future of fantasy football is that good players think like you guys do and in our game, players set the rules.  We all want to maximize our edge and minimize the luck factor.  That’s the way “winners” think. But that impulse is bad for fantasy football long term. 

We can agree that fantasy football is a gambling game right?  Pool is a skill game. It’s a fun game but it’s ##### for gambling.  Get really good at pool and see if you can get any action without hustling. You can’t. Nobody worse will play you for any meaningful stakes. Same with chess. Conversely poker has a ton of randomness and it’s easy to get action. You need randomness. Randomness is the lynch pin of any gambling ecosystem. Randomness is what keeps the “fish” around.  It disguises how bad they truly are and gives them just enough wins to keep them chasing.

Poker has learned this lesson the hard way. They’ve run off the bad players and the game has suffered. I saw a poker website a few years back where when you’d get all-in they wouldn’t even deal out the remaining cards, the guy with the better hand would just win in proportion to his odds. That website failed quick. Doing stuff like eliminating kickers in FF isn’t nearly as stupid as that but in my opinion it’s the same kind of wrongheaded thinking. Trust me, it’s worth sacrificing short term edges to keep the game fun for bad players and keep them around.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2018 at 9:05 AM, identikit said:

I like points for first downs.

Move the chains, get some recognition.

That’s the way to evolve the PPR, imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 8:02 PM, Joe Bryant said:

I'm also a believer in there are rarely good or bad scoring systems. There is YOUR scoring system. And adapting projected stats to your scoring is the key to success. 

To build on Joe’s point:

I find I like leagues where there’s no set recipe to win. In a league I’ve commished for 19 years, there are now a multitude of different approaches to the auction I’ve documented that were successful. It didn’t start out that way, but we evolved to having more than a few legitimate paths to win.

As a corollary, I also like scoring systems that are not easy to model (at least not by plugging your scoring system into DraftDominator and having it spit out the answer). Doesn’t mean the scoring is complex or “fake” vs. the real game - you just have to be a little creative.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Genester said:

That’s the way to evolve the PPR, imho.

I just finished a scoring analysis for our leagues scoring system and came to the same conclusion.  What had prompted it was that I noticed that WR and TE points had fallen pretty dramatically over the past two seasons.  It was a direct result of receptions and yardage for WR and TE falling from previous years.  As a league, we like for all the top guys in each position to be fairly equivalent in scoring.

For the skill positions (RB/WR/TE), I divided the stats we get points for into three areas and got the average for the top 5 players in each position:
1- Team Stats- Stats that directly impact a player's team/scoreboard (Touchdowns, First Downs and Point Differential)
2- Yardage Performance- Helps the team, but is more directly about the player (Average Yards and Total Yards)
3- Ball Handling- How does the player get the ball (Rushes and Receptions)

This is how it shook out by percentage once I was done making adjustments (2 year avg stat / average points given / Percentage of total score):

Team Scoring                    RB                                   WR                                       TE
Touchdowns              .91 / 6.4 / 11%               .68 / 4.8 / 9%                       .49 / 3.4 / 6%
First Downs              6.18 / 12.4 / 22%           4.76 / 9.5 / 18%                    3.6 / 7.2 / 13%
Point Differential           2 / 2 / 4%                        2 / 2 / 4%                             2 / 2 / 4%

Yardage Scoring                 RB                                    WR                                      TE
Total Yards             123.77 / 12.4 / 22%          98.33 / 11.8 / 22%                71.24 / 14.2 / 25%
Avg Yards                  6.92 / 7.2 / 13%             13.99 / 11.2 / 21%                13.51 / 13.5 / 24%

Ball Handling                       RB                                  WR                                        TE
Rushes/Receptions    22.39 / 15.5 / 28%          6.77 / 13.5 / 26%                  5.45 / 16.4 / 29%

Before adjusting first downs from 1 pt to 2 pts, WR and TE were almost totally dependent on receptions and yardage for their score (Almost 80%).  TE's are still in that range, but there's not much more I can or am willing to do.  The top players in each position all equal about 50-55 pts per game, which is right where I want them.

Edited by Jedi Knight
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retroactively setting your scoring based on a small sample size and/or a perceived downturn in receiving yardage seems like a mistake. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tangfoot said:

Retroactively setting your scoring based on a small sample size and/or a perceived downturn in receiving yardage seems like a mistake. 

I actually took the average over 5 years, but the past two years, receptions and yardage for WR and TE were significantly down.  Closer to what you would have considered "normal" in the early 2000's.  Generally, I don't react to single year swings, but I see a pattern where RB scoring is on the upswing.  So, instead of just depending on yardage/receptions, I made first downs a slightly bigger part of scoring.  It helps minimize the swings.  Besides, our point of view is that getting a first down is important to the team in that it moves the chains and allows the team a better chance to score.  Yeah, some insignificant players will get some points for scoring first downs, but by and large, the stars of the team get the majority of them.

ETA- I re-read your post and get what you were referring to.  When I began, I took a five year average but MFL would only give me the results of any changes for the past two seasons.  I couldn't retroactively apply to years previous to that.  Therefore, the numbers I posted were only for the last two seasons.  Also, I had done the same work about 6 years ago and compared results, so I knew I wouldn't be just spit-balling it.

Edited by Jedi Knight
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jedi Knight said:

I actually took the average over 5 years, but the past two years, receptions and yardage for WR and TE were significantly down.  Closer to what you would have considered "normal" in the early 2000's.  Generally, I don't react to single year swings, but I see a pattern where RB scoring is on the upswing.  So, instead of just depending on yardage/receptions, I made first downs a slightly bigger part of scoring.  It helps minimize the swings.  Besides, our point of view is that getting a first down is important to the team in that it moves the chains and allows the team a better chance to score.  Yeah, some insignificant players will get some points for scoring first downs, but by and large, the stars of the team get the majority of them.

ETA- I re-read your post and get what you were referring to.  When I began, I took a five year average but MFL would only give me the results of any changes for the past two seasons.  I couldn't retroactively apply to years previous to that.  Therefore, the numbers I posted were only for the last two seasons.  Also, I had done the same work about 6 years ago and compared results, so I knew I wouldn't be just spit-balling it.

Passing has definitely been down across the board the last two seasons, but the overall trend is still up when looking at 5 year or 10 year numbers. Part of the reason for passing being down last year was due to QB like Luck and Rodgers being injured, also Drew Brees did not throw quite as much as he has recently. There are many different variables that go into all of this every year.

Here is what the average team has produced over the last 10 seasons:

Quote

2017 1013 total plays 5.3 yards per play 546 pass attempts 3590 yards passing 6.1 ypa 430 rushing attempts 1755 rushing yards 4.1 ypa
2016 1022 total plays 5.5 yards per play 572 pass attempts 3864 yards passing 6.4 ypa 416 rushing attempts 1742 rushing yards 4.2 ypa
2015 1030 total plays 5.5 yards per play 572 pass attempts 3901 yards passing 6.4 ypa 421 rushing attempts 1741 rushing yards 4.1 ypa
2014 1024 total plays 5.4 yards per play 558 pass attempts 3789 yards passing 6.4 ypa 427 rushing attempts 1781 rushing yards 4.2 ypa
2013 1041 total plays 5.4 yards per play 567 pass attempts 3770 yards passing 6.2 ypa 433 rushing attempts 1806 rushing yards 4.2 ypa
2012 1027 total plays 5.4 yards per play 556 pass attempts 3701 yards passing 6.2 ypa 435 rushing attempts 1855 rushing yards 4.3 ypa
2011 1018 total plays 5.5 yards per play 544 pass attempts 3675 yards passing 6.3 ypa 436 rushing attempts 1874 rushing yards 4.3 ypa
2010 1010 total plays 5.3 yards per play 540 pass attempts 3545 yards passing 6.2 ypa 435 rushing attempts 1831 rushing yards 4.2 ypa
2009 1007 total plays 5.3 yards per play 532 pass attempts 3495 yards passing 6.2 ypa 440 rushing attempts 1867 rushing yards 4.2 ypa
2008  990 total plays 5.3 yards per play 516 pass attempts 3380 yards passing 6.2 ypa 441 rushing attempts 1855 rushing yards 4.2 ypa

The 10 year average is 1018 total plays 5.4 yards per play 550 pass attempts 3671 passing yards 6.26 ypa 431 rushing attempts 4.2 ypa

The average of the last 6 seasons has been over 550 per team. The 546 average pass attempts of 2017 was more similar to 2011 and prior to that. I still see the overall trend for pass attempts being higher than this. The average of the last 6 seasons has been 569 pass attempts.

Another thing that stands out is the 6.1 yards per passing attempt in 2017 which was the lowest in the last 10 years and a stark change from the 6.4 ypa of the previous 3 seasons. 

Again, Rodgers and Luck being injured I think having some effect here on the passing numbers and therefore yardage for receivers. Part of the ypa difference may be due to teams throwing to their RB a lot more in 2017 than teams have in previous seasons overall. The rushing attempts was right at the average but the ypa was the lowest as well and below the average.

The NFL defenses deserve some credit I think for the downward trend in offensive productivity the last two seasons. I think defenses have caught up somewhat recently.

I would expect more passing in 2018. I don't think teams overall want to be less efficient with their offensse which the numbers above show they were in 2017.

More passing and a improved ypa from last season would be just reverting to the overall tend and better numbers overall for all receivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Biabreakable said:

Passing has definitely been down across the board the last two seasons, but the overall trend is still up when looking at 5 year or 10 year numbers. Part of the reason for passing being down last year was due to QB like Luck and Rodgers being injured, also Drew Brees did not throw quite as much as he has recently. There are many different variables that go into all of this every year.

Here is what the average team has produced over the last 10 seasons:

The 10 year average is 1018 total plays 5.4 yards per play 550 pass attempts 3671 passing yards 6.26 ypa 431 rushing attempts 4.2 ypa

The average of the last 6 seasons has been over 550 per team. The 546 average pass attempts of 2017 was more similar to 2011 and prior to that. I still see the overall trend for pass attempts being higher than this. The average of the last 6 seasons has been 569 pass attempts.

Another thing that stands out is the 6.1 yards per passing attempt in 2017 which was the lowest in the last 10 years and a stark change from the 6.4 ypa of the previous 3 seasons. 

Again, Rodgers and Luck being injured I think having some effect here on the passing numbers and therefore yardage for receivers. Part of the ypa difference may be due to teams throwing to their RB a lot more in 2017 than teams have in previous seasons overall. The rushing attempts was right at the average but the ypa was the lowest as well and below the average.

The NFL defenses deserve some credit I think for the downward trend in offensive productivity the last two seasons. I think defenses have caught up somewhat recently.

I would expect more passing in 2018. I don't think teams overall want to be less efficient with their offensse which the numbers above show they were in 2017.

More passing and a improved ypa from last season would be just reverting to the overall tend and better numbers overall for all receivers.

Good info. I thought I had heard someone on a podcast discussing data say that RB receptions actually weren't up this year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2018 at 0:23 AM, Ilov80s said:

How did the scoring adjustment impact a guy like Brady or Wilson? In these advanced leagues are they and other QBs going in the 1st round? 

Also, I am not entirely sure to the exact extent efficiency is better than volume. That is a complex question. 

Per the links above, both Brady/Wilson were top 5 fantasy scorers in both scoring systems. IMO that means Brady/Wilson were much more valuable when people waiting and drafting Eli(as a lower tier starting QB) was the #119 overall scorer rather than the #44 overall scorer.

Unfortunately, it's been difficult convincing people to join a league that isn't the vanilla-MFL10 scoring that tells us that Eli Manning was the #44 best offensive player in football last season. The fact it's so hard to get people to even just TRY a new scoring format that more accurately represents how the players are performing actually was the reason I started the thread. I have no data points yet on where QB's will get drafted in those formats but I agree it would be interesting. The cynic in me is curious if another reason people are so hesitant to join a league with a better scoring system is there are fewer cheat sheets and less ADP data so leagues that are outside the norm require a higher degree of critical thinking on the part of the owner.

I actually have no problem with production being "better"(I think of it as more important) than efficiency, although I think there is certainly a balance to be struck that can be debated. I do think efficiency is just patently better than volume though. A player can have volume and actually contribute to a team losing(think of Nathan Peterman starting for the Bills last season) whereas I don't think a player can play very efficiently and cause his team to lose. He may not have a great deal of production and have little ultimate effect on the game because he had so few opportunities(in which case he shouldn't be a high fantasy scorer imo) but I don't see how he loses a game for you. 

Fleshing out that Nathan Peterman game vs the chargers in week 11 last year:

14 pass attempts, 66 yards passing, 2 rushing attempts, 4 rushing yards, 4 first downs, 0 TD, 0 FumblesLost, 0 Sacks, 5 INT's

In traditional MFL10 scoring he scored -6.3 that day which is bad.....

http://www58.myfantasyleague.com/2018/detailed?L=13796&W=11&P=13127&YEAR=2017

In "advanced scoring" he finished with a -19.5 that day which more accurately represents the fact he came close to costing his team the game by himself....

https://www64.myfantasyleague.com/2018/detailed?L=16813&W=11&P=13127&YEAR=2017

Peterman didn't play much last season but MFL10's had him as a positive 12.8 for the season. My proposed scoring system had Peterman with a (-5.0) for the season. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BoltBacker said:

Per the links above, both Brady/Wilson were top 5 fantasy scorers in both scoring systems. IMO that means Brady/Wilson were much more valuable when people waiting and drafting Eli(as a lower tier starting QB) was the #119 overall scorer rather than the #44 overall scorer.

Unfortunately, it's been difficult convincing people to join a league that isn't the vanilla-MFL10 scoring that tells us that Eli Manning was the #44 best offensive player in football last season. The fact it's so hard to get people to even just TRY a new scoring format that more accurately represents how the players are performing actually was the reason I started the thread. I have no data points yet on where QB's will get drafted in those formats but I agree it would be interesting. The cynic in me is curious if another reason people are so hesitant to join a league with a better scoring system is there are fewer cheat sheets and less ADP data so leagues that are outside the norm require a higher degree of critical thinking on the part of the owner.

I actually have no problem with production being "better"(I think of it as more important) than efficiency, although I think there is certainly a balance to be struck that can be debated. I do think efficiency is just patently better than volume though. A player can have volume and actually contribute to a team losing(think of Nathan Peterman starting for the Bills last season) whereas I don't think a player can play very efficiently and cause his team to lose. He may not have a great deal of production and have little ultimate effect on the game because he had so few opportunities(in which case he shouldn't be a high fantasy scorer imo) but I don't see how he loses a game for you. 

Fleshing out that Nathan Peterman game vs the chargers in week 11 last year:

14 pass attempts, 66 yards passing, 2 rushing attempts, 4 rushing yards, 4 first downs, 0 TD, 0 FumblesLost, 0 Sacks, 5 INT's

In traditional MFL10 scoring he scored -6.3 that day which is bad.....

http://www58.myfantasyleague.com/2018/detailed?L=13796&W=11&P=13127&YEAR=2017

In "advanced scoring" he finished with a -19.5 that day which more accurately represents the fact he came close to costing his team the game by himself....

https://www64.myfantasyleague.com/2018/detailed?L=16813&W=11&P=13127&YEAR=2017

Peterman didn't play much last season but MFL10's had him as a positive 12.8 for the season. My proposed scoring system had Peterman with a (-5.0) for the season. 

I would like the element of being in a league where everyone can't just go to a website and print out high quality rankins for free and be in good shape for the draft. 

 

Also I am dumb and didn't click on the links before asking for thank you for indulging my ignorance. Do you feel the effecieny numbers have inflated QBs? For example Blake Bortles scoring higher than Keenan Allen, Kareem Hunt,etc.? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

Do you feel the effecieny numbers have inflated QBs? For example Blake Bortles scoring higher than Keenan Allen, Kareem Hunt,etc.? 

Well, in the old MFL10 system Bortles is #18 overall and Allen is #24. In the Advanced Scoring Bortles is #20 and Allen is #22. In that case I think the new system is better than the old both because Bortles is ranked slightly lower and Allen is slightly higher.

In general all the RB's that get a TON of points on receptions in full PPR do worse in the new system. Coupled with the fact Bortles is actually a better statistical QB than many expect it isn't that surprising to me. Even in the old RB-Full-PPR system Bortles is #18 and Hunt is #16.

If any QB is inflated it's probably Carson Wentz because he gets so many first downs. I would put a much higher premium on getting first downs so I don't think this is inflating his worth but more accurately reflecting his true value. In MFL10 scoring Wentz was #7 in scoring with 314 points while Bortles was #18 with 281 for a difference of 33 points(or ~12%). Under the proposed Advanced Scoring Wentz was #2 in scoring with 257 points while Bortles was #20 with 189 points for a difference of 68 points(or 36%). While a small group of truly difference making QB's may get a bump in relative value to average or below average QB's it's counterbalanced nicely by the fact that those lower tier QB's are no longer ridiculously high simply because they are a starting QB in the NFL. The Jay Cutler's of the world drop from #65(184 points) scorer overall to #100(96 points). 

To be clear I'm not saying the scoring system I've given as an example is the perfect system that everyone should use, I'm just saying it's better than the old MFL10 system that is gaining a toe-hold as the new de facto standard. I think it's a direction towards a better way of scoring players. I think Wentz>>>Bortles>>>Cutler and the point results should reflect that fairly big difference more accurately. It's just disappointing so few people are even willing to give a newer scoring method a try even in very low stakes leagues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BoltBacker said:

Well, in the old MFL10 system Bortles is #18 overall and Allen is #24. In the Advanced Scoring Bortles is #20 and Allen is #22. In that case I think the new system is better than the old both because Bortles is ranked slightly lower and Allen is slightly higher.

In general all the RB's that get a TON of points on receptions in full PPR do worse in the new system. Coupled with the fact Bortles is actually a better statistical QB than many expect it isn't that surprising to me. Even in the old RB-Full-PPR system Bortles is #18 and Hunt is #16.

If any QB is inflated it's probably Carson Wentz because he gets so many first downs. I would put a much higher premium on getting first downs so I don't think this is inflating his worth but more accurately reflecting his true value. In MFL10 scoring Wentz was #7 in scoring with 314 points while Bortles was #18 with 281 for a difference of 33 points(or ~12%). Under the proposed Advanced Scoring Wentz was #2 in scoring with 257 points while Bortles was #20 with 189 points for a difference of 68 points(or 36%). While a small group of truly difference making QB's may get a bump in relative value to average or below average QB's it's counterbalanced nicely by the fact that those lower tier QB's are no longer ridiculously high simply because they are a starting QB in the NFL. The Jay Cutler's of the world drop from #65(184 points) scorer overall to #100(96 points). 

To be clear I'm not saying the scoring system I've given as an example is the perfect system that everyone should use, I'm just saying it's better than the old MFL10 system that is gaining a toe-hold as the new de facto standard. I think it's a direction towards a better way of scoring players. I think Wentz>>>Bortles>>>Cutler and the point results should reflect that fairly big difference more accurately. It's just disappointing so few people are even willing to give a newer scoring method a try even in very low stakes leagues.

Makes sense. Would you consider wanting to tinker with a scoring system to that is reflects quality of play like where a bad QB (Bortles for example) doesn't out score some of the top RBs and WRs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2018 at 7:52 PM, Ilov80s said:

Good info. I thought I had heard someone on a podcast discussing data say that RB receptions actually weren't up this year. 

Hmm perhaps it wasn't at a macro level. It was just consolidated into fewer RBs production. Less time share of RB getting receptions perhaps, but not more overall.

There were 3 RB with 80 or more receptions last season and David Johnson was injured, so that is a lot of RB receptions that were missing. 

There were two other RB with 60 or more receptions, so 5 RB total.

9 more RB with 50 or more receptions. 14 with 50 or more.

2 more with 40 or more receptions 16 with 40 or more.

19 RB with 30 or more receptions. 35 with 30 or more.

The total number of RB receptions overall may have been the same, I am not sure how useful that information is?

A RB who can average over 2 receptions per game should give you some sustainable advantage in PPR formats. Having one of the 50 reception RB is 3.1 receptions per game. Several of the RB who were outside of the top 14 averaged more receptions than this, such as Chris Thompson averaging 3.9 per game in his 10 games.

In 2016 there was only one RB with 80 receptions, David Johnson. So two more at that level in 2017 than the previous season. in 2015 there were two RB with 80 or more receptions. 2017 had 3 so more.

In 2016 there was one RB who had 70 or more receptions.Two RB with 70 or more receptions. 2015  there was one RB with 70 or more receptions. Two with more than 70 receptions

2016 one RB with 60-69 receptions. In 2015 same thing, one RB with 60-69 receptions. So 3 RB with 60 or more receptions, compared to 5 in 2017.

2016 there were 8 RB with 50-59 receptions. In 2015 there were 4 RB with 50-59 receptions. 2017 14 RB   2016 11 RB.    2015 7 RB.

2016 there were 8 RB with 40-49 receptions. 2015 there were 12 RB with 40-49 receptions. 2017 16 RB.  2016 17 RB.  2015 19 RB.

So the RB were actually producing more 40 or more reception RB in 2015 and 2016 than they did in 2017. The RB with 50 or more receptions in 2017 was twice as many as there were in 2015.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

Makes sense. Would you consider wanting to tinker with a scoring system to that is reflects quality of play like where a bad QB (Bortles for example) doesn't out score some of the top RBs and WRs?

Oh, absolutely. I'm must making the case that the hobby really needs to move toward better scoring systems even if they are a bit more complicated. 

I think the easiest slider to adjust to pull the QB position back a bit is the pass attempts. I currently have it set to (-0.3)/pass attempt, (-0.2)/rush attempt, (-0.1)/target. Just by changing that to (-0.5)/(-0.3)/(0.1) it definitely levels the playing field a bit. Another more aggressive adjustment is (-0.9)/(-0.5)/(-0.1) but then QB REALLY becomes a premium position because getting stuck with the less efficient QB's in the middle of the pack or lower starts to become a drag on your entire team. But really, maybe that's the way it should be. That is kind of the way it is in real football.

I'm curious where YOU rank Bortles? I realize there are a lot of folks that consider him a sub-standard QB but at least according to FBG he's never actually performed worse than his ADP. A big part of it is the fact he only missed 2 games in 4 years and another part of it is he rushes for 350+ yards and a few TD's most years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BoltBacker said:

Oh, absolutely. I'm must making the case that the hobby really needs to move toward better scoring systems even if they are a bit more complicated. 

I think the easiest slider to adjust to pull the QB position back a bit is the pass attempts. I currently have it set to (-0.3)/pass attempt, (-0.2)/rush attempt, (-0.1)/target. Just by changing that to (-0.5)/(-0.3)/(0.1) it definitely levels the playing field a bit. Another more aggressive adjustment is (-0.9)/(-0.5)/(-0.1) but then QB REALLY becomes a premium position because getting stuck with the less efficient QB's in the middle of the pack or lower starts to become a drag on your entire team. But really, maybe that's the way it should be. That is kind of the way it is in real football.

I'm curious where YOU rank Bortles? I realize there are a lot of folks that consider him a sub-standard QB but at least according to FBG he's never actually performed worse than his ADP. A big part of it is the fact he only missed 2 games in 4 years and another part of it is he rushes for 350+ yards and a few TD's most years.

Well depends what you mean. For fantasy, he is a good value for a 2QB league or 14/16 team league. Outside of 2015 where he was a garbage time stud, he just falls into that large wash of QBs with similar value. Because the defense is so good, I don't think he is going to have the passing volume to be better than around QB10-13 so since I think his upside is limited. However, if you just totally pass on QBs, Bortles is mostly going undrafted and that's a nice value- especially since he has one the best QB friendly early schedules in the fantasy.

As for real life, I think he is pretty bad and is holding the Jags back from being a SB contender. They should have taken a QB last year or this year in the draft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

Well depends what you mean. For fantasy, he is a good value for a 2QB league or 14/16 team league. Outside of 2015 where he was a garbage time stud, he just falls into that large wash of QBs with similar value. Because the defense is so good, I don't think he is going to have the passing volume to be better than around QB10-13 so since I think his upside is limited. However, if you just totally pass on QBs, Bortles is mostly going undrafted and that's a nice value- especially since he has one the best QB friendly early schedules in the fantasy.

As for real life, I think he is pretty bad and is holding the Jags back from being a SB contender. They should have taken a QB last year or this year in the draft. 

Yeah, I agree mostly. I was really hoping BUF would release Tyrod Taylor and the Jags would have signed Taylor and drafted Lamar Jackson.

If they can keep the defense together and improve the OL(by signing Norwell) because they aren't paying Bortles much then I don't think he's holding them back, but he's certainly not going to carry a team to a title. In the AFC once Brady/Gronk finally blow up(tick, tick, tick) it's pretty wide open for JAX to have a pretty big window if they can keep that young nucleus together. It'll be tough to replace Cambell but the rest of that defense is pretty young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BoltBacker said:

Oh, absolutely. I'm must making the case that the hobby really needs to move toward better scoring systems even if they are a bit more complicated. 

I think the easiest slider to adjust to pull the QB position back a bit is the pass attempts. I currently have it set to (-0.3)/pass attempt, (-0.2)/rush attempt, (-0.1)/target. Just by changing that to (-0.5)/(-0.3)/(0.1) it definitely levels the playing field a bit. Another more aggressive adjustment is (-0.9)/(-0.5)/(-0.1) but then QB REALLY becomes a premium position because getting stuck with the less efficient QB's in the middle of the pack or lower starts to become a drag on your entire team. But really, maybe that's the way it should be. That is kind of the way it is in real football.

I'm curious where YOU rank Bortles? I realize there are a lot of folks that consider him a sub-standard QB but at least according to FBG he's never actually performed worse than his ADP. A big part of it is the fact he only missed 2 games in 4 years and another part of it is he rushes for 350+ yards and a few TD's most years.

IMO some of you guys are thinking too much like scientists and not enough like game designers. The purpose of fantasy football rules shouldn’t be to most accurately reflect real player values, the purpose should be to make the game as fun as possible.

BoltBacker, if you’re proposing rules for like an expert league then your suggestion could work. But if you’re proposing that the entire industry should adopt negative decimal scoring per opportunity then respectfully your suggestion is terrible.

Here are some things the average joe sixpack finds fun:

--Simplicity

--Not having to learn new rules

--Being able to gauge how you’re doing without checking your app every few seconds or doing complicated math

--Positive scoring plays

--Not having negative scoring plays

I'm sure your intentions are good but in an effort to improve FF you're actually breaking a lot of things that work. The standard, mainstream rules that have helped the industry explode over the past 25 years are pretty damn good. That's not to say we can never deviate (superflex is a great deviation) but most attempts at that will lead to a worse game, not a better one.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, electric Ape said:

IMO some of you guys are thinking too much like scientists and not enough like game designers. The purpose of fantasy football rules shouldn’t be to most accurately reflect real player values, the purpose should be to make the game as fun as possible.

BoltBacker, if you’re proposing rules for like an expert league then your suggestion could work. But if you’re proposing that the entire industry should adopt negative decimal scoring per opportunity then respectfully your suggestion is terrible.

Here are some things the average joe sixpack finds fun:

--Simplicity

--Not having to learn new rules

--Being able to gauge how you’re doing without checking your app every few seconds or doing complicated math

--Positive scoring plays

--Not having negative scoring plays

I'm sure your intentions are good but in an effort to improve FF you're actually breaking a lot of things that work. The standard, mainstream rules that have helped the industry explode over the past 25 years are pretty damn good. That's not to say we can never deviate (superflex is a great deviation) but most attempts at that will lead to a worse game, not a better one.

I agree although those complexities do have some appeal for me personally.

I recall over 20 years ago or so my cousin and I started a dynasty league of local friends, most of them Vikings fans, but a couple Bears fans and so on.

Well we dispersed the players by auction, which their salary also represented their salary cap number for following seasons as well. Most of these owners had never played dynasty or auction before.

We also had IDP's most of the owners had never played IDP before.

It was all just too much for most of the 12 guys to keep up with as mostly casual football fans. The league dissolved before the second season.

So while it all seemed like a great idea for me and my cousin, it wasn't good for all of the owners in the league and no dynastys were established due to the league only lasting one season.

If you find the right group of owners who all prefer a more complex way of playing FF then great. The majority of owners are not going to want to deal with that level of complexity.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Biabreakable said:

I agree although those complexities do have some appeal for me personally.

No doubt. There are posters on here (yourself included) who are willing to dissect game film, break down the intricacies of offensive line play, and even  evaluate evaluations. This is a sharp message board. I was hard on BoltBacker from a game design perspective but from an advanced metrics point of view the work he has done is pretty cool. So given the fact that we're all a little obsessed with football I could see there being some appetite for this kind of league here. But the thread, if I understood the premise correctly, is more about how the industry as a whole is progressing or regressing. And from that perspective we need rules that are really casual player friendly and inclusive. We also need the right amount of randomness. One of the huge flaws of many DFS contests is that they are very hard on the suckers. I can see FF making some of the very same mistakes that ended the poker boom and I'm just hoping we wise up and don't repeat them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, electric Ape said:

Here are some things the average joe sixpack finds fun:

--Simplicity

--Not having to learn new rules

--Being able to gauge how you’re doing without checking your app every few seconds or doing complicated math

--Positive scoring plays

--Not having negative scoring plays

-- Now that computers are doing all the work for us, I don't think any of the rules are all that complicated. A guy gets 20 yards on 2 carries. Another guy gets 20 yards on 6 carries. I think most people would say the guy that got 20 yards on 2 carries had a better day(all else being equal). That doesn't seem all that complicated to me.

 Believe me, I started this hobby when you got 6 points for a TD and 3 points for a FG. This argument for simplicity has been made since people tried introducing yards(or at least distance scoring) in the first place. Ironically enough I was one of the people arguing yards should count..... fast forward 30 years and I feel like I'm the one yelling that the king isn't wearing any clothes because yardage(and receptions) are TOO valuable to the point they are ruining the hobby imo.

-- I agree with this. People are resistant to change. Ever. Even when the current scoring system is telling them that Eli Manning was one of the 50 best offensive football players in the league last season and Jay Cutler was one of the top 100. Even in the face of that..... must..... not..... change. That is 100% true. "No, it aint broke! Jay Cutler played better than a lot of folks think!" or so it goes. And goes. And goes.

-- This I completely disagree with. The people I'm around constantly check their phone all day every day whether they are keeping track of their fantasy football team or dozens of other things. Unless all your players are playing in the game you are watching I don't know how you gauge how you are doing without looking at your phone(computer screen/etc) but in my experience it wouldn't matter because people can't go more than a commercial break or two without looking at it for one reason or another. If this really is a thing for some people I would assume they would be better off on just betting on the game they are watching straight up rather than playing fantasy football.

-- I agree, positive scoring plays are important. I'm arguing first downs should be positive scoring plays. They are more important than a catch. They are more important than a yard. Still plenty of room to get on this bus.

-- I don't really understand this one. Turning the ball over is one of the biggest plays in the sport of football. To pretend there are no negative plays in football seems like folly to me. Dropping a pass. Getting stuffed at the line of scrimmage. If EVERY play was positive.... then what would the point be? Should all the teams get superbowl trophies?

I think overall we just mostly disagree that what is good for the the hobby(and games in general) is randomness. I mean, there are a lot of people that play the power-ball and roulette. This is true. Those are probably the same people that feel they want dumbed-down rules if they have any interest in fantasy football. I don't think a lack of randomness is what made poker less fun(if I recall I think it was some combination of a crack-down on illegal online casinos and the online casinos weren't all above board in the first place which was just SHOCKING). I don't think people are drawn to games of skill because they want more randomness. People that want randomness pull on the lever of a slot machine. If randomness is the goal then I think the best idea would be creating a league where all you had was PK's. Or better yet, draw a football on one side of a coin and a helmet on the other and just flip the coin to see who wins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Biabreakable said:

The majority of owners are not going to want to deal with that level of complexity.

When you say "deal with that level of complexity" do you mean they don't want to take the time to look at the sheet that a computer generated making all the calculations for them? Or do you mean they don't want to think for themselves at a draft because it's more difficult to find some cheatsheet online that someone has prepared for them?

I'm having a tough time following this complexity hurdle everyone is talking about. I used to have to scan the USAToday to score all the yards on Monday mornings. That was a time consuming level of complexity that was added to fantasy football at the time(and made my hands black with ink at the end of the process).

Maybe it's because I'm a fancy person but just changing the formula that a machine uses to calculate results doesn't seem complex to me at all. I'm not attacking you btw, because it seems there are a whole lot of folks that think changing a formula for a machine to calculate results IS complex. I'm just trying to understand that viewpoint better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.