BoltBacker

Fantasy Football: Evolving or Devolving?

169 posts in this topic

It's waning, for a number of reasons.  I can't prove as much but I'm pretty sure it's seen its peak.  Legalized gambling and dfs are obviously not helping.  When you can grab your phone and make bets in-game no problem, on players no less, that is not good for FF.  Dynasty is really going to really fall by the wayside imo.  

 

I'm indifferent now, never thought that would happen.  Didn't even play last year and am as excited to jump back in as having diarrhea after way too much hot sauce.

Is FBG's thinking about selling?  They should've cashed out two years ago.  Or did they to an extent?  They partnered up with Draft Kings, was it?  Just curious and I could be wrong of course but the rage is long gone already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just remembered all the debate on here long ago about how FF wasn't about gambling.  LMFAO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 11:18 AM, Stinkin Ref said:

so how does PPFD work...

if Gurley runs for 9.5 yards on first down and then Goff QB sneaks for 0.5 resulting in a first down....how is that scored...

and what if Goff passes to Higbee for that 0.5 yard and first down..

I think you know how that is scored. Gurley gets 0.9 points and Goff get 1.1 points or Higbee get 1.1 points in your second scenario. Sure, it seems a little unfair, but 3rd and 1 is a tough yard to get (I think we both know he's not running a QB sneak on 2nd and 1). Also, it is far much more likely that Gurley rushed twice for 4.5 yards each than a single 9 yard run. That's not bad, but I don't think two 4.5 yard runs really deserves an extra point.

But your stated scenario is much more rare than a 3rd down back catching a meaningless dump off for 7 yards on 3rd and 10 and getting 1.7 points. 

Goff had two rushing first downs last year. Duke caught 74 passes last year. Only 34 went for 1st downs. Meanwhile, Gurley had 69 rushing first downs and 31 receiving first downs. In the long run, PPFD rewards the players that are picking up the tough yards and moving the chains. However, PPR is blind. All receptions are worth the same. If a guy catches a pass and gets tackled for a loss, he gets more points than the player that wisely intentionally bats the ball down to save yards and clock. If a guy catches a 7 yard pass on 3rd and 15, that's worth the same as catching a 7 yard pass on 3rd and 5. But we all know the defense was willing to give away the yard catch on 3rd and 15 uncontested, while the 7 yard pass on 3rd and 5 was likely highly contested. These should have different values!

Landry is a player whose value I feel is inflated by PPR. In the past 4 years the guy has 401 receptions. Only 221 have been for first downs. Mike Evans only has 309 receptions, but 245 of them have been first downs. Evans has 959.4 points to Landry's 937.1 - barely 5 points per season more, despite having 10 more TDs than Landry, over 500 more yards, and 24 more first downs. That's crazy. Change it to PPFD and we're looking at 895.4 to 757.1. Seems much more reasonable, IMO.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

I just remembered all the debate on here long ago about how FF wasn't about gambling.  LMFAO.

It's definitely not for most of us, I believe. 

One, it's for a tiny amount of money in the scheme of things.
Two, season long fantasy football is an excruciatingly long play in terms of gambling's normal instantaneous gratification mode of operation.
Three, I don't even enjoy gambling and I think many people who don't enjoy gambling do enjoy FF... and many people who enjoy gambling are not drawn to FF.

While there is a small aspect of gambling to fantasy football, for most of us, the use of money is first and foremost to guarantee people don't quit or do stupid crap that people do in free leagues. In my experience, the people most prone to doing stupid, petty crap are the people who the money means the most to.

My portfolio routinely fluctuates over $10k per day just due to normal market volatility. I don't give a **** about a fraction of some $1200-$3000 pot from a 16 week long game.

P.S. yes, I know investing is sometimes seen as a form of gambling, but a lot more goes into it than just random chance like normal gambling.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

I think you know how that is scored. Gurley gets 0.9 points and Goff get 1.1 points or Higbee get 1.1 points in your second scenario. Sure, it seems a little unfair, but 3rd and 1 is a tough yard to get (I think we both know he's not running a QB sneak on 2nd and 1). Also, it is far much more likely that Gurley rushed twice for 4.5 yards each than a single 9 yard run. That's not bad, but I don't think two 4.5 yard runs really deserves an extra point.

But your stated scenario is much more rare than a 3rd down back catching a meaningless dump off for 7 yards on 3rd and 10 and getting 1.7 points. 

Goff had two rushing first downs last year. Duke caught 74 passes last year. Only 34 went for 1st downs. Meanwhile, Gurley had 69 rushing first downs and 31 receiving first downs. In the long run, PPFD rewards the players that are picking up the tough yards and moving the chains. However, PPR is blind. All receptions are worth the same. If a guy catches a pass and gets tackled for a loss, he gets more points than the player that wisely intentionally bats the ball down to save yards and clock. If a guy catches a 7 yard pass on 3rd and 15, that's worth the same as catching a 7 yard pass on 3rd and 5. But we all know the defense was willing to give away the yard catch on 3rd and 15 uncontested, while the 7 yard pass on 3rd and 5 was likely highly contested. These should have different values!

Landry is a player whose value I feel is inflated by PPR. In the past 4 years the guy has 401 receptions. Only 221 have been for first downs. Mike Evans only has 309 receptions, but 245 of them have been first downs. Evans has 959.4 points to Landry's 937.1 - barely 5 points per season more, despite having 10 more TDs than Landry, over 500 more yards, and 24 more first downs. That's crazy. Change it to PPFD and we're looking at 895.4 to 757.1. Seems much more reasonable, IMO.

I think the biggest "problem" is that people such as yourself want fantasy football scoring to match actual football scoring in terms of scarcity, skill required, and talent level.

But that's not the game we play most of the time.  From the get go, the entire point has been to accumulate stats, and these generally don't correlate to NFL wins and losses.

It's interesting that I haven't heard the argument that Kirk Cousins shouldn't have scored more points than Ben Roethlisburger because the Redskins lost more games.

 

Embrace this game for what it is, talk to your leaguemates or find a new league that has scoring that you agree with, but it's silly to sit back and ##### about various problems with the game that you disagree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

I think the biggest "problem" is that people such as yourself want fantasy football scoring to match actual football scoring in terms of scarcity, skill required, and talent level.

But that's not the game we play most of the time.  From the get go, the entire point has been to accumulate stats, and these generally don't correlate to NFL wins and losses.

It's interesting that I haven't heard the argument that Kirk Cousins shouldn't have scored more points than Ben Roethlisburger because the Redskins lost more games.

Embrace this game for what it is, talk to your leaguemates or find a new league that has scoring that you agree with, but it's silly to sit back and ##### about various problems with the game that you disagree with.

Similarly, I think it is stupid to not question the status quo. Players are accumulating receptions and first downs. Why should we blindly keep tallying points for the receptions and not the first downs? Just as in life and business, it's always good to take a step back and think about how and why you are doing things. If the best answer you can come up with is "because it's the way we've always done it" then there's a solid chance you've got an opportunity to improve. So you can sit back lethargically and criticize people who are looking to improve or you can brainstorm ways to improve going forward. Your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2018 at 7:44 AM, bostonfred said:

Different people like different things and that's ok. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

Similarly, I think it is stupid to not question the status quo. Players are accumulating receptions and first downs. Why should we blindly keep tallying points for the receptions and not the first downs? Just as in life and business, it's always good to take a step back and think about how and why you are doing things. If the best answer you can come up with is "because it's the way we've always done it" then there's a solid chance you've got an opportunity to improve. So you can sit back lethargically and criticize people who are looking to improve or you can brainstorm ways to improve going forward. Your choice.

It's obvious that people fear change.  I can't get my ####### leaguemates to axe kickers from the league.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

It's obvious that people fear change.  I can't get my ####### leaguemates to axe kickers from the league.

Try going to opposite direction and suggest you start 2 of them every week...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

Similarly, I think it is stupid to not question the status quo. Players are accumulating receptions and first downs. Why should we blindly keep tallying points for the receptions and not the first downs? Just as in life and business, it's always good to take a step back and think about how and why you are doing things. If the best answer you can come up with is "because it's the way we've always done it" then there's a solid chance you've got an opportunity to improve. So you can sit back lethargically and criticize people who are looking to improve or you can brainstorm ways to improve going forward. Your choice.

You're pretty quick to drop things down to the insult level, no?  Your post would be better received (maybe) if you stopped typing a little earlier.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 7:10 PM, Gally said:

Why shouldn't they be valued equally?  This is a fake game that we are forever tweaking.  I want to have all positions equal for FF purposes because it allows every owner to build their team the way they want to.  It leads to more creativity and you don't get stuck with everyone doing the same thing.  You also reward those that do their own research a little more because you can't just go get a standard cheat sheet to complete. 

 

Neither way is right or wrong.  They are just options to help keep things fresh.  Try out stuff and see what you like.  I think that's the point of the discussion.

Let's say you've been in a non-PPR dynasty league for 6 years.  It's standard scoring with starting lineups of 1QB/1RB/3WR/1TE/2 FLEX.  You've painstakingly built the team the way you like it. 

You have 1 top-flight QB and a promising rookie.  You feel you don't need more than that due to the scoring rules.

You have 1 top-flight RB and a couple promising backups.  You feel you don't need more than that due to the scoring rules.

You have stacked your team at WR with guys you feel are TD-heavy.

You have crap at TE just due to the luck of the draw.

Now, in year 7, your league goes PPR, 2QB/2RB/2WR/2TE/1 FLEX.  The league voted, this offseason, to go that route saying, "Why shouldn't they (the positions) be valued equally?"

Aren't you unhappy that your team cannot just change on the fly and that it'll take time (seasons, most likely) to change over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Spike said:

Let's say you've been in a non-PPR dynasty league for 6 years.  It's standard scoring with starting lineups of 1QB/1RB/3WR/1TE/2 FLEX.  You've painstakingly built the team the way you like it. 

You have 1 top-flight QB and a promising rookie.  You feel you don't need more than that due to the scoring rules.

You have 1 top-flight RB and a couple promising backups.  You feel you don't need more than that due to the scoring rules.

You have stacked your team at WR with guys you feel are TD-heavy.

You have crap at TE just due to the luck of the draw.

Now, in year 7, your league goes PPR, 2QB/2RB/2WR/2TE/1 FLEX.  The league voted, this offseason, to go that route saying, "Why shouldn't they (the positions) be valued equally?"

Aren't you unhappy that your team cannot just change on the fly and that it'll take time (seasons, most likely) to change over?

If this kind of drastic scoring and line up change was going to happen in one of my dynasty leagues I’d want to draft all over again. Maybe play out current setup over next 2 seasons then throw all the players back in the pool and have a new startup draft. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

 

Now, in year 7, your league goes PPR, 2QB/2RB/2WR/2TE/1 FLEX.  The league voted, this offseason, to go that route saying, "Why shouldn't they (the positions) be valued equally?"

Aren't you unhappy that your team cannot just change on the fly and that it'll take time (seasons, most likely) to change over?

That is not exactly what I was referring to.  I was not alluding to changing starting lineup requirements.  I was alluding to altering the scoring to make each position similar in scoring so that they are similar in value.

 

You are talking about changing the entire basis of your league.  That is apples to oranges.

 

And as stated above I also wouldn't have a problem making the change as you described and having a refrsh and start over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Gally said:

make each position similar in scoring so that they are similar in value

That's not how it works though.  

Share this post


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

That's not how it works though.  

I know there are other factors and many of which are complicated.  There is no way to make all positions completely equal but making similar tiered players at each position score the same amount of points (or as close as possible) is a step in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gally said:

I know there are other factors and many of which are complicated.  There is no way to make all positions completely equal but making similar tiered players at each position score the same amount of points (or as close as possible) is a step in the right direction.

It could very easily be a step in the wrong direction, because you don't really have any control over how many players are in each tier at each position.  It sounds like what you want is basically that at any point in a hypothetical draft, it's equally viable to draft a QB or a RB or a WR or a K or whatever.  You're not going to create that situation by changing the scoring. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 4:37 PM, Ilov80s said:

For those in leagues where they try to level out the scoring for all positions, are you also going to 2 QB and 2 TE? Otherwise, I don't see how leveling the scoring has a big impact on those positions. 

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 5:26 PM, Slider said:

I think this is the way to go. We had seven RB's score over the first WR. So, Melvin Gordon over Julio and Antonio Brown is kind of odd.

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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.

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

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?

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? 

3 people like this

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. 

3 people like this

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.

1 person likes this

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.

2 people like this

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

PPR is and always will be stupid.

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...

1 person likes this

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

 

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want kickers to be valuable, force everyone to start 3 of them in a 12-team league.

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.

1 person likes this

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.