BoltBacker

Fantasy Football: Evolving or Devolving?

132 posts in this topic

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).

2 people like this

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.

2 people like this

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.

1 person likes this

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 0:33 AM, Rodrigo Duterte said:

Prove it.

Twitter 

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.

2 people like this

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.

1 person likes this

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
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.