A Fantasy Scoring Revolution (In Search of a New System) (1 Viewer)

[TheMathNinja]

I've dealt too long with nonsense fantasy scoring systems, and so after much deliberation, I'm finally proposing something new in fantasy scoring to you all, the sharks. I'm hoping it sparks some awesome discussion, and maybe even a new alternate format for some leagues. We've all been on the wrong side of a fantasy game when the third-down RB on our opponent's team scores more points for a 1-yd TD run than our every-down guy did for marching the ball 60 yards down the field (it's tragic!). And I know none of you actually thinks a QB who goes 35-for-60 for 300 yards had as good of a game as the one who goes 35-for-40 for 300 yards. So I'm here to propose something new: a fantasy scoring system that is simple, gives familiar point values, and yet actually measures the real, on-the-field contribution a player makes to his team.

The good news is, contribution isn't impossible to measure. The guys at AdvancedNFLStats.com have done well in creating "Estimated Points Added" (EPA), a measure of how many points a player improves or un-improves his team's expected points on every play, based on data from thousands of games on how down-and-yardage situations translate into real in-game points. For example, 1st and 10 at my own 40 yard-line is worth an estimated 1.44 points, because that's the average net gain for teams in that position over many years. In this situation, an 8-yard run is worth +0.53 points, an incomplete pass is worth -0.53 points, and a fumble at the line of scrimmage is worth -4.10 points. For more details on the concept, see http://bit.ly/d0ybjq, and you can browse the raw data here: http://bit.ly/19KNGWk. Though the EPA value of 8-yard runs, incompletions, and fumbles are somewhat situation-dependent, they're much less so than you might think, and so very meaningful averages can be ascertained. And I've done just that (via dizzying quantities of Multiple Linear Regression models).

The problem is, most fantasy systems don't penalize the incompletion like they reward the 8-yard run, or penalize the fumble as if it undoes eight 8-yard runs, on average. What results is the glorification of highly inefficient players who post a lot of "production", but do so while often hurting their team (i.e. who rack up inordinate amounts of drops, sacks, incompletions, and 2-yard runs that don't get 1st downs en route to "production"). For example, Trent Richardson only improved his team's expected points on 39.8% of his touches in 2012 (notice 3.6 yards per carry), totaling -19.7 EPA over the 15 games he played. C.J. Spiller, on the other hand, improved his team's expected points on 51.9% of his touches, totaling +48.3 EPA through his team's first 15 games. Notice he outgained Richardson by 250 yards on 85 fewer carries and had 20 more receiving yards on 20 fewer targets. And yet, standard fantasy scoring had Richardson leading Spiller by 8.5 fantasy points after 15 weeks! This is because detrimental running plays are not penalized, and the standard 5-yard TD run (which takes your team from 5 expected points to achieving a full 7) is awarded with 6 points, though it's only worth about 1.6 (since you have to kickoff after, giving 0.4 points to the other team), while yards are awarded at roughly their EPA value.

So what system fixes these major issues? The answer, of course, is that there is no perfect system. Some systems can estimate EPA quite closely, but are neither intuitive, nor satisfactory at all (i.e. a fantasy system where Trent Richardson is worth negative points on the year). The current standard system, on the other hand, may "feel good", but doesn't give results true to the game of football. But I have devised a system that tries to find a happy medium in being simple, giving "familiar" point values per game (about 3 times EPA), and yet resembles actual Estimated Points Added. Here are the basics:

Rushing:
-0.5 points per rushing attempt
0.2 points per yard (1 point per 5 yards)
4 points per Rush TD
-6 points per fumble

Receiving:
-1 point per target
0.5 points per reception
0.2 points per yard
4 points per Receiving TD
-6 points per fumble

Passing:
-0.7 points per pass attempt
0.5 points per completion
0.7 points per 5 yards gained
-2 points per sack
4 points per Passing TD
-6 points per INT or Fumble

I realize fully that the passing numbers are a bit messy, but TD's (+4), turnovers (-6), and standard 5-yard gains (+0.5) are simple and consistent across positions. If you're skeptical at first, consider the results for the 2012 season, with the standard system scores in parenthesis:

QBs:
1. Tom Brady - 477 pts (329 standard)....EPA: 202.5
2. Drew Brees - 469 pts (337 standard)....EPA: 157.8
3. Peyton Manning - 464 pts (304 standard)...EPA: 171.5
4. Matt Ryan - 429 pts (291 standard)...EPA: 178.8
5. Robert Griffin III - 424 pts (304 standard)...EPA: 138.4
6. Aaron Rodgers - 416 (329 standard)...EPA: 162.0
Standard System Correlation to EPA: 72.6%
New System Correlation to EPA: 88.9%

RBs:
1. Adrian Peterson - 302 pts (297 standard)...EPA: 31.4
2. Doug Martin - 226 pts (248 standard)...EPA: 17.4
3. Marshawn Lynch - 220 pts (234 standard)...EPA: 19.6
4. C.J. Spiller - 217 pts (199 standard)...EPA: 40.5
5. Alfred Morris - 205 pts (230 standard)...EPA: 4.8
6. Frank Gore - 190 pts (190 standard)...EPA: 11.2
Standard System Correlation to EPA: 9.0%
New System Correlation to EPA: 24.0%

WRs:
1. Calvin Johnson - 254 pts (214 standard)...EPA: 107.3
2. Andre Johnson - 230 pts (176 standard)...EPA: 83.4
3. Dez Bryant - 229 pts (201 standard)...EPA: 59.1
4. Brandon Marshall - 219 pts (210 standard)...EPA: 51.4
5. Demaryius Thomas - 216 pts (191 standard)...EPA: 85.9
6. Roddy White - 206 pts (169 standard)...EPA: 71.2
Standard System Correlation to EPA: 49.8%
New System Correlation to EPA: 67.3%

The slight decrease in RB scores relative to WR's is largely due to their relative lack of efficiency (Yds/Att), and QB scores are higher because they aren't arbitrarily deducted points for the sake of balance; the goal for both QB's and WR's was a fantasy score worth about 3 times EPA. Come draft time, this system makes QB's, RB's, and WR's all essentially equal in value in standard roster systems, a huge bonus that finally ends the absurdity of RB's being taken with the first 10 picks of a fantasy draft. Using Value-Based Drafting with the 14th starter as a baseline, the best first round choices in a 14-team league in 2012 would have included 5 QB's, 5 RB's, and 4 WR's.

Using this system, now Aaron Rodgers' sacks, Drew Brees' picks, A.J. Green's drops, and Arian Foster's struggles to get beyond 3 yards (all of which hugely affect their contribution to their team's scoring chances) all have an appropriate impact on their fantasy value, as does Matt Ryan's stellar completion percentage, Andre Johnson's massive yard total, and C.J. Spiller's efficiency. I've also developed a scoring system based on the same concept for IDP's.

So what do you think? Is the added accuracy to a player's REAL football value worth some added complexity? Are you willing to properly penalize pass attempts, rush attempts, and targets in order to accurately value a player's points contributed? Are you fed up enough with the standard system's propensity to value guys who just touch the ball all day long rather than those really move it down field in order to make a switch to a system like this? I'd like your thoughts, because I'm running at least one league this year based on this system, and am interested in piloting a few others for those who are ready for something a little more accurate and informative.

 

[wdh76]

And I know none of you actually thinks a QB who goes 35-for-60 for 300 yards had as good of a game as the one who goes 35-for-60 for 300 yards

Why not?

 

[TheMathNinja]

And I know none of you actually thinks a QB who goes 35-for-60 for 300 yards had as good of a game as the one who goes 35-for-60 for 300 yards

Why not?

My mistake; I meant 35-for-40 on the second one.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks MathNinja. Love to see thoughtfulness and insight going into our game. Hope you get some good feedback here.

J

 

[BroadwayG]

Did you calculate this past the top 6 spots?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Interesting. Is the -6 for fumbles or fumbles lost? Because, while luck is often the determining factor in who recovers a fumble, it seems a bit unfair to give a player -6 for a non-turnover.

 

[TheCommish]

I've seen scoring systems like this before, and they probably do assess value more accurately than traditional scoring systems. However, there is a lot to be said for keeping it simple. Deducting points for anything more than INTs and lost fumbles (and especially keeping track of attempts, completions, carries, targets and receptions) makes it tough on owners watching the games. I know the online packages can handle the scoring systems automatically, but people in my league like being able to know how many points a guy got a few seconds after the play ended.

 

[Keith R]

I've seen scoring systems like this before, and they probably do assess value more accurately than traditional scoring systems. However, there is a lot to be said for keeping it simple. Deducting points for anything more than INTs and lost fumbles (and especially keeping track of attempts, completions, carries, targets and receptions) makes it tough on owners watching the games. I know the online packages can handle the scoring systems automatically, but people in my league like being able to know how many points a guy got a few seconds after the play ended.

I agree with this. At some point, you sacrifice fun for realism with these types of systems, which I see as too high a cost.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

I've seen scoring systems like this before, and they probably do assess value more accurately than traditional scoring systems. However, there is a lot to be said for keeping it simple. Deducting points for anything more than INTs and lost fumbles (and especially keeping track of attempts, completions, carries, targets and receptions) makes it tough on owners watching the games. I know the online packages can handle the scoring systems automatically, but people in my league like being able to know how many points a guy got a few seconds after the play ended.

100% agree. I'm all in favor of a system that does a better job of equalizing the relative value of the skill positions. This certainly seems to do that; but there are other, simpler, methods of tinkering with scoring systems (and/or other elements, such as lineup requirements) that deliver roughly the same benefits in that area.


In terms of achieving significant correlation between real-life and FF value, I didn't think the first time I read this post that any scoring system was likely to do that while simultaneously retaining what I'd call an acceptable level of simplicity. But I gave it some thought anyway - starting with the philosophy that if there's a bias to be had, I'd think it should err on the side of simplicity rather than correlative power - and I wound up pleasantly surprised ... this whole thing might not be tilting at windmills after all.

In the spirit of the above, my recommendations to the OP would be:

• Eliminate targets - they're not an official NFL statistic, and introducing a subjective element to FF scoring ... thar be dragons.
• Scale back the turnover penalties a bit. Yes, I know that turnovers are far more correlated with wins and losses than any other single FF-related metric - it doesn't matter; people are going to see -6 as unfairly punitive. I think -4 might be as high as you can reasonably go here.
• That -0.7 per pass attempt and +0.5 per completion seems unnecessarily complicated. Just going to -1 per attempt and +1 per completion should correlate almost as well (most NFL QB's hover between 60-65% CR, and your typical 25-for-40 game would score about -15 on this simplified combined measure vs. -15.5 on your original combined measure).
• Finally, with targets no longer being counted against, WR scoring has to come down some, but I'd like to see it somehow aligned so that a yard doesn't count differently for rushing, receiving, and passing. Perhaps 0.2 per rushing yard and 0.1 per passing/receiving yard?

I'm guessing that with just these changes, this new scoring system would still be 80-85% as well correlated with real-life added value as your originally proposed system, yet would be simple enough to make intuitive sense to your garden-variety FF devotee. Looking forward to more discussion on this.

 

[Dragon1952]

So you penalize the QB for sacks.....hmm. There are some pretty crummy OL's out there. And for attempting a pass? I thought that's what they were supposed to do. It's bad enough penalizing the QB for every INT when in many cases they aren't even his fault. I guess QB's like Jay Cutler with a paper mache OL could actually end up with -35 pts.

 

[B-Deep]

the -6 for fumbles and only 4 points for a TD seems odd

I am not saying it is wrong, i am saying it does not feel right

 

[TheMathNinja]

Did you calculate this past the top 6 spots?

Yes Broadway, I have the totals calculated for all players. I just showed the top 6 for brevity. Would you want to see something more complete?

Interesting. Is the -6 for fumbles or fumbles lost? Because, while luck is often the determining factor in who recovers a fumble, it seems a bit unfair to give a player -6 for a non-turnover.

Great clarification, GhostRider. This is for fumbles lost. -6 is too severe a penalty for what ends up only being an unsatisfactory end to a play; of course whatever yards are lost by the fumble are reflected by the yardage number.

I've seen scoring systems like this before, and they probably do assess value more accurately than traditional scoring systems. However, there is a lot to be said for keeping it simple. Deducting points for anything more than INTs and lost fumbles (and especially keeping track of attempts, completions, carries, targets and receptions) makes it tough on owners watching the games. I know the online packages can handle the scoring systems automatically, but people in my league like being able to know how many points a guy got a few seconds after the play ended.

I totally agree, TheCommish. For what it's worth, this is still quite easy for RB's (you have to deduct a half point at the start for every carry, and then the yards are still simple. For WR's, you do the same thing, just deducting half a point when they catch it, and then the special case of deducting a full point if they're targeted but don't catch it.

So you penalize the QB for sacks.....hmm. There are some pretty crummy OL's out there. And for attempting a pass? I thought that's what they were supposed to do. It's bad enough penalizing the QB for every INT when in many cases they aren't even his fault. I guess QB's like Jay Cutler with a paper mache OL could actually end up with -35 pts.

Great point, Dragon. I admit entirely that OL's ought to receive a large part of the blame for sacks...but then again, we accept this at positions like RB...if your O-line sucks, your numbers suffer. I think some QB's perennially take more sacks due to slower release, and I think this needs to show up in QB fantasy value because it seriously affects the game...O-lines are certainly to share some blame, but they're actually to share some blame for every offensive player's fantasy value; I see this as not much different. And the penalty for a pass attempt is to basically penalize guys for incompletions and short passes that don't improve a team's position. This is the only way to make the QB who goes 35-for-40 for 300 yards more valuable than the QB who goes 35-for-60 for 300 yards.

the -6 for fumbles and only 4 points for a TD seems odd

I am not saying it is wrong, i am saying it does not feel right

B-deep, I'm totally in agreement with you there. It feels wrong to me, too. But when I looked at the hard data, I ended up calling this feeling of wrongness my "fantasy bias"...i.e. fantasy scoring actually wrongly biases how I value plays in the game of football. In reality, fumbles are much more severe in relation to TD's than this; I kept them this close as a "fantasy concession". From a pure EPA standpoint, TD's are about +1.6 EPA, and fumbles about -4 EPA. A closer approximation to true EPA would be +3 for TD's and -8 for fumbles.

I've seen scoring systems like this before, and they probably do assess value more accurately than traditional scoring systems. However, there is a lot to be said for keeping it simple. Deducting points for anything more than INTs and lost fumbles (and especially keeping track of attempts, completions, carries, targets and receptions) makes it tough on owners watching the games. I know the online packages can handle the scoring systems automatically, but people in my league like being able to know how many points a guy got a few seconds after the play ended.

100% agree. I'm all in favor of a system that does a better job of equalizing the relative value of the skill positions. This certainly seems to do that; but there are other, simpler, methods of tinkering with scoring systems (and/or other elements, such as lineup requirements) that deliver roughly the same benefits in that area.


In terms of achieving significant correlation between real-life and FF value, I didn't think the first time I read this post that any scoring system was likely to do that while simultaneously retaining what I'd call an acceptable level of simplicity. But I gave it some thought anyway - starting with the philosophy that if there's a bias to be had, I'd think it should err on the side of simplicity rather than correlative power - and I wound up pleasantly surprised ... this whole thing might not be tilting at windmills after all.

In the spirit of the above, my recommendations to the OP would be:

• Eliminate targets - they're not an official NFL statistic, and introducing a subjective element to FF scoring ... thar be dragons.
• Scale back the turnover penalties a bit. Yes, I know that turnovers are far more correlated with wins and losses than any other single FF-related metric - it doesn't matter; people are going to see -6 as unfairly punitive. I think -4 might be as high as you can reasonably go here.
• That -0.7 per pass attempt and +0.5 per completion seems unnecessarily complicated. Just going to -1 per attempt and +1 per completion should correlate almost as well (most NFL QB's hover between 60-65% CR, and your typical 25-for-40 game would score about -15 on this simplified combined measure vs. -15.5 on your original combined measure).
• Finally, with targets no longer being counted against, WR scoring has to come down some, but I'd like to see it somehow aligned so that a yard doesn't count differently for rushing, receiving, and passing. Perhaps 0.2 per rushing yard and 0.1 per passing/receiving yard?

I'm guessing that with just these changes, this new scoring system would still be 80-85% as well correlated with real-life added value as your originally proposed system, yet would be simple enough to make intuitive sense to your garden-variety FF devotee. Looking forward to more discussion on this.

Mr. Irrelevant, I actually originally valued turnovers at -4 in my system, since that's their true EPA value. But since I valued "positive production" at 2-3 times EPA, I thought it might be good to penalize turnovers at 1.5 times. What actually drove this, honestly, was Drew Brees being over-valued due to lack of penalization for his INT's, and I wanted to make fumbles the same for consistency's sake. But I'm open to -4 . Would you like to see the actual correlations with your proposed system? It wouldn't be hard to generate.

 

[GregR]

Good topic. One potential conflict with your goal that jumped out at me though was inclusion of targets:

Receiving:
-1 point per target
0.5 points per reception
0.2 points per yard
4 points per Receiving TD
-6 points per fumble

Targets can be a tricky thing. At first glance they seem very analagous to rushes and pass attempts, which in something like this you use for efficiency.

But targets have a difference in that they most often have to be earned in the course of a play by the individual player, while rushes or pass attempts are preordained by the play call or audible. If it's a run then after the snap it's a run barring a bad snap. If it's a pass play it's a pass attempt barring a bad snap, sack, having to scramble.

But a receiver normally doesn't just receive a target. There may be a corner fade in the red zone, or a WR screen, but on most passing plays a target has to be earned. Take for example two receivers on the same team who play every snap. Both catch 5 identical passes for identical yards. WR1 is thrown to 5 extra times compared to WR2, all incomplete. This system would judge WR1 as the worse performance. In reality they had equal days except that on those 5 extra passes, WR1's performance likely earned him the ball thrown his way - by getting more open, by having better hands for what will be a contested pass to either player, etc - while WR2's did not. Neither of them caught a pass on those 5 extra passes, but WR1 probably outplayed WR2 on those plays if he was the one the QB threw the ball to.

Now I realize that you're wanting to get to "how much did the player's performance help his team win". We can say that getting thrown the ball your way and not catching it hurts your team. But I'd argue that running a route and not being deemed open enough to be thrown the ball hurts your team worse, relatively, and a system measuring contribution to helping your team win should include that too.

Ok so all that said, I'd probably include targets as you have. Because there isn't going to be a perfect system until you measure what every player did that isn't reflected in a normal stat line, so you have to use what you have. But debating the true meaning of a target in a player's worth is worth doing on it's own.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Mr. Irrelevant, I actually originally valued turnovers at -4 in my system, since that's their true EPA value. But since I valued "positive production" at 2-3 times EPA, I thought it might be good to penalize turnovers at 1.5 times. What actually drove this, honestly, was Drew Brees being over-valued due to lack of penalization for his INT's, and I wanted to make fumbles the same for consistency's sake. But I'm open to -4 . Would you like to see the actual correlations with your proposed system? It wouldn't be hard to generate.

Sure, I'd be curious, if it's not overly much work. I've got a SS open now where I'm running the numbers for QB's based on 2012 stats and both your original and my proposed simplified measures. One thing that jumps out at me right away is that the gap between the top of the heap QBs and the average Joes - the VBD, if you will - is much larger under either method than in most standard scoring systems. Brady and Rodgers' season totals seem to be about 2-2.5x that of a replacement-level QB such as Flacco or Manning, rather than the 1.3-1.5x multiplier that I'm used to. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it could be problematic if that same sort of discrepancy isn't found across the positions (haven't run any other numbers to figure that out yet, but I'm sure you could tell me).

 

[TheMathNinja]

Good topic. One potential conflict with your goal that jumped out at me though was inclusion of targets:

Receiving:

-1 point per target

0.5 points per reception

0.2 points per yard

4 points per Receiving TD

-6 points per fumble

Targets can be a tricky thing. At first glance they seem very analagous to rushes and pass attempts, which in something like this you use for efficiency.

But targets have a difference in that they most often have to be earned in the course of a play by the individual player, while rushes or pass attempts are preordained by the play call or audible. If it's a run then after the snap it's a run barring a bad snap. If it's a pass play it's a pass attempt barring a bad snap, sack, having to scramble.

But a receiver normally doesn't just receive a target. There may be a corner fade in the red zone, or a WR screen, but on most passing plays a target has to be earned. Take for example two receivers on the same team who play every snap. Both catch 5 identical passes for identical yards. WR1 is thrown to 5 extra times compared to WR2, all incomplete. This system would judge WR1 as the worse performance. In reality they had equal days except that on those 5 extra passes, WR1's performance likely earned him the ball thrown his way - by getting more open, by having better hands for what will be a contested pass to either player, etc - while WR2's did not. Neither of them caught a pass on those 5 extra passes, but WR1 probably outplayed WR2 on those plays if he was the one the QB threw the ball to.

Now I realize that you're wanting to get to "how much did the player's performance help his team win". We can say that getting thrown the ball your way and not catching it hurts your team. But I'd argue that running a route and not being deemed open enough to be thrown the ball hurts your team worse, relatively, and a system measuring contribution to helping your team win should include that too.

Ok so all that said, I'd probably include targets as you have. Because there isn't going to be a perfect system until you measure what every player did that isn't reflected in a normal stat line, so you have to use what you have. But debating the true meaning of a target in a player's worth is worth doing on it's own.

Wow Greg, really insightful stuff there. I definitely didn't think of the "earning" aspect of a target, but only what a player does w/ his targets. The larger theoretical question is this: Should fantasy value reflect how good a player is, or how much he benefits his team? A good route-runner will earn targets, but if he can't convert them into positive production, he's involved in a lot of "negative plays". This is true for a guy like Larry Fitzgerald last year. Tons of targets, but low reception percentage (they were not quality targets). In a simple fantasy system, there's no good way to distinguish between the guy who drops balls or ran a route poorly and the guy who did everything right and was overthrown. I want to penalize targets for the sake of penalizing drops and poor route-running, but you can't penalize those without bad throwing fudging the data a bit. But like I've said before, a bad QB is going to hurt a WR's fantasy data anyway, so we ultimately have to measure the idea by the results it produces. And in this case, the theory behind penalizing targets isn't clean at all, but I think the results it produces are better than the standard system.

Mr. Irrelevant, I actually originally valued turnovers at -4 in my system, since that's their true EPA value. But since I valued "positive production" at 2-3 times EPA, I thought it might be good to penalize turnovers at 1.5 times. What actually drove this, honestly, was Drew Brees being over-valued due to lack of penalization for his INT's, and I wanted to make fumbles the same for consistency's sake. But I'm open to -4 . Would you like to see the actual correlations with your proposed system? It wouldn't be hard to generate.

Sure, I'd be curious, if it's not overly much work.

I've got a SS open now where I'm running the numbers for QB's based on 2012 stats and both your original and my proposed simplified measures. One thing that jumps out at me right away is that the gap between the top of the heap QBs and the average Joes - the VBD, if you will - is much larger under either method than in most standard scoring systems. Brady and Rodgers' season totals seem to be about 2-2.5x that of a replacement-level QB such as Flacco or Manning, rather than the 1.3-1.5x multiplier that I'm used to.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it could be problematic if that same sort of discrepancy isn't found across the positions (haven't run any other numbers to figure that out yet, but I'm sure you could tell me).

Mr. Irrelevant, you're definitely seeing that right. I would answer your concern with "Yes, this happens across positions, but is more pronounced with Quarterbacks". I'll make a "Tier 1 to Tier 2 dropoff factor" stat here where I measure the difference between a mid-high starter (meaning avg of #3-5 QB, #6-8 RB, #9-11 WR) and baseline starter's points (meaning avg of #11-13 QB, #23-25 RB, #35-37 WR), and divide by the baseline starter's points for normalization between the systems.

Standard System dropoff factor:

QB: 27.3

RB: 76.6

WR: 62.5

New System dropoff factor:

QB: 47.0

RB: 95.5

WR: 78.5

So as you can see, my system produces stronger drop-offs between players at every position, but especially at QB (where the dropoff is nearly twice as steep). Remember, this system adds value to WR's and QB's relative to RB's, and this increased dropoff factor in QB's (combined by higher point totals in general) is the basic reason QB is much more valuable.

 

[Shutout]

I've seen scoring systems like this before, and they probably do assess value more accurately than traditional scoring systems. However, there is a lot to be said for keeping it simple. Deducting points for anything more than INTs and lost fumbles (and especially keeping track of attempts, completions, carries, targets and receptions) makes it tough on owners watching the games. I know the online packages can handle the scoring systems automatically, but people in my league like being able to know how many points a guy got a few seconds after the play ended.

I agree with this. At some point, you sacrifice fun for realism with these types of systems, which I see as too high a cost.

This is it in a nutshell. Your system may be better in terms of more realistic but you lose the large chunk of non-addict fantasy footballers by doing this. Guys want to be in a bar with their buddies saying "ok, all I need is 18 yards or one catch for 8 yards" or something like that. They don't want to be breaking out graphing calculators and plugging in 4 different factors to try to see where they stand.In general, if you can't get a REALLY good sense of where you stand just by watching the scores scrolling at the bottom of the screen, you've probably alienated 75% of the people that play ff on anything but the extreme level.

 

[DropKick]

First of all, this is an interesting approach and a good topic.

I've played in (and like) scoring systems that consider efficiency (team success, yards per touch, completion percentage, etc.). However, I think your model places too much negative emphasis on rushing attempts and incompletions. There are game situations, such a a team salting a late lead, where a RB just pounds the line of scrimmage. I have no problem with a back getting 35 carries for 110 yards if it leads to a win. Sometimes clock management and ball control is more important. Same with incompletions; sometimes you throw the ball away to avoid a sack or throw a Hail Mary or two at the end of a half/game. How about three kneel downs?

Also, the complexity makes it more difficult to score the game "in your head". Just not a fan of rushing to a computer or phone.

 

[ScottNorwood]

the -6 for fumbles and only 4 points for a TD seems odd

I am not saying it is wrong, i am saying it does not feel right

You're too tense. Loosen up and it will start to feel good.

 

[TheMathNinja]

Well, I've been persuaded by you all to change the QB scoring to be simpler and 100% consistent with WR scoring, i.e.:

-1 pt per attempt

0.5 pts per completion

0.2 pts per yard

4 pts per TD

No more 0.7's. Though this makes QB's much more valuable than the standard fantasy scoring systems (they score about 70% more in this system), and correlation to EPA goes down from 88.9% to 88.1%, the simplicity and consistency with what credit WR's receive in the passing game was worth it to me. Now, The system is truly a "Compute it in your head" system. Sure, there's still more complexity than standard scoring, and so "in your head" computations take a bit more effort, but this isn't meant to be a system for the casual fantasy player; this is meant for those serious about the game of football.

Would anyone on this board be interested in joining a league with this scoring system this year, just to try it out?

 

[B-Deep]

the -6 for fumbles and only 4 points for a TD seems odd

I am not saying it is wrong, i am saying it does not feel right

You're too tense. Loosen up and it will start to feel good.

I'll lube this scoring system up and get back to you

 

[Leroy Hoard]

the -6 for fumbles and only 4 points for a TD seems odd

I am not saying it is wrong, i am saying it does not feel right

You're too tense. Loosen up and it will start to feel good.

I'll lube this scoring system up and get back to you

You guys are a bunch of loosers.

 

[fightingillini]

I agree with many that a target is sometimes arbitrary......did the QB actually try to throw the ball away to avoid the rush? Or maybe the target was that WR 20 yards downfield, but the QB got hit and the ball only went 10 yards.........hard to penalize a WR for uncatchable passes. I could see a deduction for dropped passes, but still that would be hard to access.....what is actually a dropped pass?

Same with QBs, hard to penalize a QB for an incomplete pass when their WR completely Greg Little'd it. Same for RBs.....hard to penalize them for the fumble when the QB messes up and doesn't put it in the right place, or pitches the ball far behind the RB, causing him to drop it.

To me the best way to score is to determine a point per touch or attempt so then you can make positions more equal. RBs touch the ball more often, so to equate scoring for WRs and TEs you need to add a PPR element to it. I am estimating the numbers here.....but they seem reasonable to me. The top 30 RBs usually average about 18 touches a game at say 5 yards per touch (includes rushing and receiving). That equates to 80 yards per game. The top 30 WRs average about 4-5 catches a game for about 60 yards. The top 15 TEs average about 3-4 catches for 40 yards. The top 20 QBs usually average about 32 passes a game for about 250 yards

To equate points per touch, use 1 per 10 yards rushing/receiving, no PPR for RBs, 1/2 PPR for WRs, and PPR for TEs, and for QBs, use 1 pt per 25 yards passing and -2 per INT. Each one of these would give and average of about 8 points for the base performance piece. Then you can separate players by 1) more talent (better yards per touch or attempt and better completion % for QBs), 2) more opportunity (more touches/receptions/pass attempts or QB with significant running stats) and 3) TDs, which is the most variable piece.

So my perfect scoring system is the following:

QBs - 1 pt per 25 yards passing, 1 pt per 10 yards running, 4 pts for TD pass, 6 pts for TD run, -2 for INT

RBs - no PPR, 1 pt per 10 yards rushing/receiving combined, 6 pts for TD

WRs - 1/2 PPR, 1 per 10 yards rushing/receving combined, 6 pts for TD

TEs - PPR, 1 pt per 10 yards receiving, 6 pts for TD

All fumbles lost = -1

This is a very fair scoring system across all positions.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I actually love what you're doing here, TMN. My one complaint is really just about QB scoring- not relative to other QBs, but relative to other positions. Ideally, you'd want all positions to be averaging roughly the same number of points per game, and in your original system, QBs were averaging roughly twice as much as RBs/WRs. VBD says that's fine, the only thing that matters is scoring relative to your peers... but VBD never had its starting QB injury in the 1st quarter. If QB scoring gets too out of line, an injury at QB means an automatic loss for the week, while an injury at RB or WR is a disadvantage, but one which can be overcome.

 

[Phenix]

Stuff seems like you get punished more then rewarded. A negative game, the point is scoring, we all like to put up more points. not the other way around.

 

[TheMathNinja]

I actually love what you're doing here, TMN. My one complaint is really just about QB scoring- not relative to other QBs, but relative to other positions. Ideally, you'd want all positions to be averaging roughly the same number of points per game, and in your original system, QBs were averaging roughly twice as much as RBs/WRs. VBD says that's fine, the only thing that matters is scoring relative to your peers... but VBD never had its starting QB injury in the 1st quarter. If QB scoring gets too out of line, an injury at QB means an automatic loss for the week, while an injury at RB or WR is a disadvantage, but one which can be overcome.

Hey Adam, I get your point with the injury, and I completely agree. An injury to your starting QB when he's scoring 2-3 times as much as your RB/WR's is devastating, and that's definitely a downside of this scoring system (I wish fantasy allowed you to put in your backup and get his points when your starter gets injured...now there's an idea). But while that's a downside, QB's don't get injured nearly as much as RB's or WR's, so I think it's a relatively small downside compared to the absurdity of your each WR being more valuable than your single QB. Your QB is responsible for ALL of your passing game! I just think his value absolutely needs to resemble this. In a real football game, if your QB struggles, it's basically game over. You can afford to have a WR or even a RB struggle and still be successful. But I think fantasy absolutely must make QB's more valuable.

Stuff seems like you get punished more then rewarded. A negative game, the point is scoring, we all like to put up more points. not the other way around.

Though it may SEEM like you get punished more than rewarded, I showed the final points results, and they're basically the same as in the current system. More things are penalized, but yards are rewarded much more, and it balances out to the same amount of scoring, but just more accurate to actual player contribution.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I actually love what you're doing here, TMN. My one complaint is really just about QB scoring- not relative to other QBs, but relative to other positions. Ideally, you'd want all positions to be averaging roughly the same number of points per game, and in your original system, QBs were averaging roughly twice as much as RBs/WRs. VBD says that's fine, the only thing that matters is scoring relative to your peers... but VBD never had its starting QB injury in the 1st quarter. If QB scoring gets too out of line, an injury at QB means an automatic loss for the week, while an injury at RB or WR is a disadvantage, but one which can be overcome.

Hey Adam, I get your point with the injury, and I completely agree. An injury to your starting QB when he's scoring 2-3 times as much as your RB/WR's is devastating, and that's definitely a downside of this scoring system (I wish fantasy allowed you to put in your backup and get his points when your starter gets injured...now there's an idea). But while that's a downside, QB's don't get injured nearly as much as RB's or WR's, so I think it's a relatively small downside compared to the absurdity of your each WR being more valuable than your single QB. Your QB is responsible for ALL of your passing game! I just think his value absolutely needs to resemble this. In a real football game, if your QB struggles, it's basically game over. You can afford to have a WR or even a RB struggle and still be successful. But I think fantasy absolutely must make QB's more valuable.

I believe Drinen looked at it many years ago and found that QBs are actually more likely to miss time with injuries than RBs or WRs. Either way, I think the perfect utopian ideal for a scoring system would be one where you could achieve large enough margins to make QB the most valuable position without inflating all QB scores so much as to make injuries game-deciders. Honestly, I think the best way to alter the relative value of positions is not through scoring, but through tinkering with the starting lineup. If you want to make QB the most valuable position, requiring two starters (or allowing up to two through the use of a superflex) will accomplish that in a hurry. If you want to make RB less valuable, require fewer starters. Changing the starting lineup changes the baselines, which changes the value of the players at the top. Tinkering with the scoring is a great way to change what gets rewarded, and to make fantasy scoring correlate better with the actual caliber of NFL play, but I'm more a fan of using it to change the value within a position than between positions.

 

[Caveman_Nick]

Although not exactly the things you are doing, much of the same kinds of thought went into developing the scoring system in this league.

To this day one thing I don't like is that I could not get more support for 6 point passing TDs and -4 point interceptions. I even tried to get a compromise with 5 pt passing TDs and -2.5 point interceptions.

Anyways, you can look through the scoring and league history there to get some ideas of player contributions over the long haul using these kinds of scoring concepts.

 

[Polyethylene Bag]

I'm in a league with such a scoring system. Works pretty well but can have some odd results. 1 long rush can be worth more than a 30 rushes for 100 yards.

Here's the detailed scoring:

RULES FOR QB, WR, PK, PN, DT, DE, LB, CB, S

EVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTS

Receptions 0-99 .2 points each

RULES FOR PN, QB, RB, WR, TE, PK, DT, DE, LB, CB, S

EVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTS

Punts 0-20 -2 points each

Punt Yards 0-999 .05 points each

Punts Inside 20 0-20 .6 points each

RULES FOR QB, RB, WR, TE, PK, PN

EVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTS

Defensive Tackles 0-99 .44 points each

Defensive Assists 0-99 0.22 points each

RULES FOR PK, QB, RB, WR, TE, PN, DT, DE, LB, CB, S

EVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTS

Number of Field Goals Made 0-10 3 points each

Length of Field Goal Made 0-29 -2.4

Length of Field Goal Made 30-39 -1.7

Length of Field Goal Made 40-49 -1

Length of Field Goal Made 50-99 -0.3

Length of Missed Field Goal 0-29 -2.4

Length of Missed Field Goal 30-39 -1.7

Length of Missed Field Goal 40-49 -1

Length of Missed Field Goal 50-99 -0.3

Extra Points 0-15 1 point each

Extra Points Attempted 0-15 -.7 points each

RULES FOR QB, RB, WR, TE, DT, DE, LB, CB, S

EVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTS

Number of Punt Return TDs 0-100 1.75 points each

Number of Kickoff Return TDs 0-100 1.75 points each

Fumbles Lost (to Opponent) 0-100 -1.5 points each

Number of Defensive Fumble Recovery TDs 0-100 1.75 points each

Fumble Recoveries (from Opponent) 0-100 1 point each

Opponent Fumble Recovery Yards -50-999 0.03 point for every 1

Number of Offensive Fumble Recovery TDs 0-100 1.75 points each

Own Fumble Recovery Yardage -50-999 .03 point for every 1

Forced Fumbles 0-100 1 point each

Number of Interception Return TDs 0-100 1 point each

Interceptions Caught 0-100 1.5 points each

Interception Return Yards -50-999 .06 point for every 1

Number of Blocked Field Goal TDs 0-100 1.75 points each

Blocked Field Goals 0-100 1 point each

Number of Blocked Punt TDs 0-100 1.75 points each

Blocked Punts 0-100 1 point each

Blocked Extra Points 0-100 0.5 points each

Safeties 0-100 1 point each

RULES FOR QB, RB, WR, TE

EVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTS

Sacked a QB 0-100 1.2 points each

RULES FOR QB

EVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTS

QB Sacked 0-20 -.3 points each

RULES FOR QB, RB, WR, TE, PK, PN, LB, CB, S, DT, DE

EVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTS

Number of Passing TDs 0-10 1.5 points each

Passing Yards -50-999 .04 points each

Pass Attempts 0-99 -.24 points each

Pass Completions 0-99 .2 points each

Pass Interceptions Thrown 0-10 -1.2 points each

Passing 2 Pointers 0-10 .2 points each

Number of Rushing TDs 0-10 1.75 points each

Rushing Yards -50-999 .07 points each

Rush Attempts 0-99 -.15 points each

Rushing 2 Pointers 0-10 .35 points each

Number of Receiving TDs 0-10 1 point each

Receiving Yards -50-999 .04 points each

Receiving 2 Pointers 0-10 .2 points each

RULES FOR RB

EVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTS

Receptions 0-99 .1 points each

RULES FOR TE

EVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTS

Receptions 0-99 .3 points each

RULES FOR DT

EVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTS

Passes Defensed 0-99 0.4 points each

Defensive Tackles 0-99 0.6 points each

Defensive Assists 0-99 0.2 points each

Sacked a QB 0-99 1.2 points each

Tackles for a Loss 0-99 0.85 points each

RULES FOR DE

EVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTS

Passes Defensed 0-99 0.4 points each

Defensive Tackles 0-99 0.45 points each

Defensive Assists 0-99 0.15 points each

Sacked a QB 0-99 1.2 points each

Tackles for a Loss 0-99 0.6 points each

RULES FOR LB

EVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTS

Passes Defensed 0-99 0.8 points each

Defensive Tackles 0-99 0.38 points each

Defensive Assists 0-99 0.1 points each

Sacked a QB 0-99 1.4 points each

Tackles for a Loss 0-99 0.5 points each

RULES FOR CB

EVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTS

Passes Defensed 0-99 1.3 points each

Defensive Tackles 0-99 0.26 points each

Defensive Assists 0-99 0.20 points each

Sacked a QB 0-99 1.2 points each

Tackles for a Loss 0-99 0.2 points each

RULES FOR S

EVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTS

Passes Defensed 0-99 1.0 point each

Defensive Tackles 0-99 0.4 points each

Defensive Assists 0-99 0.1 points each

Sacked a QB 0-99 1.2 points each

Tackles for a Loss 0-99 0.2 points each

 

[TheMathNinja]

I actually love what you're doing here, TMN. My one complaint is really just about QB scoring- not relative to other QBs, but relative to other positions. Ideally, you'd want all positions to be averaging roughly the same number of points per game, and in your original system, QBs were averaging roughly twice as much as RBs/WRs. VBD says that's fine, the only thing that matters is scoring relative to your peers... but VBD never had its starting QB injury in the 1st quarter. If QB scoring gets too out of line, an injury at QB means an automatic loss for the week, while an injury at RB or WR is a disadvantage, but one which can be overcome.

Hey Adam, I get your point with the injury, and I completely agree. An injury to your starting QB when he's scoring 2-3 times as much as your RB/WR's is devastating, and that's definitely a downside of this scoring system (I wish fantasy allowed you to put in your backup and get his points when your starter gets injured...now there's an idea). But while that's a downside, QB's don't get injured nearly as much as RB's or WR's, so I think it's a relatively small downside compared to the absurdity of your each WR being more valuable than your single QB. Your QB is responsible for ALL of your passing game! I just think his value absolutely needs to resemble this. In a real football game, if your QB struggles, it's basically game over. You can afford to have a WR or even a RB struggle and still be successful. But I think fantasy absolutely must make QB's more valuable.

I believe Drinen looked at it many years ago and found that QBs are actually more likely to miss time with injuries than RBs or WRs. Either way, I think the perfect utopian ideal for a scoring system would be one where you could achieve large enough margins to make QB the most valuable position without inflating all QB scores so much as to make injuries game-deciders.Honestly, I think the best way to alter the relative value of positions is not through scoring, but through tinkering with the starting lineup. If you want to make QB the most valuable position, requiring two starters (or allowing up to two through the use of a superflex) will accomplish that in a hurry. If you want to make RB less valuable, require fewer starters. Changing the starting lineup changes the baselines, which changes the value of the players at the top. Tinkering with the scoring is a great way to change what gets rewarded, and to make fantasy scoring correlate better with the actual caliber of NFL play, but I'm more a fan of using it to change the value within a position than between positions.

I'm a big fan of tinkering with line-ups myself; I just want fantasy football to feel like I'm actually managing a REAL TEAM. That means I want a point system that forces me to value what real coaches ought to value (i.e. efficiency), but also one that looks like the real thing (i.e. I just have 1 QB). I'd much rather risk losing a game to injury than run a system that just doesn't look like the real game of football to me. But I agree that the ideal would be to get around this; in my opinion, that means fantasy systems adopting the flexibility to bring in your back-up QB for the time your starter misses in a game (and for all other positions, for that matter).

Although not exactly the things you are doing, much of the same kinds of thought went into developing the scoring system in this league.

To this day one thing I don't like is that I could not get more support for 6 point passing TDs and -4 point interceptions. I even tried to get a compromise with 5 pt passing TDs and -2.5 point interceptions.

Anyways, you can look through the scoring and league history there to get some ideas of player contributions over the long haul using these kinds of scoring concepts.

Unfortunate you couldn't get more support for that, Nick. Like I said earlier, the actual appropriate ratio would be something like 4 points for a TD and -8 for an INT. Sucks you couldn't get 6 and -4 to fly. My system is +4 and -6 and I've got at least enough friends bought in to run one great league.

 

[TheMathNinja]

I'm in a league with such a scoring system. Works pretty well but can have some odd results. 1 long rush can be worth more than a 30 rushes for 100 yards. Here's the detailed scoring: RULES FOR QB, WR, PK, PN, DT, DE, LB, CB, SEVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTSReceptions 0-99 .2 points eachRULES FOR PN, QB, RB, WR, TE, PK, DT, DE, LB, CB, SEVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTSPunts 0-20 -2 points eachPunt Yards 0-999 .05 points eachPunts Inside 20 0-20 .6 points eachRULES FOR QB, RB, WR, TE, PK, PNEVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTSDefensive Tackles 0-99 .44 points eachDefensive Assists 0-99 0.22 points eachRULES FOR PK, QB, RB, WR, TE, PN, DT, DE, LB, CB, SEVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTSNumber of Field Goals Made 0-10 3 points eachLength of Field Goal Made 0-29 -2.4Length of Field Goal Made 30-39 -1.7Length of Field Goal Made 40-49 -1Length of Field Goal Made 50-99 -0.3Length of Missed Field Goal 0-29 -2.4Length of Missed Field Goal 30-39 -1.7Length of Missed Field Goal 40-49 -1Length of Missed Field Goal 50-99 -0.3Extra Points 0-15 1 point eachExtra Points Attempted 0-15 -.7 points eachRULES FOR QB, RB, WR, TE, DT, DE, LB, CB, SEVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTSNumber of Punt Return TDs 0-100 1.75 points eachNumber of Kickoff Return TDs 0-100 1.75 points eachFumbles Lost (to Opponent) 0-100 -1.5 points eachNumber of Defensive Fumble Recovery TDs 0-100 1.75 points eachFumble Recoveries (from Opponent) 0-100 1 point eachOpponent Fumble Recovery Yards -50-999 0.03 point for every 1Number of Offensive Fumble Recovery TDs 0-100 1.75 points eachOwn Fumble Recovery Yardage -50-999 .03 point for every 1Forced Fumbles 0-100 1 point eachNumber of Interception Return TDs 0-100 1 point eachInterceptions Caught 0-100 1.5 points eachInterception Return Yards -50-999 .06 point for every 1Number of Blocked Field Goal TDs 0-100 1.75 points eachBlocked Field Goals 0-100 1 point eachNumber of Blocked Punt TDs 0-100 1.75 points eachBlocked Punts 0-100 1 point eachBlocked Extra Points 0-100 0.5 points eachSafeties 0-100 1 point eachRULES FOR QB, RB, WR, TEEVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTSSacked a QB 0-100 1.2 points eachRULES FOR QBEVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTSQB Sacked 0-20 -.3 points eachRULES FOR QB, RB, WR, TE, PK, PN, LB, CB, S, DT, DEEVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTSNumber of Passing TDs 0-10 1.5 points eachPassing Yards -50-999 .04 points eachPass Attempts 0-99 -.24 points eachPass Completions 0-99 .2 points eachPass Interceptions Thrown 0-10 -1.2 points eachPassing 2 Pointers 0-10 .2 points eachNumber of Rushing TDs 0-10 1.75 points eachRushing Yards -50-999 .07 points eachRush Attempts 0-99 -.15 points eachRushing 2 Pointers 0-10 .35 points eachNumber of Receiving TDs 0-10 1 point eachReceiving Yards -50-999 .04 points eachReceiving 2 Pointers 0-10 .2 points eachRULES FOR RBEVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTSReceptions 0-99 .1 points eachRULES FOR TEEVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTSReceptions 0-99 .3 points eachRULES FOR DTEVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTSPasses Defensed 0-99 0.4 points eachDefensive Tackles 0-99 0.6 points eachDefensive Assists 0-99 0.2 points eachSacked a QB 0-99 1.2 points eachTackles for a Loss 0-99 0.85 points eachRULES FOR DEEVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTSPasses Defensed 0-99 0.4 points eachDefensive Tackles 0-99 0.45 points eachDefensive Assists 0-99 0.15 points eachSacked a QB 0-99 1.2 points eachTackles for a Loss 0-99 0.6 points eachRULES FOR LBEVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTSPasses Defensed 0-99 0.8 points eachDefensive Tackles 0-99 0.38 points eachDefensive Assists 0-99 0.1 points eachSacked a QB 0-99 1.4 points eachTackles for a Loss 0-99 0.5 points eachRULES FOR CBEVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTSPasses Defensed 0-99 1.3 points eachDefensive Tackles 0-99 0.26 points eachDefensive Assists 0-99 0.20 points eachSacked a QB 0-99 1.2 points eachTackles for a Loss 0-99 0.2 points eachRULES FOR SEVENT RANGE (LOW-HIGH) POINTSPasses Defensed 0-99 1.0 point eachDefensive Tackles 0-99 0.4 points eachDefensive Assists 0-99 0.1 points eachSacked a QB 0-99 1.2 points eachTackles for a Loss 0-99 0.2 points each

Polyethylene, what was the guiding principles and data behind this scoring system? Was this an attempt to model EPA or something else? What was the philosophy?

 

[msommer]

My homeboy league has run something a bit similar for a few years now (biggest difference is not penalising for carries/targets). It's a small league so QB injury has been possible to recover from, if weakened. The reason for gradually moving that direction was to get more realism and specifically in the case of the QB reward the efficient ones that did not take sacks.

 

[Polyethylene Bag]

Polyethylene, what was the guiding principles and data behind this scoring system? Was this an attempt to model EPA or something else? What was the philosophy?

Not an explicit attempt to replicate EPA; rather, taking facets of EPA into account. A similar view as you've laid out in the OP was the starting point; the desire for a scoring system more indicative of true added value.

This type of a system is not for everyone as it can get a bit complicated.

 

[mstumpy50]

We have a system very similar to what you have going on MathNinja. We have been using this since the mid 90's when we were in a redraft because we hated when a RB that carried the ball 30 times for 100 yards scored the same as a RB who carried 15 times for 100 yards. This league changed over to Dynasty format in 2001 but we kept the same scoring.

Here is our scoring page

http://football12.myfantasyleague.com/2013/options?L=37815&O=09

 

[TheMathNinja]

We have a system very similar to what you have going on MathNinja. We have been using this since the mid 90's when we were in a redraft because we hated when a RB that carried the ball 30 times for 100 yards scored the same as a RB who carried 15 times for 100 yards. This league changed over to Dynasty format in 2001 but we kept the same scoring.

Here is our scoring page

http://football12.myfantasyleague.com/2013/options?L=37815&O=09

I like it!

 

[Dragon1952]

We have a system very similar to what you have going on MathNinja. We have been using this since the mid 90's when we were in a redraft because we hated when a RB that carried the ball 30 times for 100 yards scored the same as a RB who carried 15 times for 100 yards. This league changed over to Dynasty format in 2001 but we kept the same scoring.

Here is our scoring page

http://football12.myfantasyleague.com/2013/options?L=37815&O=09

Yeah, but there can be so many different scenarios in that 30 for 100 or 15 for 100 stat line. Maybe the 30 for 100 team was ahead my a mile and just pounded it the entire 4th Q. And the 15 for 100 guy, chances are he broke a long one but maybe 10 of the carries he did squat. And maybe the reason he broke a long one is because a defender slipped or something. I just don't think it's as simple as saying the 15 for 100 guy did better.

 

[Caveman_Nick]

I actually love what you're doing here, TMN. My one complaint is really just about QB scoring- not relative to other QBs, but relative to other positions. Ideally, you'd want all positions to be averaging roughly the same number of points per game, and in your original system, QBs were averaging roughly twice as much as RBs/WRs. VBD says that's fine, the only thing that matters is scoring relative to your peers... but VBD never had its starting QB injury in the 1st quarter. If QB scoring gets too out of line, an injury at QB means an automatic loss for the week, while an injury at RB or WR is a disadvantage, but one which can be overcome.

Hey Adam, I get your point with the injury, and I completely agree. An injury to your starting QB when he's scoring 2-3 times as much as your RB/WR's is devastating, and that's definitely a downside of this scoring system (I wish fantasy allowed you to put in your backup and get his points when your starter gets injured...now there's an idea). But while that's a downside, QB's don't get injured nearly as much as RB's or WR's, so I think it's a relatively small downside compared to the absurdity of your each WR being more valuable than your single QB. Your QB is responsible for ALL of your passing game! I just think his value absolutely needs to resemble this. In a real football game, if your QB struggles, it's basically game over. You can afford to have a WR or even a RB struggle and still be successful. But I think fantasy absolutely must make QB's more valuable.

I believe Drinen looked at it many years ago and found that QBs are actually more likely to miss time with injuries than RBs or WRs. Either way, I think the perfect utopian ideal for a scoring system would be one where you could achieve large enough margins to make QB the most valuable position without inflating all QB scores so much as to make injuries game-deciders.Honestly, I think the best way to alter the relative value of positions is not through scoring, but through tinkering with the starting lineup. If you want to make QB the most valuable position, requiring two starters (or allowing up to two through the use of a superflex) will accomplish that in a hurry. If you want to make RB less valuable, require fewer starters. Changing the starting lineup changes the baselines, which changes the value of the players at the top. Tinkering with the scoring is a great way to change what gets rewarded, and to make fantasy scoring correlate better with the actual caliber of NFL play, but I'm more a fan of using it to change the value within a position than between positions.

I'm a big fan of tinkering with line-ups myself; I just want fantasy football to feel like I'm actually managing a REAL TEAM. That means I want a point system that forces me to value what real coaches ought to value (i.e. efficiency), but also one that looks like the real thing (i.e. I just have 1 QB). I'd much rather risk losing a game to injury than run a system that just doesn't look like the real game of football to me. But I agree that the ideal would be to get around this; in my opinion, that means fantasy systems adopting the flexibility to bring in your back-up QB for the time your starter misses in a game (and for all other positions, for that matter).

>Although not exactly the things you are doing, much of the same kinds of thought went into developing the scoring system in this league.

To this day one thing I don't like is that I could not get more support for 6 point passing TDs and -4 point interceptions. I even tried to get a compromise with 5 pt passing TDs and -2.5 point interceptions.

Anyways, you can look through the scoring and league history there to get some ideas of player contributions over the long haul using these kinds of scoring concepts.

Unfortunate you couldn't get more support for that, Nick. Like I said earlier, the actual appropriate ratio would be something like 4 points for a TD and -8 for an INT. Sucks you couldn't get 6 and -4 to fly. My system is +4 and -6 and I've got at least enough friends bought in to run one great league.

In the end, I don't agree that turnovers are worth more than touchdowns. I know some people like to deflate PaTDs from 4 to 6 and understand the reasoning, but either way a turnover should not have greater impact on the game than a score. If we are talking flat out about what it takes to win football games, points on the board trumps all. When we were arguing those rules out that was one thing I always tried to keep in my mind.

Big plays don't necessarily have more effect on a game than a bunch of little plays. both cam be game changers. A sustained drive can be more devastating than a quick strike big play depending on the game circumstances, so those were issues we did not really take into our system. We looked more at things like DTs making tackles at the LOS being a big boost instead of getting manhandled. CBs getting points for passes defended instead of just for tackles and INTs. DEs getting a big boost for sacks. TE receptions being worth more than WR and RB receptions because if defenses have to worry about what the TE is doing then it really opens up games. Mind you, this was before Gronk and Graham, and so in a way we were kind of predicting the future.

I like what you are doing in general, but IMO all turnovers as 4 pts is a nice place for them to be. Again, the scoreboard is where it's at.

 

[mstumpy50]

We have a system very similar to what you have going on MathNinja. We have been using this since the mid 90's when we were in a redraft because we hated when a RB that carried the ball 30 times for 100 yards scored the same as a RB who carried 15 times for 100 yards. This league changed over to Dynasty format in 2001 but we kept the same scoring.

Here is our scoring page

http://football12.myfantasyleague.com/2013/options?L=37815&O=09

Yeah, but there can be so many different scenarios in that 30 for 100 or 15 for 100 stat line. Maybe the 30 for 100 team was ahead my a mile and just pounded it the entire 4th Q. And the 15 for 100 guy, chances are he broke a long one but maybe 10 of the carries he did squat. And maybe the reason he broke a long one is because a defender slipped or something. I just don't think it's as simple as saying the 15 for 100 guy did better.

True but our league values the more efficient player. Same can be said that a guy who threw it 20 times for 300 yards in a blowout 40 point win should get more points than the QB on the opposing team who threw it 60 times for 300 because his team was down 40. There are tons of scoring systems out there. This one happens to work for the 10 guys in our league.

 

[TheMathNinja]

I actually love what you're doing here, TMN. My one complaint is really just about QB scoring- not relative to other QBs, but relative to other positions. Ideally, you'd want all positions to be averaging roughly the same number of points per game, and in your original system, QBs were averaging roughly twice as much as RBs/WRs. VBD says that's fine, the only thing that matters is scoring relative to your peers... but VBD never had its starting QB injury in the 1st quarter. If QB scoring gets too out of line, an injury at QB means an automatic loss for the week, while an injury at RB or WR is a disadvantage, but one which can be overcome.

Hey Adam, I get your point with the injury, and I completely agree. An injury to your starting QB when he's scoring 2-3 times as much as your RB/WR's is devastating, and that's definitely a downside of this scoring system (I wish fantasy allowed you to put in your backup and get his points when your starter gets injured...now there's an idea). But while that's a downside, QB's don't get injured nearly as much as RB's or WR's, so I think it's a relatively small downside compared to the absurdity of your each WR being more valuable than your single QB. Your QB is responsible for ALL of your passing game! I just think his value absolutely needs to resemble this. In a real football game, if your QB struggles, it's basically game over. You can afford to have a WR or even a RB struggle and still be successful. But I think fantasy absolutely must make QB's more valuable.

I believe Drinen looked at it many years ago and found that QBs are actually more likely to miss time with injuries than RBs or WRs. Either way, I think the perfect utopian ideal for a scoring system would be one where you could achieve large enough margins to make QB the most valuable position without inflating all QB scores so much as to make injuries game-deciders.Honestly, I think the best way to alter the relative value of positions is not through scoring, but through tinkering with the starting lineup. If you want to make QB the most valuable position, requiring two starters (or allowing up to two through the use of a superflex) will accomplish that in a hurry. If you want to make RB less valuable, require fewer starters. Changing the starting lineup changes the baselines, which changes the value of the players at the top. Tinkering with the scoring is a great way to change what gets rewarded, and to make fantasy scoring correlate better with the actual caliber of NFL play, but I'm more a fan of using it to change the value within a position than between positions.

I'm a big fan of tinkering with line-ups myself; I just want fantasy football to feel like I'm actually managing a REAL TEAM. That means I want a point system that forces me to value what real coaches ought to value (i.e. efficiency), but also one that looks like the real thing (i.e. I just have 1 QB). I'd much rather risk losing a game to injury than run a system that just doesn't look like the real game of football to me. But I agree that the ideal would be to get around this; in my opinion, that means fantasy systems adopting the flexibility to bring in your back-up QB for the time your starter misses in a game (and for all other positions, for that matter).

>Although not exactly the things you are doing, much of the same kinds of thought went into developing the scoring system in this league.

To this day one thing I don't like is that I could not get more support for 6 point passing TDs and -4 point interceptions. I even tried to get a compromise with 5 pt passing TDs and -2.5 point interceptions.

Anyways, you can look through the scoring and league history there to get some ideas of player contributions over the long haul using these kinds of scoring con

cepts.

Unfortunate you couldn't get more support for that, Nick. Like I said earlier, the actual appropriate ratio would be something like 4 points for a TD and -8 for an INT. Sucks you couldn't get 6 and -4 to fly. My system is +4 and -6 and I've got at least enough friends bought in to run one great league.

In the end, I don't agree that turnovers are worth more than touchdowns. I know some people like to deflate PaTDs from 4 to 6 and understand the reasoning, but either way a turnover should not have greater impact on the game than a score. If we are talking flat out about what it takes to win football games, points on the board trumps all. When we were arguing those rules out that was one thing I always tried to keep in my mind.

Big plays don't necessarily have more effect on a game than a bunch of little plays. both cam be game changers. A sustained drive can be more devastating than a quick strike big play depending on the game circumstances, so those were issues we did not really take into our system. We looked more at things like DTs making tackles at the LOS being a big boost instead of getting manhandled. CBs getting points for passes defended instead of just for tackles and INTs. DEs getting a big boost for sacks. TE receptions being worth more than WR and RB receptions because if defenses have to worry about what the TE is doing then it really opens up games. Mind you, this was before Gronk and Graham, and so in a way we were kind of predicting the future.

I like what you are doing in general, but IMO all turnovers as 4 pts is a nice place for them to be. Again, the scoreboard is where it's at.

Certainly getting points on the board is the biggest issue, but the EPA statistics show that the guy who takes it from the 40 yard line to the 10 yard line on average contributed the exact same amount to getting points on the board as the guy who pokes it into the end zone from the 10 yard line. Traditional fantasy systems give the first guy 3 points and the second guy 7 points. My system gives the first guy 5.5 points and the second guy 5.5 points. And an INT is negates both of them put together (-4 EPA where the above two feats are +2 EPA each). Just sayin'...your reasoning is certainly intuitive; it just doesn't jive with the data.

 

[ghostguy123]

No matter what the scoring system is for something like this, there will be examples every week where someone would complain about a guy either getting too many, not enough, or too many negative points for something. Like a negative for throwing the ball away when it should be a positive (or at least neutral), stuff like that.

However, good thought. I can see something like this being quite interesting. As long as whatever website you use can tally up everything for you, cause doing it manually would S-U-C-K.

Probably not my kind of league, but looks cool anyway.

 

[Sinrman]

I like it. Sure, compared to most scoring systems this would go down as one of the more complicated ones, but I think this takes a lot into account.

The only thing I'd chime in about are sacks. That's a tough one to count. A lot of times it was the O-line giving up the sack. Or was it an over-zealous QB who should have just

thrown the ball away? Or was it a result of a RB not picking up the blitz?

 

[TheMathNinja]

I like it. Sure, compared to most scoring systems this would go down as one of the more complicated ones, but I think this takes a lot into account.

The only thing I'd chime in about are sacks. That's a tough one to count. A lot of times it was the O-line giving up the sack. Or was it an over-zealous QB who should have just

thrown the ball away? Or was it a result of a RB not picking up the blitz?

I think questions like these are why it's best to consider sacks not on a case-by-case basis, but on the season. Because for any given sack, you're right; there are a million factors, and we can ask whether a QB should have really gotten deducted. But when you look back over the course of a season and see that Philip Rivers and Aaron Rodgers took 50 sacks while Peyton and Eli Manning only took 20, you have to start to think that takes a real toll on a team...and my reaction is to think, "Yeah, that should probably get penalized in a significant way."

 

[Caveman_Nick]

Certainly getting points on the board is the biggest issue, but the EPA statistics show that the guy who takes it from the 40 yard line to the 10 yard line on average contributed the exact same amount to getting points on the board as the guy who pokes it into the end zone from the 10 yard line. Traditional fantasy systems give the first guy 3 points and the second guy 7 points. My system gives the first guy 5.5 points and the second guy 5.5 points. And an INT is negates both of them put together (-4 EPA where the above two feats are +2 EPA each). Just sayin'...your reasoning is certainly intuitive; it just doesn't jive with the data.

I think that the answer for the developing the "best" scoring system tries to use data in the way that you are, but does so in an intuitive way instead of trying to drive things in a direction that does not jive with simple concepts like "The team that scores the most points is usually going to win the football game" (Thanks Mr. Madden).

 

[Ghost of Red Blaik]

Thanks for the information, I love it