Best Scoring System (1 Viewer)

[ThePittbully]

I'm starting up a new league on MFL, and Ive been trying to put together a scoring system that makes all offensive position as close to equal in value as they can be. But one complication Ive realized is that in 2007 we saw a large change in both RB and WR/TE production. While runningbacks as a whole seemed to score a good deal less fantasy points in 2007 then they did in 2006 or any recent years for that matter, WR's and TE's saw a noticeable increase in their own fantasy output. So developing a scoring system that values the two sides of the coin equally is a tricky thing at the moment. Was 2007 an anomaly and RB's will once again regain fantasy dominance in 2008, or we witnessing a shift in the NFL that will focus even more than ever on the passing game? Is the a result of rules put into place by the league to make WR's harder to defend, and will it continue?

The current scoring system that I decided to put into place (I am assuming we see a return to what has been normal fantasy production pre 2007) on this soon to be league is as follows

.5 pts ppr for RB's

1 pts ppr for WR's and TE's

.10 pts for every yard rushing and receiving by both WR's and RB's

.15 pts for every yard rushing and receiving by TE's

.05 for every yard passing

6 pts for all TD's

This seems like the most even system to me, but there may be something Im not considering

 

[Monty Burns]

I tried the same thing with a league last year. 12 teams with 1/2/3/1/1/1 starting lineups. QB 1 point/30 yards and 4 for TD passes. RB/WR/TE 1 point for 10 yards rushing and receiving and 6 for TD's. .5/1.0/1.5 PPR for RB/WR/TE respectively. Final top 100 had 15 QB's/24RB's/40WR's/12TE's and 9 kickers or defenses. The QB/RB/WR/TE positions came pretty close to the 12/24/36/12 league wide starters. At first glance I'd say your QB scoring may be over weighted.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

That looks like a decent system to achieve what you are trying to achieve.

A great way to help out relative value between WRs and RBs is to fiddle with the starting lineup requirements. Starting two RBs, two WRs and a flex make RBs extremely valuable, since you can start three of them. RBs gain more yards and score more TDs, overall, than WRs, and there are fewer viable RBs than WRs, so it's only natural that RBs are more valuable.

However, if you only REQUIRE a team to start one RB, scarcity is not an issue.

Start 1 RB, 3 WRs, and a flex. Your draft will change after the top 5 or 10 picks, since every team isn't locked into drafting multiple RBs.

 

[ThePittbully]

Regarding the QB issue, I did want the QB's somewhat more valuable than the other positions because IMO QB is the most valuable position on the field in real life. Regarding the lineups, What I have in place so far is 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 PK , 1 DEF and 3 FLEX of WR/TE/RB. My reasoning was basically what you said, by enabling teams to field a team that only requires them to start one RB, it allows for more variables in drafting strategy and building franchises in general.

 

[hickbones]

Regarding the QB issue, I did want the QB's somewhat more valuable than the other positions because IMO QB is the most valuable position on the field in real life. Regarding the lineups, What I have in place so far is 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 PK , 1 DEF and 3 FLEX of WR/TE/RB. My reasoning was basically what you said, by enabling teams to field a team that only requires them to start one RB, it allows for more variables in drafting strategy and building franchises in general.

You lost me there. By that logic you would want the value to be QB>RB>WR>K>TE>D. And this violates the spirit of your original post:I'm starting up a new league on MFL, and Ive been trying to put together a scoring system that makes all offensive position as close to equal in value as they can be.

If you truly want ALL positions to be equal, then you must reduce Passing TD to 4 or 5 points.

 

[ThePittbully]

Regarding the QB issue, I did want the QB's somewhat more valuable than the other positions because IMO QB is the most valuable position on the field in real life. Regarding the lineups, What I have in place so far is 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 PK , 1 DEF and 3 FLEX of WR/TE/RB. My reasoning was basically what you said, by enabling teams to field a team that only requires them to start one RB, it allows for more variables in drafting strategy and building franchises in general.

You lost me there. By that logic you would want the value to be QB>RB>WR>K>TE>D. And this violates the spirit of your original post:I'm starting up a new league on MFL, and Ive been trying to put together a scoring system that makes all offensive position as close to equal in value as they can be.

If you truly want ALL positions to be equal, then you must reduce Passing TD to 4 or 5 points.

I'd argue that WR's are just as valuable as RB's in real life. And I realize that the QB statement goes against what I originally said, but I do feel like the QB position should be somewhat more valuable than the other positions on offense. Also there's less of an issue with QB scarcity than other positions, and you roster less of them so why shouldnt they be more productive

 

[burd]

not a big fan of PPR because i think it unfairly awards the same amount of points whether the pass is for negative yards or a big gain. to close the gap amongst positions, we track first downs gained by rushing or receiving. since first downs are a very important part of the real game, it only makes sense to place some value on it in fantasy. not to mention, it makes every 4th play a potential "point play". it's made watching the game much more interesting to watch.

the biggest change it's made in our league is that it increases the value of 3rd down backs like Kevin Faulk. Based on last year's stats, RBs scored more first downs, but WRs benefitted the most because they saw the biggest percentage change increase when 1st downs are included.

 

[Polish Hammer]

Do a search on the board here. There was a member named "Sand" who posted a pretty interesting statistical study called "equilibration of scoring." He went through a lot of math that was over my head, and then presented various scoring systems and roster requirements that would help you get at/near your goal, depending on your league size. I can also try and dig it up (it is a pdf file) if you want. You could also PM Sand directly if he is still an active member.

Anyway, once we started using the scoring, it ended up making things pretty darn even across positions. This makes the draft VERY interesting, as some people don't catch on and still go RB heavy early which isn't really as necessary at that point.

 

[Franchise1278]

Do a search on the board here. There was a member named "Sand" who posted a pretty interesting statistical study called "equilibration of scoring." He went through a lot of math that was over my head, and then presented various scoring systems and roster requirements that would help you get at/near your goal, depending on your league size. I can also try and dig it up (it is a pdf file) if you want. You could also PM Sand directly if he is still an active member.

Anyway, once we started using the scoring, it ended up making things pretty darn even across positions. This makes the draft VERY interesting, as some people don't catch on and still go RB heavy early which isn't really as necessary at that point.

Thanks for the help. I fouond the article and posted the link below.http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/c/jccuneo/Equilibration.pdf

 

[TheNext0]

Anyone in a league with points per carry for RBs? We're adding it to our league this year to better balance out scoring since we have PPR. On paper, it looks like it will give a nice boost and provide more startable RBs.

QB 1 pt per 20 yards, 4 pts per TD, -1 INT

RB 1 pt per 10 yards, .1 pts per carry, .5 PPR, 6 pts per TD

WR/TE 1 pt per 10 yards, .5 PPR, 6 pts per TD

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Go to a system of starting 2 QBs. This is really the only way to equalize the QBs with the other positions.

To remedy the situation of bye weeks, I would just make it a flex spot so that in the event of a bye or injury someone can still start another position, but in most cases it would be a QB in that flex spot.

 

[Varmint]

This is exactly what I tried to (and did) acheive in my league...and you ARE correct...

A balanced scoring system leads to league parity....it's ANYNONE's game!

Back in the day..all we had was a "desktop" system. We used "Statsworld".

Every week the reports were generated and posted in a common place.

The best thing about using the Statsworld desktop system was that I could "manipulate" the scorng behind the scenes and see how the change in scoring rules would impact the scoring at the end of the season.

Well...after three seasons of "tweaking"...I think I've come up with the best possible scoring system so that..IF you fail to get a top flite RB...you can win it with a QB...or WR's.......

I never wanted the DEF or K to dominate so I kept their scoring as low a possible WITHOUT making them useless.

Kickers are VERY simple....3 pts for FG up to 49 yds....4 pts for FG 50-74 yds...and 5 pts for FG 75 yds and greater. Not too many of these..but there has to be rule that covers it!

DEF/ST has some special rules...like a "reverse scoring" rule.

I am very proud my league's scoring..!!

When I sat down to start tweaking, my goal was to have as many QB"s in the top 14 or 28 as I did RB's...or WR's.

Statsworld's software really helped.

HOW I DID IT:

I immediatlely "threw out" the scoring of the DEF/ST and the Kickers.

At the end of season #1 I threw out the scores of the Kickers and the DEF/ST.

I then checked the scores of the QBs, RBs, and WR's (they are combined with TE as a single position)

Of course, in the beginning the scores were really skewed. Running Backs RULED the day!!

I combined TAKING points from some positions and GIVING MORE points to othes.....

The goal? If I brought up the TOP 14 Scorers...I wanted a close number of each of the 3 postions

I then did it with the top 28 scorers...and it remained just as close!!

Once I got that done, I threw back in the DEF/ST and the Kickers.

It worked!

After THREE seasons....I haven't touched a thing in the past SEVEN seasons and it has remained just a equal as possible!!

If you bring up my league's to 14 scorers for 2007 you'll have:

5 QB

4 RB

5 WR

The top 28?

9 QB

8 RB

11 WR

I am very proud to say that our league has the greatest diverstiy I have ever seen in FF.

After 13 weeks the final standings:

Division I

9-4

9-4

7-6

6-7

6-7

6-7

6-7

Division II

9-4

9-4

7-6

5-8

5-8

4-9

3-10

It is like this every season.

The earliest that ANY team has been eliminated in a 13-Week Regular Season has been at the end of Week 10 ! The average time when the FIRST team is eliminated from play is Week 11. We had one season where only a single team had been eliminated by the start of the final week of play (week 13).

Here is a link to my league's scoring.

LEAGUE SCORING

Some of these rules may seem conplex.

Feel free to IM me with any questions

 

[Uruk-Hai]

not a big fan of PPR because i think it unfairly awards the same amount of points whether the pass is for negative yards or a big gain. to close the gap amongst positions, we track first downs gained by rushing or receiving. since first downs are a very important part of the real game, it only makes sense to place some value on it in fantasy. not to mention, it makes every 4th play a potential "point play". it's made watching the game much more interesting to watch.

the biggest change it's made in our league is that it increases the value of 3rd down backs like Kevin Faulk. Based on last year's stats, RBs scored more first downs, but WRs benefitted the most because they saw the biggest percentage change increase when 1st downs are included.

I read this a lot, but think about it: even the lowest YPR WR averages around 10 YPR. How many negative-yards receptions do you really see? Plus, on longer plays, the player is rewarded for yardage points too.Playing Devil's Advocate on the point-per-1st-down reward, we could flip it & say we're potentially giving a player a point if he converts on a 3rd-&-1 - whereas the guy who catches a 9 yard pass on 1st-and-10 doesn't get that point.

Anyway, it's really a bait-and-switch whichever method one uses, as there is (or was, when I looked into it a couple of years ago) a pretty strong .75-to-1 ratio between 1st down catches & overall receptions.

 

[Varmint]

not a big fan of PPR because i think it unfairly awards the same amount of points whether the pass is for negative yards or a big gain. to close the gap amongst positions, we track first downs gained by rushing or receiving. since first downs are a very important part of the real game, it only makes sense to place some value on it in fantasy. not to mention, it makes every 4th play a potential "point play". it's made watching the game much more interesting to watch.

the biggest change it's made in our league is that it increases the value of 3rd down backs like Kevin Faulk. Based on last year's stats, RBs scored more first downs, but WRs benefitted the most because they saw the biggest percentage change increase when 1st downs are included.

I read this a lot, but think about it: even the lowest YPR WR averages around 10 YPR. How many negative-yards receptions do you really see? Plus, on longer plays, the player is rewarded for yardage points too.Playing Devil's Advocate on the point-per-1st-down reward, we could flip it & say we're potentially giving a player a point if he converts on a 3rd-&-1 - whereas the guy who catches a 9 yard pass on 1st-and-10 doesn't get that point.

Anyway, it's really a bait-and-switch whichever method one uses, as there is (or was, when I looked into it a couple of years ago) a pretty strong .75-to-1 ratio between 1st down catches & overall receptions.

We give PPR ...with a provision.The Receiver gets points for each reception....starting with his FIFTH reception...PROVIDED he has a minimum of 75 offensive yards...

100 receptions and only 74 yds get him nothing.

 

[LongDuckDong]

We're pretty simple -

2 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1/1/1

0.5 per reception for RB, 1.0 for WR/TE.

I realize 2 QB leagues aren't all that popular (we're a 10 teamer), but we really like it and it has worked very well.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

That looks like a decent system to achieve what you are trying to achieve.

A great way to help out relative value between WRs and RBs is to fiddle with the starting lineup requirements. Starting two RBs, two WRs and a flex make RBs extremely valuable, since you can start three of them. RBs gain more yards and score more TDs, overall, than WRs, and there are fewer viable RBs than WRs, so it's only natural that RBs are more valuable.

However, if you only REQUIRE a team to start one RB, scarcity is not an issue.

Start 1 RB, 3 WRs, and a flex. Your draft will change after the top 5 or 10 picks, since every team isn't locked into drafting multiple RBs.

I'd throw in allowing a 2nd QB as a flex player too if you really want to mix things up. You'll have to be careful with scoring, though, if you don't want QB to become an almost automatic play for the flex spot.

Here's what we do in my local redraft as far as the Big 3 positions go:

Start 1QB, 1RB, 2WR & 2 flex. Both flex spots can't be given to either QB or RB (but can both be WR), so you'll never have more than 2QB or 2RB starting.

RBs get 1/10 yds & 6 pt TDs

WRs get 1/10 yds, 6 pt TDs, and 1 ppr

QBs get 1/30 yds & 4 pt TDs

Our top 72 scorers amongst QBs/RBs/WRs went 16QBs, 16RBs, & 40WRs - so the flex spots can legimately come from anywhere. In a typical year, there's usually a couple more RBs & a couple less WRs in the mix but RBs don't dominate this league. Our drafts have really opened up and are much more enjoyable for us as opposed to what used to be 20RBs in the first 2 rounds.

 

[burd]

not a big fan of PPR because i think it unfairly awards the same amount of points whether the pass is for negative yards or a big gain. to close the gap amongst positions, we track first downs gained by rushing or receiving. since first downs are a very important part of the real game, it only makes sense to place some value on it in fantasy. not to mention, it makes every 4th play a potential "point play". it's made watching the game much more interesting to watch.

the biggest change it's made in our league is that it increases the value of 3rd down backs like Kevin Faulk. Based on last year's stats, RBs scored more first downs, but WRs benefitted the most because they saw the biggest percentage change increase when 1st downs are included.

I read this a lot, but think about it: even the lowest YPR WR averages around 10 YPR. How many negative-yards receptions do you really see? Plus, on longer plays, the player is rewarded for yardage points too.Playing Devil's Advocate on the point-per-1st-down reward, we could flip it & say we're potentially giving a player a point if he converts on a 3rd-&-1 - whereas the guy who catches a 9 yard pass on 1st-and-10 doesn't get that point.

Anyway, it's really a bait-and-switch whichever method one uses, as there is (or was, when I looked into it a couple of years ago) a pretty strong .75-to-1 ratio between 1st down catches & overall receptions.

yeah, both ways get pretty much the same results. buti will say that people in my league really like PP 1st down because they say that is seems more approriate to reward a player that accomplishes their task ... to get that 1st down, rather than to reward a player for catching a ball no matter whether the catch helps or doesn't help the team. plus it brings in a whole new level of anticipation on 3rd downs. ive used both systems and the consesus of owners really like PP 1st down more.i guess its a matter a choice ...

 

[ThePittbully]

Do a search on the board here. There was a member named "Sand" who posted a pretty interesting statistical study called "equilibration of scoring." He went through a lot of math that was over my head, and then presented various scoring systems and roster requirements that would help you get at/near your goal, depending on your league size. I can also try and dig it up (it is a pdf file) if you want. You could also PM Sand directly if he is still an active member.

Anyway, once we started using the scoring, it ended up making things pretty darn even across positions. This makes the draft VERY interesting, as some people don't catch on and still go RB heavy early which isn't really as necessary at that point.

Thanks for the help. I fouond the article and posted the link below.

http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/c/jccuneo/Equilibration.pdf

Thanks guys I REALLY appreciate that. And also thank you to everyone else who gave input in this thread, I will be testing out all of these ideas and seeing what works best for what Im trying to achieve

 

[Stinkin Ref]

didn't read through the whole thread but my first thought is (devils advocate)...... why would you want to have the values so close.....that would maybe seem pretty boring......it should hurt me more that SJAX got hurt for most of the year as 2nd pick then it does for the guy picking 12th getting his WR hurt.....not sure if I am asking that the right way.....I can understand trying to even it out a little and make WR and TE more valueable, but I think there is somehting to be said for going ahead and letting certain positions carry more value then others.....kind of what makes it fun......otherwise all I see this doing as you create parity is actually just benefitting less skilled drafters......

like I said....I could be totally off base here for what you are trying to accomplish so you may just disregard

 

[fasteddie_21]

We're having this discussion right now w/ our new local league. This thread will help, imo. Thanks fellas.