Changing Scoring in FF? Isn’t it time? (1 Viewer)

[JoeKappBudGrant]

Modify QB scoring by adding 1 point per completion, subtract 1 point per incompletion and subtract 3 points per sack.

 

[Elevencents]

Like, people are really taking Damien Williams over Patrick Mahomes? That's expert level stupidity.

All day. Thankfully some in my league think like you. 

5th round is reasonable but I dont want a QB that early. 

 

[TheDirtyWord]

So what about PPR/HPPR leagues?  The reason they existed was to close the gap between WR and RB since from a yardage POV, the best RB’s generally outgain the best WR.

But in NFL that increasingly is using RB’s in the passing game, that WR ‘advantage’ has dissipated significantly...

Hiw can you incorporate YPA/YPC into scoring?  A QB that throws for 4000 yards on 600 attempts vs one who only needs 500 to do so is less efficient and effective.  But theoretically, they’ll score the same amount of points in FF in yardage categories.

What else?

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

So what about PPR/HPPR leagues?  The reason they existed was to close the gap between WR and RB since from a yardage POV, the best RB’s generally outgain the best WR.

most league setup is 1 RB and 3 WR starters so the RB-WR gap is already baked into the standard system IMO. I always felt PPR rewards TE scoring more than WR scoring to make the TE position more relevant to FF.

Hiw can you incorporate YPA/YPC into scoring?  A QB that throws for 4000 yards on 600 attempts vs one who only needs 500 to do so is less efficient and effective.  But theoretically, they’ll score the same amount of points in FF in yardage categories.

this is a good one. it's somewhat addressed by leagues that give bonus to longer TD passes and now some scoring systems allow bonuses for YAC, thereby giving the bonus to the receiver rather than the passer. neither of these things directly differentiate the two QB's in the example, but rather shortens the gap between the receiving position players and the 600 attempt guy so that the 500 attempt guy is relatively better. lots of math consideration here.

 

[Manster]

Doing both of these is too drastic. Top QB and RB’s would really be the only true studs in that format. 

The OP’s entire premise seems built on the fact that it’s weird how QB’s are so crucial in the NFL but devalued heavily in FF. 

Using that same logic, why would you want RB’s to become such a hot commodity by using non-PPR when they’re pretty devalued in the NFL compared to other skill positions?

I’d say a superflex PPR format makes the most sense. QB’s get a huge boost and RB’s lose the most value in that format compared to the old school non-ppr 1QB format. And the studs at each position are all still very valuable. 

I don't play in ppr leagues anymore and don't miss it at all.....9 for 90 SHOULD NOT be 18 points!  IMO, WR's are overvalued in fantasy football as compared to the real world, so I'm all for de-valuing them a bit.

 

[Gally]

most league setup is 1 RB and 3 WR starters so the RB-WR gap is already baked into the standard system IMO. I always felt PPR rewards TE scoring more than WR scoring to make the TE position more relevant to FF.

this is a good one. it's somewhat addressed by leagues that give bonus to longer TD passes and now some scoring systems allow bonuses for YAC, thereby giving the bonus to the receiver rather than the passer. neither of these things directly differentiate the two QB's in the example, but rather shortens the gap between the receiving position players and the 600 attempt guy so that the 500 attempt guy is relatively better. lots of math consideration here.

I am in 4 leagues and none of them have this as a starting requirement.  I am not so sure that "most" leagues are set up this way. 

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

I am in 4 leagues and none of them have this as a starting requirement.  I am not so sure that "most" leagues are set up this way. 

context. more WR's in the starting lineup than RB's, not specifically 1 & 3.

 

[Gally]

context. more WR's in the starting lineup than RB's, not specifically 1 & 3.

There are also more starting WR per NFL team then RB's.  1 vs 3 makes a difference in fantasy drafting because of how few RB's are needed.  2 RB vs 3 WR with added flexes doesn't really change it as much as your context was trying to.

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

There are also more starting WR per NFL team then RB's.  1 vs 3 makes a difference in fantasy drafting because of how few RB's are needed.  2 RB vs 3 WR with added flexes doesn't really change it as much as your context was trying to.

the bolded was actually what i was getting at. and the flex isn't the context, PPR is. original point here, as i read it, was PPR closes the gap between RB value and WR value. i was pointing out that having more WR than RB in a starting lineup already accomplish the closure of this gap in fantasy imo. there will be many variations of how you apply lineup requirements, of course. even bigger context was that at the individual to individual player level this evening out of value matters. draft prep is all about this. overall scoring as a fantasy team it does not, which i read to be the point of this thread overall.

 

[FF Ninja]

It's an easy two step process:

1. Add superflex
   
2. Remove PPR
   

I know, I know... MoAr pOInTs iS mOaR BetTEr... but PPR has always been a silly system. If we really need more points, points per first down will suffice. 

 

[FF Ninja]

Easy....start 2 QB's and do away with ppr. 

Crap, didn't scroll down far enough before I posted. 

 

[FF Ninja]

Doing both of these is too drastic. Top QB and RB’s would really be the only true studs in that format. 

The OP’s entire premise seems built on the fact that it’s weird how QB’s are so crucial in the NFL but devalued heavily in FF. 

Using that same logic, why would you want RB’s to become such a hot commodity by using non-PPR when they’re pretty devalued in the NFL compared to other skill positions?

I’d say a superflex PPR format makes the most sense. QB’s get a huge boost and RB’s lose the most value in that format compared to the old school non-ppr 1QB format. And the studs at each position are all still very valuable. 

I disagree. As you mentioned in one of your other posts, roster spots will solve this problem. A big part of the problem these days is too many flex spots. People don't have to use any strategy at all. Just go BPA and your lineup will almost certainly fit. If you feel a position is not getting enough love, increase the starting spots. I have great disdain for increasing the value of meaningless stats for one position over another (such as TE premium). The real solution to increasing TE value is to remove a RB/WR/TE flex and just make it WR/TE or simply TE.

An added benefit of changing flexes to fixed positions is that it'll increase trading, as people will be forced to make moves. A quality WR sitting on your bench does you no good and it's even more painful when you're bleeding points at RB. Normally, you'd just flex that player in, but not if the spots are mostly fixed. 

 

[Shawnky]

This thread is the example why you wait on a QB.  

 

[FF Ninja]

2002 called and they want their scoring method back!

An outdated excuse for a silly scoring system. The excuse for giving points to a meaningless stat used to be to give value to WRs/TEs because RBs were too important. However, times have changed and that flimsy excuse no longer holds up. Let's compare 2002 to today:

In 2002, 28 RBs had 200+ carries and 9 RBs had over 300 carries. 10 had double digit rushing TDs.

In 2018, 14 RBs had 200+ carries (down 50%) and exactly ONE RB had over 300 carries (down 89%). Six had double digit rushing TDs (down 40%).

In 2002, 5 WR/TE had 100+ receptions. Four had double digit receiving TDs.

In 2018, 10 WR/TE had 100+ receptions (up 100%). Nine had double digit receiving TDs (up 125%).

 

[TheDirtyWord]

It’s been a fun discussion...I still feel though a lot of responses are rooted in a decades old model based on limitations of manual compilation.

If FF had never been invented and in 2019 someone decided to, would it look like this?  Would we be so tied to basic stats?  Or would we integrate other metrics centers around efficiency of play?  Specialty roles?

Much like a QB who is much more efficient throwing for x amount of yards on 20% fewer attempts, what about a WR who catches 80 passes on 120 targets vs on who catches the same on 150?  Could you have perhaps have different scoring for each WR position?  One that values yardage metrics, the other that values catch metrics?

For RB, the proliferation of 3rd down RB’s is most definitely a 21st century NFL development.  Could you factor metrics for one active RB position that emphasizes receiving metrics over rushing ones...

 

[FF Ninja]

It’s been a fun discussion...I still feel though a lot of responses are rooted in a decades old model based on limitations of manual compilation.

If FF had never been invented and in 2019 someone decided to, would it look like this?  Would we be so tied to basic stats?  Or would we integrate other metrics centers around efficiency of play?  Specialty roles?

Much like a QB who is much more efficient throwing for x amount of yards on 20% fewer attempts, what about a WR who catches 80 passes on 120 targets vs on who catches the same on 150?  Could you have perhaps have different scoring for each WR position?  One that values yardage metrics, the other that values catch metrics?

For RB, the proliferation of 3rd down RB’s is most definitely a 21st century NFL development.  Could you factor metrics for one active RB position that emphasizes receiving metrics over rushing ones...

It's interesting to think about like that. Would be kind of freaky to be playing roto football where things like YPA and completion percentage were categories. I think it would be kind of cool to have first down on there, so all your positions contribute to it. You could increase or decrease the value of a position by using the number of position specific categories. QB would be really important if passing TDs, INTs, comp %, passing yards, and YPA accounted for 5 categories out of say 12 total.

 

[Manster]

It’s been a fun discussion...I still feel though a lot of responses are rooted in a decades old model based on limitations of manual compilation.

If FF had never been invented and in 2019 someone decided to, would it look like this?  Would we be so tied to basic stats?  Or would we integrate other metrics centers around efficiency of play?  Specialty roles?

Much like a QB who is much more efficient throwing for x amount of yards on 20% fewer attempts, what about a WR who catches 80 passes on 120 targets vs on who catches the same on 150?  Could you have perhaps have different scoring for each WR position?  One that values yardage metrics, the other that values catch metrics?

For RB, the proliferation of 3rd down RB’s is most definitely a 21st century NFL development.  Could you factor metrics for one active RB position that emphasizes receiving metrics over rushing ones...

IMO, when we make the scoring more complex, it loses the fun factor.....I want to be able to watch the games and kind of have a running tally of where I'm at scoring-wise without an electronic device in front of me.....I want to watch the games and enjoy without distraction......

I only play in 3 leagues and they are all local, with two of them being long running live drafts.....one of em live waivers and the other we get together for the SB every year....that's what it's about for me.

I get the metrics for efficiency argument, but you would need a league full of extreme stat-crunchers.....and I get that there are plenty of that type out there, but again, it becomes more like work and less like enjoying football.

I commished a league a while back for several years, and each year we would tweek scoring/rosters, and make it more complicated......it was an eye opener for me as each year I thought we were dialing it in, but in fact it became less fun.....scores were big and we got points for damn near everything, but it was hard to follow in real-time......my motto is simplify and enjoy!  To each their own...

 

[Manster]

I will say that the efficiency metrics are intriguing if they could be incorporated simply in scoring software......something like dropped passes could count against the receiver and not the QB.....meh, I'll just keep it simple!  

 

[Arodin]

It’s been a fun discussion...I still feel though a lot of responses are rooted in a decades old model based on limitations of manual compilation.

If FF had never been invented and in 2019 someone decided to, would it look like this?  Would we be so tied to basic stats?  Or would we integrate other metrics centers around efficiency of play?  Specialty roles?

Much like a QB who is much more efficient throwing for x amount of yards on 20% fewer attempts, what about a WR who catches 80 passes on 120 targets vs on who catches the same on 150?  Could you have perhaps have different scoring for each WR position?  One that values yardage metrics, the other that values catch metrics?

For RB, the proliferation of 3rd down RB’s is most definitely a 21st century NFL development.  Could you factor metrics for one active RB position that emphasizes receiving metrics over rushing ones...

Playing FF based on efficiency stats and win-shares could be fun but I think it works more as a “let’s look at this in a spreadsheet Tuesday morning and see how our predictive model performed” than a “let’s grab some beers Sunday and watch how our teams do.”

I do think there are a lot of readily available, clearly visual stats that could be folded into FF to improve our system that would still allow for a good gameday experience.

Points for first downs is one.  They are big plays for the team, easily seen and cheered for, and would likely have been in our game long before PPR if not for the “newspaper box score scoring” roots.  FF blew up a decade too soon.

For IDP folks, decreased sack scoring and adding in scoring for hurries and hits would smooth spikes and make for a more predictable week-to-week output which would improve value vs. offensive skill players.  Those stats didn’t even exist when the FF world was busy transitioning from “standard” to “ppr.”

Another would be some “situational awareness.”  INTs on hail marys inside 1 minute of a half should not count against the QB the way a regular INT would, but distinguishing these wasn’t practical without real-time play-by-play scoring such as we have now.  Points for drawn DPI is one I’ve wanted to see all the way back to those early days of watching my WR1 get behind the defense and be pulled down before the ball so my opponent’s RB can push in a 1-yard TD.  

 

[Gally]

Playing FF based on efficiency stats and win-shares could be fun but I think it works more as a “let’s look at this in a spreadsheet Tuesday morning and see how our predictive model performed” than a “let’s grab some beers Sunday and watch how our teams do.”

I do think there are a lot of readily available, clearly visual stats that could be folded into FF to improve our system that would still allow for a good gameday experience.

Points for first downs is one.  They are big plays for the team, easily seen and cheered for, and would likely have been in our game long before PPR if not for the “newspaper box score scoring” roots.  FF blew up a decade too soon.

For IDP folks, decreased sack scoring and adding in scoring for hurries and hits would smooth spikes and make for a more predictable week-to-week output which would improve value vs. offensive skill players.  Those stats didn’t even exist when the FF world was busy transitioning from “standard” to “ppr.”

Another would be some “situational awareness.”  INTs on hail marys inside 1 minute of a half should not count against the QB the way a regular INT would, but distinguishing these wasn’t practical without real-time play-by-play scoring such as we have now.  Points for drawn DPI is one I’ve wanted to see all the way back to those early days of watching my WR1 get behind the defense and be pulled down before the ball so my opponent’s RB can push in a 1-yard TD.  

We did this and it really improved the overall consistency of the IDP guys.  We didn't change the total score for a sack but divided it up amongst the various stats that are accrued when you get a sack.   This really allowed more consistency because it isn't an all or nothing thing for the points.  It is a really good update to scoring.