Common fantasy league formats that you find silly (1 Viewer)

[FUBAR]

I have also eventually dropped all of my IDP leagues. They can be fun, but like PPR, they seem to have issues making the best players get the most points, which bugs me. I think it's just hard to even reasonably reflect a guys ability with typical stats. Particularly with corners. For example, Revis is one of the best defensive players in the game. Try to find him on the typical IDP ranking. If you find him at all, he'll be way behind some awful corners and million other dudes who happen to be in good spots for collecting tackles.

Now, some creative leagues try to do a better job with this, but for the most part, aside from sacks, defensive "scoring" isn't very reflective of quality play. Tackles are the primary means of scoring, and they are horrible for determining who is playing well. MLB in a 4-3? - instant IDP monster regardless of whether you can play or not. Conversely, great cover corner generally equals bad stats.

Offensive scoring isn't perfect by any means, but IDP is brutal. I'd love to devise some system that actually values players fairly accurately. Better yet would be to have a system that allows your defensive players to drop your opponent's offensive scores somehow. So if you have Revis, you just say he is "covering" your opponents top WR, and figure out some ratio based on pass play snaps without a catch or something and apply it to the WR's numbers. Maybe a ####ty corner who gets burned can actually increase your opponents WR score. Pipe dream, I know.

The fact that Revis has no value is not confusing for fantasy football. The cb opposite him will have a lot of value because he gets picked on more due to nobody throwing at Revis or a shut down type corner. In deep IDP leauges you have to find the up and coming corner getting picked on and if he becomes a solid corner and gets his picks defenses will start scheming away from him and his value decreases to the point he will usually be dropped or worthless the next year or so. You have to do your research and projections to find the up and coming bad corner or corner who gets picked on for a year or part of a season and pick him up. You are building a fantasy point scoring team, not an NFL starting team in most IDP cornerback scoring systems.

Play the fantasy point scoring game in the IDP fantasy league secondary You do not want the NFL's best shut down corner's. Dont hate the player, play the point scoring game. You dont want Mel Blounts, Patrick Petersons(kick returns not included) or Richard Shermans in fantasy IDP leagues, unlike reality.

In an IDP league the corner position is the only position where "poor nfl" players are potentially valuable. Safeties have this effect to some extent but nothing like the corner position. Safeties are very scheme and team dependent. They can and do very from year to year as well.

I know all of that about IDP, having played for many years in the past. You can score well by knowing the intricacies of the scoring system, essentially looking for bad NFL players who score well in fantasy, and avoiding the excellent NFL players who won't score well.

But while the correlation between real player value and fantasy is not at all perfect on the offensive side, it is generally never an INVERSE relationship like it often is for certain IDP positions. Part of me can just enjoy the IDP numbers game you are talking about, but another part just says "WTF, is this game really about targeting bad players over good players? How is this even 'fantasy football' any more?".

I want to go get Calvin or Luck or Gronk on my team and go root for them to be awesome. I don't want to acquire some no name CB to watch him suck. Now that isn't always the case - some of the best IDPs are really good NFL players too. But it happens enough that to me it's very frustrating. If I do fantasy football around defensive players, it would be much more enjoyable to me if ALL of the best players in the game were actually worth something, and NONE of the crappy ones are worth anything.

Edit. BTW, it's not just corners either. They are the worst, but there are other strange issues as well. Top line DTs are some of the most valuable players in the NFL, but they are rarely fantasy relevant at all. Where are linebacker plays has a MUCH bigger impact on his fantasy score than how good he actually is. The worst 4-3 MLB in the league might well be more fantasy valuable than the best SLB.

it gets even more confusing with dynasty IDP. It's always a challenge to find good scoring corners who keep their jobs over time. Guys like Aqib Talib and Charles Tillman are rare.

At the same time, working the waiver for corners seems to work well.

and yes, Mason Foster might outscore Von Miller. (just as an example)

 

[JonB86]

also, I don't get the 1 QB / 1 RB / 1 WR / 1 TE / 4 Flex line up... pretty much makes trading useless

Odd, I'm in a league like this and out of all my leagues it has by far the most trading, I think it frees people up to deal guys for guys they like more and not have to worry about making sure they have a RB4, a WR5, a TE, etc!

I just find it hard to trade, theres no reason to trade for 'need: aka I'll trade you a WR2 or a RB2 because theres no need for a RB2.

Yes and no, because if I like your WR2 better than I like my RB2 I can make that deal because I don't have to worry about those roster constraints! It makes trading more about preference and less about need! It's great if you have guys that like to trade as it frees you to take value and not worry about having an RB2!

 

[Dezbelief]

Standard Leagues

No such thing, there is so much variety there is no standard.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Surprised that there's so much hate for superflex leagues-QBs are kings in NFL, I feel that it makes sense that being able to put a QB in the flex raises their value similarly.

I won't play anything but superflex anymore

 

[Fariq]

Surprised that there's so much hate for superflex leagues-QBs are kings in NFL, I feel that it makes sense that being able to put a QB in the flex raises their value similarly.

I won't play anything but superflex anymore

Something is wrong when Ben Roethlisberger throws for 1000 yards or something and 10 touchdowns in back-to-back weeks and wasn't used in a 12-team league.

 

[Jello_Biafra]

I left a league because it had a serpentine rookie draft. WTF? When I brought it up, they made it out like that was the norm and I was crazy. Like it was ok for the league champ to have picks 1.12 and 2.01.

 

[JonB86]

I left a league because it had a serpentine rookie draft. WTF? When I brought it up, they made it out like that was the norm and I was crazy. Like it was ok for the league champ to have picks 1.12 and 2.01.

If you're having a rookie draft in the start-up I can see this but every year? Crazy talk!

 

[GregR]

The more complicated the better for me but I'll play anything where I can make some $.

I love leagues that are complicated. Give me the leagues that have weekly payouts for highest team score, highest player scores, roll a survivor challenge into it, deeper starter lineups, pickem pools.

you guys should check my openings

NTTIAWWT.

 

[msudaisy26]

I left a league because it had a serpentine rookie draft. WTF? When I brought it up, they made it out like that was the norm and I was crazy. Like it was ok for the league champ to have picks 1.12 and 2.01.

I have a dynasty like that and every year I propose the rule change to a normal draft and every year it gets shot down. I would leave, but I have a great team and put some time into. I will propose the change again this year.

 

[BYRK75!]

Would never play in these:

2 QB

IDP

More than 1 Flex

 

[Casting Couch]

keeper leagues lame - keep them all or keep none.

redrafts lame - dynasty leagues rule.

2QB lame - just go standard and be done with it.

TE premium lame - Tight Ends are Tight Ends, they shouldn't get a points boost for being a Tight End. They are freaking Tight Ends for pete's sake.

Victory Points / Total Points lame - going head to head against other owners is a big part of what makes FF fun.

I can see why Dynasty leagues are fun but why are redraft leagues lame? Redrafts are the main type of league. I think it's perfect doing both.

Redrafts are not totally lame, just lamer than dynasty leagues.

 

[hedzookeeper]

Leagues that don't use Week 17 as part of or the actual Championship week.

Keeper leagues that don't reset after 3-5 years.

 

[Hawkeye21]

Leagues that don't use Week 17 as part of or the actual Championship week.

Keeper leagues that don't reset after 3-5 years.

Why would you want to use week 17?

 

[Leonidas]

What I find silly or stupid:

-First come first serve free agent pool with no waivers

-Weekly waivers that are inverse of current standings

-Leagues that use week 17 as championship week

-Bonuses for X number of total yards or Y yards in a single play

-Full PPR (I'm doing PPFDR for WR this year FWIW)

 

[cheese]

Leagues that don't use Week 17 as part of or the actual Championship week.

Keeper leagues that don't reset after 3-5 years.

Why would you want to use week 17?

Between how few people sit wk17 with the new schedule formatting now and the odds those players are on the 2 relevant teams, it's mostly just throwing away a week that could be used for fantasy football for limited reason. It extends regular season and makes 8x1 3x2 possible for 12 team leagues with 3 divisions which is one of the most popular setups I've seen.Anyway I prefer to use all weeks. I prefer h2h or victory points. I mostly just don't like points leagues. I usually don't like points for attempts of any kind because I think opportunity already outweighs skill as it is and that makes it worse. Any pts for "carries" seems like the worst.

 

[solorca]

The weirder the better for me. I'm fine with pretty much any scoring/positional quirks. I do hate team defense and kickers though.

 

[Hawkeye21]

Leagues that don't use Week 17 as part of or the actual Championship week.

Keeper leagues that don't reset after 3-5 years.

Why would you want to use week 17?

Between how few people sit wk17 with the new schedule formatting now and the odds those players are on the 2 relevant teams, it's mostly just throwing away a week that could be used for fantasy football for limited reason. It extends regular season and makes 8x1 3x2 possible for 12 team leagues with 3 divisions which is one of the most popular setups I've seen.Anyway I prefer to use all weeks. I prefer h2h or victory points. I mostly just don't like points leagues. I usually don't like points for attempts of any kind because I think opportunity already outweighs skill as it is and that makes it worse. Any pts for "carries" seems like the worst.

Would you change your mind if one of your best players got sat because it's week 17 and you end up losing your championship game due to it? The odds may not be high but if anyone is playing in a league that has money on it you do not want to rely on those odds.

 

[Yenrub]

Leagues that don't use Week 17 as part of or the actual Championship week.

Keeper leagues that don't reset after 3-5 years.

Why would you want to use week 17?

Between how few people sit wk17 with the new schedule formatting now and the odds those players are on the 2 relevant teams, it's mostly just throwing away a week that could be used for fantasy football for limited reason. It extends regular season and makes 8x1 3x2 possible for 12 team leagues with 3 divisions which is one of the most popular setups I've seen.Anyway I prefer to use all weeks. I prefer h2h or victory points. I mostly just don't like points leagues. I usually don't like points for attempts of any kind because I think opportunity already outweighs skill as it is and that makes it worse. Any pts for "carries" seems like the worst.

Would you change your mind if one of your best players got sat because it's week 17 and you end up losing your championship game due to it? The odds may not be high but if anyone is playing in a league that has money on it you do not want to rely on those odds.

It’s happened to me once or twice but I don’t have a problem with it (I have also benefited once)

I knew going into the season that it could happen so I can prepare for it or try to

We have large benches

This will be our 20th season with a week 17 final, players sitting may have had an effect on one of the final two teams maybe four times.

More often than not the final two teams are not affected by players sitting

 

[cheese]

Leagues that don't use Week 17 as part of or the actual Championship week.

Keeper leagues that don't reset after 3-5 years.

Why would you want to use week 17?

Between how few people sit wk17 with the new schedule formatting now and the odds those players are on the 2 relevant teams, it's mostly just throwing away a week that could be used for fantasy football for limited reason. It extends regular season and makes 8x1 3x2 possible for 12 team leagues with 3 divisions which is one of the most popular setups I've seen.Anyway I prefer to use all weeks. I prefer h2h or victory points. I mostly just don't like points leagues. I usually don't like points for attempts of any kind because I think opportunity already outweighs skill as it is and that makes it worse. Any pts for "carries" seems like the worst.

Would you change your mind if one of your best players got sat because it's week 17 and you end up losing your championship game due to it? The odds may not be high but if anyone is playing in a league that has money on it you do not want to rely on those odds.

There are many, many variables every week in FF and over one week tons of them are luck. I wouldn't vote to base the whole schedule around avoiding 1 small one even if it went against me.

 

[Hawkeye21]

I just prefer having my best players playing when they are perfectly healthy to do so. I'd rather not have to bench Manning because they're saving him and have to start my backup.

I have no issues playing in a league that is set up this way but I would never see any of my existing leagues willing to change from week 16 to week 17.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Show me an example of 10 catches for 0 yards. Even if it ever happened, using that nonsense as an argument as if it's a regular occurrence is silly.

10 for 0 is an extreme example, but there was always Gresham's 10-for-48 "effort" against the Colts last year, (with no TDs, natch). In TE-premium, that was the equivalent of a 15-for-48 effort from a WR, too. 19.8 fantasy points for under 50 yards and no scores. Woof.

If you want to balance WR and RB scoring, I'd prefer to do it in a way that still keeps rewarding inherently valuable things (touchdowns, yards, or first downs). Points per First Down has been mentioned a lot, and it's a good one. On league management sites that don't support it, I like using differentiated yardage-heavy scoring. I did a league that gave RBs one point for every 4.5 yards, WRs one point for every 4 yards, and TEs one point for every 3 yards. The season-ending leaderboard read: RB, RB, WR, WR, RB, RB, WR, TE, WR, WR, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, WR, RB, TE, WR, RB. That's 8 running backs, 10 wide receivers, and 2 tight ends. The next twenty gave us 6 RBs, 8 WRs, and 6 TEs. 2013 looked very similar, (it should: I modeled the scoring system based on 2013 results).

(I use yardage-heavy because it's more predictable and better mirrors real-world value, in my opinion, but you could easily adjust it to make it more TD-heavy. 1 point for 9 yards for RBs, 1 per 8 yards for WRs, and 1 per 6 yards for TEs.)

 

[FUBAR]

Show me an example of 10 catches for 0 yards. Even if it ever happened, using that nonsense as an argument as if it's a regular occurrence is silly.

10 for 0 is an extreme example, but there was always Gresham's 10-for-48 "effort" against the Colts last year, (with no TDs, natch). In TE-premium, that was the equivalent of a 15-for-48 effort from a WR, too. 19.8 fantasy points for under 50 yards and no scores. Woof.

If you want to balance WR and RB scoring, I'd prefer to do it in a way that still keeps rewarding inherently valuable things (touchdowns, yards, or first downs). Points per First Down has been mentioned a lot, and it's a good one. On league management sites that don't support it, I like using differentiated yardage-heavy scoring. I did a league that gave RBs one point for every 4.5 yards, WRs one point for every 4 yards, and TEs one point for every 3 yards. The season-ending leaderboard read: RB, RB, WR, WR, RB, RB, WR, TE, WR, WR, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, WR, RB, TE, WR, RB. That's 8 running backs, 10 wide receivers, and 2 tight ends. The next twenty gave us 6 RBs, 8 WRs, and 6 TEs. 2013 looked very similar, (it should: I modeled the scoring system based on 2013 results).

(I use yardage-heavy because it's more predictable and better mirrors real-world value, in my opinion, but you could easily adjust it to make it more TD-heavy. 1 point for 9 yards for RBs, 1 per 8 yards for WRs, and 1 per 6 yards for TEs.)

There's always Darren sproles, 2013 ff playoffs, 8/43 (or something like that) he did similar often enough.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I may not be a PPR fan, but I get why it was invented. RBs were more valuable than WRs every year, so something was introduced to make them equally valuable from year to year. I think there are better ways to do it, but I understand the impulse.

What I don't understand is why PPR became the standard in dynasty. Yes, RBs were better than WRs from year to year in dynasty, too. This was not a problem. This was the system working as intended. Wide receiver careers are 50% longer than running back careers. Wide Receivers are more consistent from year to year. Running backs made up for it by being 50% more valuable in any given season. The end result was that the positions were beautifully balanced; you could build around a WR corps and never really be a high-end contender, but manage to sustain success over a decade, or you could build around an RB corps, be a dominant frontrunner, but know that you're going to be crashing and burning much sooner as a result. There are tradeoffs, there are choices.

If WRs provided as much value in any given year as RBs, there are no tradeoffs. There are no choices. It's a question of whether you'd like this RB who will help your team by X amount, or this comparable WR who will also help your team by X amount, but play for half a decade longer, miss less time to injury, and not have the year-to-year swings. Duh.

In the last round of DLF ADP, there were two backs selected in the first 19 picks. That's the same as the number of QBs and TEs, compared to 13 (THIRTEEN) wide receivers. Now, I know that the WR class is really strong right now and the RB class is really weak... but the RB class was strong and the WR class was weak in the early 2000s, and yet people still recognized that kind of lack of balance as a problem and invented PPR to deal with it.

Le'Veon Bell was the 2nd-most-valuable player in all of fantasy last year at just 22 years old. He became the second youngest player in history to top 2,000 yards from scrimmage, behind only Edgerrin James. The only players in history to accomplish that by age 23 are Edge, Ray Rice, Dickerson, Gore, SJax, Payton, Emmitt, Tomlinson, and now Bell. And he's basically tied in startup ADP with Mike Evans.

Eddie Lacy has ranked 6th and 6th at his position over the last two years. Alshon Jeffery has ranked 8th and 12th at his position over the last two years. Lacy is a year younger and playing in the same offense, while Alshon Jeffery is going through major scheme changes. And yet Jeffery is going three picks before Lacy in dynasty PPR startups.

There are examples like that the whole way down. Jeremy Hill behind Brandin Cooks. Marshawn Lynch behind Allen Robinson. Arian Foster behind Martavis Bryant and Davante Adams. Lamar Miller behind Golden Tate. T.J. Yeldon behind Jarvis Landry. And I'm not even saying it's crazy or wrong, because why pay a premium for an elite stud at RB when you know he's only going to give you a year or maybe two, anyway? The answer should be "because those RBs are going to give you more in those two years than any WR will in four." But it's not. And that's a problem.

 

[Soulfly3]

Change the title of this thread to "Sucking all the fun out of fake football"

 

[gianmarco]

Show me an example of 10 catches for 0 yards. Even if it ever happened, using that nonsense as an argument as if it's a regular occurrence is silly.

10 for 0 is an extreme example, but there was always Gresham's 10-for-48 "effort" against the Colts last year, (with no TDs, natch). In TE-premium, that was the equivalent of a 15-for-48 effort from a WR, too. 19.8 fantasy points for under 50 yards and no scores. Woof.

If you want to balance WR and RB scoring, I'd prefer to do it in a way that still keeps rewarding inherently valuable things (touchdowns, yards, or first downs). Points per First Down has been mentioned a lot, and it's a good one. On league management sites that don't support it, I like using differentiated yardage-heavy scoring. I did a league that gave RBs one point for every 4.5 yards, WRs one point for every 4 yards, and TEs one point for every 3 yards. The season-ending leaderboard read: RB, RB, WR, WR, RB, RB, WR, TE, WR, WR, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, WR, RB, TE, WR, RB. That's 8 running backs, 10 wide receivers, and 2 tight ends. The next twenty gave us 6 RBs, 8 WRs, and 6 TEs. 2013 looked very similar, (it should: I modeled the scoring system based on 2013 results).

(I use yardage-heavy because it's more predictable and better mirrors real-world value, in my opinion, but you could easily adjust it to make it more TD-heavy. 1 point for 9 yards for RBs, 1 per 8 yards for WRs, and 1 per 6 yards for TEs.)

Given there are 256 games with multiple receivers on both teams, if there are a total of ~5 instances per year like that, I wouldn't say it makes the scoring system flawed. No system would ever be perfect. Same way I can name guys like Bettis or Moe Williams that score 2-3 TDs from one yard out in a single game and outscore a guy with 100+ yards, I don't worry too much as long as it's not a regular occurrence.

Yes, there are a few times when ppr will reward a not so good performance, but it is very much the exception when looking at the extreme examples provided.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Show me an example of 10 catches for 0 yards. Even if it ever happened, using that nonsense as an argument as if it's a regular occurrence is silly.

10 for 0 is an extreme example, but there was always Gresham's 10-for-48 "effort" against the Colts last year, (with no TDs, natch). In TE-premium, that was the equivalent of a 15-for-48 effort from a WR, too. 19.8 fantasy points for under 50 yards and no scores. Woof.

If you want to balance WR and RB scoring, I'd prefer to do it in a way that still keeps rewarding inherently valuable things (touchdowns, yards, or first downs). Points per First Down has been mentioned a lot, and it's a good one. On league management sites that don't support it, I like using differentiated yardage-heavy scoring. I did a league that gave RBs one point for every 4.5 yards, WRs one point for every 4 yards, and TEs one point for every 3 yards. The season-ending leaderboard read: RB, RB, WR, WR, RB, RB, WR, TE, WR, WR, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, WR, RB, TE, WR, RB. That's 8 running backs, 10 wide receivers, and 2 tight ends. The next twenty gave us 6 RBs, 8 WRs, and 6 TEs. 2013 looked very similar, (it should: I modeled the scoring system based on 2013 results).

(I use yardage-heavy because it's more predictable and better mirrors real-world value, in my opinion, but you could easily adjust it to make it more TD-heavy. 1 point for 9 yards for RBs, 1 per 8 yards for WRs, and 1 per 6 yards for TEs.)

Given there are 256 games with multiple receivers on both teams, if there are a total of ~5 instances per year like that, I wouldn't say it makes the scoring system flawed. No system would ever be perfect. Same way I can name guys like Bettis or Moe Williams that score 2-3 TDs from one yard out in a single game and outscore a guy with 100+ yards, I don't worry too much as long as it's not a regular occurrence.

Yes, there are a few times when ppr will reward a not so good performance, but it is very much the exception when looking at the extreme examples provided.

It's not a binary issue, though. It's not "5 games a season it's flawed, and 251 games a season it's just fine". It's "5 games a season it's glaringly, blindingly, obviously, mind-numbingly flawed, and the other 251 games it's still flawed, just not as much."

Your 2-3 touchdown example is right on the money, too. It's why I argue until I'm blue in the face that leagues should be using yardage-heavy scoring.

 

[Soulfly3]

IDP Leagues are for FF Hipsters

 

[Freelove]

IDP Leagues are for FF Hipsters

Having one kicker per team is already a nuisance. Adding ten more is just begging for tedium.

It took us all of about two years of tallying USA Today box scores to realize the strategy for IDP's was virtually identical to that for kickers: draft all your offensive starters and backups first, then add your IDP's and kickers, since you give up virtually nothing by doing so. Maybe a modest adjustment for the best DE's, since it's the only position where you wouldn't expect an injury replacement to come in and post fantasy numbers as good as (or better than) the guy being replaced.

Once everybody in the league realizes this, it stops being a game of knowledge and strategy and turns into bingo.

 

[FUBAR]

IDP Leagues are for FF Hipsters

Having one kicker per team is already a nuisance. Adding ten more is just begging for tedium.

It took us all of about two years of tallying USA Today box scores to realize the strategy for IDP's was virtually identical to that for kickers: draft all your offensive starters and backups first, then add your IDP's and kickers, since you give up virtually nothing by doing so. Maybe a modest adjustment for the best DE's, since it's the only position where you wouldn't expect an injury replacement to come in and post fantasy numbers as good as (or better than) the guy being replaced.

Once everybody in the league realizes this, it stops being a game of knowledge and strategy and turns into bingo.

There's a degree of truth to this but at least you can usually count on the top LBs