Facing the leage average.. (1 Viewer)

[SameSongNDance]

I know plenty of you have been in situations where you've been one of the top scorers in your league but were unlucky enough to run into a buzz saw on several occasions, leading to a sub-par record. For example, currently the league leader in one of my leagues is 5-1 with the least points scored. Conversely, another team who's 1-5, but has put up the 2nd to most points in the league. It's amazing to me that a simple solution, such as the inclusion of "facing the league average", in which every player faces it along with their weekly match up, hasn't been implemented in various leagues yet. No longer would you go 0-1 in a week where you put up the 2nd most points but were unlucky enough to face a player who blew up. Instead, you'd be 1-1. In a game where luck runs rampant, I see no reason to scale it back a bit.

Now, I'm debating doing this manually for my leagues next year as I'm pretty sure Yahoo doesn't give this option. So far none of the owners have been opposed to it, even the one who is 5-1 with the least points scored. Can anyone give any legitimate reason why this shouldn't be implemented in future leagues? Is there any downside to this?

 

[GregR]

I know plenty of you have been in situations where you've been one of the top scorers in your league but were unlucky enough to run into a buzz saw on several occasions, leading to a sub-par record. For example, currently the league leader in one of my leagues is 5-1 with the least points scored. Conversely, another team who's 1-5, but has put up the 2nd to most points in the league. It's amazing to me that a simple solution, such as the inclusion of "facing the league average", in which every player faces it along with their weekly match up, hasn't been implemented in various leagues yet. No longer would you go 0-1 in a week where you put up the 2nd most points but were unlucky enough to face a player who blew up. Instead, you'd be 1-1. In a game where luck runs rampant, I see no reason to scale it back a bit.Now, I'm debating doing this manually for my leagues next year as I'm pretty sure Yahoo doesn't give this option. So far none of the owners have been opposed to it, even the one who is 5-1 with the least points scored. Can anyone give any legitimate reason why this shouldn't be implemented in future leagues? Is there any downside to this?

I would argue double or triple headers are preferable. Playing the league average feels too artificial. Just adding double headers will go a long way towards bringing winning percentages closer towards what your all win percentage is.I've ended up preferring triple headers though because it fits so well with a 12 team league. 3 Divisions of 4 teams each. Every week you play 2 out of division teams and 1 division team. Gives you a 12 week season where you play your division 4 times and out of division teams 3 times, and then can have a 3 week playoff and be done before NFL teams who have clinched start sitting players.

 

[Mario Kart]

Yeah, I hate seeing an NFL team score 40 points and lose to their opponent who scored 44. Yet, a different game that team scored 17 points and held their opponent to 10 points but they get a win. Just ain't right.

 

[Gawain]

Instead of playing the league average (mean, median or mode), just do all-play. That way scoring the most points isn't the same as scoring a tenth of a point more than the league average.

 

[Gawain]

Yeah, I hate seeing an NFL team score 40 points and lose to their opponent who scored 44. Yet, a different game that team scored 17 points and held their opponent to 10 points but they get a win. Just ain't right.

Let me know how you hold your opponent's point total's down.

 

[Das Boot]

I know plenty of you have been in situations where you've been one of the top scorers in your league but were unlucky enough to run into a buzz saw on several occasions, leading to a sub-par record. For example, currently the league leader in one of my leagues is 5-1 with the least points scored. Conversely, another team who's 1-5, but has put up the 2nd to most points in the league. It's amazing to me that a simple solution, such as the inclusion of "facing the league average", in which every player faces it along with their weekly match up, hasn't been implemented in various leagues yet. No longer would you go 0-1 in a week where you put up the 2nd most points but were unlucky enough to face a player who blew up. Instead, you'd be 1-1. In a game where luck runs rampant, I see no reason to scale it back a bit.Now, I'm debating doing this manually for my leagues next year as I'm pretty sure Yahoo doesn't give this option. So far none of the owners have been opposed to it, even the one who is 5-1 with the least points scored. Can anyone give any legitimate reason why this shouldn't be implemented in future leagues? Is there any downside to this?

Head to head play is what makes it fun and adds the unpredictability.Otherwise it just becomes Rotisserie Baseball - add up the stats for the entire year and see who wins.

 

[SameSongNDance]

I know plenty of you have been in situations where you've been one of the top scorers in your league but were unlucky enough to run into a buzz saw on several occasions, leading to a sub-par record. For example, currently the league leader in one of my leagues is 5-1 with the least points scored. Conversely, another team who's 1-5, but has put up the 2nd to most points in the league. It's amazing to me that a simple solution, such as the inclusion of "facing the league average", in which every player faces it along with their weekly match up, hasn't been implemented in various leagues yet. No longer would you go 0-1 in a week where you put up the 2nd most points but were unlucky enough to face a player who blew up. Instead, you'd be 1-1. In a game where luck runs rampant, I see no reason to scale it back a bit.Now, I'm debating doing this manually for my leagues next year as I'm pretty sure Yahoo doesn't give this option. So far none of the owners have been opposed to it, even the one who is 5-1 with the least points scored. Can anyone give any legitimate reason why this shouldn't be implemented in future leagues? Is there any downside to this?

I would argue double or triple headers are preferable. Playing the league average feels too artificial. Just adding double headers will go a long way towards bringing winning percentages closer towards what your all win percentage is.I've ended up preferring triple headers though because it fits so well with a 12 team league. 3 Divisions of 4 teams each. Every week you play 2 out of division teams and 1 division team. Gives you a 12 week season where you play your division 4 times and out of division teams 3 times, and then can have a 3 week playoff and be done before NFL teams who have clinched start sitting players.

I never thought of this to be honest. This would indeed bring your record closer to your all play record. It still wouldn't be as "fair" as the league average though. It depends how much luck you want to minimize.

Yeah, I hate seeing an NFL team score 40 points and lose to their opponent who scored 44. Yet, a different game that team scored 17 points and held their opponent to 10 points but they get a win. Just ain't right.

This is the one of the worst sarcastic analogies I've ever read for various reasons.

 

[Squintz82]

My league does something similar using Victory Points. Similar to hockey, standings are sorted by VP, Overall Record, H2H, then total points. You get 1 VP for a win, and 1 VP for scoring in the top half of the league that week (2 possible points each week). It has worked great so far by rewarding the better teams even if they get unlucky. We have a 1-5 team that is the 2nd highest scorer in the league, and they still have a good shot this season.

 

[Johnny Rock]

Double-Headers in both my money leagues. It's the way to go IMO. If you're unlucky enough to play vs. #1 points you'll still get one win that week. It's more likely that in the long-run the best teams will be at the top of the standings.

 

[Insein]

It really comes down to what type of league do you want to play. There are all kinds out there. If you hate seeing stuff like that, play a straight points league. People get a point amount for the standings each week based on how they did. Or if that's even too arbitrary, just do total points wins at the end of the year. Set your lineup each week. Say hi to your leaguemates next draft.

I prefer head to head despite its flaws. The head to head nature of playing a guy on that given week and being held to one team vs another is the nature of competition. I had a terrible year 3 seasons ago like the one you describe. Second most points scored but by far the most points against. Wasn't even close. Next closest points against was like 225 less. Started 0-5. Stormed back to finish 6-7 but wasn't enough. You have those kinds of years but I still had fun.

All about what type of style you have fun with. For me, it's head to head.

 

[SameSongNDance]

Double-Headers in both my money leagues. It's the way to go IMO. If you're unlucky enough to play vs. #1 points you'll still get one win that week. It's more likely that in the long-run the best teams will be at the top of the standings.

You guys have convinced me on this, I really like the idea. Do you know which sites provide this option?

 

[King of the Wolfies]

Instead of playing the league average (mean, median or mode), just do all-play. That way scoring the most points isn't the same as scoring a tenth of a point more than the league average.

 

[Shanahanigans]

It really comes down to what type of league do you want to play. There are all kinds out there. If you hate seeing stuff like that, play a straight points league. People get a point amount for the standings each week based on how they did. Or if that's even too arbitrary, just do total points wins at the end of the year. Set your lineup each week. Say hi to your leaguemates next draft. I prefer head to head despite its flaws. The head to head nature of playing a guy on that given week and being held to one team vs another is the nature of competition. All about what type of style you have fun with. For me, it's head to head.

This. I too prefer head to head despite its flaws.Also, my league gives a $25 cash prize to the team that has the most points scored against in the regular season. Plus a "Toilet Bowl" which is a playoff for the teams that don't make the playoffs. Winner gets $50 and the Golden Toilet Trophy which has "The Best of the Worst" engraved on it. This offers consolation for the rare times when high scoring teams have terrible luck.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

From another thread where I covered this. I've played just about every format, started in 96, multiple leagues per year, blah blah blah...

If you have to play H2H, consider adding a w/l for performance against the weekly league average. Balances things out by giving a win for great performances that happen to go up against an even greater performance (and similarly a loss for poor performances).

Adds a new level to the competition. Every game truly does matter as each affects the average, which can move considerably on a monday night.

Each week a team is 2-0, 1-1 or 0-2. Commish sets up two opponents every week: the H2H and the League Average.

Then after 14 weeks, the top four teams on record make the playoffs. The playoffs are not H2H. Each team's playoff performance is based on three scores:

Weekly average for weeks 1-14 PLUS Week 15 performance PLUS Week 16 performance.

The teams are then ranked based on the sum of their performances to determine first, second, third.

 

[GregR]

Double-Headers in both my money leagues. It's the way to go IMO. If you're unlucky enough to play vs. #1 points you'll still get one win that week. It's more likely that in the long-run the best teams will be at the top of the standings.

You guys have convinced me on this, I really like the idea. Do you know which sites provide this option?

Only site I know the options on this for would be MFL. MFL has a couple of stock schedules that include double header options.It also has a lot of flexibility for creating your own schedule. I actually used FFLM (which is an MFL stand alone league management app) that has a lot of extra options to create the triple header schedule, then used it's export to MFL feature to load it to the website. You can also just create a schedule in a text file and import it IIRC.

 

[Hue G]

We have a wildcard spot in our league for the highest scoring team (total points) that didn't qualify for the playoffs, we've done it for probably 10 years and seems to work well and gives a team that scored a lot of points but may have been unlucky in their matchups a shot it the playoffs.

 

[Lavachebeadsman]

I play in 2 leagues on RT that use the League Average and I love it.

Edit: They are 16 team leagues and we actually play 3 games a week. 2 against opponents and 1 against the league average. Assures the right teams make the playoffs.

 

[GregR]

Just for grins, here are winning percentages for my league this year using the triple header. First number is the all play winning percentage if everyone played every team each week, which is the truest measure of performance you can have. The second is the actual winning percentage using our triple header schedule. The third is the difference between the two.

Team All play Record DifferenceTeam 1 0.481 0.524 0.043Team 2 0.701 0.667 0.034Team 3 0.623 0.619 0.004Team 4 0.714 0.714 0Team 5 0.403 0.476 0.073Team 6 0.195 0.19 0.005Team 7 0.455 0.476 0.021Team 8 0.649 0.667 0.018Team 9 0.688 0.667 0.021Team 10 0.273 0.19 0.083Team 11 0.506 0.524 0.018Team 12 0.312 0.286 0.026
To put that in some perspective, we've played 21 games through week 7. Each game contributes .048 towards your winning percentage to date. 10 of 12 teams have a winning percentage that through 21 games is within 1 fantasy game of their all play winning percentage.

The other two teams are both less than 2 games off their all play winning percentage. The team furthest off has a winning percentage within .083 of the all play percentage which is pretty good really.

 

[yoadrian]

From another thread where I covered this. I've played just about every format, started in 96, multiple leagues per year, blah blah blah...If you have to play H2H, consider adding a w/l for performance against the weekly league average. Balances things out by giving a win for great performances that happen to go up against an even greater performance (and similarly a loss for poor performances).Adds a new level to the competition. Every game truly does matter as each affects the average, which can move considerably on a monday night.Each week a team is 2-0, 1-1 or 0-2. Commish sets up two opponents every week: the H2H and the League Average.Then after 14 weeks, the top four teams on record make the playoffs. The playoffs are not H2H. Each team's playoff performance is based on three scores:Weekly average for weeks 1-14 PLUS Week 15 performance PLUS Week 16 performance. The teams are then ranked based on the sum of their performances to determine first, second, third.

The systems that are all about points scored each week and have no head to head takes all of the fun out of fantasy football IMO. But I am intrigued by this playoff format..Still, average score can take some of the edge off bad scheduling, but I still prefer the "top 6 gets a win" format (in a 12 team). The problem with double headers is if you are continually going 1-1 all season, you never get that leg up that could pay off during playoff seeding.

 

[shadyridr]

Part of the fun of playing fantasy football is not only rooting for your own players to score but also rooting for your opponents players not to score. This would take away that fun.

 

[Hoosier16]

Part of the fun of playing fantasy football is not only rooting for your own players to score but also rooting for your opponents players not to score. This would take away that fun.

I was about to post the same thing. Playing only one game a week makes this easy. Going to double headers wouldn't be too bad, but triple headers and more would make this much less enjoyable.

 

[silentcoach]

Yeah, I hate seeing an NFL team score 40 points and lose to their opponent who scored 44. Yet, a different game that team scored 17 points and held their opponent to 10 points but they get a win. Just ain't right.

Let me know how you hold your opponent's point total's down.

How about another sport. Bowling or Golf? You can play the best game of your life, and you can still lose because someone else just happened to one up you OR you play a crappy game but people played even crappier so you win. This is how fantasy head to head football works.All you can control is putting the best lineup out there. Whether your opponent outscores you or not is "like golf."To me, this is just funner. I guess I like torture.

 

[Concept Coop]

Yeah, I hate seeing an NFL team score 40 points and lose to their opponent who scored 44. Yet, a different game that team scored 17 points and held their opponent to 10 points but they get a win. Just ain't right.

Let me know how you hold your opponent's point total's down.

How about another sport. Bowling or Golf? You can play the best game of your life, and you can still lose because someone else just happened to one up you OR you play a crappy game but people played even crappier so you win. This is how fantasy head to head football works.

Right - we all know this. That wasn't the point. The point was: Is it the best format?

 

[silentcoach]

Yeah, I hate seeing an NFL team score 40 points and lose to their opponent who scored 44. Yet, a different game that team scored 17 points and held their opponent to 10 points but they get a win. Just ain't right.

Let me know how you hold your opponent's point total's down.

How about another sport. Bowling or Golf? You can play the best game of your life, and you can still lose because someone else just happened to one up you OR you play a crappy game but people played even crappier so you win. This is how fantasy head to head football works.

Right - we all know this. That wasn't the point. The point was: Is it the best format?

My comment was in reference to the poster that pointed out that you cannot control the scores of your opponent, and thus "best ball" is the better format. I pointed to other sports where this is the case, and you do not hear competitors complain. It is the best format because in the end we want to make it "seem" like football--you play one opponent, not 3, not 4, not 1 million. Just because you were unlucky and scored the highest scorer of the week is not a reason to change--seems more like an outlier.

 

[mr roboto]

Yeah, I hate seeing an NFL team score 40 points and lose to their opponent who scored 44. Yet, a different game that team scored 17 points and held their opponent to 10 points but they get a win. Just ain't right.

Let me know how you hold your opponent's point total's down.

How about another sport. Bowling or Golf? You can play the best game of your life, and you can still lose because someone else just happened to one up you OR you play a crappy game but people played even crappier so you win. This is how fantasy head to head football works.

Right - we all know this. That wasn't the point. The point was: Is it the best format?

It is the best format because in the end we want to make it "seem" like football--you play one opponent, not 3, not 4, not 1 million. Just because you were unlucky and scored the highest scorer of the week is not a reason to change--seems more like an outlier.

The scoring is completely at odds with the way you play the game though. Your goal is to literally pick players who will score the most points. It's nothing like real football. They can actually impact the opponent.

I hate to break this to you, but you didn't 'beat' the guy you outscored in H2H. You got randomly matched up against another set of producers.

Golf is about best vs best. It's the ultimate all play. And in golf you can (psychologically) impact the other players.

The best FF player of the year is the one who scores the most total points. If you don't like that scoring system, fine, but it's clearly the most accurate measure of 'best'.

 

[Quibbler]

I couldn't care less about fairness. I play FF for fun, so my only concern is whether the rules make the game more or less fun.

And, IMO, H2H is more fun.

Like others said, having a particular team to root against is fun. Rooting against everyone not on my team, or even 3 teams worth of players wouldn't be the same.

 

[silentcoach]

Yeah, I hate seeing an NFL team score 40 points and lose to their opponent who scored 44. Yet, a different game that team scored 17 points and held their opponent to 10 points but they get a win. Just ain't right.

Let me know how you hold your opponent's point total's down.

How about another sport. Bowling or Golf? You can play the best game of your life, and you can still lose because someone else just happened to one up you OR you play a crappy game but people played even crappier so you win. This is how fantasy head to head football works.

Right - we all know this. That wasn't the point. The point was: Is it the best format?

It is the best format because in the end we want to make it "seem" like football--you play one opponent, not 3, not 4, not 1 million. Just because you were unlucky and scored the highest scorer of the week is not a reason to change--seems more like an outlier.

The scoring is completely at odds with the way you play the game though. Your goal is to literally pick players who will score the most points. It's nothing like real football. They can actually impact the opponent.

I hate to break this to you, but you didn't 'beat' the guy you outscored in H2H. You got randomly matched up against another set of producers.

Golf is about best vs best. It's the ultimate all play. And in golf you can (psychologically) impact the other players.

I beat my opponent because my best educated lineup producers outscored his best educated lineup, given the parameters of his team. The schedule may have been random (all though techincally they are preset), but it does not change the fact that I "beat him."

 

[mr roboto]

Yeah, I hate seeing an NFL team score 40 points and lose to their opponent who scored 44. Yet, a different game that team scored 17 points and held their opponent to 10 points but they get a win. Just ain't right.

Let me know how you hold your opponent's point total's down.

How about another sport. Bowling or Golf? You can play the best game of your life, and you can still lose because someone else just happened to one up you OR you play a crappy game but people played even crappier so you win. This is how fantasy head to head football works.

Right - we all know this. That wasn't the point. The point was: Is it the best format?

It is the best format because in the end we want to make it "seem" like football--you play one opponent, not 3, not 4, not 1 million. Just because you were unlucky and scored the highest scorer of the week is not a reason to change--seems more like an outlier.

The scoring is completely at odds with the way you play the game though. Your goal is to literally pick players who will score the most points. It's nothing like real football. They can actually impact the opponent.

I hate to break this to you, but you didn't 'beat' the guy you outscored in H2H. You got randomly matched up against another set of producers.

Golf is about best vs best. It's the ultimate all play. And in golf you can (psychologically) impact the other players.

I beat my opponent because my best educated lineup producers outscored his best educated lineup, given the parameters of his team. The schedule may have been random (all though techincally they are preset), but it does not change the fact that I "beat him."

You outscored him. Randomly having your completely unrelated sets of data compared at a random point in time. You 'beat' him if you have the most productive season IMO.

 

[silentcoach]

Yeah, I hate seeing an NFL team score 40 points and lose to their opponent who scored 44. Yet, a different game that team scored 17 points and held their opponent to 10 points but they get a win. Just ain't right.

Let me know how you hold your opponent's point total's down.

How about another sport. Bowling or Golf? You can play the best game of your life, and you can still lose because someone else just happened to one up you OR you play a crappy game but people played even crappier so you win. This is how fantasy head to head football works.

Right - we all know this. That wasn't the point. The point was: Is it the best format?

It is the best format because in the end we want to make it "seem" like football--you play one opponent, not 3, not 4, not 1 million. Just because you were unlucky and scored the highest scorer of the week is not a reason to change--seems more like an outlier.

The scoring is completely at odds with the way you play the game though. Your goal is to literally pick players who will score the most points. It's nothing like real football. They can actually impact the opponent.

I hate to break this to you, but you didn't 'beat' the guy you outscored in H2H. You got randomly matched up against another set of producers.

Golf is about best vs best. It's the ultimate all play. And in golf you can (psychologically) impact the other players.

I beat my opponent because my best educated lineup producers outscored his best educated lineup, given the parameters of his team. The schedule may have been random (all though techincally they are preset), but it does not change the fact that I "beat him."

You outscored him. Randomly having your completely unrelated sets of data compared at a random point in time. You 'beat' him if you have the most productive season IMO.

That is why you play 14-15 games a season. If you lost because you played the higher scorer, oh well....that was my point, #### happens. If your team TRUELY is good, you will be fine the rest of the season, UNLESS you are unlucky. Best guess what, I think there is tons of luck of football and that is why I am okay with head to head. You can play the whole league in one week and you would just "outscore" them not beat them, makes no sense.

 

[Concept Coop]

Yeah, I hate seeing an NFL team score 40 points and lose to their opponent who scored 44. Yet, a different game that team scored 17 points and held their opponent to 10 points but they get a win. Just ain't right.

Let me know how you hold your opponent's point total's down.

How about another sport. Bowling or Golf? You can play the best game of your life, and you can still lose because someone else just happened to one up you OR you play a crappy game but people played even crappier so you win. This is how fantasy head to head football works.

Right - we all know this. That wasn't the point. The point was: Is it the best format?

It is the best format because in the end we want to make it "seem" like football--you play one opponent, not 3, not 4, not 1 million. Just because you were unlucky and scored the highest scorer of the week is not a reason to change--seems more like an outlier.

The scoring is completely at odds with the way you play the game though. Your goal is to literally pick players who will score the most points. It's nothing like real football. They can actually impact the opponent.

I hate to break this to you, but you didn't 'beat' the guy you outscored in H2H. You got randomly matched up against another set of producers.

Golf is about best vs best. It's the ultimate all play. And in golf you can (psychologically) impact the other players.

I beat my opponent because my best educated lineup producers outscored his best educated lineup, given the parameters of his team. The schedule may have been random (all though techincally they are preset), but it does not change the fact that I "beat him."

You outscored him. Randomly having your completely unrelated sets of data compared at a random point in time. You 'beat' him if you have the most productive season IMO.

That is why you play 14-15 games a season. If you lost because you played the higher scorer, oh well....that was my point, #### happens. If your team TRUELY is good, you will be fine the rest of the season.Besides your argument has holes--you can play the whole league in one week and you would just "outscore" them not beat them.

Except that isn't the point. Is it the most fair and accurate way to rank performance? That is what we are asking here.We all know the pros and cons of head-to-head. And it sounds like you like that - great!

But don't act as though there aren't other methods, and potentially, more accurate methods as well. That is what the OP is looking for.

 

[silentcoach]

Yeah, I hate seeing an NFL team score 40 points and lose to their opponent who scored 44. Yet, a different game that team scored 17 points and held their opponent to 10 points but they get a win. Just ain't right.

Let me know how you hold your opponent's point total's down.

How about another sport. Bowling or Golf? You can play the best game of your life, and you can still lose because someone else just happened to one up you OR you play a crappy game but people played even crappier so you win. This is how fantasy head to head football works.

Right - we all know this. That wasn't the point. The point was: Is it the best format?

It is the best format because in the end we want to make it "seem" like football--you play one opponent, not 3, not 4, not 1 million. Just because you were unlucky and scored the highest scorer of the week is not a reason to change--seems more like an outlier.

The scoring is completely at odds with the way you play the game though. Your goal is to literally pick players who will score the most points. It's nothing like real football. They can actually impact the opponent.

I hate to break this to you, but you didn't 'beat' the guy you outscored in H2H. You got randomly matched up against another set of producers.

Golf is about best vs best. It's the ultimate all play. And in golf you can (psychologically) impact the other players.

I beat my opponent because my best educated lineup producers outscored his best educated lineup, given the parameters of his team. The schedule may have been random (all though techincally they are preset), but it does not change the fact that I "beat him."

You outscored him. Randomly having your completely unrelated sets of data compared at a random point in time. You 'beat' him if you have the most productive season IMO.

That is why you play 14-15 games a season. If you lost because you played the higher scorer, oh well....that was my point, #### happens. If your team TRUELY is good, you will be fine the rest of the season.Besides your argument has holes--you can play the whole league in one week and you would just "outscore" them not beat them.

Except that isn't the point. Is it the most fair and accurate way to rank performance? That is what we are asking here.We all know the pros and cons of head-to-head. And it sounds like you like that - great!

But don't act as though there aren't other methods, and potentially, more accurate methods as well. That is what the OP is looking for.

I think we need to determine WHY we are looking at a "better" method. He got unlucky, okay, that does not seem like a reason to change a standard.

 

[Concept Coop]

I think we need to determine WHY we are looking at a "better" method. He got unlucky, okay, does not seem like a reason to change a standard.

That is your completely biased opinion.If the OP wants a more accurate measure of performance, there is nothing wrong with that. Why argue against he or she doing so? Again - we all know the pros and cons of H2H, including luck. If that is what you want, great. Me too, actually. But you're not helping the conversation.

 

[silentcoach]

You want to take luck out and have the best player win? Eliminate the draft.

Every week you play everyone in your league and EVERY player is available.

Sometimes, the most "optimal" way to play is the not the best.

Hope that makes sense.

The above is ideally the best way to determine performance.

You're welcome OP.

 

[mr roboto]

Yeah, I hate seeing an NFL team score 40 points and lose to their opponent who scored 44. Yet, a different game that team scored 17 points and held their opponent to 10 points but they get a win. Just ain't right.

Let me know how you hold your opponent's point total's down.

How about another sport. Bowling or Golf? You can play the best game of your life, and you can still lose because someone else just happened to one up you OR you play a crappy game but people played even crappier so you win. This is how fantasy head to head football works.

Right - we all know this. That wasn't the point. The point was: Is it the best format?

It is the best format because in the end we want to make it "seem" like football--you play one opponent, not 3, not 4, not 1 million. Just because you were unlucky and scored the highest scorer of the week is not a reason to change--seems more like an outlier.

The scoring is completely at odds with the way you play the game though. Your goal is to literally pick players who will score the most points. It's nothing like real football. They can actually impact the opponent.

I hate to break this to you, but you didn't 'beat' the guy you outscored in H2H. You got randomly matched up against another set of producers.

Golf is about best vs best. It's the ultimate all play. And in golf you can (psychologically) impact the other players.

I beat my opponent because my best educated lineup producers outscored his best educated lineup, given the parameters of his team. The schedule may have been random (all though techincally they are preset), but it does not change the fact that I "beat him."

You outscored him. Randomly having your completely unrelated sets of data compared at a random point in time. You 'beat' him if you have the most productive season IMO.

That is why you play 14-15 games a season. If you lost because you played the higher scorer, oh well....that was my point, #### happens. If your team TRUELY is good, you will be fine the rest of the season.You can play the whole league in one week and you would just "outscore" them not beat them, makes no sense.

When you draft and set your lineip, is it your goal to set one that will beat your opponent? No. Well, yes. But only accidentally. You set a lineup to score as many points as possible. You rarely, if ever, factor anything about your opponent.

Lets say an owner is 10-4 and wins the championship. Another owner is 9-5 and loses in the first round. But over the course of the regular season the 9-5 owner scored an average of 8pts more than the 'champion'. Which one was more successful at achieving the goal (to score the most amount of points).

If you say 'my goal is to beat my weekly opponent' that's a goal that happens on the way to trying to score the most points. The first thing anyone attempts in FF is to have the best team.

 

[butcher boy]

Part of the fun of playing fantasy football is not only rooting for your own players to score but also rooting for your opponents players not to score. This would take away that fun.

Agreed. The best way to combat the problem is to give one or two wild card playoff spots to the highest scoring teams who aren't already in.

 

[steveski]

Yeah, I hate seeing an NFL team score 40 points and lose to their opponent who scored 44. Yet, a different game that team scored 17 points and held their opponent to 10 points but they get a win. Just ain't right.

Let me know how you hold your opponent's point total's down.

How about another sport. Bowling or Golf? You can play the best game of your life, and you can still lose because someone else just happened to one up you OR you play a crappy game but people played even crappier so you win. This is how fantasy head to head football works.All you can control is putting the best lineup out there. Whether your opponent outscores you or not is "like golf."To me, this is just funner. I guess I like torture.

The funny thing about using golf as an example is that it is almost identical to how a Total Points league works and the opposite of a H2H league. A H2H equivalent in golf would be if you beat the person you are paired with, you win. That's not the case. In golf, like Total Points FF, if you and the person you are paired with both suck, you both still lose.

 

[Insein]

Yeah, I hate seeing an NFL team score 40 points and lose to their opponent who scored 44. Yet, a different game that team scored 17 points and held their opponent to 10 points but they get a win. Just ain't right.

Let me know how you hold your opponent's point total's down.

How about another sport. Bowling or Golf? You can play the best game of your life, and you can still lose because someone else just happened to one up you OR you play a crappy game but people played even crappier so you win. This is how fantasy head to head football works.

Right - we all know this. That wasn't the point. The point was: Is it the best format?

It is the best format because in the end we want to make it "seem" like football--you play one opponent, not 3, not 4, not 1 million. Just because you were unlucky and scored the highest scorer of the week is not a reason to change--seems more like an outlier.

The scoring is completely at odds with the way you play the game though. Your goal is to literally pick players who will score the most points. It's nothing like real football. They can actually impact the opponent.

I hate to break this to you, but you didn't 'beat' the guy you outscored in H2H. You got randomly matched up against another set of producers.

Golf is about best vs best. It's the ultimate all play. And in golf you can (psychologically) impact the other players.

I beat my opponent because my best educated lineup producers outscored his best educated lineup, given the parameters of his team. The schedule may have been random (all though techincally they are preset), but it does not change the fact that I "beat him."

You outscored him. Randomly having your completely unrelated sets of data compared at a random point in time. You 'beat' him if you have the most productive season IMO.

You must be a joy to be in a league with.

 

[footballnerd]

Give 25 to 50% of the pot to high points and be done with it

 

[silentcoach]

I'll end with this: The people who seem to push a best league format seem to be unlucky. I am sorry for your luck!

Sometimes that 6th seed wild card team just happens to win the superbowl.

 

[mr roboto]

Yeah, I hate seeing an NFL team score 40 points and lose to their opponent who scored 44. Yet, a different game that team scored 17 points and held their opponent to 10 points but they get a win. Just ain't right.

Let me know how you hold your opponent's point total's down.

How about another sport. Bowling or Golf? You can play the best game of your life, and you can still lose because someone else just happened to one up you OR you play a crappy game but people played even crappier so you win. This is how fantasy head to head football works.

Right - we all know this. That wasn't the point. The point was: Is it the best format?

It is the best format because in the end we want to make it "seem" like football--you play one opponent, not 3, not 4, not 1 million. Just because you were unlucky and scored the highest scorer of the week is not a reason to change--seems more like an outlier.

The scoring is completely at odds with the way you play the game though. Your goal is to literally pick players who will score the most points. It's nothing like real football. They can actually impact the opponent.

I hate to break this to you, but you didn't 'beat' the guy you outscored in H2H. You got randomly matched up against another set of producers.

Golf is about best vs best. It's the ultimate all play. And in golf you can (psychologically) impact the other players.

I beat my opponent because my best educated lineup producers outscored his best educated lineup, given the parameters of his team. The schedule may have been random (all though techincally they are preset), but it does not change the fact that I "beat him."

You outscored him. Randomly having your completely unrelated sets of data compared at a random point in time. You 'beat' him if you have the most productive season IMO.

You must be a joy to be in a league with.

Yea, I talk like this all the time. Come on. I was actually convinced by a leaguemate of mine that H2H is a poor judge of who's better. We had a vote in dynasty league and went to all play.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Say what you want about total points, but the best team wins. Every time. At the end of the season, you look at the team and go "Yeah, they were the best." You either tip your hat to someone who was better, or you enjoy knowing you were the best, without question.

H2H is also fun in its own way. The drama of having an inferior team claim the title, and the match ups adds some excitement and unpredictability you probably won't find as often in total points.

I've won in both formats, and lost a LOT in both. For me, winning a total points league is much more satisfying than winning a H2H one. Feels like more of an accomplishment that I played a bigger role in earning than having the luck of the schedule determining my record.

But your mileage may vary, and as long as you enjoy it more power to you.

 

[GregR]

Having to argue FF game format is like golf or bowling and not like football is an argument for this type of adjustment to the format, in my view.

On having more players to cheer for or against with multiple games... yes that's so. Having a league with a double header gives you same number of games to watch as playing in 2 leagues. Some won't want that. Others won't blink at the issue.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

When you draft and set your lineip, is it your goal to set one that will beat your opponent? No. Well, yes. But only accidentally. You set a lineup to score as many points as possible. You rarely, if ever, factor anything about your opponent. Lets say an owner is 10-4 and wins the championship. Another owner is 9-5 and loses in the first round. But over the course of the regular season the 9-5 owner scored an average of 8pts more than the 'champion'. Which one was more successful at achieving the goal (to score the most amount of points). If you say 'my goal is to beat my weekly opponent' that's a goal that happens on the way to trying to score the most points. The first thing anyone attempts in FF is to have the best team.

yeah, but most of that isn't really true --- a lot of people on ff message boards seem to think they know in advance who will score the most points, and they are really just bs'ing themselves.part of the prognostication process is trying to evaluate the risk each player brings via his history, circumstance, and situation.I might have one guy that I peg at 50% to get 10, or another at 25% to get 20.these are all just numbers made up in my head, obviously, but I might pick one or the other in a given week depending on who my h2h match is.also, who you trade with, and for, might be influenced by the h2h schedule, as it matches up with the real nfl schedule.another example would be if you were to leave a roster spot empty because you didn't want to cut a guy, but thought you could win anyway -- short term you are sacrificing points, thinking you will get more points long term, or even if you don't cash in on those points long term, you might be simply insuring less future risk through greater depth, etc.and there are people who might make a decision on their line up based partly on who the other guy starts at qb, or whatever -- you obviously don't know who will score the most points on your roster, but you can influence risk and variance.whether or not you agree with this approach is irrelevant, as it's something people do which is directly linked to h2h.the bottom line is that you seem to think all these point values are predetermined, and that you somehow have some unique insight on what the future holds, whereas a lot of what we are doing in ff is actually just as much about evaluating risk as it is reward.and I'll give you one personal anecdotal example --- my first year playing idp I ran up against a really tough team (my evaluation) early in the season.I thought my offensive players were outmatched, and I was a definite underdog, which spurred me to scour the idp pool looking for potential high reward players based on match up that I could pick up to help even the scoring.if I felt I was a strong fav that week I would have stood pat with teh guys I drafted.if your league pays the superbowl champ, rather than points leader, the goal is to be the superbowl champ.

 

[Gawain]

The best FF player of the year is the one who scores the most total points. If you don't like that scoring system, fine, but it's clearly the most accurate measure of 'best'.

The guy who scores thirty points a week for sixteen weeks is better than the guy who scores 466 week one and one point for each of the fifteen following weeks in all systems but total points.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

The best FF player of the year is the one who scores the most total points. If you don't like that scoring system, fine, but it's clearly the most accurate measure of 'best'.

The guy who scores thirty points a week for sixteen weeks is better than the guy who scores 466 week one and one point for each of the fifteen following weeks in all systems but total points.

it was doublegood

 

[Andrew]

We have a wildcard spot in our league for the highest scoring team (total points) that didn't qualify for the playoffs, we've done it for probably 10 years and seems to work well and gives a team that scored a lot of points but may have been unlucky in their matchups a shot it the playoffs.

Same here. We've been doing it for 8 years or so and we like it a lot. 3 division winners, 2 wildcards using normal tie-breakers, and then last spot goes to the remaining team with the most points.

 

[mr roboto]

The best FF player of the year is the one who scores the most total points. If you don't like that scoring system, fine, but it's clearly the most accurate measure of 'best'.

The guy who scores thirty points a week for sixteen weeks is better than the guy who scores 466 week one and one point for each of the fifteen following weeks in all systems but total points.

When does that type of drastic distribution happen?

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

Part of the fun of playing fantasy football is not only rooting for your own players to score but also rooting for your opponents players not to score. This would take away that fun.

That's why you integrate H2H AND an average. Best of both worlds. Every game, every play counts.

 

[Dentist]

Play 1/2 total points and 1/2 head to head.

We award 1/2 the prize pool to the points leader at the end of week 16

We award 1/3 of the prize pool to the league champion

we award the rest to the runner up.

So you're playing 1/2 rotisserie, 1/2 traditional matchups (which despite having MASSIVE structural flaws, is more intriguing)

If a team is really excellent they'll probably win the points AND one of the other prizes.

The best team never gets denied payment in our league.

Playing totally head to head where 1 game playoffs determine the outcome of your entire prize pool leave you in a league controlled by an unbelievable amount of luck.

 

[BeTheMatch]

Yeah, I hate seeing an NFL team score 40 points and lose to their opponent who scored 44. Yet, a different game that team scored 17 points and held their opponent to 10 points but they get a win. Just ain't right.

Yeah, that really makes a lot of sense.