This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Even that is too complicated for me. I mean the guy with 60 yards on 9 carries could have had 8 carries for 8 yards and then his 9th carry the blocking was perfect, the linebacker slipped and the RB was able to just sprint straight for 52 yards. Is that really impressive?
There is value in having a workhorse back that gets 21 carries even if the ypc is low. That back is running the clock and serving a purpose that may be in the game plan for that team. Ball control and long, sustained drives. There is value in that as well. I wouldn't necessarily say a guy with 9 for 60 had a better game than a guy with 20 for 60. Too many factors to make that such a simple evaluation.
These type of explanations never resonate with me.
IMO, ball control offense with long sustained drives results in the player getting first downs. I am the one that wants more FF leagues to value first downs MORE, not LESS.
Of course and guys used on short yardage more would be punished in your system. My point is the same one you are making: football is really complex so saying 50 yards from one player is more valuable than 50 players from another player doesn't make sense to me.
Your initial comment was about efficiency and you wanted to give a bump in value to more efficient play because "it wasn't debatable" that more efficient was better. I just provided a reason where a workhorse RB grinding yards has a purpose and value to a team.
back in the day when if you had Emmit Smith you had a huge weekly advantage on the rest of the group and stud RB was really the way you had to go....PPR helped balance that out a little....but when the league changed rules to become more focused on the passing games, it may have tilted back a little too far the other way...seems like we are kind of on a teeter totter...0.5 PPR seems about right to me...although I think in order to get the 0.5 PPR you need to have advanced the ball past the line of scrimmage...but that might be too hard to score...
The problem with kickers, unlike TEs is that no matter how much research and skill an owner has, picking a kicker is largely a totally random exercise. This is because of the way we score kickers. While many can predict offensive success, predicting FG opportunities is the equivalent of throwing darts with your eyes closed.
Kickers will not be valuable no matter what you do to the scoring, because they just don't generate value above the baseline. Plug last year's stats into your formula, and you'll see.
Fair point, but I do get different numbers than you. By my count Zuerlein had 200 points under the system I propose (36 points for 6 FG over 50, 36 points for 12 FG 40-49 + 128 points for 20 FG less than 40 plus 44 xp) whereas the 12th kicker (Jake Elliot) had only 125, or a healthier 75 total 4.6 points per game difference. I show Succop as the #9 not the #12 K.
I don't see where you get 125 points for Elliot. He had:
I don't think that's true at all.Ilov80s said:
Yes, and I am explaining to you that I think those workhorse RB's would get enough first downs that they ARE being efficient and should be rewarded for getting a lot of first downs and TD's. Efficiency isn't a measure of how many opportunities you have had, it's a measure of your production with a certain amount of opportunities.Gally said:
But I'm not quibbling over small points in scoring. I'm trying to just make the logical argument that (first down)>Stinkin Ref said:
yard). In a vast, vast majority of fantasy football leagues out there a yard counts in fantasy football and a first down means nothing. Just admitting that a first down means more than a yard in football isn't trying to find a "perfect" scoring system. It's setting a framework to hopefully find a better scoring system than one that was used 25 years ago before computers were calculating the stats for us.
Your derail question has nothing to do with my response. To answer it: you can create any league scoring format you want.
I've fought to increase roster size in most every league I'm in, usually with little to no success (often voted down completely, when an increase does occur it's only like 2-3 spots). I agree with the degree of difficulty for 16 team leagues and larger starting lineups; I'm in one 12 teamer but all my others are 16 teams w IDP. These leagues are more fun, more challenging, more interesting, much less random luck based.Mr. Irrelevant said:
The single best change any commissioner can make to reduce the impact of luck (randomness) in his league is increasing the size of the starting lineups and rosters. Many people talk about how 16-team leagues are "more skill-oriented" and "more challenging" because of their depth - well, you can effectively duplicate the depth of a 9-starter / 5-bench 16-teamer even in a 10-team league if you're willing to go to 14 starters and 22 draft rounds.
I'm personally of the belief that average-sized (10-12 team) leagues would be better off with no start-1 positions at all - not even PK or DST (personally I'd prefer to eliminate the former and double up on the latter). But I realize that's a bridge too far for most FF owners.
They aren't valuable for fantasy football because there isn't much difference between the good ones and the bad ones..... you just need a guy that is starting.
How did the scoring adjustment impact a guy like Brady or Wilson? In these advanced leagues are they and other QBs going in the 1st round?
The single best change any commissioner can make to reduce the impact of luck (randomness) in his league is increasing the size of the starting lineups and rosters. Many people talk about how 16-team leagues are "more skill-oriented" and "more challenging" because of their depth - well, you can effectively duplicate the depth of a 9-starter / 5-bench 16-teamer even in a 10-team league if you're willing to go to 14 starters and 22 draft rounds.
I'm personally of the belief that average-sized (10-12 team) leagues would be better off with no start-1 positions at all - not even PK or DST (personally I'd prefer to eliminate the former and double up on the latter). But I realize that's a bridge too far for most FF owners.
To build on Joe’s point:
I just finished a scoring analysis for our leagues scoring system and came to the same conclusion. What had prompted it was that I noticed that WR and TE points had fallen pretty dramatically over the past two seasons. It was a direct result of receptions and yardage for WR and TE falling from previous years. As a league, we like for all the top guys in each position to be fairly equivalent in scoring.
I actually took the average over 5 years, but the past two years, receptions and yardage for WR and TE were significantly down. Closer to what you would have considered "normal" in the early 2000's. Generally, I don't react to single year swings, but I see a pattern where RB scoring is on the upswing. So, instead of just depending on yardage/receptions, I made first downs a slightly bigger part of scoring. It helps minimize the swings. Besides, our point of view is that getting a first down is important to the team in that it moves the chains and allows the team a better chance to score. Yeah, some insignificant players will get some points for scoring first downs, but by and large, the stars of the team get the majority of them.
Passing has definitely been down across the board the last two seasons, but the overall trend is still up when looking at 5 year or 10 year numbers. Part of the reason for passing being down last year was due to QB like Luck and Rodgers being injured, also Drew Brees did not throw quite as much as he has recently. There are many different variables that go into all of this every year.
The 10 year average is 1018 total plays 5.4 yards per play 550 pass attempts 3671 passing yards 6.26 ypa 431 rushing attempts 4.2 ypa
Good info. I thought I had heard someone on a podcast discussing data say that RB receptions actually weren't up this year.
Per the links above, both Brady/Wilson were top 5 fantasy scorers in both scoring systems. IMO that means Brady/Wilson were much more valuable when people waiting and drafting Eli(as a lower tier starting QB) was the #119 overall scorer rather than the #44 overall scorer.
I would like the element of being in a league where everyone can't just go to a website and print out high quality rankins for free and be in good shape for the draft.
Well, in the old MFL10 system Bortles is #18 overall and Allen is #24. In the Advanced Scoring Bortles is #20 and Allen is #22. In that case I think the new system is better than the old both because Bortles is ranked slightly lower and Allen is slightly higher.
Makes sense. Would you consider wanting to tinker with a scoring system to that is reflects quality of play like where a bad QB (Bortles for example) doesn't out score some of the top RBs and WRs?
Hmm perhaps it wasn't at a macro level. It was just consolidated into fewer RBs production. Less time share of RB getting receptions perhaps, but not more overall.Ilov80s said:
Oh, absolutely. I'm must making the case that the hobby really needs to move toward better scoring systems even if they are a bit more complicated.
Well depends what you mean. For fantasy, he is a good value for a 2QB league or 14/16 team league. Outside of 2015 where he was a garbage time stud, he just falls into that large wash of QBs with similar value. Because the defense is so good, I don't think he is going to have the passing volume to be better than around QB10-13 so since I think his upside is limited. However, if you just totally pass on QBs, Bortles is mostly going undrafted and that's a nice value- especially since he has one the best QB friendly early schedules in the fantasy.
Yeah, I agree mostly. I was really hoping BUF would release Tyrod Taylor and the Jags would have signed Taylor and drafted Lamar Jackson.
IMO some of you guys are thinking too much like scientists and not enough like game designers. The purpose of fantasy football rules shouldn’t be to most accurately reflect real player values, the purpose should be to make the game as fun as possible.
I agree although those complexities do have some appeal for me personally.
No doubt. There are posters on here (yourself included) who are willing to dissect game film, break down the intricacies of offensive line play, and even evaluate evaluations. This is a sharp message board. I was hard on BoltBacker from a game design perspective but from an advanced metrics point of view the work he has done is pretty cool. So given the fact that we're all a little obsessed with football I could see there being some appetite for this kind of league here. But the thread, if I understood the premise correctly, is more about how the industry as a whole is progressing or regressing. And from that perspective we need rules that are really casual player friendly and inclusive. We also need the right amount of randomness. One of the huge flaws of many DFS contests is that they are very hard on the suckers. I can see FF making some of the very same mistakes that ended the poker boom and I'm just hoping we wise up and don't repeat them
-- Now that computers are doing all the work for us, I don't think any of the rules are all that complicated. A guy gets 20 yards on 2 carries. Another guy gets 20 yards on 6 carries. I think most people would say the guy that got 20 yards on 2 carries had a better day(all else being equal). That doesn't seem all that complicated to me.electric Ape said:
When you say "deal with that level of complexity" do you mean they don't want to take the time to look at the sheet that a computer generated making all the calculations for them? Or do you mean they don't want to think for themselves at a draft because it's more difficult to find some cheatsheet online that someone has prepared for them?Biabreakable said:
