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!
Actually it is a quite valid and interesting hypothetical. But if you want it to be more realistic, how about we say he had 4 outstanding weeks (150+ points) but scored below average most other weeks. He has the most points, but more weeks than not, finishes in the bottom half of the league. Does he have the best team?I've long known that head-to-head record is not the best indicator of the strongest team. But only more recently have I realized that total points isn't always the best indicator either. The best indicator would be all-play season record.
All play is the way to go, it rewards high point totals and team consistency and doesn't punish you for factors you cannot control (e.g. points against).
No you may not. You are being far to magnanimous and derailing what could have been a good thread.Thank you. May I have another?I suspected as much.I hope this makes you feel better:
Really? I find that I pay even more attention to games, particularly Sunday night and Monday night match-ups.
While there is an element of luck in FF, regardless if you play H2H or total points, you can only go by the rules. If the rules says that you have to win the playoffs in order to be #1, then the team who does that is the best.If you're not a fan of the rules, join a league that does. I wouldn't recommend complaining after the fact.
He needed to pick the best starting lineup each week. After losing 6 times it's obvious that he didn't do so.In a total points league he has the best team. This isn't a total points league.
Thank you. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.Another
this defeats the whole purpose of playing.
I'm partial to total points, but I feel comfortable with all-play or a power ranking as well. But in your example, would a person scoring 150+ for four weeks and below average other weeks really lead the league in total points? If the average is 100, scoring 175 for four weeks and 50 for six weeks puts him right at the league average. If you give him 75 on the bad weeks, he's at just 1150 points-- not likely to be enough for a points title. I just don't think it's realistic. He would have to score closer to the league average on his bad weeks, and I think that would mean he has the best team overall.
Congrats on your success, but I think you might be confusing skill with preparedness. I'm sure you're well-prepared on draft day and on top of the best waiver wire selections. You're likely on these boards on Sundays looking for last-minute information as well. I would also guess that you have owners in your league who are doing other things or spend less time on FF than you do. If I took your worst owner, and armed them with all the data you research including up-to-date injury and starting info...how would they do? Significantly better? With some luck could they beat you? I think all you have to do is up the "preparedness" level of the owners and you'd find harder competition appear magically, even though the "skill" level is unchanged.
I like the CBS power rankings. You're saying that a 12 or 11 in both points and breakdown can't oversome the h2h record for either of you? The guys at the top must all be high up there as well and running away with the records. Still, I'm surprised the guy in fourth isn't one of you two. Shame, really.
incorrect.we just had one guy beat another 160-80 because a few of his players blew up.why should he get to carry those extra points over to next week?when turner scores 4 td's do they count a couple of them in the next game he plays?you have basically removed all strategy from how you see fantasy football, and play it in the simplest and dullest way possible.listen to those other couple dudes, they've already explained it to you.what the guy in this conversation is 'supposed' to do is to win games, just like in real football.differential doesn't mean ####.
That's certainly one way of looking at it.I find the "FF must be just like real football" logic overplayed. Real football doesn't see you starting 3 RBs or getting points for receptions, or having your opponent's WR score a TD your QB threw, or getting points for yardage, or seeing stud RBs traded mid season for picks or other players...Total points leagues have a place, I commish one with huge rosters and lineups, I find the total points to be a better indicator in that league, as a good portion of the players we start each week wouldn't start in many other formats and luck is already in play.ETA: I do like H2H leagues, but for the playoffs, I like to see the final spot go either to the highest scoring team or best "all-play" team that didn't otherwise make it.
If you are suggesting I don't actually coach and prepare my players in person or magically move my fingers around on the TV to make them do better, then you are correct in saying I have no "skills" when it comes to fantasy football. Nor do I use my internet better or click the buttons more skillfully than others in my league. We all use the same internet, and all have access to the same players. I can't make the NFL players on my team play better on Sundays in the real game than the other managers in my league and I can't call in plays to make my guys get more points. However, if you don't think being more prepared and more informed than others in a fantasy football league makes for a better or more skillful manager, then I must not get where you are coming from. Being well prepared, well informed, drafting well, using the WW well, and starting the best players each week is what makes a fantasy football manager more skillful in their craft than the other guy and it all has to do with being prepared. That is actually the whole point. Now, if every manager in a league has the exact same information, does the same amount of research, Has the computer draft for them based on the same rankings, and starts the highest ranked player each week based on the same computer or past performance, then you would be correct in assuming fantasy football is all luck. But if that is the way the game were played, we wouldn't actually play it would we? So if you took the worst owner in my league and armed them with all the data, research, information, and had them do the same amount of homework as me, then they too would become a more skillful fantasy football manager.Neil Beaufort Zod said:
One day fantasy players are going to accept that fantasy football is not "like real football" and never will be-- no matter how much they want it to be so. In real football you control how many points are scored against you. In real football you can bench a poorly-performing player in the middle of a game. In real football the players know they're in the "playoffs" and "Super Bowl" and actually care about winning them.h2h works in real football because defense is part of the game. Stopping the other team is part of the game. Not so in fantasy football. The only thing you can do is score points. That's all you control to any degree. If you don't measure success by what you can control, then you're measuring it by chance-- and that's mostly good for owners who need chance on their side to perform well. What I'm doing is making strategy the only part that matters. Where's the "strategy" in the schedule? Each week, don't you try to field the guys who will score the most points? What control do you have over how many points your opponent scores. What does points against mean if not "how lucky you were?" I understand that some people consider it "simple" and "dull" because they like the random chance of a schedule, the competition of a head-to-head matchup or might benefit from a little luck to succeed. That's great. Play it how you want to play it. But if your system requires that those who-- by chance-- got an easy schedule or got lucky on who they faced are the ones determined to be "the best"...then you're taking the game out of the hands of the players and putting it to Lady Luck. Every NFL time has an opportunity to pitch a shutout. No fantasy team can do that on their own. You have nothing to do with how many points your opponent scores. That's just one reason why "how the NFL does it" doesn't really matter.
Again, I'm just saying that preparedness is not a skill. There's no skill in surfing the web or visiting websites, unless you count reading or using a computer as a skill. Doing research isn't a skill. Everyone knows how to do it. They just don't, or don't have time, or don't want to bother trying to find out where to go. But anyone who can turn on a computer and read has the "skill" to be prepared. It's not a skill at all. It's taking the time to be prepared. If I could give anybody the information you have and make them at least competitive, it's not a skill. It's preparation. The very small part of fantasy foootball that is authentic skill would be something like negotiating trades and knowing how to handle people. Maybe being able to figure out which guys you can afford to let slide an extra round or two in your draft because you can read your fellow owners.
you are really just not understanding what you are being told repeatedly in this thread.One day fantasy players are going to accept that fantasy football is not "like real football" and never will be-- no matter how much they want it to be so. In real football you control how many points are scored against you. In real football you can bench a poorly-performing player in the middle of a game. In real football the players know they're in the "playoffs" and "Super Bowl" and actually care about winning them.h2h works in real football because defense is part of the game. Stopping the other team is part of the game. Not so in fantasy football. The only thing you can do is score points. That's all you control to any degree. If you don't measure success by what you can control, then you're measuring it by chance-- and that's mostly good for owners who need chance on their side to perform well. What I'm doing is making strategy the only part that matters. Where's the "strategy" in the schedule? Each week, don't you try to field the guys who will score the most points? What control do you have over how many points your opponent scores. What does points against mean if not "how lucky you were?" I understand that some people consider it "simple" and "dull" because they like the random chance of a schedule, the competition of a head-to-head matchup or might benefit from a little luck to succeed. That's great. Play it how you want to play it. But if your system requires that those who-- by chance-- got an easy schedule or got lucky on who they faced are the ones determined to be "the best"...then you're taking the game out of the hands of the players and putting it to Lady Luck. Every NFL time has an opportunity to pitch a shutout. No fantasy team can do that on their own. You have nothing to do with how many points your opponent scores. That's just one reason why "how the NFL does it" doesn't really matter.
One of my leagues use Victory Points rather than W/L. Teams get 2 VP for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss in addition to 2 for a top 4 scoring team for the week, 1 for a middle 4 scoring team, and 0 for bottom 4.
BRILLIANT!!!
