I hope this revolutionizes fantasy football.. (1 Viewer)

[ConnSKINS26]

Even worse, charging a QB for an INT. Could have totally been the WRs fault and the QB gets punished. Nothing dumber than negative points.

Looking at your name and avatar picture, this post becomes hilarious!

 

[J. Cyrus]

Looks like only 10% like your idea..... ~9% when I subtract your own vote.

To conclude it's a bad idea simply on that basis would be a logical fallacy.. "Ad Populum":

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).Therefore X is true.The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

 

[J. Cyrus]

Even worse, charging a QB for an INT. Could have totally been the WRs fault and the QB gets punished. Nothing dumber than negative points.

Looking at your name and avatar picture, this post becomes hilarious!

^LOL totally missed that.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Looks like only 10% like your idea..... ~9% when I subtract your own vote.

To conclude it's a bad idea simply on that basis would be a logical fallacy.. "Ad Populum":

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).Therefore X is true.The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It must be a great idea and only 9 people out of 100 "get it".

 

[the next level]

J Cyrus - have you convinced your league to make the switch to this system? Although it's a bit too far outside the mainstream for my own tastes, I at least applaud your attempts to try something unconventional. It would have an added benefit of forcing the players in your league to do some thinking for themselves, as they won't conveniently find a cheatsheet tailored to this design.

 

[packseasontix]

Realistically if you want to make the top QB and top RB score the same go to a 100 point max system. Then come up with a system where mediocre players score around 40-60 and the studs score 90-100. Again this goes back to madden rating scoring but in the end that is basically what you are trying to accomplish. Most people though care less about these little things and look at the system as a whole nd make a minor adjustment of ppr, or 6 point passing tds, or 20 instead 10 yards to get a receiving yardage point.

 

[candymanvandyfan]

For me, it's hard to give too much consideration to a system where you have points taken away for actions that, if unperformed, would hurt the team.-1 per pass attempt-0.3 per rush attempt-0.2 per catchTo me that feels like you're backing into a number.

"An attempt is an innately negative thing." Disagree."A team only has so many offensive plays." That isn't true. The number of offensive plays a team has varies by many factors. You are assuming these attempts fall out of the sky to both teams in equal measure."Every time a player takes one of those plays, that leaves the offense with fewer to work with going forward." That's not true either. If there are ten seconds left, it's fourth down, and I complete a one millimeter pass for a first down, I get another attempt based on the success of the last attempt."Or, to put it more simply, if an RB had 10 carries for 50 yards, did he have a good day or a bad day? If that same RB had 50 carries for 50 yards, did he have a good day or a bad day?" You're assuming the one yard is a negative result without context. If those 50 yards all came on second and one from the goal line, it may have been an historically great day."Taking the exact same production and adding 40 carries turns a relatively good day into an historically awful day." Depends on the fifty yards."Logically, then, since adding more carries subtracted value, the only possible conclusion is that carries, in and of themselves, have negative value." Ask any offensive coordinator if he wants many offensive plays in a game or only a few. How can their answerd

 

[bonesman]

92 to 11 at the moment.

Went from I hope this revolutionizes fantasy football to I hope I can find one more person to fill out my NPPA* league

NPPA= Negative Points Per Attempt

By 2020 the AC is flooded w/ NPPA league specific questions.

 

[Mario Kart]

How things are scored is not the issue. Having a variety of starting lineups is the key.

I stated this point years ago.

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

I agree with a lot of what your saying, but , If your taking the value of first downs and touchdowns out of the mix...

There's your problem right there. Why on earth would you do that?

By saying YPC alone is a good judgment of a good rushing day is going to leave you open to a lot of wrong conclusions.

Well it's a good thing I'm not saying anything like that, then.

Honestly, there is no TRUE way of accurately judging how someone played compared to another player. There are far to many variables that go into team sports to judge an individual with a simple stat, a lot more goes into it, thats why so many GMs get fired.

The point of FF isn't to measure how one player played in comparison to another. It doesn't measure talent, it measures production. What's that old saw, talent + opportunity = production? Production is the end product, the product being measured and compared. Penalizing for negative stats and rewarding for positive stats is not necessarily the best way to measure talent, but it *is* the best way to measure production.

I wouldn't make the outright statement that targets are a negative stat. The reality is more complex than that. As you mention one aspect is "he got the target because the QB trusts him the most". Another aspect is "he got the target because he wast he most open player on the field". Even if he wasn't so open that it was a high chance of a completion.

If two players have equal catches/yards/TDs, and one gets more targets than the other, it's probably likely he got open more than the other player did. He didn't do more with the extra targets it is true. But saying targets are negatives is saying that getting open more is worse than getting open less.

Now "drops" would be a stat that is a negative. But just "targets" really needs more information than the stat carries by itself before I would say it should be viewed overall as a negative.

Again, there's a reason why the only time I have brought up receivers in this thread is to say that there's a very good reason why I'm not bringing up receivers in this thread. Receivers are in a unique position in that they are utterly reliant on the QB's decision-making process. The RB and the QB get the ball to start the play, and are therefore more or less in control of their own destiny. They are to some extent constrained by the playcall, but they at least get a chance to touch the ball and decide their own fate. A WR gets targets based solely on the QBs discretion, delivered based solely on the QBs ability. From the perspective of the offense as a whole, a target is a negative stat (it's essentially just another name for a pass attempt, and I covered why those are negative), but I don't think it is at all fair to assign blame for that negative stat to the wide receiver. Which is why I have assiduously avoided mentioning wide receivers. They are much more of a grey area and would need to be handled differently. I'm setting them aside for the moment and focusing solely on the whole "using a down is a negative for the offense" point, instead. One battle at a time.

Think of it this way: a team only has so many offensive plays. Every time a player takes one of those plays, that leaves the offense with fewer to work with going forward.

That kind of makes it sound like the number of plays an offense has is fixed, which isn't the case. If a running back gets a carry on third and two, he might be leaving the offense with fewer plays to work with going forward, or he might be creating an extra set of downs — increasing the team's opportunities.

A carry or attempt never increases the number of plays available to an offense. A FIRST DOWN increases the number of plays available to an offense, but a first down is not the same as a carry. It's a completely different statistic. A very positive statistic. Carries = one fewer offensive play = bad. First downs = 1-4 more offensive plays = good. Sometimes carries result in first downs. Sometimes carries result in fumbles. You can no more equate a carry with a first down than you could equate a carry with a fumble. They are different statistics.

YES, you were................. "who had a better game, the guy with 10 carries for 50 yards or the guy with 50 carries for 50 yards" or whatever your statement on that was. Your basing your conclusion on who had a better game by yard per carry.

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

Looks like only 10% like your idea..... ~9% when I subtract your own vote.

To conclude it's a bad idea simply on that basis would be a logical fallacy.. "Ad Populum":

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).

Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

your problem is not your theory, its how arrogant you come off. acting like your more intelligent than everyone else when they dont agree with you is why your finding such resistance.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

For me, it's hard to give too much consideration to a system where you have points taken away for actions that, if unperformed, would hurt the team.-1 per pass attempt-0.3 per rush attempt-0.2 per catchTo me that feels like you're backing into a number.

There's some logic to it. An attempt is an innately negative thing, it just happens to be the only way to produce positive value. Think of it this way: a team only has so many offensive plays. Every time a player takes one of those plays, that leaves the offense with fewer to work with going forward. Or, to put it more simply, if an RB had 10 carries for 50 yards, did he have a good day or a bad day? If that same RB had 50 carries for 50 yards, did he have a good day or a bad day? Taking the exact same production and adding 40 carries turns a relatively good day into an historically awful day. Logically, then, since adding more carries subtracted value, the only possible conclusion is that carries, in and of themselves, have negative value. Most of the time, that negative value is offset by the yards and TDs and first downs produced by those carries, but that doesn't change the fact that the carry itself is a negative statistic.

These are some serious mental gymnastics here. Don't pull anything.

LOL this whole thread is mental gymnastics

And I'm sweating profusely from my ears.j/k It actually is a pretty interesting debate.Initially, my gut reaction was that I liked the concept due to the 12-of-32 starting QBs play versus 24/36 of 32 starting RBs, etc. However, after thinking it through, and seeing some very valid responses, I think I fall in with the masses. I agree with most of the counterpoints outlined so far.I will say, though, that I like the negative points for attempts. 10 for 50 is much better than 50 for 50. I play in one or two leagues that reward attempts, so if we're talking rushes that is 6 points versus 10 points, when it should be closer to reversed.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

These are some serious mental gymnastics here. Don't pull anything.

RB1 has 15 carries for 60 yards and a score, with 5 first downs. RB2 has 40 carries for 60 yards and a score, with 5 first downs. Who had a better day?QB1 went 15/20 for 250 yards, 2 scores, and 0 interceptions. QB2 went 15/50 for 250 yards, 2 scores, and 0 interceptions. Who had the better day?Hell, just look at the stats we use to evaluate RBs and QBs- yards per attempt. How do you improve your YPA? By either getting more yards, or having fewer attempts. The very nature of the statistics that we use to evaluate players accepts the fact that attempts are a bad thing that should be penalized. We don't evaluate QBs with yards per TD. Why not? Because any stat where a player can do worse by scoring more TDs would be rightly rejected as a backwards, useless statistic. Because TDs are a good thing which should be rewarded, not penalized. And yet we have no problem with penalizing for attempts. Every wonder why? Hint: it has nothing to do with mental gymnastics.

 

[J. Cyrus]

Looks like only 10% like your idea..... ~9% when I subtract your own vote.

To conclude it's a bad idea simply on that basis would be a logical fallacy.. "Ad Populum":

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).

Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

your problem is not your theory, its how arrogant you come off. acting like your more intelligent than everyone else when they dont agree with you is why your finding such resistance.

^if ppl choose to discredit an idea simply because they dislike the disposition of the person who came up with it, then they're being irrational.I already have 2 leagues full of ppl playing in this system, one of which did so last year (successfully, I might add... meaning everyone enjoyed it and most are back this year).. so my issue here is not recruitment.

I do think there's been some great discussion here, and I wholeheartedly agree with everyone who agrees with me.. LOL. I do think most of the dissenters need to reread the edited version of my first post.

 

[GregR]

While I wouldn't use negative stats for no particular reason... I don't have a problem using them if they are the only/best way to accomplish a goal. I could come up with something I would like more for making points reflect the quality of a player's day, but host sites couldn't handle the complexity using multiple stats like I'd want, and I'd probably do something similar.

That said, I don't think this was a problem that needed solving. The opposite, for me it's a move in the wrong direction. Being able to determine value in the pool of players for any given league setup is a skill that most people must learn (and some never do). I like seeing setups where skill has a chance to differentiate itself. So I don't want to make value any more obvious than it already is. If anything I'd rather move away from a standard scoring system to where value isn't so obvious, so owners have to figure it out on their own and not just get it from a top 100 list on a website.

There are other factors for making changes that sometimes might trump accentuating skill, like keeping symmetry with real football. But I just don't see a need here. Crappy QBs account for more yards than the most elite RBs. If their total points are higher (and it normally still isn't since we don't give equal yardage points), I think that probably does reflect reality. The worth of MJD is that he's more valuable than other RBs, not that he's more valuable than a QB is. So fantasy and reality are in sync if you have to compare MJD's fantasy points to other RBs to fully see his value.

The only other concern I might have was mentioned by someone... not wanting QBs to score so much that simple variation drives the results of games. That is, I don't want it where having a QB with a good game playing against a QB who had a bad game dwarfs the contribution from other positions and drives the game result completely. I don't see that being a problem in most scoring systems though. The standard deviation of weekly scoring is only about 2 points more than it is for RBs in most systems I play in. That's a paltry amount compared to the average margins of our fantasy games, so again, not a problem that needs QB total points to be changed.

 

[packseasontix]

There are other factors for making changes that sometimes might trump accentuating skill, like keeping symmetry with real football. But I just don't see a need here. Crappy QBs account for more yards than the most elite RBs. If their total points are higher (and it normally still isn't since we don't give equal yardage points), I think that probably does reflect reality. The worth of MJD is that he's more valuable than other RBs, not that he's more valuable than a QB is. So fantasy and reality are in sync if you have to compare MJD's fantasy points to other RBs to fully see his value.

Good post as mediocre QBs are still more valuable on that particular team usually than a RB or WR. If we look at QBs vs RB/WR they produce more on each play by far than any other position on the field. One other thing I think I have skipped over prev is that this seems to be moving towards rewarding big play players and handicapping the possesion WR or pounding RBs.

 

[AbidingDude]

So I don't want to make value any more obvious than it already is. If anything I'd rather move away from a standard scoring system to where value isn't so obvious, so owners have to figure it out on their own and not just get it from a top 100 list on a website.

Bingo. I think a lot of people in the Shark Pool feel this way as well. A lot of us like to feel like we have something over the owners that don't put as much time and effort into the hobby. We know that scoring doesn't directly equate to value and that there are other factors when it comes to most scoring systems. And that is why there hasn't been more people that identify with your goal of equating the fantasy point score with the fantasy roster value.Perhaps your standard scoring would be good for default Yahoo leagues where value would be as obvious as looking at looking at a sorted scoring list. It would be easy for newbies to come in and do fairly well in a draft. I don't think the people in this pool, at this time of year, are looking for that though.