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

[wiscstlatlmia]

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.

So let me guess, the quote J Cyrus mentioned earlier , the one he was having with his buddy. that buddy was you? lol

No. I'm the guy who posted in the thread already saying that the whole alternate scoring system was useless, trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I can dislike a scoring system and still defend the merits of certain parts of it.

I just find it interesting you guys joined 13 days apart three years ago... I smell a conspiracy! LOL

 

[J. Cyrus]

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=605786&st=0&p=13563114&fromsearch=1entry13563114

^I've significantly decreased QB scoring since last season, so those rankings only have a limited amount of usefulness in the context of this discussion

 

[J. Cyrus]

I would also like to add that Lagunitas Undercover Investigation Shut-Down Ale is ridiculously good, lol.

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

I would also like to add that Lagunitas Undercover Investigation Shut-Down Ale is ridiculously good, lol.

9.75% alcohol... stiff drink, stiff drink indeed.

 

[J Giles Band]

I would also like to add that Lagunitas Undercover Investigation Shut-Down Ale is ridiculously good, lol.

Now that is something we can agree on...

 

[GregR]

I honestly just skimme dyour post, but don't let the haters get you down..I always wanted some way to add, maybe, 10% to players on a winning team, or deduct 10% from losers.that'd get people a little more involved in handicapping the games and not just the player stats, I think.

You should be able to add points for an NFL victory in MFL, but I am not aware of a way to make it a percentage of their other points scored. Go to Custom Scoring and under scoring categories, go down to the Team one, or just choose "All". There is a Point Differential a couple up from the bottom that is the difference in the final scores.We use it for a fantasy head coach position, who receives 3 fantasy points for a win (greater than 0), plus another 1/3 fantasy point per each point in the margin of victory. So a 10 point NFL win would be 6.3 fantasy points. We just let them take a 0 for a loss, but you could have their fantasy points go negative if you wanted.

 

[Synesthesia]

Did you ever take a math course in which your professor used a logical proof to prove something ridiculous, but step by step it made sense? If A > B, and B > C, then...you get the idea.That's what this is. It all works out. It makes sense. But coming to the conclusion that a carry or a pass attempt is an inherently negative thing, mainly based on the truth that more attempts at the same yardage = lower average per attempt, DOES qualify as engaging in mental gymnastics. Impressive mental gymnastics, but a real stretch all the same. It works out. But it doesn't provide a meaningful conclusion. Carries and pass attempts are not inherently negative statistics, as much as the metrics we value vs. the metrics we would not value would indicate. You need the attempts, both passing and rushing, to accumulate statistics. High per-attempt averages do indicate efficiency, yes. But drawing the conclusion that because using these metrics, attempts are a negative thing in and of themselves...that's just digging too deep to be useful. If that makes sense. It does, however, lead to a scoring system where the more efficient players are more valuable, and score higher. If that is desirable, and for the OP, it is.

First off, you can't use logic to prove something illogical. This is something of a tautology. If a math professor used a series of premises which seemed sound, but which led to an illogical conclusion, then there was a flaw in one of his premises. Second off, look at the language you're using- "you need the attempts to accumulate statistics". Statistics are something worthy of accumulating. They are a positive thing. They do not make attempts positive. For instance, if I say "I need to work to make money", then I'm saying that money is something positive that I desire, and work is something negative that I have to go through to get what I desire. If you take away the money, work is strictly negative. Likewise, if you take away any statistical production, attempts are strictly negative. An offense only gets four of them before it gives the ball back. Any time someone uses one of those precious attempts, it's a bad thing, although the player can get enough good things (yards, points, first downs) to make the entire affair a net positive. In fact, offensive coordinators gamble that their players will do just that every time they give them one of those precious attempts to use.The "mental gymnastics" you keep referring to is nothing more than using extremely clear, simple examples to demonstrate over a larger sample an effect which is easy to miss on the margins. If you hold all other statistics constant and increase an RBs yards, that RB had a better day. Yards are a positive statistic. If you repeat the procedure with first downs or TDs, you get the same result. First downs and TDs are positive statistics. If you hold all other statistics constant and increase an RBs fumbles, that RB had a worse day. Fumbles are a negative statistic. If you repeat the procedure for carries, you get the same result. Carries are a negative statistic. Holding all other stats constant, the more an RB has, the worse his day was, the worse his offense performed, and the less likely his team was to have won, with one caveat- clock-killing carries in the 4th behave differently because an offense's goals are different.

 

[GregR]

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.

Attempts that don't keep up with the average are not always a negative though. Take the following example.You're an NFL coach. For your upcoming game you can have WR1 who will have 5 catches for 50 yards and a TD. Or you can have WR2 who will have 5 identical catches of identical length for an identical 50 yards and TD... and on 5 additional plays he'll be open and catch the ball if it's thrown to him, but will only gain 1 yard per play for a net total of 10 catches for 55 yards and a TD. Which player should you take?You would obviously choose WR2. WR2 will do just as well on those first 5 catches, and another 5 catches for 5 yards is better than 0 catches for 0 yards on the same number of plays on the field.This can be true with targets as well. If two WRs have identical stat lines, it isn't necessarily a bad thing for the WR who has more targets. His catch percentage is lower, but assuming the QB is making competent decisions who to throw the ball to, he probably got open more than the other guy did.With RBs it can be a bit different since a WR has to get open but a RB just gets the carry regardless. But it's something to think about when penalizing a WR for a catch.

 

[J. Cyrus]

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.

Attempts that don't keep up with the average are not always a negative though. Take the following example.You're an NFL coach. For your upcoming game you can have WR1 who will have 5 catches for 50 yards and a TD. Or you can have WR2 who will have 5 identical catches of identical length for an identical 50 yards and TD... and on 5 additional plays he'll be open and catch the ball if it's thrown to him, but will only gain 1 yard per play for a net total of 10 catches for 55 yards and a TD. Which player should you take?You would obviously choose WR2. WR2 will do just as well on those first 5 catches, and another 5 catches for 5 yards is better than 0 catches for 0 yards on the same number of plays on the field.This can be true with targets as well. If two WRs have identical stat lines, it isn't necessarily a bad thing for the WR who has more targets. His catch percentage is lower, but assuming the QB is making competent decisions who to throw the ball to, he probably got open more than the other guy did.With RBs it can be a bit different since a WR has to get open but a RB just gets the carry regardless. But it's something to think about when penalizing a WR for a catch.

^obviously on a micro level there will be isolated inconsistencies. The goal here is not to make a flawless scoring system, as that is not possible currently. It is simply to make a scoring system that, on a marco level, in most cases, is logical. well, that's my goal anyways.Man this stuff is good, lol.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I honestly just skimme dyour post, but don't let the haters get you down..I always wanted some way to add, maybe, 10% to players on a winning team, or deduct 10% from losers.that'd get people a little more involved in handicapping the games and not just the player stats, I think.

You should be able to add points for an NFL victory in MFL, but I am not aware of a way to make it a percentage of their other points scored. Go to Custom Scoring and under scoring categories, go down to the Team one, or just choose "All". There is a Point Differential a couple up from the bottom that is the difference in the final scores.We use it for a fantasy head coach position, who receives 3 fantasy points for a win (greater than 0), plus another 1/3 fantasy point per each point in the margin of victory. So a 10 point NFL win would be 6.3 fantasy points. We just let them take a 0 for a loss, but you could have their fantasy points go negative if you wanted.

that's superawesome.I haven't used mfl except for this mock idp I'm currently in.it doesn't have to be a % --- maybe I would just add a point for a win.or maybe also subtract a point for a loss....I'd have to think about it.

 

[J. Cyrus]

Did you ever take a math course in which your professor used a logical proof to prove something ridiculous, but step by step it made sense? If A > B, and B > C, then...you get the idea.That's what this is. It all works out. It makes sense. But coming to the conclusion that a carry or a pass attempt is an inherently negative thing, mainly based on the truth that more attempts at the same yardage = lower average per attempt, DOES qualify as engaging in mental gymnastics. Impressive mental gymnastics, but a real stretch all the same. It works out. But it doesn't provide a meaningful conclusion. Carries and pass attempts are not inherently negative statistics, as much as the metrics we value vs. the metrics we would not value would indicate. You need the attempts, both passing and rushing, to accumulate statistics. High per-attempt averages do indicate efficiency, yes. But drawing the conclusion that because using these metrics, attempts are a negative thing in and of themselves...that's just digging too deep to be useful. If that makes sense. It does, however, lead to a scoring system where the more efficient players are more valuable, and score higher. If that is desirable, and for the OP, it is.

First off, you can't use logic to prove something illogical. This is something of a tautology. If a math professor used a series of premises which seemed sound, but which led to an illogical conclusion, then there was a flaw in one of his premises. Second off, look at the language you're using- "you need the attempts to accumulate statistics". Statistics are something worthy of accumulating. They are a positive thing. They do not make attempts positive. For instance, if I say "I need to work to make money", then I'm saying that money is something positive that I desire, and work is something negative that I have to go through to get what I desire. If you take away the money, work is strictly negative. Likewise, if you take away any statistical production, attempts are strictly negative. An offense only gets four of them before it gives the ball back. Any time someone uses one of those precious attempts, it's a bad thing, although the player can get enough good things (yards, points, first downs) to make the entire affair a net positive. In fact, offensive coordinators gamble that their players will do just that every time they give them one of those precious attempts to use.The "mental gymnastics" you keep referring to is nothing more than using extremely clear, simple examples to demonstrate over a larger sample an effect which is easy to miss on the margins. If you hold all other statistics constant and increase an RBs yards, that RB had a better day. Yards are a positive statistic. If you repeat the procedure with first downs or TDs, you get the same result. First downs and TDs are positive statistics. If you hold all other statistics constant and increase an RBs fumbles, that RB had a worse day. Fumbles are a negative statistic. If you repeat the procedure for carries, you get the same result. Carries are a negative statistic. Holding all other stats constant, the more an RB has, the worse his day was, the worse his offense performed, and the less likely his team was to have won, with one caveat- clock-killing carries in the 4th behave differently because an offense's goals are different.

^BINGO.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

btw, as for the guy's original premise, I think people get a little hung up on translating reality into fantasy.

we all want a fun and competitive game, so I think we should acknowledge that the scoring is basically a fantasy contrivance to enable our goals.

for example, in idp I try to tweak scoring a bit so that it deepens the viable player pool to include some players that would normally be useless.

this is an entirely artificial effort to better the game.

I really can't say I looked at this guy's methodology, but I think if it produces an end result he likes it's probably worth doing.

all I've ever played is idp, so I'm used to scoring quite a bit more than yards and td's.

 

[Chazzhawk]

The problem here is you are trying to make fantasy football more like NFL football. It is like comparing apples and oranges, they are both fruit but that is were the likeness ends. In the early 2000's the Patriots were winning Super Bowls and Tom Brady was leading the way, however in fantasy football he was barely a top 10 qb (pre 2007), do you really think the Pats would have traded Brady for anyone in the league? However, in fantasy he was a throw in for many trades and consistently taken as a 2nd qb. Look at T.O., for many many years he was fantasy gold at wide receiver but he was thrown off teams, told not to come back, or had to sign with a team he didn't want to play for.

There are always things that can't be measured or give a score in fantasy football, whether it is a block down field, a qb changing to a run play at the line, or a safety calling timeout because they have 12 men on the field. The NFL game and fantasy game aren't the same, they just use the same players to determine a winner in a different game.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

I wanted to chime in...although late.

I like the concept. I've used accelerators previously to produce this separation of elite production. I like your concept though...but I do agree the draw back might be folks being able to calculate on the fly so to speak.

Truth be told...the basic system of FF scoring came about a long time ago and I do like evaluating the numbers to try and find a way that makes each position equal in terms of it's relative importance to the success to your team.

 

[TheCommish]

Some of my league mates would be OK with your system, but honestly, it would probably drive a few of them away as well. There's something to be said for simplicity. I like the fact that I can easily calculate how many points I get when my QB throws a 40 yard TD (6 pts for the TD plus 2 pts for the yardage). I don't want to have to calculate it in your system (taking away a point for throwing the pass, adding back 0.2 pts for completing the pass, etc).

Part of the fun in fantasy football is watching a game (especially on MNF when it's the only game on and you can be following very closely to see if your team will win its game that week), and being able to quickly know how many points you got on a play. If I have to go to a computer after every snap, it's not as enjoyable.

 

[daveR]

The problem here is you are trying to make fantasy football more like NFL football. It is like comparing apples and oranges, they are both fruit but that is were the likeness ends. In the early 2000's the Patriots were winning Super Bowls and Tom Brady was leading the way, however in fantasy football he was barely a top 10 qb (pre 2007), do you really think the Pats would have traded Brady for anyone in the league? However, in fantasy he was a throw in for many trades and consistently taken as a 2nd qb. Look at T.O., for many many years he was fantasy gold at wide receiver but he was thrown off teams, told not to come back, or had to sign with a team he didn't want to play for. There are always things that can't be measured or give a score in fantasy football, whether it is a block down field, a qb changing to a run play at the line, or a safety calling timeout because they have 12 men on the field. The NFL game and fantasy game aren't the same, they just use the same players to determine a winner in a different game.

This is the crux of my problem here. The variance within the QB position is already wider than most other positions. This means that the game of FF depends significantly on having that elite QB, thereby eliminating other avenues to the championship. IMO, making the average QB equal to the average RB, equal to the average WR, equal to the average TE, allows for more possibilities and fun. Making a system wherein the owner of the top QB will win the FF championship most times, takes the fun out of it for everyone else.

 

[Lash]

i dont mind anyone looking at change

but would a superflex position in a league not accomplish the same thing (increase the viability/value of the strong QB?)

maybe not PPG-wise but definitely in roster value

the reason iask is that i was in a superflex league and i had the best stud RB AND stud WR roster of the entire league, and one mediocre starting QB, and barely squeezed in playoffs and quickly got beat

 

[GroveDiesel]

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.

This is still unbelievably wrong headed. Did the RB that had 10 carries for 50 yards have 1 carry for 49 and then 9 for 1? And did the RB that had 50 carries for 50 yards have 10 TDs from the 1 yard line and 10 first down conversions on 4th and 1?Not every carry has equal value and not every 3 yard carry has the same value or level of difficulty. A 3 yard carry on 3rd and 5 isn't as valuable as a 1 yard carry on 4th and goal at the 1. It's almost impossible to capture this in fantasy football. Actually, I'll amend that, it IS impossible to capture that in fantasy football.And the idea that carries or receptions are negatives because there is a finite number of plays is mind bogglingly wrong. A rush or reception for a first down doesn't subtract from the total number of possible offensive plays, it ADDS to them. Each one is worth an extra 4 downs. Putting a negative value on carries, passes and receptions is totally counter-intuitive and makes the scoring system even more removed from the real value on the football field.

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

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.

This is still unbelievably wrong headed. Did the RB that had 10 carries for 50 yards have 1 carry for 49 and then 9 for 1? And did the RB that had 50 carries for 50 yards have 10 TDs from the 1 yard line and 10 first down conversions on 4th and 1?Not every carry has equal value and not every 3 yard carry has the same value or level of difficulty. A 3 yard carry on 3rd and 5 isn't as valuable as a 1 yard carry on 4th and goal at the 1. It's almost impossible to capture this in fantasy football. Actually, I'll amend that, it IS impossible to capture that in fantasy football.And the idea that carries or receptions are negatives because there is a finite number of plays is mind bogglingly wrong. A rush or reception for a first down doesn't subtract from the total number of possible offensive plays, it ADDS to them. Each one is worth an extra 4 downs. Putting a negative value on carries, passes and receptions is totally counter-intuitive and makes the scoring system even more removed from the real value on the football field.

Boom

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

The problem here is you are trying to make fantasy football more like NFL football. It is like comparing apples and oranges, they are both fruit but that is were the likeness ends. In the early 2000's the Patriots were winning Super Bowls and Tom Brady was leading the way, however in fantasy football he was barely a top 10 qb (pre 2007), do you really think the Pats would have traded Brady for anyone in the league? However, in fantasy he was a throw in for many trades and consistently taken as a 2nd qb. Look at T.O., for many many years he was fantasy gold at wide receiver but he was thrown off teams, told not to come back, or had to sign with a team he didn't want to play for. There are always things that can't be measured or give a score in fantasy football, whether it is a block down field, a qb changing to a run play at the line, or a safety calling timeout because they have 12 men on the field. The NFL game and fantasy game aren't the same, they just use the same players to determine a winner in a different game.

This is the crux of my problem here. The variance within the QB position is already wider than most other positions. This means that the game of FF depends significantly on having that elite QB, thereby eliminating other avenues to the championship. IMO, making the average QB equal to the average RB, equal to the average WR, equal to the average TE, allows for more possibilities and fun. Making a system wherein the owner of the top QB will win the FF championship most times, takes the fun out of it for everyone else.

 

[moleculo]

Some of my league mates would be OK with your system, but honestly, it would probably drive a few of them away as well. There's something to be said for simplicity. I like the fact that I can easily calculate how many points I get when my QB throws a 40 yard TD (6 pts for the TD plus 2 pts for the yardage). I don't want to have to calculate it in your system (taking away a point for throwing the pass, adding back 0.2 pts for completing the pass, etc).Part of the fun in fantasy football is watching a game (especially on MNF when it's the only game on and you can be following very closely to see if your team will win its game that week), and being able to quickly know how many points you got on a play. If I have to go to a computer after every snap, it's not as enjoyable.

this.

 

[Synesthesia]

Attempts that don't keep up with the average are not always a negative though. Take the following example.You're an NFL coach. For your upcoming game you can have WR1 who will have 5 catches for 50 yards and a TD. Or you can have WR2 who will have 5 identical catches of identical length for an identical 50 yards and TD... and on 5 additional plays he'll be open and catch the ball if it's thrown to him, but will only gain 1 yard per play for a net total of 10 catches for 55 yards and a TD. Which player should you take?You would obviously choose WR2. WR2 will do just as well on those first 5 catches, and another 5 catches for 5 yards is better than 0 catches for 0 yards on the same number of plays on the field.This can be true with targets as well. If two WRs have identical stat lines, it isn't necessarily a bad thing for the WR who has more targets. His catch percentage is lower, but assuming the QB is making competent decisions who to throw the ball to, he probably got open more than the other guy did.With RBs it can be a bit different since a WR has to get open but a RB just gets the carry regardless. But it's something to think about when penalizing a WR for a catch.

Yeah, WRs are different, which is why I'm focusing more on RBs and QBs. For a WR, the metric is targets, not receptions. Targets correlate to QB attempts, receptions correlate to QB completions. Completions and receptions are not inherently negative statistics. They aren't inherently positive, either- they're neutral. Targets and attempts are the negative stats. I also agree that WRs are more at the mercy of the QB's decision-making skills, which again gets back to why I was focusing more on QBs and RBs. Larry Fitzgerald and Calvin Johnson both get a lot of targets that they have no chance of doing anything with just because they're Larry Fitzgerald and Calvin Johnson, and when in doubt, you go to Larry or Calvin.

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.

This is still unbelievably wrong headed. Did the RB that had 10 carries for 50 yards have 1 carry for 49 and then 9 for 1? And did the RB that had 50 carries for 50 yards have 10 TDs from the 1 yard line and 10 first down conversions on 4th and 1?Not every carry has equal value and not every 3 yard carry has the same value or level of difficulty. A 3 yard carry on 3rd and 5 isn't as valuable as a 1 yard carry on 4th and goal at the 1. It's almost impossible to capture this in fantasy football. Actually, I'll amend that, it IS impossible to capture that in fantasy football.And the idea that carries or receptions are negatives because there is a finite number of plays is mind bogglingly wrong. A rush or reception for a first down doesn't subtract from the total number of possible offensive plays, it ADDS to them. Each one is worth an extra 4 downs. Putting a negative value on carries, passes and receptions is totally counter-intuitive and makes the scoring system even more removed from the real value on the football field.

Synesthesia: "if you hold all other stats constant and increase attempts, a player's performance becomes worse"GroveDiesel: "but what if first downs increase? What if TDs increase? Synesthesia: "then you aren't doing a good job of holding all other stats constant, now are you?"Synesthesia: "carries are negative because they are finite. Each one uses a play. They have the possibility of netting positive stats, such as first downs, but that doesn't mean that the carry is valuable, that means that the first down is valuable. Absent yardage, points, or first downs, carries are negative plays."GroveDiesel: "but carries can net first downs! And first downs increase the number of offensive plays!"Synesthesia: "which is a great argument for why first downs are valuable statistics, and a terrible argument for why carries are a valuable statistic. Saying first downs are a good thing and carries sometimes net first downs so carries are also by extension a good thing is the same as saying that interceptions are a bad thing and attempts sometimes net interceptions so attempts are by extension a bad thing."You're not following the rules here. HOLD ALL OTHER STATS CONSTANT. Imagine an RB ends his day with 20 extra carries. Each of those carries nets exactly 0 yards. Each of those carries nets exactly 0 points. Each of those carries nets exactly 0 first downs. Also, assume we're not in a situation where a team is trying to bleed the clock- say the game is tied. All the RB did was add 20 carries to his stat line- no yards, no first downs, no scores, no time of possession. Just 20 carries. Nothing else. Did those 20 extra carries make the RB's performance more or less valuable? Was there any value gained by running the back into the line 20 times without a single other stat to show for it? Was there any value lost by running the back into the line 20 times without a single other stat to show for it?If you hold all other stats constant and add 20 yards to an RB's total, he had a better day. If you hold all other stats constant and add 10 first downs to an RB's total, he had a better day. If you hold all other stats constant and add 3 TDs to a player's total, he had a better day. These are inherently positive statistics.If you hold all other stats constant and add 3 fumbles to an RB's total, he had a worse day. And yes, if you hold all other stats constant and add 20 carries to an RB's total, he had a worse day. These are inherently negative statistics. There exists a third set of statistics that is neither positive nor negative. I already mentioned completions and receptions. Broken tackles is another good example- the offense isn't any better off whether an RB had to break 10 tackles, or force 10 missed tackles, or simply took what was blocked on every play- the outcome of the play matters, the route the back took to achieve that outcome does not (although broken tackles are a skill and tend to indicate more talented backs). A whole host of derived statistics can end up on this list if they are the result of dividing one positive statistic by another (or one negative statistic by another): examples of such nonsense stats might include points per yard or TDs per first down. Finally, you have time of possession, which can be either positive or negative depending on game situation. ToP is also unique in that it's the only offensive statistic in all of football that is truly zero sum.Derived stats (I.e. stats that are a combination of two or more other stats, such as QB rating or YPA) can also be positive or negative. Any derived stat that arises from dividing a positive stat by a negative stat will be positive (example: yards per attempt). Any derived stat that arises from dividing a negative stat by a positive stat will be negative (example: fumbles per yard). As mentioned, derived stats resulting from a positive divided by a positive or a negative divided by a negative (or even real oddballs like a positive times a negative) tend to be neutral- or, rather, they can be either positive or negative depending on the relative strength of the base statistics.Circling back to the OP, this means that if someone wanted to make a scoring system that more accurately reflected reality, one would want to reward positive statistics, penalize negative statistics, ignore neutral statistics, and avoid derived statistics entirely (because otherwise one would wind up double-counting some of the positive or negative statistics- if you already reward yards and penalize attempts, there's no need to reward yards per attempt).Note that this post is strictly agnostic on whether creating a scoring system that more accurately reflected reality is a worthwhile endeavor.

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

Attempts that don't keep up with the average are not always a negative though. Take the following example.You're an NFL coach. For your upcoming game you can have WR1 who will have 5 catches for 50 yards and a TD. Or you can have WR2 who will have 5 identical catches of identical length for an identical 50 yards and TD... and on 5 additional plays he'll be open and catch the ball if it's thrown to him, but will only gain 1 yard per play for a net total of 10 catches for 55 yards and a TD. Which player should you take?You would obviously choose WR2. WR2 will do just as well on those first 5 catches, and another 5 catches for 5 yards is better than 0 catches for 0 yards on the same number of plays on the field.This can be true with targets as well. If two WRs have identical stat lines, it isn't necessarily a bad thing for the WR who has more targets. His catch percentage is lower, but assuming the QB is making competent decisions who to throw the ball to, he probably got open more than the other guy did.With RBs it can be a bit different since a WR has to get open but a RB just gets the carry regardless. But it's something to think about when penalizing a WR for a catch.

Yeah, WRs are different, which is why I'm focusing more on RBs and QBs. For a WR, the metric is targets, not receptions. Targets correlate to QB attempts, receptions correlate to QB completions. Completions and receptions are not inherently negative statistics. They aren't inherently positive, either- they're neutral. Targets and attempts are the negative stats. I also agree that WRs are more at the mercy of the QB's decision-making skills, which again gets back to why I was focusing more on QBs and RBs. Larry Fitzgerald and Calvin Johnson both get a lot of targets that they have no chance of doing anything with just because they're Larry Fitzgerald and Calvin Johnson, and when in doubt, you go to Larry or Calvin.

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.

This is still unbelievably wrong headed. Did the RB that had 10 carries for 50 yards have 1 carry for 49 and then 9 for 1? And did the RB that had 50 carries for 50 yards have 10 TDs from the 1 yard line and 10 first down conversions on 4th and 1?Not every carry has equal value and not every 3 yard carry has the same value or level of difficulty. A 3 yard carry on 3rd and 5 isn't as valuable as a 1 yard carry on 4th and goal at the 1. It's almost impossible to capture this in fantasy football. Actually, I'll amend that, it IS impossible to capture that in fantasy football.And the idea that carries or receptions are negatives because there is a finite number of plays is mind bogglingly wrong. A rush or reception for a first down doesn't subtract from the total number of possible offensive plays, it ADDS to them. Each one is worth an extra 4 downs. Putting a negative value on carries, passes and receptions is totally counter-intuitive and makes the scoring system even more removed from the real value on the football field.

Synesthesia: "if you hold all other stats constant and increase attempts, a player's performance becomes worse"GroveDiesel: "but what if first downs increase? What if TDs increase? Synesthesia: "then you aren't doing a good job of holding all other stats constant, now are you?"Synesthesia: "carries are negative because they are finite. Each one uses a play. They have the possibility of netting positive stats, such as first downs, but that doesn't mean that the carry is valuable, that means that the first down is valuable. Absent yardage, points, or first downs, carries are negative plays."GroveDiesel: "but carries can net first downs! And first downs increase the number of offensive plays!"Synesthesia: "which is a great argument for why first downs are valuable statistics, and a terrible argument for why carries are a valuable statistic. Saying first downs are a good thing and carries sometimes net first downs so carries are also by extension a good thing is the same as saying that interceptions are a bad thing and attempts sometimes net interceptions so attempts are by extension a bad thing."You're not following the rules here. HOLD ALL OTHER STATS CONSTANT. Imagine an RB ends his day with 20 extra carries. Each of those carries nets exactly 0 yards. Each of those carries nets exactly 0 points. Each of those carries nets exactly 0 first downs. Also, assume we're not in a situation where a team is trying to bleed the clock- say the game is tied. All the RB did was add 20 carries to his stat line- no yards, no first downs, no scores, no time of possession. Just 20 carries. Nothing else. Did those 20 extra carries make the RB's performance more or less valuable? Was there any value gained by running the back into the line 20 times without a single other stat to show for it? Was there any value lost by running the back into the line 20 times without a single other stat to show for it?If you hold all other stats constant and add 20 yards to an RB's total, he had a better day. If you hold all other stats constant and add 10 first downs to an RB's total, he had a better day. If you hold all other stats constant and add 3 TDs to a player's total, he had a better day. These are inherently positive statistics.If you hold all other stats constant and add 3 fumbles to an RB's total, he had a worse day. And yes, if you hold all other stats constant and add 20 carries to an RB's total, he had a worse day. These are inherently negative statistics. There exists a third set of statistics that is neither positive nor negative. I already mentioned completions and receptions. Broken tackles is another good example- the offense isn't any better off whether an RB had to break 10 tackles, or force 10 missed tackles, or simply took what was blocked on every play- the outcome of the play matters, the route the back took to achieve that outcome does not (although broken tackles are a skill and tend to indicate more talented backs). A whole host of derived statistics can end up on this list if they are the result of dividing one positive statistic by another (or one negative statistic by another): examples of such nonsense stats might include points per yard or TDs per first down. Finally, you have time of possession, which can be either positive or negative depending on game situation. ToP is also unique in that it's the only offensive statistic in all of football that is truly zero sum.Derived stats (I.e. stats that are a combination of two or more other stats, such as QB rating or YPA) can also be positive or negative. Any derived stat that arises from dividing a positive stat by a negative stat will be positive (example: yards per attempt). Any derived stat that arises from dividing a negative stat by a positive stat will be negative (example: fumbles per yard). As mentioned, derived stats resulting from a positive divided by a positive or a negative divided by a negative (or even real oddballs like a positive times a negative) tend to be neutral- or, rather, they can be either positive or negative depending on the relative strength of the base statistics.Circling back to the OP, this means that if someone wanted to make a scoring system that more accurately reflected reality, one would want to reward positive statistics, penalize negative statistics, ignore neutral statistics, and avoid derived statistics entirely (because otherwise one would wind up double-counting some of the positive or negative statistics- if you already reward yards and penalize attempts, there's no need to reward yards per attempt).Note that this post is strictly agnostic on whether creating a scoring system that more accurately reflected reality is a worthwhile endeavor.

I agree with a lot of what your saying, but , If your taking the value of first downs and touchdowns out of the mix , what truly personifies a good day on the ground? I feel like saying someone had a good day because he had a better YPC is a bit misguided. This came up a lot in the Arian Foster thread from last regular season. I was constantly talking about how Foster's YPC wasn't nearly as good as Tate's and how the talent difference wasn't really that much. But, when I went back and actually watched the games, Foster was CLEARLY the better back, regardless of what stats say.some of the games:A. Foster 19 124 6.5 1 27B. Tate 12 115 9.6 1 27who had the better day?A. Foster 25 115 4.6 2 17B. Tate 15 104 6.9 0 24who had a better day?I understand what you are saying, I'm simply saying your basing all your opinion on a subjective thing. That thing is stats, stats lie. They lie in every sport, its why so many players go under the radar and some get under-appreciated. You learn way more about a player if you actually watch the games , rather than just looking at the box score. For instance, Steven Jackson has been on an Island the past 5 or so years. horrible line, horrible QBs, horrible WRs, horrible coaching staff. A by-product of this is that Jackson's numbers do not accurately depict what he is doing on the field. Why is it that he averaged 3.8 YPC two years ago? From watching the games, I can tell you, it was not his fault that his stats were what they were. 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. 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.

 

[Hoosier16]

I didn't read all of the posts above. Can you list QB1 through QB12, RB1 through RB 24, and WR1 through WR36? All of these examples and scenarios seem meaningless. You only listed the top 25 overall. Who cares about just that? If the results are determined by only that, you should just draft 2-3 man rosters. Show me a more extensive final scoring.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Charging the QB for a sack? WTF

That's funny.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Attempts that don't keep up with the average are not always a negative though. Take the following example.You're an NFL coach. For your upcoming game you can have WR1 who will have 5 catches for 50 yards and a TD. Or you can have WR2 who will have 5 identical catches of identical length for an identical 50 yards and TD... and on 5 additional plays he'll be open and catch the ball if it's thrown to him, but will only gain 1 yard per play for a net total of 10 catches for 55 yards and a TD. Which player should you take?You would obviously choose WR2. WR2 will do just as well on those first 5 catches, and another 5 catches for 5 yards is better than 0 catches for 0 yards on the same number of plays on the field.This can be true with targets as well. If two WRs have identical stat lines, it isn't necessarily a bad thing for the WR who has more targets. His catch percentage is lower, but assuming the QB is making competent decisions who to throw the ball to, he probably got open more than the other guy did.With RBs it can be a bit different since a WR has to get open but a RB just gets the carry regardless. But it's something to think about when penalizing a WR for a catch.

Yeah, WRs are different, which is why I'm focusing more on RBs and QBs. For a WR, the metric is targets, not receptions. Targets correlate to QB attempts, receptions correlate to QB completions. Completions and receptions are not inherently negative statistics. They aren't inherently positive, either- they're neutral. Targets and attempts are the negative stats. I also agree that WRs are more at the mercy of the QB's decision-making skills, which again gets back to why I was focusing more on QBs and RBs. Larry Fitzgerald and Calvin Johnson both get a lot of targets that they have no chance of doing anything with just because they're Larry Fitzgerald and Calvin Johnson, and when in doubt, you go to Larry or Calvin.

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.

This is still unbelievably wrong headed. Did the RB that had 10 carries for 50 yards have 1 carry for 49 and then 9 for 1? And did the RB that had 50 carries for 50 yards have 10 TDs from the 1 yard line and 10 first down conversions on 4th and 1?Not every carry has equal value and not every 3 yard carry has the same value or level of difficulty. A 3 yard carry on 3rd and 5 isn't as valuable as a 1 yard carry on 4th and goal at the 1. It's almost impossible to capture this in fantasy football. Actually, I'll amend that, it IS impossible to capture that in fantasy football.And the idea that carries or receptions are negatives because there is a finite number of plays is mind bogglingly wrong. A rush or reception for a first down doesn't subtract from the total number of possible offensive plays, it ADDS to them. Each one is worth an extra 4 downs. Putting a negative value on carries, passes and receptions is totally counter-intuitive and makes the scoring system even more removed from the real value on the football field.

Synesthesia: "if you hold all other stats constant and increase attempts, a player's performance becomes worse"GroveDiesel: "but what if first downs increase? What if TDs increase? Synesthesia: "then you aren't doing a good job of holding all other stats constant, now are you?"Synesthesia: "carries are negative because they are finite. Each one uses a play. They have the possibility of netting positive stats, such as first downs, but that doesn't mean that the carry is valuable, that means that the first down is valuable. Absent yardage, points, or first downs, carries are negative plays."GroveDiesel: "but carries can net first downs! And first downs increase the number of offensive plays!"Synesthesia: "which is a great argument for why first downs are valuable statistics, and a terrible argument for why carries are a valuable statistic. Saying first downs are a good thing and carries sometimes net first downs so carries are also by extension a good thing is the same as saying that interceptions are a bad thing and attempts sometimes net interceptions so attempts are by extension a bad thing."You're not following the rules here. HOLD ALL OTHER STATS CONSTANT. Imagine an RB ends his day with 20 extra carries. Each of those carries nets exactly 0 yards. Each of those carries nets exactly 0 points. Each of those carries nets exactly 0 first downs. Also, assume we're not in a situation where a team is trying to bleed the clock- say the game is tied. All the RB did was add 20 carries to his stat line- no yards, no first downs, no scores, no time of possession. Just 20 carries. Nothing else. Did those 20 extra carries make the RB's performance more or less valuable? Was there any value gained by running the back into the line 20 times without a single other stat to show for it? Was there any value lost by running the back into the line 20 times without a single other stat to show for it?If you hold all other stats constant and add 20 yards to an RB's total, he had a better day. If you hold all other stats constant and add 10 first downs to an RB's total, he had a better day. If you hold all other stats constant and add 3 TDs to a player's total, he had a better day. These are inherently positive statistics.If you hold all other stats constant and add 3 fumbles to an RB's total, he had a worse day. And yes, if you hold all other stats constant and add 20 carries to an RB's total, he had a worse day. These are inherently negative statistics. There exists a third set of statistics that is neither positive nor negative. I already mentioned completions and receptions. Broken tackles is another good example- the offense isn't any better off whether an RB had to break 10 tackles, or force 10 missed tackles, or simply took what was blocked on every play- the outcome of the play matters, the route the back took to achieve that outcome does not (although broken tackles are a skill and tend to indicate more talented backs). A whole host of derived statistics can end up on this list if they are the result of dividing one positive statistic by another (or one negative statistic by another): examples of such nonsense stats might include points per yard or TDs per first down. Finally, you have time of possession, which can be either positive or negative depending on game situation. ToP is also unique in that it's the only offensive statistic in all of football that is truly zero sum.Derived stats (I.e. stats that are a combination of two or more other stats, such as QB rating or YPA) can also be positive or negative. Any derived stat that arises from dividing a positive stat by a negative stat will be positive (example: yards per attempt). Any derived stat that arises from dividing a negative stat by a positive stat will be negative (example: fumbles per yard). As mentioned, derived stats resulting from a positive divided by a positive or a negative divided by a negative (or even real oddballs like a positive times a negative) tend to be neutral- or, rather, they can be either positive or negative depending on the relative strength of the base statistics.Circling back to the OP, this means that if someone wanted to make a scoring system that more accurately reflected reality, one would want to reward positive statistics, penalize negative statistics, ignore neutral statistics, and avoid derived statistics entirely (because otherwise one would wind up double-counting some of the positive or negative statistics- if you already reward yards and penalize attempts, there's no need to reward yards per attempt).Note that this post is strictly agnostic on whether creating a scoring system that more accurately reflected reality is a worthwhile endeavor.

I agree with a lot of what your saying, but , If your taking the value of first downs and touchdowns out of the mix , what truly personifies a good day on the ground? I feel like saying someone had a good day because he had a better YPC is a bit misguided. This came up a lot in the Arian Foster thread from last regular season. I was constantly talking about how Foster's YPC wasn't nearly as good as fosters and how the talent difference wasn't really that muchsome of the games:A. Foster 19 124 6.5 1 27B. Tate 12 115 9.6 1 27who had the better day?A. Foster 25 115 4.6 2 17B. Tate 15 104 6.9 0 24who had a better day?I understand what you are saying, I'm simply saying your basing all your opinion on a subjective thing. That thing is stats, stats lie. They lie in every sport, its why so many players go under the radar and some get under-appreciated. You learn way more about a player if you actually watch the games , rather than just looking at the box score. For instance, Steven Jackson has been on an Island the past 5 or so years. horrible line, horrible QBs, horrible WRs, horrible coaching staff. A by-product of this is that Jackson's numbers do not accurately depict what he is doing on the field. Why is it that he averages 3.8 YPC two years ago? From watching the games, I can tell you, it was not his fault that his stats suffered. 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. 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.

Sorru, you're still wrong. Carries have zero value. It:s what is done with the carry that matters. And even in certain situations, zero yards could be considered a positive outcome depending on the game situation if it runs down clock.For instance, the hypothetical of a RB having 50 carries for 50 yards: would an NFL coach continue to call running plays if that was the continued result if it didn't serve a positive purpose for his team?And yeah, that value can be impossible to capture in fantast football. And that's ok.The idea that actually being involved in a play is a negative is just silly. A receiver that gets open and catches a ball gets a small negative tacked figured into his scoring while a different WR that is blanketed is considered to not be a negative for not even being involved in the play. Bizzare.

 

[Crazy Tony]

I think it's a Good effort but it's not going to catch on.

Your issue with Mediocre QBs outscoring WR1s is understandable but can be negated via 2 QB league.

In my league I'm not trying to score the most that week. I'm just trying to beat my opponent head to head.

Here are the QB pairings throughout our 10 Team League: Each team can have 2 starters and a backup starter.

But if you're not in the top 5 or Top 10 the drop off is huge.

#1. Brady/Rothlesburger/T.Pryor/SenWallace/C.McCoy/

#2. Romo/Flacco

#3. Eli/Sanchez/Ponder/Kaepernick/Mallet/Hoyer

#4. Hasselbeck/Orton/Whitehurst/Tavaris jackson/JCampbell/DDixon

#5. Stafford/Freeman/Culter/MFlynn/JJohnson/Skelton/Kolb

#6. Brees/Newton/Palmer/Fitzpatrick

#7. Rodgers/Tebow/Schaub/Dalton/MMoore/

#8. Vick/Ryan/Vyoung/McNabb

#9. Rivers/Bradford/ASmith

#10. PManning/Locker/Grossman/Gabbert/Henne

Strong QB play is a must. The Team with Rodgers/Schaub has Jordy Nelson, Julio Jones and that's about it.

The Newton/Brees owner goofed up and

I don't know if I'd want Bree's year to be 700pt season and megatron's only to be 440.

I don't think they were that much different.

Basically....your settings should be designed around how many teams there on in the league.

12 teams.

2 QBs would be good Top 24 QBs matter.

3 WR starters = Top 36 WRs matter.

2 RBs = Top 24 RBs matter

1 TE = Top 12 TE matter (we know top 6 are the best)

W/T = (Option Top 24 TE to matter or Top 48 WR to matter.

W/R etc. (Options for TOp 60 WR to matter or Top 36 RB to matter.)

Works for 10 team league fine.

You added a bonus tier. That helps too. But QBs are still going to have more options for bigger plays.

Sanchez scoring was good due to his 6 rush TDs. It was his best year. But I'm not going to design a system because I don't think he should be in same bracket as Megatron.

My league also has bonus tiers for 300yd Passing performances, 100 Rec/rush. and up to 400, 200.

There's also a 5pt bonus for single game NFL record.

336 REC yards. (Flipper Anderson).

296 RUSH Yards (ADP)

554 Pass Yards (Norm Van Brocklin)

63yd FG Dempsey, Elam (Janikowski)

The bonus tiers reward elite performances whether you're an elite player or not.

Sometimes it's nice when you have a good day.

I don't think a player should be penalized for having 3 x 33yd plays and 1 rec for 1 yd. (Total 100) but in the 40yd+ bonus system it's not worth as much.

I also think your standardized system doesn't allow people to tinker with the settings as much w/o throwing it out of balance.

People like to tinker.

The result

If you don't have top Tier players...the drop off in your scoring output will really suffer.

But as we all know. QB play is huge. I don't think it's going anywhere.

Used to be a RB could get 400 touches in a season. They rode that guy until he broke. (he would).

Now they don't, they're too expensive. 200-300 rushes in RBBC.

When the elite players retire and haven't been replaced by new elite regime it'll mess things up again.

 

[kinglochness]

I would never play with these rules. I don't think mediocre QB's are better than great RB's. I guess I'm missing something here.

 

[GregR]

...Yeah, WRs are different, which is why I'm focusing more on RBs and QBs. For a WR, the metric is targets, not receptions. Targets correlate to QB attempts, receptions correlate to QB completions. Completions and receptions are not inherently negative statistics. They aren't inherently positive, either- they're neutral. Targets and attempts are the negative stats. I also agree that WRs are more at the mercy of the QB's decision-making skills, which again gets back to why I was focusing more on QBs and RBs. Larry Fitzgerald and Calvin Johnson both get a lot of targets that they have no chance of doing anything with just because they're Larry Fitzgerald and Calvin Johnson, and when in doubt, you go to Larry or Calvin.

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.

 

[Nipsey]

On some levels it makes sense but it'd be difficult to root for your guy/follow his fantasy output while watching the game. It'd take away from the enjoyment. I'd need an abacus to figure out a ballpark number for my guy.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

 

[beaux]

9 voted yes? Obviously clueless...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Creating a scoring system backwards, IE purposely making a system that gives you the top players you're looking for, is poor methodology.

^What is your take on the results?Or a better question.. Do you think Mark Sanchez and Calvin Johnson should receive an equal amount of credit for their respective performances last season?

The guy who started Calvin Johnson also got to start a QB, while the guy who started Sanchez started a WR that didn't do anything close to Calvin. Calvin's value is still there.To get a league to a point where if you don't have one of the top QBs, you have a massive obstacle to overcome in order to make the playoffs, I'm not interested.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

A players value is based on a position ratio.

The top QB already scores approx 50% more than the 9-10-11th QB

The top WR approx 50% more than 9-10-11th wr

The top RB approx 50% more than 9-10-11th rb

If you make the top QB worth 130% more than the 10th QB, that creates an major imbalance.

The only way to offset that imbalance would be to heavily penalize the the guy who received the top QB.

In a auction league, the guy drafting the top QB would spend most of his purse on that one player. The rest of the league, (or the ones who didn't grab top 5 QB's) would then have a huge advantage over them in other positions.

In a snake style draft, the guy getting this 150% better QB, also gets 2 of the next 24 players (top 10 WRs, or a top 10 RBs).. No good way to equalize.. The guys picking in the top 5 are the guys who have a legit shot. The guys picking 8-12 have very poor odds..

I wouldn't play in that league unless I was either guaranteed a top 3 QB, or it was an auction league..

 

[Warrior]

Voted no. Not better because number of points scored is largely irrelevant when you try to compare QB to RB or WR.

bingo!

 

[AbidingDude]

Part of the problem is that the original hypothesis seems to be structured around the idea that efficiency, or more output on every play is ALWAYS better. Statistically, and economically this is true. I should always try to maximize the return. But this quickly falls apart in the real world.

The argument that attempts are a negative thing, is only true statistically. From a real world perspective, the fact that the coach called your number is a positive. What you do with that is critical, but just getting the chance is good. Most of the ideas around projections etc come from how many attempts a player may reasonably get. So again, a lot of people around here think of attempts in a positive light.

I can certainly understand the statistical approach to making a carry a negative. Without taking into account game situation, a RB carry for 0 yards is not really a good thing. Statistically a negative. Real world it may "wear down the defense" and create opportunities later. Unfortunately, we cannot capture that in stats. But given a set of stats we can take a carry as a negative if we are rewarding efficiency. And this is certainly a valid approach. It just helps to say that from the beginning rather than try to say attempts are a negative. That is too general a statement to hold true or to defend.

On the contrary, back when I was first starting out playing ff our commish decided that he disliked the idea that Jerome Bettis could get 3 carries for 3 TDs and score more than most RBs that week. This was an extreme example, but one that actually occurred and several others multiple times. He wanted to capture the overall effect a player had on a game, and decided giving points for carries helped that. We can discuss what effect that had on player value etc, but it gives you another perspective that attempts are not always thought of negatively.

 

[packseasontix]

I do not understand this system.

1. Carries are not negative (you get a carry because you are seen as the better back for the play)

2. Targets are not negative (you are seen as the best WR on that play, also no control if your triple covered and the QB throws your way compared to a WR who is triple covered and doesnt get thrown to)

3. Make a system 1-100 and do a rating system instead of scoring point on every play (this would solve your problem possibly more of trying to equate play to score)

4. Every time there was a pro post you couldnt take in the outlier? (Why wouldn't I think about running out the clock? or 4 and 1? or positional WR play Jennings WR1 vs Nelson Streaker vs Driver Slot?)

Take a view of Foster and Tate again when Foster is rocking.

Foster - 100 yards, 10 carries, 3 TD

Tate - 100 yards, 10 carries, 3 TD

Foster gets all his yards in the 1st half and Houston is up 70-0 at half time, in reality who is more valuable? If your trying to equate performance on the field to fantasy football then it will always be flawed unless you just manually go through each week and assign a value based on what you saw that week like a power rankings score.

 

[J. Cyrus]

On one hand, I'm very happy with the amount of responses in this thread. On the other hand, I'm disappointed with the content of most of them. I think this will be my final attempt to answer a few of the points that have been made since my last reply:

1. Look, no scoring system is gonna be perfect on a micro level. It just isn't. "Classic" fantasy scoring isn't. So the criticism that "attempts aren't inherently negative" is bunk and missing the point. The point is to create a system on a MACRO LEVEL (big picture), gives an accurate picture of what's taking place on the football field. Assigning CREDIT to players in the form of fantasy points for their accomplishments.

Again, the point isn't to be perfect. It's to be OPTIMAL given the criteria we have available to us.

2. I feel like I'm going to have to repeat this ad nauseum, but I'll say it again -- I completely understand that player value can be manipulated thru roster size. This is a very basic concept.

A few very good posts have been made in this thread, even by ppl who disagree with me. To the person who requested it, I'll post some positional top 25 lists shortly.

And I'll conclude by saying, the scoring system, that does the best job sorting talent/production by merit is the best system. The widgets and gears that comprise it become irrelevant in light of its results.

 

[packseasontix]

On one hand, I'm very happy with the amount of responses in this thread. On the other hand, I'm disappointed with the content of most of them. I think this will be my final attempt to answer a few of the points that have been made since my last reply:1. Look, no scoring system is gonna be perfect on a micro level. It just isn't. "Classic" fantasy scoring isn't. So the criticism that "attempts aren't inherently negative" is bunk and missing the point. The point is to create a system on a MACRO LEVEL (big picture), gives an accurate picture of what's taking place on the football field. Assigning CREDIT to players in the form of fantasy points for their accomplishments.Again, the point isn't to be perfect. It's to be OPTIMAL given the criteria we have available to us.2. I feel like I'm going to have to repeat this ad nauseum, but I'll say it again -- I completely understand that player value can be manipulated thru roster size. This is a very basic concept.A few very good posts have been made in this thread, even by ppl who disagree with me. To the person who requested it, I'll post some positional top 25 lists shortly.And I'll conclude by saying, the scoring system, that does the best job sorting talent/production by merit is the best system. The widgets and gears that comprise it become irrelevant in light of its results.

No one said classic was scoring it perfect, but at the same point yours is nowhere near perfect either. In the end people are open to new rules and 2qb, super flex, ppr has show that. I think your pretty far off though unless you make it way more complicated, so much so no one could do the math themselves. You also need to think do I want value to be even across the positions or heavy on one end. In the end have fun with your custom scoring but it isn't going to be something that really catches on, simplicity is what most ff players love about the game.Oh also it's a good thought to try to get some new ideas out, suggestion again make it much more complicated I think your dumbing it down too much. You won't have the next big scoring system but in depth fantasy guys may go for it.

 

[Synesthesia]

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.

 

[Noah Davis]

I disagree with the premise of your argument, but that is because I believe it is getting to the point of "over engineering".

Under the premise that attempts are an inherently negative item:

This would make all of Aaron Rodgers "attempts" taken since pee-wee football a negative? Yet without all of those attempts he couldn't have refined his foot work, throwing motion, and timing to become the elite quarterback he is today....following your argument through would basically say that elite quarterbacks are born and they should only attempt to throw the ball if they know prior to it leaving their possession that it will result in a completion.

Note: Additionally if they know it won't result in a completion they should hold the ball - but ensure they don't get sacked because under this system they will lose points for that as well.

To get to the results you desire it should be scaled where there is a sliding scale of negativity per pass attempt based on the years of service within the NFL....

Also wouldn't you have to assign benefit to elite coaches as well? When Tom Brady went down NE was able to manage their season quite effectively, whereas Indianapolis couldn't survive without Peyton.

All of this leads to the final question of where do you draw the line? I myself tend to prefer KISS principles.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Looks like the "no's" have it.

 

[FavreCo]

So what is the attempt here?

I don't see anything that says - "Wow that is an improvement"

Charging the QB for a sack? WTF

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.

 

[GregR]

On one hand, I'm very happy with the amount of responses in this thread. On the other hand, I'm disappointed with the content of most of them. ...

Something to consider for the future... the thread went downhill from the start mostly because of the opening statement on what the thread was about. It didn't describe accurately the perceived problem that was being addressed, and it also made a statement that most people here would know was false. Most people won't get past that part to actually figure out what it was you were really doing and focus on it.

Most readers here know that mediocre to bad QBs are not more valuable than really good RB/WR/TE. So opening with a statement that they are and this thread is about fixing that problem immediately casts doubt on everything that follows. Reading back, you can see how many people's only real contribution to the thread was to address the error in that statement.

It became clear from your comments in subsequent posts that the issue you saw and were addressing was something very different. If the thread had opened with something like this I believe it would have gone much better.

Though bad QBs are not more valuable than really good RB/WR/TE... they still outscore them in total points in a standard scoring system. Total points does a fair job of expressing value within a position, but not across positions. I would like to have a system where total points is a better reflection of value across positions as well, so I came up with the following...

The other comment I'd make then is that for what was done, the results posted need to show both value and total points for a reader to be able to make a meaningful evaluation. Just posting the before and after player list sorted by total points doesn't show that what changed reflects the goal. It requires the reader to have to supply his own guesstimates of what the value of each of those players is before he can reach any conclusion. Better to include it explicitly.

 

[the next level]

I honestly just skimme dyour post, but don't let the haters get you down..I always wanted some way to add, maybe, 10% to players on a winning team, or deduct 10% from losers.that'd get people a little more involved in handicapping the games and not just the player stats, I think.

You should be able to add points for an NFL victory in MFL, but I am not aware of a way to make it a percentage of their other points scored. Go to Custom Scoring and under scoring categories, go down to the Team one, or just choose "All". There is a Point Differential a couple up from the bottom that is the difference in the final scores.We use it for a fantasy head coach position, who receives 3 fantasy points for a win (greater than 0), plus another 1/3 fantasy point per each point in the margin of victory. So a 10 point NFL win would be 6.3 fantasy points. We just let them take a 0 for a loss, but you could have their fantasy points go negative if you wanted.

If you're interested in getting your league's players to handicap the actual NFL games as part of their FF lineup, some league management sites (such as MFL) are offering Head Coach as a player position. Simple scoring, low impact position. Get a FF point if the coach's team wins, subtract a point if the team loses. And 0.1 FF point for each margin of victory point.

 

[Dirk Digler]

has nothing to do with how a player at one position scores against a player of a diffent position. Using standard VBD principles, it's how a player scores against other players of the same position... your focused on bring down marginal players at one position down to meet players of different positions... I absolutely don't see the point, and Im afraid your missing some key 'big picture' impact this would have. IMHO... this system or yours would reak havoc on a draft and worse, it would cause massive league wide problems.

 

[J. Cyrus]

So what is the attempt here?

I don't see anything that says - "Wow that is an improvement"

Charging the QB for a sack? WTF

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.

^extensive research has been done to demonstrate that sacks are more the QB's fault than the line's fault. Interestingly enough, the opposite is true for INTs.http://outsidethehashes.com/?p=134

I may modify a bit..

 

[J. Cyrus]

has nothing to do with how a player at one position scores against a player of a diffent position. Using standard VBD principles, it's how a player scores against other players of the same position... your focused on bring down marginal players at one position down to meet players of different positions... I absolutely don't see the point, and Im afraid your missing some key 'big picture' impact this would have. IMHO... this system or yours would reak havoc on a draft and worse, it would cause massive league wide problems.

^I should have mentioned that I used a system similar to this last year and the RB/WR/TE scoring was phenomenal. I had QB scoring way too high though based on a premise that wasn't thought out enough. That has been remedied in what I've presented in this thread.

 

[J. Cyrus]

On one hand, I'm very happy with the amount of responses in this thread. On the other hand, I'm disappointed with the content of most of them. ...

Something to consider for the future... the thread went downhill from the start mostly because of the opening statement on what the thread was about. It didn't describe accurately the perceived problem that was being addressed, and it also made a statement that most people here would know was false. Most people won't get past that part to actually figure out what it was you were really doing and focus on it.

Most readers here know that mediocre to bad QBs are not more valuable than really good RB/WR/TE. So opening with a statement that they are and this thread is about fixing that problem immediately casts doubt on everything that follows. Reading back, you can see how many people's only real contribution to the thread was to address the error in that statement.

It became clear from your comments in subsequent posts that the issue you saw and were addressing was something very different. If the thread had opened with something like this I believe it would have gone much better.

Though bad QBs are not more valuable than really good RB/WR/TE... they still outscore them in total points in a standard scoring system. Total points does a fair job of expressing value within a position, but not across positions. I would like to have a system where total points is a better reflection of value across positions as well, so I came up with the following...

The other comment I'd make then is that for what was done, the results posted need to show both value and total points for a reader to be able to make a meaningful evaluation. Just posting the before and after player list sorted by total points doesn't show that what changed reflects the goal. It requires the reader to have to supply his own guesstimates of what the value of each of those players is before he can reach any conclusion. Better to include it explicitly.

^I think you're exactly right man, lol. Thanks.I edited my first post.

EVERYBODY ELSE -- PLEASE READ HIS POST

 

[ImTheScientist]

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