I'd like to have a rational conversation (1 Viewer)

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Who's a better receiver (or who helped his team more, whatever you want to say), Andre Johnson or Wes Welker? Who should score more fantasy points? Welker crushed Johnson in a PPR format points per game last year.

I play in a half ppr and in my league randy moss and andre jonson were separated by a fraction of a point for top receiver, if I remember right.wes welker did pretty well while catching 123 balls in only 14 games -- but I realize that stat means nothing to you because anybody could've done that.it's just like taking a hand off.

And I STILL haven't heard one person actually respond to the question of why PPR is BETTER than adjusting points per yard for WRs (or receiving vs rushing, either one). All you ever hear is, "Man it sure is handy for balancing things out.". The only response even remotely in that ballpark had to do with 10 yards being easy to calculate in your head. If that's your #1 determining factor and dividing your receiving yards by 7 or 8 instead of 10 is just too darn hard for you, you should absolutely use PPR - it's the system for you. Of course, good luck figuring out what your QB is getting you. That's gotta be IMPOSSIBLE! And I'm not really certain you can really do the two operations necessary to calculate your PPR score (adding the reception total to the yardage total divided by ten).

I didn't know you were waiting on a direct response to one of your posts, but that's been answered a dozen times in this thread, if you read the replies.your answer is that one has nothing to do with the other.it's only better or worse inside your head.

 

[ookook]

See, I don't think it has been answered.

I have read lots of "we like the increased value to WRs".

Others (quite a few actually) have said, "yes, but PPR distorts actual contributions".

So if I have 2 methods to increase equity across positions and add strategy to drafting, and one simple but is pretty heavily criticized, whereas as the only thing about the other system is that it is less simple, I think the answer is: PPR is clearly the inferior method.

Just give WRs .15/yard and TEs .20/yard for both rushing and receiving. Then start 2 RB and 4WR.

We just need a cool moniker for that scoring.

 

[VaTerp]

So if I have 2 methods to increase equity across positions and add strategy to drafting, and one simple but is pretty heavily criticized, whereas as the only thing about the other system is that it is less simple, I think the answer is: PPR is clearly the inferior method.

Wow, just wow.Rational discussion= Over.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

See, I don't think it has been answered.

I have read lots of "we like the increased value to WRs".

Others (quite a few actually) have said, "yes, but PPR distorts actual contributions".

So if I have 2 methods to increase equity across positions and add strategy to drafting, and one simple but is pretty heavily criticized, whereas as the only thing about the other system is that it is less simple, I think the answer is: PPR is clearly the inferior method.

that sounds like something hitler would post.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Who's a better receiver (or who helped his team more, whatever you want to say), Andre Johnson or Wes Welker? Who should score more fantasy points? Welker crushed Johnson in a PPR format points per game last year.

I play in a half ppr and in my league randy moss and andre jonson were separated by a fraction of a point for top receiver, if I remember right.wes welker did pretty well while catching 123 balls in only 14 games -- but I realize that stat means nothing to you because anybody could've done that.it's just like taking a hand off.

And I STILL haven't heard one person actually respond to the question of why PPR is BETTER than adjusting points per yard for WRs (or receiving vs rushing, either one). All you ever hear is, "Man it sure is handy for balancing things out.". The only response even remotely in that ballpark had to do with 10 yards being easy to calculate in your head. If that's your #1 determining factor and dividing your receiving yards by 7 or 8 instead of 10 is just too darn hard for you, you should absolutely use PPR - it's the system for you. Of course, good luck figuring out what your QB is getting you. That's gotta be IMPOSSIBLE! And I'm not really certain you can really do the two operations necessary to calculate your PPR score (adding the reception total to the yardage total divided by ten).

I didn't know you were waiting on a direct response to one of your posts, but that's been answered a dozen times in this thread, if you read the replies.your answer is that one has nothing to do with the other.it's only better or worse inside your head.

Again, I'm not taking anything away from Welker's performance. You are obviously putting words in my mouth, because I definitely don't believe "anybody" could do what Welker did last season (though a 7th round rookie converted QB gave a pretty good impression of him for a while). But it would STILL have been a great season without PPR, because he put up a lot of yards too. You don't like the Welker example? Fine, pick another one. Did NYG Steve Smith have a MUCH better season than either Vincent Jackson or Sydney Rice? Did Forte have a better season than in 2008 than ADP?The thing is, the various "roles" for receivers all have their place, and they are usually complementary. If the underneath guys are doing well, it opens up the downfield game and vice-versa. The underneath guys tend to rack up the receptions but does that make them inherently more valuable? Not IMO. In the "real world" do you ever hear folks raving about how LOW a guy's YPC is? Of course not. But PPR essentially rewards low YPC guys and devalues high YPC guys. I'm not even trying to make the argument right now that high YPC guys are MORE valuable (though a decent case for that can be and has been made), I'm just saying those guys are at least AS valuable as their low YPC counterparts, so why penalize them?As for responses to my question, I haven't seen them, and yeah, I've read most if not all of the responses in the thread. By all means help me find them if I've overlooked them. My question isn't "what is PPR good for". We get the same answer to that question over and over, it "balances" the positions. My question is "What makes PPR a better way to accomplish that than adjusting yardage scoring?". I gave quite a few reasons (both logical and by example) for why I felt yardage adjustments are a better approach, so I'm asking for the converse.Edit: I did miss one of your direct responses to the question so I'll address it here:

The advantage it offers over those things IMO is it does not require different sets of rules for different positions. I see the validity of tiered scoring but I prefer straight PPR.

Short answer, "Not true.". It requires different values for different kinds of yards which you almost certainly already do with passing yardage. You can use one set of rules (that are in some ways less "complicated" than PPR if that really matters), for every position. You COULD do separate scoring for different positions as one approach, but you don't have to. As for the "Its only better or worse inside my head" comment, I'm not sure what that means. I'm not telling anyone they can't enjoy PPR leagues. I'm in one, and I enjoy it (though it is despite that particular element rather than because of it). But OF COURSE some folks are going to feel one system is "better" than another. If nothing can be "better" than anything else, let's start giving 10 points for only 2nd down receptions for TEs to help boost their value relative to other positions. It's an easily measurable stat, so why not? It's as good as anything else right? And in all seriousness, if something like that is fun for some group of guys, that's what they should do. But it doesn't mean we can't look at that and say "You know what, that doesn't make much sense - this other way would be better." I thought the original point of this thread was to discuss the merits of PPR scoring for leagues considering going in that direction. Isn't that what we are doing? I'm simply of the opinion that other ways are better. If you disagree, that's cool. I'm just interested a little more in the "why" department than I've see so far.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Welker crushed Johnson in PPR points per game last year? Welker averaged less than a point per game more than Johnson last year in PPR. That's hardly crushing him. And don't get me wrong, I LOVE Andre Johnson, always have but you are conveniently overstating things to make a point. Johnson had a great year by all accounts but he scored a rather pedestrian 9 TDs. So what made his year so great? The yardage right. Well, Welker averaged more yards per game than Johnson last year. That's almost 25% of the reason that Welker crushed him by that whole less than a ppg last year.

Welker scored about 5% more per game than AJ did last year (like you said, about a point per game). That's actually quite a bit in my book, but if you don't like the Welker example feel free to use another one. I nver said he didn't have a great year - he did. I just don't think it was better than Andre Johnsons.

Your other comparisons have similar holes as well. But you can find examples like this in any scoring format. In non-ppr leagues McGahee was outscoring Rice for a good part of last season. As I said earlier, no scoring system perfectly reflects who is the actual better football player or who does more for their team, so asking who should score the most fantasy points is a mythical proposition in the first place. But at the same time, and as I also said earlier, regardless of scoring system the players you want on your FF team are generally the best skill players in the NFL.

McGahee scored more than Rice through 4 games because of 7 TDs in those four games. That really had almost nothing to do with the PPR debate (in fact, Rice passed McGahee in week 5 in BOTH PPR league and non-PPR leagues, it literally made no difference in terms of who was "leading"). If your point is that some leagues might be better served by increasing yardage scoring vs TD scoring, I can get on board with that, but I don't think that's where you were headed with that comment. I also agree (and have stated) that no system is going to be perfect. But that certainly doesn't mean we can't try to do the best we can in matching up the best players (or or the players having the best seasons at least, which isn't necessarily the same) with the most points. TD only leagues ruled the roost for a very long time because they were easy. And a lot of people still have a lot of fun doing those leagues. But that doesn't mean that you and I can't have the opinion that yardage/TD leagues are "better" in general. Why are they better IMO? Because they do a better job of giving the most points to the best players.

You also refer to PPR as arbitrary. You can make the argument that any scoring system is arbitrary. I don't know why some people have such a problem with a statistic that is widely used as means of evaluating WRs and even RBs. And at the end of the day its about statistics and having fun. And receptions are a good, simple, STAT that brings more FUN to many of us who play this game. If it doesn't make FF more fun for you, fine but all of these statistical analysis of convenience don't make it any less fun for those of us who enjoy PPR leagues.

I'm using arbitrary more in the line of "less directly related to team success", than yards are. Arbitrary as in a shovel pass to the flat just in front of the LOS that goes for 5 yards gives you 3 times as many points as a pitch-out just behind the LOS that goes for 5 yards. Same general "kind" of play, exactly same result, but one play "arbitrarily" worth a lot more than the other. But as for the fun part, I agree with you. It IS all about having fun. Like I said, TD only leagues are fun for some folks (and could be for me quite honestly). But if someone started a thread asking if they should start with a TD only league or a yardage league, I'd say "do whatever seems cool to you", but yardage leagues are "better". I don't have a "problem" with TD leagues or PPR leagues, or any kind of league you want to do, I just have opinions about which approaches are "best". I'm also not really doing statistical analysis to support my opinion, I'm saying PPR doesn't logically make a lot of sense to me (despite the fact that it's "easy"), and then giving examples of scenarios that I think show why.

 

[ookook]

that sounds like something hitler would post.

Now that is not very nice, and some people would really take offense. There is nothing "fascist" about stating what the facts say.

Both A and B accomplish similar objectives but A has a lot of flaws and B has few if any. Therefore A is clearly inferior to B.

PPR is clearly inferior to adjusting the pts per yards for positions (as we do QB passing relative to rushing or receiving).

 

[Instinctive]

I'm 100% ok with PPR. I prefer 0.5 PPR purely because it adds a little twist and I like things complicated...

BUT:

PPR in no way balances the position. Ookook is clearly correct when he says it is inferior, if he means that it is an inferior way to balance the positions. PPR doesn't do that. It changes the value within a position. Individual players change.

The entire reason that RBs are typically more valuable than WRs is that there are simply less top RBs out there. The best RBs are the big workload guys. They have close to 300 carries/touches, and lots of the touches are catches. The top guys are still the top guys, because they're still a level above the other RBs.

PPR doesn't change that. There's still only 4 (or 6 with Gore/SJax) tip top RBs. The only way to make WRs or TEs or QBs or Ks any more valuable than any other position is to require more of them to be started. Scarcity is what drives the value of a position. PPR simply changes who within each position is more valuable.

The whole point is to outscore your opponent. You do so by gaining a position by position advantage. Your WR1 is better than his. Your WR2 is better than his. Your RB1 is better...and so on and so forth.

If every single WR scores more points, it doesn't make them more valuable than RBs. If kickers scored 100 points a game they wouldn't be more valuable, because only 12 (or 16, whatever) start. And there's 32.

 

[LawFitz]

Why does this topic always degenerate into these kind of responses from guys who are very defensive about non-ppr scoring. I am done with this conversation.

Not seeing the point of PPR != being defensive about non-PPR. Honest question: what advantages does PPR offer over going to 1pt-per-8yards for WRs, or over adding 1 point per first down reception? I recognize that at the end of the day it's all about whatever the owners think is fun, I'm just honestly curious what makes PPR the better play over either of those two systems. Is it ease of use? Is it tradition?

Ease of use. When we added .5 ppr and a 3rd starting WR a millenia ago to my leagues, it was an easy fix. Didn't have to relearn any of the other metrics, making it easier to adapt.I think 1 PPR is too heavy and .5 PPR just right. The key is adding that 3rd starting WR. Right now, the scoring and valuation between RBs, QBs and WRs is much more even as a result.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Why does this topic always degenerate into these kind of responses from guys who are very defensive about non-ppr scoring. I am done with this conversation.

Not seeing the point of PPR != being defensive about non-PPR. Honest question: what advantages does PPR offer over going to 1pt-per-8yards for WRs, or over adding 1 point per first down reception? I recognize that at the end of the day it's all about whatever the owners think is fun, I'm just honestly curious what makes PPR the better play over either of those two systems. Is it ease of use? Is it tradition?

Ease of use. When we added .5 ppr and a 3rd starting WR a millenia ago to my leagues, it was an easy fix. Didn't have to relearn any of the other metrics, making it easier to adapt.I think 1 PPR is too heavy and .5 PPR just right. The key is adding that 3rd starting WR. Right now, the scoring and valuation between RBs, QBs and WRs is much more even as a result.

Is changing a 10 to an 8 (or a .1 to a .12 or however your system is set up) really considerably harder than adding a new scoring category altogether? It's literally that easy. Go to MFL (or whatever your management system is), and change one number in one place and you are done.I'm not trying to slam you - a lot of people seem to feel the same way. It's just that I can't comprehend how making that change could remotely be considered difficult. I'd have to guess that if it really came down to it, making that change would require about 15 seconds worth of effort from your commish, compared to maybe 30 seconds to implement (across the board) PPR. Of course, doing position conditional PPR (which many folks here espouse), would take considerably longer (though IMO NONE of these operations would really take long enough to worry about).

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

The thing is, the various "roles" for receivers all have their place, and they are usually complementary. If the underneath guys are doing well, it opens up the downfield game and vice-versa. The underneath guys tend to rack up the receptions but does that make them inherently more valuable? Not IMO. In the "real world" do you ever hear folks raving about how LOW a guy's YPC is? Of course not. But PPR essentially rewards low YPC guys and devalues high YPC guys. I'm not even trying to make the argument right now that high YPC guys are MORE valuable (though a decent case for that can be and has been made), I'm just saying those guys are at least AS valuable as their low YPC counterparts, so why penalize them?

nobody's penalizing anybody -- ppr rewards players that would otherwise go overlooked.the high ypc guys tend to have disproportionate td totals compared with low ypc guys, so that's THEIR reward.meachem had 9 td's on 16.0 ypc, while welker had 4 and 11.0 ---- do you feel meachem is so much more valuable than welker?as I already mentioned, andre johnson and moss were tied for top receiver in my half ppr league --- you really feel that's a distortion of reality?

As for responses to my question, I haven't seen them, and yeah, I've read most if not all of the responses in the thread. By all means help me find them if I've overlooked them. My question isn't "what is PPR good for". We get the same answer to that question over and over, it "balances" the positions. My question is "What makes PPR a better way to accomplish that than adjusting yardage scoring?". I gave quite a few reasons (both logical and by example) for why I felt yardage adjustments are a better approach, so I'm asking for the converse.Edit: I did miss one of your direct responses to the question so I'll address it here:

The advantage it offers over those things IMO is it does not require different sets of rules for different positions. I see the validity of tiered scoring but I prefer straight PPR.

Short answer, "Not true.". It requires different values for different kinds of yards which you almost certainly already do with passing yardage. You can use one set of rules (that are in some ways less "complicated" than PPR if that really matters), for every position. You COULD do separate scoring for different positions as one approach, but you don't have to.

you're confusing things --- I didn't post that.if what you meant was that it's the kind of direct response I was referring to, it apparently isn't an answer to your question at all if it's false, so why set it up as one?

 

[fightingillini]

Look, it's simple. Leagues go to PPR to help balance out the scoring. The goal is to prevent the beginning of a draft being just a RB run.

You can increase the pts per yard or for every 10 yards receiving if you're dead set against PPR. It's a matter of personal preference. Personally, I play in PPR leagues and love it. Sure Wes Welker is god in that type of format and isn't as valuable in a nonPPR league. So what. Some players will be more valuable in a certain scoring system. Aren't you supposed to rank players in regards to league's scoring system?