League Scoring - How do you achieve balance? (1 Viewer)

[Art_VanDalay]

Hey SP looking for some veteran input here. We have a long standing keeper league and have always used an old school type of lineup/scoring structure. We use a set starting lineup of 1qb, 2rb, 2wr, 1te, 1pk, 1 dt. Scoring is all TDs 6 pts. 1/10 yds combined rush/rec for rb, wr, and te. Qb gets 1/20 for rushing yds, 1 pt per 30/passing. No PPR (we fundamentally don't like this idea so please don't turn into debate on our PPR). -2 for INTs. Also 1 bonus pt for RB or WR over 125 comb rush/rec.

The issue (or maybe it's a perceived issue) is that the QB points always dominate scoring versus all other positions. For example, we had only 2 RBs make final top 15 FP total leaders last year and CJ was 26th. The rest were all QBs. We have worked to achieve more balance between the positions believe it or not, over the years but it still is a challenge. One of the things we like is that all TDs are 6 pts so not looking to do the obvious which is reduce pass TDs to 4 or 3. To make things more complicated, some want to make the QB rush pts even better by loading it to 15 or 10 yds to reflect the changes at the position in the NFL.

So the dilemma is, are there any suggestions to make FP scored for QB vs all other positions more balanced without adjusting the pass TD amount or adding a PPR? We have kicked around Flex spot but no real support. Bonus pts are a start but not sure where the amount should be. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated! Thanks SP!

 

[Catbird]

The first answer is probably that it doesn't matter how much they score (since everyone has one), but what is the scoring difference between QB #1 and QB #12. And what is the difference between RB #1 and RBs #12 (and #24). And WRs and TEs. If the top QB averages 25 and the 12th QB averages 19, the value of having the top QB over having the worst QB is 6 ppg. If the top RB averages 19 points and the #12 RB averages 13, Having the top RB and worst QB is better than having the top QB and worst starting RB. Here RBs are slightly more important than QBs, even though QBs score far more points. The number of points matter far less than the separation between top and bottom of the starters at any position. The scarcity of players who can produce high points and the drop off to 24th RB and 36th WR magnify the advantage of having great guys at those positions as opposed to at QB, where everyone in your league should have a fairly comparable starting QB.

But, if all you want is to dummy down QBs to a similar number of points that other players score (without going to PPR or lowering the points for passing TDs), you can make receiving and rushing yards and TDs worth more, or make QBs yards (or passing TDs) worth less. You have already reduced QB points in your league to where RBs and good WRs far outweigh the value of QBs despite the number of points QBs score. I suspect there is an amazing correlation between the teams having great RBs and WRs winning or playing for your championships, and correspondingly little correlation between who has the best QB and who wins?

 

[Gawain]

Hey SP looking for some veteran input here. We have a long standing keeper league and have always used an old school type of lineup/scoring structure. We use a set starting lineup of 1qb, 2rb, 2wr, 1te, 1pk, 1 dt. Scoring is all TDs 6 pts. 1/10 yds combined rush/rec for rb, wr, and te. Qb gets 1/20 for rushing yds, 1 pt per 30/passing. No PPR (we fundamentally don't like this idea so please don't turn into debate on our PPR). -2 for INTs. Also 1 bonus pt for RB or WR over 125 comb rush/rec.

The issue (or maybe it's a perceived issue) is that the QB points always dominate scoring versus all other positions. For example, we had only 2 RBs make final top 15 FP total leaders last year and CJ was 26th. The rest were all QBs. We have worked to achieve more balance between the positions believe it or not, over the years but it still is a challenge. One of the things we like is that all TDs are 6 pts so not looking to do the obvious which is reduce pass TDs to 4 or 3. To make things more complicated, some want to make the QB rush pts even better by loading it to 15 or 10 yds to reflect the changes at the position in the NFL.

So the dilemma is, are there any suggestions to make FP scored for QB vs all other positions more balanced without adjusting the pass TD amount or adding a PPR? We have kicked around Flex spot but no real support. Bonus pts are a start but not sure where the amount should be. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated! Thanks SP!

We want league balance, but don't want two main ways people have balanced leagues.

 

[Anarchy99]

So you want suggestions on how to change the scoring system . . . yet you guys won't change the scoring system?

If you don't want to change TD scoring or PPR, the only other thing left is to give bigger scoring bonuses to other players somehow. Say TDs of 20 yards or more count 2 extra points. Or going over 100 yards rushing or receiving gets 5 bonus points instead of 1. Maybe a point for getting a first down? You could also really penalize QBs for all turnovers, INT or fumbles, like -3 points each.

But the best way to even out scoring across all positions is to institute a sliding scale PPR system, like 0.5 for RB, 1 for WR, and 1.5 for TE.

 

[Saint]

Agree with Anarchy here. Balance is achieved through changing your scoring settings.

• Sliding scale PPR makes all of your RBs and WRs more valuable. The sliding scale bumps WR to be more balanced with RBs.
• Lowering passing TDs to 4 pts will balance QBs
• Adding Flex players to your lineup will make your draft more balanced in terms of players taken in the early rounds.

Lots of ways. I suggest loading your scoring system in the dominator and running mockdrafts to see how your first 5 rounds look. Then adjust accordingly.

 

[Art_VanDalay]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. As for the one comment, I didn't want the PPR or 4pt TD question because that is the low hanging fruit and something I already realize. I came to the SP for a little deeper insight which apparently Gawain didn't understand.

Anyway, I realize that bonus pts may be a good solution. The sliding scale PPR is interesting since I thought most leagues just use a 1 pt PPR and wasn't aware of the sliding scale.

The first comment about the disparity by catbird is interesting and something I need to think through but seems right to me in his analysis. To answer some of those question. First though I think I forgot to mention it is a 14 team league so we run deep.

QB1 to qb14 is 121pts and 8.1 ppg

Rb1 to RB14 to RB 28 is 153 (8.3 ppg) and 62 pts (1.7 ppg) respectively

Wr1 to Wr14 to WR 28 is 64 pts (4 ppg) and 42 points (2.1 ppg) respectively

Te1 to TE 14 is 60 pts (4.3ppg)

You know it's funny but it seems like the best QBs are the teams that actually do play/ win championships although they usually have a top RB or WR to go with it.

Based on my numbers I posted, do you feel that still supports your theory catbird? I guess in the end what you are saying is it doesn't matter so much at QB vs rest of positions since everyone starts 1. So as I mentioned, maybe my assumption is wrong and it really isn't weighted as much as I initially thought. Would you agree? Thanks!

 

[IZ4]

The correct and only answer (and this applies to every league out there) is to find 12 owners (or however many owners in your league) that are happy with your league scoring. FF isn't about twisting rules to makes things look nicer in the end. Every owner plays by the same rules, and no matter how you try to balance, twist or change your rules and/or scoring, everyone still plays by the same set.

 

[Catbird]

I think you are seeing it. I don't think its a theory - its just the numbers. In almost every league I have played in the QBs outscore the other players but stud QBs are less valuable than stud RBs because you use one and only one QB (the exception I am familiar with is my 2 QB league).

Using your numbers, lets say you pick #1 overall and I pick #2. You take Rodgers #1 and under your scoring system he gets 25.1 points per game. I take ADP #2 and he gets far less, maybe 19.3 points per game. Then we each take a RB, 3 WRs and a TE, all of equal value to each others with our next 5 picks. When it comes time for your 7th pick and you take your 2nd RB, there will have been nearly 27 (assuming everyone takes 2 RBs in their first 7 picks - likely even more RBs will have been picked) and with the #28 RB you will be probably getting 10 ppg less than I will be getting with ADP (your 8.3 points between RB1 and RB14 and the additional 1.7 ppg drop between RB 14 and RB 28). That gives you a 9.3 ppg second RB. Assuming everyone has taken 1 QB but me, I will then be taking the #14 QB and should be getting a guy producing 8.1 points (again, your figure) less than Rodgers, or 17 ppg.

If we then total our lineups, after the 5 guys we both picked who had equal value, you have a QB worth 25.1 and a RB worth 9.3 (for 34.4) and I have a RB worth 19.3 and a QB worth 17 (for 36.3). I will outscore you, even though you got the higher scoring player in Rodgers and a high scoring QB early and I instead took a lower scoring RB early to wait on QB. That's because the important factor is the DIFFERENCE in scoring between high and low scorers starting at every position. The difference between a top scoring RB and low starting RB is usually much greater than the difference between high scoring QB and lowest scoring starting QB because it jumps so many players between top and lowest.

The disparity rate between high player at a position is a related secondary difference-maker. Even if the difference between top WR and low starting WR is maybe from 19 to 12 points and the difference from top RB to lowest starting scorer is an identical 7 points from maybe 21 to 14, if Calvin scores 19 ppg and the next best WR scores only 15, that makes Calvin extra valuable compared to ADP who scores 21 if the next 8 RBs score between 17 and 20. That's because Calvin's 19 puts a greater points distance between himself and all other WRs, even if ADP is scoring more points with an identical high scorer/low scorer differential.

 

[Tanner9919]

you could knock QB points down by changing 1 pt per 30 yards passing to 40 or 50..QB's throw for 300 yards/gm blindfolded nowadays,it's the new norm of the NFL..( well,everyone but Mark Sanchez that is)

you don't indicate whether or not you use pts per completion..if you do, make it 1 pt per every 2 completions.

make INTS worth MORE than just -2..make them -3 per INT, -6 per INT for TD..3 INTs in a single game is worth -6 or -10..

add sacks to QB scoring, -1 per sack.

make Rb's scoring 1 pt per 10 yards rush, change WR's from 1 pt per 20 yards rushing, to 1 pt per 10 yards rushing..

give TEs 1 pt per 15 rec yards

make all TDs BEYOND the 5 yard line, worth 4 pts...5pts,6pts based on distance..

anything under 5 yards is 3 pts...I mean,really, Ray Rice crashes it in from 3 yards and thats worth as much as David Wilson scoring from 77 yards out?

 

[Quibbler]

I don't have much to add other than what has been said above. If you're not going to use PPR or 4pt TDs, your best options, IMO, are either to 1) adjust the rest of QB scoring (say 1pt per 50 passing yds; larger INT penalties, etc.), or 2) add more position players. If you add a 3rd WR or a flex, that reduces the impact of a good or bad game by your QB.

One other thing to consider, with 6pt passing TDs, QB scoring is always going to vary quite a bit from game to game. 2 redzone possessions ending in running TDs/FGs instead of passing TDs is a swing of 12pts. So even if by the end of the season the scoring gap between QB1 and QB14 isn't that large, on a week by week basis, you're still very dependent on your QB having a good day.

 

[Art_VanDalay]

All good points and analysis and thanks for the suggestions guys. So let me take this up to the 50k foot view for a minute. I am not trying to just make scoring changes for the sake of changes. I get it that every league has nuances and their own scoring aspects that they use to make their league their own. Incidentally we actually have an auction so it's isn't so clean cut in terms of ranking versus draft picks in Catbird's example but the premise is the same.

So I guess I need to start with my own assumption that it isn't normal and seems "unfair" to me that the QBs dominate the overall scoring in the league and when an average QB like Schaab or Palmer score more points than the #1 WR, I just assume that something is out of whack there. From that perspective, do you think it is unfair or unusual to have QBs dominate the top scorers in the league and do you find that to be common in your own leagues?

Second, I like the idea of just redistributing some of the QB yardage points since Quibbler makes a good point. QBs are putting up 300 yard games regularly now so moving that milestone up a little bit with say 1/35 or 40 yards would help and we could reflect the change in the NFL by better rewarding the running QB with 1/10 yds rushing. Just a thought.

Finally, the thing about the example above between Rice and Wilson, I would argue that your example is not entirely accurate because of the yardage. Yes all TDs are 6 but Rice gets only 6 for his 3 yd TD while Wilson's TD is essentially a 13 pt TD because of the 7 points of yardage tacked on. I think that is fair and reflects the difference.

In the end, I am always looking to try and make things as fair and balanced as possible in scoring. This disparity with QBs vs. other positions in scoring has always bugged me but I am willing to say that my concerns may be off base in practice when considering Catbird's example.

 

[SWC]

my goal is to be so awweomse that there is no balance and when people see me they say swc what is best in life and i say to crush my opponent and see him driven before me and to hear the lamentation of his papershakers take that right to the no balance bank brohans

 

[httv14]

I am not sure why you keep referring to QBs scoring more points as "unfair." Sure, in most leagues the scoring leaders are filled mostly with QBs, but just because they score more points does not make them more valuable. I will use one of my leagues from last year as an example. Drew Brees was the overall points leader, but he provided a lot less value that Adrian Peterson because Peterson's production was more unique that Brees'. What I am trying to say is that even though QBs score the most points, it's not like this is unfair, because the QBs are scoring high for everyone. I understand if you want to make the scoring more even, but to say it is unfair is wrong.

 

[spodog]

First though I think I forgot to mention it is a 14 team league so we run deep.

In a 14 team league, there is something to be said for intentionally having the type of position scoring disparity that you already have. It really forces owners to make the hard decisions about what positions to take in the early rounds vs waiting. By taking a WR in round 1 and a QB in round 2 in a 14 teamer, for example, I know the first RB I'm putting on my team is going to be a RB potentially in the 20-30 ranked range, depending on my draft spot.

Your owners have to really weigh those considerations heavily. If you skew your scoring solely with the intent to try and force, for example, the 10th highest scoring RB points to finish the season roughly equal to the 10th highest scoring QB points, then I think it lessens the impacts of the decisions that your owners currently must make while drafting and designating their keepers as well.

If I were an owner in your league, I wouldn't want the types of forced scoring changes that you are describing.

In other words, watch for unintended consequences. You may end up dumbing down your league with these type of changes.

 

[Art_VanDalay]

I was using the term "unfair" simply to say that it feels unfair but that is the problem for me I guess. I can't put my finger on it but it always felt to me like the best players at other positions weren't being rewarded versus the QB. I guess my problem is I have been trying to compare them to the QB in terms of FP scored when all that really matters is how they do versus others in their same position. I guess that is true in the end. I also however wasn't forcing any rule changes through on the league we are in (19 years btw) but was sort of thinking out loud with you guys to see another side of the discussion which you all helped me to do. In the end, I think you have all made me feel a lot better about this disparity and realize it isn't as big of a deal as I have thought it was in the past.

Lastly, the only other thing I would add is I also appreciate the comment about unintended consequences because I definitely would not want to dumb things down. This is a highly competitive, AUCTION, Contract/Sal Cap, keeper league. I think my take away here is to possibly consider higher bonus points for the position players for yardage milestones (i.e. 3 points for 150 yds rush/rec, etc.) and to possibly make the QBs passing yards a little harder to attain say 1/35 yds passing but add in a better rushing component of 1/10yd rush to incorporate the running QB trend emerging in the NFL. Then I just need to forget about the overall FP scored top 10 each year because, as was said, when comparing QB to QB and RB to RB, etc., you get a truer comparison then across different positions. Thanks for the input all!

 

[Rostov73]

In our league, the QB(x1), RB(x2), and WR(x3) positions are balanced at about 26% per position. The other positions total about 22% (TE 7.5%, K 7.5%, & DEF 7.4%). I get these numbers from the total points from each position divided by the total points scored for the league.

I was in another league were the QB position scored 36% of the total leagues points while the RB position scored only 12%. If you missed out on a top QB, you were toast. You could not build a stable of RBs or WRs to make up the loss. This is a poor league format IMO.

Art, can you post your league's complete scoring system? We can easily figure out the balance of positions over the 2011 & 2012 seasons. It will be obvious where you need to add value to a position. Even if you aren't interested in balanced positions, you will know if one is over or under valued.

edited to add: Please include the number of starters per position, thanks.

 

[Backside Pursuit]

I'll throw this idea out there just for consideration:

QB scoring

Every 10 passing yards 1

Each Incomplete Pass -1
TD Pass 4

Interceptions Thrown -4
2pt Passing Conversion 2

Sacked -2

I'm not sure that will alter anything in terms of balance, however...(?)

 

[Art_VanDalay]

In our league, the QB(x1), RB(x2), and WR(x3) positions are balanced at about 26% per position. The other positions total about 22% (TE 7.5%, K 7.5%, & DEF 7.4%). I get these numbers from the total points from each position divided by the total points scored for the league.

I was in another league were the QB position scored 36% of the total leagues points while the RB position scored only 12%. If you missed out on a top QB, you were toast. You could not build a stable of RBs or WRs to make up the loss. This is a poor league format IMO.

Art, can you post your league's complete scoring system? We can easily figure out the balance of positions over the 2011 & 2012 seasons. It will be obvious where you need to add value to a position. Even if you aren't interested in balanced positions, you will know if one is over or under valued.

edited to add: Please include the number of starters per position, thanks.

Sure and I think your second comment about the QBs being the focus and the majority of points scored in our league is likely the same with us. Many teams say this and believe that without a top tier QB you have almost no chance of winning. Not sure if that is true but it does seem to play out that way. I think our league is open for guests to view it so you can check out this link and see the points scored by position and our scoring format if you would like at myfantasyleague and search for qffl.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Add a 3rd WR to your lineup to balance out the RB vs WR a little more. To balance it even more remove one of the RBs and make it a flex.

Can't help with the QB scoring unless you reduce points for a passing TD.

 

[Art_VanDalay]

Add a 3rd WR to your lineup to balance out the RB vs WR a little more. To balance it even more remove one of the RBs and make it a flex.

Can't help with the QB scoring unless you reduce points for a passing TD.

RW glad you mentioned that. This was my conclusion this year as well and was pitching the addition of a flex or WR3 spot to the starting lineup this year. We have a very traditional nostalgic group though so change is not always easy.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Charge negative points for QB sack yardage.

Either -1 or -2 per sack.....or just do -0.1 per sack yard (if able to do). I've never figured out why a QB isn't given negative points for lost yardage with sack (most leagues).....but a RB is given negative points for being stopped behind line of scrimmage.

 

[Rostov73]

I noticed you put the basic scoring system in your OP. I ran the 2012 stats with those numbers & starting lineup of QB(x1), RB(x2), and WR(x2).

QB: 32.5%

RB: 35.3%

WR: 32.2%

I think your format is shockingly balanced (perfect balance would be 33.3% each). Personally, I would not change a thing.

If I get a chance to look at your league page, I will run the numbers for all positions and post the results.

 

[Rostov73]

I searched for 'qffl' at myfantasyleague, but couldn't find a 14 team league in the results. Could you be more specific about which is your league?

I am curious to run the numbers with the full league system, I want to verify the numbers. Thanks.

 

[ookook]

I would add both a RB and WR to the the starting lineups. Not a huge flex fan.

 

[Art_VanDalay]

Sorry Rostov. Search for quinnipiac and quinnipiac fantasy football league will come up. Glad to hear we are doing even better at that then we though we were.

 

[TALL hobbit]

From that perspective, do you think it is unfair or unusual to have QBs dominate the top scorers in the league and do you find that to be common in your own leagues?

Just looked quickly at my league which has somewhat similar scoring to yours. 20 of the first 25 players are QB. The other five are all RBs: 8. AP, 16. Doug Marin, 17. Foster, 22. Lynch, 23. Morris.

So I'm used to having a bunch of QBs dominating the top of the scoring. It does look funny at first - but you're not saying those are the most valuable players. They're just the ones who score the most -- which sounds good, but as others have pointed out how they score compared to others at their position is what matters.

 

[Rostov73]

Wow, nice league homepage.

I grabbed the 2012 total points from your league page, these are your league's exact numbers. Your league format is good.

QB: 23.3%

RB: 26.4%

WR: 24.4%

TE: 8.3%

K: 10.4%

DEF: 7.2%

Again, I would not change a thing (except de-value Kickers a little). Your QBs are actually the slightly less valued position, but only by 2 or 3 points per game. This seems fine to me since it is one player, rather than 2 players at the RB & WR position.

QB: 19 Average Pts per Game

RB: 11 Average Pts per Game

WR: 10 Average Pts per Game

TE: 7 Average Pts per Game

K: 9 Average Pts per Game

DEF: 6 Average Pts per Game

 

[Art_VanDalay]

Wow, nice league homepage.

I grabbed the 2012 total points from your league page, these are your league's exact numbers. Your league format is good.

QB: 23.3%

RB: 26.4%

WR: 24.4%

TE: 8.3%

K: 10.4%

DEF: 7.2%

Again, I would not change a thing (except de-value Kickers a little). Your QBs are actually the slightly less valued position, but only by 2 or 3 points per game. This seems fine to me since it is one player, rather than 2 players at the RB & WR position.

QB: 19 Average Pts per Game

RB: 11 Average Pts per Game

WR: 10 Average Pts per Game

TE: 7 Average Pts per Game

K: 9 Average Pts per Game

DEF: 6 Average Pts per Game

 

[Art_VanDalay]

Hey Rostov thanks for the research and for the compliment on the site. We do things pretty intense around here after 19 years. This makes me feel much better about the QB situation in our league. Thanks again.

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

Wow, nice league homepage.

I grabbed the 2012 total points from your league page, these are your league's exact numbers. Your league format is good.

QB: 23.3%

RB: 26.4%

WR: 24.4%

TE: 8.3%

K: 10.4%

DEF: 7.2%

Again, I would not change a thing (except de-value Kickers a little). Your QBs are actually the slightly less valued position, but only by 2 or 3 points per game. This seems fine to me since it is one player, rather than 2 players at the RB & WR position.

QB: 19 Average Pts per Game

RB: 11 Average Pts per Game

WR: 10 Average Pts per Game

TE: 7 Average Pts per Game

K: 9 Average Pts per Game

DEF: 6 Average Pts per Game

It looks like the OP was looking at player to player comparison instead of position to position comparison based on the starting roster makeup. My league looks almost exactly like this (3 WR in mine plus a flex instead of a 2nd RB) and year to year the three main positions end up fairly equal to one another.

 

[tombonneau]

I've kind of skimmed through the thread, but have you considered penalizing QBs more for picks. Maybe bump to -3? And throw in -1 for a sack? It likely would actually increase the importance of having a top tier QB who avoids those negatives, but it would lower the point production of the middle class of QBs.

 

[bakes]

2QB PPR, 3 pt/QB TD and 6 for everyone else. All kinds of ways to construct a winning team with that as a basis, but because of the 2 QB (+1 bench) you're pretty much limited to a 10 team league.

 

[TheMathNinja]

Art, it sounds like one of the major issues in this whole discussion is how you weigh the nostalgia factor of a long-running league against the changes to the face of the NFL. I'm not sure whether your league members more highly value the nostalgia factor, or resemblance/accuracy to true value to an NFL team, but if the latter is more important to your league, then I would think that adding a third WR or WR/TE flex, as well as keeping the value for passing yards the same as it has historically been, is vitally important. The truth is, QB's, WR's, and TE's are becoming more valuable in the NFL every year, and RB's less so, due to how the pass/run mix is changing over the years. To buck this trend, you can make passing yards worth less, but you pay the price by your league de-valuing what is actually valuable in the NFL today.

That being said, if you want to run a "What would things look like if we put 2013 players in 1995 schemes" concept league, then by all means, this idea of de-valuing QB passing yards and rushing yards is a great idea, because it shoehorns current statlines into a time in NFL history when the QB position was less utilized to get downfield. I think that's an interesting and worthwhile league concept, but you want to make sure you choose to run with that concept and don't just wind up there accidentally. And I think if you feel you still must decrease QB scoring, I highly recommend penalizing incomplete passes and sacks before decreasing the value of a yard gained in your scoring.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I'd reply to this topic with a question: Why go out of your way to devalue quarterbacks? The reason why quarterbacks tend to score the most number of points in fantasy football is because they also tend to have the most impact on their teams in regular football. What is there to gain by reducing their value? I swear--there is this huge fantasy football love affair with trying to make running backs more important--when they are losing importance in real football every year. Look at the last few solid teams in real football--Ravens (win the superbowl because flacco gets crazy hot in the playoffs), 49ers--get to superbowl because kaepernick goes off, the giants win a couple superbowls because of great play from eli manning, brees wins new orleans a superbowl, aaron rodgers plays amazing and his team wins a superbowl....qb's are by far and away the difference makers in regular football and should be the same in fantasy football. Adrian peterson had a historic season last year--and his team barely made a mark in the playoffs. Why anybody would want to devalue the qb position to balance it out with positions is beyond me.

 

[Rostov73]

I don’t think he was wanting to de-value the QB position, but his concern was that a flawed scoring system made the QB the ONLY factor in having a winning team.

Out of curiosity, I ran some of the numbers from his league with both the 2011 & 2012 season's points.

Balance of Position from 2011 & 2012: (% of total league points scored from each position)

QB: 23.1%

RB: 26.8%

WR: 24.0%

TE-K-DEF: 26.0%

TE: 8.8%

K: 10.3%

DEF: 7.0%

Average Points per Game, by PLAYER:

QB: 19.6

RB: 11.3

WR: 10.1

TE: 7.4

K: 7.8

DEF: 6.7

Average Points per Game, by POSITION:

QB: 19.6

RB: 22.7

WR: 20.3

Average Points per Game, by Best vs Worst Starters:

Best QB: 26.8

Average QB: 19.6

Worst QB: 14.8

Best RB: 19.3

Average RB: 11.3

Worst RB: 7.3

Best WR: 16.3

Average WR: 10.1

Worst WR: 7.5

With a 14 team league, the difference between the best & worst starting QB is massive & obvious, this is probably why some of the owners think the QB position is over-valued. However, since the positions are balanced, an owner can make up the difference by building a solid team at the other positions (but it will definitely be harder than grabbing a stud QB).

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I don’t think he was wanting to de-value the QB position, but his concern was that a flawed scoring system made the QB the ONLY factor in having a winning team.

Out of curiosity, I ran some of the numbers from his league with both the 2011 & 2012 season's points.

Balance of Position from 2011 & 2012: (% of total league points scored from each position)

QB: 23.1%

RB: 26.8%

WR: 24.0%

TE-K-DEF: 26.0%

TE: 8.8%

K: 10.3%

DEF: 7.0%

Average Points per Game, by PLAYER:

QB: 19.6

RB: 11.3

WR: 10.1

TE: 7.4

K: 7.8

DEF: 6.7

Average Points per Game, by POSITION:

QB: 19.6

RB: 22.7

WR: 20.3

Average Points per Game, by Best vs Worst Starters:

Best QB: 26.8

Average QB: 19.6

Worst QB: 14.8

Best RB: 19.3

Average RB: 11.3

Worst RB: 7.3

Best WR: 16.3

Average WR: 10.1

Worst WR: 7.5

With a 14 team league, the difference between the best & worst starting QB is massive & obvious, this is probably why some of the owners think the QB position is over-valued. However, since the positions are balanced, an owner can make up the difference by building a solid team at the other positions (but it will definitely be harder than grabbing a stud QB).

In essence, he is devaluing the most "valuable" position in football. People can spin it any way they like--but from the pop warner level to the NFL level-- teams who have better qb play tend to win more often than not. If they try to alter the scoring to where qb scoring is more in balance with other positions--you are in essence raising the value of the other positions--which in turn would still give teams with certain draft positions an advantage--so what's the point? Not only that--if you devalue the qb position as a whole--you are also diminishing the difference in value between an elite qb and an average one--- which is a major disconnect from reality. I know that fantasy football is not supposed to mimic real football completely--but I found it absolutely ridiculous that anybody can think it's okay for any game to value lamar miller or david wilson more than tom brady.

 

[Rostov73]

He isn't devaluing anything. He isn't making any changes at all. He is keeping the same scoring system they have had for years.

Since you seem to be exceptionally concerned with the fantasy value of QBs, what balance of position do you think is best?

I like the positions to be basically balanced, something like this :

QB: 26% of total league points.

RBx2: 26%

WRx3: 26%

TE-K-DEF: 22%

What do you think is the ideal balance?

 

[GregR]

I don't know why anyone would care what the total fantasy points are across positions. Unless it's a ridiculous difference like QBs score 200-400 points a game and all other positions score 10 a game where the only thing that drives the outcome is your QB.

If you want to make them score similar but don't want to change your scoring system for any stats, then just give RBs, WRs and TEs an extra 3 points a game for having 0 or greater receptions. There, you just bumped up all the players by 48 points on the season without changing anything else you wanted to give points for. And since every single player at those positions gets the extra points every game (even if he's injured), then you haven't changed anyone's value.

Though hopefully if you implement that system, you realize it's kind of pointless to do so and that there's not anything wrong with QBs scoring a reasonable amount more total points than others.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

He isn't devaluing anything. He isn't making any changes at all. He is keeping the same scoring system they have had for years.

Since you seem to be exceptionally concerned with the fantasy value of QBs, what balance of position do you think is best?

I like the positions to be basically balanced, something like this :

QB: 26% of total league points.

RBx2: 26%

WRx3: 26%

TE-K-DEF: 22%

What do you think is the ideal balance?

The entire point of this thread is the op feels like qbs are scoring too much and wants to somehow balance that out--which means that he wants to bring their value down more in line with other positions. That is "devaluing" the position no matter what semantics you want to use. Here is what the op wrote in the original message:

So the dilemma is, are there any suggestions to make FP scored for QB vs all other positions more balanced without adjusting the pass TD amount or adding a PPR? We have kicked around Flex spot but no real support. Bonus pts are a start but not sure where the amount should be. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated! Thanks SP!

My argument is that if you are going to have a "fantasy" football league--it should be no surprise that the qb's account for a quarter of the league's offensive scoring output. If you ha a real football team with one qb, 2 rbs, and 2 or 3 wr's--would you not expect at least a quarter of your teams scoring success to come from your quarterback play? That's football. You don't tweak rosters and scoring systems to artificially inflate or deflate the value of players. Let's say you try to limit the percentage of the total points quarterbacks account for in a league--in essence you are reducing their importance and also diminishing the value of an elite qb versus an average one--which motivates people to draft them later and later--which is not what football is about. Look at fantasy drafts now--the first 3 rounds are basically like 60 percent running backs--which is garbage. If you were starting a football team and you wanted to win a championship here at now-- are you telling me that you would draft matt forte before you took aaron rodgers or tom brady? Points are points--I play in a league where qbs get a 1pt for every 20 passing yards and 6 points for every td passed or rushed--its very qb heavy scoring. I won the league two years in a row--last year my qb was tony romo, the year before I had stafford. I'm not a fan of tweeking scoring systems to create artificial balances. A qb should be worth the most in football and should score the most.

 

[Mario Kart]

What do you think is the ideal balance?

QBx1 = 16.6%RBx2 = 16.6%

WRx3 = 16.6%

TEx1 = 16.6%

Kickx1 =16.6%

Defx1 = 16.6%

 

[Rostov73]

He isn't devaluing anything. He isn't making any changes at all. He is keeping the same scoring system they have had for years.

Since you seem to be exceptionally concerned with the fantasy value of QBs, what balance of position do you think is best?

I like the positions to be basically balanced, something like this :

QB: 26% of total league points.

RBx2: 26%

WRx3: 26%

TE-K-DEF: 22%

What do you think is the ideal balance?

The entire point of this thread is the op feels like qbs are scoring too much and wants to somehow balance that out--which means that he wants to bring their value down more in line with other positions. That is "devaluing" the position no matter what semantics you want to use. Here is what the op wrote in the original message:

Exactly, but rather than being vague on what is "scoring too much", I am asking what precisely is the proper place for QBs value in people's opinion? Unless you're using a faith-based scoring system, numbers are the answer. The simplest way to compare positions is by %.

I had a mentioned a league where the QB scored 36% of the league's points, while the RB position only scored 12%. To me, that is under-valuing the RB and it seems like a poor scoring system. But to someone else, that may be the perfect balance.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

He isn't devaluing anything. He isn't making any changes at all. He is keeping the same scoring system they have had for years.

Since you seem to be exceptionally concerned with the fantasy value of QBs, what balance of position do you think is best?

I like the positions to be basically balanced, something like this :

QB: 26% of total league points.

RBx2: 26%

WRx3: 26%

TE-K-DEF: 22%

What do you think is the ideal balance?

The entire point of this thread is the op feels like qbs are scoring too much and wants to somehow balance that out--which means that he wants to bring their value down more in line with other positions. That is "devaluing" the position no matter what semantics you want to use. Here is what the op wrote in the original message:

Exactly, but rather than being vague on what is "scoring too much", I am asking what precisely is the proper place for QBs value in people's opinion? Unless you're using a faith-based scoring system, numbers are the answer. The simplest way to compare positions is by %.

I had a mentioned a league where the QB scored 36% of the league's points, while the RB position only scored 12%. To me, that is under-valuing the RB and it seems like a poor scoring system. But to someone else, that may be the perfect balance.

Even if qb's accounted for 36 percent of a leagues scoring--every owner is aware that they are playing in a heavy scoring qb league and can draft accordingly. The nature of fantasy sports is that you are creating a "simulated" or "fantasy" team that is based on the statistics of "real" players. In the game of football-- qb's statistically put up the greatest overall offensive numbers relative to the other positions--because they are pretty much involved in every play. If you are going to play a game that is based completely on statistics--why try to limit the importance of the players who put up most and biggest statistics? It makes no sense and it's also detached from reality. The key is for owners to draft accordingly to the scoring system that your league has in place--not to change the scoring to change some "artificial" balance that you want to see. Unless every owner in your league is completely against the system you have in place and is on this running back love affair-- I'd just tell you to keep your system in place and let every owner come up with their own strategy for success.

 

[Art_VanDalay]

But I would add that the idea of balance between position scoring is akin to the NFL always seeking parity amongst its 32 teams. FF is built on the scoring system for each league and while they are very vast and different, you should want to avoid being skewed to heavily towards any one position IMO because to do so limits the ability to have parity amongst your fantasy teams. For example, if QBs were disproportionately weighted to a large degree, while you can say everyone is playing by the same rules, you essentially have little chance of winning championships without one of the elite QBs on your roster and there are only so many to draft picks (randomly picked often?) or auction dollars to spend to acquire them. This was my origi al fear of this thread that we were weighting the QB to heavily ad reducing competition around our ff league. Hope that clarifies my intent.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

But I would add that the idea of balance between position scoring is akin to the NFL always seeking parity amongst its 32 teams. FF is built on the scoring system for each league and while they are very vast and different, you should want to avoid being skewed to heavily towards any one position IMO because to do so limits the ability to have parity amongst your fantasy teams. For example, if QBs were disproportionately weighted to a large degree, while you can say everyone is playing by the same rules, you essentially have little chance of winning championships without one of the elite QBs on your roster and there are only so many to draft picks (randomly picked often?) or auction dollars to spend to acquire them. This was my origi al fear of this thread that we were weighting the QB to heavily ad reducing competition around our ff league. Hope that clarifies my intent.

I understand where you are coming from-- but there are flaws to your concern. It makes perfect sense that in a game where success is based primarily on statistics--the players who tend to put up the best and most statistics (elite qb's) probably have a better chance at winning. However, the draft process is specifically designed to counter this advantage. If qb scoring is sooo heavy in your league--I imagine the elite qb's tend to go very early in the draft. If you do a regular snake draft--the other teams later in the draft get to pick twice before the draft "snakes" back. This means that teams that go later in the draft can get an average qb and pair him with an elite wr/rb to counter the qb edge that one might have. Like I said--I play in a qb heavy scoring league--and I won my league with Tony Romo last year---who wasn't projected to be an "elite" fantasy quarterback. I was able to win because I also had dez bryant, trent richardson, vjax, doug martin, julio jones, kyle rudolph, james jones...etc--and I drafted my qb later than the other team owners in my league. Also--there is also a flaw in the sense that nobody knows how "elite" a qb will be. Aside from Rodgers and Brees--can anybody tell me who the 3rd best fantasy qb will be next year? Will it be Matt ryan, Peyton Manning, Cam Newton, Rg3, collin kaepernick, russell wilson, Matthew Stafford? The fact of the matter is that a sound drafting strategy can counter the effects of having a strong qb. If I had the last pick in the 1st round and 13 qbs got drafted ahead of me--I'd go with Adrian peterson and Jimmy Graham--I guarantee you the points you would be behind in the qb position could be made up somewhere else. I also guarantee you that the teams that have won your league had far more than just an elite qb on their side. I bet their teams also had stud wr's/rb's as well--in fact--I would appreciate it if you would put the roster of the last two championship winning teams up just for analysis. The point in any game with any scoring system is to strategize a plan that gives you the best chance of winning. If a guy is in your league and has a late draft pick--and so far everybody has drafted a qb--he's not going to win by chasing the qb position. A sound strategy would be for him to abandon the qb position until a few rounds later and stockpile elite talent in other areas to counter his weakness there. You start at least 2 rbs, 2 wr's and 1 te, 1 team defense, a kicker--there are 6-7 other starting roster spots where points can be made up.

 

[Art_VanDalay]

But I would add that the idea of balance between position scoring is akin to the NFL always seeking parity amongst its 32 teams. FF is built on the scoring system for each league and while they are very vast and different, you should want to avoid being skewed to heavily towards any one position IMO because to do so limits the ability to have parity amongst your fantasy teams. For example, if QBs were disproportionately weighted to a large degree, while you can say everyone is playing by the same rules, you essentially have little chance of winning championships without one of the elite QBs on your roster and there are only so many to draft picks (randomly picked often?) or auction dollars to spend to acquire them. This was my origi al fear of this thread that we were weighting the QB to heavily ad reducing competition around our ff league. Hope that clarifies my intent.

I understand where you are coming from-- but there are flaws to your concern. It makes perfect sense that in a game where success is based primarily on statistics--the players who tend to put up the best and most statistics (elite qb's) probably have a better chance at winning. However, the draft process is specifically designed to counter this advantage. If qb scoring is sooo heavy in your league--I imagine the elite qb's tend to go very early in the draft. If you do a regular snake draft--the other teams later in the draft get to pick twice before the draft "snakes" back. This means that teams that go later in the draft can get an average qb and pair him with an elite wr/rb to counter the qb edge that one might have. Like I said--I play in a qb heavy scoring league--and I won my league with Tony Romo last year---who wasn't projected to be an "elite" fantasy quarterback. I was able to win because I also had dez bryant, trent richardson, vjax, doug martin, julio jones, kyle rudolph, james jones...etc--and I drafted my qb later than the other team owners in my league. Also--there is also a flaw in the sense that nobody knows how "elite" a qb will be. Aside from Rodgers and Brees--can anybody tell me who the 3rd best fantasy qb will be next year? Will it be Matt ryan, Peyton Manning, Cam Newton, Rg3, collin kaepernick, russell wilson, Matthew Stafford? The fact of the matter is that a sound drafting strategy can counter the effects of having a strong qb. If I had the last pick in the 1st round and 13 qbs got drafted ahead of me--I'd go with Adrian peterson and Jimmy Graham--I guarantee you the points you would be behind in the qb position could be made up somewhere else. I also guarantee you that the teams that have won your league had far more than just an elite qb on their side. I bet their teams also had stud wr's/rb's as well--in fact--I would appreciate it if you would put the roster of the last two championship winning teams up just for analysis. The point in any game with any scoring system is to strategize a plan that gives you the best chance of winning. If a guy is in your league and has a late draft pick--and so far everybody has drafted a qb--he's not going to win by chasing the qb position. A sound strategy would be for him to abandon the qb position until a few rounds later and stockpile elite talent in other areas to counter his weakness there. You start at least 2 rbs, 2 wr's and 1 te, 1 team defense, a kicker--there are 6-7 other starting roster spots where points can be made up.

I appreciate your reply and I agree that my concerns may have been flawed which was why I came here to start this topic and get opinions outside of the usual for me. It has been very helpful along the way. Two things to consider in your last response though that may or may not change your opinon (I am guessing not since the freedome to do what you want is even easier). We run an Auction, contract and keeper league so no snake drafting, etc. Sal caps are the only limitation and every team starts with a $500 cap and then can trade up to a certain dollar amount each year so there is disparity amongst teams at every draft so that not every team is starting with $500. Secondly, you are right that most teams will have a stud RB to take them to the championship but not always. Here are our last 5 championship team lineups:

2012:

Starters Griffin III, Robert WAS QB 16 Charles, Jamaal KCC RB 30 Peterson, Adrian MIN RB 9 Green, A.J. CIN WR 11 Johnson, Calvin DET WR 23 Gates, Antonio SDC TE 10 Gostkowski, Stephen NEP PK 11 Jets, New York NYJ Def 2 2011:

Starters Newton, Cam CAR QB 32 Foster, Arian HOU RB 23 Turner, Michael ATL RB 7 Cruz, Victor NYG WR 22 Welker, Wes NEP WR 14 Gates, Antonio SDC TE 4 Gostkowski, Stephen NEP PK 9 Texans, Houston HOU Def 2 2010:

Starters Rodgers, Aaron GBP QB 38 Charles, Jamaal KCC RB 23 Peterson, Adrian MIN RB 18 Boldin, Anquan BAL WR 1 Wallace, Mike PIT WR 16 Cooley, Chris WAS TE 4 Vinatieri, Adam IND PK 7 Steelers, Pittsburgh PIT Def 5 2009:

Starters Warner, Kurt ARI QB 22 Jones, Thomas NYJ RB 16 Tomlinson, LaDainian SDC RB 18 Johnson, Andre HOU WR 13 Wayne, Reggie IND WR 3 Clark, Dallas IND TE 5 Akers, David PHI PK 12 Packers, Green Bay GBP Def 9 2008:

Starters Cassel, Matt NEP QB 29 Jones-Drew, Maurice JAC RB 16 Turner, Michael ATL RB 13 Breaston, Steve ARI WR 0 Marshall, Brandon DEN WR 12 Cooley, Chris WAS TE 2 Akers, David PHI PK 3 Titans, Tennessee TEN Def 12

 

[TheMathNinja]

What do you think is the ideal balance?

QBx1 = 16.6%RBx2 = 16.6%

WRx3 = 16.6%

TEx1 = 16.6%

Kickx1 =16.6%

Defx1 = 16.6%

I think a system that looks like this is fatally flawed. The day that TE's and K's are as valuable to winning as a QB is the day that fantasy football becomes simply fantasy. Because nothing about it resembles real football. The way you know you've achieved a good scoring balance in your league is when player draft positions, auction prices, contract values (if you do a contract league) actually look like the NFL. No matter how you spin it, if the #4 QB is getting picked in the 3rd round in your league, you are not playing fantasy football, it's just fantasy.

I run a league where, by and large, RB's, WR's, and QB's are about equally drafted in the first two rounds, with the top QB's being the most valuable, and generally taken with picks 1-4. Our scoring breakdown looks like:

QBx1: 33.5%

RBx2: 20.2%

WRx3: 32.2%

TEx1: 8.1%

Kx1: 6.0%

From everything I can tell regarding how NFL teams draft and sign contracts, their valuations look something like this.

 

[Rostov73]

What do you think is the ideal balance?

QBx1 = 16.6%RBx2 = 16.6%

WRx3 = 16.6%

TEx1 = 16.6%

Kickx1 =16.6%

Defx1 = 16.6%

I think a system that looks like this is fatally flawed. The day that TE's and K's are as valuable to winning as a QB is the day that fantasy football becomes simply fantasy. Because nothing about it resembles real football. The way you know you've achieved a good scoring balance in your league is when player draft positions, auction prices, contract values (if you do a contract league) actually look like the NFL. No matter how you spin it, if the #4 QB is getting picked in the 3rd round in your league, you are not playing fantasy football, it's just fantasy.

I run a league where, by and large, RB's, WR's, and QB's are about equally drafted in the first two rounds, with the top QB's being the most valuable, and generally taken with picks 1-4. Our scoring breakdown looks like:

QBx1: 33.5%

RBx2: 20.2%

WRx3: 32.2%

TEx1: 8.1%

Kx1: 6.0%

From everything I can tell regarding how NFL teams draft and sign contracts, their valuations look something like this.

Ninja's leagues has the average individual RB and WR about equal (10% per average player) and the QB is worth 3 times the average RB/WR

Art's league has the average individual RB and WR about equal (12-13% per average player) and the QB is worth 2 times the average RB/WR

My league has the average RB more valuable than the average WR (13% for RB & 8.6% for WR) and the QB is worth 2 times the average RB & 3 times the average WR.

Would it be fair to say the average QB is considered worth 2 - 3 times the average individual RB/WR?

This sounds balanced to me. Personally, in a large league (14+ teams) I would try for closer to 2 times the value & with smaller leagues I would swing towards 3 times the value.

The league I was talking about earlier (QB 36% & each RB 6%) has the QB worth 6 times the average RB/WR. It would take 6 stud RBs and/or WRs to match one stud QB. I still think this is a bad league format & doesn't allow team building options in a FF league, especially in a large league.

 

[Johnny Blood]

What do you think is the ideal balance?

QBx1 = 16.6%RBx2 = 16.6%

WRx3 = 16.6%

TEx1 = 16.6%

Kickx1 =16.6%

Defx1 = 16.6%

I think a system that looks like this is fatally flawed. The day that TE's and K's are as valuable to winning as a QB is the day that fantasy football becomes simply fantasy.

Those figures don't actually tell you anything about the value of the positions. The variations in predictability and replaceability haven't been factored in at all. You could swap out all the starting kickers for waiver wire kickers with a much smaller loss in points than you would see by doing the same thing with RBs, so they are in no way equally valuable.

You can't just look at the percentage of points and then say QB is worth $X times as much as RB.

Suppose your league allowed you to draft team captains who get to call the coin flip. Suppose the points they got for calling the flip correctly means that the captains are scoring as much as QBs. Does that mean they are equally valuable? Obviously not, since any captain sitting on the waiver wire is just as good at calling random outcomes of coin flips.

Unless you are starting multiple kickers and team defenses they are not equally valuable even if they are scoring the exact same percentage of the points as QBs and RBs or whatever. They are easily replaceable therefore less valuable.

 

[TheMathNinja]

What do you think is the ideal balance?

QBx1 = 16.6%RBx2 = 16.6%

WRx3 = 16.6%

TEx1 = 16.6%

Kickx1 =16.6%

Defx1 = 16.6%

I think a system that looks like this is fatally flawed. The day that TE's and K's are as valuable to winning as a QB is the day that fantasy football becomes simply fantasy.

Those figures don't actually tell you anything about the value of the positions. The variations in predictability and replaceability haven't been factored in at all. You could swap out all the starting kickers for waiver wire kickers with a much smaller loss in points than you would see by doing the same thing with RBs, so they are in no way equally valuable.

You can't just look at the percentage of points and then say QB is worth $X times as much as RB.

Suppose your league allowed you to draft team captains who get to call the coin flip. Suppose the points they got for calling the flip correctly means that the captains are scoring as much as QBs. Does that mean they are equally valuable? Obviously not, since any captain sitting on the waiver wire is just as good at calling random outcomes of coin flips.

Unless you are starting multiple kickers and team defenses they are not equally valuable even if they are scoring the exact same percentage of the points as QBs and RBs or whatever. They are easily replaceable therefore less valuable.

Regardless of value in a particular league, Kicker production is simply overstated in any system where they're putting up the same points as QB's. If fantasy points are intended to mirror real on-the-field production, this is a flaw in system from the get-go. But I agree with you that this doesn't necessarily say much of anything regarding VBD at kicker in that league. However, it certainly does say something about TE's, which tend to have comparable variability to QB's.

 

[Rostov73]

I realize I am asking subjective questios

What do you think is the ideal balance?

QBx1 = 16.6%
RBx2 = 16.6%
WRx3 = 16.6%
TEx1 = 16.6%
Kickx1 =16.6%
Defx1 = 16.6%

I think a system that looks like this is fatally flawed. The day that TE's and K's are as valuable to winning as a QB is the day that fantasy football becomes simply fantasy.

You can't just look at the percentage of points and then say QB is worth $X times as much as RB.

Suppose your league allowed you to draft team captains who get to call the coin flip. Suppose the points they got for calling the flip correctly means that the captains are scoring as much as QBs. Does that mean they are equally valuable? Obviously not, since any captain sitting on the waiver wire is just as good at calling random outcomes of coin flips.

Every league's scoring system IS giving the QB value compared to RB, whether you think so or not. FF is a numbers game, not some new-age-cult where your feelings & wishes are more important than stats. Nothing changes the fact that there has a final score and every point came from somewhere. I am simply asking where the points came from in your league. I am not making a claim that one way right or wrong, just asking where the come from in different leagues.

It is a obvious that all leagues have a % of their total points come from each position; the % will be different with each position & can be compared. Your scoring system determines what value your league places on each position. Avoiding the numbers and clinging to the faith-based belief that positions cannot be compared is delusional.

Given any league's scoring, # of teams, and roster makeup you can tell exactly how that league values each position. Not how a person feels about the positions, but how the league values them.