Minus points for kickers? (4 Viewers)

[Plainsman]

I, personally, think it is pointless to sub points for missed FG's and am curious to see if my league is the only one to do this. I think it makes a position no one cares about complicated. If you chose 1 or 3, I am curious as to why you like it and how much you subtract or would subtract for missed fg's at each range.

Ready to get for starting a topic about kickers, but that is why I made it into a poll.

 

[AnonymousBob]

I think points should be lost for missed field goals. Sure Elam has a great leg, but sometimes that means Shanny trots him out for low percentage kicks. On the flip side, if you go with a guy who is very accurate, that probably means he doesn't get quite as many chances. It doesn't make it too much harder but I like having the rule.

 

[mojorizin]

The only thing I dont like about it, is its not always the kickers fault (then again INTs arent always QBs fault. Still do it this way.

3 points FG up to 29

4 points up to 39

5 points up to 49

7 points 50+

-3 for missed FG under 30

-2 under 40

-1 under 50

0 deducted 50+

-1 for missed FG

 

[WisWolvrns]

Why have a negative for a missed field goal?! The team already "lost" the 3 points they could have had with the miss. Adding more negatives to it is double jeopardy...

 

[Plainsman]

 

[AnonymousBob]

Why have a negative for a missed field goal?! The team already "lost" the 3 points they could have had with the miss. Adding more negatives to it is double jeopardy...

Dude, are you talking real football or fantasy football? I mean, if I've got Boldin what do I care if Edge ran for a touchdown? The team "won" the six points but I didn't get them. You're not adding more negatives to the equation and it's not double jeopardy.

 

[mojorizin]

Why have a negative for a missed field goal?! The team already "lost" the 3 points they could have had with the miss. Adding more negatives to it is double jeopardy...

I do it as a reflection of the impact on the team. If we are going to have guys that stroll out on the field a few times a game without playing football on the roster, why only award them points with no penalties? If your kicker misses a big kick (his only friggin job) that costs his team the game, or misses a chip shot when the squad sweats and bleeds to get him in position, I think a penalty is in order.

 

[Plainsman]

Here is another way to put it, subtracting points for missed fg's is like subtraction points for a wr dropping a pass or a qb sailing the ball over an open reciever for an incompletion. Yea its kickers job to make the fg's but it is also the wr's job to catch the pass or the qb's job to hit the open man.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Here is another way to put it, subtracting points for missed fg's is like subtraction points for a wr dropping a pass or a qb sailing the ball over an open reciever for an incompletion. Yea its kickers job to make the fg's but it is also the wr's job to catch the pass or the qb's job to hit the open man.

I think the better analogy would be -2 for a fumble........ but I'm not a fan of negative points for a kicker (unless there are outrageous bonuses for longer FGs).I could live with -1 for a missed XP - but that is still "double jeopardy" - which is a great way to put it.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Or it's akin to negative points for interceptions. Why not simply play without kickers?

 

[Plainsman]

Here is yet another angle to look at it... Everyone (well almost everyone) hates how kickers decide the outcome of big games. Well, subtracting points allows kickers decide the outcome of close FF games. Just think, Monday night, fourth quarter, 3 sec on the clock, you are up by a point and should have the week won, but wait your kicker has a chance to win the game on a 39 yard attempt into the wind and rain. Well you can guess, he missed and you lost the week cause your kicker missed an improbable FG. To be fair, same situation except a 49 yarder at the end of the game. You cant expect the kicker to nail it. Would you be happy with a tie?

 

[AnonymousBob]

Here is yet another angle to look at it... Everyone (well almost everyone) hates how kickers decide the outcome of big games. Well, subtracting points allows kickers decide the outcome of close FF games. Just think, Monday night, fourth quarter, 3 sec on the clock, you are up by a point and should have the week won, but wait your kicker has a chance to win the game on a 39 yard attempt into the wind and rain. Well you can guess, he missed and you lost the week cause your kicker missed an improbable FG. To be fair, same situation except a 49 yarder at the end of the game. You cant expect the kicker to nail it. Would you be happy with a tie?

Take a kicker who plays in a dome. Or take a kicker who is incapable of making anything longer than 40 yards-that way the coach will never bother with a long attempt. Really, it's not that hard to figure out.

 

[The Swarm]

The only thing I dont like about it, is its not always the kickers fault (then again INTs arent always QBs fault. Still do it this way.3 points FG up to 294 points up to 395 points up to 497 points 50+-3 for missed FG under 30-2 under 40-1 under 500 deducted 50+-1 for missed FG

Very similar to the scoring I instituted for our league.

 

[Plainsman]

Here is yet another angle to look at it... Everyone (well almost everyone) hates how kickers decide the outcome of big games. Well, subtracting points allows kickers decide the outcome of close FF games. Just think, Monday night, fourth quarter, 3 sec on the clock, you are up by a point and should have the week won, but wait your kicker has a chance to win the game on a 39 yard attempt into the wind and rain. Well you can guess, he missed and you lost the week cause your kicker missed an improbable FG. To be fair, same situation except a 49 yarder at the end of the game. You cant expect the kicker to nail it. Would you be happy with a tie?

Take a kicker who plays in a dome.

That is why I included the second scenario (49 yarder). Meant to say even with perfect conditions (without wind or rain), you cant expect the kicker to nail a 49 yarder in the clutch.

 

[Battles]

Well, as for the double jeopardy part, everyone is assuming that a kick is automatic. Taking the player from +3 to 0 IS NOT a deduction. That's like saying that an rb averages 4 ypc, but got stuffed for 0 yards so he's getting negative points. That is not a subtraction.

Those that subtract points are holding up the fact that an accurate kicker with a good leg is the best in the real world. Second would be an accurate kicker with a so-so leg. A kicker withoug accuracy is worthless. The reason I like my league is that scoring and rosters are geared towards the real world more than just purely fantasy perspective.

My league is

made

0-39 = 3

40-49 = 4

50-99= 5

missed

0-39= -2

40-49= -1

50-99=0

 

[Battles]

Here is yet another angle to look at it... Everyone (well almost everyone) hates how kickers decide the outcome of big games. Well, subtracting points allows kickers decide the outcome of close FF games. Just think, Monday night, fourth quarter, 3 sec on the clock, you are up by a point and should have the week won, but wait your kicker has a chance to win the game on a 39 yard attempt into the wind and rain. Well you can guess, he missed and you lost the week cause your kicker missed an improbable FG. To be fair, same situation except a 49 yarder at the end of the game. You cant expect the kicker to nail it. Would you be happy with a tie?

You need to keep the negative points and adjust the overall scoring so that the kicker has the proper influence on game results.As for the weather... It affects everything in FF. You should have started a different kicker that played indoors. How bout this...let's make FF so you don't have to do anything but have the best rb's and that's it. BORING

 

[Plainsman]

Ok, I think I have figured out why some are in favor of subtracting points for missed fg's. They feel a missed fg is a turnover (= to fumble or interception) and thus should be penalized as such.

I would not consider a fg a turnover. The options on 4th down in fg range are to kick the fg, go for the first, or to punt. The field goal is the best option to put points on the board and therefore worth the risk. So, to me a missed fg is the same as a rb getting stuffed on 4th and inches, a qb and wr botching a pass play on 4th down, or simply a bad punt (touchback or shank).

If you feel that a fg is a turnover, then you should penalize missed fg's from longer range as they result in better field postion for the other team.

 

[Battles]

Ok, I think I have figured out why some are in favor of subtracting points for missed fg's. They feel a missed fg is a turnover (= to fumble or interception) and thus should be penalized as such.

I would not consider a fg a turnover. The options on 4th down in fg range are to kick the fg, go for the first, or to punt. The field goal is the best option to put points on the board and therefore worth the risk. So, to me a missed fg is the same as a rb getting stuffed on 4th and inches, a qb and wr botching a pass play on 4th down, or simply a bad punt (touchback or shank).

If you feel that a fg is a turnover, then you should penalize missed fg's from longer range as they result in better field postion for the other team.

xThat is not at all how I feel and I don't think your understanding the context in which others are comparing it to turnovers.

It boils down to EVERY player makes good and bad plays. Thus EVERY player should have + and - points. The worst a kicker can do is miss a short kick. Thus he gets negative points.

I'll also repeat that taking away points for missed kicks makes the league more real world, which in my opinion is better.

 

[JohnnyU]

minus 1 for missed XP, and only subtract pts for missed FGs as follows

-3 for missing FG 1-19 yds

-2 for missing FG 20-29 yds

-1 for missing FG 30-39 yds

Kickers should make these. All other missed FGs are not penalized.

 

[mojorizin]

The only thing I dont like about it, is its not always the kickers fault (then again INTs arent always QBs fault. Still do it this way.3 points FG up to 294 points up to 395 points up to 497 points 50+-3 for missed FG under 30-2 under 40-1 under 500 deducted 50+-1 for missed FG

Very similar to the scoring I instituted for our league.

Just realized I dimbulbed and it shoulda been -1 missed XP.I dont have a problem with negative points for anyone. If WRs get 12 pts in my league for a 51 yd TD, 1 pt per rec, 1 pt per 10 yards, that isnt real football scoring either. If a drive is crushed by a fumble, sometimes leading to the other team scoring, then I'm all for negative points.

 

[Plainsman]

Those that subtract points are holding up the fact that an accurate kicker with a good leg is the best in the real world. Second would be an accurate kicker with a so-so leg. A kicker withoug accuracy is worthless. The reason I like my league is that scoring and rosters are geared towards the real world more than just purely fantasy perspective.

This is really the only other strong support in favor of subtracting points for missed fg's, however I disagree with the above. Now assuming most give more points for longer fg's, it should be reasonable to say that the more accurate kicker with the stronger leg should score more fantasy points as he will make more longer field goals. There should be no need to subtract points to account for this. The said kicker, being both long and accurate, will get more chances at the higher point field goals as they are more likely to make them. If you take this into account with what I have already said (turnover example), then I dont understand why minus points are needed. IMO, subtracting points does not give the most realistic results. How do you argue against the fact that in real life teams dont lose points for missing field goals? If a kicker misses a field goal, you miss out on the points just like he and his team does.

 

[mojorizin]

Those that subtract points are holding up the fact that an accurate kicker with a good leg is the best in the real world. Second would be an accurate kicker with a so-so leg. A kicker withoug accuracy is worthless. The reason I like my league is that scoring and rosters are geared towards the real world more than just purely fantasy perspective.

This is really the only other strong support in favor of subtracting points for missed fg's, however I disagree with the above. Now assuming most give more points for longer fg's, it should be reasonable to say that the more accurate kicker with the stronger leg should score more fantasy points as he will make more longer field goals. There should be no need to subtract points to account for this. The said kicker, being both long and accurate, will get more chances at the higher point field goals as they are more likely to make them. If you take this into account with what I have already said (turnover example), then I dont understand why minus points are needed. IMO, subtracting points does not give the most realistic results. How do you argue against the fact that in real life teams dont lose points for missing field goals? If a kicker misses a field goal, you miss out on the points just like he and his team does.

If you dont charge for INTs, fumbles, or take total yards/points from defenses, I would agree. Thats knocked from the scores of guys that play every down in the heat of battle. If they get gigged, you might as well gig the 5'4 Venezuelan guy that only has to do one little thing relatively well every 45 minutes.

 

[my man otis]

I like it, it actually forces you to take a K a bit earlier than the last round.

The better kickers (more accurate) actually do have slightly larger value than others.

 

[Battles]

Those that subtract points are holding up the fact that an accurate kicker with a good leg is the best in the real world. Second would be an accurate kicker with a so-so leg. A kicker withoug accuracy is worthless. The reason I like my league is that scoring and rosters are geared towards the real world more than just purely fantasy perspective.

This is really the only other strong support in favor of subtracting points for missed fg's, however I disagree with the above. Now assuming most give more points for longer fg's, it should be reasonable to say that the more accurate kicker with the stronger leg should score more fantasy points as he will make more longer field goals. There should be no need to subtract points to account for this. The said kicker, being both long and accurate, will get more chances at the higher point field goals as they are more likely to make them. If you take this into account with what I have already said (turnover example), then I dont understand why minus points are needed. IMO, subtracting points does not give the most realistic results. How do you argue against the fact that in real life teams dont lose points for missing field goals? If a kicker misses a field goal, you miss out on the points just like he and his team does.

The first part is not necessarily true. Yes the most accurate kicker with the strongest leg SHOULD be the top kicker, but we can't stop with that assumption. Opportunity is a huge factor in kicking. Rackers on SF would be nearly worthless. With arz he's top 3. In your scheme a bad kicker that gets 40 attempts and makes 25 would outscore a kicker that gets 20 attempts and makes 18. Which is the better kicker? In the real world it's the second. Fantasy scoring needs to be the sum of all the factors and I believe small deductions for misses on short fg attempts help this. As for the bolded part. You are making the assumption that a fg is automatic. Each play is positive or negative. Gaining nothing is negative. In the fg scenario you are starting at +3 then going to 0. The real way of looking at it is starting at 0 and going from there.

And yes teams don't lose points for missing fg's, but kickers do lose their jobs for it.

 

[Plainsman]

I like it, it actually forces you to take a K a bit earlier than the last round.The better kickers (more accurate) actually do have slightly larger value than others.

Yes it does change their value, but that is my whole point. Do you really want to pay extra attention to kickers. It is the kicker, that everyone hates, we are talking about here. :X Im in an IDP league so I dont need to tinker with the kicker settings to keep FF from being boring.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

For those of you who think its complicated and kicker is just a dumb position -- why not just not use a kicker in your league?

 

[Battles]

I like it, it actually forces you to take a K a bit earlier than the last round.The better kickers (more accurate) actually do have slightly larger value than others.

Yes it does change their value, but that is my whole point. Do you really want to pay extra attention to kickers. It is the kicker, that everyone hates, we are talking about here. :X Im in an IDP league so I dont need to tinker with the kicker settings to keep FF from being boring.

Some of us are hardcore, and others, like yourself, aren't.

 

[Clutch]

We do give minus points for missed FG's and PAT's but we also give additional points for longers FG's. Missed FG's under 45 yards is -3 points. FG's over 45 yards at 5 points and missed FG's are zero.

 

[malice]

We use -1 for both missed XPs and FGs over 49 yds. I like the concept, but unfortunately there is no gaming site that can parse game logs well enough to determine the difference between a shanked kick and a botched snap. We do give defenses +1 for a blocked kick, but penalizing the kicker for a bad snap or a blown FG formation shouldn't apply IMO.

It doesn't change the drafting philosophy that much (you can always drop your slicer and grab another off the WW), but it does help make a little difference in close games. Missing a 45 yarder now becomes a 5 point swing (+4 to -1). I like to think of them as mandatory tiebreakers. In the 5 years we've had this system, there have only been 2-3 tie games out of all 5 seasons.

 

[Plainsman]

The first part is not necessarily true. Yes the most accurate kicker with the strongest leg SHOULD be the top kicker, but we can't stop with that assumption. Opportunity is a huge factor in kicking. Rackers on SF would be nearly worthless. With arz he's top 3. In your scheme a bad kicker that gets 40 attempts and makes 25 would outscore a kicker that gets 20 attempts and makes 18. Which is the better kicker? In the real world it's the second. Fantasy scoring needs to be the sum of all the factors and I believe small deductions for misses on short fg attempts help this.

In all respect, you are sliding down the slippery slope there. (I know im a little guilty with my wind and rain example.) The example you provided there would give the bad kicker close to zero total points if you subtracted missed field goals. Since he is a bad kicker, he will not get many long, big point scoring fg opportunities just because he is a bad kicker and the coach will rather punt then risk his bad kicker missing the long field goals. So those fg's you have the bad kicker missing will be shorter, point deducting fg's while the ones he makes are of the shorter 3 point category. This kicker will barely score any points. In actuallity this doesnt happen. Regardless of the scoring format, you are going to have to look at the opportunity a kicker will get. Rackers on San Fran with your format would suck too fantasy-wise compared to other good kickers.

As for the bolded part. You are making the assumption that a fg is automatic. Each play is positive or negative. Gaining nothing is negative. In the fg scenario you are starting at +3 then going to 0. The real way of looking at it is starting at 0 and going from there.And yes teams don't lose points for missing fg's, but kickers do lose their jobs for it.

With that logic, a wr recieve can either drop or catch the pass. It is positive or negative. Then if the wr drops the pass then he should lose points. This arguement still does not make sense unless you are willing to agree that a wr should loss points for missing a catch.

 

[Plainsman]

For those of you who think its complicated and kicker is just a dumb position -- why not just not use a kicker in your league?

Complicated may not have been the best word. How about tedious.

 

[Plainsman]

I like it, it actually forces you to take a K a bit earlier than the last round.The better kickers (more accurate) actually do have slightly larger value than others.

Yes it does change their value, but that is my whole point. Do you really want to pay extra attention to kickers. It is the kicker, that everyone hates, we are talking about here. :X Im in an IDP league so I dont need to tinker with the kicker settings to keep FF from being boring.

Some of us are hardcore, and others, like yourself, aren't.

Hardcore or not, I just do not understand how the exta effort makes any difference when ultimately the results are pretty much the same. Your good kicker, with lots of opportunity are still going to be the good kickers.

 

[PRS Guy]

If a RB has a nice hole for a TD, but fails to capitalize because he gets a questionable handoff from the QB and fumbles (and is credited with the fumble rather than the QB), he not only loses 6 pts for the TD but also loses 2 pts for the fumble. Kickers should have the same level of accountability. Not only did the kicker miss the XP, costing you 1 point, he potentially lost the game for his team by missing. To me, that requires an added level of pain. Same with turning the ball over for missing a short kick, it's a costly mistake and should hurt more than the opportunity cost of missing out on positive points.

I view it as a "penalty" for making a mistake.

Others may be happy with viewing it as a lost opportunity, or an "opportunity" cost.

 

[AB in DC]

As for the bolded part. You are making the assumption that a fg is automatic. Each play is positive or negative. Gaining nothing is negative. In the fg scenario you are starting at +3 then going to 0. The real way of looking at it is starting at 0 and going from there.And yes teams don't lose points for missing fg's, but kickers do lose their jobs for it.

With that logic, a wr recieve can either drop or catch the pass. It is positive or negative. Then if the wr drops the pass then he should lose points. This arguement still does not make sense unless you are willing to agree that a wr should loss points for missing a catch.

Missing a catch and dropping a catch are two different things. If it was a drop, I'd want to penalize that too, just like baseball will give an error to an infielder who boots a grounder. If it was just a miss, then you can't penalize it, since it's probably not his fault -- just a bad throw, or good coverage, or whatever.Of course, you can't really penalize drops since it's not a statistic that's collected officially or consistently.

 

[AB in DC]

If you feel that a fg is a turnover, then you should penalize missed fg's from longer range as they result in better field postion for the other team.

I don't know anyone who would penalize interceptions more when the quarterback is throwing from his own 20 vs. the opponent's 30, so why would you penalize a kicker like that?

 

[WisWolvrns]

Why have a negative for a missed field goal?! The team already "lost" the 3 points they could have had with the miss. Adding more negatives to it is double jeopardy...

Dude, are you talking real football or fantasy football? I mean, if I've got Boldin what do I care if Edge ran for a touchdown? The team "won" the six points but I didn't get them. You're not adding more negatives to the equation and it's not double jeopardy.

I'm talking fantasy football. If your PK is lining up for a FG you will most likely be scoring the 3 or 4 or 6 or whatever amount of points your league scores for the length of field goal. The majority of the time PK's make their FGs. If they happen to miss, then you lost out on those set of points. Adding more negatives just compounds an already lost situation for points. It is not like PK's get to kick 10-15 FGs a game. They only have a handful of opportunities. If they miss on the ones they get, that hurts enough in your fantasy boxscore.QBs throw the ball 25+ times a game. So an Int is a different animal based on the frequency of the passes compared to the frequency of field goals. A poster above gave another good analogy of a player dropping a pass or a QB getting an incompletion. The play for X yards or even a TD didn't happen and that hurts your fantasy boxscore enough. That is why they aren't given negative points.

 

[Plainsman]

As for the bolded part. You are making the assumption that a fg is automatic. Each play is positive or negative. Gaining nothing is negative. In the fg scenario you are starting at +3 then going to 0. The real way of looking at it is starting at 0 and going from there.And yes teams don't lose points for missing fg's, but kickers do lose their jobs for it.

With that logic, a wr recieve can either drop or catch the pass. It is positive or negative. Then if the wr drops the pass then he should lose points. This arguement still does not make sense unless you are willing to agree that a wr should loss points for missing a catch.

Missing a catch and dropping a catch are two different things. If it was a drop, I'd want to penalize that too, just like baseball will give an error to an infielder who boots a grounder. If it was just a miss, then you can't penalize it, since it's probably not his fault -- just a bad throw, or good coverage, or whatever.Of course, you can't really penalize drops since it's not a statistic that's collected officially or consistently.

Here is my question to you then, since you agree with my line of reasoning that a missed fg is on the same level as a dropped pass then why would you penalize a kicker for the missed fg when you cant penalize the wr for the dropped pass? It doesnt seem fair to the kicker.

I view it as a "penalty" for making a mistake.

Is a wr dropping a pass not a mistake. Why would you not penalize for this?

 

[Plainsman]

Why have a negative for a missed field goal?! The team already "lost" the 3 points they could have had with the miss. Adding more negatives to it is double jeopardy...

Dude, are you talking real football or fantasy football? I mean, if I've got Boldin what do I care if Edge ran for a touchdown? The team "won" the six points but I didn't get them. You're not adding more negatives to the equation and it's not double jeopardy.

I'm talking fantasy football. If your PK is lining up for a FG you will most likely be scoring the 3 or 4 or 6 or whatever amount of points your league scores for the length of field goal. The majority of the time PK's make their FGs. If they happen to miss, then you lost out on those set of points. Adding more negatives just compounds an already lost situation for points. It is not like PK's get to kick 10-15 FGs a game. They only have a handful of opportunities. If they miss on the ones they get, that hurts enough in your fantasy boxscore.QBs throw the ball 25+ times a game. So an Int is a different animal based on the frequency of the passes compared to the frequency of field goals. A posted above gave another good analogy of a player dropping a pass or a QB getting an incompletion. The play for X yards or even a TD didn't happen and that hurts your fantasy boxscore enough. That is why they aren't given negative points.

 

[pizzatyme]

The first part is not necessarily true. Yes the most accurate kicker with the strongest leg SHOULD be the top kicker, but we can't stop with that assumption. Opportunity is a huge factor in kicking. Rackers on SF would be nearly worthless. With arz he's top 3. In your scheme a bad kicker that gets 40 attempts and makes 25 would outscore a kicker that gets 20 attempts and makes 18. Which is the better kicker? In the real world it's the second. Fantasy scoring needs to be the sum of all the factors and I believe small deductions for misses on short fg attempts help this.

In all respect, you are sliding down the slippery slope there. (I know im a little guilty with my wind and rain example.) The example you provided there would give the bad kicker close to zero total points if you subtracted missed field goals. Since he is a bad kicker, he will not get many long, big point scoring fg opportunities just because he is a bad kicker and the coach will rather punt then risk his bad kicker missing the long field goals. So those fg's you have the bad kicker missing will be shorter, point deducting fg's while the ones he makes are of the shorter 3 point category. This kicker will barely score any points. In actuallity this doesnt happen. Regardless of the scoring format, you are going to have to look at the opportunity a kicker will get. Rackers on San Fran with your format would suck too fantasy-wise compared to other good kickers.

As for the bolded part. You are making the assumption that a fg is automatic. Each play is positive or negative. Gaining nothing is negative. In the fg scenario you are starting at +3 then going to 0. The real way of looking at it is starting at 0 and going from there.And yes teams don't lose points for missing fg's, but kickers do lose their jobs for it.

With that logic, a wr recieve can either drop or catch the pass. It is positive or negative. Then if the wr drops the pass then he should lose points. This arguement still does not make sense unless you are willing to agree that a wr should loss points for missing a catch.

I would agree with this if they kept accurate stats to reflect drops. But, since they don't to my knowledge, then, this is why there are no negatives for dropped passes.If you're going to use a K, then make that position mean something! The teams that have good kickers, defense, and TE's have a better fighting chance against the guys who draft 1-3 and get the studs this year.A team should win, and not just who has the best RBs.

 

[Saints-Man]

Some of my leagues do this, some do not.

I am in favor of it if there are negative points for both ints & fumbles,and not otherwise.

 

[PRS Guy]

quote name='Plainsman' date='Aug 25 2006, 02:49 PM' post='5395258'

I view it as a "penalty" for making a mistake.

Is a wr dropping a pass not a mistake. Why would you not penalize for this?

Quite simple really. MFL tracks interceptions, tracks fumbles, tracks missed kicks, doesn't track drops that I'm aware of.

 

[Plainsman]

Here is a list of the top ten kickers from last season with the scores for no subtract/subtract. The scoring for these numbers are 3,3,3,4,5 and -3,-3,-2,-1,0.Rackers 166/166Feely 161/151Graham 142/138Wilkens 134/129Kasay 132/129 Tynes 132/126Vanderjagt 128/125Stover 124/119Reed 122/119Kaeding 121/118Now aside from maybe Feely, it really did not make any difference by subtracting. A couple points are not going to change things in the grands scheme of it all, so why bother to do it at all (answer below). It is interesting that not one kicker changed in ranking by subtracting points. I still have not seen any support to make me see any value in subtracting points for missed fg's.

If you dont charge for INTs, fumbles, or take total yards/points from defenses, I would agree. Thats knocked from the scores of guys that play every down in the heat of battle. If they get gigged, you might as well gig the 5'4 Venezuelan guy that only has to do one little thing relatively well every 45 minutes.

I think this is why some sub for missed fg's. It seems some have some pent-up hatred and hostility towards kickers and feel the need to punish them. Fantasy football give them the vehicle to give the kickers what they feel they deserve.

 

[Plainsman]

quote name='Plainsman' date='Aug 25 2006, 02:49 PM' post='5395258'

I view it as a "penalty" for making a mistake.

Is a wr dropping a pass not a mistake. Why would you not penalize for this?

Quite simple really. MFL tracks interceptions, tracks fumbles, tracks missed kicks, doesn't track drops that I'm aware of.

Well then why is it fair to critique one fantasy postion in a certain area (mistakes) because MFL has stats for the one position and not the other? In other words, why is is fair to judge kickers on their mistakes when you cant judge the other postions on their mistakes? (Please come up with someting better than because we can - this repley doesnt solve anything). In doing this you are bias against kickers in looking at fantasy and real performance.

 

[PRS Guy]

Why bother at all? Because it's not a bother. Load your scoring system and forget about it. I haven't touched mine in 5 years, and MFL rolls if forward for my league.

It's a non-issue these days.

 

[PahtyTom]

Who cares?

But seriously, you're right it's probably a more accurate way to do things. I think I'd rather just not have kickers at all if my league would agree to it.

 

[PRS Guy]

quote name='Plainsman' date='Aug 25 2006, 02:49 PM' post='5395258'

I view it as a "penalty" for making a mistake.

Is a wr dropping a pass not a mistake. Why would you not penalize for this?

Quite simple really. MFL tracks interceptions, tracks fumbles, tracks missed kicks, doesn't track drops that I'm aware of.

Well then why is it fair to critique one fantasy postion in a certain area (mistakes) because MFL has stats for the one position and not the other? In other words, why is is fair to judge kickers on their mistakes when you cant judge the other postions on their mistakes? (Please come up with someting better than because we can - this repley doesnt solve anything). In doing this you are bias against kickers in looking at fantasy and real performance.

I already came up with my logic. Sorry you didn't find it compelling. I think that kickers should be penalized when they miss short kicks beyond the opportunity of missing out on points. A great kicker will go a whole season without missing a kick, but a great WR may have several drops in one game. A drop or two is pretty common, a missed XP isn't. I'm willing to let you score kickers however you want to though as I'm pretty sure I couldn't care less. You can make this case for many variables in FF which is why every league seams to use a different system.

 

[Plainsman]

I already came up with my logic. Sorry you didn't find it compelling. I think that kickers should be penalized when they miss short kicks beyond the opportunity of missing out on points. A great kicker will go a whole season without missing a kick, but a great WR may have several drops in one game. A drop or two is pretty common, a missed XP isn't.

I could not agree with you more on subtracting points (-1) for missed XP. That to me is the equivilent to an int or fumble, but this poll and thread is about fg's. It is quite common for kickers to miss fg's. I dont know the stat but I would bet that a kicker going the entire season without missing is rare.You say kickers should be penalized. I am still missing why you feel this way? I have already shown that by penalizing them changes nothing except that kickers score less on a per game basis (not like they are scoring much to begin with). I understand you have done this for a while and agree that there is no need in changing, but for those starting new leagues I would suggest to them to forget about it. IMO the only addition minus scoring brings is the opportunity to lose a close fantasy game on a trivial play. Its like losing because your qb threw an interception at the end of game down 14 points when he should just be kneeling to run out the clock.I find it intersting that it is almost a 50/50 split on those who like and those who dont.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

One of my biggest complaints about our league (going into its 14th year) is some of the screwy scoring.

Kickers - FG 0-19 yds = 1 pt, 20-29 = 2 pt, 30-39 = 3 pt, 40-49 = 4 pt, 50-55 = 5 pt, and 55+ = 6 pt

QBs = 6 pts per td, but -2 per int.

Yet, we do not subtract points for lost fumbles or dropped passes.

I firmly believe that all FG should be 3 pts, but if you are going to make it distance based then maybe you could subtract points for missed fg (inversely - so if you miss a chip shot it hurts wors than missing a desperation 60 yarder).