PPR - How standard is it? (1 Viewer)

[Cixelsyd]

We are finalizing the rules for this year and are considering adding PPR.... or some other modifier to increase WR/TE value...

12 team league, running since 1998. 6pts all TD's, decimal scoring, 1/20 pass, 1/10 rush, 1/10 rec... pretty standard.... start 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1DEF, 1FLEX (RB,WR,TE).... Also, we have a salary cap that we have to stay under.

I see most of the major pay leagues do PPR. I also read a post a while back about increasing the receiving yardage for WR and TE....

My question is for guys in multiple leagues or experience with and without PPR, what are you suggestions...

For PPR, it seems like a big jump in WR points.... moderate at RB except for a few players... seems to also help WR with alot of catches but little in the way to TD's...

Increasing the modifier for WR and TE was interesting... for receiving keep RB at .10 for each yard and move WR to .12 and TE to .15. But it seemed very subtle... has anyone done this or used different modifiers?

I need to nail this down and salaries are based on last years performance... so I need to reflect the scoring correctly...

I got sour on PPR a few years back when Richie Anderson had like 11 catches for 12 yards for Dallas.... Felt he was too rewarded for that performance...

Your input is appreciated....

 

[Tick]

I suggest searching for topics started by a poster named Sand - he's done some great work on scoring systems.

 

[Crippler]

PPR devalues the RB, In your type of system it was the best teams who could start 3 RB and 2 WR that won. With PPR it could be a 2-3 that wins. Also in the NFL, guys like Torry HOlt are much more valuable to there team than a second rate RB and it shows with PPR as the WR becomes much more important as they are in the NFL these days.

 

[Tom Servo]

I'm thinking about proposing this in my 16 team league this year, especially since the first 21 picks (and like 28 of 32) in last year's draft were RB.

I'll hang up and listen. TIA

 

[Liquid Tension]

We are finalizing the rules for this year and are considering adding PPR.... or some other modifier to increase WR/TE value...

12 team league, running since 1998. 6pts all TD's, decimal scoring, 1/20 pass, 1/10 rush, 1/10 rec... pretty standard.... start 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1DEF, 1FLEX (RB,WR,TE).... Also, we have a salary cap that we have to stay under.

I see most of the major pay leagues do PPR. I also read a post a while back about increasing the receiving yardage for WR and TE....

My question is for guys in multiple leagues or experience with and without PPR, what are you suggestions...

For PPR, it seems like a big jump in WR points.... moderate at RB except for a few players... seems to also help WR with alot of catches but little in the way to TD's...

Increasing the modifier for WR and TE was interesting... for receiving keep RB at .10 for each yard and move WR to .12 and TE to .15. But it seemed very subtle... has anyone done this or used different modifiers?

I need to nail this down and salaries are based on last years performance... so I need to reflect the scoring correctly...

I got sour on PPR a few years back when Richie Anderson had like 11 catches for 12 yards for Dallas.... Felt he was too rewarded for that performance...

Your input is appreciated....

I am not fond of plateau scoring of any kind. Way too artificial and doesn't reward what they do on the field. Does it really matter if a guy has 100 yards instead of 99? As for PPR leagues, I feel the same way. just catching a ball doesn't mean it was productive. Yards makes it productive therefore I would rather not use it. Reward yards and TD's.

 

[lions327]

one league I play in uses 1 PPR for WR's, and 2 PPR for TE's. I think it gives more equal value per position.

 

[Crippler]

I should add that the only leagues I like to play in are ones with great flexibility and PPR. All my leagues give bonus points per reception. Just for the guy who hates it. I love how it equals out the playing field and stops the silly things like 28 of top 32 picks being a RB. Pure insane because even in the NFL, the WR has been just as popular 1st round pick as a RB in recent years.

 

[Tick]

http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/c/jccuneo/Equilibration.pdf

That's Sand's article - definitely worth taking a look at if you're considering balancing your scoring.

 

[massraider]

I should add that the only leagues I like to play in are ones with great flexibility and PPR. All my leagues give bonus points per reception. Just for the guy who hates it. I love how it equals out the playing field and stops the silly things like 28 of top 32 picks being a RB. Pure insane because even in the NFL, the WR has been just as popular 1st round pick as a RB in recent years.

Yeah, I'm done with those kind of drafts as well. I'm not a fan of the flex position either, but with PPR, it's at least doable.

 

[renesauz]

Tick Posted Yesterday, 04:41 PM

http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/c/jccuneo/Equilibration.pdf

That's Sand's article - definitely worth taking a look at if you're considering balancing your scoring.

Interesting article, and surprisingly close to the scoring I normally use in the leagues I've run. One problem though in 12 team formats: With 32 NFL teams, there's only 32 starting QB's. In order for everyobody to have a bye week filler, each team would need 3 QB's. 12*3=36. Simply put, there aren't enough QB's to go around.

I've debated long on the thought of having a special rule in place to allow a default score for a 2nd QB which can only be used 2 or 3 times during the season, but have been hesitant to put it in.

I'm also not very excited about a scoring format that requires 75% of the players at a particular position to be played EVERY week...That dilutes the fun of choosing between roughly equivalent players on a weekly basis. IE: It takes less skill week to week.

While the same argument can be made, in theory, about RB's and WR's, it should be noted that NFL #2 Rb's, and #3 and #4 WR's see significant field time, and can often be better from a fantasy perspective then some NFL #1's. In a given week, 70 RB's and 135 wr/te's will see points, and only 34 or so QB's (AT BEST...and only with injuries). How then can you require the same # of QB's in a starting lineup as RB's????

There are alternate ways to enhance QB value. A few examples might be stronger plateau bonuses for QB's then for other positions, or the inclusion of a non-traditional score. One example of such might be to include points for QB completion % during a game (comp/att * 10, with a minimum 10 pass attampts to qualify). A better example would be to create a chart to reward points based on QB rating (although this stat is not as readily available).

 

[Tick]

With 32 NFL teams, there's only 32 starting QB's. In order for everyobody to have a bye week filler, each team would need 3 QB's. 12*3=36. Simply put, there aren't enough QB's to go around.

...which puts their draft value equal to RBs, roughly.I did it last season - 12 team league with 2 QBs. Nobody took a zero all season. I had to start Cody Pickett in his incredible negative point week due to an injury to Pennington, but everyone was always able to scrounge up a QB. There were some trades, a lot of waiver wire work... basically, all of the stuff that makes FF fun during the season were encouraged.

I wonder how many QBs started games last season. Holcomb, Losman, Frerotte, Brady, Pennington, Fiedler?, Testaverde?, Bollinger, Dilfer, Frye, Palmer, Roethlisberger, Maddox, Batch, Boller, Wright, Carr, PManning, Sorgi late in the season?, McNair, Volek?, Leftwich, Garrard, Plummer, Collins, Green, EManning, McNabb, McMahon, Detmer?, Bledsoe, Ramsey, Brunell, Grossman, Orton, Harrington, Garcia, Culpepper, Johnson, Favre, Delhomme, Griese, Simms, Vick, Schaub?, Brooks, Bouman, Bulger, Martin, Fitzpatrick, Hasselbeck, Warner, McCown, Smith, Dorsey, Rattay, Pickett.

I come up with 51 definites and up to five more (plus some I've forgotten most likely - maybe Tuiasosopo got one? Anyway, that's enough churn to make for a very active trade market and waiver wire, and left enough guys to go around.

 

[renesauz]

With 32 NFL teams, there's only 32 starting QB's.  In order for everyobody to have a bye week filler, each team would need 3 QB's. 12*3=36.  Simply put, there aren't enough QB's to go around.

...which puts their draft value equal to RBs, roughly.I did it last season - 12 team league with 2 QBs. Nobody took a zero all season. I had to start Cody Pickett in his incredible negative point week due to an injury to Pennington, but everyone was always able to scrounge up a QB. There were some trades, a lot of waiver wire work... basically, all of the stuff that makes FF fun during the season were encouraged.

I wonder how many QBs started games last season. Holcomb, Losman, Frerotte, Brady, Pennington, Fiedler?, Testaverde?, Bollinger, Dilfer, Frye, Palmer, Roethlisberger, Maddox, Batch, Boller, Wright, Carr, PManning, Sorgi late in the season?, McNair, Volek?, Leftwich, Garrard, Plummer, Collins, Green, EManning, McNabb, McMahon, Detmer?, Bledsoe, Ramsey, Brunell, Grossman, Orton, Harrington, Garcia, Culpepper, Johnson, Favre, Delhomme, Griese, Simms, Vick, Schaub?, Brooks, Bouman, Bulger, Martin, Fitzpatrick, Hasselbeck, Warner, McCown, Smith, Dorsey, Rattay, Pickett.

I come up with 51 definites and up to five more (plus some I've forgotten most likely - maybe Tuiasosopo got one? Anyway, that's enough churn to make for a very active trade market and waiver wire, and left enough guys to go around.

There STILL aren't enough to go around, and let's not forget that there are a pair of week's this year with SIX teams on a bye. That means in a couple of weeks, there are ONLY 26 QB's STARTING for their respective teams. While I like having SOME scarcity at some positions, when minimal lineup requirements call for that many of the NFL's real players being in a lineup, the problems this can cause in a league are simply too big to be worth it.There has to be a better way to equalize value then requiring two QB's in a starting lineup in leagues of 12 or more. With ten, it makes more sense.

 

[renesauz]

...And let's NOT forget the other point I made. There are MORE then 26 RB's or 52 recievers who will see the field and score points in any given week, even the six team bye weeks.

Many #2 RB's and #3 WR's on their respective NFL teams even see SIGNIFICANT action....how many #2 QB's can be PREDICTED to see significant action in any specific week??

(That's a rhetorical question by the way, the answer is obvious)

I love forcing my league mates to search deep, 2 QB's is too deep.