Scoring Format - What Do You Like? (1 Viewer)

[Biabreakable]

I don't see the need to equalize the positions via the scoring system.

The league is pass happy right now.  There is also a lack of great backs.  Looking at our last season's final numbers.. after the top 10 backs... you're looking at Ivory, McFadden, Gore.   OK - but not high on my impact list. 

So, two things... who do you think is getting bumped down and how different would those percentages be without PPR?

Well first of all in your previous post you state that you believe that PPR makes more players worth starting. This idea is simply not true. What drives the number of players who are worth starting is the starting requirements of your league. Not the scoring system. There are the same number of valuable players according to your starting requirements, not the scoring system.

The starting requirements are also one factor affecting position scarcity, as does how the NFL uses players affect position scarcity. There are only 32 teams. If most teams use 2 or more RB then you have something like 60 players who may be vaible starters based on what the NFL is doing. Meanwhile there are 80 to 100 WR being used with similar volume.

As I already stated the WR are still more valuable than the RB in standard dynasty formats. They just are not always scoring more total points. A RB 12 in standard scores a bit more than a WR 12 in standard and a RB 24 scores slightly more than a WR 24. The WR 36 and on still always outscores the RB. So for the main important players the RB and WR are closer in terms of total points than they are in PPR leagues which have greater variance in scoring for players, because a lot of the players score more total points in PPR leagues.

I don't have any dynasty standard league ADP data handy. But I would guess those percentages would be closer to an even split in a standard league, while still favoring the WR quite a bit.

 

[DropKick]

Someone made a proposal a few years back in one of my leagues to consider actual NFL wins/losses in the scoring system.  Award a point for a team victory and lose a point for a loss,  It was argued that winning and losing was the ultimate team goal and measure of success.

I was neutral - felt the points would "average out" over the roster.  However, the objections were so great that i don't think it ever went to a vote,  I remember arguments like "this is a game of individual statistics".  I think that statement is flawed but it shows they didn't want that correlation to the actual game.

It's a little ironic people are worried about a couple points that weren't "earned" when a huge part of fantasy is the randomness of schedules.

 

[DropKick]

Well first of all in your previous post you state that you believe that PPR makes more players worth starting. This idea is simply not true. What drives the number of players who are worth starting is the starting requirements of your league. Not the scoring system. There are the same number of valuable players according to your starting requirements, not the scoring system.

The starting requirements are also one factor affecting position scarcity, as does how the NFL uses players affect position scarcity. There are only 32 teams. If most teams use 2 or more RB then you have something like 60 players who may be vaible starters based on what the NFL is doing. Meanwhile there are 80 to 100 WR being used with similar volume.

As I already stated the WR are still more valuable than the RB in standard dynasty formats. They just are not always scoring more total points. A RB 12 in standard scores a bit more than a WR 12 in standard and a RB 24 scores slightly more than a WR 24. The WR 36 and on still always outscores the RB. So for the main important players the RB and WR are closer in terms of total points than they are in PPR leagues which have greater variance in scoring for players, because a lot of the players score more total points in PPR leagues.

I don't have any dynasty standard league ADP data handy. But I would guess those percentages would be closer to an even split in a standard league, while still favoring the WR quite a bit.

I didn't say "worth starting".  I said "viable".   Whether it's PPR or not, RB24 is always "worth starting".   It think that with PPR, a few backs get elevated (like Woodhead) so that the value of RB24 (in VBD terms) is greater that it would be otherwise.  The definition of  "viable" is "capable of working successfully" and I meant it that way - a back more capable of competing against some of the leagues better backs.

 

[Dope]

I did the same thing for my dynasty league (standard...non-ppr) as I did for my redraft.

14 team league. No TE required. Data from MFL --> Reports--> League --> Starter Points - Position (2007-2015)

The numbers below are the average points scored per game for all starters. A total of 2016 lineups (lol...go figure that it equals 2016...14 teams x 16 weeks x 9 years)

QB - 18.31 PPG

RB - 10.98 PPG

WR/TE - 8.72 PPG

K - 7.72 PPG

D 7.70 PPG

Interesting to see the significant gap ( more than 20%) between RBs and WR/TE's in a non-PPR league. Honestly didn't think it'd be that much. However, in a dynasty league that almost seems about fair due to the career positional longevity factor.  Also, keep in mind that team talent levels may be more drastic because it's dynasty vs. redraft...that may explain some of the 20% number difference.

Something else interesting in the numbers...in 2013 -2015 RB numbers are below the 9 year average (10.6, 10.6, 10.0) and WR numbers are above the last 3 years (8.9, 9.1, 9.1). The not-so-surprising-when-you-think-about-it surprise. QB is above the 18.31 average for the past 6 years.

 

[FreshiZ]

I did the same thing for my dynasty league (standard...non-ppr) as I did for my redraft.

14 team league. No TE required. Data from MFL --> Reports--> League --> Starter Points - Position (2007-2015)

The numbers below are the average points scored per game for all starters. A total of 2016 lineups (lol...go figure that it equals 2016...14 teams x 16 weeks x 9 years)

QB - 18.31 PPG

RB - 10.98 PPG

WR/TE - 8.72 PPG

K - 7.72 PPG

D 7.70 PPG

Interesting to see the significant gap ( more than 20%) between RBs and WR/TE's in a non-PPR league. Honestly didn't think it'd be that much. However, in a dynasty league that almost seems about fair due to the career positional longevity factor.  Also, keep in mind that team talent levels may be more drastic because it's dynasty vs. redraft...that may explain some of the 20% number difference.

Something else interesting in the numbers...in 2013 -2015 RB numbers are below the 9 year average (10.6, 10.6, 10.0) and WR numbers are above the last 3 years (8.9, 9.1, 9.1). The not-so-surprising-when-you-think-about-it surprise. QB is above the 18.31 average for the past 6 years.

I'm in a full PPR league that has a mandatory start TE and ran the same report but don't want to spend the time compiling all of the years so here is 2014 (RB down, WR up) and 2012 where RB was average using your data as reference. Also throwing out other positions because it's not relevant to the PPR discussion. I don't know if it means anything but it's interesting when you average WR and TE together as it's pretty flat towards RB.

2012 -

RB - 13.2

WR - 14.1

TE - 11.0

WR+TE average - 12.55

2014 -

RB - 12.5

WR - 14.3

TE - 10.5

WR+TE average - 12.4

 

[Biabreakable]

I didn't say "worth starting".  I said "viable".   Whether it's PPR or not, RB24 is always "worth starting".   It think that with PPR, a few backs get elevated (like Woodhead) so that the value of RB24 (in VBD terms) is greater that it would be otherwise.  The definition of  "viable" is "capable of working successfully" and I meant it that way - a back more capable of competing against some of the leagues better backs.

Ah okay. I misunderstood.

There is something to that when you are looking at each individual player. Some players are really strong receiving RB and they make up a ton of points with high volume receptions.

Of the 60 or so RB being used quite a bit in the NFL each year, there are some of them who may be in a offensive system that throws to the RB more than other teams do. For example Trestman with the Bears and Forte. Or Theo Riddick last season. Not much of a runner but when he averages 5 receptions a game that is almost equivalent to a TD. Most of the other RB will average 2 receptions per game. So a half a TD advantage just on the receptions. 80 receptions = 13.3 TD guys like this can compete with WR or good runners who score rushing TD sometimes because of the consistent receptions. Gio Bernard was a pretty consistent RB 2 for much of the season last year even in a lower opportunity role than Hill had.

I think people used to get an advantage from PPR because not everyone knew about target stats, but that was like a decade or so ago.

Here is the top 60 RB from 2015 ordered by their receptions. The average number of receptions for all of these guys was 32 or 2 per game.

81    Danny Woodhead SD
80    Theo Riddick DET
73    Devonta Freeman ATL
61    Duke Johnson CLE
59    Shane Vereen NYG
55    Darren Sproles PHI
51    Charles Sims TB
50    Mark Ingram NO
49    Giovani Bernard CIN
47    Lamar Miller MIA
47    Bilal Powell NYJ
45    Javorius Allen BAL
44    Matt Forte CHI
44    DeMarco Murray PHI
43    James Starks GB
41    Latavius Murray OAK
41    Kyle Juszczyk BAL
40    DeAngelo Williams PIT
40    Darren McFadden DAL
40    James White NE
36    David Johnson ARI
36    T.J. Yeldon JAX
36    Dion Lewis NE
35    Chris Thompson WAS
34    Frank Gore IND
33    Doug Martin TB
33    Melvin Gordon SD
32    LeSean McCoy BUF
31    Justin Forsett BAL
31    Dexter McCluster TEN
30    Adrian Peterson MIN
30    Chris Ivory NYJ
29    Rashad Jennings NYG
26    Jonathan Grimes HOU
25    C.J. Anderson DEN
25    Ameer Abdullah DET
24    Ronnie Hillman DEN
24    LeVeon Bell PIT
22    Jeremy Langford CHI
22    Joique Bell DET
21    Todd Gurley LA
21    Antonio Andrews TEN
21    Jamaal Charles KC
21    Jerick McKinnon MIN
20    Eddie Lacy GB
20    Charcandrick West KC
20    Ryan Mathews PHI
19    Isaiah Crowell CLE
19    Matt Jones WAS
18    Mike Tolbert CAR
16    Jonathan Stewart CAR
15    Jeremy Hill CIN
15    Alfred Blue HOU
12    Tim Hightower NO
11    Karlos Williams BUF
10    Alfred Morris WAS
9    Thomas Rawls SEA
6    LeGarrette Blount NE
6    Chris Johnson ARI
6    Spencer Ware KC

 

[jvdesigns2002]

This is such a subjective question with no "real" answer.  It's no different than asking somebody what's better--Chinese food or Mexican food?  It's all about preference--so I find it interesting that some members find it appropriate to "fight" for a side.  

In regards to my preference--I've played in standard leagues, full ppr leagues, tiered ppr leagues, and a fusion league.  My favorite league was a fusion league that had heavy qb scoring and tiered ppr scoring.  The league also had pretty harsh penalties for turnovers.    The reason why I enjoyed this league so much actually has a lot to do with your follow up question. I felt like the heavy qb scoring really helped to "mirror" the same dynamic in the NFL.   If the NFL were to wipe out their rosters tomorrow and conduct a serpentine draft--my guess is that the first 2-3 rounds would be riddled with qb's---while in most competitive fantasy leagues--the qb position has been relegated to the mid-later rounds.   This same league also implemented a team defense as well as 2 idp slots--which inflates the impact that defense makes versus most fantasy leagues.   The tiered ppr was also cool because it was only 0.5pts for wr's and RB's- and 1 pt for te's.   Starting requirements were 1qb, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 te, 1 flex=WR, RB, te, 2 idp, 1 kicker, 1 team defense.   

If the question was solely some sort of ppr versus straight standard--I would go with some sort of ppr.   I like the 0.5 ppr for WR/RB and 1 for te's.   Only reason why I would go this way is because I find that full standard leagues are very touchdown dependent--and predicting touchdowns week to week is basically like a blind throw of a dart.  

Last question for anybody--has anybody heard of a "category" based week to week format for football that is similar to head to head weekly fantasy baseball?  I've never seen a league like that--but it could be fun.   Basically have categories---like total passing yards, total receiving yards, total rushing yards, total td's (or spit them up by passing, rushing, receiving) scored, total receptions, total first downs., total extra points scored (fg's+2 pt conversions), total ints (fewest wins the category), total fumbles (fewest wins the category)...etc..  Defensive stats could also have several categories---so that instead of just getting solely one win or one loss per week--you can actually win or lose several categories.     I think a league like this could be really cool. 

 

[FF Ninja]

To me, the critical part of FF is options and flexibility in strategy.

I hated a first round of RB-RB-RB-RB-RB-RB-RB-RB-WR-RB-RB-QB

In my leagues, if you choose a team with 1rb, 4wr, and 1te I want you to be as competitive as a team that goes 2rb, 2wr, 2te. That's why I swear by the modified PPR approach. I knew that the top scorers were relatively even on a season by season basis because i monitored that. Until today however, I never looked at the career average scores.

Over 9 years and over 6000 lineups, the fact that the difference between an average starting RB and an average starting WR being 1/3 of a point is awesome to me. To me it shows that the concept works. The only thing that shocks me is that the numbers suggest that I bump TE scoring up an additional point per reception. I know for a fact that owners already THINK TightEnds are over-powered.

This is precisely why I don't like leagues with a small amount of fixed positions and a lot of flex positions. It takes all the strategy out of it. You no longer have to plan your draft around filling positions. You pretty much just go BPA. Did you screw up and totally miss out on RBs? No problem, you only have to start 1. I like leagues where there is a sacrifice if you draft four WR in a row - you're either benching a good player or you've got to work a trade to field a competitive team. Flex positions should be designed to allow more players in a lineup, not to eliminate fixed positions. Well, at least that's my opinion on them.

In the age of zero RB being widespread, the last thing we need is to limit fixed RB positions to just 1. If someone is attempting zero RB and goes 3 WR in the first 3 rounds, but finds out that there's still great value at WR in the 4th round, they should be forced to make a tough decision: grab a 4th WR they can't fit in their lineup or start filling one of their two mandatory RB positions. If too many flexes are available and too few fixed, then there is no strategy needed. Just take that 4th WR.

I actually like 3WR/2RB + 1-2 flexes, so there you could go 4 WR in a row, but you still HAVE to fill 2 RB, so there is a sacrifice. With just 1 RB, you can go shotgun approach and draft 4 guys in round 7-10 and one of them will probably pan out, but you're unlikely to get 2 starters with that approach (except maybe in PPR, which gets us back to why I think PPR helps ease drafting mistakes).

 

[SKI]

This is precisely why I don't like leagues with a small amount of fixed positions and a lot of flex positions. It takes all the strategy out of it. You no longer have to plan your draft around filling positions. You pretty much just go BPA. Did you screw up and totally miss out on RBs? No problem, you only have to start 1. I like leagues where there is a sacrifice if you draft four WR in a row - you're either benching a good player or you've got to work a trade to field a competitive team. Flex positions should be designed to allow more players in a lineup, not to eliminate fixed positions. Well, at least that's my opinion on them.

Can't disagree more.  It adds in strategy and creativity as it opens up more options.   With a proper understanding of VDB and fixed positions, there is no draft strategy. There is a single best option at every pick based on the drop in positions.  All that is required is applying it methodically.   

In your preferred scenario, it doesn't matter as much that you have a greater insight into a WR4 who will outperform ADP, you can't afford to grab them because you won't be able to start them and instead need to fill out your starting lineup.  

With greater "flex"ibility, you can craft a lineup differently and that promotes more individualism in your team construct - especially in heavy keeper or dynasty formats

 

[FF Ninja]

Can't disagree more.  It adds in strategy and creativity as it opens up more options.   With a proper understanding of VDB and fixed positions, there is no draft strategy. There is a single best option at every pick based on the drop in positions.  All that is required is applying it methodically.   

In your preferred scenario, it doesn't matter as much that you have a greater insight into a WR4 who will outperform ADP, you can't afford to grab them because you won't be able to start them and instead need to fill out your starting lineup.  

With greater "flex"ibility, you can craft a lineup differently and that promotes more individualism in your team construct - especially in heavy keeper or dynasty formats

That's totally incorrect. VBD still applies in the over-flexed leagues. You just have to lump all the positions together, so the VBD equation is the ONLY thing you have to worry about. You no longer have to worry about missing out on positions or catching the end of a position run. You just select the next guy on your list, regardless of position. It is the most dumbed down strategy possible.

With fixed positions you have to pay attention to trends, know the drafting tendencies of your league mates, plan ahead for positions, take into account position scarcity. Without them the strategy is simply BPA, BPA, BPA, BPA...

 

[SKI]

That's totally incorrect. VBD still applies in the over-flexed leagues. You just have to lump all the positions together, so the VBD equation is the ONLY thing you have to worry about. You no longer have to worry about missing out on positions or catching the end of a position run. You just select the next guy on your list, regardless of position. It is the most dumbed down strategy possible.

With fixed positions you have to pay attention to trends, know the drafting tendencies of your league mates, plan ahead for positions, take into account position scarcity. Without them the strategy is simply BPA, BPA, BPA, BPA...

Like I said, completely disagree.   All those factors about knowing league mates and trends and projected picks still apply but with the added bonus of other options for team composition and lineup construction.  

And it goes on beyond the draft.  Each week, in considering trades, add/drops or lineup submissions, there is more flexibilty and more strategy. 

Add in the ability to react to injuries without it killing your season and having more choices and more options goes a lot further in promoting strategic decision making and allowing better players to rise to the top. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Someone made a proposal a few years back in one of my leagues to consider actual NFL wins/losses in the scoring system.  Award a point for a team victory and lose a point for a loss,  It was argued that winning and losing was the ultimate team goal and measure of success.

I was neutral - felt the points would "average out" over the roster.  However, the objections were so great that i don't think it ever went to a vote,  I remember arguments like "this is a game of individual statistics".  I think that statement is flawed but it shows they didn't want that correlation to the actual game.

It's a little ironic people are worried about a couple points that weren't "earned" when a huge part of fantasy is the randomness of schedules.




 

I've never been in a league like this but I've seen it where a Head Coach is drafted and you get a win for the team. I do like that as a fun twist.

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

That's totally incorrect. VBD still applies in the over-flexed leagues. You just have to lump all the positions together, so the VBD equation is the ONLY thing you have to worry about. You no longer have to worry about missing out on positions or catching the end of a position run. You just select the next guy on your list, regardless of position. It is the most dumbed down strategy possible.

With fixed positions you have to pay attention to trends, know the drafting tendencies of your league mates, plan ahead for positions, take into account position scarcity. Without them the strategy is simply BPA, BPA, BPA, BPA...




 

I'm less in a "right way or wrong to play" on this, but I agree with Ninja here. For me (and let's be honest, fantasy football is all about it being for me/you) I like fewer rather than more flex. I like the idea of a poor position category driving up value for players. Maybe it was cutting my teeth on Rotisserie Baseball where a decent hitting catcher or short stop was gold. I don't know it's right or wrong. It just is.

J

 

[FF Ninja]

Like I said, completely disagree.   All those factors about knowing league mates and trends and projected picks still apply but with the added bonus of other options for team composition and lineup construction.  

And it goes on beyond the draft.  Each week, in considering trades, add/drops or lineup submissions, there is more flexibilty and more strategy. 

Add in the ability to react to injuries without it killing your season and having more choices and more options goes a lot further in promoting strategic decision making and allowing better players to rise to the top. 

How do they apply? You are just drafting BPA. You don't care if they snap up all the RBs because you only need one. There is no downside to missing out on a position. When all you have to do is draft BPA, there is no strategy - it all boils down to picking the right players (which is a task in and of itself, but the other system requires this, as well, in addition to the many other aspects you are forced to maneuver around which are no longer present in the flexed system).

It is more difficult to shoe horn the best players into a fixed lineup. That's not even debatable. Thus, it is inherently easier to to fill out a lineup where you have more flexes and fewer fixed positions. Easier = less strategy needed.

You are basically arguing against yourself when you point out that injuries (and busts should be included here as well) are easier to replace due to the many-flex system. A good owner will have depth at every position where a poor owner won't. The flex system saves the bad owner while not rewarding the good owner.

 

[FF Ninja]

I'm less in a "right way or wrong to play" on this, but I agree with Ninja here. For me (and let's be honest, fantasy football is all about it being for me/you) I like fewer rather than more flex. I like the idea of a poor position category driving up value for players. Maybe it was cutting my teeth on Rotisserie Baseball where a decent hitting catcher or short stop was gold. I don't know it's right or wrong. It just is.

J

I totally agree that the important thing is that you pick a system that is fun for you. And I'm not saying one way is right or wrong. I'm simply saying which system requires more strategy is pretty clear in this case.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I don't agree that it takes more strategy. Just a different one.

Although I would agree that if you have multiple flex positions that can have ANY of RB/WR/TE lends itself to more of what Ninja is talking about.

I prefer it if you have a bit of restriction on the spots like this: RB/WR, WR/TE, WR/TE Or  RB/WR, WR/TE, WR/WR - something like that. 

 

[SKI]

I'm less in a "right way or wrong to play" on this, but I agree with Ninja here. For me (and let's be honest, fantasy football is all about it being for me/you) I like fewer rather than more flex. I like the idea of a poor position category driving up value for players. Maybe it was cutting my teeth on Rotisserie Baseball where a decent hitting catcher or short stop was gold. I don't know it's right or wrong. It just is.

J

As someone that still plays roto baseball and has been reading you since cheatsheet.net days, I understand the lure of old-timey positional scarcity.  But it is wildly distorting, particularly as injuries come into play.  

It is more difficult to shoe horn the best players into a fixed lineup. That's not even debatable. Thus, it is inherently easier to to fill out a lineup where you have more flexes and fewer fixed positions. Easier = less strategy needed.

Nope.  More options = rewarding better decision-making.  

And reducing the impact of injuries (aka luck) rewards better decision-making.  

Perhaps the issue is that I don't play with "bad" owners- or shallow rosters with abundant waiver wire pools).  Everyone gets it. My main league is 45 player rosters (keep 20) + taxi squad IDP with 1 QB,1RB,3 WR,1TE,2Flex,K, 3DL,3LB,3DB,1D-flex  The differential comes in who does a better job predicting the breakouts and working the waiver wire/trading (and which teams are in different cycles in contending/rebuilding).      

 

[FF Ninja]

I don't agree that it takes more strategy. Just a different one.

You have fewer variables and factors to monitor, so less opportunity for strategy. Kind of like chess vs. checkers.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

You have fewer variables and factors to monitor, so less opportunity for strategy. Kind of like chess vs. checkers.

See my edit. I agree that what you're stating is truer if flex is flex. But if the flex positions themselves have restrictions on them then the complexity is increased and strategy returns.

 

[FF Ninja]

Nope.  More options = rewarding better decision-making.  

And reducing the impact of injuries (aka luck) rewards better decision-making.  

Perhaps the issue is that I don't play with "bad" owners- or shallow rosters with abundant waiver wire pools).  Everyone gets it. My main league is 45 player rosters (keep 20) + taxi squad IDP with 1 QB,1RB,3 WR,1TE,2Flex,K, 3DL,3LB,3DB,1D-flex  The differential comes in who does a better job predicting the breakouts and working the waiver wire/trading (and which teams are in different cycles in contending/rebuilding).      

Nope. All formats reward better decision making. Decreasing the importance of positions doesn't somehow reward better decision making more.

Maybe the word choice of "bad" was poor. No matter what league you are in, there will be a hierarchy of skill and the most skilled owners will have more depth and will be in a better position to counteract the inevitable bad luck of injuries (it's never perfectly balanced but it does average out over a number of seasons). If there are a ton of flex positions, the owners without depth at every position will be just as well off as the owners with well rounded depth. That can be a good thing if you are trying to keep everyone in the hunt and keep everyone interested, but if you are trying to have the cream rise to the top, you need to have a system that punishes poor depth and rewards good depth.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I'm going to post a question that I put in a previous post earlier in this thread as I worry this discussion of if "flex" players add to strategy really buries answers that directly answer the op's question:

Question for anybody--has anybody heard of a "category" based week to week format for football that is similar to head to head weekly fantasy baseball?  I've never seen a league like that--but it could be fun.   Basically have categories---like total passing yards, total receiving yards, total rushing yards, total td's (or spit them up by passing, rushing, receiving) scored, total receptions, total first downs., total extra points scored (fg's+2 pt conversions), total ints (fewest wins the category), total fumbles (fewest wins the category)...etc..  Defensive stats could also have several categories---so that instead of just getting solely one win or one loss per week--you can actually win or lose several categories.    One could even add total wins by players as a category.   A head to head category based fantasy football platform could really solve a lot of the shortcomings of both standard and ppr type scoring.  

 

[Tau837]

So rather than focusing on the exception, why not recognize that receptions are positive plays that help move the chains, improve field position, control the clock and maintain possession of the football?

Rushing attempts fit your definition here (help move the chains, improve field position, control the clock, and maintain possession) as much or more than receptions do, yet very few leagues reward each rushing attempt. Instead, most leagues reward only the outcome of the rushing attempt, i.e., rushing yards and rushing TDs.

Why the disparity? Well, we know why. The main reason PPR was created was to attempt to balance value across positions. As has been pointed out, that is no longer necessary, so the original basis for moving to PPR is no longer necessary.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Interesting discussion here from folks loving and hating PPR. 

Thought we might try one that's a little more of a question.

Which scoring format do you prefer? Bigger question, why do you like this style?

IMO a 'good' lineup/scoring system is one that makes most NFL starters/important role players FF relevant.

PPR adds depth at RB and WR.

1.5 PPR adds relevance at TE.

Superflex does the same for QBs.

And an ideal lineup requirement (to accommodate the increased options/relevance) is something like 96 (12x8) or 98 (14x7) RB/WR/TE/2nd QB starters.

 

[Tau837]

IMO the best method is to award points (or fractional points) for first downs, not receptions. I run one dynasty league that awards 0.5 points per first down rushing and receiving. The RB and WR scoring is more balanced than in typical PPR, and it just so happens that points for first downs correlates to real NFL value better than points for receptions.

That leads me to address Joe's follow-up question. When starting from a normal base fantasy scoring system (yards and TDs) and considering whether to add something to that base, it seems intuitive to prefer to add something that correlates well to NFL value over something that does not correlate well to NFL value. Why would anyone prefer the opposite? If you do prefer stronger correlation, then you must admit that points for first downs is a better choice than points for receptions.

 

[bostonfred]

I prefer .5 ppr to non ppr for redraft/keeper but strongly prefer non ppr in dynasty.

Online ppr dynasty start 1 rb with multiple flex spots is a game that was  invented to take advantage of people who over invested in running backs by people who understood that receivers inherently have more value in dynasty,  that ppr over inflates their value,  and that flex spots that were traditionally a way to get extra running backs in your lineup were actually a great way to ignore rb altogether and just load up on young receivers.  

The end result is that a lot of the guys who figured it out early have loaded teams in leagues that are constantly looking for new owners because the rb rb guys quit when their first round startup pick of Trent Richardson turned out to be Trent Richardson,  and the guys with middling teams watch the top teams build insane rosters.  You read some of the trades in the dynasty trade thread and see someone trade the 15th best dynasty receiver for the fourth best dynasty running back and everyone says omg how could you trade a stud receiver, which is already ridiculous, but then the guy says oh I didn't have room in my starting lineup because I already have six of the top ten receivers so I over paid for a running back.  Yuck on so many levels. 

And then the dynasty advice - who should go number one?  The best receiver. Number two?  The second best receiver.  Number three? The third well you get the point.  So the game has become draft the best receiver every year until maybe a guy like Elliott comes out, gets drafted in the top five to the perfect team in an otherwise weak draft class,  and then maybe you consider taking a rb number one overall.  

It's taken a lot of fun out of the game, not because it's unrealistic or unfair,  but because there's only one way to win and eventually that means the only way to win is to get lucky following the same strategy as everyone else or to find suckers who don't know how skewed the proper strategy is.   It's a badly designed game.   

 

[Arodin]

I'm less in a "right way or wrong to play" on this, but I agree with Ninja here. For me (and let's be honest, fantasy football is all about it being for me/you) I like fewer rather than more flex. I like the idea of a poor position category driving up value for players. Maybe it was cutting my teeth on Rotisserie Baseball where a decent hitting catcher or short stop was gold. I don't know it's right or wrong. It just is.

J

I think you can have the best of both worlds here with deeper rosters and lineups rules.

My primary league runs 2/4/1/F, and could afford to add another flex without feeling like certain positions can be safely ignored.

It's a separate issue from scoring and lineup, but I'm a big fan of deep bench vs. small bench as a way of differentiating the better players from the weaker ones.

 

[Spike]

Thanks Bia.

For these things, can't the points be adjusted by position so it's more balanced? (Assuming balance is your goal).

J

But why do you want it balanced?  Do we really want scoring for TEs to equal WRs to equal RBs to equal QBs?

I feel, because it's how it is in the NFL, QBs really should be the highest scoring tier, followed by (in order) WRs, RBs and then TEs.  So, for the WRs/RBs/TEs, trying to get their scoring, within whatever is the current season, isn't desirable.

 

[Dope]

I'm less in a "right way or wrong to play" on this, but I agree with Ninja here. For me (and let's be honest, fantasy football is all about it being for me/you) I like fewer rather than more flex. I like the idea of a poor position category driving up value for players. Maybe it was cutting my teeth on Rotisserie Baseball where a decent hitting catcher or short stop was gold. I don't know it's right or wrong. It just is.

J

Jeff Kent won me back to back titles because of his dominance, so I hear you.

I also understand both sides of the argument. As such, I try to preface every single thought with "for me".

When I look at the league that I commish...when I was starting it up I tried to look at all of the previous leagues that I was in and why they failed or were less than ideal to play. One of the things that I decided was important to me was that the league was competitive deep into the year to avoid players "mailing it in". I find (as do most I'm sure) that a competitive league is way more fun than not and a path that I decided to go was the modified PPR approach and a more flexible starting lineup.

More flexibility = more options = more competition.

In my eyes of course

 

[SKI]

But why do you want it balanced?  Do we really want scoring for TEs to equal WRs to equal RBs to equal QBs?

I feel, because it's how it is in the NFL, QBs really should be the highest scoring tier, followed by (in order) WRs, RBs and then TEs.  So, for the WRs/RBs/TEs, trying to get their scoring, within whatever is the current season, isn't desirable.

Yes, you do.  You don't want to have your lineup choices for flex positions dictated to you.  

 

[Spike]

Yes, you do.  You don't want to have your lineup choices for flex positions dictated to you.  

I'm sorry but I don't think a Sammy Watkins should equal a Ladarius Green.  (Both ranked 10th in a recent dynasty ranking.)

And if you had Green and proposed a straight trade for Watkins in a dynasty league, I would submit it would (and should!) be rejected 99 times out of 100.

 

[Joe Bryant]

But why do you want it balanced?  Do we really want scoring for TEs to equal WRs to equal RBs to equal QBs?

I feel, because it's how it is in the NFL, QBs really should be the highest scoring tier, followed by (in order) WRs, RBs and then TEs.  So, for the WRs/RBs/TEs, trying to get their scoring, within whatever is the current season, isn't desirable.




 

I don't particularly care about it being balanced, Spike. In fact, I'm fine with it being imbalanced. Positional Scarcity and a point for a WR / 1st Baseman not being equal to a point for a TE / Catcher was really the genesis for VBD. So I'm fine with it. I thought (maybe incorrectly) that imbalance was something he wanted to avoid. Again, that's the beauty of FF, you can design it like you want.

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

This is such a subjective question with no "real" answer.  It's no different than asking somebody what's better--Chinese food or Mexican food?  It's all about preference--so I find it interesting that some members find it appropriate to "fight" for a side.  

In regards to my preference--I've played in standard leagues, full ppr leagues, tiered ppr leagues, and a fusion league.  My favorite league was a fusion league that had heavy qb scoring and tiered ppr scoring.  The league also had pretty harsh penalties for turnovers.    The reason why I enjoyed this league so much actually has a lot to do with your follow up question. I felt like the heavy qb scoring really helped to "mirror" the same dynamic in the NFL.   If the NFL were to wipe out their rosters tomorrow and conduct a serpentine draft--my guess is that the first 2-3 rounds would be riddled with qb's---while in most competitive fantasy leagues--the qb position has been relegated to the mid-later rounds.   This same league also implemented a team defense as well as 2 idp slots--which inflates the impact that defense makes versus most fantasy leagues.   The tiered ppr was also cool because it was only 0.5pts for wr's and RB's- and 1 pt for te's.   Starting requirements were 1qb, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 te, 1 flex=WR, RB, te, 2 idp, 1 kicker, 1 team defense.   

If the question was solely some sort of ppr versus straight standard--I would go with some sort of ppr.   I like the 0.5 ppr for WR/RB and 1 for te's.   Only reason why I would go this way is because I find that full standard leagues are very touchdown dependent--and predicting touchdowns week to week is basically like a blind throw of a dart.  

Last question for anybody--has anybody heard of a "category" based week to week format for football that is similar to head to head weekly fantasy baseball?  I've never seen a league like that--but it could be fun.   Basically have categories---like total passing yards, total receiving yards, total rushing yards, total td's (or spit them up by passing, rushing, receiving) scored, total receptions, total first downs., total extra points scored (fg's+2 pt conversions), total ints (fewest wins the category), total fumbles (fewest wins the category)...etc..  Defensive stats could also have several categories---so that instead of just getting solely one win or one loss per week--you can actually win or lose several categories.     I think a league like this could be really cool. 




 

Agreed. It's completely subjective.

I don't see it as "fighting for a side" too much or as in trying to win a debate. But if you ask someone what kind of food they like, it can be a great discussion to let them tell you AND let them tell you why they think what they think. That's what I hope to do here.

J

 

[FF Ninja]

See my edit. I agree that what you're stating is truer if flex is flex. But if the flex positions themselves have restrictions on them then the complexity is increased and strategy returns.

I agree that adds some of the strategy back. Basically, the less flexible the roster combinations, the more important it is you hit on every position and have depth at every position. The more flexible the roster combinations, the less important it is you hit on every position and basically you just need to hit on a certain total number of players, which is easier to do than hitting a certain number of players at each position. Rigid positions also forces more trades since it places people in a circumstance of need if they have a bust.

That being said, I still enjoy flex positions. I just don't like replacing base positions with them. I like to add them. 3WR/2RB/1TE/2Flex is an example of a system I enjoy. People who embrace PPR because "more points = more fun" should consider 0PPR but with more starting lineup spots.

 

[Dope]

You have fewer variables and factors to monitor, so less opportunity for strategy. Kind of like chess vs. checkers.

It's not chess vs. checkers, it's Opening Move chess (infinite moves aka flexibility) vs Late Move Chess (less pieces on the board, less move types)

Both have deep strategy. I prefer FF leagues to extend the opening game more before the situations of being boxed into defensive moves or the step by step offense situation into end game.

 

[FF Ninja]

It's not chess vs. checkers, it's Opening Move chess (infinite moves aka flexibility) vs Late Move Chess (less pieces on the board, less move types)

Both have deep strategy. I prefer FF leagues to extend the opening game more before the situations of being boxed into defensive moves or the step by step offense situation into end game.

I think I've already beaten this one to death, so I don't have anything to add but I'll reiterate that there is no doubt less strategy when fixed positions are replaced by flexes. I'm not saying either way it right or wrong - just stating the facts here.

With few fixed positions and many flexes: depth is much less important, positional scarcity is pretty much no longer relevant, and positional tiers are pretty much an afterthought due to positions getting blended together into flexes. It's much easier to field a competitive team and much harder to differentiate from the pack.

 

[Dope]

It's much easier to field a competitive team and much harder to differentiate from the pack.

I'm not trying to argue with you or sway you. We disagree. That's cool. (Maybe trying to sway you a little.  )

My point is that when the field is level...when fielding a competitive team is easy, it's up to a skilled player of the game to make adjustments to rise above the rampant mediocrity. Kinda the same way New England dominates in the salary cap era vs. the Steelers dominating in the pre-salary cap era.

It takes a massive amount of skill to achieve success when everyone is equal.

 

[SKI]

I'm sorry but I don't think a Sammy Watkins should equal a Ladarius Green.  (Both ranked 10th in a recent dynasty ranking.)

And if you had Green and proposed a straight trade for Watkins in a dynasty league, I would submit it would (and should!) be rejected 99 times out of 100.

To use a more accurate analogy, Gronk be worth less than ODB?  Would you reject that trade?

IMO, the 13th ranked TE shouldn't have approximately the same value at the 37th ranked WR.    About a half point differential in PPR between that two does that, btw. 

 

[BoltBacker]

I think the next evolution in fantasy football will be contextual scoring. Everything is computerized now so it's completely possible now. If you score a go-ahead-TD then it should count more than a meaningless TD late in the 4th quarter of a blowout. 

I have harped on this every year for more than a decade but TO's are a huge part of NFL games, yet are almost meaningless in fantasy football. For instance in many if not most leagues a guy might lose a fumble inside his own 20 yard line at the start of the game. As long as he gets ONE reception for 15 yards before the end of the game(even if it's complete garbage time in the 4th quarter) he ends up with positive points. Did he really have a positive impact on that game for his team? It's ridiculous.

The NFL games are decided mostly by TD's and TO's and I am showing my age but I really think the distance scoring method was much better than all these weak stats we use today just because they are easier to analyze and predict. Maybe distance scoring method mixed with 1pt for first downs so Peterson getting 4 first downs before diving in from the 1 yard line is worth just as much as John Brown catching a 40 yard pass. At least getting a first down is accomplishing something tangible. 

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I voted PPR because PPR = more points and the more points is best, IMO. 

I play in a local league where we auction our first 5 roster spots and then finish off with a snake draft. This league gives 3 points for 100 yards with additional 1 point per 25 yards(not combined) rushing or receiving, plus 6 points per TD. We start 3 RB's, 5 WR/TE, 1 QB, 1 K and 1 DST. Regularly we get low scoring totals like 19, 25, 32, etc.... A total of 60+ is a guaranteed win(most weeks). Numerous players getting zero points and the Kickers are often your teams high scorer, which is just disheartening as a FF player. 

I like logging in and seeing my FPC team with a 200 point total, that's some great fun right there!! 

Why not just do a point for every 5 yards if you just want big numbers?  Yardage will be more important, your numbers will be big, and there will be no artificial emphasis placed on a useless catch...

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Agreed. It's completely subjective.

I don't see it as "fighting for a side" too much or as in trying to win a debate. But if you ask someone what kind of food they like, it can be a great discussion to let them tell you AND let them tell you why they think what they think. That's what I hope to do here.

J

While I get the point, I don't completely agree.  What you LIKE is completely subjective.  That part is for shizzle.  If you like PPR, play PPR.

But what makes SENSE is not 100% subjective.  You can make reasonable arguments for or against certain scoring systems, as long as you share common goals for those systems.

I could suggest a scoring in which a RB who gets the most carries for the least yards gets the most points.  If you accept that there should be SOME direct positive relationship between player performance and his FF score, I think you could say objectively that's a bad scoring system.  If you DON'T require that positive relationship (as some people sort of claim), I guess that's fine, but you can't have it both ways.

I think many of the folks that claim they don't care abut that relationship, really do care, just not as much as I do...

If the best players don't score the most points, especially WITHIN position group (at least as far as it's possible to do that), it really takes the "fantasy" element to a whole other level.

 

[candian fantasy guy]

Why not just do a point for every 5 yards if you just want big numbers?  Yardage will be more important, your numbers will be big, and there will be no artificial emphasis placed on a useless catch...

I joined this league because my neighbour is in it and they needed someone to join, this league has been going for what be will the 20th season this year. I made a request to the league and long standing commissioner about adding single points at 50 yards with an additional 1 point for every 25 yards, which would be 3 points at 100 yards as it currently stands. It seemed to be received well will be "tabled" at the next draft(that's how they do rule changes in this league). It's a bit of a dinosaur league, but overall I like it because it's such a quirky league, but I still prefer PPR all day long. I would like to try this PPFD idea, that seems interesting!

 

[Joe Bryant]

While I get the point, I don't completely agree.  What you LIKE is completely subjective.  That part is for shizzle.  If you like PPR, play PPR.

But what makes SENSE is not 100% subjective.  You can make reasonable arguments for or against certain scoring systems, as long as you share common goals for those systems.

I could suggest a scoring in which a RB who gets the most carries for the least yards gets the most points.  If you accept that there should be SOME direct positive relationship between player performance and his FF score, I think you could say objectively that's a bad scoring system.  If you DON'T require that positive relationship (as some people sort of claim), I guess that's fine, but you can't have it both ways.

I think many of the folks that claim they don't care abut that relationship, really do care, just not as much as I do...

If the best players don't score the most points, especially WITHIN position group (at least as far as it's possible to do that), it really takes the "fantasy" element to a whole other level.




 

Thanks HS. I think you're illustrating the point though in that you do really care that the fantasy game mirror the real game. I'm saying that's not necessarily the goal for everyone. 

At the very core, fantasy sports is a contest of who can best predict the future. 

You could absolutely have a game where the player with the least productive rushing efficiency scored the most points. It might not be a lot of fun, but it would definitely be playable. We project every stat for every player for every game. No matter the stat, the winner is the person who best predicted the future. Predicting failure is just as important as predicting success. So I wouldn't call that a bad scoring system. I'd call it a system I bet not many people would be interested in as people would rather watch success than failure. (Although that brings up a whole different conversation in that it's not a zero sum game. Baseball no hitters are super exciting for some and that's failure on the batters. In the same way, a fantasy owner would scout defensive matchups to come up with "best" players if rushing inefficiency was the measuring stick. It really doesn't matter what it is you're measuring. It matters how well you can predict it. 

Agreed though - by and large most people want to measure success. I'm with them.

J

 

[Biabreakable]

I think one of the reasons people like PPR is because a reception is pretty easy to predict compared to other stats.

That said I see people chasing PPR ghosts every season. Especially when it comes to NE receiving RB.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think one of the reasons people like PPR is because a reception is pretty easy to predict compared to other stats.

That said I see people chasing PPR ghosts every season. Especially when it comes to NE receiving RB.




 

That's interesting Bia. Do you think receptions are easier to predict than yards and percent chance a player will score a touchdown(s)? Why?

J

 

[Biabreakable]

That's interesting Bia. Do you think receptions are easier to predict than yards and percent chance a player will score a touchdown(s)? Why?

J

I'm not sure. I was kind of asking myself that before I posted the previous comment.

I find TD difficult to predict and I think more difficult than PPR. I can't say for certain without testing that. 

To find receptions you are going to look at things such as team offensive plays, run to pass ratio, passing attempts, target share, targets, catch percentage = receptions.

To project TD I cannot rattle off the method of predicting those. I usually try to use the players TD/game or TD/touch to try to figure out TD. I don't feel as confident in these methods as I do the methods for predicting a reception.

As far as yards, I feel like yards can be pretty consistent. For the rushing yards you use rushing attempts * YPC and for the receiving yards you use receptions * YPC. Other ways to do this are yards/target or yards per snap, but I don't think these methods are as good as opportunity*YPC. You can determine the rushing attempts based on historical data of rushing attempts/snap to find the rushing attempts or targets, but I wouldn't want to go to yards/snap although that is another way you could do it.

I have been projecting for yards longer than I have been projecting for receptions. So I feel more comfortable projecting for yards, but I would have to try to test this to see which one is actually easier to predict.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm not sure. I was kind of asking myself that before I posted the previous comment.

I find TD difficult to predict and I think more difficult than PPR. I can't say for certain without testing that. 

To find receptions you are going to look at things such as team offensive plays, run to pass ratio, passing attempts, target share, targets, catch percentage = receptions.

To project TD I cannot rattle off the method of predicting those. I usually try to use the players TD/game or TD/touch to try to figure out TD. I don't feel as confident in these methods as I do the methods for predicting a reception.

As far as yards, I feel like yards can be pretty consistent. For the rushing yards you use rushing attempts * YPC and for the receiving yards you use receptions * YPC. Other ways to do this are yards/target or yards per snap, but I don't think these methods are as good as opportunity*YPC. You can determine the rushing attempts based on historical data of rushing attempts/snap to find the rushing attempts or targets, but I wouldn't want to go to yards/snap although that is another way you could do it.

I have been projecting for yards longer than I have been projecting for receptions. So I feel more comfortable projecting for yards, but I would have to try to test this to see which one is actually easier to predict.




 

Cool. Thanks.

J

 

[Biabreakable]

Cool. Thanks.

J

I'm curious what your opinion about this is?

The yards are a derivative step of the opportunity projections (rushing attempts and targets) so the accuracy of the yards depends on the accuracy of the receptions.

So I am not sure how to compare them.

 

[DropKick]

Rushing attempts fit your definition here (help move the chains, improve field position, control the clock, and maintain possession) as much or more than receptions do, yet very few leagues reward each rushing attempt. Instead, most leagues reward only the outcome of the rushing attempt, i.e., rushing yards and rushing TDs.

Why the disparity? Well, we know why. The main reason PPR was created was to attempt to balance value across positions. As has been pointed out, that is no longer necessary, so the original basis for moving to PPR is no longer necessary.

My scoring system does...  1.0 per reception, 0.2 per rush so 5 carries equates to a reception.    A back can get 25-30 carries yet not score or break 100 yards and still be very valuable to his team.  Not many ball control offenses these days but a back that can grind out yards and kill the clock can be invaluable to an NFL team.

 

[TZMarkie]

Nope.  More options = rewarding better decision-making.  

And reducing the impact of injuries (aka luck) rewards better decision-making.  

Perhaps the issue is that I don't play with "bad" owners- or shallow rosters with abundant waiver wire pools).  Everyone gets it. My main league is 45 player rosters (keep 20) + taxi squad IDP with 1 QB,1RB,3 WR,1TE,2Flex,K, 3DL,3LB,3DB,1D-flex  The differential comes in who does a better job predicting the breakouts and working the waiver wire/trading (and which teams are in different cycles in contending/rebuilding).      

 I want to point out that there is a fine line that many of you are crossing. (or wanting to)

 I think we can all agree that more options = rewarding better decision-making, like the above poster said. BUT THATS NOT THE WHOLE STORY 

 This is sort of why Omaha HI-LO (or ANY hi-lo game really) is a much better game for a professional poker player to play short term, than Holdem is. Its a more complex strategy i.e. more decisions. Your short term fluctuations should be much smaller, if you are an expert player that is.

Everyone wants to utilize a scoring system that they think is fair, or better yet "suits them".  It ultimately boils down to preference and what you like. (do you think this specific league is fair??? I guarantee you for a few guys its not since they don't understand the overall strategy and  nuances)

I alluded to it offhand in my post earlier in this thread when I said "One thing I have learned over the years, is that many of the so-called fish don't want things to get too complicated. Many of the fish I know lose interest when they start following the Arrelious Benns and Benny Fowlers of the world hoping for one catch a game for 20 yards."

 I seriously get that this "45 man roster league plus taxi squad IDP etc. etc" suits you, but realistically how many "average fantasy players" are looking to play in that?

 The answer is none. (Before we start picking nits, realize I said average fantasy players/NOT the ones on this board in general)

 Although the Benny Fowler and Arrelious Benn example I said is kind of an extreme, also realize its exactly what you are doing when you have these dynasty leagues where each team has 45 man rosters + taxi squads etc. etc. You  cause the more "fishy" type player to start examining things in a whole different light.  Thats why many of those leagues always seem to be "looking for a new owner or two" each year.

 I am in one specific 10 man league where the waiver wire is essentially a first come first serve pool. (and if someone is dropped they hit a 2 day period where it goes by priority)

 As hard as this may be for some of you to agree with, for this league its perfect.  Why?? Because as 2 or 3 different fishy type owners have said "I don't want a prioritized waiver order, when I go to the wire and someone is there I want to pick him up right then and there, period".

In this league I saw someone draft Gostkowski in the 5th last year, and his Buffalo defense in the 8th.  I may not like the league scoring or waiver wire settings, but I am not quitting this league when I see such draft mistakes each season, year after year.

 Please don't take this as a slight of your league, it isn't by any means. Just realize that the fantasy you are playing applies to maybe 5% (or actually probably far less) of the overall fantasy community.

 There are plenty of fish in the more standard leagues, and I don't mind playing with those either....as you can see by the above example.

 TZM

 

[Run It Up]

There are some pretty average to below average fish in quite a few of my leagues and from my experience its about 50/50. Some people get much more involved and others just find a reason to get out.

Better they leave sooner than later.