'Mario Kart said:
'Greg Russell said:
So on that note... if you want to have scores end up more like NFL scores, you can. I don't know that most people will care either way.
If I was designing your scoring system though, I'd be focused more on how I want the value of positions to relate to one another. Is the value of what is normally the best player at each position where you want it to be compared to all other positions?
As an example, my last league I created, I listed out my goals. I wanted more players starting and on rosters than standard leagues, including a full 4-3 IDP defense. I wanted the total points of starting offensive players to be 60% of a final score and defensive/coach/kicker/etc to be 40%. I wanted defensive players to not be an after thought, but I did not want their value (which is not the same as total points) to be equal to the best offensive starters. I also wanted the average QB1, RB1, WR1, and TE1 to have roughly comparable value, and if any of them had a slight edge I preferred it to be QB. I wanted the top DT/DE to be similar in value to the top LBs and CB and S, despite often having fewer tackles.
Once I had how my league's values "should be", I then was able to decide number of starters and scoring systems that would result in it.
Just curious but what scoring metric did you come up with? As far as your "value" goes, did you take into account that you start 2rb and/or 3wr? Meaning, if the top 12qb's averaged X amount of points and you only start one of them... did you take the RB position and come to a conclusion that the RB position should equal the QB position? Or, does QB 1 roughly equal RB 1... thus making the RB position worth more as far as total points go?
Just curious:
QB = 400
RB (x2) = 400
WR (x3) = 400
TE (~WR) = 140
K (~WR) = 140 (or maybe something different)
Breaking it up this way as a positional scoring would not change value but it would better determine if a player had a good year or not. WR1 scored 300... great year... WR1 scores 100... bad year.
You're using the term "value" differently. You're talking about total points, which is not what we normally mean by value. From a math standpoint, value is used to mean a score normalized by position so that they can be directly equated across positions. That is, if QB1 scores 30 ppg and that's 8 ppg better than the worst starting QB, and RB1 scores 24 ppg and that's also 8 ppg better than the worst starting RB, then both of those players represents an 8 point improvement for your team which means they have an equal value of 8 ppg.The number of players you start at a position then definitely does affect value. If you start 1 RB then you compare RB1 to RB12's scoring to get his value. If you start 2 RB then it's RB24. If you start 3 RB then it's RB36. One way to change comparative value is to change how many players you start at a position. Another is to change scoring, if the top players at the position gain more scoring from a change than the bottom of the position does, then the top players at the position gain in overall value compared to players at other positions.
I wasn't (much) worried about total points like you're speaking, other than I wanted offense to be about 60% of the total points and other positions 40%. I was more worried about the value of the top players at each position. I also paid attention to value further down the positional curve (how does the RB halfway down compare to the QB and WR and TE halfway down their lists), but only to try to make sure a position wasn't absurdly better than other positions in that regard.
So what I ended up going with was: 1 QB, 2 RB, 1 flex QB/RB, 4 WR, 2 TE, 1 flex WR/TE. 2 DT, 2 DE, 3 LB, 2 CB, 2 S. 1 PK, 1 punter, 1 coach (points for win and score differential), 1 team return unit. Scoring 1/20 pass, 1/10 rush. Staggered PPR with .25 RB, .5 WR, 1.0 TE. Tackles 1.5 points, assists .75 points for everyone but DT/DE, who get 2.25 and 1.25 each. They also get 4 points per sack instead of 2 like everyone else.
I'm pretty happy with the results. Though if I ever redid it, I might consider dropping the WRs from starting 4 plus a WR/TE flex who is normally a 5th WR, to just 3 plus the flex, and instead bump up the WR's points per reception to keep the top ones relevant. Though, hmm... well, I could go either way.
Anyway, end result is a league with much more than normal parity across positions. You could build a team around any of the offensive positions, including tight end being your strength that carries you. The value of the top players at every position varies some from year to year, but over the long haul they tend to be worth about the same. And since it's a hard salary cap, auction league, the top players at each position end up commanding similar salaries.
