This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
??I am asking YOU to justify YOUR response.I also asked you for a scoring system to prevent the first 5 being all RBs.You can provide neither. Or can you, but you'd rather spit out one-liners that fail to aid this discussion?
Actually, it depends on your league's roster requirements, your baseline, etc. In this particular unorthodox 10-team league, we start 2 QB's, 3 RB's, and 4 WR's. Even with these rules, there still isn't a WR in the top 20 by VBD using Joe's "secret formula." We'd probably have to increase to 2 points per reception to bring it more in balance. Actually, the best move to balance things out would be to decrease the starting RB's to 2 rather than 3, but that league likes having 30 RB's started rather than 20, so they decided on the increased receiving TD value instead.How does your top 20 shake out when you use 6 points for all TD's and PPR under your roster and baseline assumptions?as I showed above, that is perception against true value.If you want to run the VBD numbers on 9 points per rec. TD versus 6 for rush TDs, you will see what I mean.Yeah, and giving them 7 on a TD moves back towards the imbalance that PPR is supposed to address. I will never understand this trend in FF to make RBs so incoherently valuable as opposed to all the other positions out there.
My main league actually rewards 8 points for a receiving TD vs. 6 for a rushing TD in addition to being PPR, so a receiving TD is always worth at least 9 points. Even with this adjustment, RB's are still FAR more valuable than WR's (top RB's go for almost 3x the value of top WR's in the auction draft) because of their scarcity.If, like the vast majority of leagues, your league values RB's far more than WR's, the argument for having receiving TD's worth more is to try to bring things more in balance. Increasing rushing TD's to 7 points would just make things even more unbalanced -- Do you want the whole first 2 rounds (or top 20 highest value players in an auction) to be RB's?
Well. This, is obviously the problem we're working with. Sorry you find this noncontributory, but c'mon. I mean, arguably the most important position on the field gets one of the top 20 slots? And, you see nothing wrong with this.
Interesting - small lineups of 1/1/2 preevents the top-5 being RBs?I ran that, with decimal scoring, and all TDs = 6, but it didn't change the top-5 being RBs.In short, score yardage differently for ea. position. In our league, we use decimal scoring, which, while tedious for some, helps equilibrate the positions. TDs are scored equally (none of this totally insane 4pt pass TD bs). We also start 1QB, 1RB, 2WR, which leans much less weight on RBs. Basically, the distribution of points scored for QBs and RBs are virtually indistinguishable. WRs lag only a bit behind, with the exception of the middle group (12-30), which I think is reflective of little variability in performance in those mid-ranges when compared to the other positions. But, again, I'd like to hear someone from the RB-league POV express some admission of some sort that they've got an imbalance to begin with. Most resort to their VBD calculations as though they're gospel and reflect the only scoring system possible (won't mention any names here). VBD works well, of course, but it's all about what's being inputted in the system, and if you keep inserting a flawed...er....imbalanced system, you're going to get that as the output. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that keeps getting preached here on the boards, much of which propagated by the FBG staff. Just my .02.OK - how do you propose to make the top-6/top-7 NOT be RBs.Fingers are out - I'm all ears.Tough day? Get over it. I don't think all would share in your opinion that it's a useless comment. Maybe you've got your fingers in your ears and don't want to listen, but a lot of FF guys complain about the reliance on the RB, and your proposal only adds to this. I'm sorry if this offends you. For whatever reason it does.
I just did. Please review the scoring system changes I proposed above. I didn't go into details, but I would be more than happy to. I didn't bore you with the details, but I did detail how the distribution falls out. What's the problem here?
no - i see a LOT wrong with that.But, without tremendously skewing some numbers, I can't get Manning into the top-10.Well. This, is obviously the problem we're working with. Sorry you find this noncontributory, but c'mon. I mean, arguably the most important position on the field gets one of the top 20 slots? And, you see nothing wrong with this.
^----my response above yours.
Go with decimal scoring.Interesting - small lineups of 1/1/2 preevents the top-5 being RBs?I ran that, with decimal scoring, and all TDs = 6, but it didn't change the top-5 being RBs.In short, score yardage differently for ea. position. In our league, we use decimal scoring, which, while tedious for some, helps equilibrate the positions. TDs are scored equally (none of this totally insane 4pt pass TD bs). We also start 1QB, 1RB, 2WR, which leans much less weight on RBs. Basically, the distribution of points scored for QBs and RBs are virtually indistinguishable. WRs lag only a bit behind, with the exception of the middle group (12-30), which I think is reflective of little variability in performance in those mid-ranges when compared to the other positions. But, again, I'd like to hear someone from the RB-league POV express some admission of some sort that they've got an imbalance to begin with. Most resort to their VBD calculations as though they're gospel and reflect the only scoring system possible (won't mention any names here). VBD works well, of course, but it's all about what's being inputted in the system, and if you keep inserting a flawed...er....imbalanced system, you're going to get that as the output. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that keeps getting preached here on the boards, much of which propagated by the FBG staff. Just my .02.OK - how do you propose to make the top-6/top-7 NOT be RBs.Fingers are out - I'm all ears.
Manning ended up # 2 or 3 in my league projections, which incidentally seems to fit with his relative value in the NFL, imo.no - i see a LOT wrong with that.But, without tremendously skewing some numbers, I can't get Manning into the top-10.Well. This, is obviously the problem we're working with. Sorry you find this noncontributory, but c'mon. I mean, arguably the most important position on the field gets one of the top 20 slots? And, you see nothing wrong with this.
I have the feeling it has more to do with the projections than what I am doing - and I don;t feel like changing the projections.
using FFguys' numbers?Manning ended up # 2 or 3 in my league projections, which incidentally seems to fit with his relative value in the NFL, imo.no - i see a LOT wrong with that.But, without tremendously skewing some numbers, I can't get Manning into the top-10.Well. This, is obviously the problem we're working with. Sorry you find this noncontributory, but c'mon. I mean, arguably the most important position on the field gets one of the top 20 slots? And, you see nothing wrong with this.
I have the feeling it has more to do with the projections than what I am doing - and I don;t feel like changing the projections.
I think so. Over a month ago, though, so I don't remember for certain.using FFguys' numbers?Manning ended up # 2 or 3 in my league projections, which incidentally seems to fit with his relative value in the NFL, imo.no - i see a LOT wrong with that.But, without tremendously skewing some numbers, I can't get Manning into the top-10.Well. This, is obviously the problem we're working with. Sorry you find this noncontributory, but c'mon. I mean, arguably the most important position on the field gets one of the top 20 slots? And, you see nothing wrong with this.
I have the feeling it has more to do with the projections than what I am doing - and I don;t feel like changing the projections.
Not true. FWIW, in my aforementioned unorthodox league, if we only were to start 1 RB instead of 3, only 2 of the top 7 would be RB's using VBD.I don't care too much what the rules are -- I just adapt and build the best team possible for the rules, but I do see the reasoning in having receiving TD's worth more than rushing TD's to balance out the values. I'm one of the only if not the only owner to have voted against the 8-point receiving TD rule a few years ago, but I just adapted to the new scoring system.
I just eran that - look up - the top-4 are still RBs according to FBGuys.com numbers.
No, our league uses 8-point receiving TD's and some other unique rules and starts 4 WR's -- it still overvalues RB's because we start 3. With 1 RB starting instead, the 4th RB is #18 in VBD using FBGuys numbers and there are only 5 RB's in the top 40, so the rules CAN be adjusted to severely undervalue RB's.To get more QB's in the top 20, you probably need to go to starting 2 QB's like we do.
Probably.I just ran 2-2-3 with PPR and all TDs = 6:1 Larry Johnson2 LaDainian Tomlinson3 Tiki Barber4 Shaun Alexander5 Steven Jackson6 Peyton Manning7 Torry Holt8 Steve Smith9 Chad Johnson10 Larry Fitzgerald11 Ronnie Brown12 Rudi Johnson13 Anquan Boldin14 Randy Moss15 Brian Westbrook16 LaMont Jordan17 Reggie Bush18 Reggie Wayne19 Antonio Gates20 Marvin Harrison21 Chris Chambers22 Kevin Jones23 Donald Driver24 Edgerrin James25 Willis McGahee26 Cadillac Williams27 Willie Parker28 Donovan McNabb29 Clinton Portis30 Tom Brady31 Roy Williams32 Warrick Dunn33 DeShaun Foster34 Matt Hasselbeck35 Terrell Owens36 Jake Delhomme37 Chester Taylor38 Plaxico Burress39 Hines Ward40 Reuben Droughns41 Daunte Culpepper42 Carson Palmer43 Derrick Mason44 Todd Heap45 Santana Moss46 Marc Bulger47 Darrell Jackson48 Eli Manning49 Frank Gore50 Julius Jones51 Tony Gonzalez52 T.J. Houshmandzadeh53 Rod Smith54 Brett Favre55 Aaron Brooks56 Jeremy Shockey57 Michael Vick58 Joey Galloway59 Jake Plummer60 Andre JohnsonAnd w/o PPR (to try to lower those pass catching RBs:1 Larry Johnson2 LaDainian Tomlinson3 Shaun Alexander4 Tiki Barber5 Peyton Manning6 Steven Jackson7 Rudi Johnson8 Ronnie Brown9 Steve Smith10 Torry Holt11 Chad Johnson12 Randy Moss13 Donovan McNabb14 Larry Fitzgerald15 LaMont Jordan16 Tom Brady17 Willie Parker18 Cadillac Williams19 Willis McGahee20 Edgerrin James21 Anquan Boldin22 Marvin Harrison23 Chris Chambers24 Reggie Wayne25 Clinton Portis26 Matt Hasselbeck27 Antonio Gates28 Jake Delhomme29 Donald Driver30 Reggie Bush31 Brian Westbrook32 Warrick Dunn33 Kevin Jones34 Roy Williams35 Terrell Owens36 Daunte Culpepper37 Carson Palmer38 Marc Bulger39 Eli Manning40 DeShaun Foster41 Plaxico Burress42 Reuben Droughns43 Santana Moss44 Brett Favre45 Hines Ward46 Julius Jones47 Aaron Brooks48 Michael Vick49 Frank Gore50 Jake Plummer51 Chester Taylor52 Darrell Jackson53 Jamal Lewis54 T.J. Houshmandzadeh55 Chris Simms56 Trent Green57 Joey Galloway58 Todd Heap59 Derrick Mason60 Terry GlennAnd now, 2/1/3, no PPR:1 Larry Johnson2 LaDainian Tomlinson3 Peyton Manning4 Shaun Alexander5 Tiki Barber6 Steve Smith7 Torry Holt8 Chad Johnson9 Randy Moss10 Donovan McNabb11 Larry Fitzgerald12 Tom Brady13 Anquan Boldin14 Marvin Harrison15 Chris Chambers16 Reggie Wayne17 Matt Hasselbeck18 Antonio Gates19 Jake Delhomme20 Donald Driver21 Roy Williams22 Terrell Owens23 Daunte Culpepper24 Steven Jackson25 Carson Palmer26 Marc Bulger27 Eli Manning28 Plaxico Burress29 Rudi Johnson30 Santana Moss31 Brett Favre32 Hines Ward33 Aaron Brooks34 Michael Vick35 Jake Plummer36 Darrell Jackson37 Ronnie Brown38 T.J. Houshmandzadeh39 Chris Simms40 Trent Green41 Joey Galloway42 Todd Heap43 Derrick Mason44 Terry Glenn45 Drew Bledsoe46 Eddie Kennison47 Jeremy Shockey48 Lee Evans49 Rod Smith50 LaMont Jordan51 Javon Walker52 Tony Gonzalez53 Michael Clayton54 Jon Kitna55 Willie Parker56 Ben Roethlisberger57 Cadillac Williams58 Steve McNair59 Joe Horn60 Andre JohnsonHowever, it does not seem that very many leagues will be OK with 2 QBs, 3 WRs and only 1 RB.With 2 RB starters, even with 2 QB starters, it is really hard to ge the top-10 not to be RB heavy.
Yes, but at least the 2-2-3 with PPR and all TDs = 6 gets half the top 10 and half the top 20 to be non-RB's. I think this shows why some argue that all TD's should be 6 with PPR to try to balance things out. Even doing this AND starting 2 QB's, RB's still are the most valued position. Does this convince you that rushing TD's shouldn't be 7 points?Pass-catching RB's are worth a lot, but they don't get anywhere near the number of receiving TD's that the top WR's do.Thanks for running those numbers. Interesting discussion.
No - here's 2/2/3, PPR, pass/rush = 7, rec. = 6:1 Larry Johnson2 LaDainian Tomlinson3 Tiki Barber4 Shaun Alexander5 Peyton Manning6 Steven Jackson7 Torry Holt8 Steve Smith9 Larry Fitzgerald10 Chad Johnson11 Rudi Johnson12 Ronnie Brown13 Anquan Boldin14 Randy Moss15 LaMont Jordan16 Reggie Wayne17 Chris Chambers18 Marvin Harrison19 Brian Westbrook20 Antonio Gates21 Donald Driver22 Reggie Bush23 Kevin Jones24 Edgerrin James25 Donovan McNabb26 Willis McGahee27 Tom Brady28 Cadillac Williams29 Willie Parker30 Clinton Portis31 Roy Williams32 Jake Delhomme33 Matt Hasselbeck34 Warrick Dunn35 DeShaun Foster36 Terrell Owens37 Plaxico Burress38 Carson Palmer39 Chester Taylor40 Hines Ward41 Derrick Mason42 Daunte Culpepper43 Marc Bulger44 Santana Moss45 Todd Heap46 Eli Manning47 Darrell Jackson48 Reuben Droughns49 Frank Gore50 Brett Favre51 Tony Gonzalez52 Julius Jones53 T.J. Houshmandzadeh54 Rod Smith55 Aaron Brooks56 Jeremy Shockey57 Jake Plummer58 Joey Galloway59 Michael Vick60 Chris SimmsAlmost exact same list as with 6 for all TDs, except that the distribution of players after the first 5 RBs are gone is a bit more uniform. And, as cobolt requested, the most important players on the field (QBs) are properly distributed among the top-60.In the above list, with 7/pass/rush TDs and 6/rec TDs, the top-60 contains exactly 20 WRs, exactly 22 RBs, exactly 14 QBs and exactly 4 TEs.In the 6/all TDs, it is 13 QBs, 21 WRs, 22 RBs, and 4 TEs - the last RB is lower in the 7/TD list and the distribution of players is more evenly distributed.The more I look at my numbers, the more convinced I am that, in a PPR, 7/pass/rush TD, and 6/rec. TD brings the values of the players closer together.Ahmad Rashad said:
It's obvious you were convinced of this before you started.
Yes, he concluded earlier, after running numbers with 2 QB's, PPR, and all 6-point TD's, that "with 2 RB starters, even with 2 QB starters, it is really hard to get the top-10 not to be RB heavy." I thought that had ended the 7-point rushing TD argument. Then he still sticks to the contention that 1 QB PPR leagues should count rushing TD's as 7 points (using 2 QB numbers as "proof" and ignoring RB dominance at the top). That's definitely someone who was convinced before looking at the numbers.
Yes - I was.I wanted a REASON for receiving TDs by all players (not just WRs) getting that bonus point. Not a single answer here was "reasoning" - it was explanation. I was frustrated because I already know HOW the extra point is there - I HAVE been playing this game long enough to know the "how" of rules - the "why of this one was (and is) escaping me. Therefore, I started with a conclusion - you are correct.My running the numbers was to try and figure out how to NOT get the top-10 dominated by RBs - that was in response to cobolt, and it was an aside to my point. W/o going 2/2/3 it was impossible.When I changed TD value numbers, what happened was exactly what I THOUGHT would happen - RBs/QBs were not overvalued, but the receiving RBs' value deflated versus the rushing RBs - with only 12 starting QBs, however, it is very hard to make their values come up to where they should be in relation to pass catchers and runners.Witness:1/2/3, PPR, 6/rec/7/pass+rush TD:1 Larry Johnson2 LaDainian Tomlinson3 Tiki Barber4 Shaun Alexander5 Steven Jackson6 Torry Holt7 Steve Smith8 Larry Fitzgerald9 Chad Johnson10 Rudi Johnson11 Ronnie Brown12 Anquan Boldin13 Randy Moss14 LaMont Jordan15 Peyton Manning16 Reggie Wayne17 Chris Chambers18 Marvin Harrison19 Brian Westbrook20 Antonio Gates21 Donald Driver22 Reggie Bush23 Kevin Jones24 Edgerrin James25 Willis McGahee26 Cadillac Williams27 Willie Parker28 Clinton Portis29 Roy Williams30 Warrick Dunn31 DeShaun Foster32 Terrell Owens33 Plaxico Burress34 Chester Taylor35 Hines Ward36 Derrick Mason37 Santana Moss38 Todd Heap39 Darrell Jackson40 Reuben Droughns41 Frank Gore42 Donovan McNabb43 Tony Gonzalez44 Julius Jones45 Tom Brady46 T.J. Houshmandzadeh47 Rod Smith48 Jeremy Shockey49 Joey Galloway50 Andre Johnson51 Terry Glenn52 Lee Evans53 Jake Delhomme54 Laveranues Coles55 Matt Hasselbeck56 Eddie Kennison57 Jamal Lewis58 Joe Horn59 Javon Walker60 Dominic Rhodes1 Larry Johnson2 LaDainian Tomlinson3 Tiki Barber4 Shaun Alexander5 Steven Jackson6 Torry Holt7 Steve Smith8 Larry Fitzgerald9 Chad Johnson10 Rudi Johnson11 Ronnie Brown12 Anquan Boldin13 Randy Moss14 LaMont Jordan15 Peyton Manning16 Reggie Wayne17 Chris Chambers18 Marvin Harrison19 Brian Westbrook20 Antonio Gates21 Donald Driver22 Reggie Bush23 Kevin Jones24 Edgerrin James25 Willis McGahee26 Cadillac Williams27 Willie Parker28 Clinton Portis29 Roy Williams30 Warrick Dunn31 DeShaun Foster32 Terrell Owens33 Plaxico Burress34 Chester Taylor35 Hines Ward36 Derrick Mason37 Santana Moss38 Todd Heap39 Darrell Jackson40 Reuben Droughns41 Frank Gore42 Donovan McNabb43 Tony Gonzalez44 Julius Jones45 Tom Brady46 T.J. Houshmandzadeh47 Rod Smith48 Jeremy Shockey49 Joey Galloway50 Andre Johnson51 Terry Glenn52 Lee Evans53 Jake Delhomme54 Laveranues Coles55 Matt Hasselbeck56 Eddie Kennison57 Jamal Lewis58 Joe Horn59 Javon Walker60 Dominic RhodesThe numbers breakdown:RBs - 24QBs - 5WRs - 27TEs- 4In the top-60, that is a 29 versus 31 split in favor of players who primarly receive their TDs.In the top-20, there are 9 WRs, 1 QB, 1 TE and 9 RBs. Also a fair distribution of receive versus pass/rush TD getters.The difference is that the organization of RBs is slanted to the rushing RBs versus the pass catching RBs.I absolutely started with a conclusion - my mind was made up - and noone covinced me that there was any rationale to reward receiving TDs one more point than rush/pass TDs. This was a good exercise for me, since it show me that this concept has not been thought of or discussed previously. That is clear by the paucity of rationale for why - or even acknowledgement that - receiving TDs get a bonus point in PPR systems.I think noone ever realized - or cared - that receiving TDs were worth more than rush/pass TDs. I DO care, and I now have the numbers to show that normalizing all TDs in a PPR system does NOT affect the players' value distribution against each other - RBs and QBs do not become significantly more valuable versus WRs and TEs. The PPRs that primary pass catchers get are HUGE - and, IMO, are overvalued in PPR systems in relation to TDs.I think the smartest thing to do is make rush/pass TDs worth 7 versus 6 for rec. TDs ORto make .5 PPR systems the norm.That normalizes TDs across all the positions, without affecting player distriuition in standard 1/2/3 PPR systems.
See above - you obviously have thje wrong conclusion about why I looked at the numbers.The numbers I DID run support the same conclusion.Whether it was 1/2/3 or 2/2/3 that I ran, the only thing I changed were the TD values and lineup numbers - both sets of results support the same conclusions as to TD value.Ahmad Rashad said:That's definitely someone who was convinced before looking at the numbers.
Marc, maybe it's time to think outside the box on this. I mean, seriously, I've said it like 5 times now that it is absolutely possible, but you have to adjust the scoring system to reward yardage and various milestones differently. But, to simply and say it's "impossible" is patently false.
Your league went to 2 QBs, right?I thought I WAS thinking outside the box by trying to devalue receiving TDs in 1/2/3 PPR systems.
Thank you - cobolt created that with his comments about overvaluing RBs.I have finished my research now, and I have shown that 7/rush/pass TDs does not hurt the league and it normalizes TD values across all the positions.Like I said - I can't get my league to agree to 2 QBs in the starting lineup, so that issue is done for me except as an intellectual issue.I CAN get them to agree to a 6/7 TD difference.
Nope. 1/1/2 in an 18-team league.I think your point about the QB yardage thing is an important qualifier. If the league doesn't want to adjust the rules to make the positions more equitable, you're sort up a dirty creek without a paddle. But, that IS the way to help resolve the RB-dominance issue, and you'd see a real nice distribution across the top-20 selections.Your league went to 2 QBs, right?I thought I WAS thinking outside the box by trying to devalue receiving TDs in 1/2/3 PPR systems.
I can get my league to go to 1/2/3, 6/7TDs - I won't be able to get them adjusted to the concept of starting 2 QBs, or of rewarding QBs 1/10 per yardage - which is another way to get QBs back into the top-10.
I do think outside the box - but I'm not going to adopt suggestions on how to get QBs into the top-10. That is not *my* goal. That seems to be *your* goal - and is a COMPLETE aside to my point.
Regardless, I have authoritatively shown that 7/rush/pass TD versus 6/rec. TDs does NOT result in an overvaluation of RBs versus other positions - it rearranges RBs versus each other and it raises QBs higher on the top-60 list. So I'm not sure why you keep laughing at my posts.
If you think I am in love with RBs and that is why I am exploring this, you are barking up the wrong tree.
I'm generally indifferent to PPR scoring - but I still think that's a flawed argument. RBs are valuable because they are a scarce resource, not because they score more. IN an average 12 team league that starts 2 RB + WR/RB flex, that means 24-36 RBs are in play. There are *barely* 24 reliable fantasy plays. All PPR does is improve the relative value of those top backs, especially pass-catching backs, and it raises the value of TEs and possession receivers who may get a catches but not a lot of yardage. Even systems that reward WRs with 1PPR and RBs with something less doesn't change the value of the RB, because it doesn't change the supply and demand element - everyone still has to start x RBs and n WRs.
Good point - and it goes EXACTLY with cobolt's point. These are all side issues to my point, but you bring up a good point about RB value and why the top-5 seem to always be dominated by RBs unless radical rule changes are instituted.Cobolt - I forgot - you went to ONE running back, not two QBs.
Yeah, I'm actually with the poster before who said that the MAIN way to handle this is to change the lineup requirements. It's the hammer that does the bulk of the work on the supply/demand end. The scoring system changes are a means to chisel and smooth out the rough edges. Somehow, by luck and circumstance (with a little bit of statistics thrown in), our league has achieved a rather equitable distribution such that no team can dominate simply by having the best at one position (like RB). But, in retrospect, it was mostly the growth of the league to 18 teams and the 1/1/2 lineup that gave us the most help...the scoring system changes we've made helped only to equitably reward performance so that the "face validity" of performances looked about right.
No - you have to drop back to THREE WRs, and you have to DITCH PPR. Even then, near as I can tell, without adjusting yardage for QBs, or dropping to 1/1/2, it is really hard to get rid of the top-5 being all RBs plus Peyton.1 Larry Johnson2 LaDainian Tomlinson3 Shaun Alexander4 Tiki Barber5 Peyton Manning6 Steven Jackson7 Rudi Johnson8 Steve Smith9 Torry Holt10 Chad Johnson11 Randy Moss12 Antonio Gates13 Larry Fitzgerald14 Ronnie Brown15 Donovan McNabb16 Tom Brady17 Anquan Boldin18 LaMont Jordan19 Willie Parker20 Chris Chambers21 Cadillac Williams22 Marvin Harrison23 Reggie Wayne24 Willis McGahee25 Edgerrin James26 Donald Driver27 Matt Hasselbeck28 Clinton Portis29 Jake Delhomme30 Reggie Bush31 Roy Williams32 Terrell Owens33 Brian Westbrook34 Daunte Culpepper35 Warrick Dunn36 Marc Bulger37 Kevin Jones38 Carson Palmer39 Eli Manning40 Todd Heap41 Plaxico Burress42 Santana Moss43 Jeremy Shockey44 DeShaun Foster45 Tony Gonzalez46 Brett Favre47 Reuben Droughns48 Hines Ward49 Aaron Brooks50 Julius Jones51 Darrell Jackson52 Frank Gore53 Chester Taylor54 Jake Plummer55 Jamal Lewis56 Derrick Mason57 T.J. Houshmandzadeh58 Joey Galloway59 Trent Green60 Terry Glenn
For sure - 18 teams is a very large league.1/1/2 in an 18 team league will allow a team with a top-3 at any of the QB/WR/RB position to put topgether a winning team.
Well than isn't the theory that RB value comes from scarcity disproved? 32 starting Qbs, 32 Rbs, 64 wrs, 32 TEs. if you have a 1:1:2:1 ratio and the value isn't even then the scarcity theory can't be correct. rbs score more. so if you were to try and equalize the value, you'd have to take points AWAY from rbs, or give points to qbs, wrs, tes, the opposite of what you're doing by giving RBs an extra point per TD.this is just off the top of my head. i could be missing something.
Your problem is that you are taking a pool of 32+32+64+32 players when we are calculating top-60 lists.No, you haven't disproved anything. You'll have to dig a little deeper and do some of your OWN number running to prove your point.
There are 32 starting RBs, QBs, and TEs and 64 starting WRs. Where do you think your top 60 are coming from? To equalize the players is to have all of them have an equal shot at making the top 60. Someone said earlier, and you agreed, that scarcity makes RBs more valuable than WRs. The scarcity being there are 64 starting WRs and only 32 starting RBs. Using twice as many WRs would compensate for this, thus eliminating the scarcity factor. Even with this scarcity factor eliminated, as WRs and RBs are now equally scarce, RBs are still more often the top scorers.Yes, I have disproved something.
That is not the scarcity - the scarcity is that there are 12 teams in a "normal" league and only 20-24 starting FANTASY RBs. Once you get dowen to RB22 or so, you are dealing with guys like Dom Rhodes, who are in RBBC.You have missed the point of what a "starting" player is.Like I said - try again.
First of all, theory, idea, whatever. I meant the same thing. And technically the theory was that by changing points rewarded for TDs you could equalize scoring... whatever though. not important. idea/theory/question was what i meant.Secondly,
You missed my point. My point was there are less available starting RBs than WRs to fantasy players. Whether its 32 potential fantasy players or 24, it's still less than WRs. To normalize this you'd have to increase the numbers of WRs to keep the ratio. So if, for instance, there are 24 fantasy RBs and lets say 48 fantasy WRs (just an example, you can adjust the actual ratio to whatever the actual numbers are), the ratio is 1:2. We're back to where we were before.You can do whatever you want in your league. Myself and several others (even Jeff, your fellow FBG staff member) have tried to explain why it is not valid to move receiving TDs to 5 points or give RBs an extra point. Each of us has walked away from your hard headedness going
You have missed the point of what a "starting" player is.
Like I said - try again.
I understand what your trying to do here, but I have a better solution. Eliminate PPR, it's ridiculous IMO. If you want to equally weight the positions then adjust yardage and TD's differently for each position, but receptions are not a true measure of a football players talent and should not be awarded as such in FF. Again, why am I rewarding a player that has 1 catch for no yards, or even 4 catches for 17 yards? That player should get 1.7 points, not 5.7. Why not reward a QB for completions of youre going to have PPR???
That is true.However, I also realize that a player scoring a TD in a given week can make or break that week for that player.
The league likes keeping WRs important - using PPR was the only way i could get them to ditch distance scoring. They were under the misapprehension that distance scoring leagues favor WRs (not QBs - who they actually favor). So, in a league that used to give bonus points for distance TDs, you can see why the inequity of 1 extra point for every receiving TD is something my league understands. Using 2 QBs or only 1 RB - they simply won't accept that.I have a great team - the current setup benefits me. But, I realize the inequity of PPR as to TDs. And I can't figure out why we allow the extra point on receiving TDs.
