The state of PPR use (1 Viewer)

[Instinctive]

I have yet to see a single valid argument made that standard has any advantage over PPR.

Their main beef seems to be that a 10 yard catch is worth double that of a 10 yard run. They believe that a reception has no inherent value.

Maybe it's because a reception for -4 yards has more value than a five yard run.

Exactly. I like PPR, but only if it is minimized a bit, like having it .5 PPR. 1.0 PPR is too much, IMO, especially in this day and age where most of the teams throw tons of short passes, WR screens, etc. Like you said, a reception for -4 yards being worth more than a 5-yard run is just ridiculous.

Isn't any backwards pass actually counted as a pitch (IE a running play)? With forward progress rules, I would think a negative yardage reception is VERY rare, right?If I am wrong, please correct me...this is solely based on my possibly inaccurate understanding of the forward progress and backwards pass rules.

Most screen passes are caught behind the line of scrimmage. Rembember the QB is backtracking so he's usually releasing the ball several yards behind the LOS.

Gandalas - you're correct.But a pass that loses yardage is not necessarily a backwards pass. The rule isn't passes behind the LOS, but passes that travel backwards from the QB's release.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I have yet to see a single valid argument made that standard has any advantage over PPR.

Their main beef seems to be that a 10 yard catch is worth double that of a 10 yard run. They believe that a reception has no inherent value.

Maybe it's because a reception for -4 yards has more value than a five yard run.

Exactly. I like PPR, but only if it is minimized a bit, like having it .5 PPR. 1.0 PPR is too much, IMO, especially in this day and age where most of the teams throw tons of short passes, WR screens, etc. Like you said, a reception for -4 yards being worth more than a 5-yard run is just ridiculous.

Isn't any backwards pass actually counted as a pitch (IE a running play)? With forward progress rules, I would think a negative yardage reception is VERY rare, right?If I am wrong, please correct me...this is solely based on my possibly inaccurate understanding of the forward progress and backwards pass rules.

Most screen passes are caught behind the line of scrimmage. Rembember the QB is backtracking so he's usually releasing the ball several yards behind the LOS.

Gandalas - you're correct.But a pass that loses yardage is not necessarily a backwards pass. The rule isn't passes behind the LOS, but passes that travel backwards from the QB's release.

If it travels backwards from the QB, it was NEVER a pass to begin with, so gandalas' supposition has no merits in the discussion.

 

[Instinctive]

I have yet to see a single valid argument made that standard has any advantage over PPR.

Their main beef seems to be that a 10 yard catch is worth double that of a 10 yard run. They believe that a reception has no inherent value.

Maybe it's because a reception for -4 yards has more value than a five yard run.

Exactly. I like PPR, but only if it is minimized a bit, like having it .5 PPR. 1.0 PPR is too much, IMO, especially in this day and age where most of the teams throw tons of short passes, WR screens, etc. Like you said, a reception for -4 yards being worth more than a 5-yard run is just ridiculous.

Isn't any backwards pass actually counted as a pitch (IE a running play)? With forward progress rules, I would think a negative yardage reception is VERY rare, right?If I am wrong, please correct me...this is solely based on my possibly inaccurate understanding of the forward progress and backwards pass rules.

Most screen passes are caught behind the line of scrimmage. Rembember the QB is backtracking so he's usually releasing the ball several yards behind the LOS.

Gandalas - you're correct.But a pass that loses yardage is not necessarily a backwards pass. The rule isn't passes behind the LOS, but passes that travel backwards from the QB's release.

If it travels backwards from the QB, it was NEVER a pass to begin with, so gandalas' supposition has no merits in the discussion.

RIght - by rule it isn't called a pass. But I mean...the QB passes the football. That's where people get confused, and why I think his question is perfectly reasonable.

 

[gandalas]

I have yet to see a single valid argument made that standard has any advantage over PPR.

Their main beef seems to be that a 10 yard catch is worth double that of a 10 yard run. They believe that a reception has no inherent value.

Maybe it's because a reception for -4 yards has more value than a five yard run.

Exactly. I like PPR, but only if it is minimized a bit, like having it .5 PPR. 1.0 PPR is too much, IMO, especially in this day and age where most of the teams throw tons of short passes, WR screens, etc. Like you said, a reception for -4 yards being worth more than a 5-yard run is just ridiculous.

Isn't any backwards pass actually counted as a pitch (IE a running play)? With forward progress rules, I would think a negative yardage reception is VERY rare, right?If I am wrong, please correct me...this is solely based on my possibly inaccurate understanding of the forward progress and backwards pass rules.

Most screen passes are caught behind the line of scrimmage. Rembember the QB is backtracking so he's usually releasing the ball several yards behind the LOS.

Durr, I am an idiot...forgot that it could be a forward pass but still behind the LOS due to 5 and 7 step drops. Nevermind!

 

[massraider]

Participating in a non-PPR league most likely means you're a communist and that you hate America.

This couldn't be more wrong. In fact, it is PPR that exhibits socialist tendencies. More players are included in fantasy football when using this system.I've tried to explain this before, but people will always believe what they want to believe. But I'll try to break it down one more time:

In standard scoring, only two metrics matter. Yards and touchdowns. Obviously, you expand the feasible player pool when you add new metrics. Just like when playing in small leagues, if you are a good FF player, this does not help you. If you are a bad fantasy player with holes in your roster, you are assisted by this socialist system. Suddenly, you can plug Earnest Graham into your lineup and fill that hole in your RB2 spot. As a good manager, I don't have anyone I want to drop for Earnest Graham.

RBs are the strongest illustration point because of the 3rd down back. Suddenly, a third down back can present real value whereas they have next to no value in standard scoring. WRs are affected, too, but to a lesser extent. Only a few situations are pertinent, but Danny Amendola in 2010 is a good case study. I was told he was WR27 in a PPR league whereas he was WR49 in standard scoring. Last year, Burleson was WR40 in normal, WR32 in PPR. Obviously, the guys taking big jumps are knocking everyone else down a couple pegs, but these players are all still fringe starters.

The point is, the player pool is expanded - meaning there are more viable fantasy players per team than before the scoring alteration. So the same people who would turn their nose up at a 10-team league because they are too easy are claiming that PPR somehow makes the game harder.

I think PPR is like training wheels for fantasy football, but I still dabble in it from time to time to mix it up, but if you play both SS and PPR, it is pretty easy to tell the difference. You see guys in starting lineups in PPR that are unrosterable in SS. Granted these guys aren't putting up huge numbers, but they are filling holes that would otherwise be very exposed in SS. So play PPR if you want to, but just know that it isn't because you are better than those playing SS. You are playing the easier version of the game. It's a hobby, so there's nothing wrong with that. Just lose the elitist attitude.

If I play PPR, I prefer for it to be either a larger league or with expanded starting lineups to offset the larger player pool. I think a 14-team PPR league is similar to a 12-team standard scoring league, but no matter how you do it, you'll still see scrubby 3rd down backs in starting lineups which just seems like a joke to me.

I play PPR, prefer it, and think most of your contributions here have been utter crap, but this is a .

 

[massraider]

My favorite part about the PPR debate is when the negative pass plays or pass plays for 1 yard get brought up. Like it happens every other play.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

My favorite part about the PPR debate is when the negative pass plays or pass plays for 1 yard get brought up. Like it happens every other play.

But a 3 yard pass reception isn't better then a 3 yard run. (Actually a run is better.) And they happen every play.

 

[packseasontix]

Participating in a non-PPR league most likely means you're a communist and that you hate America.

This couldn't be more wrong. In fact, it is PPR that exhibits socialist tendencies. More players are included in fantasy football when using this system.I've tried to explain this before, but people will always believe what they want to believe. But I'll try to break it down one more time:

In standard scoring, only two metrics matter. Yards and touchdowns. Obviously, you expand the feasible player pool when you add new metrics. Just like when playing in small leagues, if you are a good FF player, this does not help you. If you are a bad fantasy player with holes in your roster, you are assisted by this socialist system. Suddenly, you can plug Earnest Graham into your lineup and fill that hole in your RB2 spot. As a good manager, I don't have anyone I want to drop for Earnest Graham.

RBs are the strongest illustration point because of the 3rd down back. Suddenly, a third down back can present real value whereas they have next to no value in standard scoring. WRs are affected, too, but to a lesser extent. Only a few situations are pertinent, but Danny Amendola in 2010 is a good case study. I was told he was WR27 in a PPR league whereas he was WR49 in standard scoring. Last year, Burleson was WR40 in normal, WR32 in PPR. Obviously, the guys taking big jumps are knocking everyone else down a couple pegs, but these players are all still fringe starters.

The point is, the player pool is expanded - meaning there are more viable fantasy players per team than before the scoring alteration. So the same people who would turn their nose up at a 10-team league because they are too easy are claiming that PPR somehow makes the game harder.

I think PPR is like training wheels for fantasy football, but I still dabble in it from time to time to mix it up, but if you play both SS and PPR, it is pretty easy to tell the difference. You see guys in starting lineups in PPR that are unrosterable in SS. Granted these guys aren't putting up huge numbers, but they are filling holes that would otherwise be very exposed in SS. So play PPR if you want to, but just know that it isn't because you are better than those playing SS. You are playing the easier version of the game. It's a hobby, so there's nothing wrong with that. Just lose the elitist attitude.

If I play PPR, I prefer for it to be either a larger league or with expanded starting lineups to offset the larger player pool. I think a 14-team PPR league is similar to a 12-team standard scoring league, but no matter how you do it, you'll still see scrubby 3rd down backs in starting lineups which just seems like a joke to me.

I play PPR, prefer it, and think most of your contributions here have been utter crap, but this is a .

Utter crap in reality if you run the numbers.Scoring

1 Points = 10 Yards Rec and 10 Yard Rush

6 Points = TD

Analysis -

1. Put groupings of 10 players in each tier for scoing

2. Totaled up points scored per tier

3. Showing Percentage of Points difference between the Tier and the one directly above (IE - Tier 41-50 compared to 31-40)

4. Showing Percentage of Points difference between the Tier and Tier (1-10)

Player grouping (RB/WR) - Points Scored Standard - Points Scored PPR

Key: 91-100 = 852 point total for tier (11% difference between tier and 81-90) (65% difference between tier and 1-10) = 1200 (10%) (62%)

1-10 == 2439 Tier 1 = 3139 Tier 1

11-20 = 1852 (24%) (24%) = 2487 (21%) (21%)

21-30 = 1694 (_9%) (31%) = 2244 (10%) (29%)

31-40 = 1541 (_9%) (37%) = 2059 (_8%) (34%)

41-50 = 1419 (_8%) (42%) = 1900 (_8%) (39%)

51-60 = 1234 (13%) (49%) = 1726 (_9%) (45%)

61-70 = 1132 (_8%) (54%) = 1571 (_9%) (50%)

71-80 = 1025 (10%) (58%) = 1470 (_6%) (53%)

81-90 == 956 (_7%) (61%) = 1335 (_9%) (57%)

91-100 = 852 (11%) (65%) = 1200 (10%) (62%)

101-110 =773 (_9%) (68%) = 1119 (_7%) (64%)

111-120 =683 (12%) (72%) = 973_ (13%) (69%)

121-130 =605 (11%) (75%) = 918_ (_6%) (71%)

131-140 =548 (_9%) (78%) = 820_ (11%) (74%)

141-150 =495 (10%) (80%) = 681_ (17%) (78%)

So when you look at the numbers there is very little difference between PPR and Standard except there is more scoring for WRs and RBs because of the PPR. Now obviously I didnt break out RBs compared to WRs but you can do that part. In the end while you might roster un-rosterable people in PPR you could say the same about standard scoring as well.

Also about the socialist mentality that is more about giving points per carry and per target and per snap, remeber socialism is about giving people things for not doing anything what soever. That is like saying a bonus at work is socialist because its extra compared to your normal every day work pay.

 

[FF Ninja]

In the end while you might roster un-rosterable people in PPR you could say the same about standard scoring as well.Also about the socialist mentality that is more about giving points per carry and per target and per snap, remeber socialism is about giving people things for not doing anything what soever. That is like saying a bonus at work is socialist because its extra compared to your normal every day work pay.

Really? Who is rosterable in SS, but not rosterable in PPR? Seriously, I'd love to hear some names. Earnest Graham and Kregg Lumpkin probably don't show up in your stats, but they were in some PPR lineups last year.I'm not trying to spread false propaganda about PPR. I've got no agenda here other than shooting down this ridiculous myth that PPR is somehow better and/or more challenging than SS. Play both formats during the same season and if you are the least bit observant then you'll see that guys who are roster-worthy in SS are roster-worthy in PPR, but the reverse is not always true. Sure, PPR hurts guys like DeSean Jackson and Michael Turner, but they're still productive in PPR. Amendola was not productive in SS. 3rd down backs hold no value in SS, but they can plug holes or fill in byes in poor PPR lineups.When I play PPR it feels very similar to when I play in leagues with short benches unless benches/starting lineups are expanded.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I like ppr because it rewards a deeper knowledge of the league.

standard is more like a top 40 station.

 

[Paper Tiger]

I prefer a .5 ppr. Simply because a catch should have some value. It's not always extremely easy to accomplish. And a .5 ppr also helps eliminate ties.

 

[packseasontix]

In the end while you might roster un-rosterable people in PPR you could say the same about standard scoring as well.Also about the socialist mentality that is more about giving points per carry and per target and per snap, remeber socialism is about giving people things for not doing anything what soever. That is like saying a bonus at work is socialist because its extra compared to your normal every day work pay.

Really? Who is rosterable in SS, but not rosterable in PPR? Seriously, I'd love to hear some names. Earnest Graham and Kregg Lumpkin probably don't show up in your stats, but they were in some PPR lineups last year.I'm not trying to spread false propaganda about PPR. I've got no agenda here other than shooting down this ridiculous myth that PPR is somehow better and/or more challenging than SS. Play both formats during the same season and if you are the least bit observant then you'll see that guys who are roster-worthy in SS are roster-worthy in PPR, but the reverse is not always true. Sure, PPR hurts guys like DeSean Jackson and Michael Turner, but they're still productive in PPR. Amendola was not productive in SS. 3rd down backs hold no value in SS, but they can plug holes or fill in byes in poor PPR lineups.When I play PPR it feels very similar to when I play in leagues with short benches unless benches/starting lineups are expanded.

Biggest Drops Between PPR to Standard:Assume 12 Teams - 2RB, 3WR, 1 Flex, 4 Bench = 120 Players RosteredMarion Barber - 98 Standard/ 130 PPRJackie Battle - 105/131Ricky Williams - 119/143Ingram - 100/123Daniel Thomas - 114/134Of Note - Tate - 51/81Wells - 26/53Blount - 56/83McGehee - 34/58Jacobs - 62/86BJE - 42/65AP - 12/34Gore - 18/39Just to show the other side where players get a benifit from PPRWard - 152/116Mike Williams TB - 88/62Naanee - 141/115Hawkins - 138/112Collie - 130/108Of Note:Stevie - 46/29Little - 97/77Wayne - 58/42Marshall - 32/18Colston - 29/16White - 21/9As you can see it really goes both ways so don't tell me that having PPR makes it easier, its just a different challenge. To the point though of this thread having PPR in the mix adds another level of confusion you could have, its your choice if you want to add it or not.

 

[Captain Hook]

Recently I scrutined the setup of hundreds of Yahoo fantasy leagues with current openings and discovered that approximately 35% of them are using PPR in their scoring designs. I would have thought it to be closer to 50/50. So I thought I'd set up a poll here to see if the results are similar in a fanatic forum.

Could it be that the growth of the passing game is eradicating the need for PPR handicaps?

In the interest of full disclosure I personally am not a fan of PPR and loved Jeff Pasquino's article from a few years back ("Points Per Deception"). I've always thought Yards After Catch would be a better "leveling" metric if only it was an official statistic but Elias Sports Bureau's tracking of YAC is sporadic at best and no league management website offers it as a scoring option.

It is also worth pointing out that FFPC, NFFC and FFWC all use PPR scoring although with differing scoring.

FIXED

 

[boubucarow]

I hate PPR since it changes the value of players by means that do not reward performance. I won't play in a league that says 5 for 20 is the same as 2 for 50. I left a dynasty league that I was in a great position to continue contending due to such a switch.

 

[Manster]

Ultimately, does it really matter?

What I find amusing is when people think they are so much more sophisticated and smart because of the way they play FANTASY football.

No matter the rules, or league size, you adjust your strategy accordingly. If you play with savvy FFer's, nothing really makes things easier or harder. If you have involved owners things like ppr are just details. Its all about what you and the other owners find to be more fun.

Personally, I like a lot of scoring. I've got a buddy who's favorite league is pretty much a TD league with very small benches. Low scoring, crazy WW action. He loves it!

 

[packseasontix]

I hate PPR since it changes the value of players by means that do not reward performance. I won't play in a league that says 5 for 20 is the same as 2 for 50. I left a dynasty league that I was in a great position to continue contending due to such a switch.

People in TD leagues could say the same though, 10 for 200 being better than 2 for 10 and 2 TDs.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I have yet to see a single valid argument made that standard has any advantage over PPR.

Their main beef seems to be that a 10 yard catch is worth double that of a 10 yard run. They believe that a reception has no inherent value.

Maybe it's because a reception for -4 yards has more value than a five yard run. I prefer non PPR. PPR adds an element of scoring, but I don't think it really adds complexity. I think it reduces the complexity of actual management of your team, especially in flex leagues. To me, PPR is adjust the difficulty setting down a peg or two.

To play Devil's Advocate about rewarding points for receptions...a reception is a negative statistic. You used up one of your team's downs. A 0-yard catch puts your team in the same place on the field, but with one less down.And ideal system would reward points for catches that moved an offense at least the distance of the average play in the NFL, I suppose, or something similar. Maybe it would subtract a half point for a target and add a point for a reception, so that not catching the ball when it is thrown to you hurts you. May not be able ot differentiate between QB throwing away with a receiver near and an actual target though, which would kind of stink.

That is why some leagues use the point-per-first-down method. Which in some rare instances... includes rushing.

I've been looking for this for years. What websites support this?

MyFantasyLeague supports this. Also point per rushing first down.

 

[boubucarow]

I hate PPR since it changes the value of players by means that do not reward performance. I won't play in a league that says 5 for 20 is the same as 2 for 50. I left a dynasty league that I was in a great position to continue contending due to such a switch.

People in TD leagues could say the same though, 10 for 200 being better than 2 for 10 and 2 TDs.

No, they can't. At least with logical backing they can't. 10 for 200 is always better and should always be reflected as better in fantasy scoring.I have no problem with leagues that include PPR. I just won't play in those leagues. To each their own.