What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Thoughts on League Median Scoring in addition to weekly H2H matchup (1 Viewer)

JohnnyU

Footballguy
I think this would add fun to leagues and curb the lucky aspect of fantasy. As commish of several MFL leagues I don't remember if they offer it. I will go check to see. So basically you play 2 games each week, one against your opponent and the other against the league median, if I understand this correctly. What are your thoughts on this?


Here is some info out there regarding this format.

On Sleeper, we offer the option of giving leagues a 2nd matchup each regular-season week of their fantasy season.

The commissioner can enable the Extra Game Each Week Against League Median in the settings.


This option allows the top scoring teams of the week to gain an additional win, while the other half gets hit with a loss.

The purpose is to help create a fairer option for those times where you finish in the top half of scoring, but you still lost to someone who scored more than you. You would at least go 1-1 for the week instead of 0-1.

Can there be a tie?​

Yes, but it's extremely rare. If any teams score equal to the median, they will receive a tie.

For example, if in a 12-team league, the 6th-highest and 7th-highest team tie, they'd be at the median, and both of those teams would earn a tie in their records.


How is League Median calculated?​

League Median is calculated by taking the average of the middle two teams' scores for that specific week.

For example in a 10-team league: If the 5th highest-scoring team of the week scored 178.54 points and the 6th-highest scoring team scored 170.48 points, the league median would be 174.51.

178.54 + 170.48 = 349.02
Now, divided by 2 = 174.51

There would not be a case where 6 teams were above and 4 teams were below. League Median is used for your regular season only and will not be used in any fantasy playoff or consolation matches.

The League Median option is the only way to have two matchups in an individual week. We do not support doubleheaders or any other option that provides additional matchups for a given week.
 
I think ESPN also offers this option, and I am considering bringing it up for one league. The option intrigues me, but I am curious of the actual results when applied. It gives those out of it a last couple week push to make up ground, but it can also do the opposite and drop you really quickly as well. I may run through last years results and apply to see how drastic the playoff teams would alter.
 
I am not a fan. I don't like adding complexity to the head to head competition as it's the best part of the way FF is set up. One of the biggest knocks for fantasy baseball is there is no clean week for matchups so you end up with some forced matchups to try and fit and it just doesn't work as well.

I understand the concept and the purpose (minimizing schedule luck) but part of the fun for me is having a weekly opponent that may be really good (or bad) each week always giving me a chance to compete with a finite opponent that is easy to track. The more games you add to a week the more moving parts and it spreads your rooting interest out too much for my liking.

I don't mind the occasional double header type situation but something like all play every week or victory points just takes away some of the competitive fun. I get why people like this addition because they want to minimize the schedule luck but I like that everyone has a chance each week. To me this keeps the competitiveness alive. If you want to eliminate the luck aspect then just take rolling averages over the last 14 weeks of every player of games they started and had X % of the snap percentage and make it strictly a numbers game. I know that is a huge exaggeration but the more you try and take luck out of it the closer you will get to this type of game.

I like you can win with the second lowest score and vice versa. Everyone always talks about the crappiness of the bad beat when you are high scorer #2 and lose. But you also have games where you are at the other end of the spectrum and win. It evens out eventually and that head to head individual matchup is the best part of the weekly format. I don't want to lose or diminish that.
 
Yeah, my league would say this is too complicated. I liked the idea from one of the league sites out there, dont know which one, where you get 1 point for a win, and another for being in the top 2-3 scorers for the week. It makes it like a soccer/hockey style point system that is less complicated.
 
Yeah, my league would say this is too complicated. I liked the idea from one of the league sites out there, dont know which one, where you get 1 point for a win, and another for being in the top 2-3 scorers for the week. It makes it like a soccer/hockey style point system that is less complicated.
Isn't that victory point scoring, or am I misunderstanding you? VP scoring is different from this format.

edit: I like VP scoring by the way.
 
Yeah, my league would say this is too complicated. I liked the idea from one of the league sites out there, dont know which one, where you get 1 point for a win, and another for being in the top 2-3 scorers for the week. It makes it like a soccer/hockey style point system that is less complicated.
Isn't that victory point scoring, or am I misunderstanding you? VP scoring is different from this format.

edit: I like VP scoring by the way.
VP scoring has a few different iterations. The simplest is if you are in the top half of scoring for the league you get a VP. If you are in the bottom half you don't. MFL tallies this and puts in the standings but you can either choose to use it or not. I have been fighting using it in my leagues for the reasons I listed above.
 
I am not a fan. I don't like adding complexity to the head to head competition as it's the best part of the way FF is set up. One of the biggest knocks for fantasy baseball is there is no clean week for matchups so you end up with some forced matchups to try and fit and it just doesn't work as well.

I understand the concept and the purpose (minimizing schedule luck) but part of the fun for me is having a weekly opponent that may be really good (or bad) each week always giving me a chance to compete with a finite opponent that is easy to track. The more games you add to a week the more moving parts and it spreads your rooting interest out too much for my liking.

I don't mind the occasional double header type situation but something like all play every week or victory points just takes away some of the competitive fun. I get why people like this addition because they want to minimize the schedule luck but I like that everyone has a chance each week. To me this keeps the competitiveness alive. If you want to eliminate the luck aspect then just take rolling averages over the last 14 weeks of every player of games they started and had X % of the snap percentage and make it strictly a numbers game. I know that is a huge exaggeration but the more you try and take luck out of it the closer you will get to this type of game.

I like you can win with the second lowest score and vice versa. Everyone always talks about the crappiness of the bad beat when you are high scorer #2 and lose. But you also have games where you are at the other end of the spectrum and win. It evens out eventually and that head to head individual matchup is the best part of the weekly format. I don't want to lose or diminish that.
Didn't read past the second paragraph, but I'm with you there. I don't mind luck. There is a spectrum of "allowed luck" that spans from "Nothing matters. Fantasy points mean nothing, wins mean nothing. At the end of the season we draw a team name out of a hat, and that is the champion", to some kind of insanely complicated thing that tries to be extremely fair and compensate for anything lucky or unlucky that happens in any game. I'm fine with the amount of luck in the standard format.
 
Yeah, my league would say this is too complicated.
It isn't too complicated. Sleeper automatically does it.

Our league has it and I would recommend it. Twice in the last 10 years our top or 2nd highest scoring team failed to make the playoffs due to a very unlucky schedule and having the most points scored against. Games vs the avg/median help get the best teams into the playoffs.

Why shouldn't the teams that score the most week in and week out not make the playoffs? Why let luck determine it if you don't have to?

Each league can do their own thing but I like that our league has it. Also, everyone should be on sleeper.
 
We tried median scoring in Sleeper a couple of years back and stopped after 1 year.

Even though Sleeper “just does it for you” it “felt” complicated to owners to not see a simple win/loss record that equaled the number of games played to date.

More importantly, when the season ended, I ran the numbers to see what the records would’ve been with and without median scoring, and it wouldn’t have changed a single thing (except I believe it would’ve swapped 10th and 11th place, iirc).

We all agreed it wasn’t worth it since it didn’t “reduce the luck factor” as dramatically as we expected it to. Good teams still ended up at the top and in the playoffs and bad teams at the bottom.

2 cents
 
We tried median scoring in Sleeper a couple of years back and stopped after 1 year.

Even though Sleeper “just does it for you” it “felt” complicated to owners to not see a simple win/loss record that equaled the number of games played to date.

More importantly, when the season ended, I ran the numbers to see what the records would’ve been with and without median scoring, and it wouldn’t have changed a single thing (except I believe it would’ve swapped 10th and 11th place, iirc).

We all agreed it wasn’t worth it since it didn’t “reduce the luck factor” as dramatically as we expected it to. Good teams still ended up at the top and in the playoffs and bad teams at the bottom.

2 cents
One year is a small sample size, in that one year it didn't change anything which is good - means the top teams still made the playoffs. It is to deal with the unlucky situations where a top team might not make it.
 
If MFL doesn't support this, then we won't be doing it in my leagues. I'm not changing hosting site for just this purpose.
 
Our league has it and I would recommend it. Twice in the last 10 years our top or 2nd highest scoring team failed to make the playoffs due to a very unlucky schedule and having the most points scored against. Games vs the avg/median help get the best teams into the playoffs.
You can also just do this by making wild card teams go to the highest scoring teams that didn't make it by record. No need for the gymnastics to eliminate luck from the schedule.
 
Last year in a new redraft league I started on Sleeper, we adopted the median in addition to HTH.

Seems to have gone over well. There's still a fair amount randomness , but at the end of the day, we found it better determines the "belly" of the standings. That is, the top and bottom teams will finish that way regardless, but does a better job of separating the teams in the middle.
 
More importantly, when the season ended, I ran the numbers to see what the records would’ve been with and without median scoring, and it wouldn’t have changed a single thing (except I believe it would’ve swapped 10th and 11th place, iirc).
I did this exercise for about a 5 year sample a couple years ago when people were really pushing for an All Play style for standings. I stated we should just do away with matchups then and go with total points then because the outcome would be essentially the same. In the 5 yr sample I looked at the only differences were teams swapping in the middle of the pack. No team moved more than 2 slots up or down and it was only in the slots 5-8 slots and a couple way down in the standings that just flip flopped spots. It made no real difference at all.


ETA: When I say it made no difference at all I was referring to the difference of using all play and total points for standings placement.
 
Last edited:
but does a better job of separating the teams in the middle.
But why is that really that big of deal. It seems most people's complaints are when a top scoring team misses out on the playoffs because of bad schedule luck. Couldn't you just earmark a couple playoffs spots to the highest scoring teams that didn't make it and accomplish the same things?
 
but does a better job of separating the teams in the middle.
But why is that really that big of deal. It seems most people's complaints are when a top scoring team misses out on the playoffs because of bad schedule luck. Couldn't you just earmark a couple playoffs spots to the highest scoring teams that didn't make it and accomplish the same things?
We do that in Fantasy Legends Leagues 1 & 2.
 
We tried median scoring in Sleeper a couple of years back and stopped after 1 year.

Even though Sleeper “just does it for you” it “felt” complicated to owners to not see a simple win/loss record that equaled the number of games played to date.

More importantly, when the season ended, I ran the numbers to see what the records would’ve been with and without median scoring, and it wouldn’t have changed a single thing (except I believe it would’ve swapped 10th and 11th place, iirc).

We all agreed it wasn’t worth it since it didn’t “reduce the luck factor” as dramatically as we expected it to. Good teams still ended up at the top and in the playoffs and bad teams at the bottom.

2 cents
One year is a small sample size, in that one year it didn't change anything which is good - means the top teams still made the playoffs. It is to deal with the unlucky situations where a top team might not make it.
Yeah, I know. I was the one pushing for it and it just didn’t seem worth it to force it on the league for longer when it didn’t do anything to change the playoff teams in that 1 year trial.

Regarding other ways to make things “more fair” for high scoring teams that don’t make the playoffs, this same league has a long standing SUCK Award ;) for the highest scoring team that doesn’t make the playoffs. It’s only worth half your buy in, but it’s a nice little acknowledgment of getting some money back for a good team with bad match up luck.
 
but does a better job of separating the teams in the middle.
But why is that really that big of deal. It seems most people's complaints are when a top scoring team misses out on the playoffs because of bad schedule luck. Couldn't you just earmark a couple playoffs spots to the highest scoring teams that didn't make it and accomplish the same things?
Really comes down to reducing - but far from eliminating - statistical aberration. A sample size of 14 (based on when the regular season ends) is pretty small - doubling that at least gives more validity. But I understand not everyone feels that way.
 
Really comes down to reducing - but far from eliminating - statistical aberration. A sample size of 14 (based on when the regular season ends) is pretty small - doubling that at least gives more validity. But I understand not everyone feels that way.
I just think it evens out over time. I know most people let the bad beats stick with them and really whine when it costs them a chance at playoffs or whatever, but I would say there are just as many times that you won a game you shouldn't have and made the playoffs because of it. Just like in the real NFL, sometimes a team plays bad and you play bad and you still win or vice versa. I am not sure why so many people want to stop this from happening.

Bottom line if you want to reduce this luck factor, go with best ball, total points and it will be accomplished as close as you can.
 
We went to this a couple of years ago and I like it. I didn't really care either way, but it helps to eliminate the "I'm getting screwed because I happened to be playing the top point getter this week" complaining from some owners. Someone did the math after the first season and it didn't make a difference to the standings when compared to not having the extra game vs league median. We decided to stick with it.
 
Bottom line if you want to reduce this luck factor, go with best ball, total points and it will be accomplished as close as you can.
I've stated in other threads that my main long-time league is points only (no head to head). This brings other issues but essentially weeds out randomness.
 
This reduces luck a lot, making the standings much closer to all-play record.

In one of my leagues (10 teams) the correlations with all-play win percentage were:
r = .82 H2H wins
r = .95 1 point for a win + 1 point for top half
r = .97 weeks in top half

The bolded one is OP's proposal.

In another league (14 teams) the correlations with all-play win percentage were:
r = .862 H2H wins
r = .955 1 pt for win + 1 pt for top half
r = .956 weeks in top half
r = .979 1 pt for win + 2 pts for top 4 + 1 pt for middle 6
r = .985 2 pts for top 4 + 1 pt for middle 6
 
In retrospect to 2023 scores and standings, it did effect our 14 team league. The standings weren't changed a bunch, but there was a team swap for the playoffs. Then going back and using the actual scores from teams through the fantasy playoffs, not only created a different champion, but created a totally new pairing IN the championship game. In this recreated retrospect scenario, the team with the best record in the regular WOULD HAVE won the championship. In reality, the team with the best record lost in the first round of the playoffs due to matchups and the #2 won the championship.

So for us, the HTH plus MEDIAN standings would have made a drastic difference in the playoff outcomes (for 2023).
 
In retrospect to 2023 scores and standings, it did effect our 14 team league. The standings weren't changed a bunch, but there was a team swap for the playoffs. Then going back and using the actual scores from teams through the fantasy playoffs, not only created a different champion, but created a totally new pairing IN the championship game. In this recreated retrospect scenario, the team with the best record in the regular WOULD HAVE won the championship. In reality, the team with the best record lost in the first round of the playoffs due to matchups and the #2 won the championship.

So for us, the HTH plus MEDIAN standings would have made a drastic difference in the playoff outcomes (for 2023).
So it would have "solved" the schedule luck conundrum for the regular season but does nothing for the schedule luck situation in the playoffs. That is another flaw I see with doing something like this to figure out the playoff teams. Then you go right into the playoffs where schedule luck is even more important and hurtful and it does nothing for that aspect of it.

Seems to me, if I wanted to minimize schedule luck to find truly the best team I would do away with playoffs as that has more to do with crowing a lesser champion than anything that happens in the regular season.
 
Our league has it and I would recommend it. Twice in the last 10 years our top or 2nd highest scoring team failed to make the playoffs due to a very unlucky schedule and having the most points scored against. Games vs the avg/median help get the best teams into the playoffs.
You can also just do this by making wild card teams go to the highest scoring teams that didn't make it by record. No need for the gymnastics to eliminate luck from the schedule.
No gymnastics needed, just turn it on. It is easy and simple.
 
Our league has it and I would recommend it. Twice in the last 10 years our top or 2nd highest scoring team failed to make the playoffs due to a very unlucky schedule and having the most points scored against. Games vs the avg/median help get the best teams into the playoffs.
You can also just do this by making wild card teams go to the highest scoring teams that didn't make it by record. No need for the gymnastics to eliminate luck from the schedule.
No gymnastics needed, just turn it on. It is easy and simple.
But who wants to switch hosting sites for that feature? I don't have it in front of me, but I seem to remember Sleeper having issues with some dynasty setups and don't offer DEVY feature of unlisted players.
 
In retrospect to 2023 scores and standings, it did effect our 14 team league. The standings weren't changed a bunch, but there was a team swap for the playoffs. Then going back and using the actual scores from teams through the fantasy playoffs, not only created a different champion, but created a totally new pairing IN the championship game. In this recreated retrospect scenario, the team with the best record in the regular WOULD HAVE won the championship. In reality, the team with the best record lost in the first round of the playoffs due to matchups and the #2 won the championship.

So for us, the HTH plus MEDIAN standings would have made a drastic difference in the playoff outcomes (for 2023).
So it would have "solved" the schedule luck conundrum for the regular season but does nothing for the schedule luck situation in the playoffs. That is another flaw I see with doing something like this to figure out the playoff teams. Then you go right into the playoffs where schedule luck is even more important and hurtful and it does nothing for that aspect of it.

Seems to me, if I wanted to minimize schedule luck to find truly the best team I would do away with playoffs as that has more to do with crowing a lesser champion than anything that happens in the regular season.
It's not a hill I am going to die on, but, in my retrospect conundrum, it actually did put the better team(s) in the playoffs. But because this "better" team had bad HTH luck during the regular season, it was the lowest entry seed into the playoffs. THEN this team continued a very good playoff run and upset higher seeds (teams with the best HTH - Median records) EVEN THOUGH probably on paper, the team was better suited for scoring high points than the teams who had better regular season luck. It is of my opinion, that while the better teams made the playoffs, the element of luck playoff scheduling still very much occurred. I actually kind of like the fact that the best teams from the season make it to the end-of-the-season tournament. And then may the best or luckiest team take the championship.

At the very least, it was an interesting exercise to ponder.
 
It is of my opinion, that while the better teams made the playoffs, the element of luck playoff scheduling still very much occurred.
That statement was my point. People are concerned about the luck aspect for the regular season to try and minimize it as a way to get into the playoffs but then do nothing to minimize the schedule luck associated with the playoffs.......when it should be even less important (schedule luck) to make sure the "right" team wins.

The people that are trying to push for VP or median scoring or whatever other method to minimize luck seem to not care about luck once playoffs start because I never see anybody talking about what to do for those few weeks to minimize luck being a factor.
 
I once finished with the most points in the league for the entire season and didn't even make the playoffs.

I asked the league to explore other options and the commish put Victory Points up for vote. six teams (out of 14 or 16 in my three leagues) make the playoffs and then we switch to total points over three weeks.

I very much like it.
 
It is of my opinion, that while the better teams made the playoffs, the element of luck playoff scheduling still very much occurred.
That statement was my point. People are concerned about the luck aspect for the regular season to try and minimize it as a way to get into the playoffs but then do nothing to minimize the schedule luck associated with the playoffs.......when it should be even less important (schedule luck) to make sure the "right" team wins.

The people that are trying to push for VP or median scoring or whatever other method to minimize luck seem to not care about luck once playoffs start because I never see anybody talking about what to do for those few weeks to minimize luck being a factor.
I am very much in favor of something like victory points or median points but I agree arguing against the luck involved and then just having a single elimination playoff bracket is pretty silly.
 
For me, simple, boring head-to-head is still preferred. Some teams get cheap victories. Some teams get really unlucky. All part of the fun, and things tend to even out over a 14-week season. When it doesn't, that's also part of the charm.

I get it more when it comes to playoffs, but still don't favor a format change. It's just fantasy. If anything, I might favor a head-to-head where the top seeds get to choose their opponent from the bottom half of the playoff field.
 
For playoff “fairness” I like FFPC championship format:
- 6 teams make playoffs, top 2 seeds get bye
- seeds 3 thru 6 matchup in week 15 as usual
- 2 winners of week 15 matchups PLUS the top 2 seeds all face off in a TWO week totaly points championship in weeks 16 and 17.
- top scorer over those 2 weeks wins the ‘Chip. 2nd highest total points wins 2nd, etc.

I really enjoy this 2 week championship format and this thread just made me suggest it to my other non-FFPC dynasty league mates 2 minutes ago :)
 
This is the same as the Victory Points option on MFL.

MFL is more customizable so you could instead set it to other variations, but setting it to give victory points for being in the top half (equal to the VP for a H2H win) is the same as playing an extra game against the median.
 
we've done it for years, from MFL, now onto Sleeper...

We're staying as is. If you're dunking points and losing, it makes it a lot less fun. If you have a hot team, it should show a lot more.
 
We did double headers when on MFL then when we switched to Sleeper we are now doing median. Dont find it confusing at all tbh, and for me rewards fantasy skills and decreases randomness. There is enough randomness anyway with injuries et al that I’m more than happy to try and squeeze a little more skill into it
 
We have a WC spot for the highest scoring team that wasn't in the top 5 (top 2 get a bye). That team over the last 10 years has very frequently been the 6th place team anyway, but it has been nice the 1 or 2 years where a guy was like 3rd in scoring but 1st in points against to not get screwed out of the playoffs.

Looked at an all play or average score thing for a bit but we like the trash talk aspect of H2H.
 
This is the same as the Victory Points option on MFL.

MFL is more customizable so you could instead set it to other variations, but setting it to give victory points for being in the top half (equal to the VP for a H2H win) is the same as playing an extra game against the median.
Agreed.

We have one league set where the top four scorers (out of 12 teams) get a Victory Point, and all winners that week get a Victory Point. We have three divisions. The 6 playoff spots are determined by the three division winners based on "normal" record (no VP's) (3), the next best record (1), and the top VP's between the remaining teams (2). Of course, there are tie breakers in there too, but that's the gist of it and it works great.
 
I was first exposed to it during Scott Fish bowl.

I personally really like it, but I've noticed a lot of people aren't big fans. And I can appreciate their reasoning. Part of the fun/beauty is the randomness, and only having to worry about your opponent's players.

On the flip side, we've all had those weeks where you score the 2nd most points, and you just happened to play the dude that scored the most. That's annoying. I'm sure many of us have had the situation where you are the highest or one of the highest scoring teams and even missed the playoffs because of multiple weeks like that.

We've also had those weeks where we score 65 points, and our opponent happened to score 62. And we were ecstatic to pull it out.

Overall, I like it. I can appreciate why some may not.
 
My home league has a W for the top 6 scorers and a loss for the bottom 6. On top of the weekly matchup.

This gives us a total of 28 W or 28 L. It’s been a great success and we can’t imagine ever going back.

There was a couple of league mates who really didn’t like this guy idea, 8 years later and they are still around and never have complained since.
 
My home league has a W for the top 6 scorers and a loss for the bottom 6. On top of the weekly matchup.

This gives us a total of 28 W or 28 L. It’s been a great success and we can’t imagine ever going back.

There was a couple of league mates who really didn’t like this guy idea, 8 years later and they are still around and never have complained since.
standard canadian rules
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top