Time to change FBG passing TDs to 6 pts? (1 Viewer)

[GregR_2]

Pretty cool. What's the other 39.9%? Hard to imagine anything other than the two. Actually, I've been in a couple leagues that are 3. I wonder if there are distance bonuses if this gets thrown into that figure. Very interesting and thanks for inquiring Greg.

This would be my thought. The number represents All passing TDs 4 points, ALL Passing TDs 6 points, and any deviation from ALL is lumped into the ~ 40%.

Yes, I think that's probably the larger part of it. People who were unecessarily difficult on themselves with setting up their scoring system. I mean, the easiest thing on MFL is to do "Every passing TD is X points". But there are other ways that amount to the exact same thing but take more work to set up (like defining individually how much the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, passing TD are worth). I doubt their query was that detailed.Heya Chase... one other thing I'd be considering if I was FBGs. Perception. A lot of people view 4 pt TDs as a silly anachronism. And the guy who is brand new to FF, who cut his teeth on some Yahoo public league and decided to go get some help on how to play... he's not going to care about the fact that leagues a dozen years ago used 4 pt TDs. He's going to prefer to talk in terms of what leagues are today. Now if he's smart he'll see the quality that FBG's is and he'll stick around... it isn't after all a deal breaker by any means... but I think the net effect on the site's perception from the standard scoring system is a negative one.

I love FBGs, but I think it's sad that the scoring system hasn't moved along with the times.

 

[wannabee]

Pretty cool. What's the other 39.9%? Hard to imagine anything other than the two. Actually, I've been in a couple leagues that are 3. I wonder if there are distance bonuses if this gets thrown into that figure. Very interesting and thanks for inquiring Greg.

This would be my thought. The number represents All passing TDs 4 points, ALL Passing TDs 6 points, and any deviation from ALL is lumped into the ~ 40%.

Yes, I think that's probably the larger part of it. People who were unecessarily difficult on themselves with setting up their scoring system. I mean, the easiest thing on MFL is to do "Every passing TD is X points". But there are other ways that amount to the exact same thing but take more work to set up (like defining individually how much the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, passing TD are worth). I doubt their query was that detailed.Heya Chase... one other thing I'd be considering if I was FBGs. Perception. A lot of people view 4 pt TDs as a silly anachronism. And the guy who is brand new to FF, who cut his teeth on some Yahoo public league and decided to go get some help on how to play... he's not going to care about the fact that leagues a dozen years ago used 4 pt TDs. He's going to prefer to talk in terms of what leagues are today. Now if he's smart he'll see the quality that FBG's is and he'll stick around... but I think the net effect on the site's perception from the standard scoring system is a negative one.

I love FBGs, but I think it's sad that the scoring system hasn't moved along with the times.

also, any/many leagues using 5 pt pass TD?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Pretty cool. What's the other 39.9%? Hard to imagine anything other than the two. Actually, I've been in a couple leagues that are 3. I wonder if there are distance bonuses if this gets thrown into that figure. Very interesting and thanks for inquiring Greg.

This would be my thought. The number represents All passing TDs 4 points, ALL Passing TDs 6 points, and any deviation from ALL is lumped into the ~ 40%.

Yes, I think that's probably the larger part of it. People who were unecessarily difficult on themselves with setting up their scoring system. I mean, the easiest thing on MFL is to do "Every passing TD is X points". But there are other ways that amount to the exact same thing but take more work to set up (like defining individually how much the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, passing TD are worth). I doubt their query was that detailed.Heya Chase... one other thing I'd be considering if I was FBGs. Perception. A lot of people view 4 pt TDs as a silly anachronism. And the guy who is brand new to FF, who cut his teeth on some Yahoo public league and decided to go get some help on how to play... he's not going to care about the fact that leagues a dozen years ago used 4 pt TDs. He's going to prefer to talk in terms of what leagues are today. Now if he's smart he'll see the quality that FBG's is and he'll stick around... but I think the net effect on the site's perception from the standard scoring system is a negative one.

I love FBGs, but I think it's sad that the scoring system hasn't moved along with the times.

There's no doubt that some people will view 4 pt TDs as weird. Some will also see 6 pt TDs as odd. And like I've several in several posts now, it's largely irrelevant since the DD and the VBD App are customizable to your league.It's something to think about, and I'm sure Joe and David will give it some thought. But personally, I'd put it pretty low on my list of ways to improve FBGs. Either way, we always appreciate the advice and recommendations from good guys like you GregR.

 

[CalBear]

Forces for change:

6 points per TD is what every other position gets.

6 points per passing TD doesn't artificially inflate the value of players like Vick.

More leagues play with 6 points per TD than 4 points per TD.

Forces for the status quo:

It's how we do it now.

I think the former are more compelling than the latter.

 

[Futeki]

Forces for change:

6 points per TD is what every other position gets.

6 points per passing TD doesn't artificially inflate the value of players like Vick.

More leagues play with 6 points per TD than 4 points per TD.

Forces for the status quo:

It's how we do it now.

I think the former are more compelling than the latter.

The QB does not actually score the TD, the receiver does. Thus, the QB could reasonably receive nothing. But we are awarding points for performance, not just scoring. 4 or 3 points is not strange. 6 points for a passing TD makes little difference overall in leagues and according to VBD. HOWEVER, the problem is week to week.With 6 pt passing TDs, each week's games are too easily decided merely by the team with the QB that had the best game. The week to week variance of QB scoring is then too erratic.

 

[Hagger]

Forces for change:

6 points per TD is what every other position gets.

6 points per passing TD doesn't artificially inflate the value of players like Vick.

More leagues play with 6 points per TD than 4 points per TD.

Forces for the status quo:

It's how we do it now.

I think the former are more compelling than the latter.

The QB does not actually score the TD, the receiver does. Thus, the QB could reasonably receive nothing. But we are awarding points for performance, not just scoring. 4 or 3 points is not strange. 6 points for a passing TD makes little difference overall in leagues and according to VBD. HOWEVER, the problem is week to week.With 6 pt passing TDs, each week's games are too easily decided merely by the team with the QB that had the best game. The week to week variance of QB scoring is then too erratic.

I disagree. My league has been using 6 points for passing TD's throughout its histroy and it isn't decided merely by the hottest QB of the week. The other posistions still play a significant role in the outcome of the team.What it really does is make QB a factor for once, where in many scoring systems they aren't very much. I'm a huge advocate for changing the out of date and old fashioned way of watering down QB scoring. It's time to start scoring QB's in such a way that they're important to your team... just like they are for real.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Forces for change:

6 points per TD is what every other position gets.

6 points per passing TD doesn't artificially inflate the value of players like Vick.

More leagues play with 6 points per TD than 4 points per TD.

Forces for the status quo:

It's how we do it now.

I think the former are more compelling than the latter.

It only "artificially" inflates someone's value if you take a 6 pt passing TD as The Word Of God. Vick's value isn't artificial in any scoring system. Or, maybe I should say that it's no more artificial in one system than it is in another. I could just as easily say that Manning or Bledsoe has their values artificially inflated by a 6pt-TD league.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

And like I've several in several posts now, it's largely irrelevant since the DD and the VBD App are customizable to your league.

I think where's it's important is that FBGs scoring is the default system used when discussing scoring here. How many posts have we seen over the years saying something to the effect of "if you're not using FBGs scoring to make your point, please post your scoring system". I think it's very important that there's a basic lingua franca to at least have the 1,000s of posters here starting on the same page."When in Rome........"

 

[David Yudkin]

In response to a request I made, MFL was kind enough to do a query of their database and see what the breakdown is for how leagues are scoring passing TDs.  A big thumbs up to Kevin and the MFL staff for taking the time to do this. 

Here was what they found:

4 points per passing TD: 27.3% of all leagues.

6 points per passing TD: 32.8% of all leagues.

other points for passing TD: 39.9% of all leagues.

It's not a landslide, but 20% more 6 pt leagues on MFL than there are 4 pt leagues is a fairly sizeable difference. I would imagine MFL is representative of high end sites. Take into account then all the lower end public leagues on sites like yahoo that are hard-coded to be 6 pt TDs, and I imagine that lead for 6 pt TDs grows even larger over 4 pt TDs.Wouldn't it be better to make the FBG standard scoring representative of what the largest segment of leagues out there actually use? Especially when that scoring system is used in all the articles, and it's what we try to default discussions to so we're all taking about the same thing?

Like all stats, these numbers can be viewed differently.Leagues using 4 pts for passing TD = 27.3%

Leagues NOT using 4 pts for passing TD = 72.7%

Leagues using 6 pts for passing TD = 32.8%

Leagues NOT using 6 pts for passing TD = 67.2%

Neither one truly represents a number indictative of a dominant scoring system, as none gets even 51% of the total. There's only a 5% difference between the two systems--it's not an overwhelming difference. Out of 100 leagues, 5 more use 6 pts over 4 pts. I don't know what would tilt the scales to make it a radical difference, but I doubt 5 out of a 100 would.

The numbers tell me that there are a lot more custom scoring leagues than expected and that there really isn't a bonafide universal scoring system for QB.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Forces for change:

6 points per TD is what every other position gets.

6 points per passing TD doesn't artificially inflate the value of players like Vick.

More leagues play with 6 points per TD than 4 points per TD.

Forces for the status quo:

It's how we do it now.

I think the former are more compelling than the latter.

The QB does not actually score the TD, the receiver does. Thus, the QB could reasonably receive nothing. But we are awarding points for performance, not just scoring. 4 or 3 points is not strange. 6 points for a passing TD makes little difference overall in leagues and according to VBD. HOWEVER, the problem is week to week.With 6 pt passing TDs, each week's games are too easily decided merely by the team with the QB that had the best game. The week to week variance of QB scoring is then too erratic.

I disagree. My league has been using 6 points for passing TD's throughout its histroy and it isn't decided merely by the hottest QB of the week. The other posistions still play a significant role in the outcome of the team.What it really does is make QB a factor for once, where in many scoring systems they aren't very much. I'm a huge advocate for changing the out of date and old fashioned way of watering down QB scoring. It's time to start scoring QB's in such a way that they're important to your team... just like they are for real.

I play in a 6 pt/TD passing league, and where I see the largest difference is not from week to week, but overall. Having a QB that regularly produces and avoids injury is absolutely pivotal in a 6 pt/league, where a hot QB can single handedly bury you with a 300 yard, 4 TD performance. Last year, I lost in the first round of the playoffs with a team that featured Larry Johnson, Tiki, DJax, Chris Chambers, and Gonzalez, primarily because I lost Bulger and Griese the same week. Forced to cobble together a QB corps with the likes of Mark Brunell at the top killed me. He turned in a -1 in week 14 while Bledsoe hung 24 on me. I lost that game by 4 points and was ousted, despite having the much better team top to bottom. In a 4-pt/TD league, I'd have won that game. I know this is an isolated incident, but the spectre of a QB mismatch burying you on any given week leaves people scrambling to get a viable option at that position, which in turn leads to more aggressive QB drafting on draft day. ADP last year had only 3-4 QBs going in the first 4 rounds, in my league, 9 went off the board for this reason. Hence, the scoring system definitely affects draft strategy and ADP calculations, and should be figured into the overall rankings.

 

[Futeki]

Forces for change:

6 points per TD is what every other position gets.

6 points per passing TD doesn't artificially inflate the value of players like Vick.

More leagues play with 6 points per TD than 4 points per TD.

Forces for the status quo:

It's how we do it now.

I think the former are more compelling than the latter.

The QB does not actually score the TD, the receiver does. Thus, the QB could reasonably receive nothing. But we are awarding points for performance, not just scoring. 4 or 3 points is not strange. 6 points for a passing TD makes little difference overall in leagues and according to VBD. HOWEVER, the problem is week to week.With 6 pt passing TDs, each week's games are too easily decided merely by the team with the QB that had the best game. The week to week variance of QB scoring is then too erratic.

I disagree. My league has been using 6 points for passing TD's throughout its histroy and it isn't decided merely by the hottest QB of the week. The other posistions still play a significant role in the outcome of the team.What it really does is make QB a factor for once, where in many scoring systems they aren't very much. I'm a huge advocate for changing the out of date and old fashioned way of watering down QB scoring. It's time to start scoring QB's in such a way that they're important to your team... just like they are for real.

I play in a 6 pt/TD passing league, and where I see the largest difference is not from week to week, but overall. Having a QB that regularly produces and avoids injury is absolutely pivotal in a 6 pt/league, where a hot QB can single handedly bury you with a 300 yard, 4 TD performance. Last year, I lost in the first round of the playoffs with a team that featured Larry Johnson, Tiki, DJax, Chris Chambers, and Gonzalez, primarily because I lost Bulger and Griese the same week. Forced to cobble together a QB corps with the likes of Mark Brunell at the top killed me. He turned in a -1 in week 14 while Bledsoe hung 24 on me. I lost that game by 4 points and was ousted, despite having the much better team top to bottom. In a 4-pt/TD league, I'd have won that game. I know this is an isolated incident, but the spectre of a QB mismatch burying you on any given week leaves people scrambling to get a viable option at that position, which in turn leads to more aggressive QB drafting on draft day. ADP last year had only 3-4 QBs going in the first 4 rounds, in my league, 9 went off the board for this reason. Hence, the scoring system definitely affects draft strategy and ADP calculations, and should be figured into the overall rankings.

You seem to contradict yourself by saying the difference is not week to week, but overall. Yet your example is a single week where the obviously stronger TEAM was beaten almost single-handedly by a hot QB for the week. This is my point exactly.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Forces for change:

6 points per TD is what every other position gets.

6 points per passing TD doesn't artificially inflate the value of players like Vick.

More leagues play with 6 points per TD than 4 points per TD.

Forces for the status quo:

It's how we do it now.

I think the former are more compelling than the latter.

The QB does not actually score the TD, the receiver does. Thus, the QB could reasonably receive nothing. But we are awarding points for performance, not just scoring. 4 or 3 points is not strange. 6 points for a passing TD makes little difference overall in leagues and according to VBD. HOWEVER, the problem is week to week.With 6 pt passing TDs, each week's games are too easily decided merely by the team with the QB that had the best game. The week to week variance of QB scoring is then too erratic.

I disagree. My league has been using 6 points for passing TD's throughout its histroy and it isn't decided merely by the hottest QB of the week. The other posistions still play a significant role in the outcome of the team.What it really does is make QB a factor for once, where in many scoring systems they aren't very much. I'm a huge advocate for changing the out of date and old fashioned way of watering down QB scoring. It's time to start scoring QB's in such a way that they're important to your team... just like they are for real.

I play in a 6 pt/TD passing league, and where I see the largest difference is not from week to week, but overall. Having a QB that regularly produces and avoids injury is absolutely pivotal in a 6 pt/league, where a hot QB can single handedly bury you with a 300 yard, 4 TD performance. Last year, I lost in the first round of the playoffs with a team that featured Larry Johnson, Tiki, DJax, Chris Chambers, and Gonzalez, primarily because I lost Bulger and Griese the same week. Forced to cobble together a QB corps with the likes of Mark Brunell at the top killed me. He turned in a -1 in week 14 while Bledsoe hung 24 on me. I lost that game by 4 points and was ousted, despite having the much better team top to bottom. In a 4-pt/TD league, I'd have won that game. I know this is an isolated incident, but the spectre of a QB mismatch burying you on any given week leaves people scrambling to get a viable option at that position, which in turn leads to more aggressive QB drafting on draft day. ADP last year had only 3-4 QBs going in the first 4 rounds, in my league, 9 went off the board for this reason. Hence, the scoring system definitely affects draft strategy and ADP calculations, and should be figured into the overall rankings.

You seem to contradict yourself by saying the difference is not week to week, but overall. Yet your example is a single week where the obviously stronger TEAM was beaten almost single-handedly by a hot QB for the week. This is my point exactly.

The difference manifests itself in singular instances, I agree. However, where its effect is truly felt is in the overall approach to the QB position on draft day and on the waiver wire. I'm agreeing with you, but taking it a step further to explain why it goes beyond just the math when determining how to quantify the effect in pre-draft rankings.

 

[Futeki]

Forces for change:

6 points per TD is what every other position gets.

6 points per passing TD doesn't artificially inflate the value of players like Vick.

More leagues play with 6 points per TD than 4 points per TD.

Forces for the status quo:

It's how we do it now.

I think the former are more compelling than the latter.

The QB does not actually score the TD, the receiver does. Thus, the QB could reasonably receive nothing. But we are awarding points for performance, not just scoring. 4 or 3 points is not strange. 6 points for a passing TD makes little difference overall in leagues and according to VBD. HOWEVER, the problem is week to week.With 6 pt passing TDs, each week's games are too easily decided merely by the team with the QB that had the best game. The week to week variance of QB scoring is then too erratic.

I disagree. My league has been using 6 points for passing TD's throughout its histroy and it isn't decided merely by the hottest QB of the week. The other posistions still play a significant role in the outcome of the team.What it really does is make QB a factor for once, where in many scoring systems they aren't very much. I'm a huge advocate for changing the out of date and old fashioned way of watering down QB scoring. It's time to start scoring QB's in such a way that they're important to your team... just like they are for real.

I play in a 6 pt/TD passing league, and where I see the largest difference is not from week to week, but overall. Having a QB that regularly produces and avoids injury is absolutely pivotal in a 6 pt/league, where a hot QB can single handedly bury you with a 300 yard, 4 TD performance. Last year, I lost in the first round of the playoffs with a team that featured Larry Johnson, Tiki, DJax, Chris Chambers, and Gonzalez, primarily because I lost Bulger and Griese the same week. Forced to cobble together a QB corps with the likes of Mark Brunell at the top killed me. He turned in a -1 in week 14 while Bledsoe hung 24 on me. I lost that game by 4 points and was ousted, despite having the much better team top to bottom. In a 4-pt/TD league, I'd have won that game. I know this is an isolated incident, but the spectre of a QB mismatch burying you on any given week leaves people scrambling to get a viable option at that position, which in turn leads to more aggressive QB drafting on draft day. ADP last year had only 3-4 QBs going in the first 4 rounds, in my league, 9 went off the board for this reason. Hence, the scoring system definitely affects draft strategy and ADP calculations, and should be figured into the overall rankings.

You seem to contradict yourself by saying the difference is not week to week, but overall. Yet your example is a single week where the obviously stronger TEAM was beaten almost single-handedly by a hot QB for the week. This is my point exactly.

The difference manifests itself in singular instances, I agree. However, where its effect is truly felt is in the overall approach to the QB position on draft day and on the waiver wire. I'm agreeing with you, but taking it a step further to explain why it goes beyond just the math when determining how to quantify the effect in pre-draft rankings.

I see. Good point. I agree I just don't like it!

 

[Chase Stuart]

And like I've several in several posts now, it's largely irrelevant since the DD and the VBD App are customizable to your league.

I think where's it's important is that FBGs scoring is the default system used when discussing scoring here. How many posts have we seen over the years saying something to the effect of "if you're not using FBGs scoring to make your point, please post your scoring system". I think it's very important that there's a basic lingua franca to at least have the 1,000s of posters here starting on the same page."When in Rome........"

If we're concerned about a default scoring system that everyone knows, than surely changing the scoring system would cause more confusion than good, right?

 

[Uruk-Hai]

And like I've several in several posts now, it's largely irrelevant since the DD and the VBD App are customizable to your league.

I think where's it's important is that FBGs scoring is the default system used when discussing scoring here. How many posts have we seen over the years saying something to the effect of "if you're not using FBGs scoring to make your point, please post your scoring system". I think it's very important that there's a basic lingua franca to at least have the 1,000s of posters here starting on the same page."When in Rome........"

If we're concerned about a default scoring system that everyone knows, than surely changing the scoring system would cause more confusion than good, right?

Maybe at first, but if most people are using 6pt passing TDs (& I'm just going with the premise of the thread - I don't know if they are or not), the adjustment curve is nonexistent for them (because they don't have to adjust "back" to a 4 pt system for general discussion.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Personally, if the difference is negligible, why not just go with the more common scoring system, even if it's only slightly so. Straw polls done here have reflected that more FBGs use 6 pts than 4 (in fact, I think the difference was greater than what is posted in this thread), so why not go with the majority? The adjustment to the content can't be much more than just running a set of numbers through a slightly different equation, no?

 

[CalBear]

It only "artificially" inflates someone's value if you take a 6 pt passing TD as The Word Of God. Vick's value isn't artificial in any scoring system. Or, maybe I should say that it's no more artificial in one system than it is in another. I could just as easily say that Manning or Bledsoe has their values artificially inflated by a 6pt-TD league.

It artifically inflates the value of running QBs, because running isn't inherently more valuable than passing, yet they get more credit for it. Why should a QB sneak from the 1-inch-line be worth more than a pass to the back of the end zone? I don't think NFL coaches would look at someone who throws for 35 TDs to be less valuable than someone who throws for 25 TDs and runs for 7.

 

[The Mechanic]

Personally, if the difference is negligible, why not just go with the more common scoring system, even if it's only slightly so. Straw polls done here have reflected that more FBGs use 6 pts than 4 (in fact, I think the difference was greater than what is posted in this thread), so why not go with the majority? The adjustment to the content can't be much more than just running a set of numbers through a slightly different equation, no?

 

[GregR_2]

Personally, if the difference is negligible, why not just go with the more common scoring system, even if it's only slightly so. Straw polls done here have reflected that more FBGs use 6 pts than 4 (in fact, I think the difference was greater than what is posted in this thread), so why not go with the majority? The adjustment to the content can't be much more than just running a set of numbers through a slightly different equation, no?

I agree. The major issues I can think of for FBG in changing would be possibly having to change some code (not sure how much content is generated automagically vs created manually), and if done too late in the year, having to go back and change content. The latter would seem like the bigger hurdle if a lot of content for that year has gone out already. As long as the change happened before they'd have to go change stuff that was already done, I'd guess it wouldn't be a painful change. But then, I'm just speculating based on what I know of coding and what I know is here at FBGs.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

It only "artificially" inflates someone's value if you take a 6 pt passing TD as The Word Of God. Vick's value isn't artificial in any scoring system. Or, maybe I should say that it's no more artificial in one system than it is in another. I could just as easily say that Manning or Bledsoe has their values artificially inflated by a 6pt-TD league.

It artifically inflates the value of running QBs, because running isn't inherently more valuable than passing, yet they get more credit for it. Why should a QB sneak from the 1-inch-line be worth more than a pass to the back of the end zone? I don't think NFL coaches would look at someone who throws for 35 TDs to be less valuable than someone who throws for 25 TDs and runs for 7.

That line of reasoning gets us into the murky waters of "real" football vs Fantasy - a place I don't feel like going, unless we're only going to talk about 32 team, TD-only leagues that start 11 players mirroring the NFL configuration. Otherwise, we're only picking & choosing what we want as "realistic" per personal preference.

 

[joffer]

It only "artificially" inflates someone's value if you take a 6 pt passing TD as The Word Of God. Vick's value isn't artificial in any scoring system. Or, maybe I should say that it's no more artificial in one system than it is in another. I could just as easily say that Manning or Bledsoe has their values artificially inflated by a 6pt-TD league.

It artifically inflates the value of running QBs, because running isn't inherently more valuable than passing, yet they get more credit for it. Why should a QB sneak from the 1-inch-line be worth more than a pass to the back of the end zone? I don't think NFL coaches would look at someone who throws for 35 TDs to be less valuable than someone who throws for 25 TDs and runs for 7.

That line of reasoning gets us into the murky waters of "real" football vs Fantasy - a place I don't feel like going, unless we're only going to talk about 32 team, TD-only leagues that start 11 players mirroring the NFL configuration. Otherwise, we're only picking & choosing what we want as "realistic" per personal preference.

exactly Personally, i like 4pts for passing TDs, but know it's not because i think it somehow mimics "real" football.

 

[LTsharks]

Personally, if the difference is negligible, why not just go with the more common scoring system, even if it's only slightly so. Straw polls done here have reflected that more FBGs use 6 pts than 4 (in fact, I think the difference was greater than what is posted in this thread), so why not go with the majority? The adjustment to the content can't be much more than just running a set of numbers through a slightly different equation, no?

Something else to consider, I'm pretty sure that CBS uses 6 points as a default for QBs. Others mentioned Yahoo does as well, I don't know if that is true or not. It seems that if MFL has more 6 then 4 and most of the big sites default that way, it might be the way to go. Anyone know what other large sites use for defaults?Not that anyone is counting votes here, but I would have to say 6 would be better as a default for FBG as well.

 

[Buckna]

Just scanned the topic but I didn't see anyone bringing up the member contributed article 2 years ago entitled "Equillibrium of Scoring Positions" or something like that. It discussed this very same issue with QB's & WR's using the last few years of data and graphing them all together. It was a great article (with it's only failing being it was heavily math weighted.)

If I remember the conculsions correctly, changing TD points for QB's or adding PPR to WR's doesn't really influence the overall rankings much. You end up just creating greater seperation between the very few top players at a position between the rest of the middle of the pack players. So the Steve Smith's and Peyton Manning of the world become 1st round picks, while your average Jake Plummer or Eric Moulds stays the same (i.e. worth a lot less than a middle of the pack RB.)

The only way to truly equalize positions is to change your starting lineups (an example would be changing to 1QB-2RB-3WR and adding a flex QB/RB/WR.) I don't think the article discussed TE's.

 

[Cixelsyd]

Forces for change:

6 points per TD is what every other position gets.

6 points per passing TD doesn't artificially inflate the value of players like Vick.

More leagues play with 6 points per TD than 4 points per TD.

Forces for the status quo:

It's how we do it now.

I think the former are more compelling than the latter.

The QB does not actually score the TD, the receiver does. Thus, the QB could reasonably receive nothing. But we are awarding points for performance, not just scoring. 4 or 3 points is not strange. 6 points for a passing TD makes little difference overall in leagues and according to VBD. HOWEVER, the problem is week to week.With 6 pt passing TDs, each week's games are too easily decided merely by the team with the QB that had the best game. The week to week variance of QB scoring is then too erratic.

I disagree. My league has been using 6 points for passing TD's throughout its histroy and it isn't decided merely by the hottest QB of the week. The other posistions still play a significant role in the outcome of the team.What it really does is make QB a factor for once, where in many scoring systems they aren't very much. I'm a huge advocate for changing the out of date and old fashioned way of watering down QB scoring. It's time to start scoring QB's in such a way that they're important to your team... just like they are for real.

I play in a 6 pt/TD passing league, and where I see the largest difference is not from week to week, but overall. Having a QB that regularly produces and avoids injury is absolutely pivotal in a 6 pt/league, where a hot QB can single handedly bury you with a 300 yard, 4 TD performance. Last year, I lost in the first round of the playoffs with a team that featured Larry Johnson, Tiki, DJax, Chris Chambers, and Gonzalez, primarily because I lost Bulger and Griese the same week. Forced to cobble together a QB corps with the likes of Mark Brunell at the top killed me. He turned in a -1 in week 14 while Bledsoe hung 24 on me. I lost that game by 4 points and was ousted, despite having the much better team top to bottom. In a 4-pt/TD league, I'd have won that game. I know this is an isolated incident, but the spectre of a QB mismatch burying you on any given week leaves people scrambling to get a viable option at that position, which in turn leads to more aggressive QB drafting on draft day. ADP last year had only 3-4 QBs going in the first 4 rounds, in my league, 9 went off the board for this reason. Hence, the scoring system definitely affects draft strategy and ADP calculations, and should be figured into the overall rankings.

You seem to contradict yourself by saying the difference is not week to week, but overall. Yet your example is a single week where the obviously stronger TEAM was beaten almost single-handedly by a hot QB for the week. This is my point exactly.

It wasn't a hot QB that beat him, it was having no QB that beat him....

 

[David Dodds]

Everything we have ties into the old scoring right now (rank from the player pages, etc). Some of this is dynamically created, but things like our PDF stat books aren't. We would need to think about all the things this touches too.

I know we will not be changing this for 2006. Too hard to implement all of this at this time. But we will take this up in the offseason. The data clearly supports a move and next year this could be a real possibility.

 

[GregR_2]

Everything we have ties into the old scoring right now (rank from the player pages, etc). Some of this is dynamically created, but things like our PDF stat books aren't. We would need to think about all the things this touches too.

I know we will not be changing this for 2006. Too hard to implement all of this at this time. But we will take this up in the offseason. The data clearly supports a move and next year this could be a real possibility.

Thanks for considering it David. I think it's understandable that now isn't the time to do it with everything else you guys have ramping up, but hope it'll happen next year.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Everything we have ties into the old scoring right now (rank from the player pages, etc).  Some of this is dynamically created, but things like our PDF stat books aren't.  We would need to think about all the things this touches too.

I know we will not be changing this for 2006.  Too hard to implement all of this at this time. But we will take this up in the offseason.  The data clearly supports a move and next year this could be a real possibility.

That makes sense. People sometimes don't realize the volume of work necessary to pull something like this off.On the other hand, I don't understand the "it only sucks a little bit" approach some people are taking. Seems pretty clear-cut that if most people use 6 pts/TD FBG should use 6 pts/TD EVENTUALLY - even if it is only "a little bit" different. No reason to just live with the difference when there is no real reason not to change.

Even if it ONLY effects Manning and Vick (which I doubt), shouldn't the rankings accurately reflect what FBGs thinks about these two players relative to the scoring system the majority (or plurality) of people are using?

 

[JohnnyTitan]

Just connecting some dots here:

- QBs are already the highest scoring Fantasy players (4pt per pass TDs)

- Inflating pass TDs to 6pts will only make QBs higher scoring / more volatile

- Thurman (post #56) wants QBs to be a factor in FFL. Thus he favours 6 pts

- Evilgrin (post #60) claims that in his league "a hot QB can single handedly bury you with a 300 yard, 4 TD performance"

- Buckna (post #73) reminds us that much effort went into a study that proved the only way to achieve equilization between positions is to alter the statring requirements... NOT TO TINKER WITH SCORING.

So here is what I see happening with modern day FFL

- Most leagues use flawed lineups that only start only one QB

- If said leagues wants to make QBs a factor, they crank up the TD passes to 6 points in an attempt to make the position "More Important"

- QBs still don't get picked in the first round. (Last mock I saw, Manning @ 31 overall and Hassie / Brady next in the 50s).

- QBs become even more volatile than other positions, and a 300 yd / 4TD performance is almost an automatic win while a 125 yd / 0 TD performance is almost a sure loss.

I think 4pts per TD is perfect. QB / RB / WR scoring should be as balanced as possible. Start 2 QBs and everything is perfect !!

Instead of asking FBGs to revamp their forecasts using 6pt vs 4pt TD passes, we should be asking them to gear all their material towards 2QB leagues!

End Rant. (For today)

 

[cstu]

Let's take 2004 as an example.

In overall FP rankings, the first non-QB was Alexander at #8 with 306. Drew Brees was #14 with 283, but with 6 point TD's he would have had 337.

LT was #12 with 287 and David Carr was #20 with 256. With 6 point TD's he would have had 288, more than LT.

Those are examples of reasons why QB TD's were changed from 6 to 4.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Let's take 2004 as an example.

In overall FP rankings, the first non-QB was Alexander at #8 with 306. Drew Brees was #14 with 283, but with 6 point TD's he would have had 337.

LT was #12 with 287 and David Carr was #20 with 256. With 6 point TD's he would have had 288, more than LT.

Those are examples of reasons why QB TD's were changed from 6 to 4.

Sorry, not buying any of this. You cite 2004 examples as why leagues were changing from 6 to 4, but I think the VAST majority of leagues around 2004 were going in the other direction (from 4 to 6) if they were changing scoring at all around that time frame.The 4pt passing TDs are a holdover from the Young/early Favre/Marino days when people didn't really understand the true relative value of the positions. People have only recently started to understand (and apparently some people still don't) that more fantasy points does not necessarily equal more fantasy value. In 6pt leagues, people still draft RBs first - and rightfully so. Manning was BY FAR the highest scorer in 2004 and was probably drafted in the mid to late first in most leagues with 6 pt passing TDs - behind RBs who people fully expected to score less than Manning again in 2005. What most leagues try to "balance" is not scoring, but value.

HOWEVER, none of that even matters. The fact is that more people use 6pt leagues than use 4pt leagues, and the trend is going further toward the 6pt group all the time. Whether it "should" or not is somewhat irrelavent to the point the original poster was trying to make - that FBG should probably match their standard scoring to what the majority of their clients use in their leagues.

 

[John Mamula]

Sorry, not buying any of this. You cite 2004 examples as why leagues were changing from 6 to 4, but I think the VAST majority of leagues around 2004 were going in the other direction (from 4 to 6) if they were changing scoring at all around that time frame.

The 4pt passing TDs are a holdover from the Young/early Favre/Marino days when people didn't really understand the true relative value of the positions. People have only recently started to understand (and apparently some people still don't) that more fantasy points does not necessarily equal more fantasy value. In 6pt leagues, people still draft RBs first - and rightfully so. Manning was BY FAR the highest scorer in 2004 and was probably drafted in the mid to late first in most leagues with 6 pt passing TDs - behind RBs who people fully expected to score less than Manning again in 2005. What most leagues try to "balance" is not scoring, but value.

HOWEVER, none of that even matters. The fact is that more people use 6pt leagues than use 4pt leagues, and the trend is going further toward the 6pt group all the time. Whether it "should" or not is somewhat irrelavent to the point the original poster was trying to make - that FBG should probably match their standard scoring to what the majority of their clients use in their leagues.

 

[cstu]

Let's take 2004 as an example.

In overall FP rankings, the first non-QB was Alexander at #8 with 306. Drew Brees was #14 with 283, but with 6 point TD's he would have had 337.

LT was #12 with 287 and David Carr was #20 with 256. With 6 point TD's he would have had 288, more than LT.

Those are examples of reasons why QB TD's were changed from 6 to 4.

Sorry, not buying any of this. You cite 2004 examples as why leagues were changing from 6 to 4, but I think the VAST majority of leagues around 2004 were going in the other direction (from 4 to 6) if they were changing scoring at all around that time frame.The 4pt passing TDs are a holdover from the Young/early Favre/Marino days when people didn't really understand the true relative value of the positions. People have only recently started to understand (and apparently some people still don't) that more fantasy points does not necessarily equal more fantasy value. In 6pt leagues, people still draft RBs first - and rightfully so. Manning was BY FAR the highest scorer in 2004 and was probably drafted in the mid to late first in most leagues with 6 pt passing TDs - behind RBs who people fully expected to score less than Manning again in 2005. What most leagues try to "balance" is not scoring, but value.

HOWEVER, none of that even matters. The fact is that more people use 6pt leagues than use 4pt leagues, and the trend is going further toward the 6pt group all the time. Whether it "should" or not is somewhat irrelavent to the point the original poster was trying to make - that FBG should probably match their standard scoring to what the majority of their clients use in their leagues.

No, those are examples of why QB TD's were changed to 4 points a long time ago. I haven't been in a league that has had 6 point QB TD's for over 5 years and can't understand why anyone still uses it. I used 2004 because it's an example of a year which would have been dominated by QB's in 6 pt./TD leagues and skewed their value.Are you really saying that you want to be in a league where Drew Brees outscores LT?

 

[CalBear]

Are you really saying that you want to be in a league where Drew Brees outscores LT?

You mean, a league like the NFL?The issue isn't total scoring, it's value. Drew Brees' VBD number in 2004 was 15 with 4-point TDs; that is, his value was less than Fred Taylor (1560 yards, 3 TD), Lee Evans (843 yards, 9 TD), and Jermaine Wiggins (705 yards, 4 TD), not to mention a number of kickers and defenses. The fact that he scored more points than those players is completely irrelevant.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Are you really saying that you want to be in a league where Drew Brees outscores LT?

You mean, a league like the NFL?The issue isn't total scoring, it's value. Drew Brees' VBD number in 2004 was 15 with 4-point TDs; that is, his value was less than Fred Taylor (1560 yards, 3 TD), Lee Evans (843 yards, 9 TD), and Jermaine Wiggins (705 yards, 4 TD), not to mention a number of kickers and defenses. The fact that he scored more points than those players is completely irrelevant.

Exactly. I'm TOTALLY fine with Brees "outscoring" LT, because he is still worth a lot less than LT.When Brees gets DRAFTED higher (or is more expensive in an auction) than LT, THEN I'll worry.

All I can say about your timeframe is that you are way off base. I'm virtually certain that there are a higher percentage of leagues using 6pt TDs today than there were in '04.

 

[Demons]

The problem isn't one that can be simply resolved by saying the DD can be customized. I don't use the DD. I like to look at the Staff Rankings as an easy to use tool that gives me rankings that hopefully approximate the real world. The rankings lose relevance when they are based upon out-moded scoring systems. Taking a leap of faith here, the most used scoring systems place a value of 6 points for TD's scored irrespective of position. The rankings should reflect that.

There is also a perception issue here. What else is out of date or inconsistent with the current trends in scoring? If I'm Joe Blow and I step in to check the site out, I'm more likely to respect the validity of the product if it conforms to the norm. You stay with the times or you get left behind.

I would love to know what the stats are for MFL leagues on the PPR issue. That is a much larger change to the scoring presumptions made in forming rankings than 4 versus 6 points for passing TD's.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Let's take 2004 as an example.

In overall FP rankings, the first non-QB was Alexander at #8 with 306.  Drew Brees was #14 with 283, but with 6 point TD's he would have had 337.

LT was #12 with 287 and David Carr was #20 with 256.  With 6 point TD's he would have had 288, more than LT.

Those are examples of reasons why QB TD's were changed from 6 to 4.

Sorry, not buying any of this. You cite 2004 examples as why leagues were changing from 6 to 4, but I think the VAST majority of leagues around 2004 were going in the other direction (from 4 to 6) if they were changing scoring at all around that time frame.The 4pt passing TDs are a holdover from the Young/early Favre/Marino days when people didn't really understand the true relative value of the positions. People have only recently started to understand (and apparently some people still don't) that more fantasy points does not necessarily equal more fantasy value. In 6pt leagues, people still draft RBs first - and rightfully so. Manning was BY FAR the highest scorer in 2004 and was probably drafted in the mid to late first in most leagues with 6 pt passing TDs - behind RBs who people fully expected to score less than Manning again in 2005. What most leagues try to "balance" is not scoring, but value.

HOWEVER, none of that even matters. The fact is that more people use 6pt leagues than use 4pt leagues, and the trend is going further toward the 6pt group all the time. Whether it "should" or not is somewhat irrelavent to the point the original poster was trying to make - that FBG should probably match their standard scoring to what the majority of their clients use in their leagues.

No, those are examples of why QB TD's were changed to 4 points a long time ago. I haven't been in a league that has had 6 point QB TD's for over 5 years and can't understand why anyone still uses it. I used 2004 because it's an example of a year which would have been dominated by QB's in 6 pt./TD leagues and skewed their value.Are you really saying that you want to be in a league where Drew Brees outscores LT?

I've been playing FF since the late 80s &, until the last 5 years or so, never even saw a league that used 6 pt passing TDs. Hell, back in the Dark Ages most leagues that I knew of used 3 pts per TD; 4 was considered radical. From my experience, it definitely seems to be trending toward 6 pt PTD, not away.I don't have a dog in this fight, as my local redraft has whacky scoring, so I have to mentally adjust when discussing here, anyway. FWIW, that league still uses 4 pt PTD & probably will for a while as we allow QBs into the flex mix. It's of my opinion (for my league) that 6 pt PTDs would allow QBs to dominate the flex spot(s).

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Just connecting some dots here:

- QBs are already the highest scoring Fantasy players (4pt per pass TDs)

- Inflating pass TDs to 6pts will only make QBs higher scoring / more volatile

- Thurman (post #56) wants QBs to be a factor in FFL. Thus he favours 6 pts

- Evilgrin (post #60) claims that in his league "a hot QB can single handedly bury you with a 300 yard, 4 TD performance"

- Buckna (post #73) reminds us that much effort went into a study that proved the only way to achieve equilization between positions is to alter the statring requirements... NOT TO TINKER WITH SCORING.

So here is what I see happening with modern day FFL

- Most leagues use flawed lineups that only start only one QB

- If said leagues wants to make QBs a factor, they crank up the TD passes to 6 points in an attempt to make the position "More Important"

- QBs still don't get picked in the first round. (Last mock I saw, Manning @ 31 overall and Hassie / Brady next in the 50s).

- QBs become even more volatile than other positions, and a 300 yd / 4TD performance is almost an automatic win while a 125 yd / 0 TD performance is almost a sure loss.

I think 4pts per TD is perfect. QB / RB / WR scoring should be as balanced as possible. Start 2 QBs and everything is perfect !!

Instead of asking FBGs to revamp their forecasts using 6pt vs 4pt TD passes, we should be asking them to gear all their material towards 2QB leagues!

End Rant. (For today)

I don't know that the discussion here centers on the relative merits of 4 pt/6 pt, but rather the fact that most leagues use the latter, and as such, FBG scoring would do well to reflect that in its rankings.David, thanks for the response. I'm the first to admit I have no idea what such a change would entail in terms of programming, etc... I was just kind of floating the idea out there.

 

[Futeki]

Just connecting some dots here:

- QBs are already the highest scoring Fantasy players (4pt per pass TDs)

- Inflating pass TDs to 6pts will only make QBs higher scoring / more volatile

- Thurman (post #56) wants QBs to be a factor in FFL. Thus he favours 6 pts

- Evilgrin (post #60) claims that in his league "a hot QB can single handedly bury you with a 300 yard, 4 TD performance"

- Buckna (post #73) reminds us that much effort went into a study that proved the only way to achieve equilization between positions is to alter the statring requirements... NOT TO TINKER WITH SCORING.

So here is what I see happening with modern day FFL

- Most leagues use flawed lineups that only start only one QB

- If said leagues wants to make QBs a factor, they crank up the TD passes to 6 points in an attempt to make the position "More Important"

- QBs still don't get picked in the first round. (Last mock I saw, Manning @ 31 overall and Hassie / Brady next in the 50s).

- QBs become even more volatile than other positions, and a 300 yd / 4TD performance is almost an automatic win while a 125 yd / 0 TD performance is almost a sure loss.

I think 4pts per TD is perfect.  QB / RB / WR scoring should be as balanced as possible.  Start 2 QBs and everything is perfect !!

Instead of asking FBGs to revamp their forecasts using 6pt vs 4pt TD passes, we should be asking them to gear all their material towards 2QB leagues!

End Rant. (For today)

I don't know that the discussion here centers on the relative merits of 4 pt/6 pt, but rather the fact that most leagues use the latter, and as such, FBG scoring would do well to reflect that in its rankings.David, thanks for the response. I'm the first to admit I have no idea what such a change would entail in terms of programming, etc... I was just kind of floating the idea out there.

While we are at it, if we find that most people don't do substantial research before the draft, then FBG should stop providing the information.Do we really care how the purported common league scores it?

And if we do...I think it highly likely that most of the other 39.9% were 3 pts/TD, thus making 4 pts/TD extremely representative and 6 pts/TD more of an outlier. However, the stats aren't available as only those statistics necessary to make the original poster's point were provided. I love statistics. A limited set of statistics has even made it fact for some.

Other random comments:

---6 pts/TD are too volatile, but to each their own.

---QBs don't actually score on passing TDs!!! Check NFL.com and the scoring leaders. You will find K, RB, and WR, but not any QB. Giving the QB 6 points for a score isn't an inherently logical thing to do; it is grossly inflated from 0.

---Changing the lineup requirements is the way to go for leagues to alter demand.