Tweaking PPR (1 Viewer)

[BRONG]

Well?

And if not, thoughts on it?

 

[Rodeojones]

A MOX league I am in uses:

0 = RB

1 = WR

2 = TE

I like the scoring system...

 

[BRONG]

A MOX league I am in uses:0 = RB1 = WR2 = TEI like the scoring system...

Tried that (with 1 PPR for RB). Thought 2 points ended up being too much.Thus, this would appear to be a better solution. I also like it because it doesn't value pass-catching RB's so highly. Dump offs be damned!

 

[Synthesizer]

We do a 0.5 PPR for WR and TE, but nothing for RB. I really like it. WRs and TEs need all the help they can get, especially with some RBs getting 30 TDs. Tomlinson and S.Jackson are already outscoring everyone else in the league, no need to add on that extra 40-50 pts for receptions.

 

[saintfool]

you could do a test run over a season to see how it shapes up week after week. personally, i think there is some merit to that. i assume you are trying to create some parity between the different positional values? or are you trying to make the super stud RB's a little more in line with other RB's?

 

[BRONG]

you could do a test run over a season to see how it shapes up week after week. personally, i think there is some merit to that. i assume you are trying to create some parity between the different positional values? or are you trying to make the super stud RB's a little more in line with other RB's?

A bit of both, really. Pass-catching RB's ARE more valuable so we give them something, but I don't like the thought of getting a point for dump offs. That does not equal 10 yards rushing in my book. What is it, like 66% of WR receptions are first downs? I've seen where they give points for first-down catches, and that makes some sense, but tough to expect a whole league to project/gauge that sort of thing.As for TE's, it's just to increase value...and I guess you could say they make tougher catches than an RB (usually), if you want to go there. So there are various little reasons for it.

 

[roarlions]

Our keeper league started using this scoring for receptions last year. We use 4 pts. per passing TD, 1 pt. per 25 yards passing, 1 pt. per 10 yards rushing/receiving. Our top 30 from last season and the number of points scored:

1. Tomlinson, Ladainian SDC RB 443.0

2. Jackson, Steven STL RB 366.0

3. Johnson, Larry KCC RB 341.5

4. Manning, Peyton IND QB 325.0

5. Harrison, Marvin IND WR 299.0

6. Gore, Frank SFO RB 292.5

7. Brees, Drew NOS QB 291.0

8. Westbrook, Brian PHI RB 284.5

9. Vick, Michael ATL QB 280.0

10. Palmer, Carson CIN QB 277.0

11. Owens, Terrell DAL WR 274.0

12. Bulger, Marc STL QB 273.0

13. Parker, Willie PIT RB 272.5

14. Kitna, Jon DET QB 271.0

15. Driver, Donald GBP WR 270.0

16. Holt, Torry STL WR 270.0

17. Johnson, Chad CIN WR 267.0

18. Wayne, Reggie IND WR 267.0

19. Barber, Tiki FA RB 261.0

20. Evans, Lee BUF WR 261.0

21. Smith, Steve CAR WR 258.0

22. Williams, Roy DET WR 250.0

23. Gates, Antonio SDC TE 245.5

24. Houshmandzadeh, T.J. CIN WR 245.0

25. Brady, Tom NEP QB 243.0

26. Walker, Javon DEN WR 242.0

27. Johnson, Andre HOU WR 240.0

28. Jones-Drew, Maurice JAC RB 239.0

29. Favre, Brett GBP QB 237.0

30. Ravens, Baltimore BAL Def 237.0

Top 30 had 8 QBs, 8 RBs, 12 WRs, 1 TE and 1 D/ST.

 

[Bears_Man2]

Yep use that exact format and love it. Probably my favorite scoring set up.

 

[BRONG]

Yep use that exact format and love it. Probably my favorite scoring set up.

Good to hear.

 

[BRONG]

Our keeper league started using this scoring for receptions last year. We use 4 pts. per passing TD, 1 pt. per 25 yards passing, 1 pt. per 10 yards rushing/receiving. Our top 30 from last season and the number of points scored:1. Tomlinson, Ladainian SDC RB 443.02. Jackson, Steven STL RB 366.03. Johnson, Larry KCC RB 341.54. Manning, Peyton IND QB 325.05. Harrison, Marvin IND WR 299.06. Gore, Frank SFO RB 292.57. Brees, Drew NOS QB 291.08. Westbrook, Brian PHI RB 284.59. Vick, Michael ATL QB 280.010. Palmer, Carson CIN QB 277.011. Owens, Terrell DAL WR 274.012. Bulger, Marc STL QB 273.013. Parker, Willie PIT RB 272.514. Kitna, Jon DET QB 271.015. Driver, Donald GBP WR 270.016. Holt, Torry STL WR 270.017. Johnson, Chad CIN WR 267.018. Wayne, Reggie IND WR 267.019. Barber, Tiki FA RB 261.020. Evans, Lee BUF WR 261.021. Smith, Steve CAR WR 258.022. Williams, Roy DET WR 250.023. Gates, Antonio SDC TE 245.524. Houshmandzadeh, T.J. CIN WR 245.025. Brady, Tom NEP QB 243.026. Walker, Javon DEN WR 242.027. Johnson, Andre HOU WR 240.028. Jones-Drew, Maurice JAC RB 239.029. Favre, Brett GBP QB 237.030. Ravens, Baltimore BAL Def 237.0Top 30 had 8 QBs, 8 RBs, 12 WRs, 1 TE and 1 D/ST.

Interesting. So 6 point passing TDs would make QB's too valuable, is that your reasoning?

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

A MOX league I am in uses:0 = RB1 = WR2 = TEI like the scoring system...

Do you use 1 point for 10 yards rushing/receiving?If so, a ZERO yard reception by a TE is worth TWENTY yards rushing.Makes sense.

 

[AcerFC]

The following is from a post from last year from this thread

The following was an analysis that I did for my league at the start of this year because I (commish) wanted to move more in the PPR direction. Like many have said, it is based on preference. Not all positions need to be equal but it helps all positions in the draft in case you want that WR in RD 2 or too many RBs are taken by the time it comes back to you in RD 3. Do you want to settle for a lower calibur RB or take the WR who may put up similar numbers to a 2nd tier RB.

Anyway, heres the study I did

Ok guys, I have been crunching numbers for the past 3 hours and here is what I came up with:

I took the top 25 Running backs, the top 25 Wide Receivers and the top 15 Tight Ends and calculated their total points that they would have had last year. These rankings were based on the players production last year, not rankings in a book or even more importantly my own depth charts. I evaluated what these players would have done with no ppr, and then I added .5 and 1 ppr for Running backs, 1 ppr for Wide Receivers and 1 and 1.5 ppr for Tight Ends. There was no adding in performance points (ie- 100 yard games, 40+ yard TDS, etc).

Here is what I found:

In a no ppr league there were 4 Rbs over 300+ points, 5 over 200+ points and 12 over 150+ points. That makes a total of 21/25 RBs over 150+ points with no ppr. Then I added .5 ppr for RBs and this was the result: 4 Rbs over 300+ points, 8 over 200+ points and 10 over 150+ points. Not a big difference pushing 22/25 backs over the 150+ point total. Now I added the 1 ppr equation and this was the result: 5 Rbs over 300+ points, 9 over 200+ points and 11 over 150+ points making all 25/25 backs 150+ points and over with 1 ppr.

Onto Wide Receivers: (which did not include any rushing stats but most receivers don’t have huge rushing numbers that would affect this experiment.)

In an no ppr league there were 0 Wrs over 300+ points, 3 over 200+ points and 9 over 150+ points making it 12/25 WRs that were over 150+ points with no ppr. That is less then half for those of you who have not worked with Math lately. Then I added the 1 ppr that WRs would get in our new rules and here was the conclusion: 2 WRs were over the 300+ point mark (with 2 more in the 290s), 16 WRs over 200+ points and 5 WRs over 150+ points giving us 23/25 Receivers who would have been 150+ point producers last year given the 1 ppr.

Now if you look at the numbers with the ppr added in the way we would have it this year it gives us 22/25 backs that are 150+ point producers and 23/25 WRs who are 150+ point producers. This seems a lot more equitable then with out ppr where you get this: 21/25 backs were 150+ point producers and only 12/25 WRs were 150+ point producers.

Last but not least, the Tight Ends, who benefit the most with a 1.5 ppr if the motion passes. I calculated Tight Ends with no ppr, 1 ppr and 1.5 ppr. Here was the result: With no ppr there were no TEs with 300+ or 200+ points and there was only 1 who was over 150+ points (guess who that was). Then I added 1 ppr and here is what happened: There were still 0 over the 300+ point barrier but there were 2 TEs over the 200+ point mark and 5 who were over 150+ points making it 7/15 over 150+ points. Then I added the 1.5 ppr that we would instill this year and here were the results. 1 TE over 300+ points, 6 over 200+ points and 4 TEs over 150+ points making it 11/15 TEs over 150+ points.

Again the reason for adding different points for different positions is to balance out the positions. This new system will not solve all of the problems in a fantasy league but it does give a team more options when drafting, trading and managing because there is more equality in each position.

I know that I have way too much time on my hands but thank you for reading this as it is important each owner understands the rules of the league and why I would want to change the rules a certain way.

The league voted overwhelmingly to give PPR a try. It has been working well so far

 

[Phurfur]

Why the need to inflate the value of a TE?

 

[tdog]

We use .5 for WR and RB. 1 for TE. We combine this with a flex position that permits the possibility of starting 2 QBs and only requires one RB starter. RBs are de-valued a good bit, although the scoring is TD heavy which helps the top backs (1 for 20 yards rushing/receiving, 1 for 50 yards passing, length of TD bonuses 6-8 caught/run TDs, 4-6 passing TDs). It's not for everyone. It works well for us. We try to get a good mix of positions represented in the top 20. The first 2 rounds of the draft are quite interesting.

 

[BRONG]

Why the need to inflate the value of a TE?

Parity, making a more interesting draft. Why the need to start 2 RB's?

 

[BRONG]

The following is from a post from last year from this thread

The following was an analysis that I did for my league at the start of this year because I (commish) wanted to move more in the PPR direction. Like many have said, it is based on preference. Not all positions need to be equal but it helps all positions in the draft in case you want that WR in RD 2 or too many RBs are taken by the time it comes back to you in RD 3. Do you want to settle for a lower calibur RB or take the WR who may put up similar numbers to a 2nd tier RB.

Anyway, heres the study I did

Ok guys, I have been crunching numbers for the past 3 hours and here is what I came up with:

I took the top 25 Running backs, the top 25 Wide Receivers and the top 15 Tight Ends and calculated their total points that they would have had last year. These rankings were based on the players production last year, not rankings in a book or even more importantly my own depth charts. I evaluated what these players would have done with no ppr, and then I added .5 and 1 ppr for Running backs, 1 ppr for Wide Receivers and 1 and 1.5 ppr for Tight Ends. There was no adding in performance points (ie- 100 yard games, 40+ yard TDS, etc).

Here is what I found:

In a no ppr league there were 4 Rbs over 300+ points, 5 over 200+ points and 12 over 150+ points. That makes a total of 21/25 RBs over 150+ points with no ppr. Then I added .5 ppr for RBs and this was the result: 4 Rbs over 300+ points, 8 over 200+ points and 10 over 150+ points. Not a big difference pushing 22/25 backs over the 150+ point total. Now I added the 1 ppr equation and this was the result: 5 Rbs over 300+ points, 9 over 200+ points and 11 over 150+ points making all 25/25 backs 150+ points and over with 1 ppr.

Onto Wide Receivers: (which did not include any rushing stats but most receivers don’t have huge rushing numbers that would affect this experiment.)

In an no ppr league there were 0 Wrs over 300+ points, 3 over 200+ points and 9 over 150+ points making it 12/25 WRs that were over 150+ points with no ppr. That is less then half for those of you who have not worked with Math lately. Then I added the 1 ppr that WRs would get in our new rules and here was the conclusion: 2 WRs were over the 300+ point mark (with 2 more in the 290s), 16 WRs over 200+ points and 5 WRs over 150+ points giving us 23/25 Receivers who would have been 150+ point producers last year given the 1 ppr.

Now if you look at the numbers with the ppr added in the way we would have it this year it gives us 22/25 backs that are 150+ point producers and 23/25 WRs who are 150+ point producers. This seems a lot more equitable then with out ppr where you get this: 21/25 backs were 150+ point producers and only 12/25 WRs were 150+ point producers.

Last but not least, the Tight Ends, who benefit the most with a 1.5 ppr if the motion passes. I calculated Tight Ends with no ppr, 1 ppr and 1.5 ppr. Here was the result: With no ppr there were no TEs with 300+ or 200+ points and there was only 1 who was over 150+ points (guess who that was). Then I added 1 ppr and here is what happened: There were still 0 over the 300+ point barrier but there were 2 TEs over the 200+ point mark and 5 who were over 150+ points making it 7/15 over 150+ points. Then I added the 1.5 ppr that we would instill this year and here were the results. 1 TE over 300+ points, 6 over 200+ points and 4 TEs over 150+ points making it 11/15 TEs over 150+ points.

Again the reason for adding different points for different positions is to balance out the positions. This new system will not solve all of the problems in a fantasy league but it does give a team more options when drafting, trading and managing because there is more equality in each position.

I know that I have way too much time on my hands but thank you for reading this as it is important each owner understands the rules of the league and why I would want to change the rules a certain way.

The league voted overwhelmingly to give PPR a try. It has been working well so far

Great info, thanks.

 

[GregR_2]

I've done 0/1/2 and don't care for it as much as .25/.5/1. The latter I like a lot, especially combined with starting more WRs and TEs.

 

[Barry Jive and The Uptown Five]

Why the need to inflate the value of a TE?

Parity, making a more interesting draft. Why the need to start 2 RB's?

Game Breakers at MFL has used this PPR setup for 2 years. Matter of fact, regarding the RB comment above... The starting lineup requirements on offense are as follows:

1 QB

0-2 RB

3-5 WR

1-3 TE

Can't get to the link from work, but you can search if you want to see the results. FWIW - there are at least 4 FBG staffers in this league. I think they will rave glowingly about the format.

As far as dynasty drafting goes, it really shakes things up. Note that this is also a high performance scoring, IDP league. Top 5 LBs are better than many Top 15 RBs. But look at the variety. RB6 in most leagues is off the board by the 12th overall pick. In this league, Round 2 and Round 3 are the places for RB6.

Much more entertaining.

2006 Rookie Draft

[b]RD	PICK	POS	NAME[/b]1	1	RB	Reggie Bush1	2	TE	Vernon Davis1	3	RB	Deangelo Williams1	4	RB	Laurence Maroney1	5	QB	Matt Leinart1	6	QB	Vince Young1	7	RB	LenDale White1	8	RB	Joseph Addai1	9	QB	Jay Cutler1	10	WR	Santonio Holmes1	11	WR	Chad Jackson1	12	WR	Sinorice Moss1	13	TE	Mercedes Lewis1	14	LB	AJ Hawk2	1	DE	Mario Williams2	2	LB	Chad Greenway2	3	LB	Ernie Sims2	4	RB	Maurice Drew2	5	WR	Greg Jennings2	6	RB	Jerious Norwood2	7	S	Michael Huff2	8	LB	D'Qwell Jackson2	9	TE	Joe Klopfenstein2	10	LB	Demeco Ryans2	11	WR	Maurice Stovall2	12	RB	Brian Calhoun2	13	QB	Kellen Clemens2	14	WR	Brandon Marshall3	1	LB	Manny Lawson3	2	WR	Derek Hagan3	3	WR	Demetrius Williams3	4	TE	Leonard Pope3	5	TE	Tony Scheffler3	6	WR	Mike Haas3	7	WR	Jason Avant3	8	S	Donte Whitner3	9	WR	Travis Wilson3	10	LB	Abdul Hodge3	11	LB	Rocky McIntosh3	12	QB	Tavaris Jackson3	13	RB	Jerome Harrison3	14	LB	Kamerion Wimbley

2007 Rookie Draft:

[b]RD	PICK	POS	NAME[/b]1	1	WR	Calvin Johnson1	2	RB	Adrian Peterson1	3	RB	Marshawn Lynch1	4	QB	Jamarcus Russell1	5	WR	Robert Meacham1	6	WR	Dwayne Bowe1	7	QB	Brady Quinn1	8	WR	Sidney Rice1	9	LB	Patrick Willis1	10	LB	Paul Posluszny1	11	LB	Jon Beason1	12	WR	Dwayne Jarrett1	13	RB	Brandon Jackson1	14	TE	Greg Olsen2	1	WR	Ted Ginn2	2	WR	Anthony Gonzalez2	3	RB	Lo Booker2	4	WR	Steve Smith2	5	RB	Michael Bush2	6	WR	Jacoby Jones2	7	WR	JohnnieLee Higgins2	8	WR	Craig Davis2	9	TE	Zach Miller2	10	QB	Drew Stanton2	11	WR	Jason Hill2	12	LB	David Harris2	13	QB	John Beck2	14	S	Laron Landy3	1	DE	Gaines Adams3	2	WR	Aundrae Allison3	3	RB	Brian Leonard3	4	RB	Kenny Irons3	5	RB	Chris Henry3	6	WR	Paul Williams3	7	LB	Lawrence Timmons3	8	DE	Jamaal Anderson3	9	S	Brandon Merriweather3	10	XX	Forfeited in 2006 supplemental3	11	QB	Kevin Kolb3	12	S	Eric Weddle

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

I've done 0/1/2 and don't care for it as much as .25/.5/1. The latter I like a lot, especially combined with starting more WRs and TEs.

Good solution to mitigate the evil that is PPR. My main league uses 0/.5/.5. Even better.

 

[flying8balls]

we go with .5 for wr/te and 0 for rb.

it really brings the positions closer together.

 

[blend]

my dynasty league uses that exact same format .5/1/1.5

I really like how it helps balance things out and theoretically allows for more trading options/partners.

 

[urbanhack]

Yep use that exact format and love it. Probably my favorite scoring set up.

Good to hear.

 

[roarlions]

Interesting. So 6 point passing TDs would make QB's too valuable, is that your reasoning?

The league I posted about has always been a keeper league, but never had PPR until last season. When we changed the scoring to add PPR, we left all of the other scoring as it always had been. Before PPR, teams usually kept 3 RBs every year, even if they were in RBBC. Heading into our recent draft, the number of keepers was lower and a few more teams kept QBs rather than RBs. Part of the reason for that is when we instituted PPR, we also allowed QBs to be used in the flex spot. Seems like with those 2 changes, there wasn't really a need to increase points for passing TDs from 4 to 6. The league has always had bonus points for long TD passes, TD runs and TD receptions so those figure into the scoring also.

 

[BRONG]

Interesting. So 6 point passing TDs would make QB's too valuable, is that your reasoning?

The league I posted about has always been a keeper league, but never had PPR until last season. When we changed the scoring to add PPR, we left all of the other scoring as it always had been. Before PPR, teams usually kept 3 RBs every year, even if they were in RBBC. Heading into our recent draft, the number of keepers was lower and a few more teams kept QBs rather than RBs. Part of the reason for that is when we instituted PPR, we also allowed QBs to be used in the flex spot. Seems like with those 2 changes, there wasn't really a need to increase points for passing TDs from 4 to 6. The league has always had bonus points for long TD passes, TD runs and TD receptions so those figure into the scoring also.

Hmm. I would elminate the bonuses for longer TD's (those are already big point getters) and make a TD what it really is: 6 points. It's mostly relative, anyway