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.

What are "victory points?" And why / how would one use them? (1 Viewer)

We give a VP for a win and for a top 4 score of the week. Our last playoff spot is determined by VP’s. It’s a great way to help mitigate the issue of someone have a strong team but always losing to a high score of the week.

 
Here is our VP Points Scoring.  2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss. In addition to wins and losses additional points each week are awarded as follows:

2 points for the top 4 scoring teams for the week, 1 for a middle 4 scoring teams, and 0 for bottom 4 scoring teams.

 
Our standings are completely based on points - not head to head matchups (although wins get a lot of points).  A win is worth 8 points.  A loss is zero.  A tie would be 4 points each.

Then we give 5 points for the #1 offense (9 players), 4.4 points for the #2 offense, less 0.4 each step down until it's 0.4 points for the #12 offense.

We do the same for the defensive scores, which is also 9 IDP players.

So the max number of points you can get in a week is 18.  Really helps separate the consistently good teams from the teams that squeak by with favorable matchups each week.  You still need to win, but high scoring losses are still rewarded with points.

 
Here is our VP Points Scoring.  2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss. In addition to wins and losses additional points each week are awarded as follows:

2 points for the top 4 scoring teams for the week, 1 for a middle 4 scoring teams, and 0 for bottom 4 scoring teams.
We do the exact same and standings are determined completely by VP and not records.

 
As to the "why", the intent behind VPs is to filter out some of the bad luck and provide a more accurate decision on which teams should be in the playoffs without going full roto style.

So when you hear people complaining "I had the 2nd most points this week but of course I played the highest scoring team in the league", in a VP scenario you'd still get 2 out of 4 possible VPs for the week.  Likewise in reverse, a team that scores low but still wins because they played an even lower scoring team would get fewer than the maximum VPs for the week.

 
2 for a Win
1 for a Tie
0 for a Loss

PLUS AN ADDITIONAL

2 for top 4 scoring team of the week
1 for middle 4 scoring team of the week
0 for bottom 4 scoring team of the week

Almost all of my leagues operate this way. It's the perfect balance and takes out a BIT of luck from matchups, but not all of it, and has you invested in your players/other teams' players until the very end of every week. Usually it doesn't switch things up too much from just wins/losses, but adjusts it for extremely lucky and extremely unlucky teams in terms of their matchups.
 
I also run a league where I use VP's and H2H record. It is simple. You get 1 VP for every team you beat in score that week so a 12 team league teams earn 0-11 VP's a week.
So at the end of the year we hand out 3 division winners based on H2H record and 3 WC's based on VP's
Then we seed teams 1-6 based on VP's only (top 2 byes included) regardless of H2H record.

It keeps the fun of H2H but makes VP's most important.
 
We give a VP for a win and for a top 4 score of the week. Our last playoff spot is determined by VP’s. It’s a great way to help mitigate the issue of someone have a strong team but always losing to a high score of the week.
That’s kinda cool.
 
Love Victory Points. You get a couple of those, along with Longest Road and Largest Army, you build a few cities and next thing you know you’re the champ of Settlers of Catan
 
For all those teams complaining that they lost as the 2nd highest scoring team of the week, how many times did they get a win by beating the only team they could have beaten? Nobody ever talks about that side of the coin. These things even out over time which is why there doesn't need to be all this complication.

Keep it simple. H2H and save a couple spots in the playoffs for the highest scoring teams that didn't get in by record. Keep the fun of H2H and still accomplish what all this complication is trying to do.
 
For all those teams complaining that they lost as the 2nd highest scoring team of the week, how many times did they get a win by beating the only team they could have beaten? Nobody ever talks about that side of the coin. These things even out over time which is why there doesn't need to be all this complication.

Keep it simple. H2H and save a couple spots in the playoffs for the highest scoring teams that didn't get in by record. Keep the fun of H2H and still accomplish what all this complication is trying to do.
Over time across all leagues, absolutely. But in 1 league over 1 season--the variance doesn't always balance out.

I'm in leagues where you only go by the head to head. And I enjoy them. It doesn't ruin it for me if I score the 2nd most points and lose.

I'm also in leagues that do median scoring. I think it's nice to go 1-1 instead of 0-1 on the week I lose to the highest scoring team. I do think this gives you a more accurate depiction of who the best team is.

But there's nothing wrong with embracing the variance.
 
For all those teams complaining that they lost as the 2nd highest scoring team of the week, how many times did they get a win by beating the only team they could have beaten? Nobody ever talks about that side of the coin. These things even out over time which is why there doesn't need to be all this complication.

Keep it simple. H2H and save a couple spots in the playoffs for the highest scoring teams that didn't get in by record. Keep the fun of H2H and still accomplish what all this complication is trying to do.
I mean. Its just math. Very simple math. Its not really that complicated however, for a 12 team league it really is simple and perfect b/c you have even division. 10/14 team leagues, not so much.
 
For all those teams complaining that they lost as the 2nd highest scoring team of the week, how many times did they get a win by beating the only team they could have beaten? Nobody ever talks about that side of the coin. These things even out over time which is why there doesn't need to be all this complication.

Keep it simple. H2H and save a couple spots in the playoffs for the highest scoring teams that didn't get in by record. Keep the fun of H2H and still accomplish what all this complication is trying to do.
People talk about that side all the time. The VPs balance the best and worst of both sides of that coin better than the regular H2H system IMO. And it isn't that complicated. In FFPC you get 2 VPs for a victory and 2 VPs for the top 4 scoring, 1 VP for middle 4 and 0 for bottom (obv). My playoff team in our Sharkpool league was 7-7 so 14 VPs from the H2H side of the coin and I earned 16 VPs for my weekly scoring, which was 5th in the league but closer to the top than the bottom. @FreeBaGeL made the playoffs despite being 8th in points and is currently winning the 2 week championship race. He was 8-6 so 16 VPs there but somehow performed well enough in weeks where the league scoring was down because he got another 16 VPs from scoring, same as me, even though I outscored him over the course of the season 1954-1817.

In our SP league example the differences in systems aren't super stark - the only change is that I wouldn't have made the playoffs and Joey would have. The other seeds wouldn't have been affected. But in my home league right now I'm going into the championship matchup with a team that squeaked in at 6-8 but earned the last playoff spot because he was 3rd in points and we have a rule about giving the 6th seed to whoever is leftover with the most points. I suppose that is simpler than VPs but it isn't a default setting for H2H leagues on any website I know of. You have to customize that as commish and it can be a pain. But we do it. Because we all acknowledge that *straight* H2H is flawed. In my second home league with a bunch of the same folks, I was the 6th seed that got bounced even though I was 8-6 and 4th overall in points. But that put me in 6th place and there was a guy who was 2nd overall in points but finished 6-8. He got the spot. And I cried. But it's fair.

Anyway I'm just rambling but I love the VP system. If you're winning lots of matchups and scoring lots of point it doesn't really matter. And if your team sucks it doesn't really matter. But for the middle of the pack, it's nice to be rewarded for scoring points.
 
Anyway I'm just rambling but I love the VP system. If you're winning lots of matchups and scoring lots of point it doesn't really matter. And if your team sucks it doesn't really matter. But for the middle of the pack, it's nice to be rewarded for scoring points.
I guess I just don't think it is necessary and it takes away some of the fun. This game is mostly luck and there is nothing wrong with that. With the information easily available to everyone it has definitely shifted the luck percentage higher because you can't out research your opponents anymore for as much of an advantage. But the H2H aspect of having a bad week and still being able to win and having a great week and losing is all part of it. Knowing I am playing against just then 10 players and not the other 100 players makes the rooting interest much more bearable.

I get it. VP is more "fair". It rewards the better teams etc. For me the fun is the competition week to week. It doesn't have to be more fair. One of the things I hate most about the typical baseball fantasy leagues are the roto style/all play situations. It drains the fun out of it for me. The VP model starts getting into that realm for me. But enjoy it and use it if you like it. After all this is supposed to be fun so do what is the most fun for you.
 
Anyway I'm just rambling but I love the VP system. If you're winning lots of matchups and scoring lots of point it doesn't really matter. And if your team sucks it doesn't really matter. But for the middle of the pack, it's nice to be rewarded for scoring points.
I guess I just don't think it is necessary and it takes away some of the fun. This game is mostly luck and there is nothing wrong with that. With the information easily available to everyone it has definitely shifted the luck percentage higher because you can't out research your opponents anymore for as much of an advantage. But the H2H aspect of having a bad week and still being able to win and having a great week and losing is all part of it. Knowing I am playing against just then 10 players and not the other 100 players makes the rooting interest much more bearable.

I get it. VP is more "fair". It rewards the better teams etc. For me the fun is the competition week to week. It doesn't have to be more fair. One of the things I hate most about the typical baseball fantasy leagues are the roto style/all play situations. It drains the fun out of it for me. The VP model starts getting into that realm for me. But enjoy it and use it if you like it. After all this is supposed to be fun so do what is the most fun for you.
yep it's all good
 
Big fan of leagues that do a combo or record and points for playoff spots.

I view VP's as a solid alternative but I've seen teams that were first or second in points not make the playoffs when half the league makes the playoffs so it has some flaws. I am fine with it, never had a complaint with it, but it has flaws.

There is no format more boring then total points.

There is no format more luck based then h2h.

The format most national redraft contests I play, which uses combo of points and record to determine playoff seeding is preferred to me over VP's. At least in theory you control your own destiny since half the playoff has nothing to do with the luck of h2h.

I used to be down on All Play but not any longer. I've come to despise h2h more and more. I don't view All play as boring like most either, I think it's actually adds to the rooting interest.

Casual/home leagues I think h2h is fine but I feel like I put in so much work and effort in this hobby that I'm pro any rule that reduces the luck factor(h2h) while not just getting totally boring(total points) and making each week matter.

So for me if I was looking to devise a method that was fair, that reduced luck, that was not boring and still made each week matter on it's own merit I'd prefer a system like the national contest redrafts were the playoff seeding is based on points and record only the record would be based on All Play and I'd do away with H2H.
 
One alternative way for league standings is using all play records. Basically, each team faces every other team in the league every week. In a 12-team league, the high scorer each week would go 11-0 and the lowest scoring team would go 0-11. Keep track of wins and losses on the season like normal. It minimizes a lot of the luck element.

Another alternative that helps level the playing field some is using best ball scoring for someone's entire team each week. Whatever the highest scoring combination of players is used for a team's score each week (ie, no roster submittals). That way, people that sat a WR that went for 12-190-2 would still count.
 
So for me if I was looking to devise a method that was fair, that reduced luck, that was not boring and still made each week matter on it's own merit I'd prefer a system like the national contest redrafts were the playoff seeding is based on points and record only the record would be based on All Play and I'd do away with H2H.
When one of my leagues was debating going away from h2h and using all play I did some research. To me this is essentially just using total points and it becoming a total points league. I went back 10 years in our league and compared the standings using both all play and total points. I found that at most there were three teams that moved in a year (not counting all the teams below going down one spot if a team jumped up two spots). and all were in the middle of the pack. Teams moved at most 2 spots in the standings when comparing all play to total points. For all intents and purposes All play is the equivalent to a total points league in results.
 
So for me if I was looking to devise a method that was fair, that reduced luck, that was not boring and still made each week matter on it's own merit I'd prefer a system like the national contest redrafts were the playoff seeding is based on points and record only the record would be based on All Play and I'd do away with H2H.
When one of my leagues was debating going away from h2h and using all play I did some research. To me this is essentially just using total points and it becoming a total points league. I went back 10 years in our league and compared the standings using both all play and total points. I found that at most there were three teams that moved in a year (not counting all the teams below going down one spot if a team jumped up two spots). and all were in the middle of the pack. Teams moved at most 2 spots in the standings when comparing all play to total points. For all intents and purposes All play is the equivalent to a total points league in results.
IMO your research just confirms it's a fairest method.
 
So for me if I was looking to devise a method that was fair, that reduced luck, that was not boring and still made each week matter on it's own merit I'd prefer a system like the national contest redrafts were the playoff seeding is based on points and record only the record would be based on All Play and I'd do away with H2H.
When one of my leagues was debating going away from h2h and using all play I did some research. To me this is essentially just using total points and it becoming a total points league. I went back 10 years in our league and compared the standings using both all play and total points. I found that at most there were three teams that moved in a year (not counting all the teams below going down one spot if a team jumped up two spots). and all were in the middle of the pack. Teams moved at most 2 spots in the standings when comparing all play to total points. For all intents and purposes All play is the equivalent to a total points league in results.
IMO your research just confirms it's a fairest method.
My research was to point out that all play is the same as total points. Zaps the fun out of it for me. Very boring. It may be the most "fair" but life isn't fair. Give me the competition of H2H for this hobby that is supposed to be fun.
 
So for me if I was looking to devise a method that was fair, that reduced luck, that was not boring and still made each week matter on it's own merit I'd prefer a system like the national contest redrafts were the playoff seeding is based on points and record only the record would be based on All Play and I'd do away with H2H.
When one of my leagues was debating going away from h2h and using all play I did some research. To me this is essentially just using total points and it becoming a total points league. I went back 10 years in our league and compared the standings using both all play and total points. I found that at most there were three teams that moved in a year (not counting all the teams below going down one spot if a team jumped up two spots). and all were in the middle of the pack. Teams moved at most 2 spots in the standings when comparing all play to total points. For all intents and purposes All play is the equivalent to a total points league in results.
IMO your research just confirms it's a fairest method.
My research was to point out that all play is the same as total points. Zaps the fun out of it for me. Very boring. It may be the most "fair" but life isn't fair. Give me the competition of H2H for this hobby that is supposed to be fun.
I know what you are saying, I'm saying you reached the wrong conclusion on your research and sounds like it's due to confirmation bias. Noting remotely similar to me about each week standing on it's own merit as it does in All Play versus total points over the course of a season. Nothing.
 
So for me if I was looking to devise a method that was fair, that reduced luck, that was not boring and still made each week matter on it's own merit I'd prefer a system like the national contest redrafts were the playoff seeding is based on points and record only the record would be based on All Play and I'd do away with H2H.
When one of my leagues was debating going away from h2h and using all play I did some research. To me this is essentially just using total points and it becoming a total points league. I went back 10 years in our league and compared the standings using both all play and total points. I found that at most there were three teams that moved in a year (not counting all the teams below going down one spot if a team jumped up two spots). and all were in the middle of the pack. Teams moved at most 2 spots in the standings when comparing all play to total points. For all intents and purposes All play is the equivalent to a total points league in results.
IMO your research just confirms it's a fairest method.
My research was to point out that all play is the same as total points. Zaps the fun out of it for me. Very boring. It may be the most "fair" but life isn't fair. Give me the competition of H2H for this hobby that is supposed to be fun.
I know what you are saying, I'm saying you reached the wrong conclusion on your research and sounds like it's due to confirmation bias. Noting remotely similar to me about each week standing on it's own merit as it does in All Play versus total points over the course of a season. Nothing.
The guy with the best all play record has the most points scored on the year for the 10 years of data I reviewed. The top 4 or 5 teams finished in the same order for both All play and total points. My conclusion based on the findings was that whether you use All play record for the standings or total points for the standings the standings will be virtually identical. No team moved more than two spots and for the 10 years of data that only occurred in the middle of the standings.

My conclusion was you will get virtually the same standings using all play as you will using total points. How is that a wrong conclusion?
 
So for me if I was looking to devise a method that was fair, that reduced luck, that was not boring and still made each week matter on it's own merit I'd prefer a system like the national contest redrafts were the playoff seeding is based on points and record only the record would be based on All Play and I'd do away with H2H.
When one of my leagues was debating going away from h2h and using all play I did some research. To me this is essentially just using total points and it becoming a total points league. I went back 10 years in our league and compared the standings using both all play and total points. I found that at most there were three teams that moved in a year (not counting all the teams below going down one spot if a team jumped up two spots). and all were in the middle of the pack. Teams moved at most 2 spots in the standings when comparing all play to total points. For all intents and purposes All play is the equivalent to a total points league in results.
IMO your research just confirms it's a fairest method.
My research was to point out that all play is the same as total points. Zaps the fun out of it for me. Very boring. It may be the most "fair" but life isn't fair. Give me the competition of H2H for this hobby that is supposed to be fun.
I know what you are saying, I'm saying you reached the wrong conclusion on your research and sounds like it's due to confirmation bias. Noting remotely similar to me about each week standing on it's own merit as it does in All Play versus total points over the course of a season. Nothing.
The guy with the best all play record has the most points scored on the year for the 10 years of data I reviewed. The top 4 or 5 teams finished in the same order for both All play and total points. My conclusion based on the findings was that whether you use All play record for the standings or total points for the standings the standings will be virtually identical. No team moved more than two spots and for the 10 years of data that only occurred in the middle of the standings.

My conclusion was you will get virtually the same standings using all play as you will using total points. How is that a wrong conclusion?

My initial post you responded stated that total points was the fairest way to determine who was the best team but it's boring and All Play gives you an element of week to week W/L entertainment that is less luck based then who you randomly play in h2h.

Your research only backs this up since you are stating it's not changing up the outcome much in terms of determining playoffs if you are comping All Play vs total points.

You just think All Play is boring so you are concluding it's the same thing as total points. It's simply not for week to week rooting interest.
 
You just think All Play is boring so you are concluding it's the same thing as total points. It's simply not for week to week rooting interest.
But it is. You are rooting for every other player not on your team to do badly and not score points. It doesn't really have matchups because there are too many matchups. You end up just rooting for your players and don't have anything specific to root against. I have played all play. It's just like total points or roto style. Too much to root against so you have nothing to root against.

I never said All play gave you an element of week to week W/L entertainment. I have said it's the same as just playing total points and my research backs up that assumption. The end results are virtually the same.
 
But it is. You are rooting for every other player not on your team to do badly and not score points. It doesn't really have matchups because there are too many matchups. You end up just rooting for your players and don't have anything specific to root against. I have played all play. It's just like total points or roto style. Too much to root against so you have nothing to root against.
I have also played All Play and just don't think share your sentiments here at all. It's a totally different race then total points where what you do in week one matters with respect to say week 14. All Play the results are just based on that week. Not sure how that's the same thing.

What I suggested, what you responded to, was a format that was Total Points in conjuction with All Play so either of those formats I'm rooting against every team but my own anyway. Don't agree at all it's so much to root against you have nothing to root against or frankly understand that thought process at all.



I never said All play gave you an element of week to week W/L entertainment. I have said it's the same as just playing total points and my research backs up that assumption. The end results are virtually the same.
I checked one league just now which seeds out 4 teams by record, points, record, points. I did not make the playoffs. Finished 4th in points but the point spots were claimed by two teams above me. Was tied for what amounted to 6th place on h2h record. So no playoffs for me. If we used All Play instead of h2h in conjunction with total points, as I suggested, I'd have tied for the best record and would have been seed 3 as I'd have lost the points tiebreaker. One or even 10 leagues don't make much of a conclusive study but I'm sure not seeing the same outcome as you.

Bottom line for me is h2h matchups in fantasy football introduce extra luck and I'm trying to cut down on luck being a factor in fantasy outcomes. Neither of our researches refute that.
 
Anyway I'm just rambling but I love the VP system. If you're winning lots of matchups and scoring lots of point it doesn't really matter. And if your team sucks it doesn't really matter. But for the middle of the pack, it's nice to be rewarded for scoring points.
I guess I just don't think it is necessary and it takes away some of the fun. This game is mostly luck and there is nothing wrong with that. With the information easily available to everyone it has definitely shifted the luck percentage higher because you can't out research your opponents anymore for as much of an advantage. But the H2H aspect of having a bad week and still being able to win and having a great week and losing is all part of it. Knowing I am playing against just then 10 players and not the other 100 players makes the rooting interest much more bearable.

I get it. VP is more "fair". It rewards the better teams etc. For me the fun is the competition week to week. It doesn't have to be more fair. One of the things I hate most about the typical baseball fantasy leagues are the roto style/all play situations. It drains the fun out of it for me. The VP model starts getting into that realm for me. But enjoy it and use it if you like it. After all this is supposed to be fun so do what is the most fun for you.

This is where I come in too. I was in one VP league, and I simply didn't enjoy it (of course it didn't help that my team was lousy!) It made it feel too much like a spreadsheet.

I don't mind a format that awards the final playoff spot to the highest scoring team that didn't make the playoffs on W-L record - it rewards a good-but-unlucky team. All of my dynasty leagues do that and it's fine. 3 div title winners, 2 wildcards, one "most points of the rest".
 
Last edited:
Total points, all-play, top-half (1 point for top half, 0 for bottom half), and victory points (1 point for top half and 1 point for H2H win) all generally give pretty similar standings.

I checked a few of the correlations with all-play record for 2 of my leagues, they were:

head to head: 0.82 and 0.862
top half: 0.97 and 0.956
victory points: 0.95 and 0.955

If you do 2 points for being in the top third and 1 point for the middle third instead of top half then the correlation with all-play is a little higher.
 
This year in particular seemed like a crazy year in particular for record vs points scored in my leagues.

Someone went 14-0, but was fifth in total points scored. First by more than 200 points in points against.
The highest points leader went 9-5.
The team with the worst record at 3-11 had the 7th highest points total. Right in the middle.

I'd be in favor a VP system that better rewarded the one thing you can control in H2H matchups, Points For, and de-emphasized the one thing you can't control, Points Against.
 
I miss old Ant Sports...best on-line league that I was ever in!
We need to have an early 2000's Ant Sports roll call! Those were the days of "Anything goes" on a message board haha
I know the Antsports guy very well. He has season tickets to the Cardinals as I do, and his college roommate works for me so we tailgate together quite a bit.

He really screwed that whole thing up…
 
If we used All Play instead of h2h in conjunction with total points, as I suggested, I'd have tied for the best record and would have been seed 3 as I'd have lost the points tiebreaker.
So you were #4 in total points scored but had the best all play record (tied)? What rank (in pts scored) did the team have that tied you for best all play record? What were #1, #2, and #3 in pts scored vs their all play record?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top