Which scoring criteria do you feel apply the most skill (1 Viewer)

[Captain Spaulding]

Lets just assume redraft for discussion (not sure if dynasty leadues would be any different).

PPR

TD's

Distance bonuses (rushes > 20yds get x bonus points etc)

incremental yardage for points (x points for every 5 yds)

Bonus threshold scoring (x points for reaching 100yds rush/receiving or x pts or passing > 300 yds etc

Other popular scoring methods???

Which scoring methods can one plan more accurately towards targeting players in a preseason draft and which also can you analyze weekly matchups for determining your starting lineup? Which scoring methods are more of a crapshoot, with alot of unpredictability and luck involved?

 

[redman]

The more often a particular stat accumulates, the better you can predict it and therefore the more skill tends to be necessary in differentiating dozens of different players. So, yards and PPR would go first, followed by stuff like TD's and bonus runs.

 

[Daywalker]

I have never understood all the love for ppr. To me it just adds to the luck factor due to the volatility of the wr rankings. My favorite scoring criteria that I have used was .25/per rb rec. and .5/per wr/te rec. WR's and pass-catching rb's get a slight bump but solid rb projections still are meaningful.

 

[redman]

I have never understood all the love for ppr. To me it just adds to the luck factor due to the volatility of the wr rankings. My favorite scoring criteria that I have used was .25/per rb rec. and .5/per wr/te rec. WR's and pass-catching rb's get a slight bump but solid rb projections still are meaningful.

On I like better is one that we're doing in the FBG's member-staff league, which is:.5/rec - RB1/rec - WR1.5/rec - TEThe theory is that a fair number of RB's tend to get a lot of cheap dump-offs, so the weighting is toward WR's and especially TE's, who are at a premium.

 

[Marc Levin]

Good topic.

#1 IDP and dynasty leagues. Period. Much much much more skill and predictability when you add in a full complement of IDP players and when you can keep a core set of players from year to year.

#2 - I've been thinking on this, but I think a scoring criteria not yet commonplace would be the one for offensive players. To remove luck and install skill, you need to account for the individual's ability to prognosticate how the game will flow. The scoring system would somehow link my ability to predict the flow of the game to my individual score/players. IOW, you draft an entire team or two and you get points based on the difference in score. If you have the Pack and they beat the Giants by 3, maybe you get 0 points. If they beat them by 21, maybe you get 5 points, if they lose, you get -1 point, and -1 more for every 7 points they lose by.

#3 - in line with the above, you get points based on whether your player made first downs - or made comeback catches/runs - or had P.I. against them - or percentage of completions - or QB rating - or a myriad of other stats we don't use that are more important in a "football sense."

I know this doesn't answer your question, but they are some thoughts.

 

[matuski]

no matter what you do to the scoring you can't change the fact that there is zero skill in predicting the future.

 

[Marc Levin]

no matter what you do to the scoring you can't change the fact that there is zero skill in predicting the future.

True - but that applies to almost all games outside of Chess. I may be a perfect backgammon player, but it ultimately comes down to dice throws - same with poker. I would argue that predicting players' performances in games (especially when you field anywhere from 9 to 15 of your hand picked players) is significantly more predictable than a game of chance.Not trying to REMOVE luck, just trying to explore what accounts for more skill and less luck in terms of scoring.

 

[redman]

no matter what you do to the scoring you can't change the fact that there is zero skill in predicting the future.

I don't agree. Even a majority of it may be luck in the long run, but there's definitely skill involved.

 

[DropKick]

no matter what you do to the scoring you can't change the fact that there is zero skill in predicting the future.

I knew you would post that!

 

[awesomeness]

no matter what you do to the scoring you can't change the fact that there is zero skill in predicting the future.

if that were the case, you wouldnt be on these boards in the first place.

 

[TxBuckeye]

no matter what you do to the scoring you can't change the fact that there is zero skill in predicting the future.

Then how does Vegas stay in business?

 

[Captain Spaulding]

I have never understood all the love for ppr. To me it just adds to the luck factor due to the volatility of the wr rankings. My favorite scoring criteria that I have used was .25/per rb rec. and .5/per wr/te rec. WR's and pass-catching rb's get a slight bump but solid rb projections still are meaningful.

On I like better is one that we're doing in the FBG's member-staff league, which is:.5/rec - RB1/rec - WR1.5/rec - TEThe theory is that a fair number of RB's tend to get a lot of cheap dump-offs, so the weighting is toward WR's and especially TE's, who are at a premium.

I really like this adjusted reception scoring by position. I'm just one who likes balance by positions, but that is a whole separate debate we don't have to get into on this post.I always really like the points for getting a 1st down. That helps make real-world NFL value more closely match fantasy value. Your clutch 3rd down receiver who makes key plays (i.e 1st downs) should be rewarded more so that the screen pass reception that goes for 3 yds on a 1st down. Or the RB who gets takes a 2nd down and 6 and runs for 7 yds and a 1st down should get rewarded. Its just a better effort w/ results.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

no matter what you do to the scoring you can't change the fact that there is zero skill in predicting the future.

Then how does Vegas stay in business?

Because, over time, the player's luck eventually runs out. And Vegas has the time and money to wait you out. They aren't going anywhere. They didn't build a paradise in the desert on charity.

 

[EBF]

Dynasty, PPR, big rosters, flexibile lineups, lots of starters, perhaps without kickers.

 

[SSOG]

big rosters, flexibile lineups, lots of starters, perhaps without kickers.

Came here to post these. I think the ultimate test of skill would be a two-team league where you started 100 players, regardless of position (just make sure to balance the scoring so that it's, if not perfectly even across the positions, then at least pretty close). For instance, you could go with 12 QBs, 24 RBs, 32 WRs, 12 TEs, 8 kickers, and 12 defenses... or you could start 32 QBs, 60 WRs, and 8 TEs. Make no roster limits so that everyone in the league gets rostered. The fewer the number of starters, the more impact a single one has when he goes off for a record-setting season (such as how Tomlinson and Brady have single-handedly carried teams to the playoffs in recent years). If you're starting 12 QBs, and one of them is Brady in the middle of his massive season, then it's just a drop in the bucket (albeit a much larger drop than your other QBs are providing). In the end, such a league boils down to a simple "yours vs. mine, let's see whose projections were the best" competition. In such an insane league, you wouldn't need to skew the numbers to be yardage-heavy if you didn't want to, because when you're starting 100 players suddenly TDs aren't so volatile. The biggest advantage to the league would be that you're pretty much entirely injury-proof, since you have so many replacement players ready to step in.If you were doing a more realistic league, then I'd go with 8 players, yardage-heavy, start 2 QBs, 2 RBs, 1 QB/RB flex, 3 WR, 2 RB/WR flex, 1 TE, 1 TE/WR flex, and 2 defenses. Some people might see the 8-team league and start the whole "everyone has studs" whining that inevitably follows... but in such a league, you'd start 112 total players. In a 12-team league with standard lineups (QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, Def) you only start 96 players, meaning the 8-teamer requires more barrel-scraping than the 12-teamer. Fewer teams and more starters per team simply means that a single player has less impact (so studs help less and injuries hurt less).Oh, one other thing. I'd do All-Play or Total Points instead of Head to Head. That should go without saying.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

big rosters, flexibile lineups, lots of starters, perhaps without kickers.

Came here to post these. I think the ultimate test of skill would be a two-team league where you started 100 players, regardless of position (just make sure to balance the scoring so that it's, if not perfectly even across the positions, then at least pretty close). For instance, you could go with 12 QBs, 24 RBs, 32 WRs, 12 TEs, 8 kickers, and 12 defenses... or you could start 32 QBs, 60 WRs, and 8 TEs. Make no roster limits so that everyone in the league gets rostered. The fewer the number of starters, the more impact a single one has when he goes off for a record-setting season (such as how Tomlinson and Brady have single-handedly carried teams to the playoffs in recent years). If you're starting 12 QBs, and one of them is Brady in the middle of his massive season, then it's just a drop in the bucket (albeit a much larger drop than your other QBs are providing). In the end, such a league boils down to a simple "yours vs. mine, let's see whose projections were the best" competition. In such an insane league, you wouldn't need to skew the numbers to be yardage-heavy if you didn't want to, because when you're starting 100 players suddenly TDs aren't so volatile. The biggest advantage to the league would be that you're pretty much entirely injury-proof, since you have so many replacement players ready to step in.If you were doing a more realistic league, then I'd go with 8 players, yardage-heavy, start 2 QBs, 2 RBs, 1 QB/RB flex, 3 WR, 2 RB/WR flex, 1 TE, 1 TE/WR flex, and 2 defenses. Some people might see the 8-team league and start the whole "everyone has studs" whining that inevitably follows... but in such a league, you'd start 112 total players. In a 12-team league with standard lineups (QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, Def) you only start 96 players, meaning the 8-teamer requires more barrel-scraping than the 12-teamer. Fewer teams and more starters per team simply means that a single player has less impact (so studs help less and injuries hurt less).Oh, one other thing. I'd do All-Play or Total Points instead of Head to Head. That should go without saying.

Your recommendations sound intriquing but I've read this several times and I'm not sure I follow you.Only 2 owners?Unlimited roster size? (do you share players between the owners or does each owner have separate rosters)?How can each owner "start 32 QB's" there are onlly 32 teams in the NFL. Is there any week-to-week lineup decisionmaking/strategy or is it just upfront preseason drafting prowess?Please help me understand better , I'm interested in hearing about this (if its serious and not a joke).

 

[SSOG]

big rosters, flexibile lineups, lots of starters, perhaps without kickers.

Came here to post these. I think the ultimate test of skill would be a two-team league where you started 100 players, regardless of position (just make sure to balance the scoring so that it's, if not perfectly even across the positions, then at least pretty close). For instance, you could go with 12 QBs, 24 RBs, 32 WRs, 12 TEs, 8 kickers, and 12 defenses... or you could start 32 QBs, 60 WRs, and 8 TEs. Make no roster limits so that everyone in the league gets rostered. The fewer the number of starters, the more impact a single one has when he goes off for a record-setting season (such as how Tomlinson and Brady have single-handedly carried teams to the playoffs in recent years). If you're starting 12 QBs, and one of them is Brady in the middle of his massive season, then it's just a drop in the bucket (albeit a much larger drop than your other QBs are providing). In the end, such a league boils down to a simple "yours vs. mine, let's see whose projections were the best" competition. In such an insane league, you wouldn't need to skew the numbers to be yardage-heavy if you didn't want to, because when you're starting 100 players suddenly TDs aren't so volatile. The biggest advantage to the league would be that you're pretty much entirely injury-proof, since you have so many replacement players ready to step in.If you were doing a more realistic league, then I'd go with 8 players, yardage-heavy, start 2 QBs, 2 RBs, 1 QB/RB flex, 3 WR, 2 RB/WR flex, 1 TE, 1 TE/WR flex, and 2 defenses. Some people might see the 8-team league and start the whole "everyone has studs" whining that inevitably follows... but in such a league, you'd start 112 total players. In a 12-team league with standard lineups (QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, Def) you only start 96 players, meaning the 8-teamer requires more barrel-scraping than the 12-teamer. Fewer teams and more starters per team simply means that a single player has less impact (so studs help less and injuries hurt less).Oh, one other thing. I'd do All-Play or Total Points instead of Head to Head. That should go without saying.

Your recommendations sound intriquing but I've read this several times and I'm not sure I follow you.Only 2 owners?Unlimited roster size? (do you share players between the owners or does each owner have separate rosters)?How can each owner "start 32 QB's" there are onlly 32 teams in the NFL. Is there any week-to-week lineup decisionmaking/strategy or is it just upfront preseason drafting prowess?Please help me understand better , I'm interested in hearing about this (if its serious and not a joke).

Yes, only 2 owners. Roster sizes are only limited by the number of players in the NFL. If it makes you feel better, call it a 300-man roster, instead. Each player has his own separate team that he drafts at the beginning of the season, and the draft continues until every single starter, backup, special-teamer, and practice-squadder has been rostered. The goal of this is to eliminate the trigger-finger situations where the first person to the waiver wire winds up with an out-of-nowhere gem like Boldin, Colston, Grant, or Graham. In order to maximize skill, talent rostered should have nothing to do with who was closer to a computer, who has a worse record, or anything of the sort. In order to prevent good players from finding their way to the wire, you have to make sure that *NO* players find their way to the wire.When I said "start 32 QBs", I was talking about perfectly flexible rosters. The only way one owner could start 32 QBs is if he drafted all of the QBs and the other owner drafted none of them, focusing on RBs and WRs instead. It wasn't meant to be a realistic example, it was just meant to illustrate the possibilities of a perfectly flexible roster (where you just start a certain number of players regardless of position). More realistically you might get one owner starting 22 QBs and the other only starting 10, or something like that.There would be a ton of weekly decision making, in the form of deciding who to start. Your studs would be no-brainer automatic starts, of course, but you'd have to agonize over the last half-dozen starters at each position, as it'd be an exercise of deciding which fringe guys are most likely to perform above average. It would turn the entire season into a game of projections. The guy with the best preseason projections gets the best team. The guy with the best weekly projections scores the most points. Injuries are minimized, lucky or unlucky matchups are eliminated, and free passes in the form of waiver-wire gems are not an option. You just better hope that your projections are better than the other guy's.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

OK, I finally understand now. Thanks for the updates. I would guess since the starting 100 players is 100% flexible (meaning you could start 100 RB's and no other position players or 100 QB's or a mix and match by various positions) that the scoring system for yardage is balanced somehow by position to encourage more of a mix and matching of various positions?

I.E.....give more points per yard receiving for TE's than WR's

Less points for QB yardage passed vs.

 

[SSOG]

OK, I finally understand now. Thanks for the updates. I would guess since the starting 100 players is 100% flexible (meaning you could start 100 RB's and no other position players or 100 QB's or a mix and match by various positions) that the scoring system for yardage is balanced somehow by position to encourage more of a mix and matching of various positions?I.E.....give more points per yard receiving for TE's than WR'sLess points for QB yardage passed vs.

That'd be the idea. You'd want elite QBs, RBs, and WRs to be scoring comparably, but beyond that it doesn't have to be perfectly balanced. Part of the skill involved would be deciding whether you think the 25th best QB would outscore the 4th best defense.

 

[BoltBacker]

no matter what you do to the scoring you can't change the fact that there is zero skill in predicting the future.

Then how does Vegas stay in business?

Because, over time, the player's luck eventually runs out. And Vegas has the time and money to wait you out. They aren't going anywhere. They didn't build a paradise in the desert on charity.

I think the simpler answer is Vegas doesn't make $ by predicting the future, they make $ by betting you can't predict the future.

 

[Marc Levin]

One very simple way to incorporate skill into the game is to allow "hindsight"

Designate one QB, one WR, and one RB - or just one "flex sub player" and allow a post-game change if a player had no touches in the second half of a game.

To remove luck and incorporate skill, you need to remove a little bit of the "foresight" of the game. It is unpredictable for a starting player to be injured during the game or completely removed from the offensive game plan. Remove that unpredictability by designating a specific bench player to replace him, thereby doubling your "foresight chance" of accumulating a better starting score.