Why does FBG use 4 pt for passing TD's? (1 Viewer)

[CalBear]

All I'm saying is that by making passing TD's the same as rushing/receiveing TD's, you are giving more weight to the QB in terms of scoring per starting position. If you feel that this is ok and want your system weighted more towards QB's than RB's and WR's, then thats fine, run with it. But it is a FACT that you are giving more weight to QB's by doing this - it is undeniable.

It's not a FACT at all. When a player who gets 3600 yards and 24 TDs is worth less than a player who gets 1200 yards and 8 TDs, there is no reasonably way you can argue that you're giving more weight to the first player.

 

[ImTheScientist]

This is the longest, most pointless post ever!! Give QB's 5 points for TD's and everthing is fine!

 

[ceo3west]

All I'm saying is that by making passing TD's the same as rushing/receiveing TD's, you are giving more weight to the QB in terms of scoring per starting position.  If you feel that this is ok and want your system weighted more towards QB's than RB's and WR's, then thats fine, run with it.  But it is a FACT that you are giving more weight to QB's by doing this - it is undeniable.

It's not a FACT at all. When a player who gets 3600 yards and 24 TDs is worth less than a player who gets 1200 yards and 8 TDs, there is no reasonably way you can argue that you're giving more weight to the first player.

First of all, you are going to extremes. Ive never seen a scoring system where the guys who gets 3600/24 is worth more than 1200/8.Second, let me give you an example:

Under 4 pt scoring system (1 pt every 20 yards, 4 pt passing TDs):

Very good day for QB 300 yards, 3TD's = 27 points

Very good day for RB 150 yards, 2TD's = 27 points

Under 6 pt scoring system (1 pt every 20 yards, 6 pt passing TDs):

Very good day for QB 300 yards, 3TD's = 33 points

Very good day for RB 150 yards, 2TD's = 27 points

THE QB IS GETTING A GREATER WEIGHT UNDER THIS SYSTEM. THIS IS FACT AND CANNOT BE DENIED. I would like to hear a legitimate reason for this.

Under my system, these players are equally weighted.

 

[CalBear]

THE QB IS GETTING A GREATER WEIGHT UNDER THIS SYSTEM. THIS IS FACT AND CANNOT BE DENIED. I would like to hear a legitimate reason for this.

You've heard plenty of legitimate reasons; you just haven't listened to them. I'm done here.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Up until this year the data has always told us that most leagues use 4 pts for a passing TD. Data this year said 6 points is the new standard. But it's a HUGE change for us to redo all the databases. So this discussion is tabled for the offseason for us.

Understood David and MT, I am appreciative that you guys take the time to look at trends. My main take is that their is something pure about a player scoring and getting 6 points for it. I know people could argue that two players get 6 but that is less important IMO. I also think it gives value to QB's where they should get one pick in the 1st round and then a few sprinkles rather than most being picked very late. As for the one point per reception, I find that very artificial. It is similar to rewarding a RB for a handoff. The yards are what is important. We attempted to even out the TE's and make them more valuable one year and made 1 point for every 5 yards, but that is BS because that would be the same as giving a FB much less to score a point. Plus some TE's line up as receivers anyway.

Just my 2 cents and maybe I am wrong but I think 6 points does make the value of QB's higher and it has some significance.

Thanks for listening

 

[ceo3west]

THE QB IS GETTING A GREATER WEIGHT UNDER THIS SYSTEM.  THIS IS FACT AND CANNOT BE DENIED.  I would like to hear a legitimate reason for this.

You've heard plenty of legitimate reasons; you just haven't listened to them. I'm done here.

I have listened, but you're confusing fact with theory:Theory - scoring systems should use 4pt passing TD's

Fact - QB's get a greater weight than RB's using 6pt passing TD's than 4 pt passing TD's

If you don't understand this after what I've explained, you never will.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I see your point regarding QB value, but then why not making QB passing yards 1 pt every 10 yards as well if you're going to score all TDs equally? QBs accumulate TDs and yards at a much higher rate then RB/WR/TE do. I'd assume you'd have to keep them somewhat at par with each other (at least that's what my leagues try to accomplish) by leveling the scoring. Thus 4 pts a passing TD and 1 pt per 25 yards passing.

* disclaimer* If your league has only 1 starting QB, then their value still remains in the middle portion of your draft. But in leagues like mine where QBs can be a flex spot, softening their scoring is a neccesity.

I think there is a difference because QB's accumulate about 3X as many yards throwing as RB's gets running. Having their yards higher makes sense. In fact, I would be more in favor of dropping all TD's to 3 or points and making yards more important because sometimes TD's tend be luckier.BTW, I can't stand thresholds such as getting more points because it is a longer TD? Never understood that at all. Even the if you reach 100 yards you get something bonus? Why is the yard that gets you from 99-100 better than the one from 90-91? To artificial/arbitrary for me.

 

[Liquid Tension]

4pts for TD passes, I just dont get it. Why single out any particular position and give them less points???

And in those 4pt leagues, why do most of them still give 6pts to QBs that RUSH for a td?? All that does is make running QBs more valuable, and I dont get why. Who cares if the QB scores on the ground or through the air??

Why should a player like Culpepper be considered more valuable than  Manning?? Doesnt make sense to me.

But I guess thats why Ill never play in a 4pt league, so I guess it doesnt matter. To each his own. Ive just never seen a sound argument for the 4pt rule.

Typical good quarterback day on Sunday, 3 passing touchdowns.Typical good running back day on Sunday, 2 rushing touchdowns.

Awarding 4 points for a passing touchdown makes a quarterback's peformance who threw 3 touchdowns 00.00% more impressive than a running back who rushed for two touchdowns.

Awarding 6 points for a passing touchdown makes a quarterback's peformance who threw 3 touchdowns 33.33% more impressive than a running back who rushed for two touchdowns.

yeah, but you are trying to keep the players reasonable close in overall value and you start 2 RB's and one QB. I know a few leagues are now starting 2 QB's and I understand the logic I feel like the "normal" starting lineup was created after a real team of 2 RB's (FB's allowed), 3 WR's 1 QB and 1 TE and 1 Kicker. 2 QB's and 4 WR's could make them each more valuable but it gets a little "forced" if you ask me. Your example only takes TD's into account and not overall value

 

[braven112]

I enjoy when people feel that they have an absolute undeniable theory and refuse to look at it from any other point of view. ceo3west you obviously feel you have such a thing. I completely disagree for reasons i already stated, which you may or may not have read.

I going to puke if I have to read another of his posts.

 

[ceo3west]

yeah, but you are trying to keep the players reasonable close in overall value and you start 2 RB's and one QB.

Finally, a legitimate argument as to why the QB should be weighted higher on an individual basis when complared to RB's.However - not that you even want my opinion - here is my arguement for keeping them of equal value. To me, one of the things that makes FF great is that you get to determine among friends who is more football savvy. One of the ways this is determined is by who has depth - who can really draft in the later rounds. Sure, it's easy to pick your QB1 and your RB1, everyone's list is pretty much the same for these top tier guys. However, you separate the cream of the crop by who picks the right RB2 or RB3, or WR2 or WR3. You need to go analyze these questions at RB for example:* Is the RB firmly entrenched as the starter* Is the RB a two down back or three down back* Is the starting back suited to that particular offensive system or is the backup (or the other guy in the RBBC) better suited* How are the RB's receiving skills, and will the offensive system take advantage of these skills* Can the RB block, and if not is there a chance the RB will lose significant time because of this* If the RB is injury prone, is it because of the system he's in (running inside, smashmouth game), or does it appear he's just fragile. If it's because of the system, has it changed this year.By weighting the QB more than the RB, the guy who drafts the better RB3 or WR3 is penalized because the QB's are weighted higher (even if only slightly) and is making up for that other guy's RB3 or WR3 that isnt as good - because he didn't draft as well. This is my point.

 

[ceo3west]

I enjoy when people feel that they have an absolute undeniable theory and refuse to look at it from any other point of view. ceo3west you obviously feel you have such a thing. I completely disagree for reasons i already stated, which you may or may not have read.

I going to puke if I have to read another of his posts.

I hope you do.

 

[AbidingDude]

First of all, you are going to extremes. Ive never seen a scoring system where the guys who gets 3600/24 is worth more than 1200/8.

Second, let me give you an example:

Under 4 pt scoring system (1 pt every 20 yards, 4 pt passing TDs):

Very good day for QB 300 yards, 3TD's = 27 points

Very good day for RB 150 yards, 2TD's = 27 points

Under 6 pt scoring system (1 pt every 20 yards, 6 pt passing TDs):

Very good day for QB 300 yards, 3TD's = 33 points

Very good day for RB 150 yards, 2TD's = 27 points

THE QB IS GETTING A GREATER WEIGHT UNDER THIS SYSTEM. THIS IS FACT AND CANNOT BE DENIED. I would like to hear a legitimate reason for this.

Under my system, these players are equally weighted.

It took me a while, but I am beginning to understand your argument. You want everyone on your team to score an identical amount (or close to that). Assuming that your entire team does as you expected when you selected the starting lineup, and they all have a good day:QB 30

RB1 30

RB2 30

WR1 30

WR2 30

TE 30

K 30

D 30

I guess I can see where it looks pretty, and you would think you can compare the value of your QB vs the value of the RB a little easier, but if you were to think this then you would be wrong. Making them score similar amounts regardless of what position they play does not make them equally weighted. Their value is determined within their position only. I know this is always a source of contention when evaluating trades. Some go based on the recognition of the name: Payton Manning for Rueben Droughns? The guy who got Droughns got ripped off. Some go based on scoring. Manning scores 30 points a game and Droughns scores 20 points a game. The guy who got Droughns got ripped off. But as mentioned before, Droughns is more valueable due to the roster requirements.

My league rewards 6 pts for all TDs for all positions. It also rewards 1 pt / 10 yards for all positions for all yards from scrimmage (throwing, running, receiving). When I come to look at the football guys cheat sheets, sometimes one or two players will look different from our drafts, but in the long run it is all very close. I haven't found a large enough difference to try to lobby for a change to either scoring system. In fact I like the variety of scoring systems. It makes me pick learn about the true value of a player and helps me to get closesr projections. Not saying I am great at projectsions, but I think I am doing a lot better then if I only ever looked at one scoring system.

What do they say? Try it before you knock it.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

yeah, but you are trying to keep the players reasonable close in overall value and you start 2 RB's and one QB.

Finally, a legitimate argument as to why the QB should be weighted higher on an individual basis when complared to RB's.However - not that you even want my opinion - here is my arguement for keeping them of equal value. To me, one of the things that makes FF great is that you get to determine among friends who is more football savvy. One of the ways this is determined is by who has depth - who can really draft in the later rounds. Sure, it's easy to pick your QB1 and your RB1, everyone's list is pretty much the same for these top tier guys. However, you separate the cream of the crop by who picks the right RB2 or RB3, or WR2 or WR3. You need to go analyze these questions at RB for example:

* Is the RB firmly entrenched as the starter

* Is the RB a two down back or three down back

* Is the starting back suited to that particular offensive system or is the backup (or the other guy in the RBBC) better suited

* How are the RB's receiving skills, and will the offensive system take advantage of these skills

* Can the RB block, and if not is there a chance the RB will lose significant time because of this

* If the RB is injury prone, is it because of the system he's in (running inside, smashmouth game), or does it appear he's just fragile. If it's because of the system, has it changed this year.

By weighting the QB more than the RB, the guy who drafts the better RB3 or WR3 is penalized because the QB's are weighted higher (even if only slightly) and is making up for that other guy's RB3 or WR3 that isnt as good - because he didn't draft as well. This is my point.

ceo, I think you're confusing points scored with value. Even in 6 pt passing leagues that start 1 QB & 2 RB, most QBs are going to have much less value than their equally-ranked RB - even if the QB scores more points.

 

[Chaka]

THE QB IS GETTING A GREATER WEIGHT UNDER THIS SYSTEM. THIS IS FACT AND CANNOT BE DENIED. I would like to hear a legitimate reason for this.

You've heard plenty of legitimate reasons; you just haven't listened to them. I'm done here.

I have listened, but you're confusing fact with theory:Theory - scoring systems should use 4pt passing TD's

Fact - QB's get a greater weight than RB's using 6pt passing TD's than 4 pt passing TD's

If you don't understand this after what I've explained, you never will.

Maybe I just don't understand what you mean by weight. With 6 points per TD the QB will score more points but you seem to think this increases their value, or at least that is how I am reading your posts (and I think I am not alone) and you are not entirely wrong. I know you are a big fan of the VBD app so try an exercise using 4 & 6 pts/TD pass and see what your net gain is.For my leagues scoring parameters with 4 pts/TD pass the first QB comes off the board @ pick 36 with 3 QBs total among the first 60 players.

Using 6 pts/TD the first QB comes off the board at pick 24 (nice jump) but still only four QBs are among the top 60 players. Big deal. Now I haven't run a chi square test on this but I am guessing the difference between 4 and 6 points per TD pass is statistically insignificant.

 

[ceo3west]

I have to run guys (I know most of you are thrilled). But I will try and respond to these tonight if Im around. These are good arguements but I have more to add (of course). Love the banter though.

 

[ookook]

Back to the original post.

The question in response is, why should FBG go through the obvious time and effort to change scoring if it affects so very little (but makes people feel there is more equity even if illusory)?

 

[Chaka]

Point taken, and I'll agree that it's easier to pick the first 8 RB's than it is to pick the first 8 QB's. However, once you get beyond this, RB's become much more difficult to predict. You have to start answering these questions:

* Is the RB firmly entrenched as the starter - What? QBs don't fight for their jobs?

* Is the RB a two down back or three down back

* Is the starting back suited to that particular offensive system or is the backup (or the other guy in the RBBC) better suited - This can be asked of QBs too.

* How are the RB's receiving skills, and will the offensive system take advantage of these skills - Ask Mike Vick if this is important for QBs.

* Can the RB block, and if not is there a chance the RB will lose significant time because of this - If he's blocking then he isn't catching or running anyway so who cares?

* If the RB is injury prone, is it because of the system he's in (running inside, smashmouth game), or does it appear he's just fragile. If it's because of the system, has it changed this year. - You are reaching here and you know it. System indeed. There are more injury question marks at QB than any other position.

There are many others as well.

For QB's, there are questions, but here's the difference:

*Most likely, unless injury arises, QB's 9-25 are firmly entrenched as their temas starter - I see 9 QBs ranked between 15 & 32 (my rankings) who are question marks in this regard. Everyone sees the same things differently.

*The dropoff in points from QB9 - QB25 is not that great, decreasing their relevance. It doesn't matter if I get Jake Plummer in the fifth round, because two rounds later I could get Aaron Brooks and the production will not likely drop off that much. However, I have to answer all of the above questions about Thomas Jones in the fourth round, or whether or not I should wait and take Cedric Benson in the sixth round, or perhaps LenDale White in the seventh round.

Now this is a good point but changing from 4 to 6 points per TD pass does not affect this in the least. Starting two QBs will change this dramatically.

This takes a lot more skill.

No, it doesn't. I think you overestimate skill in this hobby.

 

[AbidingDude]

yeah, but you are trying to keep the players reasonable close in overall value and you start 2 RB's and one QB.

Finally, a legitimate argument as to why the QB should be weighted higher on an individual basis when complared to RB's.However - not that you even want my opinion - here is my arguement for keeping them of equal value. To me, one of the things that makes FF great is that you get to determine among friends who is more football savvy. One of the ways this is determined is by who has depth - who can really draft in the later rounds. Sure, it's easy to pick your QB1 and your RB1, everyone's list is pretty much the same for these top tier guys. However, you separate the cream of the crop by who picks the right RB2 or RB3, or WR2 or WR3. You need to go analyze these questions at RB for example:

* Is the RB firmly entrenched as the starter

* Is the RB a two down back or three down back

* Is the starting back suited to that particular offensive system or is the backup (or the other guy in the RBBC) better suited

* How are the RB's receiving skills, and will the offensive system take advantage of these skills

* Can the RB block, and if not is there a chance the RB will lose significant time because of this

* If the RB is injury prone, is it because of the system he's in (running inside, smashmouth game), or does it appear he's just fragile. If it's because of the system, has it changed this year.

By weighting the QB more than the RB, the guy who drafts the better RB3 or WR3 is penalized because the QB's are weighted higher (even if only slightly) and is making up for that other guy's RB3 or WR3 that isnt as good - because he didn't draft as well. This is my point.

Your argument/concern here is that because the QBs score more points, the less savvy owner will not have to be smart enough to pick the better RB2 or WR3. However, this argument ignores everything that everyone has been trying to say.Just because the best QB scores 30 points , that does not make up for picking a bad RB2 or WR3. Instead it only depends on the value of that QB vs the other qbs. If the 10th best QB still scores 25 points, then the guy who didnt draft as well, and picked QB1 first only gets a 5 point advantage. You feel like that makes up for him picking poorly and not getting a quality RB2 or WR3. Well that again depends on the value vs others at that same position. If your RB2 outscores his RB2 by 8 points, then you have nothing to worry about his drafting skills or the weight on the QB. However, if his WR3 outscores your WR3 by 3 points, then you are back to even. Then there is some tradeoff between the two opposite drafting techniques. Making player's scoring averages even regardless of position does not negate this. As long as you both start the same players, it all depends on the scoring difference between players AT THE SAME POSITION.

I wish I could always fit the scoring system to match how I like to draft. Instead though, try to only worrry about drafting according to your league (scoring, drafting tendencies, etc). And, even if you could make it just how you want it, some owners would still have some player they picked make up for all their other players by having a really really good day. That is just part of the game.

 

[GregR_2]

...

All I'm saying is that by making passing TD's the same as rushing/receiveing TD's, you are giving more weight to the QB in terms of scoring per starting position. If you feel that this is ok and want your system weighted more towards QB's than RB's and WR's, then thats fine, run with it. But it is a FACT that you are giving more weight to QB's by doing this - it is undeniable.

QBs get more weight from TDs. RB and WR get more weight than QB from the fact more of them start each week. WR get the same yardage points as RB, yet a WR requires someone to throw him the ball but doesn't get the points discounted. QBs do get their yardage points discounted. So it would be accurate to say that in yardage, WRs get weighted more than RBs who get weighted more than QBs.My point is the entire sum of the scoring system and lineup requirements combines to determine how a position is weighted (valued?) against another. Just because someone has equal TD points doesn't mean QBs are, OVERALL, being weighted higher. In fact, 6 pt TDs still result in QBs being weighted less overall because starting a 2nd RB or a 2nd/3rd WR is a lot bigger contribution to value.

There is no right or wrong answer. Some people want to see symmetry in that FGs be worth 3 points and TDs be worth 6 points since that is how it is in the NFL. Some may want that, but feel things are too unbalanced if they go for symmetry in everything, like yardage points, so cut back the QBs. Some want to use more RBs and WRs than QBs (even though I've never seen a game where a team could get 2 full-time RB's worth of carries, or 3 WR1's worth of targets thrown).

In some aspect, symmetry to the NFL is going to break. When we get down to it, I'd say preserving as much symmetry as we want, in places we think it most belongs, while having a scoring system that makes for an entertaining game, is the goal.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I enjoy when people feel that they have an absolute undeniable theory and refuse to look at it from any other point of view. ceo3west you obviously feel you have such a thing. I completely disagree for reasons i already stated, which you may or may not have read.

I going to puke if I have to read another of his posts.

I hope you do.

ceo3west i dont know if you dont listen, dont care, or cant read, but you fail to realize my point or anybody else's. In my league Carson Palmer was the number 1 ranked qb, Kerry Collins was number 10. Palmer had 348 points to Collins' 273. A difference in 75 points, 4.7pts per week. The difference between the #1 RB and #10 RB was 358(SA) to 195(Jones). 10.2 pts per week. Now even with our TDs being SIX points running backs are worth MORE. Its not even close in value actually. The team that has carson palmer and thomas jones loses by a huge margin to the team that has Alexander and Kerry Collins. In fact you could give the team that has palmer and jones Steve Smith and give the team with alexander and collins and jimmy smith and the team with Alexander still wins.

In other words if you start the #1 QB, #10 RB, and #1 WR you lose to the team that starts the #1 RB, #10QB, and #18 WR.

After reviewing this i propose passing TDs should be worth 10 points

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I have listened, but you're confusing fact with theory:

Theory - scoring systems should use 4pt passing TD's

This is not a theory. It is an assertion.

Fact - QB's get a greater weight than RB's using 6pt passing TD's than 4 pt passing TD's

I don't know what this means. What is weight? If you're saying that increasing the points awarded for passing TDs tends to increase the value of quarterbacks with respect to other positions, you are correct. But the increase is slight when we're talking about a two-point difference. As others have pointed out, it's not enough to make the QB5 worth more than the RB5.

 

[ceo3west]

Ok guys, I'm back(again, Im sure youre thrilled). I'm hoping this post will finally clear things up for everyone about my point. I'm going to give you an example of why I beleive a QB should be on a level playing field with the RB in terms of scoring (i.e. 4pts passing TD & 1 pt for every 20 yards passing). This example will be using "AbidingDude"'s scoring system (everyone gets 6pts TD & 1pt for every 10 yards) compared to mine. We are assuming a three player draft - 1 QB & 2 RB's. Here are our teams along with their output in one week:

His team:

QB1 - 300 yards, 3 TD's

RB1 - 120 yards, 2 TD's

RB2 - 50 yards, 0 TD's

My team:

QB1 - 250 yards, 2 TD's

RB1 - 120 yards, 2 TD's

RB2 - 100 yards, 1 TD's

Let's look at QB's first. Under his scoring system, his QB gets 48 points to my 38 (10 point differential). Under my scoring system, his QB gets 27 points to my 20.5 (6.5 point differential).

Here are the final scores under his scoring system:

Him 77

Me 77

Here are the final scores under my scoring system:

Him 56

Me 60.5

Under his system we tie, and under mine I win. His QB1 outperformed my QB1 by 50 yards and 1 TD, and my RB2 outperformed his RB2 by 50 yards and 1 TD. So who deserves to win the game? I do. Why you might ask? Because generally speaking it is more difficult to pick the RB2 that is going to outscore your RB2 than it is to pick a QB1 that is going to outperform your QB1. His system is rewarding him for picking a better QB1 rather than rewarding me for picking a better RB2. Im hope you'll all agree that it is much more difficult to pick an RB2 that will outperform another team's RB2, and I beleive you should be rewarded for this.

Now, most scoring systems don't allow a QB 1 point for every 10 yards, but even by increasing only TD's from 4 to 6 points, you are doing this very same thing, only on a smaller scale. By weighting all positions equally, you are rewarded for better drafting in the later rounds.

 

[GregR_2]

Because generally speaking it is more difficult to pick the RB2 that is going to outscore your RB2 than it is to pick a QB1 that is going to outperform your QB1.

I don't see this being the primary basis for a scoring system. If PK end up being more difficult to pick than RB and QB, should no position get more weight from the scoring system than PK?Or is there also a desire that the value of a position in fantasy have some similarity to the value of a position in the real NFL?

Now, most scoring systems don't allow a QB 1 point for every 10 yards, but even by increasing only TD's from 4 to 6 points, you are doing this very same thing, only on a smaller scale. By weighting all positions equally, you are rewarded for better drafting in the later rounds.

Your system doesn't weight all positions equally. You start 2 RBs vs 1 QB, which very, very, very heavily weights things towards RBs. Much more so than the change from 4 to 6 pt TDs favors QB.

 

[braven112]

Because generally speaking it is more difficult to pick the RB2 that is going to outscore your RB2 than it is to pick a QB1 that is going to outperform your QB1.

I don't see this being the primary basis for a scoring system. If PK end up being more difficult to pick than RB and QB, should no position get more weight from the scoring system than PK?Or is there also a desire that the value of a position in fantasy have some similarity to the value of a position in the real NFL?

Now, most scoring systems don't allow a QB 1 point for every 10 yards, but even by increasing only TD's from 4 to 6 points, you are doing this very same thing, only on a smaller scale. By weighting all positions equally, you are rewarded for better drafting in the later rounds.

Your system doesn't weight all positions equally. You start 2 RBs vs 1 QB, which very, very, very heavily weights things towards RBs. Much more so than the change from 4 to 6 pt TDs favors QB.

Exactly, what it boils down to is "starting lineup requirements" contribute much more to "value" than changing the point system. Who cares what system you use? As has been stated many, many times their simply is not a significant difference in value by changing QB points.ceo3west do you get it yet? Or are you still living in your own world? Where reading is obviously outlawed.

Your not sparking up good debate it’s simply you refusing to see that the sky is blue.

 

[CalBear]

I just wish he'd change his avatar. Jerry deserves better.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Then with your 6 point TD argument, you should also be awarding a QB 1 point for every 10 yards passing just like you do for an RB or WR.  If all TD's are worth 6, why shouldn't yards be also? 

Under the terms of your argument, this is supposedly equal weighting as well.  It's not.  The QB gets more weight under these circumstances - whether its yards or TDs.

My league awards 20 points per yard passing/rushing/receiving. And still, RBs and WRs are both more valuable than QBs.

Only because you are starting more RB's and WR's. If you compare QB7 to RB7, QB7 is weighted more under your system because he is going to throw for more TD's than RB7 is going to score. Just because you are starting more players at a particular position doesn't mean you should be giving more weight to the other positions. If this were the case, you could argue that kickers should get 6 points for field goals because you only start one of them.

I'm still trying to figure out how you think that having more points coming from the RB and WR positions means that we're giving extra weight to QBs.If we were a 2QB league, we'd be having more QB scoring, but we're not, so we have more RB and WR scoring than QB scoring.

Yes, but again, it's because you are taking into consideration that you are starting more than one RB or WR. If you look at scoring per position without consideration for number of starters at those positions, QB's are more heavily weighted with 6 point pass TD's. What youre doing is justifying that because you are starting more than one RB & WR, it doesnt matter that QB's have that extra weight [per starting roster spot], but I disagree. In my opinion, QB/RB/WR's on an individual basis (without regard for number of starters) should all be weighted equally. I dont see how you can justify the higher individual weight for the QB.Does anyone else understand this and please, would love some feedback on this. I think this topic and scoring systems in general need to be addressed in FF. Too many guys set up leagues with wacky scoring systems not even realizing the implications of what they are doing. FYI, I am not saying that 6 points for passing TDs is wacky by any means - I agree most leagues have this. But I feel scoring needs to be evenly weighted across the three skill positions.

Would love to hear some of the FBG's takes on this as well..

OK, assuming that there is on starter at each position you still have discpepencies because there are so many more WR's than QB's; RB's as well. the good ones would still be closer. However, the scoring should still be adjusted because QB's will "always" throw for more yards than RB's/WR will rush/receive for.BTW, many times I have read in this thread that 6-4 pts doesn't make much of a difference. With fumbles and INt's -3 and a 14 team league using FBG's scoring Manning drops from 12th overall to 24th overall. That is something.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think QBs should get zero points for TDs.  I like the strategy most FBGs employ which is to completely ignore all other position except RB.  You guys have totally sold me on picking Running Backs with my first 10 picks of the draft.  After all, you can never have too many.

The way some of you guys run your leagues, there should be no other position except RB.

Removing all QBs, WRs, Ks & Ds from my draft board.

This plan is gold Jerry, GOLD!!!

This is my 19th season running my league, and I don't know when or how it ever got started, but so many leagues--who don't bother to think these things through--have totally undermined the other positions with rules that seem to recognize only the RB position. If your league rules are constructed such that it becomes a legitimate choice of whether to take Reuben Droughns or Peyton Manning in the 2nd round of your draft--if that's what it's come to--then that's a pretty effing stupid league, if you ask me.

This kind of sums up the "realism" part of my argument. I like the 6 points for a TD and 3 points for a FG because that is what it is in football. However, TD's tend to be luckier than yardage so I like the idea of getting points for yards. Could give more points for yards like 1 for every yard but that seem excessive to me as TD's are important. I give 1 for every 20 on a QB because they pass more than RB's and that brings it down a little. But at the end of the day the QB is the single most important position in the NFL even if it only represents about 12% of the team. So wouldn't you want to make it at least as important as the 6 th best RB?Maybe the discussion should move beyond the 6 points as that should have already happened. maybe the question should be about moving the QB's to 1 point for every 10 yards throwing? If you did that, and still had -3 for picks and fumbles, Manning at 6 would STILL be the only QB in the top 20 according to value in FBG's!

 

[ceo3west]

Exactly, what it boils down to is "starting lineup requirements" contribute much more to "value" than changing the point system. Who cares what system you use? As has been stated many, many times their simply is not a significant difference in value by changing QB points.

I never argued that lineup requirements didn't change value, thats not the point of this. There is a reason Dodds uses my scoring system in his "Perfect Draft" article. It is because every position should be valued equally in terms of scoring system. In the example I gave, every position is not valued equally, the QB has more value based on scoring system.

Too bad Dodds is swamped. I'd like to hear why he uses this system from the horses mouth. If he disagrees I'll eat crow.

 

[Liquid Tension]

All I'm saying is that by making passing TD's the same as rushing/receiveing TD's, you are giving more weight to the QB in terms of scoring per starting position.  If you feel that this is ok and want your system weighted more towards QB's than RB's and WR's, then thats fine, run with it.  But it is a FACT that you are giving more weight to QB's by doing this - it is undeniable.

It's not a FACT at all. When a player who gets 3600 yards and 24 TDs is worth less than a player who gets 1200 yards and 8 TDs, there is no reasonably way you can argue that you're giving more weight to the first player.

First of all, you are going to extremes. Ive never seen a scoring system where the guys who gets 3600/24 is worth more than 1200/8.Second, let me give you an example:

Under 4 pt scoring system (1 pt every 20 yards, 4 pt passing TDs):

Very good day for QB 300 yards, 3TD's = 27 points

Very good day for RB 150 yards, 2TD's = 27 points

Under 6 pt scoring system (1 pt every 20 yards, 6 pt passing TDs):

Very good day for QB 300 yards, 3TD's = 33 points

Very good day for RB 150 yards, 2TD's = 27 points

THE QB IS GETTING A GREATER WEIGHT UNDER THIS SYSTEM. THIS IS FACT AND CANNOT BE DENIED. I would like to hear a legitimate reason for this.

Under my system, these players are equally weighted.

Why would you want a RB to be valued the same as a QB? Of course the fact that most leagues start two RB's makes them more valuable to begin with. Even if you didn't, I would want the QB's to be worth more...

 

[ceo3west]

I just wish he'd change his avatar. Jerry deserves better.

You probably don't even deserve to know who Jerry is my friend. I am out of this topic - for good.

 

[Chaka]

I just wish he'd change his avatar. Jerry deserves better.

You probably don't even deserve to know who Jerry is my friend. I am out of this topic - for good.

This guy must be

 

[parasaurolophus]

Ok guys, I'm back(again, Im sure youre thrilled). I'm hoping this post will finally clear things up for everyone about my point. I'm going to give you an example of why I beleive a QB should be on a level playing field with the RB in terms of scoring (i.e. 4pts passing TD & 1 pt for every 20 yards passing). This example will be using "AbidingDude"'s scoring system (everyone gets 6pts TD & 1pt for every 10 yards) compared to mine. We are assuming a three player draft - 1 QB & 2 RB's. Here are our teams along with their output in one week:

His team:

QB1 - 300 yards, 3 TD's

RB1 - 120 yards, 2 TD's

RB2 - 50 yards, 0 TD's

My team:

QB1 - 250 yards, 2 TD's

RB1 - 120 yards, 2 TD's

RB2 - 100 yards, 1 TD's

Let's look at QB's first. Under his scoring system, his QB gets 48 points to my 38 (10 point differential). Under my scoring system, his QB gets 27 points to my 20.5 (6.5 point differential).

Here are the final scores under his scoring system:

Him 77

Me 77

Here are the final scores under my scoring system:

Him 56

Me 60.5

Under his system we tie, and under mine I win. His QB1 outperformed my QB1 by 50 yards and 1 TD, and my RB2 outperformed his RB2 by 50 yards and 1 TD. So who deserves to win the game? I do. Why you might ask? Because generally speaking it is more difficult to pick the RB2 that is going to outscore your RB2 than it is to pick a QB1 that is going to outperform your QB1. His system is rewarding him for picking a better QB1 rather than rewarding me for picking a better RB2. Im hope you'll all agree that it is much more difficult to pick an RB2 that will outperform another team's RB2, and I beleive you should be rewarded for this.

Now, most scoring systems don't allow a QB 1 point for every 10 yards, but even by increasing only TD's from 4 to 6 points, you are doing this very same thing, only on a smaller scale. By weighting all positions equally, you are rewarded for better drafting in the later rounds.

It must be nice to just decide you are going to assume that 1 pt per 10 passing yards to attempt to prove your theory. In order to use that scoring system, you are saying Kerry Collins had a much better year fantasy wise as Matt Hasselback.

If QB is weighted so heavily with 6 points per TD, why is it that few qbs are drafted in rounds 1-3 even under this system?

Is your system really valuing players equally if the team with the #1 QB, #10RB, #1wr and #2wr would get beat by the team with the #1 RB, #10 QB, #10 wr, and#11wr? Sounds to me like a league that values HIGHER draft picks more than LATER draft picks. The guys with the top 3 picks have a HUGE advantage.

 

[braven112]

I just wish he'd change his avatar. Jerry deserves better.

You probably don't even deserve to know who Jerry is my friend. I am out of this topic - for good.

Thats what happens when you get And stay out

 

[cobalt_27]

I just wish he'd change his avatar. Jerry deserves better.

You probably don't even deserve to know who Jerry is my friend. I am out of this topic - for good.

Thats what happens when you get And stay out

All I can say is I'm sure as hell glad I wasn't around for this ceo guy when he was actually posting. I would've had a seizure and aneurysm if I had to wade through all that nonsense in detail.Point remains that in a 4pt PaTD system, Droughns has more value than Peyton, and that's just dumb. It's not a fantasy football league--it's fantasy RB league.

**Edit to add that it's beyond comprehension why a site I respect like these guys continue this inane tradition.

 

[Chaka]

I just wish he'd change his avatar. Jerry deserves better.

You probably don't even deserve to know who Jerry is my friend. I am out of this topic - for good.

Thats what happens when you get And stay out

All I can say is I'm sure as hell glad I wasn't around for this ceo guy when he was actually posting. I would've had a seizure and aneurysm if I had to wade through all that nonsense in detail.Point remains that in a 4pt PaTD system, Droughns has more value than Peyton, and that's just dumb. It's not a fantasy football league--it's fantasy RB league.

Settle down people he is just an opinionated newbie.He'll figure it out...maybe.

**Edit to add that it's beyond comprehension why a site I respect like these guys continue this inane tradition.

Simple marketing cobalt. It is a fact that an overwhelming majority of fantasy leagues choose to marginalize the QB position this way and if FBG didn't appeal to the masses the site probably would not exist. If you think you can change that you might want to move into seclusion with ceo3west so you can strategize your unrelenting plan of attack.G-Dspeed my friend.

 

[Mario Kart]

I am confused so could someone help me out here. I like using 4 pt TDs but I dont like the fact that a RB 20 would be as valuable as a QB 5 so my question is who should I read in this thread to support my notions about Fantasy Football?

 

[Sigfawn]

Simple marketing cobalt. It is a fact that an overwhelming majority of fantasy leagues choose to marginalize the QB position this way and if FBG didn't appeal to the masses the site probably would not exist. If you think you can change that you might want to move into seclusion with ceo3west so you can strategize your unrelenting plan of attack.

G-Dspeed my friend.

Simply wrong actually. Dodds even posted that more leagues are now using 6pt TDs (he said they contact myfantasyleague for current data). They probably would have switched this year if it wouldn't have been a huge amount of work on the backend. But Dodds said they'd revisit it in the offseason.

 

[cobalt_27]

I am confused so could someone help me out here. I like using 4 pt TDs but I dont like the fact that a RB 20 would be as valuable as a QB 5 so my question is who should I read in this thread to support my notions about Fantasy Football?

So, what you're saying is you like the idea in theory, but you don't like it in practice. If you read CEO, he likes the theory AND he likes the practice. If you read me, I don't like the theory AND I don't like the practice. Others have come out strongly on both sides, but there really isn't anyone who takes this weird middle ground.Incidentally, I don't like the theory because it necessarily produces this very result.

 

[cobalt_27]

I just wish he'd change his avatar. Jerry deserves better.

You probably don't even deserve to know who Jerry is my friend. I am out of this topic - for good.

Thats what happens when you get And stay out

All I can say is I'm sure as hell glad I wasn't around for this ceo guy when he was actually posting. I would've had a seizure and aneurysm if I had to wade through all that nonsense in detail.Point remains that in a 4pt PaTD system, Droughns has more value than Peyton, and that's just dumb. It's not a fantasy football league--it's fantasy RB league.

Settle down people he is just an opinionated newbie.He'll figure it out...maybe.

**Edit to add that it's beyond comprehension why a site I respect like these guys continue this inane tradition.

Simple marketing cobalt. It is a fact that an overwhelming majority of fantasy leagues choose to marginalize the QB position this way and if FBG didn't appeal to the masses the site probably would not exist. If you think you can change that you might want to move into seclusion with ceo3west so you can strategize your unrelenting plan of attack.G-Dspeed my friend.

Where's your link on this? I don't have one, myself, but I think the trend has put 6pt PaTDs on the map of at least 50% of the leagues now (when it used to be virtually zero). Besides, I think FBGs at this point can afford to be above the fray of the "average" football owner. They're in a position by virtue of their reputation and popularity to move the chains, themselves, and promote any number of improvements. The smart play here is to act like the era of the 4ptPaTD never happened and move on. Leagues that do this in conjunction with the 1QBx2RB format cease to be fantasy football...they're just running back leagues. This is the only area where I think FGBs have been behind the times. Otherwise, they've been pretty innovative in how they approach the rest of this stuff.

I don't know where you get that ceo and I would coexist very well together; he likes how the traditional 4ptPaTD:1QBx2RB system works, while I think it's dumb.

 

[ookook]

Simple marketing cobalt.  It is a fact that an overwhelming majority of fantasy leagues choose to marginalize the QB position this way and if FBG didn't appeal to the masses the site probably would not exist.  If you think you can change that you might want to move into seclusion with ceo3west so you can strategize your unrelenting plan of attack.

G-Dspeed my friend.

Simply wrong actually. Dodds even posted that more leagues are now using 6pt TDs (he said they contact myfantasyleague for current data). They probably would have switched this year if it wouldn't have been a huge amount of work on the backend. But Dodds said they'd revisit it in the offseason.

Nope. Wrongly calling wrong again.David realizes that it JUST DOESN'T MATTER much at all. So why spend tens or hundreds of hours to switch?

It seems to me that 20 years ago or so when I started playing 6 pt passing TDs were more common. I think the resurgence is do to Yahoo-type fomrats that use this as default.

Posters mentioning supply-and-demand as being most important are correct.

For example, look what starting 4 WRs does to value. (and there are plenty of WRs that make this feasilble).

What does starting 1 RB do?

 

[Chaka]

I just wish he'd change his avatar. Jerry deserves better.

You probably don't even deserve to know who Jerry is my friend. I am out of this topic - for good.

Thats what happens when you get And stay out

All I can say is I'm sure as hell glad I wasn't around for this ceo guy when he was actually posting. I would've had a seizure and aneurysm if I had to wade through all that nonsense in detail.Point remains that in a 4pt PaTD system, Droughns has more value than Peyton, and that's just dumb. It's not a fantasy football league--it's fantasy RB league.

Settle down people he is just an opinionated newbie.He'll figure it out...maybe.

**Edit to add that it's beyond comprehension why a site I respect like these guys continue this inane tradition.

Simple marketing cobalt. It is a fact that an overwhelming majority of fantasy leagues choose to marginalize the QB position this way and if FBG didn't appeal to the masses the site probably would not exist. If you think you can change that you might want to move into seclusion with ceo3west so you can strategize your unrelenting plan of attack.G-Dspeed my friend.

Where's your link on this? I don't have one, myself, but I think the trend has put 6pt PaTDs on the map of at least 50% of the leagues now (when it used to be virtually zero). Besides, I think FBGs at this point can afford to be above the fray of the "average" football owner. They're in a position by virtue of their reputation and popularity to move the chains, themselves, and promote any number of improvements. The smart play here is to act like the era of the 4ptPaTD never happened and move on. Leagues that do this in conjunction with the 1QBx2RB format cease to be fantasy football...they're just running back leagues. This is the only area where I think FGBs have been behind the times. Otherwise, they've been pretty innovative in how they approach the rest of this stuff.

My bad I didn't realize we were still on the "6pts has an impact over 4pts", I thought we were merely talking about marginalizing the QB position, which 6pts/pass TD still does.

I don't know where you get that ceo and I would coexist very well together; he likes how the traditional 4ptPaTD:1QBx2RB system works, while I think it's dumb.

I don't know what ceo likes but I think locking you and him in a cabin together to bang out a manifesto on FF scoring principles would be the best comedy since Hawkeye and Frank Burns bunked together in M*A*S*H.

 

[braven112]

Posters mentioning supply-and-demand as being most important are correct.

For example, look what starting 4 WRs does to value. (and there are plenty of WRs that make this feasilble).

What does starting 1 RB do?

Just like about everything else in life "value" is determined by supply and demand. It has very little to do with the point system.

 

[cobalt_27]

Posters mentioning supply-and-demand as being most important are correct.

For example, look what starting 4 WRs does to value. (and there are plenty of WRs that make this feasilble).

What does starting 1 RB do?

Just like about everything else in life "value" is determined by supply and demand. It has very little to do with the point system.

Sure. This is why no one ever shifts their rankings in PPR leagues; all RBs are the same, regardless of whether receptions are counted, right?

 

[braven112]

Posters mentioning supply-and-demand as being most important are correct.

For example, look what starting 4 WRs does to value. (and there are plenty of WRs that make this feasilble).

What does starting 1 RB do?

Just like about everything else in life "value" is determined by supply and demand. It has very little to do with the point system.

Sure. This is why no one ever shifts their rankings in PPR leagues; all RBs are the same, regardless of whether receptions are counted, right?

No, your list will change, you may draft Hines Ward instead of Randy Moss as Moss is more of a deap threat. Or Westbrook might shoot up in your rankings, something like that.But that doesn't change the fact that you still need to be more concerned with starting lineups requirments.

I guess the way I should phrase it: starting 1RB or 2; starting 1QB or 2; those kind of things effect the value each position holds more than the scoring system itself. Thats the point I was agreeing with ookook about. Agree?

 

[ookook]

IMHO, starting 4 WRs adds a lot more than silly PPR anyway....

 

[cobalt_27]

Posters mentioning supply-and-demand as being most important are correct.

For example, look what starting 4 WRs does to value. (and there are plenty of WRs that make this feasilble).

What does starting 1 RB do?

Just like about everything else in life "value" is determined by supply and demand. It has very little to do with the point system.

Sure. This is why no one ever shifts their rankings in PPR leagues; all RBs are the same, regardless of whether receptions are counted, right?

No, your list will change, you may draft Hines Ward instead of Randy Moss as Moss is more of a deap threat. Or Westbrook might shoot up in your rankings, something like that.But that doesn't change the fact that you still need to be more concerned with starting lineups requirments.

I guess the way I should phrase it: starting 1RB or 2; starting 1QB or 2; those kind of things effect the value each position holds more than the scoring system itself. Thats the point I was agreeing with ookook about. Agree?

Yes. For the most part, I agree (save for the silly hypothetical scoring change that someone could throw out and dramatize the scoring difference).And, it is for this reason that, with vitriolic venom, I hate these 1QBx2RB systems that are as old and tired my 13-year old lab. The lineup configuration dominates in favor of the RB side so much so that demand gets all goofy and stuff. People start wondering whether to take Reuben Droughns or Peyton Manning, for crying out loud. Leagues compound this problem by throwing in more insult to the QB position by rewarding only 4pts a TD pass. It's so utterly insane, I can't even think straight when I think about how stupid this is. But...that's how some dumb-### commissioners insist on doing it (likely because they had recent lobotomies and relinquished any ability to think in abstractions or function independently, but that's none of my business, so I'll just let it slide).

FBGs have done zero--nothing--nada to promote more common sense into these abysmal leagues. But, whatever. Most leagues have figured out how stupid this is, and it's only a matter of time before the rest of the folks scratch their heads and say, "Yeah, it has been sort of weird that 20 out of the first 30 picks have been dominated by one position; maybe we need to change that."

 

[ceo3west]

But...that's how some dumb-### commissioners insist on doing it (likely because they had recent lobotomies and relinquished any ability to think in abstractions or function independently, but that's none of my business, so I'll just let it slide).

Bro, you've got a lot of anger pent up. Please, I love FF too and am passionate about it but relax a little. In the end it's not that big a deal.. have a brew on me.

 

[cobalt_27]

Bro, you've got a lot of anger pent up. Please, I love FF too and am passionate about it but relax a little. In the end it's not that big a deal.. have a brew on me.

Bro... Look, just because I won't mince my words doesn't mean I, or anyone else, is angry about it. Remember, you're proposing to everyone else why it makes sense to weight RBs heavily (and why it's logical to make Reuben Droughns more valuable than Peyton Manning). And, what you've been getting in return--predictably and appropriately--are a lot of people telling you you're nuts. I don't see the problem here.