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.

Why should 0 yards and 0 points score 4 points? (1 Viewer)

Obviously you know you are in PPR league. My guess is that you even used the PPR as a consideration for drafting the players you did. So did the guy who drafted Darren Sproles. His value is tied

a lot to PPR as he gets a lot of catches out of the backfield. Therefore, the guy who drafted him deserves the 4 points because Sproles got 4 catches and that is what he earns in PPR.

As others have said, if you don't like the concept of PPR and it decreases your enjoyment of FF, play in a league that doesn't use it in its scoring.

As a theoritical argument, a player making a catch and gaining no yards does add zero value to his team. But that is irrelevent unless it bothers you, in which case, join another league.

 
PPR scoring has worn out its useful life, with a) the NFL becoming more of a passing league, and b) the RB committee approach becoming so prevalent. It's no longer necessary to boost WR and TE value arbitrarily.

That has nothing to do with Darren Sproles and his 4 catches for 0 yards.

 
PPR scoring has worn out its useful life, with a) the NFL becoming more of a passing league, and b) the RB committee approach becoming so prevalent. It's no longer necessary to boost WR and TE value arbitrarily.

That has nothing to do with Darren Sproles and his 4 catches for 0 yards.
You're doing it wrong.

 
I think you all are missing his point. I gather what PPR means, but if you are not productive, you should not be awarded points, catching passes or not.

The OP is right on, 4 catches for 0 yards should not warrant any points, should have stipulations on that in PPR.
Not so. Just making a reception keeps drives going and that's worth something. Besides--how many times has anyone here seen this happen that the question would even come up?! It doesn't seem worth rewriting the rules to account for a once-in-a-career event. Speaking myself from a Non-PPR league where I did indeed get zero for his day. Coupled with the zero for Randle it's amazing I was even in the game. :mellow:

 
In any format, certain players end up producing far greater in fantasy points than they do in "real" football terms. Of course, this presents an opportunity for a savvy owner to recognize the gap between fantasy and reality and seek those players.

Consider September 12, 2004 (Week 1): Jerome Bettis had 5 carries for 1 yard, with 3 TDs.

Should one yard be worth x points? Well, yes, because that's the way the scoring rules work for that league.

There is arguably more value in a TD specialist than there is in the PPR scenario outlined above, but everyone should know the rules going in and understand how they can create scenarios like 0 yards for 4 points. As others have stated, find a non-PPR league if this is a sufficiently bothersome situation.
Because scoring 3 TD's has no real world value.
Point is, the box score shows Duce Staley outrushed Jerome Bettis 91-1.

While it can be argued how much each player contributed to the success of the offense, almost no one would conclude that Bettis was more important than Staley in real-world terms, yet in nearly any format, Bettis was at least twice as valuable as Staley.

 
i dont know why, but i will respond. the "if you dont like it dont play ppr" is likely going to be the most common response. we play fantasy football because we reward and punish for a players stats: scoring tds, throwing ints, missing a fg, etc. making a catch is something you can choose to reward regardless of the outcome, a catch increased sproles stats and how you choose to reward those stats is up to your league, o pts, 0.5 pts, 1 pt, etc.

 
I agree with this - a recpt should only count if it is positive yardage. Yes, it may take some additional coding to make the website work but it is baffling how a 4-0 yields 4 points. Now, had he not caught those passes and Brees was sacked due to no outlet would you still say Sproles had no value? What I am getting at is sometimes a players lack of production is tied to the situations he is put in to.

 
Well from my years of experience here, I can tell you that you should first throw out the longest touch he had. That was a fluke.

That leave 3 receptions for -7 yards.

You should then extrapolate that for 16 games to get 48 receptions for -102 yards, or 37.8 points.

Combine that with his stats from last year and you get 244 rushing yards and 565 receiving yards.

Balancing that out with what he had already done this year, you get 126 rushing yards and 199 receiving yards he should be due for the remainder of the year.

Averaging that out you get 14 rushing yards and 22 receiving yards per game, for a total of 3.6 points per game.

I'd say that 4 points for a 4-0-0 line is well within the statistical mean.

 
Can't believe I'm responded to the dumbest post I've seen in a while, but...

if a player rushes for four 1 yd touchdowns and four more losses for -1 yard each, and ends with 8 carries, 0 yards and 4 TDs, should they get zero points?

 
PPR scoring has worn out its useful life, with a) the NFL becoming more of a passing league, and b) the RB committee approach becoming so prevalent. It's no longer necessary to boost WR and TE value arbitrarily.

That has nothing to do with Darren Sproles and his 4 catches for 0 yards.
This.

 
Why do people choose to reward 0's with points?
Sproles didn't get any points for his zeros. He got points for his non-zero number of receptions.

If receptions shouldn't be worth any points, then people shouldn't play in PPR leagues.
I dont think anyone is disputing that, but you all are still clearly missing the point. Yay, he caught 4 passes! But for no production. A zero, zero freaking yards. Many people understand what PPR means, you guys just look crazy trying to justify what PPR means as if many do not understand. The OP said he understands, he is talking about the 0 yards. I however agree, if you get 0 yards a player should get credit for no receptions. Its not unreasonable to see that possibility.

 
I think you all are missing his point. I gather what PPR means, but if you are not productive, you should not be awarded points, catching passes or not.

The OP is right on, 4 catches for 0 yards should not warrant any points, should have stipulations on that in PPR.
Not so. Just making a reception keeps drives going and that's worth something. Besides--how many times has anyone here seen this happen that the question would even come up?! It doesn't seem worth rewriting the rules to account for a once-in-a-career event. Speaking myself from a Non-PPR league where I did indeed get zero for his day. Coupled with the zero for Randle it's amazing I was even in the game. :mellow:
The bolded is true only if you gain YARDS.

 
Why do people choose to reward 0's with points?
Sproles didn't get any points for his zeros. He got points for his non-zero number of receptions.

If receptions shouldn't be worth any points, then people shouldn't play in PPR leagues.
I dont think anyone is disputing that, but you all are still clearly missing the point. Yay, he caught 4 passes! But for no production. A zero, zero freaking yards. Many people understand what PPR means, you guys just look crazy trying to justify what PPR means as if many do not understand. The OP said he understands, he is talking about the 0 yards. I however agree, if you get 0 yards a player should get credit for no receptions. Its not unreasonable to see that possibility.
What if he had 3 catches for 20 yards and then a 4th catch for -20.....does he get points, or no points?

 
How is this up to 70 responses?

PPR = Points for yardage & Point Per Reception (regardless of yardage)

Standard = Points for yardage only

The OP needs to switch to a standard scoring league if this stuff bothers him.

 
I agree with this - a recpt should only count if it is positive yardage. Yes, it may take some additional coding to make the website work but it is baffling how a 4-0 yields 4 points. Now, had he not caught those passes and Brees was sacked due to no outlet would you still say Sproles had no value? What I am getting at is sometimes a players lack of production is tied to the situations he is put in to.
So you think that a player who has 3 receptions for 20 yards should get the same number of points as a player who has 4 receptions for 0 yards (with one of those receptions being for -20 yards)?
 
I think you all are missing his point. I gather what PPR means, but if you are not productive, you should not be awarded points, catching passes or not.

The OP is right on, 4 catches for 0 yards should not warrant any points, should have stipulations on that in PPR.
Not so. Just making a reception keeps drives going and that's worth something. Besides--how many times has anyone here seen this happen that the question would even come up?! It doesn't seem worth rewriting the rules to account for a once-in-a-career event. Speaking myself from a Non-PPR league where I did indeed get zero for his day. Coupled with the zero for Randle it's amazing I was even in the game. :mellow:
The bolded is true only if you gain YARDS.
Yards aren't really worth anything either though. Yards don't mean jack squat.

 
I don't get it.

Why should Darren Sproles score 4 points (PPR) when he finished with 0 yards and 0 points?
Definition of PPR . . . Point Per Reception. 4 Receptions = 4 Points Fantasy Football for Girls
Fantasy Football for Girls?

Fantasy Football is driven by statistics. You choose the statistical categories you wish to reward and the basis upon which you award them, you create a league based upon that criteria, league owners agree to the scoring, and that is how you assign the points. I am open to varying rules. You value and draft players based upon that particular scoring criteria. In this instance, Sproles' value is increased by the virtue of this being a PPR league. If you prefer a different statistical criteria to reward, or another method of computing such, that is fine. PPR is not the only criteria for assessing a player's value, but why complain about the value of PPR if that is the agreed-upon set of rules?

 
PPR scoring has worn out its useful life, with a) the NFL becoming more of a passing league, and b) the RB committee approach becoming so prevalent. It's no longer necessary to boost WR and TE value arbitrarily.

That has nothing to do with Darren Sproles and his 4 catches for 0 yards.
You're doing it wrong.
I'm not doing anything other than observe that the scoring gap between RBs and WRs/TEs that gave rise to PPR no longer exists.

Given this, it stands to reason that PPR should also no longer exist.

 
Sounds to me like someone just lost their game by a couple points, and likely played against Sproles.

Asking the question he asked is pretty stoopid.

And not all 4 catches were for neg yardage. That was just the total yards he ended up with.

 
I think PPR was once a valid way of attempting to balance scoring between receivers and runners. But, as noted above, since the NFL has become such a pass first league, the need is diminished or nonexistent.

PPR can also be useful to expand the pool of productive players in larger leagues (14+ teams).

But PPR too often rewards non-productive plays and elevates ordinary and less talented receivers at the expense of really talented ones. The really talented receivers gain a lot of yards and score touchdowns.

 
I agree with this - a recpt should only count if it is positive yardage. Yes, it may take some additional coding to make the website work but it is baffling how a 4-0 yields 4 points. Now, had he not caught those passes and Brees was sacked due to no outlet would you still say Sproles had no value? What I am getting at is sometimes a players lack of production is tied to the situations he is put in to.
So you think that a player who has 3 receptions for 20 yards should get the same number of points as a player who has 4 receptions for 0 yards (with one of those receptions being for -20 yards)?
One of these players should have 5 points and the other 4 points.

 
I think you all are missing his point. I gather what PPR means, but if you are not productive, you should not be awarded points, catching passes or not.

The OP is right on, 4 catches for 0 yards should not warrant any points, should have stipulations on that in PPR.
Not so. Just making a reception keeps drives going and that's worth something. Besides--how many times has anyone here seen this happen that the question would even come up?! It doesn't seem worth rewriting the rules to account for a once-in-a-career event. Speaking myself from a Non-PPR league where I did indeed get zero for his day. Coupled with the zero for Randle it's amazing I was even in the game. :mellow:
The bolded is true only if you gain YARDS.
Yards aren't really worth anything either though. Yards don't mean jack squat.
You don't have the first clue about football, do you?

 
This is a VERY simple problem to solve. If you don't like the scoring system, quit and join a non-PPR league and stop crying non this thread to a bunch of ppr players who frankly don't give a S*%t that you don't like the way we play...

 
I think you all are missing his point. I gather what PPR means, but if you are not productive, you should not be awarded points, catching passes or not.

The OP is right on, 4 catches for 0 yards should not warrant any points, should have stipulations on that in PPR.
Not so. Just making a reception keeps drives going and that's worth something. Besides--how many times has anyone here seen this happen that the question would even come up?! It doesn't seem worth rewriting the rules to account for a once-in-a-career event. Speaking myself from a Non-PPR league where I did indeed get zero for his day. Coupled with the zero for Randle it's amazing I was even in the game. :mellow:
The bolded is true only if you gain YARDS.
Yards aren't really worth anything either though. Yards don't mean jack squat.
You don't have the first clue about football, do you?
Don't be rude. What do yards alone get you? Nothing. NFL players don't play football to get yards.

 
I think PPR was once a valid way of attempting to balance scoring between receivers and runners. But, as noted above, since the NFL has become such a pass first league, the need is diminished or nonexistent.

PPR can also be useful to expand the pool of productive players in larger leagues (14+ teams).

But PPR too often rewards non-productive plays and elevates ordinary and less talented receivers at the expense of really talented ones. The really talented receivers gain a lot of yards and score touchdowns.
And since there's a shortage of really talented receivers, PPR is necessary to balance scoring.

 
I agree with this - a recpt should only count if it is positive yardage. Yes, it may take some additional coding to make the website work but it is baffling how a 4-0 yields 4 points. Now, had he not caught those passes and Brees was sacked due to no outlet would you still say Sproles had no value? What I am getting at is sometimes a players lack of production is tied to the situations he is put in to.
So you think that a player who has 3 receptions for 20 yards should get the same number of points as a player who has 4 receptions for 0 yards (with one of those receptions being for -20 yards)?
One of these players should have 5 points and the other 4 points.
a reception for -20 yards would still net a minus one overall for the play in most ppr formats... so no one guy would have five points and one would have three points.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think PPR was once a valid way of attempting to balance scoring between receivers and runners. But, as noted above, since the NFL has become such a pass first league, the need is diminished or nonexistent.

PPR can also be useful to expand the pool of productive players in larger leagues (14+ teams).

But PPR too often rewards non-productive plays and elevates ordinary and less talented receivers at the expense of really talented ones. The really talented receivers gain a lot of yards and score touchdowns.
And since there's a shortage of really talented receivers, PPR is necessary to balance scoring.
There is no shortage of really talented receivers. There are more of them than RBs in today's NFL.

 
I think PPR was once a valid way of attempting to balance scoring between receivers and runners. But, as noted above, since the NFL has become such a pass first league, the need is diminished or nonexistent.

PPR can also be useful to expand the pool of productive players in larger leagues (14+ teams).

But PPR too often rewards non-productive plays and elevates ordinary and less talented receivers at the expense of really talented ones. The really talented receivers gain a lot of yards and score touchdowns.
And since there's a shortage of really talented receivers, PPR is necessary to balance scoring.
There is no shortage of really talented receivers. There are more of them than RBs in today's NFL.
Well I'd disagree but even if that's true then you almost HAVE to give RBs PPR to make them relevant at all.

 
I think PPR was once a valid way of attempting to balance scoring between receivers and runners. But, as noted above, since the NFL has become such a pass first league, the need is diminished or nonexistent.

PPR can also be useful to expand the pool of productive players in larger leagues (14+ teams).

But PPR too often rewards non-productive plays and elevates ordinary and less talented receivers at the expense of really talented ones. The really talented receivers gain a lot of yards and score touchdowns.
And since there's a shortage of really talented receivers, PPR is necessary to balance scoring.
But do we want to balance scoring to make less talented players closer to more talented players? Wouldn't it be better to have scoring that more realistically represented real world values?
 
I think PPR was once a valid way of attempting to balance scoring between receivers and runners. But, as noted above, since the NFL has become such a pass first league, the need is diminished or nonexistent.

PPR can also be useful to expand the pool of productive players in larger leagues (14+ teams).

But PPR too often rewards non-productive plays and elevates ordinary and less talented receivers at the expense of really talented ones. The really talented receivers gain a lot of yards and score touchdowns.
And since there's a shortage of really talented receivers, PPR is necessary to balance scoring.
There is no shortage of really talented receivers. There are more of them than RBs in today's NFL.
Well I'd disagree but even if that's true then you almost HAVE to give RBs PPR to make them relevant at al
That's funny.

 
I think PPR was once a valid way of attempting to balance scoring between receivers and runners. But, as noted above, since the NFL has become such a pass first league, the need is diminished or nonexistent.

PPR can also be useful to expand the pool of productive players in larger leagues (14+ teams).

But PPR too often rewards non-productive plays and elevates ordinary and less talented receivers at the expense of really talented ones. The really talented receivers gain a lot of yards and score touchdowns.
And since there's a shortage of really talented receivers, PPR is necessary to balance scoring.
There is no shortage of really talented receivers. There are more of them than RBs in today's NFL.
Well I'd disagree but even if that's true then you almost HAVE to give RBs PPR to make them relevant at all.
Good response. I think you are right on.

 
I think PPR was once a valid way of attempting to balance scoring between receivers and runners. But, as noted above, since the NFL has become such a pass first league, the need is diminished or nonexistent.

PPR can also be useful to expand the pool of productive players in larger leagues (14+ teams).

But PPR too often rewards non-productive plays and elevates ordinary and less talented receivers at the expense of really talented ones. The really talented receivers gain a lot of yards and score touchdowns.
And since there's a shortage of really talented receivers, PPR is necessary to balance scoring.
But do we want to balance scoring to make less talented players closer to more talented players? Wouldn't it be better to have scoring that more realistically represented real world values?
Yes/No. What you're trying to minimize is the effects of draft position on the quality of teams in your league.

 
I'm not doing anything other than observe that the scoring gap between RBs and WRs/TEs that gave rise to PPR no longer exists.

Given this, it stands to reason that PPR should also no longer exist.
Since the previous scoring gap between RB's and WR's was in the other direction (RB's got way overvalued in terms of their game importance), demand drove the rise of PPR leagues.

If that skew has disappeared, demand for PPR leagues will diminish.

It'll take care of itself, wouldn't you say?

 
Why do people choose to reward 0's with points?
Sproles didn't get any points for his zeros. He got points for his non-zero number of receptions.

If receptions shouldn't be worth any points, then people shouldn't play in PPR leagues.
I dont think anyone is disputing that, but you all are still clearly missing the point. Yay, he caught 4 passes! But for no production. A zero, zero freaking yards. Many people understand what PPR means, you guys just look crazy trying to justify what PPR means as if many do not understand. The OP said he understands, he is talking about the 0 yards. I however agree, if you get 0 yards a player should get credit for no receptions. Its not unreasonable to see that possibility.
Yes it is. If someone gets receptions in a por league then it's absurd to say that they shouldn't get points for it.
 
Just wondering if there's a chance OP lost by 3 points this week :)

-QG
This is almost as bad as the guy that called sirius NFL network this morning complaining that Stafford shouldn't be allowed to "fake a spike" for player safety reasons.

 
I think PPR was once a valid way of attempting to balance scoring between receivers and runners. But, as noted above, since the NFL has become such a pass first league, the need is diminished or nonexistent.

PPR can also be useful to expand the pool of productive players in larger leagues (14+ teams).

But PPR too often rewards non-productive plays and elevates ordinary and less talented receivers at the expense of really talented ones. The really talented receivers gain a lot of yards and score touchdowns.
And since there's a shortage of really talented receivers, PPR is necessary to balance scoring.
But do we want to balance scoring to make less talented players closer to more talented players? Wouldn't it be better to have scoring that more realistically represented real world values?
Yes/No. What you're trying to minimize is the effects of draft position on the quality of teams in your league.
An auction draft is a far better solution for this problem.

 
But do we want to balance scoring to make less talented players closer to more talented players? Wouldn't it be better to have scoring that more realistically represented real world values?
Yes/No. What you're trying to minimize is the effects of draft position on the quality of teams in your league.
An auction draft is a far better solution for this problem.
That's a decent point and I agree to an extent. But even with that, if you go non-PPR you run the risk of guessing wrong on who will/won't be the TD scorer you hoped he'd be.

PPR leagues simply balance rosters out versus each other over an entire season better than non-PPR.

And they're just more interesting.

 
Fantasy Football is driven by statistics. You choose the statistical categories you wish to reward and the basis upon which you award them, you create a league based upon that criteria, league owners agree to the scoring, and that is how you assign the points. I am open to varying rules. You value and draft players based upon that particular scoring criteria. In this instance, Sproles' value is increased by the virtue of this being a PPR league. If you prefer a different statistical criteria to reward, or another method of computing such, that is fine. PPR is not the only criteria for assessing a player's value, but why complain about the value of PPR if that is the agreed-upon set of rules?
Well put, and I appreciate that perspective. I for one just would like to understand the reasoning behind why some people have decided that a reception is something that should be rewarded on top of whatever yardage is gained. The question asked is "why PPR"? The question most here prefer to answer is "what is PPR"? We all know what PPR is. Tell me what it is about catching a football that deserves fantasy points.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top