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)

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.
People are answering what was asked in the OP. Why should he get 4 pts? Because he had 4 receptions and in a PPR scoring system, thats the rule.

The merits/flaws of PPR have been discussed ad nauseam on here. As someone who enjoys playing in PPR leagues I dont feel the need to answer why receptions "deserve" points.

If you don't understand it or like it, don't play in PPR leagues. It really is that simple.

 
I am also on the point per productive play scoring system (PPPPSS).

As commissioner I review all plays run by fantasy staters that week and decide which play was productive and which was not.

I am now 8-0 as my players are much more productive than my opponents based on a proprietary formula that I calculate.

 
i don't play in PPR. I would still like to understand. "he should get 4 points because it's PPR" doesn't answer the 'why' question.

 
Sproles did his job by catching the football. Whether or not he got yards after the catch is not necessarily his fault. On 2 catches he did get yds (7 and 2) and on 2 catches he didn't (-3 and -6). I didn't actually see each play but If the defense blows up the play who is that on?

 
i don't play in PPR. I would still like to understand. "he should get 4 points because it's PPR" doesn't answer the 'why' question.
the why is to deepen the pool of valuable RBs.
Actually it's the opposite... to shrink the pool of dominant RBs. Decades ago folks got the idea that RBs were scoring too many points in FF, relative to WR and TE. So, an arbitrary means to boost up WR and TE points was sought. "Hey, let's just award a point per reception, that'll help." And the rest is history.

PPR scoring lives on, even as its reason for existence has faded into irrelevance -- RBs don't dominate WRs and TEs in standard scoring anymore, so there's no need for a "more balanced" scoring system.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Sometimes we just slavishly follow tradition, like cutting the ends off of a roast for two generations, thinking that was the secret to grandma's recipe, only to later discover her roasting pan had simply been too small. I scored games this way from newspaper statistics because statistical categories which could be easily tracked were limited to what was provided in the local newspapers. Statistical categories such as Yards, receptions and TDs can be easily ascertained and tracked, and it provides some gauge to a player's performance. Most importantly, however, if the league agrees that Receptions is a statistical category to reward, then you draft players such as Sproles with the expectation that his value is increased. I agree that there are many scoring variations available, and league scoring software has opened up endless possibilities for scoring options. However, most league formats seem to follow traditional scoring formats. Perhaps it is familiarity. Perhaps it is due to the volume of information which is tailored to those time-honored formats. I certainly would have no problem with a more creative scoring format, provided every owner agreed to such in advance of the draft. Keep it fun. Keep it interesting.

 
Because fantasy football points are supposed to reflect value to the team's production on the field. Sproles was involved, targeted, and made catches. PPR leagues measure that involvement as having some value, non PPR does not. It makes sense from that perspective.

That said, I've always thought PPR was a poor measure of value and production and have never played in a league that uses it.

 
i don't play in PPR. I would still like to understand. "he should get 4 points because it's PPR" doesn't answer the 'why' question.
the why is to deepen the pool of valuable RBs.
Actually it's the opposite... to shrink the pool of dominant RBs. Decades ago folks got the idea that RBs were scoring too many points in FF, relative to WR and TE. So, an arbitrary means to boost up WR and TE points was sought. "Hey, let's just award a point per reception, that'll help." And the rest is history.

PPR scoring lives on, even as its reason for existence has faded into irrelevance -- RBs don't dominate WRs and TEs in standard scoring anymore, so there's no need for a "more balanced" scoring system.
Disagree. It deepens the pool of RBs who have FF value. It does not, and never really did, shrink the pool of dominant RBs as most of the top RBs in FF also get a lot of value for the passing game.

And it's not arbitrary either. Receptions are a high profile stat, and since FF is based on stats, some of us like to include it in our scoring systems.

 
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.
Read the thread.

You are wrong, and laughably so.

Read before you respond so you don't sound even dumber than I do.

 
It's a fluke. Deal with it. I know it stinks when you lose.
Stupid post of the day.

You have it.

Whew.

I was afraid I was going to for awhile.

But there's always somebody better.

errr, worse.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
He was channeling his inner Brett Favre.

Can't have a rule against doing a Brett Favre.

(at least he didn't try to throw it to a guy who didn't realize the spike was a fake)

i don't play in PPR. I would still like to understand. "he should get 4 points because it's PPR" doesn't answer the 'why' question.
Because he caught the ball instead of dropping it.
According to the post above yours, the actual NFL team he plays for would have been better served if he had dropped it on two of those plays.
Assuming that NO wasn't badly wanting to run the clock, yes.

 
I think a more fair system would be any reception that is made behind the line of scrimmage (i.e. dumpoffs to the RB) should only count for a point if the back gains positive yardage. If he gets stopped for a loss there is no point given. In the example from yesterday Sproles would get 2 points.

 
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?
Some leagues, maybe.

Most leagues, almost certainly not.

People tend to hold onto ideas well past their expiration date. I know this veers off into a different direction, but requiring two RBs to start (and it's worse if their is a flex option to have potentially three RBs start), is a relic from a much different NFL than what we see every Sunday now. PPR is a solution to a problem that mostly no longer exists. Few leagues will respond to the changes in the football landscape with appropriate adjustments in the fantasy landscape in a timely fashion, if at all.

 
Because fantasy football points are supposed to reflect value to the team's production on the field.
I don't think everyone thinks this way. I can agree to a point, but I agree more with socrates' earlier post concerning the evolution of scoring FF starting with newspaper box scores. If we were truly trying to gauge production, we would involve line play. We may credit hurries to some extent (not just sacks), we may devalue tackles made by cornerbacks and emphasize passes defensed. And on and on...

 
Because fantasy football points are supposed to reflect value to the team's production on the field.
I don't think everyone thinks this way. I can agree to a point, but I agree more with socrates' earlier post concerning the evolution of scoring FF starting with newspaper box scores. If we were truly trying to gauge production, we would involve line play. We may credit hurries to some extent (not just sacks), we may devalue tackles made by cornerbacks and emphasize passes defensed. And on and on...
I also think if a receiver draws a 50 yard PI call, shouldn't it count for something?

 
I mean no matter how you score it, the game is really all about trying to predict player performance, right? i think maybe one of the big disconnects between the PPR and Standard crowds is whether we're trying to predict stats or whether we're trying to predict who is doing the most for their team. The idea that Standard scoring accurately gauges who's 'doing the best job' may be pretty delusional given the nature of FF in general but i think there's an argument that maybe it's at least a little bit more accurate than PPR. (this is just my opinion, and i base it on the idea that just catching the ball does not in itself help the team). Whereas PPR proponents seem to be more concerned over the FF game mechanics themselves, i.e. balancing positional values. So to the PPR mind it doesn't matter so much how the game is scored, you just have to work within that system to optimize your team; the Standard ideal is that they're moreso trying to use the scoring to reflect real life football value*. (which, again, just catching a ball does not have value in and of itself... the yards are what matter). or am i way off base?

edit:

*fools errand though that may be

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pasquino wrote an article about Point Per First Down Reception (PPFDR) and made a good case for it being better than PPR. I agree with him but haven't any leagues doing it.
I wouldn't limit it to only Receptions.
RB's get too many first downs and would increase their value even more.
I play in a league like this and did some research before this year. As it turns out, the top RBs and WRs get approximately the same number of first downs. While RBs get more touches, WRs tend to get first downs on a higher percentage of their touches. It largely evens out.

 
Pasquino wrote an article about Point Per First Down Reception (PPFDR) and made a good case for it being better than PPR. I agree with him but haven't any leagues doing it.
I wouldn't limit it to only Receptions.
RB's get too many first downs and would increase their value even more.
I play in a league like this and did some research before this year. As it turns out, the top RBs and WRs get approximately the same number of first downs. While RBs get more touches, WRs tend to get first downs on a higher percentage of their touches. It largely evens out.
But was that rushing AND receiving first downs (I've played that way before) or was it only receiving first downs?

I think receiving first downs would give an uptick to WR scoring more so than RB socring

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A better question would be, why does this question deserve a thread? Answer that, and I will tell you why sproles deserves 4 points.

 
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?
Some leagues, maybe.

Most leagues, almost certainly not.

People tend to hold onto ideas well past their expiration date. I know this veers off into a different direction, but requiring two RBs to start (and it's worse if their is a flex option to have potentially three RBs start), is a relic from a much different NFL than what we see every Sunday now. PPR is a solution to a problem that mostly no longer exists. Few leagues will respond to the changes in the football landscape with appropriate adjustments in the fantasy landscape in a timely fashion, if at all.
I agree that fantasy ball rules lag behind actual on-field happenings. But the demand and perceptions of all those who play fantasy ball pretty drive what type of fantasy rules/leagues are more popular and less popular. I just don't see the problem with that.

 
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?
Because it's for girls...little girls.

In standard fantasy football, also known as manly FF, players are rewarded for helping to advance the football down the field toward the ultimate goal of a TD or FG. Attempting to do so and failing is a bad thing! We you also give points per Negative Pass completions, negative rushing attempts missed field goals? (hey they hit the ball with their foot that's a point)

If points per reception

 
In my opinion, more stats help reflect what actually happened in the game. Certianly fewer stats don't.

Giving a point value to a catch helps reflect a players value (I'm not sure a full point reflects that value, but that's another question). Sure, you'll have outliers where a catch will produce negative or no yards at all. But as a general rule a catch produces yards even if immediately tackled. Ask a QB if a catch has "real" value. Catching the ball as a general rule helps the team. That being said, we decided to assign a point value to it. Sometimes it won't help the team, but that doesn't happen enough for us to justify taking away a point reward for making a catch.

Hopefully someday there will be stats that are kept to evaluate tons of things that a player does to help or hurt his team. If there was some way to assign point values to blocking efficiency, accuracy of passes, etc. But until then we will have a flawed FF game that relies on the stats available.

Using fewer stats will NEVER be more accurate when trying to evalute usefulness to a team. The only argument you could possibly make is that the point values are off - of which I would agree with you on.

 
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?
Because it's for girls...little girls.

In standard fantasy football, also known as manly FF, players are rewarded for helping to advance the football down the field toward the ultimate goal of a TD or FG. Attempting to do so and failing is a bad thing! We you also give points per Negative Pass completions, negative rushing attempts missed field goals? (hey they hit the ball with their foot that's a point)

If points per reception
If that is what makes you feel manly, then by all means, carry on. :gang1:

 
i don't play in PPR. I would still like to understand. "he should get 4 points because it's PPR" doesn't answer the 'why' question.
the why is to deepen the pool of valuable RBs.
Actually it's the opposite... to shrink the pool of dominant RBs. Decades ago folks got the idea that RBs were scoring too many points in FF, relative to WR and TE. So, an arbitrary means to boost up WR and TE points was sought. "Hey, let's just award a point per reception, that'll help." And the rest is history.

PPR scoring lives on, even as its reason for existence has faded into irrelevance -- RBs don't dominate WRs and TEs in standard scoring anymore, so there's no need for a "more balanced" scoring system.
exactly. but not only to wr and te, but to other rbs as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pasquino wrote an article about Point Per First Down Reception (PPFDR) and made a good case for it being better than PPR. I agree with him but haven't any leagues doing it.
This is a cool idea, but do any of the major sites provide this stat?
Someobdy used to. They had a stat category for first down rushes and one for first down receptions. I've used it. I think it was Fox Sports though, which I left years ago because they sucked

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Then 10 catches for 197 yards on 0 TDs shouldn't be awarded points either because they didn't score any actual points for their team. See how silly this argument is?

 
Pasquino wrote an article about Point Per First Down Reception (PPFDR) and made a good case for it being better than PPR. I agree with him but haven't any leagues doing it.
This is a cool idea, but do any of the major sites provide this stat?
Someobdy used to. They had a stat category for first down rushes and one for first down receptions. I've used it. I think it was Fox Sports though, which I left years ago because they sucked
If MFL started using it I'd join a league that uses PPFDR.

 
Because it's for girls...little girls. In standard fantasy football, also known as manly FF, players are rewarded for helping to advance the football down the field toward the ultimate goal of a TD or FG. Attempting to do so and failing is a bad thing!
I get it now. You're Doc Walker, and it's a manhood issue.

 
Because it's PPR......
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
Why do people choose to reward 0's with points?

That's my question.

This forum seems to be so full of people who think that playing magic football differently than them (not playing PPR) is just plain stupid...maybe these people can explain to me why a player deserves 4 points for 0 yards and 0 points.
You seem to be the one telling people how they should play.

 
As Socrates mentioned...

It may lay in the newspaper/pen & paper era. Started ff in 1996 & the only receiving stat was for total catches, I recall Larry Centers (among others) bring studly in this format.

Nothing for total yardage in USAtoday or centre county times. It is what it is. Ppr is fun, deal with it or don't play.

-biz-

 
I'm not too sure about the point for 1st down idea. If player A gets 80 yards, 8 1st downs, and a TD, that'd be 22 points. If player B scores an 80 yard TD on a single play, that's only 14 points. Does player A deserve the extra 8 points? An 80 yard TD is a very significant 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.
Then 10 catches for 197 yards on 0 TDs shouldn't be awarded points either because they didn't score any actual points for their team. See how silly this argument is?
I see how silly YOUR argument is.

 
In your same boat, currently down by 6 and played Darren Sproles. I mean, I'm not going to complain about it because it's literally exactly what I signed up for.. but I guess I can see your point. Best advice? Maybe join a standard league next season?

 
In your same boat, currently down by 6 and played Darren Sproles. I mean, I'm not going to complain about it because it's literally exactly what I signed up for.. but I guess I can see your point. Best advice? Maybe join a standard league next season?
Whose boat are you in? :shrug:

 
This thread is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points* and may God have mercy on your soul.

* Ha, see what I did there?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
VaTerp said:
Disagree. It deepens the pool of RBs who have FF value. It does not, and never really did, shrink the pool of dominant RBs as most of the top RBs in FF also get a lot of value for the passing game.

And it's not arbitrary either. Receptions are a high profile stat, and since FF is based on stats, some of us like to include it in our scoring systems.
Of course it's arbitrary. A reception represents an opportunity to do something to help your team --specifically, to gain yards and score a touchdown. It's no different in that regard than rushing attempt or a pass thrown. Or a FG attempt, for that matter.It's what you do with that opportunity that matters, not simply getting the opportunity. This is recognized by the fact that none of these other types of opportunities score FF points...only the resulting yards and TDs count. Just receptions count in and of themselves, and they do for the sole purpose of artificially and arbitrarily boosting WR and TE scoring.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
John 14:6 said:
I'm not too sure about the point for 1st down idea. If player A gets 80 yards, 8 1st downs, and a TD, that'd be 22 points. If player B scores an 80 yard TD on a single play, that's only 14 points. Does player A deserve the extra 8 points? An 80 yard TD is a very significant play...
80-yard TD would be worth 15 points8 for yardage

1 for first down

6 for the touchdown

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top