Why should 0 yards and 0 points score 4 points? (2 Viewers)

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I believe Ignoratio and I are on opposite sides of whether PPR should be used or not

Just so it's clear, my position is that it makes no difference. There's no "should." If you like PPR, use PPR; if you don't, don't.

I'm in two local leagues with a bunch of friends. One has been going for almost 25 years and still uses a bunch of old school rules that were decided on when we scored by hand out of the Monday morning newspaper and haven't ever been changed. The other league has been around for ten years and has undergone many changes, including the addition of PPR, a superflex, weekly doubleheaders, etc. The leagues are very different in many ways, but one isn't "better" or "more correct" than the other. They're both fun. Arguing over which rules a league should use is for fools.

 

[Yenrub]

I believe Ignoratio and I are on opposite sides of whether PPR should be used or not

Just so it's clear, my position is that it makes no difference. There's no "should." If you like PPR, use PPR; if you don't, don't.

I'm in two local leagues with a bunch of friends. One has been going for almost 25 years and still uses a bunch of old school rules that were decided on when we scored by hand out of the Monday morning newspaper and haven't ever been changed. The other league has been around for ten years and has undergone many changes, including the addition of PPR, a superflex, weekly doubleheaders, etc. The leagues are very different in many ways, but one isn't "better" or "more correct" than the other. They're both fun. Arguing over which rules a league should use is for fools.

 

[spodog]

I was hoping somebody would have some kind of theory for why a reception for 0 yards, or one for -4 and then one for +4, was better than incomplete passes.

I guess it isn't.

OK, here's a theory. The RB who caught one pass for -4 yards and then another for +4 yards is awarded 4 points in a PPR league because his receptions forced the defense to respond and actually make a play in order to stop progress of the play in both cases. Sometimes a play works well (+4 yards) and the offense "wins", sometimes a play doesn't work out as well (-4 yards) and the defense wins, but in both cases, there was an offensive maneuver that had to be reacted to and countered, and the RB was integral to that action, thus fantasy points are earned.

On the other hand, incomplete passes don't require much reaction from the Defense. They have to watch the ball while it is in flight, but once it is safely on the ground, they can relax, limp back to the huddle, scratch their groin or whatever, thus no fantasy points.

Having said that, I'll issue this disclaimer: I hate PPR.

 

[John 14:6]

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

Do players get credit for a first down on TD plays that are longer than ten yards?

Depends on the fantasy league rules. I have never playedin a league where first downs count for points.

I was only stating that under NFL scorekeeping offensive touchdowns are scored as first downs.

Ok, thanks!

Do players get credit for a first down on TD plays that are longer than ten yards?

Yes. I'm not sure why you are asking this question.

I asked because I did not know whether TD plays longer than 10 yards were also counted as 1st downs by NFL stat keepers.

 

[Hoss Style]

Either way, it's absurd to say that more info doesn't provide you a more accurate depiction of what happens on the field. Arguing against that is futile.

Your comments suggest that factoring more information into the formula for calculating a player's FF points will necessarily provide a 'more accurate' reflection of how well a he did, and this is where your fallacy lies. This is absurd on the face of it, because obviously you wouldn't promote scoring every meaningless gatherable statistic... points per sip of Gatorade? Points per congratulatory pat on the butt? I'm not saying you couldn't find some new stat that we could both agree should play a factor, but a reception in and of itself has no value beyond the yards gained as a result of that reception, period.

I suppose it is technically accurate to say that more info provides a more accurate depiction of what happened on the field. That's great for when you're looking at the box score and you want to see who is most involved in the passing game or whatever. That's great to have an interest in how the game went as a football fan. But that extra info doesn't mean that we should award fantasy points for every piece of information we get, or that doing so will somehow more accurately model a football player's value on the field. In fact, it would be quite the opposite. Football is a game where teams have to advance the ball down the field and score. Ergo the only meaningful success one can have is to make progress down the field. All of the other pieces of information that you could gather which represent events that happened along the way (receptions, broken tackles, whatever) might reflect in greater detail what happened, and will have had their influence on the action on field, but measuring these things doesn't measure the success of the play. Only thing that does this is yards gained. Adding points for this and that incidental thing can ONLY serve to distort the relationship between fantasy points and actual success.

Well, I don't want to beat a dead horse, so I'll leave it at this:

I respect what you're saying, and if you only look at that line of mine that you quoted it sure makes sense. But that's leaving out so much of what I said. My main point isn't what you quoted from me - my main point is that if you add in a stat you have to adjust the points according to your league and appropriate to the stat. We are talking football plays only here - I think that's obvious - and I'm sure you only used the Gatorade examples to prove your point. I get it. Any football stat, though, can be adjusted according to it's value to the game. So if you complain about PPR, then adjust the scoring to how important you think it is. If you hate that stat, then there's standard leagues.

More info (relevant should always be assumed) will always be better than less for determining what happens on the field. If you really think every sip of gatorade helps a player perform better on the field, and can quantify that, and then find a FF Site that scores it, then by all means you should use it. Just be sure to adjust the scoring according to how important you think it is.

Myself? I can't stand Gatorade Sipping Leagues, so I only play Non-Sipping Leagues. Give me proof that it helps the team like a "catch" does and I'll switch.

 

[Hoss Style]

Huh, much ado about nothing.

In one of my PPR leagues Sproles got me a big fat goose egg because we don't start awarding a single PPR point until the 5th reception, then 1 point per after that. 4 receptions = 0 points, 5 receptions = 1 point.

Many flags blowin' in the wind when it comes to variations on this fun hobby.

I love leagues like this with unique scoring twists. If you ever need a player, let me know.

 

[bulger2holt]

Why do you drive in a parkway and park in a driveway?

 

[Hoss Style]

I believe Ignoratio and I are on opposite sides of whether PPR should be used or not

Just so it's clear, my position is that it makes no difference. There's no "should." If you like PPR, use PPR; if you don't, don't.

I'm in two local leagues with a bunch of friends. One has been going for almost 25 years and still uses a bunch of old school rules that were decided on when we scored by hand out of the Monday morning newspaper and haven't ever been changed. The other league has been around for ten years and has undergone many changes, including the addition of PPR, a superflex, weekly doubleheaders, etc. The leagues are very different in many ways, but one isn't "better" or "more correct" than the other. They're both fun. Arguing over which rules a league should use is for fools.

Yeah, I got what you were saying. I could have worded that first sentence better, but I immediately followed it by saying the point is to do what's fun. One's not better than the other.

 

[[icon]]

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.

Because he didn't get a zero in the receptions column.

I'm pretty sure you're not going to convince this kid of this very simple premise. He's one of those "Ignore anything that doesn't fit my arguement, and say the same thing over and over and over again" type of debaters. Just ignore him IMO.

 

[ragnarok628]

I respect what you're saying, and if you only look at that line of mine that you quoted it sure makes sense. But that's leaving out so much of what I said. My main point isn't what you quoted from me - my main point is that if you add in a stat you have to adjust the points according to your league and appropriate to the stat. We are talking football plays only here - I think that's obvious - and I'm sure you only used the Gatorade examples to prove your point. I get it. Any football stat, though, can be adjusted according to it's value to the game. So if you complain about PPR, then adjust the scoring to how important you think it is. If you hate that stat, then there's standard leagues.

More info (relevant should always be assumed) will always be better than less for determining what happens on the field. If you really think every sip of gatorade helps a player perform better on the field, and can quantify that, and then find a FF Site that scores it, then by all means you should use it. Just be sure to adjust the scoring according to how important you think it is.

Myself? I can't stand Gatorade Sipping Leagues, so I only play Non-Sipping Leagues. Give me proof that it helps the team like a "catch" does and I'll switch.

I appreciate your respect, and return it. I focused on that line because i think it's the linchpin of where we disagree. And I continue only because it still doesn't at this point seem like you yet understand my premise, which boils down to this: there exists no other stat than yards gained that can reflect the success of a play. A reception is a stat that classifies the yards gained as coming from a caught pass; still it is only the number of yards gained that reflect the plays success. A 0 yard pass yields 0 yards of progress which we should abstract into 0 points to represent 0 success. Adding a point because it was a reception causes the numbers to show that the play was in fact successful to some degree, when in reality it wasn't. It should be scored the same as a dropped/uncatchable pass, which yields 0 yards of progress for 0 points representing 0 success. the catch isn't what helps the team, it's the yards gained as a result of that catch. a broken tackle isn't what helps the team, it's the subsequent additional yards gained. You break 3 tackles but don't actually get any yards out of it, is the team any better off? not one bit. Even if i proved that more sips of Gatorade leads to better onfield performance which helps the team, that would in no way justify awarding points for the act of sipping Gatorade; the benefit is already represented by the higher yard totals.

If we do consider as valid the premise that passing plays need to be worth more that running plays (to balance the game, not because they actually have more football value), the sensible thing to do would be to apply a different factor to those yards when calculating scores. maybe 1 point for every 6 and 2/3 yds so a 10 yard pass would be worth 1.5 points, a 0 yard catch is still 0. That way we are weighting the contribution of WRs in a way that scales with the success of the play, like we do with QBs. Seems like a reasonable way to transition a 0.5 PPR league to a more reasonable, less arbitrary scoring system.

 

[ragnarok628]

these anti ppr guys seem pretty serious.

I wonder how many complain about kickers getting more than 3 points for 60 yard fieldgoals.

I actually do spend more brain cycles on this than is probably warranted. On the one hand, every successful FG helps the team by 3 points and 3 points only, no matter how long the kick. On the other hand, every other offensive scoring play (TD rushes, receptions) factors in the yards with the score, so why not for kickers? If you kick a FG from the 40 vs from the 20, you're covering 20 extra yards just like if you ran it in from the 40 vs from the 20. So it kind of makes sense to give the Kicker the extra 2 points same as the runner or receiver would have got. Also, when you kick a long FG you are bailing your team out in a way, because they didn't have time to get you closer or just weren't able to by 4th down. So i can see how the value of those 3 points to the team might be considered greater.

and 'serious' is a... strange word to use. I mean, i guess we CARE about fantasy football... but don't we all? i mean this is a fantasy football board, right? either way, it may come accross as 'srs biznis' but i'm enjoying the discussion. maybe take some of y'alls own advice: if you don't like having a discussion about the relative merits of PPR, don't participate in the discussion?

 

[JD8p]

It's fantasy football.

Catch a pass, get a point per the scoring system. Why is this a dicussion?

It's like asking..."why should 4 catches for 0 yards net you zero points in non PPR?" Simple...because those are the freaking rules.

 

[monk]

these anti ppr guys seem pretty serious.

I wonder how many complain about kickers getting more than 3 points for 60 yard fieldgoals.

The guy kicking the 60 yard field goal helped his team in a big way.

The WR catching the pass for -negative yardage hurt his team and the team would have been better off had the WR dropped the pass

 

[ummich10]

I was hoping somebody would have some kind of theory for why a reception for 0 yards, or one for -4 and then one for +4, was better than incomplete passes.

I guess it isn't.

I can think of a few scenarios where the former is better than the latter:

1. If you were a QB, it would help your completion percentage rather than hurt it;

2. If your team was winning the game, the receptions would keep the clock moving (or force the other team to use a timeout). The incompletions would stop the clock;

3. If you were a RB or WR, people would make jokes like "stone hands" or "oven mitts" if you dropped three easy passes. That could be psychologically damaging. Just ask Heyward-Bey or Shonn Greene;

4. If you played in a ppr league, 3 points are better than 0 points.

5. Even 4 catches for 0 yards each is better than a sack for -9 yards, a run for -2 yards, an incomplete pass where Brees is drilled in the head, and anything by Mark Ingram or Robert Meachem.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The WR catching the pass for -negative yardage hurt his team and the team would have been better off had the WR dropped the pass

Not if they're trying to run out the clock.

 

[davearm]

The WR catching the pass for -negative yardage hurt his team and the team would have been better off had the WR dropped the pass

Not if they're trying to run out the clock.

This is a non sequitur. Teams trying to run out the clock aren't passing in the first place.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

On the other hand, every other offensive scoring play (TD rushes, receptions) factors in the yards with the score, so why not for kickers? If you kick a FG from the 40 vs from the 20, you're covering 20 extra yards just like if you ran it in from the 40 vs from the 20. So it kind of makes sense to give the Kicker the extra 2 points same as the runner or receiver would have got. Also, when you kick a long FG you are bailing your team out in a way, because they didn't have time to get you closer or just weren't able to by 4th down. So i can see how the value of those 3 points to the team might be considered greater.

All this nonsense contradicts what you posted just before, where you argued that catches have no inherent value on the football field and therefore should get zero points in fantasy football. A 40 yard FG is worth no more than a 30 yard FG in real football. If either is completed successfully, the team gets 3 points and subsequently kicks off to their opponent from the same spot on the field.

It's amazing that people don't seem to appreciate the simple but crucial distinction between on-field value and fantasy football scoring, and tie themselves in knots trying to equate one to the other. Let it go. There is nothing - literally nothing - "wrong" about PPR scoring in fantasy football. Proposing an alternative of 1 point per 6 2/3 receiving yards is not "better" in any meaningful way than PPR, and doing so only serves to illustrate that you don't appreciate the difference and relationship between real football and fantasy football.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The WR catching the pass for -negative yardage hurt his team and the team would have been better off had the WR dropped the pass

Not if they're trying to run out the clock.

This is a non sequitur. Teams trying to run out the clock aren't passing in the first place.

The whole thing is a non sequitur, that's the point.

 

[mbuehner]

these anti ppr guys seem pretty serious.

I wonder how many complain about kickers getting more than 3 points for 60 yard fieldgoals.

The guy kicking the 60 yard field goal helped his team in a big way.

The WR catching the pass for -negative yardage hurt his team and the team would have been better off had the WR dropped the pass

So the defense jumps the bubble screen and the next play gets burned on a double move and that first catch didn't help the offense? You see the problem with this line of thinking? Forcing the defender to make a play has some value. Sproles having 4 catches for zero yards has the same impact on the totality of the game as the 3rd string tight end that didnt see a single snap?

 

[ragnarok628]

On the other hand, every other offensive scoring play (TD rushes, receptions) factors in the yards with the score, so why not for kickers? If you kick a FG from the 40 vs from the 20, you're covering 20 extra yards just like if you ran it in from the 40 vs from the 20. So it kind of makes sense to give the Kicker the extra 2 points same as the runner or receiver would have got. Also, when you kick a long FG you are bailing your team out in a way, because they didn't have time to get you closer or just weren't able to by 4th down. So i can see how the value of those 3 points to the team might be considered greater.

All this nonsense contradicts what you posted just before, where you argued that catches have no inherent value on the football field and therefore should get zero points in fantasy football. A 40 yard FG is worth no more than a 30 yard FG in real football. If either is completed successfully, the team gets 3 points and subsequently kicks off to their opponent from the same spot on the field.

It's amazing that people don't seem to appreciate the simple but crucial distinction between on-field value and fantasy football scoring, and tie themselves in knots trying to equate one to the other. Let it go. There is nothing - literally nothing - "wrong" about PPR scoring in fantasy football. Proposing an alternative of 1 point per 6 2/3 receiving yards is not "better" in any meaningful way than PPR, and doing so only serves to illustrate that you don't appreciate the difference and relationship between real football and fantasy football.

as a contradiction, well that depends on how you look at it. in one way, 40 and 30 yd FGs are worth the same points in football so they should be worth the same points in fantasy. but the other way to look at it is that a 40 yard FG represents more progress downfield (or alternatively, less progress required from the rest of the offense to get the points) so that should be a factor. And regardless, i'm not married to either point of view, i'm just saying i can see the argument there. Given the choice, i would prefer not to even use kickers in fantasy, and i know i'm not the only one.

To me a good fantasy football scoring system should at least be attempting to reflect on-field value. I understand that not everyone looks at it this way, and even those of us who do generally recognize that standard scoring will never do this perfectly. But from that perspective, yes, there IS something wrong about PPR scoring, which i've already explained. The 1 point per 6 2/3 yards was merely a method by which you could weight WRs differently than RBs for the purposes of balancing the positions (which many have stated is the intended goal of PPR in the first place) without the unintended consequences of rewarding inconsequential plays. so yes it would be better than PPR in a meaningful way unless we stipulate that none of the numbers have meaning. regardless, i don't think it's something that should actually be done.

 

[ragnarok628]

these anti ppr guys seem pretty serious.

I wonder how many complain about kickers getting more than 3 points for 60 yard fieldgoals.

The guy kicking the 60 yard field goal helped his team in a big way.

The WR catching the pass for -negative yardage hurt his team and the team would have been better off had the WR dropped the pass

So the defense jumps the bubble screen and the next play gets burned on a double move and that first catch didn't help the offense? You see the problem with this line of thinking? Forcing the defender to make a play has some value. Sproles having 4 catches for zero yards has the same impact on the totality of the game as the 3rd string tight end that didnt see a single snap?

then every run up the middle for 0 yards should be worth a point because it set up the play action pass that burns the defense for 40 yards. and how do you differentiate the times when a bubble screen tries to set up the double move but the defense adjusts and stops it... so depending on what happens next, no, maybe the catch didn't help the offense. do you see the problem with THAT line of thinking? there's no way to quantify the impact of a 0 yard catch by it's effect on the next play. the only reasonable way to score fantasy points is on a play by play basis.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

as a contradiction, well that depends on how you look at it. in one way, 40 and 30 yd FGs are worth the same points in football so they should be worth the same points in fantasy. but the other way to look at it is that a 40 yard FG represents more progress downfield (or alternatively, less progress required from the rest of the offense to get the points) so that should be a factor.

There is no "should." There's only what you prefer. Neither option has any more merit than the other.

And regardless, i'm not married to either point of view, i'm just saying i can see the argument there.

There's no argument to be made. If you like giving more points for longer FGs, then do so - but don't waste your time trying to construct an argument that it's somehow better than any other choice, because it isn't.

Given the choice, i would prefer not to even use kickers in fantasy, and i know i'm not the only one.

Then don't. Unlike real football, fantasy football doesn't require kickers. Nor does it require QBs, or points per yard, or anything else that has anything at all to do with actual on-field value.

To me a good fantasy football scoring system should...

*yadda yadda*

...from that perspective, yes, there IS something wrong about PPR scoring

So essentially, PPR is "wrong" because you prefer to play a different way. That's all you've demonstrated. You haven't shown that there's anything objectively wrong with a PPR scoring system - which isn't surprising, because there isn't anything objectively wrong with PPR, nor would there be anything wrong with a system that awards 2 points per TD and 10 points per FG, or any other scoring system you could imagine.

 

[mbuehner]

these anti ppr guys seem pretty serious.

I wonder how many complain about kickers getting more than 3 points for 60 yard fieldgoals.

The guy kicking the 60 yard field goal helped his team in a big way.

The WR catching the pass for -negative yardage hurt his team and the team would have been better off had the WR dropped the pass

So the defense jumps the bubble screen and the next play gets burned on a double move and that first catch didn't help the offense? You see the problem with this line of thinking? Forcing the defender to make a play has some value. Sproles having 4 catches for zero yards has the same impact on the totality of the game as the 3rd string tight end that didnt see a single snap?

then every run up the middle for 0 yards should be worth a point because it set up the play action pass that burns the defense for 40 yards. and how do you differentiate the times when a bubble screen tries to set up the double move but the defense adjusts and stops it... so depending on what happens next, no, maybe the catch didn't help the offense. do you see the problem with THAT line of thinking? there's no way to quantify the impact of a 0 yard catch by it's effect on the next play. the only reasonable way to score fantasy points is on a play by play basis.

Some leagues do award for rushing attempts. Their commissioners, to my knowledge, have not yet been burned for witchcraft.

How do you differentiate? You dont. Thats my point. This game is arbitrary, its built to reflect arbitrary actions of another arbitrary game. If you enjoy making them parallel each other more rather than less, knock yourself out. But trying to build this religious type notion of purity to the relationship is silly, particularly since all the current parallels that we already accept or reject are... arbitrary.

 

[ragnarok628]

@Ignoratio:

listen, man, if you just hate talking about this, why are you here? I can dig that Zen groove you've got going on where fantasy football is all about, like, being, man, and giving up all those constraints that harsh everyone's fantasy mellow by trying to tie the system down to something that reflects what 'the man' calls 'reality'... but you've made your point already. People want different things out of fantasy football, i get that. If you have given up on trying to score fantasy in a way that attempts to reflect on-field value, then you're absolutely right. However you should understand that not everyone has reached your enlightenment and become one with fantasy 'football'. For some of us, the fun lies in tying the game to reality and from that perspective, yes, some systems are better than others.

 

[monk]

these anti ppr guys seem pretty serious.

I wonder how many complain about kickers getting more than 3 points for 60 yard fieldgoals.

The guy kicking the 60 yard field goal helped his team in a big way.

The WR catching the pass for -negative yardage hurt his team and the team would have been better off had the WR dropped the pass

So the defense jumps the bubble screen and the next play gets burned on a double move and that first catch didn't help the offense? You see the problem with this line of thinking? Forcing the defender to make a play has some value. Sproles having 4 catches for zero yards has the same impact on the totality of the game as the 3rd string tight end that didnt see a single snap?

then every run up the middle for 0 yards should be worth a point because it set up the play action pass that burns the defense for 40 yards. and how do you differentiate the times when a bubble screen tries to set up the double move but the defense adjusts and stops it... so depending on what happens next, no, maybe the catch didn't help the offense. do you see the problem with THAT line of thinking? there's no way to quantify the impact of a 0 yard catch by it's effect on the next play. the only reasonable way to score fantasy points is on a play by play basis.

Some leagues do award for rushing attempts. Their commissioners, to my knowledge, have not yet been burned for witchcraft.

How do you differentiate? You dont. Thats my point. This game is arbitrary, its built to reflect arbitrary actions of another arbitrary game. If you enjoy making them parallel each other more rather than less, knock yourself out. But trying to build this religious type notion of purity to the relationship is silly, particularly since all the current parallels that we already accept or reject are... arbitrary.

We award QB points for delay of game penalties and intentional grounding ... Eli manning is the #1 QB ahead of Payton

 

[ragnarok628]

Some leagues do award for rushing attempts. Their commissioners, to my knowledge, have not yet been burned for witchcraft.


How do you differentiate? You dont. Thats my point. This game is arbitrary, its built to reflect arbitrary actions of another arbitrary game. If you enjoy making them parallel each other more rather than less, knock yourself out. But trying to build this religious type notion of purity to the relationship is silly, particularly since all the current parallels that we already accept or reject are... arbitrary.

you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means. arbitrary means (from google) "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." I'm pretty sure that all of our fantasy football scoring systems are not arbitrary by that definition, and certainly the actions in a football game and the game itself are not 'arbitrary', that doesn't even make sense. If you don't accept the premise that FF scoring should attempt to best reflect actual success, then we have nothing to argue about; we are holding incompatible assumptions. However your attempt to justify assigning value to a catch earlier suggests that you do buy into the notion that we try to represent value when assigning fantasy points. If so, you should make your argument about why your way of calculating the score better reflects reality instead of this wishy-washy BS about how everything is 'arbitrary'. at least the guys who just say 'it's more fun that way' can supply a reason for why they do what they do.

 

[monk]

these anti ppr guys seem pretty serious.

I wonder how many complain about kickers getting more than 3 points for 60 yard fieldgoals.

The guy kicking the 60 yard field goal helped his team in a big way.

The WR catching the pass for -negative yardage hurt his team and the team would have been better off had the WR dropped the pass

So the defense jumps the bubble screen and the next play gets burned on a double move and that first catch didn't help the offense? You see the problem with this line of thinking? Forcing the defender to make a play has some value. Sproles having 4 catches for zero yards has the same impact on the totality of the game as the 3rd string tight end that didnt see a single snap?

Got it.

Bubble screen complete for negative yardage ... next play defense will be burned on a double move

Bubble screen incomplete or worse yet for positive yardage ... next play defense will not be burned on a double move

That's f'ing brilliant

 

[mbuehner]

Some leagues do award for rushing attempts. Their commissioners, to my knowledge, have not yet been burned for witchcraft.


How do you differentiate? You dont. Thats my point. This game is arbitrary, its built to reflect arbitrary actions of another arbitrary game. If you enjoy making them parallel each other more rather than less, knock yourself out. But trying to build this religious type notion of purity to the relationship is silly, particularly since all the current parallels that we already accept or reject are... arbitrary.

you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means. arbitrary means (from google) "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." I'm pretty sure that all of our fantasy football scoring systems are not arbitrary by that definition, and certainly the actions in a football game and the game itself are not 'arbitrary', that doesn't even make sense. If you don't accept the premise that FF scoring should attempt to best reflect actual success, then we have nothing to argue about; we are holding incompatible assumptions. However your attempt to justify assigning value to a catch earlier suggests that you do buy into the notion that we try to represent value when assigning fantasy points. If so, you should make your argument about why your way of calculating the score better reflects reality instead of this wishy-washy BS about how everything is 'arbitrary'. at least the guys who just say 'it's more fun that way' can supply a reason for why they do what they do.

No- my point is that the criteria we select to reflect success is arbitrary. Most leagues dont account for individual defensive players for instance... or line play in any way. Or punters. Why not? It would be simple to add a punter, its a big part of the game. But it isn't used as a matter of taste. There is no 'logical' reason we award 4 points per passing TD in some leagues and 6 in others... other than to balance the league, and make it more fun. But there is no inherent reason that that is so.

And walking over an imaginary line on a football field carrying an oblong ball is an arbitrary indication of success, as is kicking that ball between two posts an arbitrary distance apart.

My point is that NOBODY tries very hard to match football success with fantasy success, not in the big picture, because it would be boring to do so. Why doesn't Larry Fitzgerald get more points for being an excellent blocker? Or Jimmy Graham docked for being a tight end that doesn't know HOW to throw a block? All you are doing is pretending that you are more eager to embrace all aspects of the game and tie them directly to fantasy... and its obvious to everyone involved that youre doing it because you just dont like PPR. Rationalize away, but thats the crux of it.

 

[mbuehner]

these anti ppr guys seem pretty serious.

I wonder how many complain about kickers getting more than 3 points for 60 yard fieldgoals.

The guy kicking the 60 yard field goal helped his team in a big way.

The WR catching the pass for -negative yardage hurt his team and the team would have been better off had the WR dropped the pass

So the defense jumps the bubble screen and the next play gets burned on a double move and that first catch didn't help the offense? You see the problem with this line of thinking? Forcing the defender to make a play has some value. Sproles having 4 catches for zero yards has the same impact on the totality of the game as the 3rd string tight end that didnt see a single snap?

Got it.

Bubble screen complete for negative yardage ... next play defense will be burned on a double move

Bubble screen incomplete or worse yet for positive yardage ... next play defense will not be burned on a double move

That's f'ing brilliant

Chief- coaches call plays all the time to set up defenses for something later. Welcome to big boy x's and o's. Point is fantasy long ago picked and chose obvious indicators of success that made things easy and fun and showed up in the newspaper. And ignored other things because they either didnt add much enjoyment or were hard to quantify. That doesn't make them unimportant.

 

[monk]

these anti ppr guys seem pretty serious.

I wonder how many complain about kickers getting more than 3 points for 60 yard fieldgoals.

The guy kicking the 60 yard field goal helped his team in a big way.

The WR catching the pass for -negative yardage hurt his team and the team would have been better off had the WR dropped the pass

So the defense jumps the bubble screen and the next play gets burned on a double move and that first catch didn't help the offense? You see the problem with this line of thinking? Forcing the defender to make a play has some value. Sproles having 4 catches for zero yards has the same impact on the totality of the game as the 3rd string tight end that didnt see a single snap?

Got it.

Bubble screen complete for negative yardage ... next play defense will be burned on a double move

Bubble screen incomplete or worse yet for positive yardage ... next play defense will not be burned on a double move

That's f'ing brilliant

Chief- coaches call plays all the time to set up defenses for something later. Welcome to big boy x's and o's. Point is fantasy long ago picked and chose obvious indicators of success that made things easy and fun and showed up in the newspaper. And ignored other things because they either didnt add much enjoyment or were hard to quantify. That doesn't make them unimportant.

Chief - I've coached football for the past 8 years and never once called or have seen a played called with intention of losing yardage to set up the defense

 

[mbuehner]

these anti ppr guys seem pretty serious.

I wonder how many complain about kickers getting more than 3 points for 60 yard fieldgoals.

The guy kicking the 60 yard field goal helped his team in a big way.

The WR catching the pass for -negative yardage hurt his team and the team would have been better off had the WR dropped the pass

So the defense jumps the bubble screen and the next play gets burned on a double move and that first catch didn't help the offense? You see the problem with this line of thinking? Forcing the defender to make a play has some value. Sproles having 4 catches for zero yards has the same impact on the totality of the game as the 3rd string tight end that didnt see a single snap?

Got it.

Bubble screen complete for negative yardage ... next play defense will be burned on a double move

Bubble screen incomplete or worse yet for positive yardage ... next play defense will not be burned on a double move

That's f'ing brilliant

Chief- coaches call plays all the time to set up defenses for something later. Welcome to big boy x's and o's. Point is fantasy long ago picked and chose obvious indicators of success that made things easy and fun and showed up in the newspaper. And ignored other things because they either didnt add much enjoyment or were hard to quantify. That doesn't make them unimportant.

Chief - I've coached football for the past 8 years and never once called or have seen a played called with intention of losing yardage to set up the defense

I'm sure you're very good at your job and celebrate your genius success with juice boxes and orange slices. But we're talking about professional football.

 

[Bamac]

Chief -

Chief -

Isn't this use of "Chief" a little racially insensitive?

 

[mbuehner]

Chief -

Chief -

Isn't this use of "Chief" a little racially insensitive?

Well played.

 

[PainTrain]

You're the kind of guy who complains when a kneeldown costs you 2 rushing yards.

I'm that guy too! Like a sack, it isn't a rushing attempt. It should be recorded as a kneel, a successful one, no less.

And a spike should be a spike, not an incomplete pass. C'mon, Man!

 

[ragnarok628]

All you are doing is pretending that you are more eager to embrace all aspects of the game and tie them directly to fantasy... and its obvious to everyone involved that youre doing it because you just dont like PPR. Rationalize away, but thats the crux of it.

i don't know where you're getting all this from. I have never said anything on here about 'embracing all aspects of the game'. All i have done is point out that a reception means nothing and should count for no points.

PPR is not a good way to reflect onfield performance, so i don't like PPR.

I don't like PPR, so i argue that PPR is not a good way to reflect onfield performance.

Chicken, egg.

Egg, chicken.

Great point.

 

[ragnarok628]

Chief- coaches call plays all the time to set up defenses for something later. Welcome to big boy x's and o's. Point is fantasy long ago picked and chose obvious indicators of success that made things easy and fun and showed up in the newspaper. And ignored other things because they either didnt add much enjoyment or were hard to quantify. That doesn't make them unimportant.

Chief - I've coached football for the past 8 years and never once called or have seen a played called with intention of losing yardage to set up the defense

I'm sure you're very good at your job and celebrate your genius success with juice boxes and orange slices. But we're talking about professional football.

professional football: where apparently losing yards is just part of the plan

 

[monk]

these anti ppr guys seem pretty serious.

I wonder how many complain about kickers getting more than 3 points for 60 yard fieldgoals.

The guy kicking the 60 yard field goal helped his team in a big way.

The WR catching the pass for -negative yardage hurt his team and the team would have been better off had the WR dropped the pass

So the defense jumps the bubble screen and the next play gets burned on a double move and that first catch didn't help the offense? You see the problem with this line of thinking? Forcing the defender to make a play has some value. Sproles having 4 catches for zero yards has the same impact on the totality of the game as the 3rd string tight end that didnt see a single snap?

Got it.

Bubble screen complete for negative yardage ... next play defense will be burned on a double move

Bubble screen incomplete or worse yet for positive yardage ... next play defense will not be burned on a double move

That's f'ing brilliant

Chief- coaches call plays all the time to set up defenses for something later. Welcome to big boy x's and o's. Point is fantasy long ago picked and chose obvious indicators of success that made things easy and fun and showed up in the newspaper. And ignored other things because they either didnt add much enjoyment or were hard to quantify. That doesn't make them unimportant.

Chief - I've coached football for the past 8 years and never once called or have seen a played called with intention of losing yardage to set up the defense

I'm sure you're very good at your job and celebrate your genius success with juice boxes and orange slices. But we're talking about professional football.

And wtf would you know about coaching professional football ?

OK boys ... 1st and 10 lets run the ol' "negabubble" and put ourselves in 2nd and long ...Right where we wants um !!!!!!

 

[ebsteelers]

if you dont like ppr, dont play in a ppr league.. pretty simple thought but then again people wouldnt be able to ##### and complain either then

 

[mbuehner]

these anti ppr guys seem pretty serious.

I wonder how many complain about kickers getting more than 3 points for 60 yard fieldgoals.

The guy kicking the 60 yard field goal helped his team in a big way.

The WR catching the pass for -negative yardage hurt his team and the team would have been better off had the WR dropped the pass

So the defense jumps the bubble screen and the next play gets burned on a double move and that first catch didn't help the offense? You see the problem with this line of thinking? Forcing the defender to make a play has some value. Sproles having 4 catches for zero yards has the same impact on the totality of the game as the 3rd string tight end that didnt see a single snap?

Got it.

Bubble screen complete for negative yardage ... next play defense will be burned on a double move

Bubble screen incomplete or worse yet for positive yardage ... next play defense will not be burned on a double move

That's f'ing brilliant

Chief- coaches call plays all the time to set up defenses for something later. Welcome to big boy x's and o's. Point is fantasy long ago picked and chose obvious indicators of success that made things easy and fun and showed up in the newspaper. And ignored other things because they either didnt add much enjoyment or were hard to quantify. That doesn't make them unimportant.

Chief - I've coached football for the past 8 years and never once called or have seen a played called with intention of losing yardage to set up the defense

I'm sure you're very good at your job and celebrate your genius success with juice boxes and orange slices. But we're talking about professional football.

And wtf would you know about coaching professional football ?

OK boys ... 1st and 10 lets run the ol' "negabubble" and put ourselves in 2nd and long ...Right where we wants um !!!!!!

My fault, Paul Brown. I'm totally making up scripting plays. Yes- nobody runs plays they hope for 0 yards, but they certainly run plays that statistically are likely to gain 0 or 1 or 2 yards to see how the defense reacts and set them up for another play later. If they succeed on their own, great, but they probably wont. You think the dive is expected to run for a TD every time? Or just maybe thats how a playaction game is developed?

Are you really arguing that or do you really just specialize in 8 year olds?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

rly?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

@Ignoratio:

listen, man, if you just hate talking about this, why are you here? I can dig that Zen groove you've got going on where fantasy football is all about, like, being, man, and giving up all those constraints that harsh everyone's fantasy mellow by trying to tie the system down to something that reflects what 'the man' calls 'reality'... but you've made your point already. People want different things out of fantasy football, i get that. If you have given up on trying to score fantasy in a way that attempts to reflect on-field value, then you're absolutely right. However you should understand that not everyone has reached your enlightenment and become one with fantasy 'football'. For some of us, the fun lies in tying the game to reality and from that perspective, yes, some systems are better than others.

Where did I say I hate talking about this? I love talking about this, that's why I'm here. Arguing that _____ scoring system is "better" than PPR is like arguing that pizza is better than hot dogs, or Pearl Jam is better than Nirvana. Non-PPR is not "better" than PPR. You just prefer to play fantasy football with a scoring system that doesn't include points per reception. The argument that it's anything more than that is specious.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

@Ignoratio:

listen, man, if you just hate talking about this, why are you here? I can dig that Zen groove you've got going on where fantasy football is all about, like, being, man, and giving up all those constraints that harsh everyone's fantasy mellow by trying to tie the system down to something that reflects what 'the man' calls 'reality'... but you've made your point already. People want different things out of fantasy football, i get that. If you have given up on trying to score fantasy in a way that attempts to reflect on-field value, then you're absolutely right. However you should understand that not everyone has reached your enlightenment and become one with fantasy 'football'. For some of us, the fun lies in tying the game to reality and from that perspective, yes, some systems are better than others.

OK, you are being too obvious now.

 

[ragnarok628]

@Ignoratio:

listen, man, if you just hate talking about this, why are you here? I can dig that Zen groove you've got going on where fantasy football is all about, like, being, man, and giving up all those constraints that harsh everyone's fantasy mellow by trying to tie the system down to something that reflects what 'the man' calls 'reality'... but you've made your point already. People want different things out of fantasy football, i get that. If you have given up on trying to score fantasy in a way that attempts to reflect on-field value, then you're absolutely right. However you should understand that not everyone has reached your enlightenment and become one with fantasy 'football'. For some of us, the fun lies in tying the game to reality and from that perspective, yes, some systems are better than others.

Where did I say I hate talking about this? I love talking about this, that's why I'm here. Arguing that _____ scoring system is "better" than PPR is like arguing that pizza is better than hot dogs, or Pearl Jam is better than Nirvana. Non-PPR is not "better" than PPR. You just prefer to play fantasy football with a scoring system that doesn't include points per reception. The argument that it's anything more than that is specious.

When you throw all stipulations out the window, then yes, what you say is true. absent any frame of reference, nothing would be better than anything else. this is always true and also always useless so i don't know why people keep going on about it. BUT I've taken great pains to explicitly and consistently stipulate that my arguments are coming from the frame of reference that FF scoring should be attempting to reflect onfield success. I'm tired of typing that, but it keeps getting ignored. If we DO stipulate this, it provides of frame of reference within which you absolutely CAN identify better and worse ways to score things. If you reject that stipulation, well then we're not arguing about the same thing so there's no point in me continuing with you; you'll just keep reducing my argument to 'standard is better at everything than ppr just like pizza is better than hot dogs' and missing the point by arguing against that straw man.

 

[ebsteelers]

as long as everyone in my league is playing with the same format as me then im fine

 

[ragnarok628]

And wtf would you know about coaching professional football ?


OK boys ... 1st and 10 lets run the ol' "negabubble" and put ourselves in 2nd and long ...Right where we wants um !!!!!!

My fault, Paul Brown. I'm totally making up scripting plays. Yes- nobody runs plays they hope for 0 yards, but they certainly run plays that statistically are likely to gain 0 or 1 or 2 yards to see how the defense reacts and set them up for another play later. If they succeed on their own, great, but they probably wont. You think the dive is expected to run for a TD every time? Or just maybe thats how a playaction game is developed?

Are you really arguing that or do you really just specialize in 8 year olds?

make up your mind; are they scripting plays or are they reading what the defense does after a 0 yard play to set them up?

 

[mbuehner]

And wtf would you know about coaching professional football ?


OK boys ... 1st and 10 lets run the ol' "negabubble" and put ourselves in 2nd and long ...Right where we wants um !!!!!!

My fault, Paul Brown. I'm totally making up scripting plays. Yes- nobody runs plays they hope for 0 yards, but they certainly run plays that statistically are likely to gain 0 or 1 or 2 yards to see how the defense reacts and set them up for another play later. If they succeed on their own, great, but they probably wont. You think the dive is expected to run for a TD every time? Or just maybe thats how a playaction game is developed?

Are you really arguing that or do you really just specialize in 8 year olds?

make up your mind; are they scripting plays or are they reading what the defense does after a 0 yard play to set them up?

Seriously? These are not deep play calling secrets here man. At least not since the 1970s. If you really need to know, well here's how it often works (at least in a Walsh style offense)- You script your first 15 or more plays. This accomplishes TWO things (more, but i'll try to keep it simple): one, you can analyze the defense and what they are doing and what their tendencies are. Two, you can bait the defense by showing them your own tendencies intentionally... so that you can fool them at a key time later. And again- you aren't hoping the play will go for zero yards, you are resigned that the play is likely not to be very successful because it will benefit you down the line.

 

[davearm]

"I'm resigned that (this) play is likely not to be very successful, but let's run it anyway" -- uttered by no coach, ever

 

[mbuehner]

"I'm resigned that (this) play is likely not to be very successful, but let's run it anyway" -- uttered by no coach, ever

'The dive play run by a team averaging 2.5 y/c does not exist. Play action passes are simply run because QBs enjoy wasting time by faking a handoff'.

Are you suggesting play scripting doesn't exist? And if it does, whats its point, in your estimation?

 

[davearm]

I'm suggesting coaches call plays they expect will succeed, scripted or otherwise.

I'm further suggesting that your notion that coaches call plays expecting them to fail is absurd.

 

[mbuehner]

I'm suggesting coaches call plays they expect will succeed, scripted or otherwise.

I'm further suggesting that your notion that coaches call plays expecting them to fail is absurd.

So why do teams with poor running games run the ball? Do they really think- 'hey, this play has netted 1 yard the last 5 times, we ran it, but this time its going to the house?'. I could see how watching a football game would make you want to blow your brains out at the play calling if you dont realize this.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, you have to run certain plays for larger reasons. Of course you hope every play is going to be a hit, but please, lets not fall back on meathead coachspeak 'we expect to score every snap' blah blah blah. If scripting was done because you expected your script to succeed with every play... why not script the whole game?

The problem with what your saying is that the example of scripting negates it. Either scripting is done because its the most effective way to maximize each individual play... in which case you should script the entire game. Or scripting is run NOT because it is the best way to maximize each individual play (which negates your premise) and it is done for some larger strategic reasoning (as I relayed above). I can dig up 50 quotes as to why coaches script games if you really insists- but I assure you the answer is not because those are the BEST 20 plays in the book and they need to be run in that exact order for the perfect amount of success.

And you're missing the point- they aren't failed plays. They are very successful plays, in that they accomplish what they were intended for.