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.

My main league changed our scoring system (1 Viewer)

J

JerkyJoker

Footballguy
My hometown league has been in existence since 1997 this year we changed our scoring system from 1 point per reception rb to 0.5 point per reception.  WR's and tight ends still receive 1 point per reception.  Now the kicker is that we have implemented 0.3 points per rushing attempt.  The majority of the league thought this would balance out the scoring between positions.  Has anyone else encountered this type of scoring system?  I had intended to draft high end wr's early, but now this puts a kink in that thought process.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My two redrafts leagues have been tweaked to a great extent. What started as 1ppr became 1 ppr (for everyone), 0.1-0.2 pt per carry, -0.04 pt per incompletion, +0.04 pass attempt. Team defenses start at 20 pts for a shutout, and drop about 6 pts per 6 allowed, 2.25 for an int, 1.25 for a forced fumble another 1.25 for a fumble recovered, 2 for a sack.

All in an attempt to balance positions after elevating receivers. One of the leagues chose to stay at 0.1 per carry and the other chose to change to 0.2, but in today's game could probably be fine at 0.2-0.3. Your team defenses and QBs will be slightly devalued in that system unless further adjustments are made.

 
Hopefully, next year, you can fix it by getting rid of ppr all together.

The modern NFL rules already make completing passes too easy.  No reason to continue padding fantasy WR stats these days.

No comment on the clusterfuq Run It Up described.

 
When you have roughly 10 RBs scoring 200+ points in PPR, and almost 25 WRs putting up 200+, there is no reason in any faction that would say WRs need more actual "value."
Its pretty even right now, but PPR was meant to even out RBs and WRs, now its being used to make WRs more valuable by some.

 
Ilov80s said:
A. PPR shifts the balance to WRs. Making it 0.5 for RBs is going to strongly shift it to WRs.

B. Why 0.3 points per rush for kickers? Who was pushing that? How many kickers ever run the ball? I don't get that at all.

Just to give you an idea how that scoring breaks down in ppg from last year.

RB1: 18.7      WR1: 23.6       TE1: 17.4

RB5: 15.4      WR5: 20.6       TE5: 14.7  

RB10: 13.5    WR10:  18.2    TE10: 11.4

RB15: 12.7    WR:15:  16.8    TE15: 10.3

RB20: 11.5    WR20:   15.5

Since most leagues are 2RB, 3WR AND 1 TE with 12 teams, that means the bottom level RB is 24, WR is 36 AND TE IS 12. RB24 averaged 10.8, WR36 averaged 12.4 and TE12 averaged 11.0

To put some names behind it:

Maclin scored more per game than Gurley and Peterson. There were 8 WRs that scored higher than Freeman in ppg. Only 4 RBs averaged more in PPG than Delanie Walker. 
Click to expand...
Do you really think they added rushing points for place kickers?

 
Bottom end RB1 17.5              Bottom end WR1  17.5        Bottom End TE  11.0

Bottom end RB2 15.2              Bottom end WR2   15.0 

Bottom end RB3:  12.7             Bottom end WR3: 12.5

Bottom end RB4: 11.3              Bottom end WR4: 11.0 

Based on last year, it certainly does balance RB and WR out. It seems to really hurt the top end TEs. A Gronk is equal to a WR/RB2. 

 
Attempted making tight ends 1.5 per reception,  but those opposing said," there are only a few good tight ends, and that will make things unbalanced again."

 
They are right.

Personally, I like having TE's and WR's lumped together as the same position.  In my main league, you can start between 2-4 WR/TE's.  That way, you are not forced to over-value mediocre TE's.

Heck, the stud TE's are lining up at WR anyway.

 
I hope you enjoy playing in this format.

I have no idea why a rushing attempt is worth 60% of a reception? Is there any reasoning behind this?

If the goal is to make scoring more balanced across positions, what you have done does not accomplish that as well as if you would just play standard scoring rules without PPR.

From my perspective all rules/laws should be applied equally to all people. Otherwise the rules/laws are not good enough to be rules/laws.

 
I believe the reasoning behind the 0.3 points per rushing attempt is to help those top end rbs whose value have decreased, because they catch very few passes.  Backs like Peterson carry the ball 20 times a game for 100 yards for 10 points, but a wr 2 can catch 5 passes for 60 yards for 11 points.  Everyone watching the game is aware that the rb carried the load, but the score doesn't reflect it.  This scoring method would give Peterson an extra 6.6 points with the carries, which bumps his total to 16.6 points for the game.  Kind of validates the performance on the field.   THere probably isn't a perfect scoring system  anywhere, but maybe this will help.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JerkyJoker said:
I believe the reasoning behind the 0.3 points per rushing attempt is to help those top end rbs whose value have decreased, because they catch very few passes.  Backs like Peterson carry the ball 20 times a game for 100 yards for 10 points, but a wr 2 can catch 5 passes for 60 yards for 11 points.  Everyone watching the game is aware that the rb carried the load, but the score doesn't reflect it.  This scoring method would give Peterson an extra 6.6 points with the carries, which bumps his total to 16.6 points for the game.  Kind of validates the performance on the field.   THere probably isn't a perfect scoring system  anywhere, but maybe this will help.
Click to expand...
...or better yet, give the RB 10 points for moving the ball 100 yards, and give the WR 6 points for moving the ball 60 yards.

 
That's a great idea, but that's already in place.  Rushing and receiving are both 0.1 point per yard. Thanks for the suggestions.

 
I understand you're loyalty to standard scoring, but the majority of our league prefer ppr. This league was standard scoring up until 2012.  All  the guys  have adapted too the change to ppr, and prefer that system now.  So with that said, and with running the numbers it looks as if 0.3 pt per rush will definitely balance out the scoring.  Thanks again for all responses.

 
JerkyJoker said:
I understand you're loyalty to standard scoring, but the majority of our league prefer ppr. This league was standard scoring up until 2012.  All  the guys  have adapted too the change to ppr, and prefer that system now.  So with that said, and with running the numbers it looks as if 0.3 pt per rush will definitely balance out the scoring.  Thanks again for all responses.
Click to expand...
Don't forget about ppcits!!!

 
My league is better than everyone else's.  We are sticking with straight PPR and getting rid of kickers.

You have my permission to imitate.

 
JerkyJoker said:
I believe the reasoning behind the 0.3 points per rushing attempt is to help those top end rbs whose value have decreased, because they catch very few passes.  Backs like Peterson carry the ball 20 times a game for 100 yards for 10 points, but a wr 2 can catch 5 passes for 60 yards for 11 points.  Everyone watching the game is aware that the rb carried the load, but the score doesn't reflect it.  This scoring method would give Peterson an extra 6.6 points with the carries, which bumps his total to 16.6 points for the game.  Kind of validates the performance on the field.   THere probably isn't a perfect scoring system  anywhere, but maybe this will help.
Click to expand...
I get the reasoning but you're rewarding players for not doing anything.  Why not just bump up the points they get for yards or something.

 
Now that's an idea I may suggest for our annual meeting.  Maybe drop the 0.3 per carry and increase pts per rushing yard to 0.15 per yard.  Thanks for the suggestion.

 
Tool said:
pts for a carry is idiotic
Click to expand...
How open minded. 

We measure ppc in our scoring because workhorse RBs have great value to NFL teams. Scoring should reflect value, IMO. 

We also use a graduated ppr system that gives 0.5 ppr to RBs, 1.5 ppr to TEs, and 1.0 ppr to all other players. But our system with its scoring and starting requirements weren't based upon how many pts players score compared to others but rather based upon each position's and that position's players' value compared to other players. 

Sure, right now WRs are scoring well. But bell cow RBs still have more value. And scoring among players will change as the game changes. As teams employ more lighter and faster players to combat passing, ahead-of-the-curve coaches are going to start running the ball down their throats again. 

 
Idk why the majority of this thread is people complaining about PPR or its merits, go start your own thread that you can all agree with each other about and no one else will care.

Point per carry is just a tweak to further balance RBs after the position loses value relative to WR by adding PPR.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
spider321 said:
Just trying to hammer home the point that ppr is an abomination. :D
Click to expand...
For you perhaps, but I'm not aware of anyone who considers you an authority. 

The scoring system that your league likes is the right scoring system for you - no matter how pts are assigned. That's all that really matters. 

 
Ahead of the curve coaches would be Brad Childress, Jeff Fisher and Pete Carrol? Mike Zimmer?

While I agree things change in cycles. There are several supporting factors for a team to be successful with a run first philosophy. A very good defense that can stop teams from passing the ball to catch up. Good special teams play to help the defense and the offense. A good offensive line to sustain drives when teams are selling out to stop the run.

While the Vikings and Rams have had some of those elements to support their offensive game plan, they didn't have the QB, or the defense against the pass Seattle has.

It is just more efficient to move the ball by throwing it. The rules support and encourage more passing. Coaches are adjusting to that reality for the most part I think unless they are Fisher or Zimmer or Mularkey, 

Maybe if there was some new rule or something that caused it to be more advantageous to run the ball, then coaches might change their plans because of that, for the most part what I think we are seeing is the opposite. You can see the change reflected in draft capital teams use on the RB position compared to the past. I think this trend is still growing and I am not sure if/when that trend might reverse itself. I am not expecting it to in the next decade, but maybe it will.

Defenses can substitute their goal line specialist or other run defense players to account for teams running more than average. I don't really see teams becoming ill equiped personnel wise at stopping the run. There were something like 20 or more very good nose tackle rookie prospects from the 2016 draft class, these guys may not play in the most common sub packages much, but every team has guys like this if they needed to adjust to a run heavy team.

Ahead of the curve is being the Patriots where you can shift your offensive game plan to either style each week depending on the opponent.

 
Bronco Billy said:
How open minded. 

We measure ppc in our scoring because workhorse RBs have great value to NFL teams. Scoring should reflect value, IMO. 

We also use a graduated ppr system that gives 0.5 ppr to RBs, 1.5 ppr to TEs, and 1.0 ppr to all other players. But our system with its scoring and starting requirements weren't based upon how many pts players score compared to others but rather based upon each position's and that position's players' value compared to other players. 

Sure, right now WRs are scoring well. But bell cow RBs still have more value. And scoring among players will change as the game changes. As teams employ more lighter and faster players to combat passing, ahead-of-the-curve coaches are going to start running the ball down their throats again. 
Click to expand...
Ummm, workhorse RBs have value because they rush for yards and tds - that captures the value.  Getting points for being handed the ball makes no sense. In your system a rb that gets 30 carries for 60 yards scores more points than someone who gets 15 carries for 60 yards. You're saying the workhorse RB avg 2 yds for carry has "great value" and more value than the 2nd guy?

 
Tool said:
Ummm, workhorse RBs have value because they rush for yards and tds - that captures the value.  Getting points for being handed the ball makes no sense. In your system a rb that gets 30 carries for 60 yards scores more points than someone who gets 15 carries for 60 yards. You're saying the workhorse RB avg 2 yds for carry has "great value" and more value than the 2nd guy?
Click to expand...
I think that is unfortunately short sighted thinking, but you've convinced me that you believe it so strongly that you won't be persuaded otherwise so I won't try. 

Btw - what workhorse RB has a 2.0 ypc?

 
Ok. One RB has 15 carries for 60 yards and another RB has 16 carries for 60 yards.

Does it really make sense to you that the player with 16 carries gets .15 more points?  Really?

...and when did common sense become "short sighted thinking"?

 
spider321 said:
Ok. One RB has 15 carries for 60 yards and another RB has 16 carries for 60 yards.

Does it really make sense to you that the player with 16 carries gets .15 more points?  Really?

...and when did common sense become "short sighted thinking"?
Click to expand...
Because you can cite an instance in a one game comparison between two running backs that shows a discrepancy doesn't invalidate the principle.  You can play the same game with passing and receiving numbers. 

Because you state that that something is common sense doesn't make it so.

Which team is more likely to win a NFL football game, the one with a 100 yd rusher, the one with a 400 yd passer, or the one with a 100 yd receiver - and why?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bronco Billy said:
Because you can cite an instance in a one game comparison between two running backs that shows a discrepancy doesn't invalidate the principle.
Click to expand...
There will always be a discrepancy if you are rewarding carries instead of only rewarding production.

Have you considered "balancing" scoring even more by rewarding kickers for the number of hugs they get after a made field goal?

...and because you state something is short sighted thinking doesn't make it so, Jack.

 
It's a sound argument.  Needing more carries to get the same yardage seems less valuable to a team, unless they are in serious clock-eating mode.

By the same token, how does a receiver who gets 50 yards on five catches contribute more to his team than one who gets 50 yards from eight catches?  Is the second WR really 30% more valuable?

 
Eliminate points per reception/carry. If you need something other than Touchdowns and Yards (I don't see why), how about point per first down? Everyone, regardless of position, can appreciate the value of those. At the end of the day, this is a game based upon scoring the relative performance for football players helping their real team (and by relation, your fantasy team).

 
We adjusted receiving yardage to 15yds/pt a few years back, and kept rushing yards at 10yds/pt. It leveled things out nicely, IMO. Still have 1ppr across the board.

 
To add to it, I was watching Week 16 last year with my buddy who won a fantasy title because of a Hightower pass late in the Saints game last year. A simple catch made him lash out into excitement, and I sat there thinking that while I won games in this fashion too at some point in my playing days that it was the most anticlimactic and kind of a ridiculous way to get excited about winning a title. A simple few yard catch wins a guy a title. I remember when players needs TDs to get that type of reaction. Just a random dialogue to add, my apologies if it ran of track.

 
Bronco Billy said:
Because you can cite an instance in a one game comparison between two running backs that shows a discrepancy doesn't invalidate the principle.  You can play the same game with passing and receiving numbers. 

Because you state that that something is common sense doesn't make it so.

Which team is more likely to win a NFL football game, the one with a 100 yd rusher, the one with a 400 yd passer, or the one with a 100 yd receiver - and why?
Click to expand...
This has always been my line of thinking because its true.  Any NFL coach will take a work horse back that can grind out 100 yards, even on 30 carries.  The game isn't simply about scoring points and advancing the football.  Control the clock, protect a lead or allow a young defense to catch their breath and get coached up all lead to wins - the most important stat of all.

We do 0.2 per carry.  This basically equates 25 carries with 5 receptions.  Most backs catch a couple balls and we have no problem with valuing RBs vs. WRs. 

 
I think the best way to score is to equate scoring..... for yardage to be in relation to the amount of touches a player receives, and get rid of PPR.  For example, if an average starting RB touches the ball 15 times a game for 80 total yards, while an average WR catches 4-5 passes for 60 yards, then you can make the scoring 1 pt per 10 yards gained for RBs (rushing and receiving all go into the same pot), and say 1 pt per 8 yds receiving for WRs.  Here you have to gain yards to score.  Sure, the WR yards would be more valuable than the RB yards, but the RB gets more opporunties than the WR to balance that out.

 
WheelsUp said:
To add to it, I was watching Week 16 last year with my buddy who won a fantasy title because of a Hightower pass late in the Saints game last year. A simple catch made him lash out into excitement, and I sat there thinking that while I won games in this fashion too at some point in my playing days that it was the most anticlimactic and kind of a ridiculous way to get excited about winning a title. A simple few yard catch wins a guy a title. I remember when players needs TDs to get that type of reaction. Just a random dialogue to add, my apologies if it ran of track.
Click to expand...
There will never be a perfect scoring system.  I salvaging a tie from a win due to a QB victory formation, days when kneel downs counted as rushing yards.  Hard to say that play was the "-1 fp" value it ended up being.

But it seems the attempts to increase balance these days are taking us farther from, rather than closer to, any sense of actual player value to team.  Sure, at the end of the day, personal preference is all that matters, and I'm not looking to change anyone else's.  But I have trouble understanding why someone would prefer some of the more convoluted systems  that are popping up these days. 

 
points for touches, relative to the position, makes far more sense than just PPR.  having said that, i've been a diehard ppr guy for decades, but even i am leaning back to the standard format as the way to go.  I haven't made the switch in my league, and may not, but i can see the unbalance that PPR is creating.  

in a 1 player franchise player/keeper ppr league, i'm damn glad to have antonio, that's fo sho!

 
spider321 said:
Ok. One RB has 15 carries for 60 yards and another RB has 16 carries for 60 yards.

Does it really make sense to you that the player with 16 carries gets .15 more points?  Really?

...and when did common sense become "short sighted thinking"?
Click to expand...
In my scoring system the back with 16 carries will get 0.2 more points based on slightly larger role in the game.  However, the back with 15 carries will get two points for averaging 4 yards per carry (efficiency points).  He will outscore the other back 11 to 9.2.

 
Ilov80s said:
Bottom end RB1 17.5              Bottom end WR1  17.5        Bottom End TE  11.0

Bottom end RB2 15.2              Bottom end WR2   15.0 

Bottom end RB3:  12.7             Bottom end WR3: 12.5

Bottom end RB4: 11.3              Bottom end WR4: 11.0 

Based on last year, it certainly does balance RB and WR out. It seems to really hurt the top end TEs. A Gronk is equal to a WR/RB2. 
Click to expand...
What did you base these numbers on?

 
Points Per Deception , here it is.

There was an article written in FBG, might be in the archives if they still don't do it. It was about a Point-per-1st Down Reception. Seemed to create balance. But when I read it, it was back when RBs were still valued in the league, about 10-15 years ago. Don't know if it still holds up to the passing league.

Points for rushing attempts seems so arbitrary. Does a 0yd or less run deserve points? Not in my book.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Dynasty league LFM
Replies
2
Views
721
EpiccityTds
E
G
ESPN - Scoring changes?
Replies
3
Views
739
rockaction
rockaction
S
14-team Superflex -- how to do it?
Replies
12
Views
2K
candian fantasy guy
C

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top