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.
remind me - good scoring setting for IDP deep league? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter amit-nfl
- Start date
I prefer big play scoring because it makes more players relevant. I also try and spread the points across a lot of categories to try and smooth the IDP scoring out to be more Ike the offensive side. I also want the IDP scoring to be equal to offensive scoring so that they are just as important.
Jedi Knight
Footballguy
Here's our league's scoring set-up.
Very non-standard, but it equalizes every position almost to a T. It leads to scores in the 900's on average.
Very non-standard, but it equalizes every position almost to a T. It leads to scores in the 900's on average.
Jedi Knight
Footballguy
It is, but. like I said, it equalizes the positions almost to a T. Natural exception being RB's due to scarcity. Over the last four years on PPG Avg:
Average of the top 5 by position:
QB- 60.8 PPG
RB- 56.8 PPG
WR/TE- 56.0 PPG
Def Edge- 55.5 PPG
LB- 54.9 PPG
DB- 56.4 PPG
Average of starters by position:
QB- 55.2 PPG
RB- 46.2 PPG
WR/TE- 46.3 PPG
Def Edge- 46.0 PPG
LB- 44.9 PPG
DB- 45.2 PPG
Average of top 32 by position:
QB- 50.9 PPG
RB- 41.3 PPG
WR/TE- 46.5 PPG
Def Edge- 46.0 PPG
LB- 46.6 PPG
DB- 46.5 PPG
QB's are slightly higher and RB's fall off hard after the first 16 or so, but I think that's pretty normal for most any league. But the value line for WR/TE/Edge/LB/DB is almost identical. It works for us.
Last edited by a moderator:
Our isn't quite as high scoring but does a good job of equaling scoring as well. We are closer to most standard scoring categories. One of the things that really helped on the defensive side was breaking down sacks and dividing the points between the sack, TFL, and QB hit. We made the total equal what are sacks total was before but now it's not an all or nothing stat. Even if you don't get the sack you still get points for QB hit and more pts for TFL. This really helped on the IDP side. Our biggest issue (we had big play scoring) was that the IDP was really high (getting 2 sacks for instance was close to 20 pts) or nothing (2 tackles, no sacks = 2 pts). So by nature you were getting the boom/bust games. We would look at end of year scoring and it would be very close but the variations were terrible. By spreading out the stats it really helps narrow the peaks on scoring. Higher floor with the same ceiling. It makes the IDP much more important.
Jedi Knight
Footballguy
Yep, I discovered the same thing. On a sack, a player tends to get credit for a tackle, a sack and sometimes a TFL (depending on stadium crew). The other thing I discovered is that tackles, assists and TFL's are the only consistent stat. The top LB's only average a sack about every game or two. If they're lucky, they get 2 INT's per year and no clear way to predict when they will come. For us, 86% of IDP scoring comes from tackles/assists and TFL's. Big plays do get big points, but they are random.
Tick
Footballguy
I don't care for IDP scoring that's balanced across positions. What are you trying to do with it - honest question. My guess is that you're trying to give people a reason to roster 3-4 DEs and OLBs. In my opinion, a better way to that is just to use an Edge position. Ideally, you would have:
The reason I prefer that approach instead of tweaking scoring is that some of the positions are just so random. If you juice DT and CB scoring, they're still just as unpredictable, and teams will end up with polar scoring of either 0 or 20 from each of their DTs. They might average out to have similar scoring averages as the other positions, but I don't really see how that matters. It's not like we balance QB vs. TE scoring on the offensive side - their value is defined by VBD, reliability, and longevity (if dynasty).
- DL: 3-4 DEs, 3-4 NTs, 4-3 DTs
- Edge: 3-4 OLBs, 4-3 DEs
- ILBs: 3-4 ILBs, 4-3 LBs
- CB and S unaffected
The reason I prefer that approach instead of tweaking scoring is that some of the positions are just so random. If you juice DT and CB scoring, they're still just as unpredictable, and teams will end up with polar scoring of either 0 or 20 from each of their DTs. They might average out to have similar scoring averages as the other positions, but I don't really see how that matters. It's not like we balance QB vs. TE scoring on the offensive side - their value is defined by VBD, reliability, and longevity (if dynasty).
We actually try and balance scoring across all positions - offense and defense. Ideally we want to allow an owner to build his team anyway he wants to open up flexibility and different strategies to putting a team together. It's a very hard thing to do but we have come close. So to answer your question of why we do it...….it's to allow you flexibility to build a competitive team. You don't have to get the best middle LB because he scores the most points no matter what. You can get an edge buy instead or a DT or S and still be competitive. It opens up the draft strategy so everyone is not a carbon copy.
As far as increasing DT scoring and having the boom/bust games we have increased the scoring on items that are not as boom/bust such as tackles and assists. We wanted to make the DT position relevant. It has worked. If you break up things like sacks into the components of the stats that get counted for sacks it helps smooth the boom/bust situations. Lower the sack value and give points for Hurries, QB hits, and TFL. You can do the same with INT's and pass defensed.
