Bengal Mania Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 it's not your argument....someone always argues this every year.... Dude, I didn't say it was solely my argument. Read the post I replied to. THe guy said my argument was taking him 1.04, which if you read my first post, clearly is NOT my argument Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Expert Mock draft on Home Page. David Dorey (you may know him) lands Payton Manning at 3.10 and calls it "ridiculous value" Apparently my opinion is faulty to all of you, but the Owner of this website clearly does not see it that way. I'll rest my case. I for one find this a very interesting thing to debate. It comes up every year, and is one of the more important topics in FF. A few years back I remember a team winning the SOFA league going WR, WR at 1.12 and 2.01. There are always other ways to slice the pie...and the people that read these message boards benefit from these viewpoints even if they don't agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Dude, I didn't say it was solely my argument. Read the post I replied to. THe guy said my argument was taking him 1.04, which if you read my first post, clearly is NOT my argument nah I'm just busting your balls.....take it easy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Men In Tights Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 If he's there in the 2nd Rnd, esp w/ a 10-team league (where the quality RBs last longer), I'd consider him for sure. The drawback is not "too early for a QB" , IMO, it's whether you think he will be playing come FFL playoff time. The best QB in the league NEVER gets hurt. That ought to bump him up the chart, even for the stubborn. So you are saying 2nd round, and that is anywhere from 11+ if I am correct. Next time I will have to read your novel posts a little closer as I missed this to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Scoring in my league for QB's is the following: all td's 6 pts, 1 point every 20 yards passing and bonus points over 300 yards. also no interception penalties. 2 years ago this was a redraft that became a keeper. In this format, the top QB's can almost equal the top RB numbers. Was not here yesterday afternoon, so could not address this, but, the point is that even if the actual points scored is close for all positions, this does not translate to VALUE being the same for all positions. The top RBs will almost always outscore the last starter (24th RB for most leagues) at RB by a lot more than the top QB will outscore the last starter (12th QB in many leagues) in almost every standard scoring system. Now, if you could develop a scoring system where on average (using say the last 5 years worth of stats), the top scoring QB outscored the #12 QB by the same margin that the top RB outscored the 24th WR, the top WR outscored the 36th WR (or 24th if you only do 2) by the same margin the top TE outscored the #12 TE and so on for D and K as well (though I'd be less concerned with them), then you are on to something. But, scoring system adjustments in general have an extremely minimal affect on overall player values. The two most common adjustments are 6 points TDs, which have been shown repeatedly to have a minor affect on the rankings within the QB position and an almost non-existent affect on QB values overall, and the addition of reception points, which again have been shown to have a minimal affect on overall WR and TE values, but, were that change does have a significant affect is in the mid-tiers of RBs and WRs, where those additional reception points give those mid-tier WRs a boost to the level of those mid-tier RBs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 The top RBs will almost always outscore the last starter (24th RB for most leagues) at RB by a lot more than the top QB will outscore the last starter (12th QB in many leagues) in almost every standard scoring system. Take that a step further... It is likely that the lowest scoring starting QB will not be the 12th highest scoring, and even less likely that the lowest scoring starting RB will be the 24th highest scorer. It probably won't even be clost to that because people take extra players at key positions, some people wait too long to get their QB or their RB2, and all that. But if the worst starting QB is the 15th highest scorer, and the worst starting RB is the 40th high scorer, that just emphasizes the reasons to not take a QB early. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I've been thinking about playing with a few stats besides TDs/yards which seems to be where most people have focused on their scoring. 1) INTs. Will increasing the negative have an effect? 2) Assign some sort of bonus/penaly for passer rating, completions, completion percentages, avg yards per attempt... something... There has to be a way to make them more relevant to draft strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I've been thinking about playing with a few stats besides TDs/yards which seems to be where most people have focused on their scoring. 1) INTs. Will increasing the negative have an effect? 2) Assign some sort of bonus/penaly for passer rating, completions, completion percentages, avg yards per attempt... something... There has to be a way to make them more relevant to draft strategy. See, I think QB is very relevant to draft strategy. DO I dare draft Manning at the beginning of round 2, knowing that I am sacrificing my #2 RB or #1 WR for him and hope for a monster year. In round 5 or so, do I take a Palmer or even a guy like Hasselbeck, or do I wait longer, figuring I can maybe get a solid but unspectacular QB like Delhomme or Trent Green. You have to be careful about adding rules to QBs to boost their point production though.... make it so they score a disprportionate amount of points and then you take away the FF team and it becomes a game of whether or not your QB did well. I ;learned this the hard way one year when I threw together a baseball league to kill time in the offseason. I wanted to do a simple head to head format (had done a simple one in high school, you only use the Fri-Sun games as EVERY team always plays those 3 days) utilizing basically hits, runs scored, RBIs and stolen bases, but, wanted to include pitchers in a way so went with a team pitchng staff idea... well, as it was thrown together, once the season started it became evident that becasue we did no testing of the scoring system, pitching staffs scored a disproportionate number of points, and with negatifes if the team lost, could really hurt your team. While on a good day your individual players may put up 6-8 points, a pitching staff could easily get 15-20 points if they won, pitched a shutout or 1 run game, had a bunck of K's and gave up very few hits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I've been thinking about playing with a few stats besides TDs/yards which seems to be where most people have focused on their scoring. 1) INTs. Will increasing the negative have an effect? 2) Assign some sort of bonus/penaly for passer rating, completions, completion percentages, avg yards per attempt... something... There has to be a way to make them more relevant to draft strategy. More direct answers to your questions. 1. I think it has a similar affect as going to 6 point TDs. It will hurt those QBs that throw more INTs in relation to other QBs, but have a very minimal affect on overall QB values. 2. Relates to my post above, add too many categories and scoring potentil to QBs, and you risk making it so a QB can score way too much that whether valuable or not, a good or bad game from your QB becomes the sole dictator of how your team does. That said, the biggest draw back to using a stat like passer rating, comp percentage and average yards attempt is that they are not the easiest ot calculate given the standard stat report on the ticker. Players like to be able ot have a sense of how they are doing while watching the game, thus keeping it fairly simple (yards, TDs, INTs, mayne completions/carries/receptions) is generally a favorable option for most players. I would certainly think using the more advanced.difficult to follow at a glance categories if you set up some sort of a rotisserie type league Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramhock Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Plummer sucks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 I've been thinking about playing with a few stats besides TDs/yards which seems to be where most people have focused on their scoring. 1) INTs. Will increasing the negative have an effect? 2) Assign some sort of bonus/penaly for passer rating, completions, completion percentages, avg yards per attempt... something... There has to be a way to make them more relevant to draft strategy. I don't believe either will accomplish what you wish. The problem is that there are 32 starting QBs in the NFL. Most leagues only require that 10-12 of them be started on a fantasy roster. No matter how you tweak the scoring the differential between the number 1 QB and the number 5 QB just won't be that significant and the scoring between the number 1 and number 12 QB won't be much more significant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Here is a league I and several other long-timers are in with some interesting scoring that evens out points amongst the positions more than most other scoring systems I've ever seen. This link is to the top 100 scorers across all the positions. IIRC (and without counting them again), the top 10 scorers had 2QBs, 4 RBs, 3 WRs and 1 TE ... the top 25 players had 7 QBs, 8 RBs, 9 WRs and 1 TE ... and the top 100 scorers had 23 QBs, 25 RBs, 39 WRs and 13 TEs. Pretty evenly spread... However, as widely discussed above, lineup requirements also play a huge role in the relative importance of players at various positions. In the league linked to above, we can start one of three lineups: QB / 2RBs / 4WRs / 1TE or QB / 2RBs / 3WRs / 2TEs or QB / 1RB / 5WRs / 1TE ...and, to keep you from having to look it up, our scoring was derived after looking at several dozen combinations of scoring with statistics from 2002, 2003 and 2004, and it was put together with an eye to having the very best at QB, RB and WR score about the same ... the 50%'ile starter to score about the same at QB, RB and WR ... and the top backups to (also) do about the same across these positions as well ... with TEs not far behind. Our scoring rules are... 6pts ALL touchdowns -3pts for INTs 0.05pts for all passing yards 0.1 pts for all rushing or receiving yards 0.2 pts for all rushing attempts 0.2 pts for all receptions for RBs 1.5 pts for all receptions for WRs 2.0 pts for all receptions for TEs (and the occasional QB reception) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 (edited) I've been thinking about playing with a few stats besides TDs/yards which seems to be where most people have focused on their scoring. 1) INTs. Will increasing the negative have an effect? 2) Assign some sort of bonus/penaly for passer rating, completions, completion percentages, avg yards per attempt... something... There has to be a way to make them more relevant to draft strategy. Our local has always given a bonus for completion %. Length of TD is also a factor with anything over 50 yds being worth 12 points. We believe these factors attempt to equalize some of the balance between QB value and RB value. (Yet the STUD RB THEORY still prevails in this league). I agree that the first two rounds of most drafts are somewhat predictable and sometimes boring. IMHO Manning in the late 2nd or early 3rd is about right because............it's friggin' Peyton Manning!! Edited June 21, 2006 by The Holy Roller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Here is a league I and several other long-timers are in with some interesting scoring that evens out points amongst the positions more than most other scoring systems I've ever seen. This link is to the top 100 scorers across all the positions. IIRC (and without counting them again), the top 10 scorers had 2QBs, 4 RBs, 3 WRs and 1 TE ... the top 25 players had 7 QBs, 8 RBs, 9 WRs and 1 TE ... and the top 100 scorers had 23 QBs, 25 RBs, 39 WRs and 13 TEs. Pretty evenly spread... However, as widely discussed above, lineup requirements also play a huge role in the relative importance of players at various positions. In the league linked to above, we can start one of three lineups: QB / 2RBs / 4WRs / 1TE or QB / 2RBs / 3WRs / 2TEs or QB / 1RB / 5WRs / 1TE ...and, to keep you from having to look it up, our scoring was derived after looking at several dozen combinations of scoring with statistics from 2002, 2003 and 2004, and it was put together with an eye to having the very best at QB, RB and WR score about the same ... the 50%'ile starter to score about the same at QB, RB and WR ... and the top backups to (also) do about the same across these positions as well ... with TEs not far behind. Our scoring rules are... 6pts ALL touchdowns -3pts for INTs 0.05pts for all passing yards 0.1 pts for all rushing or receiving yards 0.2 pts for all rushing attempts 0.2 pts for all receptions for RBs 1.5 pts for all receptions for WRs 2.0 pts for all receptions for TEs (and the occasional QB reception) I don't think that scoring does enough to separate the QBs within the QB category which is what I'm really going for. For example the #4, Hasselbeck, is only 30 points higher than the #13, Delhomme. As Blitz is so fond of reminding us, that's ain't no big deal when compared to the difference between the similarly ranked RBs. By comparison, the #4 RB, Barber, is 146 higher than #13, McGahee, and 200 higher than #25, Bell. If there was a 150+ difference between the 4 and 13th ranked QB, I'd bet we'd see QBs drafted a lot earlier than we do now. I'll play with it this Summer. And I'll work on this QB scoring idea as well. I do like the other scoring rules. Its good to see WRs get a boost, and holy cow, look at Gates in the top 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 (edited) Huddle vets know that the difference even when considering a scoring system with 6 pt TDs for QBs is not significantly different (when comparing within the QB category) than any other scoring system. I'm convinced there needs to be a fantasy revolution regarding QB scoring somehow. We have to get some separation in the game so they become more relevant to draft strategy IMO. Stud RB theory, despite the yearly questions about it, continues to be the norm. And its boring. Rounds 1 and 2 are just too predictable year after year. THe answer lies not in the scoring system, as that does little to affect the value of players overall (ie, 6pt TDs and/or reception points have a very minor affect on the overal lrankings of the top players. 6pt TDs have a mild affect on ranking mid-tier QBs, reception points improves the value of mid-tier WRs compared to their mid-tier RB counterparts). The answer lies in creating value. The standard way for determining value is taking the starter baseline approach, so, for a 12-team league that starts 1 QB, 2 RB and 3 WR, you take your estimated points scored for your last starter, in this case, the 12th QB, 24th RB and 36th WR, and subtract those points from the estimates of all of the other players within the position. (Yes, this is a simplistic take, but for our purposes it works). This gives us a baseline to use in comparing ACROSS positions. Under most typical scoring systems, RBs will be heavily valued as there are just a lot fewer of them that provide significant points when compared to the number of required starters from the position. So, if the question is, how do we artificially adjust player values if changing the scoring system doesn't work. Well, you do the only thing possible to significantly alter the vallues, YOU CHANGE THE BASELINE. This is achieved by adjusting the number of required starters for a given position. TO increase the value of a position, you increase the number of required starters. To decrease the value of a position, you decrease the number of required starters. So, without having done the actual numbers (something I may do if my schedule frees up in the next week or so), your options to equalize the position is to increase the number of required QB starters (though, in a 12 or more team league, this means some teams WILL NOT HAVE A BACKUP QB FOR BYE WEEKS), decrease the number of RB starters, or increase the number of WR starters. These suggestions assume that the norm of RBs being heavily valued hold true to your scoring system. exactly. i get frustrated all the time arguing with people who make dumb arguments like "let's make QBs/TEs/WRs more valuable by giving them more points". it just doesn't work that way. this offseason i seriously considered starting a new guinea pig sort of league that overturns a lot of the fantasy football applecarts in order to try and actually achieve some degree of positional parity. the idea would be something like this: - 10 team league (doesn't really work with 12) - 2 starting QBs - 2 starting RBs - 4 starting WRs - 2 starting TEs - maybe one RB/WR/TE flex position - all players get 1 point per reception you'd almost have to go with the "team QB" concept (as used in 32 homers and some other leagues) as opposed to drafting individual QBs and their backups, and cap the number any team can draft at 3. either that or make the second QB slot a QB/RB/WR flex. but basically the idea is putting a lot more QBs, WRs and TEs in play as far as fantasy value is concerned, and thus imposing the exact same sort of positional scarcity on those positions as the current (1QB, 2RB, 3WR) paradigm places ONLY on the RB position. i think it would be fun to try, but haven't really had the steam to try and put it together. Edited June 21, 2006 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 I've also thought that QB / RB / WR / WR / TE plus a WR/TE flex lineup would be interesting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 I've also thought that QB / RB / WR / WR / TE plus a WR/TE flex lineup would be interesting... agree, especially in like a 16 team league, or even more than that (20?) if you could figure out a way to work it so people weren't getting occasional zeroes from the QB position due to injuries/byes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 I've also thought that QB / RB / WR / WR / TE plus a WR/TE flex lineup would be interesting... agree, especially in like a 16 team league, yep, that could help. However in standard points scoring, I still don't think people will draft QBs very early. The problem of less points separation between the QBs in comparison to RB/WR remains. Of course you'd have to have a limit of 2 QBs/TMQB on your team at one time, but I don't know that one week of potentially starting Alex Smith is enough to make people seriously reconsider the strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 There are always other ways to slice the pie Mmmmmmmmm, fantasy pie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoungBob Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Huddle Experts (Vets) are the smartest FFL'ers around, just look at how many posts they have! Don't confuse activity with accomplishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 (edited) agree, especially in like a 16 team league, or even more than that (20?) if you could figure out a way to work it so people weren't getting occasional zeroes from the QB position due to injuries/byes. Or, in a smaller league (8-10 owners), do something like what CD, Bier Meister, Skylive5 and I did last year...have enormous lineups. So, in an 8-10 person league, maybe have: 2 QBs / 3 RBs / 7 WRs / 3 TEs Edited June 22, 2006 by muck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 (edited) yep, that could help. However in standard points scoring, I still don't think people will draft QBs very early. The problem of less points separation between the QBs in comparison to RB/WR remains. Of course you'd have to have a limit of 2 QBs/TMQB on your team at one time, but I don't know that one week of potentially starting Alex Smith is enough to make people seriously reconsider the strategy. Trying to stratify w/in a position ... while keeping that position proportional to the other positions ... is pretty tough. FWIW, that's why, after several hours of tinkering with it, the league I referenced above uses the scoring system it does... Edited June 22, 2006 by muck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.