Thoughts on the FLEX postion in FF

[Bier Meister]

i am a big fan of a flex lineup. my favorite:

1 qb

1 rb

2 wr

1 te

1 pk

1 d/st

 

2 flex (with a max of 2 rb's)

 

 

as those who are in league with me can attest, i can't stand the wishbone in ff... promotes higher reward in the injury lottery.

[Bronco Billy]

Well, to say the least there are certainly some interesting responses above.

 

Mandatory starting positions and flex players are 2 completely different subjects, but get intertwined in the overall philosophy of a league.

 

Making a position mandatory, or rather how many players owners are forced to start at a position, give players their value. For example, a league that starts 3 WRs as opposed to one that starts 2 WRs has placed a greater value on WRs because each team has to dig deeper into the WR pool to fill their minimum starting requirements at that position.

 

If every team has to start 3 WRs in a 12 team league, the value of WRs in a worst-starter method of comparing players would be based on the 36th best WR in the league (BTW - this is not the system I advocate, but it is fairly easy to explain and comprehend). The same league only starting 2 WRs would have WR value based upon the 24th best WR in the league. Because the 24th best WR scores better than the 36th best WR, the value of the top WRs is less because the top WRs outscore the worst starters by less in the 2 WR league than in the 3 WR league. There is a smaller margin between required starters in the 2 WR league.

 

By playing in a TE mandatory league, you assign significant value to the TE position. The top TEs outscore even the 10th to 12th TEs in the league by a substantial amount. Owners ought to understand that very basic concept when drafting & trading for players. If you draft a top TE, you can be sure that your player will have a significant scoring advantage most weeks when playing other teams in the league. That may counter or at least mitigate someone who managed to draft one of the top 5 RBs in the league and has a similar advanatge at the position. That's a good thing because it helps create balance in the league, and makes it more fun to play for all owners.

 

If TEs are not mandatory, very, very few of them have any real value at all because they essentially compete with WRs for scoring since they get relatively few opportunities like WRs do. In fact, TEs overall as a position have relatively few opportuntities to amass FF points. The problem with making TEs non-mandatory is that because they carry less value in this situation, it places greater emphasis on the upper players at other positions - meaning that there are fewer ways of countering owners who have a few top guys.

 

The more players each owner can start, the more it dilutes the overall player/point pool, and despite making top players more valuable, it gives those players less impact because the points are spread across a greater body of players. In other words, if each owner could only start 1 player, whomever had the top scoring player in the league would have a huge advantage. But because scoring is spread across several players, one owner having the top scoring player also has to compete at all other required starting positions, giving other owners a more equal chance of offsetting that top player. By revoking any starting positions, while you decrease the value of the top players because the overall player pool is smaller, you also make the top players' impact greater.

 

Now on to flex posiitons. By introducing a flex position into your starting lineups, you increase the player pool but at the same time you allow for more diversity in starting lineups. You mix the player pools of two or more different positions beyond where starting requirements force a team to start players at each position, and that enhances different player values. In my opinion, that's a good thing because it allows owner different options in filling out lineups. The more diverse your starting requirements, the more potential there is for competition. Different permutations between starting lineups means more abilities to make up for the scoring difference of the top players.

 

So my response to you is that:

 

1) Introducing flex and eliminating mandatory TE requirements are mutually exclusive events. One actions does not create a requirement for a league to preclude the other.

2) Mandatory TE requirements enhance competition of a league by having greater starting requirements and by enhancing value of the TE position.

3) Flex positions enhance competition of a league by increasing starting requirements and allowing diversity in starting lineups.

 

So if you want my opinion, do both - have mandatory TEs and use a flex option. Try something like this:

 

Start 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WRs, 1 TE, 1 K, and 1 D and then allow for a flex player who is either a RB, WR, or TE. That's a pretty good start for something like this - it keeps starters to 8 players but allows for different lineup possibilities.

 

If your league really is ambitious and really wants to make teams competitive, try something like one of these:

 

Start 1 QB, 1 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, and 1 D with 2 flex players who are either RBs, WRs, or TEs or

Start 1 QB, 2 RB, 4 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, and 1 D with 1 flex player who is either a RB, WR, or TE.

 

Then you're getting well into the depths of RB & WR pools and it really makes starting capabilities very diverse, which consequently makes the league a lot more competitive and interesting. It does require more research and effort, though. If your owners aren't up to that kind of challenge every week, stick with the more basic structure.

 

Good luck & have fun!

[Big Country]

BB -

 

Well said, particular the points about last starter method of determining value not being neccessarily the best but definitely a fairly effective and simple method to explain, and also the effects of mandatory positions and flex positions.

[Kid Cid]

BB -

 

Well said, particular the points about last starter method of determining value not being neccessarily the best but definitely a fairly effective and simple method to explain, and also the effects of mandatory positions and flex positions.

I agree, xlent post BB.

[Bronco Billy]

BB -

 

Well said, particular the points about last starter method of determining value not being neccessarily the best but definitely a fairly effective and simple method to explain, and also the effects of mandatory positions and flex positions.

 

Coming from THE authority on value here, that means a lot, BC. Sincere thanks.

[weebo]

WoW...

thank you you B B you really laid everything out there, i really apprieciate the work you put into that post, i will most definatly be bringing some of your insite to my leaguemates.