Board Meeting: Tier 2 QBs

[luckydawg]

Scoring system, please.

 

Scoring system is 6 pts all TDs. 1 pt for 10 yrds RB/WR, 1pt for 20 yrds QB , some bonus pts for long TDs for all the positions.

[ajfalcone]

Ive always went the way of waiting for value and ended up with less then mediocre playing matchups and not really succeeding in that dept. This year starting new dynasty and not getting stuck with scraps. will be targeting qb early and solidifying that position for years to come. Stud rbs come often enough and the rbbc approach, really makes going after a qb early now alot easier.

[Big Country]

How is it skewed? It evens out the fact that most leagues start 2 Rbs and 3 WRs. If the RBs scored as much as the QBs then you have a fantasy RB league.

 

We start 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 K and 1 Def . Define last starter so I can give you a number.

 

Assuming 12 teams, then last starter would be the 12th QB, 24th RB and 36th WR.

 

It appears skewed as the QBs are scoring so many more points than the other positions, and in addition to that, there is a very large variance in scoring.

 

Generally speaking, as has been stated numerous times, total points scored is not an indicator of value, it is the point differential. One simple method for determining value is the last starter method, which simply put takes the score for the last starter at each position, takes that away from all other players at that position, leaving you with a "value" number that can be used to compare players across positions. In this method, the 'last" starter at each position has a value of zero. I personally like to use at least a three year average for reviewing the values within a scoring system (documented in other posts).

 

based on your post a few before this, your #1 QB last year had a value of 180 (296-116=180). your top RB scored 193 and your top WR 132, and that is total points, not value points. Basically, this is the definition of skewed scoring.

[Zooty]

Helpful thread

[luckydawg]

The last RB scored 61 pts and the last WR 31 pts. Comparing total potential points of combined starting units in my league, 1QB vs 2WR vs. 3WR and taking the midpoint of each group , the 6th best QB, the 12th RB , the 18th WR and multiplying it by the starting unit number all three units score about 200 pts. Our scoring system was designed to even out the three scoring units.

[Bronco Billy]

In my league the top QB scored 296 pts, the top RB scored 193 and the top WR scored 132. The #12 QB scored only 116 pts.

 

Scoring system is 6 pts all TDs. 1 pt for 10 yrds RB/WR, 1pt for 20 yrds QB , some bonus pts for long TDs for all the positions.

 

How did QB12 score only 116 pts? At 1 pt/20 yds passing, 3220 yds = 161 pts and that's with no TDs. 17 QBs exceeded that passing plateau last year.

[luckydawg]

How did QB12 score only 116 pts? At 1 pt/20 yds passing, 3220 yds = 161 pts and that's with no TDs. 17 QBs exceeded that passing plateau last year.

 

Ints and FL are negative. Also we have scoring yardages they have to get before they get any points. QB is 200yrds , RB and WR is 50 yrds.

[Bronco Billy]

Ints and FL are negative. Also we have scoring yardages they have to get before they get any points. QB is 200yrds , RB and WR is 50 yrds.

 

Could we just get a link to the league? The scoring system you've just described is radically different from your initial description of league scoring.

[luckydawg]

How is it radically different?

 

Scoring for Offensive Categories

FG - Field Goals 3 points

Plus 2 points for a FG of 40 to 49 Yds

Plus 4 points for a FG of 50 to 100 Yds

FL - Fumble Lost, Including ST plays -1 point

IKRTD - Individual Kick Return TD 6 points

Plus 3 points for a IKRTD of 50 to 70 Yds

Plus 6 points for a IKRTD of 71 to 110 Yds

IPRTD - Individual Punt Return TD 6 points

Plus 3 points for a IPRTD of 50 to 70 Yds

Plus 6 points for a IPRTD of 71 to 110 Yds

MFG - Missed Field Goal -1 point

MXP - Missed Extra Point -1 point

Pa2P - Passing Two-point Conversion 2 points

PaInt - Passing Interception -2 points

PaTD - Passing TD 6 points

Plus 3 points for a PaTD of 50 to 70 Yds

Plus 6 points for a PaTD of 71 to 100 Yds

PaYd - Passing Yards 0 points

Re2P - Receiving Two-point Conversion 2 points

ReTD - Receiving TD 6 points

Plus 3 points for a ReTD of 50 to 70 Yds

Plus 6 points for a ReTD of 71 to 100 Yds

ReYd - Receiving Yards 0 points

Ru2P - Rushing Two-point Conversion 2 points

RuTD - Rushing TD 6 points

Plus 3 points for a RuTD of 50 to 70 Yds

Plus 6 points for a RuTD of 71 to 100 Yds

RuYd - Rushing Yards 0 points

XP - Extra Points 1 point

Special Scoring for Quarterbacks

PaYd - Passing Yards 200+ PaYds = 1 point for every 20 PaYds

Plus a 3 point bonus @ 200+ PaYd

ReYd - Receiving Yards 0+ ReYds = 1 point for every 20 ReYds

RuYd - Rushing Yards 51+ RuYds = 1 point for every 10 RuYds

Plus a 3 point bonus @ 50+ RuYd

Special Scoring for Running Backs

PaYd - Passing Yards 0+ PaYds = 1 point for every 20 PaYds

ReYd - Receiving Yards 50+ ReYds = 1 point for every 10 ReYds

RuYd - Rushing Yards 50+ RuYds = 1 point for every 10 RuYds

Special Scoring for Wide Receivers

PaYd - Passing Yards 0+ PaYds = 1 point for every 20 PaYds

ReYd - Receiving Yards 50+ ReYds = 1 point for every 10 ReYds

RuYd - Rushing Yards 50+ RuYds = 1 point for every 10 RuYds

Special Scoring for Tight Ends

ReYd - Receiving Yards 50+ ReYds = 1 point for every 10 ReYds

RuYd - Rushing Yards 50+ RuYds = 1 point for every 10 RuYds

 

Scoring for Defensive Categories

DFR - Defensive/ST Fumble Recovered (ID/DT/DST) 1 point

DTD - Total Defensive and Special Teams TD 6 points

Plus 3 points for a DTD of 50 to 70 Yds

Plus 6 points for a DTD of 71 to 110 Yds

Int - Interceptions 1 point

PA - Points Against, Total Points Scored 0 - 1 PA = 10 points

2 - 5 PA = 5 points

6 - 7 PA = 3 points

8 - 49 PA = 0 points

50 - 100 PA = -10 points

SACK - Sack 1 point

STY - Safety 10 points

[Big Country]

The last RB scored 61 pts and the last WR 31 pts. Comparing total potential points of combined starting units in my league, 1QB vs 2WR vs. 3WR and taking the midpoint of each group , the 6th best QB, the 12th RB , the 18th WR and multiplying it by the starting unit number all three units score about 200 pts. Our scoring system was designed to even out the three scoring units.

 

But the value is still so drastically off that the league is very heavily skewed to QBs. If you want balance across the positions, you need the value numbers to work out roughly equal, not the raw numbers of the sum total by position.

[luckydawg]

But the value is still so drastically off that the league is very heavily skewed to QBs. If you want balance across the positions, you need the value numbers to work out roughly equal, not the raw numbers of the sum total by position.

 

We have no skew when it comes to week to week scoring. The only way to avoid skew on draft day is if the league only required 1 qb, 1 wr and 1 rb otherwise it's always going to be a skew on draft day any other way. It's mathematically impossible to normalize it any other way. Most leagues are skew towards either the RBs or WRs because of this reason.

Edited July 7, 2009 by luckydawg

[Big Country]

We have no skew when it comes to week to week scoring. The only way to avoid skew on draft day is if the league only required 1 qb, 1 wr and 1 rb otherwise it's always going to be a skew on draft day any other way. It's mathematically impossible to normalize it any other way. Most leagues are skew towards either the RBs or WRs because of this reason.

 

You're league is skewed.

 

You are now trying to equate the sum total of a position to individual player value. The rest of us are talking just individual players.

 

If you did a value analysis of your league, I would guess the top 7-10 players would all be QBs, then you would see a block of RBs, then a mix of Wrs and RB, some TEs.

 

Most leagues that are trying to not be skewed strive for more balance throughout the value rankings, such that there is a mix of the positions throughout, more along the lines of say a top 20 of 7-8 RBs, 7-8 WRs, 2-3 QBs and a couple of TEs, and a similar mix in the 21-40 range, etc.

 

This would actually make no set strategy of stud RB, or stud WR, or stud QB work as there would be no dominant position, and rather the skill of analyzing what players will outperform their ADP, what tendencies your league mates follow, an ability to adjust on the fly based on the picks happening ahead of you, etc. come into play rather than playing the QB (or RB depending on league setup) lottery.

 

Some leagues that I have looked at have come close to this with a combination of adding required WRs (more than 2), adding a flex and some tweaks to scoring system, most notably PPR and its varaints.

 

So, I'm not disparaging your league setup in anyway, but based on the information you have provided to try to argue that it is not heavily skewed to QBs is ludicrous.

[luckydawg]

You're league is skewed.

 

You are now trying to equate the sum total of a position to individual player value. The rest of us are talking just individual players.

 

If you did a value analysis of your league, I would guess the top 7-10 players would all be QBs, then you would see a block of RBs, then a mix of Wrs and RB, some TEs.

 

Most leagues that are trying to not be skewed strive for more balance throughout the value rankings, such that there is a mix of the positions throughout, more along the lines of say a top 20 of 7-8 RBs, 7-8 WRs, 2-3 QBs and a couple of TEs, and a similar mix in the 21-40 range, etc.

 

This would actually make no set strategy of stud RB, or stud WR, or stud QB work as there would be no dominant position, and rather the skill of analyzing what players will outperform their ADP, what tendencies your league mates follow, an ability to adjust on the fly based on the picks happening ahead of you, etc. come into play rather than playing the QB (or RB depending on league setup) lottery.

 

Some leagues that I have looked at have come close to this with a combination of adding required WRs (more than 2), adding a flex and some tweaks to scoring system, most notably PPR and its varaints.

 

So, I'm not disparaging your league setup in anyway, but based on the information you have provided to try to argue that it is not heavily skewed to QBs is ludicrous.

 

Actually no. If you did your analysis correctly you would realize that the drop off from the top tier QBs is quite huge and the next tier of QBs, the scoring levels are much closer so it doesn't make sense to take them early. Their point totals may be greater than most WRs but the differential is not that great so after you take that into account you'll see we have a good mix of RBs and WRs in the first round. More RBs than WRs but some WRs do make it.

 

You have to look at the sum of the unit, to do it any other way will bring in skew. I'm not sure why you can't see this? Any other way would skew either the RBs or WRs.

Edited July 7, 2009 by luckydawg

[tazinib1]

I like marshmellows on my skews.

[luckydawg]

Most leagues that are trying to not be skewed strive for more balance throughout the value rankings, such that there is a mix of the positions throughout, more along the lines of say a top 20 of 7-8 RBs, 7-8 WRs, 2-3 QBs and a couple of TEs, and a similar mix in the 21-40 range, etc.

 

2-3 QBs is not balance. You've basically devalued the QB position. On your value system the rest of the QBs are worthless.

[The Wolf]

BB and BC...let it go men. Although your points are an education for many of us, you are not getting thru to this guy. He simply does not want to listen to reason.

[Bronco Billy]

We have no skew when it comes to week to week scoring. The only way to avoid skew on draft day is if the league only required 1 qb, 1 wr and 1 rb otherwise it's always going to be a skew on draft day any other way. It's mathematically impossible to normalize it any other way. Most leagues are skew towards either the RBs or WRs because of this reason.

 

 

[Crash Davis] Having a conversation with you is like a Martian talking to a Fungo [/Crash Davis]

 

BC - I don't think he can comprehend what you are saying. He's so defensive about his scoring system that he isn't going to listen to a logical argument. Let it go, my man.

 

luckydawg - if that scoring system works for your league and everyone is happy about it, that's all that really counts. I'd have a tough time playing in a league like that because the skewed scoring system provides such a distinct and wide advantage to those whom have high first round draft picks, but again, if it works for you and your league, the more power to you.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Bronco Billy

[luckydawg]

BB and BC...let it go men. Although your points are an education for many of us, you are not getting thru to this guy. He simply does not want to listen to reason.

 

I am opened to good logical arguments but I really haven't seen one here. You are mixing up indexing with valuations. Guys have won with early round picks and late round picks. This league has been around for 15 years, it is not my scoring system but theirs. I just joined 5 years ago. It makes perfect sense to group units together. Please give a concrete example why this doesn't make sense - the commish is always open to suggestions in the league. These guys are mostly statisticians so please give a detailed example so I can present it.

[Bronco Billy]

It makes perfect sense to group units together. Please give a concrete example why this doesn't make sense

 

Because it makes no sense to compare the required starters from one position to the required starters from another position without figuring their value within their position first. That baseline at each position and then a comparison of all players at that position to the position's baseline allows you to create a meaningful relationship between all players.

 

ie - In a very simplistic sample, if we were in a two team league that started only 1 QB and 1 TE, and you selected Brady as your QB and Gonzalez as your TE, and I selected Manning as my QB and Witten as my TE, it goes to follow that each player might score like this:

 

Brady 390 pts

Manning 365 pts

Witten 135 pts

Gonzalez 95 pts

 

So while you have the highest scoring player in the league, my team would still beat your team because my TE outscores your TE by more than your QB outscores my QB. That's what value is all about, and why it is a valid way to compare players between positions. In other words, Witten has more value than Brady does in this league even though Brady outscores Witten by a ton.

 

It makes no sense whatsoever to compare your starting QB to my starting TE - there is no basis without an inter-positional valuation first.

[Big Country]

Because it makes no sense to compare the required starters from one position to the required starters from another position without figuring their value within their position first. That baseline at each position and then a comparison of all players at that position to the position's baseline allows you to create a meaningful relationship between all players.

 

ie - In a very simplistic sample, if we were in a two team league that started only 1 QB and 1 TE, and you selected Brady as your QB and Gonzalez as your TE, and I selected Manning as my QB and Witten as my TE, it goes to follow that each player might score like this:

 

Brady 390 pts

Manning 365 pts

Witten 135 pts

Gonzalez 95 pts

 

So while you have the highest scoring player in the league, my team would still beat your team because my TE outscores your TE by more than your QB outscores my QB. That's what value is all about, and why it is a valid way to compare players between positions. In other words, Witten has more value than Brady does in this league even though Brady outscores Witten by a ton.

 

It makes no sense whatsoever to compare your starting QB to my starting TE - there is no basis without an inter-positional valuation first.

 

I think the main difference is coming from this:

 

We are assessing each starter as a separate unit, luckydawg is assessing each position as a separate unit. The other thing is, it appears (though I may be wrong here as we are obviously dealing with limited information) that based on the numbers luckydawg's league is looking at a setup where the total points scored by the required starters at each position come close to similar totals, rather than looking at contribution by individual player.

 

So, I will concede without full evidence, but by taking luckydawg's word for it, that the sum value of required RBs (in this case 2) is comparable to the sum value of required QBs (in this case 1), or in other words, on average, RBs as individuals (which I am assuming is the way they are drafted) have half the value of QBs as individuals, and thus the statement that the league, as set up, when looking at individuals, which is the method in which they are drafted, is skewed towards QBs.

[luckydawg]

What you refer to as value by the last starter method is basically a way of indexing to determine the relative out-performance otherwise known as Alpha. So if there were no rules governing how many WRs, RBs or QBs needs to be on a starting lineup you can look at value this way. But because each team is made up of a certain number of individuals at each position, a portfolio of assets, you have to look at the expected value of not only each one but each group. Otherwise there will always be an arbitrage.

[Big Country]

What you refer to as value by the last starter method is basically a way of indexing to determine the relative out-performance otherwise known as Alpha. So if there were no rules governing how many WRs, RBs or QBs needs to be on a starting lineup you can look at value this way. But because each team is made up of a certain number of individuals at each position, a portfolio of assets, you have to look at the expected value of not only each one but each group. Otherwise there will always be an arbitrage.

 

You have this wrong. If a team could be made up of any combination of players from any position, then only raw score matters. But, as you correctly state, because fantasy teams are made up of a fixed number of units within a position, a method must be used to baseline these separate positions so that they can be compared against each other, which the last starter method does.

 

When looking within a single position (or slot, as with a flex spot), raw score is fine.

 

When comparing across positions, a value baseline must be determined.

[luckydawg]

You have this wrong. If a team could be made up of any combination of players from any position, then only raw score matters.

 

That is what I just said in that sentence. Please read it again.

 

Even then the raw score does not give you an indication of how well you are drafting on draft day. All you have is total alpha but you still need to index yourself or have a base team to get an idea of how you are doing.

Edited July 8, 2009 by luckydawg

[Bronco Billy]

What you refer to as value by the last starter method is basically a way of indexing to determine the relative out-performance otherwise known as Alpha. So if there were no rules governing how many WRs, RBs or QBs needs to be on a starting lineup you can look at value this way. But because each team is made up of a certain number of individuals at each position, a portfolio of assets, you have to look at the expected value of not only each one but each group. Otherwise there will always be an arbitrage.

 

Wow. You're way off base, but you sure have the buzzwords mastered. I'll bet you interview great.

[luckydawg]

Wow. You're way off base, but you sure have the buzzwords mastered. I'll bet you interview great.

 

These are very basic terms used in everyday statistics. Anyone with a basic understanding of finance or statistics will know these terms.