PPR or Standard

[delfamdelfam]

I was reading this thread on ESPN and it got me thinking, which type do you guys prefer. Personally I play PPR as it gives WR/TE a chance against RB's. RB's are already super valuable and standard leagues skew that even more to their side.

[DMD]

Most serious players prefer PPR since it makes more parity across positions and more fantasy relevant players. Without, the annual best RB is a far bigger advantage to own. It is more fair and allows more strategy.

[Henry Muto]

I play both!

[Chargerz]

I play both!

+1. Both scoring systems have their unique challenges. I enjoy them both.

[Turf Smurf]

Most serious players prefer PPR since it makes more parity across positions and more fantasy relevant players. Without, the annual best RB is a far bigger advantage to own. It is more fair and allows more strategy.

This Abraham you speak of, is he from Texas as well?

 

I thought sure he was a Bears fan.....

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

PPR

[detlef]

Most serious players prefer PPR since it makes more parity across positions and more fantasy relevant players. Without, the annual best RB is a far bigger advantage to own. It is more fair and allows more strategy.

I've never understood why people don't just skew the yardage? Why not just make receiving yards count for more than rushing yards? We already do that with the manner in which we discount passing yards. If you took the average of the top 10 rushers and compared that to the average of the top 10 receivers, you could come up with a nice factor. Maybe 7.5 yards per point instead of 10 yards. Something like that. Hell, you could give TEs a pt every 6 yards to make them more important.

 

This way, you've accomplished the goal of leveling the playing field without rewarding someone for something that may have not resulted in a very positive play for his team.

[delusions of grandeur]

I've never understood why people don't just skew the yardage? Why not just make receiving yards count for more than rushing yards?

The problem with simply skewing the yardage is that it doesn't solve the issue of making the field deeper and more competitive, it only makes it more comparable at the top end... For the RBs outside of the top 10 or so workhorses, their value would be even more diminished, and thus, it only makes finding the right top RB even more important.

 

Just like you hear about solid "PPR recievers", there are also guys like Rice and Best who can derive a good bit of their value by making receptions and big plays in the passing game. By taking away PPR, someone like Rice might still have good value, but someone who's not an every-down back like Best might not.

 

I understand looking at the highest scorers at each postion to skew it and make them more comparable, but it still does little to address postional scarcity of bellcow RBs, which is where the majority of their value is derived. With PPR, you can close some of that gap, both within the RB postion, and in comparison to the other positions.

 

 

i like tiered PPR with RBs getting the least and TEs getting the most.

I'm not as crazy about the tiered system. Though it of course helps make the TE position more comparable to other positions, it also makes guys like Gates TOO valuable, IMO, when he already was one of the highest scoring receivers with a level PPR... I guess that's my only beef, that it creates an unnecessary run at the position with people scattering to pick up on of the top ones. The elite TEs not only greatly surpass the other TEs, but can become more valuable than a vast majority of WRs as well.

Edited June 13, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[Bronco Billy]

The elite TEs not only greatly surpass the other TEs, but can become more valuable than a vast majority of WRs as well.

 

What makes you think Gates isn't more valuable than a vast majority of WRs?

[delusions of grandeur]

What makes you think Gates isn't more valuable than a vast majority of WRs?

Seriously, do you ever respond to anyone except to nitpick? Maybe read 2 sentences up from that where I said "when he already was one of the highest scoring receivers with a level PPR"

 

But since Gates missed a few games, let's use Witten instead to prove my point:

 

In one league with a non-tiered .5/PPR, Witten scored 189 points, which would have made him the 15th ranked WR if we compare it to that position. In comparison, in a tiered .75/RB, 1/WR, 1.5/TE, he scored 295 points, which made him the #2 ranked WR, just ahead of Brandon Lloyd...

 

So if you think Witten should be worth a late-first round pick, then maybe that seems appropriate, but when you consider that it puts him at about 80 points higher, rather than about 30-40 points higher than the next TE's totals, then yes I'd say that's all skewed quite a bit more than I'd prefer.

Edited June 13, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[Bronco Billy]

Seriously, do you ever respond to anyone except to nitpick? Maybe read 2 sentences up from that where I said "when he already was one of the highest scoring receivers with a level PPR"

 

 

Did you or did you not post the following:

 

I'm not as crazy about the tiered system. Though it of course helps make the TE position more comparable to other positions, it also makes guys like Gates TOO valuable, IMO, when he already was one of the highest scoring receivers with a level PPR... I guess that's my only beef, that it creates an unnecessary run at the position with people scattering to pick up on of the top ones. The elite TEs not only greatly surpass the other TEs, but can become more valuable than a vast majority of WRs as well.

 

And so I asked you a very simple and straight forward question, which apparently was not only an affront to you but caused severe bunching in you panties. Take some Midol, bud.

 

Jesus H Christ.

[Bronco Billy]

In one league with a non-tiered .5/PPR, Witten scored 189 points, which would have made him the 15th ranked WR if we compare it to that position. In comparison, in a tiered .75/RB, 1/WR, 1.5/TE, he scored 295 points, which made him the #2 ranked WR, just ahead of Brandon Lloyd...

 

So if you think Witten should be worth a late-first round pick, then maybe that seems appropriate, but when you consider that it puts him at about 80 points higher, rather than about 30-40 points higher than the next TE's totals, then yes I'd say that's all skewed quite a bit more than I'd prefer.

 

Now, to create a discussion - which is why we post at a FF MB in the first place - (if it is not too harsh on your delicate sensibilities, your majesty) this is two year average values of the WR and TE position for a ppr weighted league (WRs get 1 ppr, TEs get 1.5 ppr) using a worst starter system in what would be a 12 team league and starting requirements of 3 WR/1TE 1 O flex (WR1 averages 322 FF ppy, TE1 averaged 302 ppy):

 

POS Ave.Value

 

WR1 167.50

WR2 152.00

WR3 135.65

WR4 133.20

WR5 128.40

WR6 127.05

WR7 125.95

TE1 123.25

WR8 119.60

WR9 103.15

WR10 100.20

WR11 95.50

WR12 88.25

WR13 87.10

WR14 84.55

WR15 81.45

WR16 80.50

TE2 74.70

WR17 73.05

WR18 68.90

WR19 68.55

WR20 63.75

TE3 63.55

WR21 61.55

WR22 50.45

TE4 49.85

TE5 48.30

WR23 45.55

TE6 44.95

WR24 41.90

WR25 39.15

TE7 35.75

WR26 34.65

WR27 30.15

WR28 27.40

TE8 27.40

WR29 25.90

WR30 24.35

WR31 22.70

WR32 21.75

WR33 16.05

WR34 10.90

WR35 10.50

WR36 8.90

TE9 8.75

WR37 7.15

TE10 6.45

WR38 5.60

WR39 4.65

TE11 4.15

WR40 1.25

WR41 0.90

WR42 0.00

TE12 0.00

 

This shows why no rational person would draft TE1 in the first round, despite only scoring 20 FF pts less per year than WR1. The difference between your best and worst starters is greater for WRs than it is for TEs, because of the starting requirements of each position. Having run quite a few of these over the past few years based upon 6 consecutive years' worth of data or more, I've found that TE1 usually has a value that would have him coming off the board in around the top to middle of the 3rd round in a 12 team league - which seems appropriate for a guy as valuable to his team as a Gates or a Witten is.

 

Again - this is with a graduated scoring system as described above.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[delusions of grandeur]

Did you or did you not post the following:

 

 

 

And so I asked you a very simple and straight forward question, which apparently was not only an affront to you but caused severe bunching in you panties. Take some Midol, bud.

 

Jesus H Christ.

Haha, you might wanna settle down yourself. I answered your question and supported my position. I think the top TE being equated with the 15th ranked WR seems alot more appropriate than being equated with the #2 scoring WR.... It's the difference between a 3rd/4th, maybe 2nd round pick, and valuing him above guys like Roddy White and Calvin Johnson.

 

So maybe I should clarify, "Is Gates more valuable than the vast majority of WRs", yes, you got me there, but should he be more valuable than seemingly every single WR, since there are far more comparable top WRs than top TEs? No, that's where I think that you've taken an already very valuable player, and essentially made him unstoppable vs those who don't land a top TE in this format.

 

If you wish to debate the tiered system, then I'm all ears, but I have no interest in clarifying one out-of-context statement out of a much larger point about whether tiered PPR is a good format. If you feel that Gates deserves to get an advantage on top of his value he achieved on his own, then okay, but I do not think the system achieves anything but gross disparity in both TEs and their value vs. WRs...

 

In fact, with elite TE being an already scarce and lopsided position, it would be like allowing bonuses that make RBs like AP more valuable. It just doesn't make sense if your goal is more parity and competitiveness, like the implied goal is in a PPR format.

Edited June 13, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[delusions of grandeur]

Now, to create a discussion - which is why we post at a FF MB in the first place - (if it is not too harsh on your delicate sensibilities, your majesty) this is two year average values of the WR and TE position for a ppr weighted league (WRs get 1 ppr, TEs get 1.5 ppr) using a worst starter system in what would be a 12 team league and starting requirements of 3 WR/1TE 1 O flex (WR1 averages 322 FF ppy, TE1 averaged 302 ppy):

You do realize that discussion was what I was looking for in the first place, so don't act like I'm unwilling to debate it. It was just that your first statement was completely irrelevant to what I was saying, so don't get your panties in a bunch.

This shows why no rational person would draft TE1 in the first round, despite only scoring 20 FF pts less per year than WR1. The difference between your best and worst starters is greater for WRs than it is for TEs, because of the starting requirements of each position. Having run quite a few of these over the past few years based upon 6 consecutive years' worth of data or more, I've found that TE1 usually has a value that would have him coming off the board in around the top to middle of the 3rd round in a 12 team league - which seems appropriate for a guy as valuable to his team as a Gates or a Witten is.

 

Again - this is with a graduated scoring system as described above.

 

Well, if you're talking about a league with no flex, then that data is indeed interesting and backs up your point. However, if you have a league with flexible rosters with in some cases up to 3 TEs allowed (as it is in my tiered leagues), then you have created a ton of incentive to snatch potentially-elite ones up as early and often as you can.

 

I just don't see the need to do it in a position already thin in elite talent, much like it doesn't make sense to create any more incentive to take the top RBs. They already have plenty of value. I'd be interested to hear the alternative view of why people think this is such a good practice.

Edited June 13, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[Bronco Billy]

Well, if you're talking about a league with no flex, then that data is indeed interesting and backs up your point. However, if you have a league with flexible rosters with in some cases up to 3 TEs allowed (as it is in my tiered leagues), then you've done nothing to diminish the value of TE, and in fact have created a ton of incentive to snatch potentially-elite ones up as early and often as you can.

 

What? Unless you burn another very high draft pick on another TE (with the intention of starting your 2nd TE as a flex - and in which case you are letting value at other positions slip high in the draft), what difference does rostering have?

 

Grabbing an elite TE with say your 4th rounder only means that other teams will be grabbing RB2, WR3s, etc with their 4th round picks that should effectively offset the value of that 2nd TE.

 

Not sure where you are going with this, other than to think you might be a little confused in the difference between scoring and value.

[delusions of grandeur]

What? Unless you burn another very high draft pick on another TE (with the intention of starting your 2nd TE as a flex - and in which case you are letting value at other positions slip high in the draft), what difference does rostering have?

 

Grabbing an elite TE with say your 4th rounder only means that other teams will be grabbing RB2, WR3s, etc with their 4th round picks that should effectively offset the value of that 2nd TE.

 

Not sure where you are going with this, other than to think you might be a little confused in the difference between scoring and value.

Okay, I might be overstating the bump that TE's get in a normal year, but as for the bolded, scoring is largely irrelevant to me compared to gaps in scoring. In other words, if a top TE is going to net me up to 80 points beyond a non-top TE, while I could pick up a WR or RB later that is likely to score within the points I've made up for at TE (since you have to go through alot more WRs and RBs to get to that triple digit dropoff to other TEs), then I think that's overvaluing the elites that are already extremely valuable at their position.

 

In other words, it doesn't matter to me if QBs are the highest scorers, since it's a position filled with guys who can put up comparable numbers. I understand that. However, the TE postion on the other hand, is usually far more scarce, despite the fact that in non-flex leagues, teams are only required as many TEs as QBs. Thus, the gap in scoring is all that I care about when looking at that position, and that gap is extremely significant in a year like last year, when you're placing Witten as a top 2 reciever, while he's putting up triple digits over all other starting TE's way farther down the list. It may help depth at the position, but it also makes it alot more top-heavy towards the elite, is my point.

 

But if we're done poking holes in my logic, would you care to explain why this is more desirable than just a level PPR format?

[Bronco Billy]

But if we're done poking holes in my logic, would you care to explain why this is more desirable than just a level PPR format?

 

Because it increases the value of the WR position, really enhances TE value, and moderates RB value. That gives you a better bunching of overall player value, which makes leagues more competitive and interesting (IMO). You could do the same type of thing by changing starting requirements, but adjusting scoring is simpler (again, IMO).

[delusions of grandeur]

Because it increases the value of the WR position, really enhances TE value, and moderates RB value. That gives you a better bunching of overall player value, which makes leagues more competitive and interesting (IMO). You could do the same type of thing by changing starting requirements, but adjusting scoring is simpler (again, IMO).

See, I still think you run into the same issue as standard scoring, but just with a different top-heavy position that you're making even more top-heavy.

 

The gap between Witten and the 12th rated TE was almost 115 points, and even more importantly 76 points above the 2nd rated TE. Of course, in other years you'll find a few more closer to the #1 TE, but you would have had to get to WR23 before you can find the same gap between those and the #1WR last year.

 

Though when you get to RB, this is where it supports unsing this format better. You only have to get to the 6th RB to get that same gap in the tiered PPR system. So this is where I'll admit that the system does help a bit in devaluing RBs.

 

However, given that it does not really achieve much more parity in RBs than does a level PPR system, then all this really does is devalue WRs in favor of TEs, due to the abundance of comparable WRs within triple digits of eachother in this format. In other words, last year I would have been better off taking Witten early and waiting for WR22 Brandon Marshall (assuming his ADP was actually as low as his production), than I would have taking Roddy White and the 12th rated TE Keller (assuming that his production also matched his ADP). (BTW, don't read too much into these examples, I'm just making the point that the gap is much larger at TE under this system).

 

Now if everyone is patient and waits until the 3rd or 4th to start the TE run, then yes, you'd be an absolute fool to draft a TE any earlier; But I think that's more indicative of their percieved value than it is their actual value in a tiered system, where I feel that it's inflating the potential top TE's far too much. Again, stud TE's are already plenty valuable as it stands due to their scarcity, and IMO, it simply makes them too valuable in comparison to other TEs, as well as WRs... Really JMO though. I do understand better now why it is preferable to some.

[Avernus]

I think standard scoring should be a thing of the past....PPR is a quality scoring addition...

[Big Country]

The gap between Witten and the 12th rated TE was almost 115 points, and even more importantly 76 points above the 2nd rated TE. Of course, in other years you'll find a few more closer to the #1 TE, but you would have had to get to WR23 before you can find the same gap between those and the #1WR last year.

 

Haven't had time to run my own numbers, but to clarify, are you saying the disparity between the #1 and #23 WR was close to the 76 point drop you had between the #1 and #2 TE or to the 115 between #1 and #12 TEs?

 

Specific league settings, in particular roster requirements, have a hugh effect on the discussion, but from a value perspective, if you are saying that the disparity from the 1-12 TE was similar to that of the 1-23 WR, than that is generally a good thing in most leagues with a 2 WR/1TE basic format, as it implies there is relative parity between the positions as a whole, using the worst starter method of valuation. Obviously further analysis of value jumps within each position would need to be done to formulate a draft strategy, but I think that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

 

You also noted that your particular league has a wide range of flex spots. Your post does not state your reasons specifically, and obviously I don't have actuals to run to look at this, but if you are saying that you would consider grabbing a second top TE early because of how much they outscore their TE peers than you are making a flaw in your analysis - when comparing across positions for flex consideration, you have to compare actual point production, not positional valuation as you do when considering what position to draft, because you must be comparing against a common baseline.

 

 

And, though you did note it, I think it is very important to point out that the 76 point disparity between the #1 and #2 guys is likely an aberration not supported by multiple years of data (similar to what we saw a few years back when Brady blew away the #2 QB, even though each of the other 10 years of data shows that it is an aberration and not the norm)

 

 

I guess this didn't get to the heart of the original post about flat PPR vs. graduated systems (fodder for a different day when I have time to run numbers perhaps), ut hopefully did get people to take a fresh look.

[Big Country]

I think standard scoring should be a thing of the past....PPR is a quality scoring addition...

 

 

So, if there are more leagues that use PPR (not saying there are, but sure seems to be trending that way), would that not make PPR the new "standard"?

[Avernus]

So, if there are more leagues that use PPR (not saying there are, but sure seems to be trending that way), would that not make PPR the new "standard"?

yes...and then there will be a new addition that makes the new/old standard (with PPR) obsolete as well...maybe with what we've seen with a higher level of performance scoring..

[delusions of grandeur]

Haven't had time to run my own numbers, but to clarify, are you saying the disparity between the #1 and #23 WR was close to the 76 point drop you had between the #1 and #2 TE or to the 115 between #1 and #12 TEs?

 

Sorry, I was saying that the gap between the 1-23WRs was the same 115 points between the 1-12 TEs.

 

True, I see where I've neglected the "worst starter", with more WR spots to fill, then you're correct that it's pretty comparable. However my original issue was more that it was heavily top-weighted (but perhaps you're correct that last years was not a normal year to draw from)... But seriously, when is TE ever deep with elite talent? That's where I feel it's far too skewed towards the elite talent, but maybe I proved myself wrong in that example, when I could wait quite a bit longer for lower-rated TE, and still do just fine pairing him up with top talents at other positions.

 

As for the flex, I'll admit that was just flawed thinking on my part, since with a flex it would only help lower-tiered TE's in comparison to other flex players, rather than necessitate a need for a second top TE.

 

So now that you and BB have discredited most of my line of thinking, do you still not think that it's a bit excessive to take a scarce position as far as top talents, and greatly widen that gap (in the case of my leagues more than doubling it with tiered PPR) between top and even the second tier? Keeping other positions and overall depth out of mind for a minute, that's the part that I keep getting stuck on... It's a tremendous bump for the top TEs that I still have trouble justifying.

Edited June 13, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[Henry Muto]

I play in non PPR, PPR and tierd PPR.

 

I play in 1 RB/WR/TE PPR

I play in .5 RB, 1 WR/TE PPR

I play in 1 RB/WR , 1.25 TE PPR

I play in 1 RB/WR, 1.5 PPR

 

I guess you can say I play them all!

[Bronco Billy]

So now that you and BB have discredited most of my line of thinking, do you still not think that it's a bit excessive to take a scarce position as far as top talents, and greatly widen that gap (in the case of my leagues more than doubling it with tiered PPR) between top and even the second tier? Keeping other positions and overall depth out of mind for a minute, that's the part that I keep getting stuck on... It's a tremendous bump for the top TEs that I still have trouble justifying.

 

First off, no one is trying to discredit your thinking. I'm not sure why you personalize these threads so much. We are having a discussion where different sides disagree, no more. There's nothing personal, at least from my perspective.

 

Secondly, you were taking a position that wasn't supported by the facts you were using. It doesn't mean your position is wrong, but rather that your defense of it was just a bit sideways.

 

Third, there is no "right" way to score FF. If you and your leaguemates are all comfortable with the scoring system you use, then it is right for you. Because I don't like it doesn't mean diddly. You and your league believe that TEs are simply not as good/valuable NFL players as WRs, and so you implement that perception in your league makeup. I disagree and think a stud is a stud and makes a disproportionate impact on his team's performance regardless of what position he plays, and should be scored appropriately in relation to studs at other positions if there is a way to do it(I do not extend this thinking as far as Ks are concerned, however). I do believe Witten is at least as valuable to the Cowboys as Austin. I do believe that Finley is at least as valuable to the Packers as Jennings. And I do believe that there is no WR on SD (and very few anywhere across the entire league) who can carry Gates' jock when he is healthy. You don't. That's okay.

 

Fourth, BC is right on target. Once you fill your manadatory starting requirements, any other player used as flex players should be pooled by all positions that you can flex in your league. If someone elects to burn a higher draft pick on a 2nd TE because he scores well in a graduated ppr league, it means that he is also also drafting from the flex pool for his required starters at RB or WR. Nothing wrong with that - it's just understanding the rules of the league that one is playing in and optimizing value across your lineup. That's what really makes FF fun, IMO. I prefer more permutations, so I like TE value to be a bit higher so that it is more comparable to WRs and RBs. It adds diversity to the league. Others prefer their leagues to be more simple and straightforward. Again, if it works for you and your leaguemates, then that is the right scoring system for you.

 

It doesn't make me right, but it is certainly worthy of in-depth discussion, especially on this board. If I can make a suggestion that might make FF more enjoyable for some others out there who might be willing to dip into something a bit more complex, I get downright pleased with myself.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Bronco Billy