Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Time to change "standard" scoring?


deaconjohn06
 Share

Recommended Posts

Meh.... There is not a "correct" answer.  Whether it be scoring format, PPR, IDP, or whatever else, t's not a matter of right or wrong, but rather one of PREFERENCE.  Personally, I like variety.  I do IDP dynasty leagues, keeper leagues, redrafts with PPR, redrafts with no PPR, etc.  If I limited myself to just one format, it would quite frankly be BORING. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2017 at 7:15 AM, BA Baracus said:

The correct answer is superflex

 

So to speak, This ^.   Increasing the QB scoring doesn't make the position more valuable because the availability of the position is still the same.  However if the scarcity of the position rises (which is what superflex does) you will increase the demand. 

 

As Gopher says, to each their own.  I've tried superflex and found it's pretty much QB take all, at least with the scoring of the league I was in.  Made it rather dull IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2017 at 8:47 PM, Gopher said:

Meh.... There is not a "correct" answer.  Whether it be scoring format, PPR, IDP, or whatever else, t's not a matter of right or wrong, but rather one of PREFERENCE.  Personally, I like variety.  I do IDP dynasty leagues, keeper leagues, redrafts with PPR, redrafts with no PPR, etc.  If I limited myself to just one format, it would quite frankly be BORING. 

 

 I'm not trying to say that superflex is the only format worth playing, but rather that it is the best way to increase QB value in fantasy. It's a simple matter of supply and demand. If the positional demand isn't there, then all those scoring tweaks still won't punish me for waiting until the 14th round to take my QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BA Baracus said:

 I'm not trying to say that superflex is the only format worth playing, but rather that it is the best way to increase QB value in fantasy. It's a simple matter of supply and demand. If the positional demand isn't there, then all those scoring tweaks still won't punish me for waiting until the 14th round to take my QB.

 

2 QB league accomplishes essentially the same thing but without skewing the game so much that it becomes about whose QB2 can outscore the others, which is what superflex usually does

 

The potential fatal flaw in superflex still comes down to the scoring system - if the scoring system is such that the top RBs and WRs put up about 200 points and those generally in flex consideration are around 130 points scored (all numbers hypothetical here), and top QBs score 350 points with those in flex consideration are scoring around 275 points, then the league essentially becomes determined on who has the highest scoring flex QB. There is never any question that the flex should be a QB, even if it is the #26 QB in the league.

 

Using the default Huddle Performance scoring system, there were 28 QBs with more than 200 point scored last season (Osweiler was number 28 with 233 points). There were 9 RBs over that mark. In fact, if we assume only 1 RB required and a 12 team league, the top flex consideration RB who would be RB13 only scored 177 points (Latavius Murray). If we were to use PPR, now there are 16 RBs with 200+ points, but your RB 13 (still Latavius Murray) only scored 210 points, still 23 points less than QB28. Using the default Huddle Performance system, there were only 3 WRs over 200 points, so if we assume 2 required starters, your flex considerations starting at WR25 (Mike Wallace) only scored 129 points - basically a zero percent chance he would ever be a legitimate flex option. With PPR, there are now 24 WRs with 200+ points scored, and WR25 (Kelvin Benjamin) scored 199 points - still less than QB28.

 

In summary, superflex without some major tweaks to scoring system so that all positions are scoring roughly the same number of points is nothing more than a whose QB2 can outscore the others by a lot.

Edited by Big Country
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2017 at 10:03 AM, Big Country said:

 

2 QB league accomplishes essentially the same thing but without skewing the game so much that it becomes about whose QB2 can outscore the others, which is what superflex usually does

 

The potential fatal flaw in superflex still comes down to the scoring system - if the scoring system is such that the top RBs and WRs put up about 200 points and those generally in flex consideration are around 130 points scored (all numbers hypothetical here), and top QBs score 350 points with those in flex consideration are scoring around 275 points, then the league essentially becomes determined on who has the highest scoring flex QB. There is never any question that the flex should be a QB, even if it is the #26 QB in the league.

 

Using the default Huddle Performance scoring system, there were 28 QBs with more than 200 point scored last season (Osweiler was number 28 with 233 points). There were 9 RBs over that mark. In fact, if we assume only 1 RB required and a 12 team league, the top flex consideration RB who would be RB13 only scored 177 points (Latavius Murray). If we were to use PPR, now there are 16 RBs with 200+ points, but your RB 13 (still Latavius Murray) only scored 210 points, still 23 points less than QB28. Using the default Huddle Performance system, there were only 3 WRs over 200 points, so if we assume 2 required starters, your flex considerations starting at WR25 (Mike Wallace) only scored 129 points - basically a zero percent chance he would ever be a legitimate flex option. With PPR, there are now 24 WRs with 200+ points scored, and WR25 (Kelvin Benjamin) scored 199 points - still less than QB28.

 

In summary, superflex without some major tweaks to scoring system so that all positions are scoring roughly the same number of points is nothing more than a whose QB2 can outscore the others by a lot.

 

If everyone's flexing (or should be) a QB due to the scoring system, isn't that a defacto 2 QB league?

Edited by flemingd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Lets be clear. Super-flex or 2 qb system is a lineup setting. It is not a solution to qb scoring.

 

The article says as one of the main ideas to use QBR. Why has no one talked about that on here.

 

My solution is this.  I give 0.25 for a complete pass and I take -0.2 for an incomplete pass.

 

This makes QB completion percentage relevant. Penalizing innacurate QB and helps a pocket passer catch up to a rushing QB that throws less.

 

It also gives more points to a QB that throws the ball more, and throws with accuracy.

 

The system I made for my league is 6 for a TD and only -3 for a interception.

 

What do people think about this? My league seems to have mixed opinion.

 

However, I do not see how 'superflex' (adding a qb) and then keeping the scoring rules 'traditional'... is any sort of solution in line with the direction of the article? After all, the article is about changing QB scoring, not about 2 QB leagues?

 

Right???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The algorithm for QBR is very complicated, and without there being a QBR option for a fantasy league...

is there any better way than making completion percentage relevant via giving points for completion and subtraction for incomplete pass.

Obviously Including the 6 point for TD and -3 or -4 for interception, then

Throw in a bonus for 200 yards and more for 300 yards and its getting pretty close to replication of the QBR. 

 

At the very least I feel like this helps reward good play, penalize bad play, and makes streaming crap QB a bad idea.

This should also increase scarcity of good QB and in turn increase demand for good QB. 

I think with a set-up like this if you wait in a draft to take a QB late, you get what you pay for;

as opposed to taking the 10th and 11th QB off the board and still being happy you got Matt Stafford and Tyrod Taylor or whatever.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LRx said:

The algorithm for QBR is very complicated, and without there being a QBR option for a fantasy league...

is there any better way than making completion percentage relevant via giving points for completion and subtraction for incomplete pass.

Obviously Including the 6 point for TD and -3 or -4 for interception, then

Throw in a bonus for 200 yards and more for 300 yards and its getting pretty close to replication of the QBR. 

 

At the very least I feel like this helps reward good play, penalize bad play, and makes streaming crap QB a bad idea.

This should also increase scarcity of good QB and in turn increase demand for good QB. 

I think with a set-up like this if you wait in a draft to take a QB late, you get what you pay for;

as opposed to taking the 10th and 11th QB off the board and still being happy you got Matt Stafford and Tyrod Taylor or whatever.

 

 

How have your scoring tweaks affected QB values?

 

Is there now a discernible difference between say QB4 and QB12 without having made QB scoring so high and out of whack with other positions that it is essentially a whose QB scores more this week league?

 

The solution is not likely going to be as simple as a few scoring tweaks here and there.

 

The problem with the superflex is that in most traditional scoring systems, QBs score more points compared to the other positions, thus making them the most likely option for the flex very deep into the QB position, especially if you start more than 1 required RB and ot an extent more than 1 required WR, especially if you don't have PPR.

 

The problem with adjusting QB scoring to create a spread similar to that in other positions is that usually it incorporates increasing overall QB scoring - ie points per completion, greater points per passing yard, etc. - such that QBs now score even more in relation to the other positions that leagues essentially become a who has the hottest QB, especially in the cases that I've seen where these tweaks lead to QBs regularly scoring over 50% of a teams weekly points.

 

I'm not saying I have a solution, but I do know that it is not a simple solution if the goal is to try and bring about parity in the value of the positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is going to know if scoring tweaks for QBs is going to make a difference or not until we have a few years of data.  I'd need to see if that type of scoring is truly going to separate the good from the bad or not.  Is taking a top end QB early really going to pay off over taking one late?  The idea sounds nice but I'd need to see it implemented first and some data to go with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I don't think anyone is going to know if scoring tweaks for QBs is going to make a difference or not until we have a few years of data.  I'd need to see if that type of scoring is truly going to separate the good from the bad or not.  Is taking a top end QB early really going to pay off over taking one late?  The idea sounds nice but I'd need to see it implemented first and some data to go with it.

 

Could easily apply scoring tweaks to the past few years worth of data to see how they affect the value of players to give you an idea of whether or not the scoring tweaks are likely to have the desired outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Big Country said:

 

Could easily apply scoring tweaks to the past few years worth of data to see how they affect the value of players to give you an idea of whether or not the scoring tweaks are likely to have the desired outcome.

 

Certainly could.  Anyone care to do it? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Big Country said:

 

How have your scoring tweaks affected QB values?

 

Is there now a discernible difference between say QB4 and QB12 without having made QB scoring so high and out of whack with other positions that it is essentially a whose QB scores more this week league?

 

The solution is not likely going to be as simple as a few scoring tweaks here and there.

 

The problem with the superflex is that in most traditional scoring systems, QBs score more points compared to the other positions, thus making them the most likely option for the flex very deep into the QB position, especially if you start more than 1 required RB and ot an extent more than 1 required WR, especially if you don't have PPR.

 

The problem with adjusting QB scoring to create a spread similar to that in other positions is that usually it incorporates increasing overall QB scoring - ie points per completion, greater points per passing yard, etc. - such that QBs now score even more in relation to the other positions that leagues essentially become a who has the hottest QB, especially in the cases that I've seen where these tweaks lead to QBs regularly scoring over 50% of a teams weekly points.

 

I'm not saying I have a solution, but I do know that it is not a simple solution if the goal is to try and bring about parity in the value of the positions.

 

Perfect. Thanks  - Big Country -  

Fiinally someone looking at it deeper. The constructive comments are quite helpful.

If we look at the article, with his suggested improvements, using QBR and -4 for pick. 

He did widen the gap between 4th qb and 12th qb.

 

so how my scoring does change the gap from 4 to 12, in theory is the following:

yes granted scoring will increase across the board.

However. High volume accurate passer will score more.

Low volume passer will score less.

low volume inaccurate passer will score even less.

if you're Cam Netwon and throw to ghosts, and get extra fantasy points via rushing

pure pocket passer with high-volume and accuracy will catch up to you in fantasy land

it will help eliminate streaming a qb13, qb14, qb15 as a decent option (again, in theory) because...

they dont' complete passes, are in rush first offense, throw less due to game plan, etc...

or, they are on a team with crap offense that is, 3 and out, 3 and out, 3 and out.

 

--

 

Need another solution to keep overall qb score in check,

in conjunction with this qb point per complete pass percentage idea?

No problem... Throttle back the 25 yards per point.

if you think qb score is too high, adjust that to 33 yards per point.

 

Also, now I see why the -4 is important over -3 for pick in the article.

This would be another thing making gaps from qb4 to qb12

Turn it over, you are not as valuable of a qb, full stop.

 

what do you think Big Country?

 

I surely don't want to see a qb score account for 50% of the total score.

That is just absurd.

Edited by LRx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

what about considering including a bonus for 200 yards 250 yards and 300 yards

but making the 25 yards per point more closer to 50 yards.

 

want to lower overall QB scoring

making it 50 yards a point would do it pretty fast

Edited by LRx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information