49erAddict-08 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 My league is currently debating adding another flex position. Right now we start 1 QB, 1 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE and a Flex (RB/WR/TE --- usually results in teams starting 2 RBs). So we are debating adding another Flex (RB/WR/TE) to the starting lineup. Initially, I thought it sounded good. Having another starting spot can reward teams with more depth by creating more starting opportunities.....however, I'm worried that it will only make RBs more valuable than they already are. Right now, RBs are already the most valuable position and we can only start 1-2. How valuable will they be if we could start 3? Just curious as to what people think of this. Does having the ability to start 3 RBs make them too valuable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49erAddict-08 Posted June 9, 2009 Author Share Posted June 9, 2009 I guess it depends on how many teams. In a 16-team league, I'd probably look towards a WR4 helping me than a RB3. Good point. The league I'm referring to is a 10-team league (actually 20 but 10 per conference). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 If you are in a start 1RB/3WR/1 flex league and RBs are too valuable, I'd say you need to check your scoring rules before you tweak lineups. If you are using ppr, try a graduated ppr. If you aren't using ppr, try a graduated ppr (graduated ppr awards points per reception dependent upon position. ie - RBs get 0.5 ppr, TEs get 1.5 ppr, and all other players get 1.0 ppr). That just might solve your problem, and then you can look at expanding lineups. Once you establish a graduated ppr, you'll find that WRs pass RBs in scoring around RB/WR16 to RB/WR20, which will increase the value of WRs, as well as increasing the value of TEs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 My league is currently debating adding another flex position. Right now we start 1 QB, 1 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE and a Flex (RB/WR/TE --- usually results in teams starting 2 RBs). So we are debating adding another Flex (RB/WR/TE) to the starting lineup. Initially, I thought it sounded good. Having another starting spot can reward teams with more depth by creating more starting opportunities.....however, I'm worried that it will only make RBs more valuable than they already are. Right now, RBs are already the most valuable position and we can only start 1-2. How valuable will they be if we could start 3? Just curious as to what people think of this. Does having the ability to start 3 RBs make them too valuable? as others have hinted, the answer to your question depends on your scoring system. if there's no PPR (points for receptions), then yeah, allowing 3 RBs makes that position WAAYY too important and would be a big mistake IMO. adding PPR (or graduated PPR) evens that out significantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49erAddict-08 Posted June 9, 2009 Author Share Posted June 9, 2009 Thanks for the input guys. It is not a PPR league and it most likely won't be. I agree with what you guys are saying. Having the ability to start 3 RBs in a non-PPR league would really make the league RB heavy. I feel like it is a good mix right now with the ability to start 1-2 RBs, so I'll probably push to not add another flex player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Why not make the new flex WR/TE only? There's your good compromise answer if you find you won't be able to kill the second flex and won't be able to get PPR implemented. If I were in that league and the new flex was implemented with no other change in the rules, I'd almost HAVE to go RB/RB/WR in the draft and then wh0re up as many "upside" RB/WR in the late-middle rounds of my draft. And I'd make damn sure I had at least one guy like a Kevin Faulk, Sproles or J Norwood who is guaranteed to get in the game 5-10 times on passing downs because with guys like those you have "lighting in a bottle" opportunity that every little screen or dump off can turn into a TD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49erAddict-08 Posted June 10, 2009 Author Share Posted June 10, 2009 Yeah the (WR/TE) flex does sound like a good compromise. I'll propose it if it comes to that. I also had another idea come to me and wanted to get your guys' opinions. Might be too crazy. There are too many guys in my league against PPR, so that's out. But I might be able to get them to go with PPR for the flex position ONLY. In other words, the league will continue to be standard scoring except for the flex position which would be PPR to encourage the use of WRs as well as RBs for that position. Has anyone seen this before? Good idea? or should I lay off the dope? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Let me understand this, if I may: Your league will absolutely not go for ppr, but it would go for starting 3 RBs or ppr for the flex position only (what's to stop anyone from starting Forte in the flex spot rather than RB1)? There is a good reason why hallucinogenic drugs continue to remain illegal in the United States... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Yeah the (WR/TE) flex does sound like a good compromise. I'll propose it if it comes to that. I also had another idea come to me and wanted to get your guys' opinions. Might be too crazy. There are too many guys in my league against PPR, so that's out. But I might be able to get them to go with PPR for the flex position ONLY. In other words, the league will continue to be standard scoring except for the flex position which would be PPR to encourage the use of WRs as well as RBs for that position. Has anyone seen this before? Good idea? or should I lay off the dope? Good luck with the manual scoring of that one. But, as BB pointed out, if that somehow passes, I hope you manipulate the holy hell out of the system and put your RB1s and WR1s into the flex spots Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49erAddict-08 Posted June 11, 2009 Author Share Posted June 11, 2009 Let me understand this, if I may: Your league will absolutely not go for ppr, but it would go for starting 3 RBs or ppr for the flex position only (what's to stop anyone from starting Forte in the flex spot rather than RB1)? There is a good reason why hallucinogenic drugs continue to remain illegal in the United States... Ok, maybe not the best idea eh? Alright, there's been a lot of discussion going on amongst the league owners. I brought up the graduated PPR idea that BB posted about. It sounds like there is some support to try 0.5 ppr for WR/TEs only. Which is a scaled back version of the one BB brought up. Has anyone tried this before? Seems like it could be a step in the right direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 A flex position did the opposite for my leagues. We run 1QB, 1RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1K, 1D and 2 Flex. This eliminates the need for owners to have two starter worth RBs but also allows them to roll with 3 if they'd like. It allows for more flexability in the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Seems like it could be a step in the right direction. Agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Agreed +1 If you're not gonna be able to kill the second flex then the .5 PPR would tend to even things out. Is this auction or draft? I'd hate that system if it were draft. I'd do everything I could to get a low draft position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 IMO, if you get the extra flex spot AND 0.5PPR for WR/TE only, I'd look to nail 1-2 solid RBs in the ifrst 3 rounds then fill my squad with as much WR potential as possible (forgoing RB depth, contrary to popular opinion as that may be). PPR, even when applied equally to all positions, generally has the effect of pushing up the value of the mid tier and lower WRs (ie, guys you consider for flex) vs. their RB counterparts. Adding PPR to the WR/TE only will still do this, but to a greater degree, and as you only need to start one RB but 3 WRs, RB depth can be sacrificed in this system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49erAddict-08 Posted June 11, 2009 Author Share Posted June 11, 2009 +1 If you're not gonna be able to kill the second flex then the .5 PPR would tend to even things out. Is this auction or draft? I'd hate that system if it were draft. I'd do everything I could to get a low draft position. It's a redraft league. Just out of curiosity why would you hate the system and why would you want a low draft position? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49erAddict-08 Posted June 12, 2009 Author Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) IMO, if you get the extra flex spot AND 0.5PPR for WR/TE only, I'd look to nail 1-2 solid RBs in the ifrst 3 rounds then fill my squad with as much WR potential as possible (forgoing RB depth, contrary to popular opinion as that may be). PPR, even when applied equally to all positions, generally has the effect of pushing up the value of the mid tier and lower WRs (ie, guys you consider for flex) vs. their RB counterparts. Adding PPR to the WR/TE only will still do this, but to a greater degree, and as you only need to start one RB but 3 WRs, RB depth can be sacrificed in this system. Thanks for the advice. However, I've crunched the numbers and I don't think adding .5 ppr to only WR/TE increases the value of WRs over RBs any more than 1 ppr to all positions. In fact, it might increase it less. For example, I took the stats from last year for the top 40 rbs and the top 60 wrs (double our current starting lineup requirements). The RBs averaged 30 rec/year while the WRs averaged about 70. So, if you do the math: Under Full PPR - RBs average a 30 point increase a year, while WRs average a 70 point increase, making the relative value increase of WRs over RBs to be 40 points / year. Under .5 PPR (WR/TE only) - RBs would increase 0 while WRs would average a 35 point increase, relative value increase would be 35 points / year. So I don't think this system inflates WR value over RB any more than a full PPR does. Edited June 12, 2009 by 49erAddict-08 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Thanks for the advice. However, I've crunched the numbers and I don't think adding .5 ppr to only WR/TE increases the value of WRs over RBs any more than 1 ppr to all positions. In fact, it might increase it less. For example, I took the stats from last year for the top 40 rbs and the top 60 wrs (double our current starting lineup requirements). The RBs averaged 30 rec/year while the WRs averaged about 70. So, if you do the math: Under Full PPR - RBs average a 30 point increase a year, while WRs average a 70 point increase, making the relative value increase of WRs over RBs to be 40 points / year. Under .5 PPR (WR/TE only) - RBs would not get an increase while WRs would average a 35 point increase, relative value increase would be 35 points / year. So I don't think this system inflates WR value over RB any more than a full PPR does. Value is not about total points scored, it is about point differential. First, you must look at the point difference within the position to determine a value score, and then you look at those scores across positions. A simple method I utilize (albeit not perfect) is the lowest starter valuation method. So, for example, for a 12 team league that starts 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, you take the score of the 12th QB (I use a 3 yr average to do this, not of individual players, but of positional scoring, ie 3 year average of the top scoring QB, 3 year average of 2nd highest QB score, etc., so that a single year does not skew the numbers). You then take the score for the #12 QB and subtract that from all other QBs. This gives you your value score. Do the same for the other positions, utilizing the #24 RB, #36 WR and #12 TE (obviously you adjust for your leagues size and starter requirements, guesstimating flex usage). Now you have a value baseline that you can use to compare players across positions. So, pop quiz, of the following players, who is the most valauble, i you were to have to build a team of 1 QB, 1 RB and 1 WR: QB1 - 50 pts. scored QB2 - 45 points scored RB1 - 40 points scored RB2 - 30 points scored WR1 - 40 points scored WR2 - 37 points scored Now this is a very simplistic look at the matter, but it is how the notion of "value" has to be approached when comparing players of different positions. Flex spots make this more complicated, as it is one of the few situations where you do an apples to apples comparison of raw score across different positions to determine the more "valuable" player. Okay, I've rambled long enough, but hopefully that cursory review shows why your quick look at the effect of a straight PPR add-on vs. a 0.5 PPR for WR/TE only is a bit flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49erAddict-08 Posted June 12, 2009 Author Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) Yeah, I understand that my analysis was a little 'quick-and-dirty' and I get the concept of VBD where the RB in your example would be the most valuable since the drop-off from RB1 to RB2 is the greatest. I also think your advice was solid!--to grab 2 good RBs in the first few rounds then stock up on WRs. I guess I was just under the impression from some of the comments made that people feel like giving .5 ppr to 'WR/TE only' would make WRs very overvalued. I think my analysis--albeit quick and incomplete--still shows that the .5 ppr method doesn't necessarily inflate WR value anymore than full ppr does when applied across the board. Edited June 12, 2009 by 49erAddict-08 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I guess I was just under the impression from some of the comments made that people feel like giving .5 ppr to 'WR/TE only' would make WRs very overvalued. I think my analysis--albeit quick and incomplete--still shows that the .5 ppr method doesn't necessarily inflate WR value anymore than full ppr does when applied across the board. Generally speaking, scoring system changes (ie PPR, 6 pt. passing TDs vs. 4 pt. passing TDs, 1 per 50 passing vs. 1 per 25 passing yardage, etc.) do very little to affect overall player value. Adjustments to starting lineup requirements however do a lot. In most 1 QB required leagues, you generally speaking will put your self at a disadvantage by going QB early, however, if the league is a start 2 QB required league (with all other postions relatively "standard" and unchanged from the start 1 Qb league), all of a sudden, top QBs become first round talent. This is because while the drop off from the #1 to #10 QB is much more gradual and less severe than their RB and WR counterparts, the drop off from #1 to #20 is more quick and severe, and the drop off at the other positions is unchanged. What I am getting at is that the easiest way to boost the value of WRs vs. RBs is to increase the minimum required starters at the WR position (or, conversely, reduce the number of required RB starters). If you are a league that has a fixed 2 RB and 2 WR setup, add an extra required WR to boost the value of the WR position (or, cut RBs to 1 and add a flex). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49erAddict-08 Posted June 12, 2009 Author Share Posted June 12, 2009 Agreed. I like how you point that out. I think a lot of people think that giving QBs 6 pts/td etc. will raise their value, when in actuality, it really doesn't very much. Fun discussion. I kind of like getting into the nuances of scoring and lineups. Out of curiosity, Big Country, you seem like you've done your homework when it comes to scoring / lineups, etc. What do you think is the ideal scoring / lineup for a 10-team league? I know this is largely a matter of opinion, but just curious if you have any input on the matter. Anyone else can feel free to chime in as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Out of curiosity, Big Country, you seem like you've done your homework when it comes to scoring / lineups, etc. What do you think is the ideal scoring / lineup for a 10-team league? I know this is largely a matter of opinion, but just curious if you have any input on the matter. Anyone else can feel free to chime in as well. IMO, there is no "ideal". One of the best leagues I was in had a very uniques scoring system that was heavily distance based. The longer the score, the more the points. TDs ranged from 5-20 points, and yardage was minimal... 1 pt. per 10 but that did not kick in until 60 yards. Not an "ideal" scoring system, but a lot of fun as one play could generate a massive swing. To give an idea, one year Eddie kennison was the #1 scoring WR as he caught a ton of bombs that year, plus we scored kick and punt return TDs to the individual. Also, IMO, no ideal lineup requirements. Just figure that the deeper your starting lineup requirements, the higher the skill level required to manage deeper rosters, etc., the shorter the requirements/roster levels, the less skill required as owners don;t have to dig as deep to find players that can contribute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Out of curiosity, Big Country, you seem like you've done your homework when it comes to scoring / lineups, etc. This could be the understatement of the year. 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.