Who has the best FFL point system?

[archiebonker]

Hey guys, back with another question. I'm already starting to work on our 8th season and as I've been trying to keep things fresh. I might want to tweak our league point system a bit. We don't have individual defensive players.

Like to see what you have and maybe I can use it or take parts from different leagues.

 

Any other ideas for leagues is always great to read. Please share.

 

Thanks.

[tazinib1]

Tiered PPR -- TE/1.5,WR/1,RB/.5

 

I love this system especially with a WR/RB/TE flex

[archiebonker]

Thanks Taz. Thinking about going with Flexes this year....at least proposing it. So it this system works well even with less RB's and more WR's are doing well? And does it balance out with the TE having the higher PPR?

[tazinib1]

I'm sure other's will argue, but this system rocks. Makes all positions more valuable

[keggerz]

 

[stevegrab]

I'm sure other's will argue, but this system rocks. Makes all positions more valuable

 

 

Doesn't that pretty much go for any PPR though, whether tiered or otherwise? Not sure what you mean by more valuable.

 

A long time ago we had modest points for yardage, and then gave TE 1 per 10 instead of the 1/25 or 1/50 that we had been using for rush/receiving yards. So many TE did very little, that they often had 0 points, and it became a wasted roster spot, unless you had a stud. By increasing the points for a TE you could say we made them more valuable.

 

When tweaking a scoring there should be a goal, and the changes need to meet that goal. I'm not sure what goals archiebonker has. Seen a lot of threads about him trying to change his league, from 15 teams, to doing flexes, possibly doing PPR or IDP, etc. What is the goal? Just shaking things up to keep it new/fresh?

Edited March 7, 2013 by stevegrab

[archiebonker]

Hey Steve. We've been around for 8 years, going into our 9th season. We've had from 12 to 16 members. Had 14 this last season. I'm always looking to increase it to 16 again, but only if we changed to a bunch of Flex positions because to the depth of the waivers and how hard it was to put in a starting lineup. We have a pt system that has 1.25 pts per PPR for TE's and 1 for RB and WR.

I've noticed that the game has gone more to the air instead of running on the ground. Good RB's are a prime and if you make it too hard to make pts from RBs, you lose a interest in them. I'm sorry about all the questions. I just want to have a final plan to bring before the league.

 

So First..... We have a 1QB 2RB 3WR 1TE 1K 1DEF starting lineup now

- Do we go with one flex position or go with a Max and Min for RB-WR-TE ...or stay the same and just lower the bench size

Second.....Do I tweak the point system so it works for more teams and with Flex postions.

 

Thanks guys

[delusions of grandeur]

Easy thing to do is to remove one of the required WRs and/or RBs and make a flex or 2.... With 16 teams, 48 required starting WRs and 32 required starting RBs is alot and can really put teams in a bind with shallow depth. I do prefer 2RBs/3WRs for a 12-team or less (don't like flex if not needed), but there just aren't that many quality players per position to distribute in a 16 team league, so flexibility helps greatly.

 

This goes hand-in-hand with PPR, as it helps to provide more startable players, and not as much of a premium on top RBs like you have with non-PPR. It keeps RB and QB value in check by increasing value of WR and TE (not to mention more depth even at RB for ones who are receiving threats)

 

I'd say tiered PPR, with QB, 1RB, 2WR, 1TE, 2 Flex is ideal for a 16 team league to allow for flexibility of having more options to build a strong team, rather than just the one lucky team who strikes gold with QB and RB like some other formats.

 

Further, I also like the tiered PPR, where an advantage could also be had with strong TEs, but at the same time more depth at TE if you don't have a top one. Also, there are so few elite TEs to where I don't see any issue with them having the same value as the top WRs.

[archiebonker]

Thanks Delusions for writing me.

 

I'll have to think about that one too. (2 Flex players and 1 RB 2WR) I was also thinking about that instead of the Max Min for each position. Right now we have 14 teams and we might end up sticking with it unless we change a few things. I wonder if I lower the bench to 4 (6 last season) and do the two flex positions will help enough to allow guys to have lots of options in the Waivers.

[Bier Meister]

Thanks Delusions for writing me.

 

I'll have to think about that one too. (2 Flex players and 1 RB 2WR) I was also thinking about that instead of the Max Min for each position. Right now we have 14 teams and we might end up sticking with it unless we change a few things. I wonder if I lower the bench to 4 (6 last season) and do the two flex positions will help enough to allow guys to have lots of options in the Waivers.

 

 

there are two sides to that coin: 1) yes. there should be more options on the waiver wire because...... 2) you will be forcing teams to drop players to cover byes and injuries.

 

4 bench players is a pretty thin team

[tazinib1]

I'm not bragging here (ok just a tad) but this is by FAR, the hardest league I'm in.

 

http://www17.myfantasyleague.com/2012/home/24991#0

[stevegrab]

archie,

 

Sorry meant no offense, just seems like you're trying to implement a ton of changes and hard to understand what the goal is. For example you still don't know if you'll have 14 or 16 teams, while at the same time trying to set roster requirements and scoring rules.

 

I think DOG makes sense. Having flex with more teams. Also with more teams possibly fewer bench sports means more players on waivers. Flex will give teams some options on starters during bye, rolling with decent options from their bench rather than making roster moves.

 

We've discussed the lack of talent on waivers in our league, which is a direct result of a very deep bench (same as # if starters) and no limits on players on a roster (e.g. hoarding of players at one position). If we were expanding to 14, I'd say we must reduce our bench and strongly consider at least one flex spot.

 

Good luck, just try to make some decisions and see what that means to other factors. Juggling them all at once is a pain.

[Big Country]

All of this is heavily based on opinion, as some people like more waiver options, some like less options as it means either deeper rosters or teams are forced to look to trades more to address deficiencies.

 

Lineup setup is similar - more flexibility means less need to trade and more ability to find a replacement on your bench and/or on the wire.

 

As the size of the league increases, I think the need for more roster/lineup flexibility increases, otherwise you are just increasing the luck factor too much.

 

Whether a 14 or 16 team league, I personally prefer the following (assuming non-IDP league):

 

For lineup, - 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1-2 Flex (RB, WR, TE), 1 K and 1 DEF

 

That works out to 8 starters if you do 1 flex, 9 starters if you do 2 flex.

 

For roster size, I am a fan of 16-18 spots. I find 14 to be too shallow, with 18 being the upper end of the spectrum for a 14-16 team league with 9 starting spots. With 16 spots, owners could carry some combination of 2 QBs, 3-5 RBs, 4-5 WRs, 1-3 TEs, 1-2 Ks and 1-2 DEF. They can opt for depth at the RB/WR/TE positions in lieu of carrying a 2nd K or D, or they can go shallower in the positions spots to carry a backup K and D. I am not a fan of limiting the number of players in a position that a team can carry, let owner's manage and build their rosters as they see fit.

 

 

As for scoring, more and more I am becoming an advocate of the tiered PPR approach, though I admittedly have not done enough research on actuals over the last 3-5 years to see if it has a real effect on positional values (obviously lineup requirements have a big effect, further complicating the analysis).

[keggerz]

All of this is heavily based on opinion, as some people like more waiver options, some like less options as it means either deeper rosters or teams are forced to look to trades more to address deficiencies.

 

 

BOOM...it really is all about personal preference.

[tazinib1]

As for scoring, more and more I am becoming an advocate of the tiered PPR approach

 

BAMN!!!!!!!!!!

[archiebonker]

Awesome insight guys. Lots to think about. Options to think about are:

 

14 - 16 teams

Have Ranges of position Min and Max

Have 1 or 2 Flexes with 8 or 9 starters

Have small benches (more to pickup on Waivers) Or have larger Benches and relay on teams trading more and more on the Draft.

Keep our PPR but what those should be for RB WR and TE's. ( 1pt for RB and WR and 1.25 for TE's ??)

 

And TAZ....Great site, should share ours with you. Going to do some work on our 2013 site again. I take my winnings and spend it. I play to break even each year. (I'm the commish for the last 8 years and do this for the fun, not the money)

http://www30.myfantasyleague.com/2013/home/30491 ( Hope you guys like.....but it will be changing a bit for this year)

[archiebonker]

So Big Country, if I go with that starting lineup your saying (2 Flex) . Are you saying we should have a large bench? Just wanted your opinion. It would take away from the importance of waivers. But that might be ok too...

 

Do we increase the number players on the bench or do we lower it? That's the question.

[Big Country]

So Big Country, if I go with that starting lineup your saying (2 Flex) . Are you saying we should have a large bench? Just wanted your opinion. It would take away from the importance of waivers. But that might be ok too...

 

Do we increase the number players on the bench or do we lower it? That's the question.

 

 

I'm saying do 1 or 2 flex spots, depending on preference.

 

Personally, what I have found is that the deeper you make the starting lineups, the more you do end up rewarding the owners that do their research and find the deeper players that contribute, and take the gamble to roster that player.

 

As for roster size, I tend to prefer not exceeding double the starting lineup - so, if you have 8 positions in your lineup, don't exceed a 16 man roster. In doing so, you make your owners make a decision between carrying a little extra depth at RB/WR at the expense of not having a backup K/D or even TE versus carrying those backups and having relatively shallow depth at the core RB/WR positions.

 

It really comes down to playing a big balancing game between lineup size and requirements and roster size, as each has an effect on the style of the league, for lack of a better term.

 

More lineup flexibility allows owners to build their teams in more unique ways - RB heavy, WR heavy, heck, even TE heavy. It also makes it a little easier to fill in for bye/injuries as you can draw from a larger pool of players to fill a position. Flip side is this makes trading a bit less important as teams are often able to fill gaps wih their own roster.

 

Deeper rosters may lessen the waiver wire depth and the need for making trades, in theory at least, but it also allows owners to stash a couple sleepers on their rosters and not play the game of being the first one on their computer Tuesday morning to get the hot pickup or reward the last place owner that isn't doing their research with the hot pickup. That's where I have found that allowing teams some depth, but not so much that they can carry backups to all of their positions plus stach sleepers makes it interesting. You know make the owners decide what is more important to them - all around shallow depth, or depth at certain spots and some sleepers rostered while taking chances at other spots.

 

As for scoring system, as I mentioned, I am more and more enjoying a tiered PPR system, though I have not done enough analysis to see if it really has a meaningful impact on positional valuations or not.

 

Hope that clears things up a bit.

[archiebonker]

We've always played PPR Leagues ( 8 years now) Love it. I actually made TE's have a 1.25 ppr and the rest 1.

 

I've already proposed the limits for positions....but now I'm starting to lean towards the two Flex.

 

The reason I was thinking of lowering the bench from 6 to 3 or 4 was to make Waivers even more important. We have Blind Bid Waiver Rule. But I'm wondering if this is good or not.