Robash Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 I'd just like to hear some opinions about it from people that have used it in thier leagues before. It sounds pretty interesting and I'm thinking about trying it out for this years league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 We used it last year, and are modifiying in a little bit this year. The main problem with it is in an attempt to make the TE more important, it makes the TE too important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robash Posted July 12, 2005 Author Share Posted July 12, 2005 Please share, something like giving TE's .15 points per yard instead of the .20? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turf Smurf Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Please share, something like giving TE's .15 points per yard instead of the .20? 875697[/snapback] I agree with Perch. We've been using it with many tweeks going on three years now. It really seems to level the field which was our hope in trying to create an ultra competetive league. But based on my observations last year, the TE has become TOO important. I think .15 per yard is a lot more reasonable then .20. We'll see... GREAT SYSTEM THOUGH! The Huddle comes through again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roller Coasters Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 We kept the yardage the same and lower the reception value from 2 to 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Well the tight end scoring was devised long before Antonio Gates was setting TD records or Gonzalez was getting 100+ receptions a year. Sorta make them boys like the studliest RB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turf Smurf Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Exactly DMD....one bonehead (or maybe not) kept Gates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Scorp Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 (edited) We have been using it for a couple years. It really does tend to even out the positions. I really like the defense scoring as your defense can loss a game for you. They're no longer an after thought. Here are the top 25 from my league last year. (note: we did not use decimal scoring) 1 QB P. Manning, ind 516 2 QB D. Culpepper, min 502 3 TE T. Gonzalez, kc 492 4 TE A. Gates, sd 427 5 TE J. Witten, dal 401 6 QB D. McNabb, phi 400 7 QB T. Green, kc 392 8 QB B. Favre, gb 383 9 QB J. Plummer, den 377 10 QB J. Delhomme, car 376 11 QB A. Brooks, no 345 11 QB T. Brady, ne 346 13 QB M. Bulger, stl 341 14 QB D. Brees, sd 332 14 TE E. Johnson, sf 333 16 WR M. Muhammad, chi 322 16 TE R. McMichael, mia 322 18 QB M. Hasselbeck, sea 311 19 TE J. Wiggins, min 301 20 RB S. Alexander, sea 297 20 WR J. Horn, no 297 22 QB K. Collins, oak 296 23 RB T. Barber, nyg 293 24 WR J. Walker, gb 291 25 WR T. Holt, stl 286 As you can see the top RB Alexander was #20 overall. Barber was #23. This year we are giving 1 pt per RB reception to help their points out. This would have helped LT move into 14th and Barber to 12th. Alexander would move up to 17. As you can see Manning/Culpepper and Gonzalez were head and shoulders above all others. However, you still need to have a balanced attack. I had both Culpepper and Gonzalez but ended up playing the owner who had Manning and Gates for 3rd place. The winner had Brees/Whitten/McGahee/C Johnson/D Jackson/KJones/Vinatieri/Buffalo. His defense scored 20 points the first week of playoffs (mine (NE) scored -1 and I lost by 15) and scored 13 in the finals while his opponets scored -11- he won by 22) His defense won him the championship!! Edited July 13, 2005 by T-Scorp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 (edited) Ok... we're setting up the GvE league now, and I implemented the Huddle Perfect Scoring System. I would never try to denegrate DMDs vast FF knowledge, and I realize that last year had some oddball TE performances... But using this system Jermaine Wiggins missed two games, and still outscored LaDanian Tomlinson!!!! Can someone explain to me either why this makes sense, or how to modify it best to make sense? Edited August 1, 2005 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1stimer Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 We used it last year, and are modifiying in a little bit this year. The main problem with it is in an attempt to make the TE more important, it makes the TE too important. 875654[/snapback] We looked at it for this year, but we noticed this as well ... Gonzo was unreal and Gates not close behind because of the receptions and yardage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 DMD... what changes would you make to keep it "perfect", or was this along the lines of the intended effect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 there's nothing "perfect" about it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 In the last two years, TE's have done far better (the top 10 that is) and with that the scoring should be adjusted to only give 1 point receptions to them. In 2003, those TE numbers were unimagineable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 been a while since i looked at it, but i recall the defense scoring as really being whacky. i guess i just don't see what you accomplish by taking the biggest, most luck-affected FF scoring variables (like TEs and Ds) and accentuating them by giving them inordinate amounts of points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 been a while since i looked at it, but i recall the defense scoring as really being whacky. i guess i just don't see what you accomplish by taking the biggest, most luck-affected FF scoring variables (like TEs and Ds) and accentuating them by giving them inordinate amounts of points. 905068[/snapback] How is a TE a "luck-affected" position? Or better yet, how is a TE more "luck-affected" then a WR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 In the last two years, TE's have done far better (the top 10 that is) and with that the scoring should be adjusted to only give 1 point receptions to them. In 2003, those TE numbers were unimagineable. 905051[/snapback] That's what we ended up doing in Good vs. Evil. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 (edited) As posted in this thread, a discussion on 'alternative scoring systems' and using ALL player performances for the past three years AS A GROUP to minimize the impact of any SINGLE huge season by players of a particular position, realizing that positions go 'in favor' and 'out of favor' a bit each season. STANDARD "performance scoring" doesn't exist. It varies from league to league. However, it generally looks like this: QB: 4pts / passing TD 6pts / rushing or receiving TD 1pt / 25 yards passing 1pt / 10 yards rushing or receiving RBs and WRs: 6pts / rushing or receiving TD 1pt / 10 yards rushing or receiving I realize that some leagues (ie, your league) may be different than this (negative points for INTs, points for receptions, bonus points for any of a number of things), however, the scoring rules above are about as 'standard' as they come in FF leagues using performance scoring. Next, I realize that lineup requirements vary from league to league. For the purposes of our analysis, I'm assuming a lineup of 1 QB, 2 RBs, and 4 WRs. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS THAT FOLLOWS, I AM USING THE PERFORMANCE STATISTICS FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS IN AGGREGATE, TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF ANY ONE ENORMOUS SEASON BY ANY ONE PLAYER AT ANY POSITION (ie, Moss circa 2003, Holmes circa 2003 or Manning circa 2004). If you'd look at players from the past three years with the statistics above, you'd get the following AVERAGE production: Top 3 QBs / year = 388 fantasy points Top 3 RBs / year = 328 fantasy points Top 3 WRs / year = 277 fantasy points 4-6 QBs / year = 338 fantasy points (15% decline from the top three) 4-6 RBs / year = 276 fantasy points (19% decline) 4-6 WRs / year = 191 fantasy points (19% decline) 7-12 QBs / year = 312 fantasy points (8% decline) 7-12 RBs / year = 228 fantasy points (21% decline) 7-12 WRs / year = 173 fantasy points (10% decline 13-24 QBs / year = 238 fantasy points (31% decline) -- the backup QBs 13-24 RBs / year = 178 fantasy points (28% decline) 13-24 WRs / year = 145 fantasy points (19% decline) 25-36 RBs / year = 124 fantasy points (44% decline) -- the backup RBs 25-36 WRs / year = 119 fantasy points (22% decline) 37-48 WRs / year = 97 fantasy points (24% decline) 49-60 WRs / year = 77 fantasy points (25% decline) -- the backup WRs Under these scoring rules, the #1 RB performance over the past three years (Holmes-2003) is exceeded by five QBs (Manning-2004, Culpepper-2004, Culpepper-2002, McNabb-2004 and Gannon-2002). The #1 WR performance of the past three years (Moss-2003) is exceeded by 44 QBs (including such memorable performances as McNabb-2003 where he had 3223 yards passing, 16TDs passing, 359 yards rushing and 3TDs rushing)! ...it seems that having ANY scoring system where the #1 performance at WR over the past three seasons is overshadowed by 44 QBs performances (ie, the top 14-15 QBs each season) is a bit out of whack... ...SO... ...what to do...what to do... One option is to take a bit of a different view towards the scoring set up. First, other than 'trying' to balance out positional scoring, is there any real reason why most leagues award more points for a yard gained by a RB than for a QB who tosses a pass? I mean, a yard is worth the same amount in the NFL (ie, 1/100th of the way towards a TD)...why is it different in fantasy football? Second, other than 'trying' to balance out positional scoring, is there any real reason why most leagues award more points for scoring a TD on a 2yd goalline plunge or on a 7yd slant than for throwing the 7yd slant? ...I didn't think so either... Which got me to thinking. What if a league scoring system started with the following: 1) All yards gained are worth the same 2) All TDs are worth the same ...and went from there? What would happen? Well, for starters, QB points would go THROUGH THE ROOF. So, you can't really stop there, or else the problem we were trying to address would be even more remote than before. So, what else? Well, what else adds (or subtracts) value to an NFL team that's pretty easy to count? Rushing attempts? Receptions? Passing Completions? Passing attempts? Interceptions? Fumbles? Yes, to all six. Ok, so, what if we put some positive value on the first three and negative points on the last three...where would we end up? If we put 0.05pts / rushing attempt (ie, 20 attempts = 1pt) for ALL players ... and ... if we put 0.25pts / reception (for RBs) and 1pt / reception (for WRs) ... and ... if we put 0.3pts / pass completion ... and ... if we put -0.6pts / pass attempt ... and ... if we put -2pts for INTs and fumbles ... we'd end up somewhere pretty interesting. Before I tell you where we'd end up, I want to address, "Why negative points for pass attempts?" Because the more you throw it the more downs you are eating up to get to the same objective -- scoring points. The more efficient the passing game, the better the production. I mean, would you rather have a QB throw 250 yards in 20 attempts or in 35? Which guy had a better game? That's what I thought, too. [NOTE: You get to nearly the same result if you do not award positive points for completions and have -0.5pts per pass attempt. If you want a copy of my spreadsheet, lmk.] "So," you ask, "why are you awarding positive points for rushing attempts?" Because the more you run the ball, the more the clock winds down, the more the opposing defense wears down, and the more likely it is that you are a dominating RB and you are significantly increasing the chance that your team will win. Which, again, is the kind of thing that we, as FF'ers, should award (if we are awarding anything) in our scoring systems...what do players do that helps their team win. ...so, again, where does this get us? To sum up the "revised scoring rules," we have: ALL YARDS = 0.1 pt / yard ALL TDs = 6 pts / TD ALL INTs = -2 pts / INT ALL FUMBLES = -2 pts / fumble ALL RUSHING ATTEMPTS = 0.05 pts / attempt ALL PASSES COMPLETED = 0.3 pts / completion ALL PASSES ATTEMPTED = -0.6 pts / attempt ALL RB RECEPTIONS = 0.25 pts / RB reception ALL WR RECEPTIONS = 1 pt / WR reception Note that the only point awards that are different from one position to another is in the reception points from RBs to WRs. [NOTE: If your league uses TEs, you can have them at 1.5 pts / reception to put them on par with everyone else.] If you'd look at players from the past three years with these 'new' scoring rules above, you'd get the following AVERAGE production: Top 3 QBs / year = 384 fantasy points (only 4pts, on average, less than the 'typical' scoring rules) Top 3 RBs / year = 353 fantasy points (25pts, on average, more than the 'typical rules) Top 3 WRs / year = 330 fantasy points (53pts more) 4-6 QBs / year = 312 fantasy points (the exact same as above) 4-6 RBs / year = 295 fantasy points (19 pts more) 4-6 WRs / year = 281 fantasy points (90 pts more) 7-12 QBs / year = 273 fantasy points (39 pts less than above) 7-12 RBs / year = 246 fantasy points (18 pts more) 7-12 WRs / year = 254 fantasy points (81 pts more) 13-24 QBs / year = 193 fantasy points (45 pts less) -- the backup QBs 13-24 RBs / year = 193 fantasy points (15 pts more) 13-24 WRs / year = 216 fantasy points (71 pts more) 25-36 RBs / year = 135 fantasy points (11 pts more) -- the backup RBs 25-36 WRs / year = 174 fantasy points (55 pts more) 37-48 WRs / year = 147 fantasy points (50 pts more) 49-60 WRs / year = 120 fantasy points (43 pts more) -- the backup WRs Under these scoring rules, the #1 RB performance over the past three years (Holmes-2003) is exceeded by only two QBs (Manning-2004 and Culpepper-2004). The #1 WR performance of the past three years (Harrison-2002) is exceeded by ONLY THREE QBs (Manning, Culpepper and McNabb, circa 2004) as opposed to FORTY-FOUR using the 'standard' performance scoring above! [NOTE: If your league uses TEs, the #1 scoring TE in the past three years would be worth the same as the #11 QB, #6 RB and #6 WR; the #12 scoring TE is worth the same as the #58 QB, #55 RB and #72 WR over the past three years.] ...it seems that having ANY scoring system where the same RELATIVE performances at RB and WR are pretty comparable with the REALATIVE QB performances is something to take a long, hard look at... Further, the number of players scoring above the following number of FF points, in total are: 500+ fantasy points = 2 QBs 400+ fantasy points = 2 QBs (the same two guys are counted here too) and 2 RBs 350+ fantasy points = 5 QBs, 5 RBs and 3 WRs 300+ fantasy points = 17 QBs, 12 RBs and 6 WRs..,.and 1TE... 250+ fantasy points = 34 QBs, 26 RBs and 28 WRs...and 4 TEs... 200+ fantasy points = 52 QBs, 50 RBs and 66 WRs...and 10 TEs... PS - before anyone goes nuts about the two really high scoring QBs (Manning and Culpepper, circa 2004), you should realize that ( a ) they both had truly exceptional seasons, ( b ) they outperformed the top RBs by 20-25% in 'performance scoring' rules and ( c ) their singularly excellent seasons do not invalidate the rest of the analysis ... PPS - I believe my 'fumbles' statistics may be a bit high (as I used "fumbles" not "fumbles lost" because I couldn't find "fumbles lost" for everyone, but, I could find "fumbles". If I'm right and they are too high, then use -0.5pts for pass attempts and do not award any points for completions rather than the values above. Edited August 1, 2005 by muck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 To put the majority of what I said into a short thread: Alternative scoring system: ALL YARDS = 0.1 pt / yard ALL TDs = 6 pts / TD ALL INTs = -2 pts / INT ALL FUMBLES = -2 pts / fumble ALL RUSHING ATTEMPTS = 0.05 pts / attempt ALL PASSES COMPLETED = 0.3 pts / completion ALL PASSES ATTEMPTED = -0.6 pts / attempt ALL RB RECEPTIONS = 0.25 pts / RB reception ALL WR RECEPTIONS = 1 pt / WR reception ALL TE RECEPTIONS = 1.5 pts / TE reception ...because I believe that my "fumbles" statistics may be high...if you drop them completely, the end result (pretty equal scoring across all positions across multiple years) is delivered if the scoring is the same EXCEPT: 0 pts for fumbles +0.2 pts for passes completed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 How is a TE a "luck-affected" position? Or better yet, how is a TE more "luck-affected" then a WR? 905071[/snapback] way more variation between the top starters and the bottom starters, for one. which makes the position an extremely volatile one when you accentuate that difference with a scoring system like this. and DMD himself was just talking about how unexpected the outburst from gates and gonzo was last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turf Smurf Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 there's nothing "perfect" about it 905035[/snapback] I was going to blast you.....but darn, I'm on the big blind......be right back. 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.