Preferred type of scoring system

[DMD]

What do you prefer?

[Piranha]

I prefer it on more of an even level for each position.

[muck]

Thanks for your help in getting this poll posted, DMD ...

[muck]

I've been working on some simple (yet screwy looking) scoring systems that really even out production up and down the line for QBs, RBs and WRs and want to discuss them after more people have voted in the poll.

[LegFuJohnson]

1st option sounds the best, but it would probably look really strange to see it hammered out.

[Outshined]

I had to pick #3 because that is the one we use - basic performance scoring. The QB's and the RB's usually out perform the WR. I would like to see some of those simple screwy scoring systems.

[TitansFan]

I'd choose to have it even (the first) out of those three. But making all the positions score about the same can place more emphasis on positions where you start more players (like WR's). I'd rather have all the positions proportional to each other than all equal.

[Big Country]

This is hard, as Option one implies that scoring is consistent from year to year.

 

Some years one guy really blows up and may outscore the #2 at his position by a significant amount, others he wouldn't.

 

In a 12 team, start 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, I think something where the top 12 Qbs scoring added together pretty much equaled the top 24 RBs and the top 36 WRs in scoring is really the only way to get a true "all positions of equal value" type league, and even then, that isn't to say that the top 5 picks value wise shouldn't still be RBs or maybe it would make the top picks value wise one of the top WRs.

 

Too much it seems we look at individual performances for a scoring system rather than positional performances.

[muck]

This is hard, as Option one implies that scoring is consistent from year to year.

 

Some years one guy really blows up and may outscore the #2 at his position by a significant amount, others he wouldn't.

 

In a 12 team, start 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, I think something where the top 12 Qbs scoring added together pretty much equaled the top 24 RBs and the top 36 WRs in scoring is really the only way to get a true "all positions of equal value" type league, and even then, that isn't to say that the top 5 picks value wise shouldn't still be RBs or maybe it would make the top picks value wise one of the top WRs.

 

Too much it seems we look at individual performances for a scoring system rather than positional performances.

 

897642[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

So, you must have voted for "choice #2", BC?

[loaf]

I'm usually involved in Leagues that use #3...so I guess that's what I prefer. Though would be open to see how #1 would look and suggest it to my Owners for next Season...

[Big Country]

So, you must have voted for "choice #2", BC?

 

897648[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I did as it was the closest.

 

While Igenerally use a typical performance scoring, an "ideal" system would have all positions created equal (again, very different than individual player).

 

It's a catch-22... if the system is st up so that a QB in general scores 3-times as many points as a WR, then one good week out of a QB gives a very big boost and one bad week can spll disaster, while, a good week or a bad week out of a single WR would have a much lesser affect on a team's overall performance. This is a negative in my opinion, and would lead me towards a more balnaced scoring between the top QB and top WR.

 

But, trying to work it so that the QB1 scores the same as RB1 and WR1 on down through the rankings is silly, as the positions are not created equal unless you have the same number of starting spots for each position. So, the system could work if the starting lineup was a fixed 2 each of QB, RB and WR, but any deviation from that would throw the "values" out of whack.

 

I think the beauty of a system where the different positions score differently, but there are a varying number of starters by position adds a dynamic of having to gauge value from different positions with different starting requirements.

 

Trying to gauge at what point it is correct to take a QB or WR at the expense of waiting on a #2 RB or something like that I think makes for a more intriguing and challenging draft strategy than going into a system where all positions generally score the same and you all start the same number of players at each position.

[rocknrobn26]

I did as it was the closest.

 

While  Igenerally use a typical performance scoring, an "ideal" system would have all positions created equal (again, very different than individual player).

 

It's a catch-22... if the system is st up so that a QB in general scores 3-times as many points as a WR, then one good week out of a QB gives a very big boost and one bad week can spll disaster, while, a good week or a bad week out of a single WR would have a much lesser affect on a team's overall performance. This is a negative in my opinion, and would lead me towards a more balnaced scoring between the top QB and top WR.

 

But, trying to work it so that the QB1 scores the same as RB1 and WR1 on down through the rankings is silly, as the positions are not created equal unless you have the same number of starting spots for each position. So, the system could work if the starting lineup was a fixed 2 each of QB, RB and WR, but any deviation from that would throw the "values" out of whack.

 

I think the beauty of a system where the different positions score differently, but there are a varying number of starters by position adds a dynamic of having to gauge value from different positions with different starting requirements.

 

Trying to gauge at what point it is correct to take a QB or WR at the expense of waiting on a #2 RB or something like that I think makes for a more intriguing and challenging draft strategy than going into a system where all positions generally score the same and you all start the same number of players at each position.

 

897668[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Agree, and YEAH I am the other #2 vote.

[muck]

Interesting...

 

I'll try to post some of the things I came up with sometime Thursday (maybe evening)...

 

Anyone else?

Edited July 28, 2005 by muck

[Roo]

Does anyone actually participate in type 1?

 

I thought it was pretty standard that QBs are the top scorers, but the tradeoff is you usally only play one of them.

 

Even with 4 pt passing TDs, you have some guys throwing 30+ TDs, which no other position can really touch.

 

And generally the top WRs can compete with the top RBs, but there are generally less WRs who get up in the 10+TD range - only 3 or so usually, while several more RBs can break that plateau.

[muck]

This is hard, as Option one implies that scoring is consistent from year to year.

897642[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Not necessarily; what it implies is that if the scoring system is constructed with the explicit intent of evening out the QB, RB and WR scoring...after looking at REAL production across multiple years...it is not unreasonable to think that looking forward multiple years, that the top scores produced by QBs would be about the same as the top scores produced by RBs and WRs.

 

Some years one guy really blows up and may outscore the #2 at his position by a significant amount, others he wouldn't.

897642[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

And, so...your point is? I think you had this in for fluff...not trying to make a point, just sort of 'stream of consciousness' typing.

 

In a 12 team, start 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, I think something where the top 12 Qbs scoring added together pretty much equaled the top 24 RBs and the top 36 WRs in scoring is really the only way to get a true "all positions of equal value" type league, and even then, that isn't to say that the top 5 picks value wise shouldn't still be RBs or maybe it would make the top picks value wise one of the top WRs.

897642[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

So, if the QB = 2RB = 3WR, would it be 'fair' to trade your two RBs for another guys three WRs? I mean, if they all produce the same number of points...why not (hypothetically)?

 

I think the point I'm raising is "is it worthwhile to have a scoring system that would allow you to be able to draft/trade a player of "X" quality vs/for a player of "X" quality of a different position without experiencing a deterioration in fantasy production?

 

Too much it seems we look at individual performances for a scoring system rather than positional performances.

 

897642[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Not sure of your point...to the extent you were trying to make a point...

[muck]

It's a catch-22... if the system is st up so that a QB in general scores 3-times as many points as a WR, then one good week out of a QB gives a very big boost and one bad week can spll disaster, while, a good week or a bad week out of a single WR would have a much lesser affect on a team's overall performance. This is a negative in my opinion, and would lead me towards a more balnaced scoring between the top QB and top WR.

897668[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I agree, this is a big negative.

 

But, trying to work it so that the QB1 scores the same as RB1 and WR1 on down through the rankings is silly, as the positions are not created equal unless you have the same number of starting spots for each position. So, the system could work if the starting lineup was a fixed 2 each of QB, RB and WR, but any deviation from that would throw the "values" out of whack.

897668[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I don't think it would throw anything out of whack, if, for example, a "very good game" for a QB would get you 20 points and a "very good game" for a RB or WR would also get you 20 points... Or where a "very good season" would get your QB, RB or WR 300 points for the year...

 

I think the beauty of a system where the different positions score differently, but there are a varying number of starters by position adds a dynamic of having to gauge value from different positions with different starting requirements.

 

Trying to gauge at what point it is correct to take a QB or WR at the expense of waiting on a #2 RB or something like that I think makes for a more intriguing and challenging draft strategy than going into a system where all positions generally score the same and you all start the same number of players at each position.

 

897668[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I think that having similar point totals for different positions would liven up ANY draft...serpentine or auction! Apparently we disagree on this point...

[muck]

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 QB / RB / RB / WR / WR / WR / WR.

 

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? Passes completed? 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.]

 

"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.

 

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!

 

...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

250+ fantasy points = 34 QBs, 26 RBs and 28 WRs

200+ fantasy points = 52 QBs, 50 RBs and 66 WRs

 

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 off by a bit, but, I believe the amount they are off aren't hugely material. If they are off, they are too high. If 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 July 28, 2005 by muck

[Seahawk37]

Thalia is Bomb!

[SLAYER]

I play in a league, that has evolved over 15 yrs., tweeking a little at a time. The scoring system is way to long to post but last year in the top 15 player scores we had 3QB 2WR,7RB, & 3TE The top 2 DEf. were #23 . Avg scores for a game are 225 to 300 per team. Very unique haven't seen one like it yet. If anyone is interested I could post or e-mail you the system

 

Edit: 12 team league you have to start: 1QB 1RB 2WR 1DEF/ST 1K then the fun, your other 3 starters can be RB/WR/TE sort of like flex but with limits. if you start 1 or 3 RB you have to start a TE otherwise anything goes. Makes drafting and starting players interesting and gives other options on bye weeks.

every year we see what team breaks 400 first. usually happens 2-4 times a yr.

Edited July 28, 2005 by SLAYER

[WaterMan]

I play with friends on a Yahoo league with the basic scoring but .01(or .1, I forgot) for receptions/attempts to break ties. It favors RBs and QBs, since we start 1 QB and 2 RB, the 3 starting WRs usually equal 1 1/2 RBs.

Edited July 28, 2005 by WaterMan

[muck]

Apparently that's too much for everyone to read...

 

In sum, "standard performance scoring" is not as good (accurate? indicative?) as another approach. The approach I came up with is:

 

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

 

...or maybe only give -0.5pts for passes attempted and nothing for completed passes...

 

What do you guys think about going with something like this vs. 'standard performance scoring'?