| 0 |
Subject: RIFC 2006: pre-season discussion
Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Mon, Jul 10, 2006, 11:36
I am pleased to announce the 14 managers for the 2006 RIFC:
Guru
Motley Crue
Leggestand
Doug
IAMCANADIAN
Oaktown Raiders
Goatlocker
Valkyrie
youngroman
Beezer
Culdeus
Hubble
TB
s_R
This list includes me, the top-6 non-me seeds from last year's RIFC, 3 teams from each AAA league, and the (playoff) winner of the AA league. The winner of the AAA2 league (Mike V) declined the invitation, so I selected the next best team from that league.
Although it is still early, there are several things that we can start on:
1. Sign-ups for qualifying leagues. I will start a separate thread for this.
2. Discussion of possible rules changes. I will begin a separate post for this.
3. Discussion of any other issues that should be resolved before the start of the draft.
I expect that the draft will start sometime around August 18. If we decide to expand roster sizes, we may need to push that up a few days.
I plan to draft using kafenatid.net software once again. For those who may not have used this before (or since last summer), there have been some significant enhancements, particularly in the handling of queues. One consequence is that the recent drafts for baseball moved faster than in prior years, as people were more able to effectively manage and submit queues.
|
| 1 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 10, 2006, 11:50
|
I suggest that you all review the thread on potential rule changes for 2006. Based on that discussion, it appears that there was significant interest in revising rules in three areas:
1. Adjust team defense scoring to reflect only points scored against the defense (rather than all points scored).
2. Adjust team defense scoring to reflect yardage allowed
3. Adjust (or eliminate) restrictions on roster changes during the playoffs.
There was also some discussion at times regarding adding an extra IDP or two.
We also need to remember to address the potential for position eligibilty switches after the draft starts. (Remember Demarcus Ware?)
None of the polls taken in that thread are binding on this season, but should give a good indication of what might fly. What I'd like to do is start discussion here on these issues and on any other issues that we may want to vote on. Once we get clarity on the best way to frame the questions, a vote will be taken. Discussion is open to anyone, but any ultimate votes will be by RIFC managers only.
Here is a copy/paste of last year's rules summary:
Roster
1 QB
2 RB
3 WR
1 TE
1 K
1 Team def
1 DL
1 LB
1 DB
1 additional IDP (flex)
8 bench
21 Total
Decimal scoring is applied for all categories.
Offense Category Points
(apply only to QB, RB, WR, TE, and K unless otherwise noted)
Passing TD 4
Other TD 6 (all TDs, whether on offense, defense, or special teams)
Passing-2pt conv 1
Other-2pt conv 2
Passing yard 1/25 (i.e., .04 per yard)
Rushing yard 1/10 (i.e., .10 per yard)
Receiving yard 1/10
Punt return yard 1/10 (also applies to IDP)
Kick return yard 1/25 (also applies to IDP)
Kick return 0 (no deduction)
Int, fumbles lost -2
Kicking Points
(apply only to QB, RB, WR, TE, and K)
Extra point made 1
Extra point missed -1
FG under 40 yards 3
FG 40-49 yards 4
FG 50+ yards 5
Missed FG <30 -1
Missed FG 30+ 0
Team Defense Points
(the following points apply only to team defenses)
Sack 1
Interception 2
Fumble recovered 2
TD 6
Safety 3
Blocked kick 2
Shutout 10
1-6 points allowed 7
7-13 points allowed 4
14-20 points allowed 1
21-27 points allowed 0
28-34 points allowed -1
35+ points allowed -4
Indiv Defensive Players Points
(the following points apply only to DL, LB, and DB)
Solo Tackle 1
Asst Tackle 0.5
Pass defensed 1
Sack 3 (half sack=1.5)
Interception 3
Fumble forced 2
Fumble recovery 1
TD 6 (all TDs, whether on offense, defense, or special teams)
Safety 3
Priority Claiming
All free agents (any players not on a current roster) are subject to a weekly claiming process at noon on Wednesday. Following the first 6 weeks of the season, the priorities will reset weekly based on the reverse of W/L percentage. After that, priorities will not be reset. Throughout the season, when a player is claimed (either via "free agent priority claim" or a waiver claim), the claiming team moves to the end of the claiming priority list.
Starting at 1:00pm on Wednesday, all free agents may be picked up by any team "first come, first served" without any change in priority status.
When a player is dropped from a roster, the player will go on waivers for 48 hours. At the end of the 48 hour period, if any team has placed a claim on the player, the team with the highest claiming priority will receive the player. If no claims are submitted, the player becomes a free agent at that time. If a player is dropped within 48 hours of his game freeze, he may not be claimed until the following week's free agent claiming process.
Starting five minutes prior to the scheduled start of each NFL game, no player in that game may be dropped, regardless of whether the player is an active or bench player.
Schedule
13 week round robin
Doubleheaders all weeks 1-13 (play each team twice)
Single elimination playoffs, weeks 14-16
Trade deadline
The trade deadline is 11:30pm EST on November 11.
Playoffs
8 teams
Top 6 W/L records are seeded 1-6
Top remaining total points are seeded 7-8
Teams with equivalent W/L records are seeded based on head-to-head first, then total points
Bracket is fixed (no reseeding after each round)
Players at the primary skill positions (QB, RB, WR) are frozen for the playoffs. Team defenses are also frozen, since they are not subject to injury uncertainty. Other positions are eligible for injury-replacement add/drop/claim transactions only.
Specifically, players in the other slots (TE, PK, IDP) may only be replaced if they are designated as questionable or worse on the NFL injury report. This allowance does not apply to any player who was designated questionable or worse for the week 13 game (the final regular season game).
Thus, you cannot add or drop a QB, RB, WR, or team Def after the week #13 freeze, period. You can only drop someone else if that player was designated as "Probable" or better for week 13, and "Questionable" or lower at some point thereafter. If one of those players is dropped, he can only be replaced by a player fulfilling the same position. (LB and DB will be considered the same position for this purpose.)
|
| 2 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Jul 10, 2006, 13:05
|
We definitely need another IDP per team. I'll vote for 2 more if that is an option. I think that the need for more IDP's per team was evident from the fact that at any given time many of the defensive players on the free agent list were better than a large percentage of the IDP's on rosters. We started 4 last season. I think being required to start 6 will make things tighter on every manager, with the effect of creating an even more competitive environment.
I'll suggest 1 DL, 1 DB, 2 LB's, and 2 flex IDP's as the required starters for each team. If we elect to go with only 5 starting IDP's we could do 1 DL, 1 DB, 2 LB's, and 1 Flex.
I am fine with narrowing the scoring for team defenses to include only those points scored by the opposing offense. I think it's imperative that we add a yardage componet--it's a much better way to measure how well a defense has played on a given Sunday than is points allowed. Maybe give a base number of points to each defense (20) and then subtract 1 point for each 20 yards of offense allowed or something like that. How this is done isn't as important to me as getting it done.
Roster changes during playoffs--I'm not too concerned with this. We all have to play with the same restrictions. I was fine with the way it was done last year. If it changes, so be it.
I think players should be listed at whatever position they play mostly. If Ware was mostly used as a LB last season, he should be a LB this year. Just because Vrabel lines up at TE once in a while doesn't mean he should have dual eligibility. That's not something we're ready to get into yet in football, in my opinion.
If a rookie is mislabeled and someone drafts him, however, I believe the owner should be allowed to use the player as he was drafted. But if he trades the guy or waives him, then the player in question ought to be labeled as whatever position he is playing mostly, just like with other players.
|
| 3 | culdeus
ID: 481161220
Mon, Jul 10, 2006, 20:05
|
Logratithmic analysis has shown conclusively that DL's have the least impact on this league. A compromise would be removing a required DL and making 2 Flex IDPs instead. This would prevent having to make the bench thinner as a result.
|
| 4 | Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Mon, Jul 10, 2006, 20:34
|
Well, kickers are useless, too, and we have those.
I say we use each position on the football field (minus things like longsnapper or return specialist). This is fantasy football, after all. Just because one position is worthless doesn't make it a good reason to leave it off!
Hell, I'm even for drafting a head coach, if we can agree on how they'd be scored.
|
| 5 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Mon, Jul 10, 2006, 22:22
|
Thanks for the invite, Guru.
#1 & #2- I am good with it either way, but lean towards keeping both how they are.
#3- I am for all or nothing. Freeze everything before the play-offs start or leave it open for continuous management.
IDP- We need at least two more. 1QB, 2RB, 3WR, and 1TE = 7 offensive starters weekly in our league. In the NFL you have a center, 2 guards, and 2 tackles on every play. At the very most you have 6 "skill" players on the field. You have 11 defensive players every play, yet we are only starting 4 of them. My suggestion is to start 1 each DL, LB, DB and 3 Flex.
Regarding the Demarcus Ware situation from last year, I thought it was handled well and if it came up again this year could be handled the same way.
|
| 6 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Mon, Jul 10, 2006, 22:52
|
I'd like to see 6 IDPs as well. I don't think 4 IDPs in the draft is really that helpful to those who are looking for ideas for their IDP league. Plus as others have stated there's just too many good players on the WW during the season - last year it seemed like I could grab a great IDP whenever I wanted, whereas WR was like a graveyard most of the time. DL, 2 LB, DB, 2 flex sounds good to me, with only 1 flex if we just use 5.
I'm comfortable with team D scoring as it is, but wouldn't protest either proposed change very much as long as it doesn't add a lot of points to the position.
I'd like to see open roster movement during the playoffs, with selection ordered by high to low seeds to reward teams that play well during the regular season. And I'd be up for blind bidding during the full season for waiver wire to elminate the need for this (I doubt very much it's supported enough but wanted to throw that out there).
Last year's ruling on position eligibility works for me.
|
| 7 | Athletics Guy
ID: 2064822
Mon, Jul 10, 2006, 23:43
|
I'm fine with keeping all 3 areas the same as last season. Though, #2 does sound interesting. There were times last season where my Team D was "penalized" as a result of bad plays by the offense when they were actually playing pretty well. By including yardage in the scoring, I think our team D's are more accurately measured and get the points they truely deserve. It's not perfect, but it seems better.
As far as adding more IDP, I'd say we need an extra starter (or maybe 2). The FA/W was just so deep last year.
|
| 8 | Athletics Guy
ID: 2064822
Mon, Jul 10, 2006, 23:44
|
BTW, "Oaktown Raiders" is the team, not the manager. ;)
|
| 9 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 01:28
|
I'm all for 6 IDPs since that seems to be getting support. Heck, I'd go to 7 or 8 like I have in my other IDP leagues... although here we do also have team D, so I guess maybe 6 is good. I don't think it matters whether you call it 2 LB and 2 flex or 1 LB and 3 flex... I doubt anyone would be maximizing their IDP production without at least 2 LBs.
I think tweaks to team D (#1 and #2) are both good ideas, and agree that scoring wise the changes should manifest themselves as "tweaks" (not "complete and total restructuring/revaluing of team D").
I would oppose locking rosters for playoffs. I'm ok with the current system, or else something even less restrictive. Also indifferent whether to carry over waiver priority from regular season or reorder it by seeding (to reward top teams... what Beezer suggested).
|
| 10 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 09:36
|
1. Only allow points let up by the defense as PA. Def TD's by the opposing team shouldn't penalize a unit that wasn't even on the field at the time of a score.
2. I don't want to adjust Team D's for yardage allowed. I think it's too hard to score effectively, and I don't think it's far fetched that we have games where a Team D could score 40+ points.
3. Allow roster changes in the playoffs. I was against this last year, but after re-looking at the issue, I think it should be allowed. We may need to sort out how we run the WW in the playoffs, though (random lottery, worst team, best team?).
4. I will go opposite everyone else as I vote for no increase to the # of IDP's we started last year. I can't buy off on the argument that there were quality players on the WW last year. That will remain true each time we increase. If a quality IDP on the WW now is someone who scores 7 ppg, by increasing to 6 IDP's, the quality player rating drops to 6 ppg. Then we may as well increase it to 8 IDP's, drop the quality player average down to 5, increase it to 10 and so on.
And why would we need so many IDP's? Hardly anyone trades them, and the once in a blue moon trade for IDP's will only involve a stud IDP. People are more likely to trade for someone's 4th/5th WR than their 2nd LB. I liken IDP's as a more supplemental position that can help you win games, but shouldn't be able to win games on their own. The more IDP's we use, the more we dilute the other positions, which I think are appropriately weighted now.
I just don't think adding IDP's adds any value to the league. There are maybe 20 IDP's that get drafted and stay on a team all season. The remainders, although "quality players," will be interchangable no matter how many we add. Unless you get a couple of the Top 20 IDP's, the likelihood of getting an IDP you will keep all season after Round 15 is small, so, it will basically come down (again) to who can get the best IDP's off the WW.
I know that last year I ended up with 4 IDP's that I didn't draft as starters.
5. Demarcus Ware situation - last year's ruling was fine for me.
|
| 11 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 09:38
|
Thanks for the invite back Guru.
Agree with both one and two.
I'm fine with three the way we have done it the last two years.
As MC said, I can live with it the way it is or live with any changes that are made to it.
Like the Conversation on the IDP and would also like to see - 1 DL, 2 LB, 1 DB, 2 Flex.
This would wean out the FA and WW a little and make it tougher on Bye Weeks.
The way it is right now, I don't feel that I even have to plan for the Bye Weeks, because I know there is a lot of depth.
Only other issue this then brings up, is if we are going to keep roster size the same, or add one to it also.
Just a thought if we add the IDP slots.
Position Eligibility was handled just fine last year.
If we have the same type issue this year, the same resolution works fine for me.
Cliff
|
| 12 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 10:45
|
About the issue leggestand mentioned in [10], I think we need to watch the scoring for Team Defense and ensure it doesn't get out of control.
I agree that we don't want the overall scoring to change much at all, relative to the other positions. But I think we need the breakdown of how Team D scores to include how much yardage a team allows.
Maybe multiply yardage allowed by -.01 and add that into the total. Even that would make sense to me. If a team allows 377 yards of offense, they would get whatever score they had last season in that situation minus 3.77 points.
I do not want to see Team defenses scoring 20 points or more unless they are creating mounds of turnovers.
|
| 13 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 11:12
|
I'll change my vote to "for" in regards to adjusting scoring for yardage allowed by Team D's if we implement something similar to what MC has suggested in 12. I think that a negative adjustment is a good idea.
|
| 14 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 11:20
|
If we decide to go with item 1 (only points allowed by defense), we need to define what points are excluded. Fanball did allow that provision last year, but there were some odd (i.e., inexplicable) point exclusions that we would want to manually adjust for if the situation arises.
I assume that points excluded would include:
1. interception return TDs
2. fumble return TDs
3. TD scored on blocked kick (FG or punt)
Maybe the simple definition is any TD that results in points for the opposing team defense.
Anything else? How about PATs associated with an excluded TD? I've seen them handled both ways. Maybe a kicked PAT (after an excluded TD) should be excluded, but any 2-point conversion should stand?
|
| 15 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 11:22
|
re [12]: can anyone provide historical data on yardage allowed (for last year, perhaps) by game? I'm wondering what distribution of a -.01 multiplier would be.
|
| 16 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 11:33
|
Thinking about playoff roster limitations. Although last year's approach doesn't seem to have a lot of opposition, I'd like to see if we could make it a bit simpler and more flexible, while still preserving the spirit of the limitations.
How about if we allow claims and FA pickups during the playoffs (for any position) as usual, but a team may only activate an added player at the 3 prime positions (QB, RB, WR) if it has (or has dropped) a corresponding player at that position who is either designated no better than questionable, or who does not start.
This would mean that if a player is questionable for a game, you wouldn't need to drop him (thereby losing his availability in future weeks) in order to add a replacement player.
We could do this using either a continuation of regular season claiming priorities, or else reset the priorities based on playoff seeding.
|
| 17 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 11:57
|
I'm OK with 1 and 2 (dependent on scoring).
As a McNair/Leftwitch/Martin/Fitzpatrick/Boller QB owner from last year... I'd definetly interested in seeing options for #3.
For IDP's: I agree their was too much depth. I'd like to see 2 extra IDP slots, and hopefully an extra bench due to increased roster size (I don't believe we did a bench increase last year).
|
| 18 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 14:37
|
For Guru's queries in 16:
I am fine with that proposal on adding/dropping players at the skill positions that are Q or worse or do not start.
As for the WW in playoffs, since we usually have some sort of split whether or not to give any home field advantage, maybe re-seeding the WW at the start of playoffs to favor the top seeds would work. I certainly wouldn't want to adjust it to allow for the 8th playoff seed to have the best WW position.
|
| 19 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 15:37
|
For playoff waiver/claiming priorities, it seems like there are three options to consider:
1. continuation of regular season priorities
2. reorder each week, with the top seed getting top priority, etc.
3. reorder at the start of the playoffs, but do not reorder after each week thereafter
I don't think it makes sense to reorder based on reverse playoff seeding. Either you carry the regular season forward, or reprioritize as a "home field advantage". The latter would effectively allow the "home team" to block the pickup if any one specific player (or defense) from its opponent. (That would be the argument in favor of reprioritizing each week.)
|
| 20 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 17:49
|
Defenses last year averaged between 277.8 and 391.2 yards allowed per game, and from 238.3 to 399.4 since 1994. There were 47 TDs from INTs, 24 from fumbles, 1 from a blocked punt, and 4 from a blocked FG, for a total of 76 TDs (532 points w/ PAT). At -0.01 point per yard allowed, we would see a 2-4 point decline in scoring due to using yardage, while removing non-offense TDs would add about 1 point per game (532 points/(32 teams * 16 games).
If we do this (which I am in favor of if the software allows it), I'd like to adjust the scoring component to add about 2-3 points per game, something like 13/10/6/2/0/-2/-6 which would also penalize having bad defenses.
|
| 21 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 18:35
|
For the purposes of Team D, are we considering removing the scoring from kick/punt return TDs as well? In short, is it considered Team D, or Team D/ST? There were only 21 return TDs last year (if I counted properly)... so it wouldn't have a major affect on Beezer's analysis (above) either way. Just curious.
|
| 22 | culdeus
ID: 21658420
Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 19:56
|
My argument in prior years against TeamD was that the system as it was setup didn't lead itself to enough variance to warrant a high draft pick. A poor/good team were pretty close together PPG and by playing matchups you can boost your average PPG above the TeamD7 fairly easily while waiting to round 20+ to get a TeamD. I'm used to it now and get a good chuckle as team after team falls into the trap. So I've grown to like having it.
Scoring only PA vs. Defense/ST is a no-brainer and can only be opposed by the most old school types. YA is mostly cosmetic and will merely serve to smooth the variance for each team from week to week a bit more.
|
| 23 | Kyle
ID: 261371521
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 01:53
|
I guess I am old school because I enjoy PA and TO's over YA. YA is unpredicable and even really good D's can allow alot of yards. PA shows the team can really shut down an opponent especially if they get close to the endzone. I am sure that I will be laughed at for this one but I think there should almost be some sort of bonus for a Red Zone FG and a larger penalty for a non-redzone TD. I know this is probably not able to be done unless we keep track of that ourselves, so therefore it's only a dream.
Let me know if I am totally off my rocker on this one.
|
| 24 | youngroman
ID: 43441182
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 14:16
|
1. I would change it to allow only points scored when the D/ST is on the field
2. using yardage allowed with -0.01pt/yd does not matter that much. in a very good game a defense gives up only 150yds, in a bad game this could be 600yds. that would be only a 4.5pt difference between an outstanding day and a no-show. if I look at other positions the difference is something like 200yds rushing + 3 TD vs. 50yds rushing. that would be a 33pt difference between an outstanding day and a disappointing day.
we should also consider that if the offense has a turnover at the own 30yd line it is much harder for the defense to not allow any points. is there a way to address how long the scoring-drive was and use this somehow?
I am fine with everything we come up. I only need to know the scoring system to value the teams accordingly.
3. I would use last years rule for QB/RB/WR for all positions we use. this way the goal of the regular season is to a) reach the playoffs and b) assemble a competitve playoff roster with usable backups.
the top-seeds should get top waiver-priority, with no re-order during the playoffs
again: I am fine with everything.
4. IDPs: I'd like to add an extra slot or two. if we add only one, I think there may be the possiblity of changing the DL-slot to flex. result could be 0/1DL, 2LB, 1DB, 2flex = 5/6 slots
in case of only one additional slot is added you can still use a DL if you want. looking at stats a top DL may be worth the same as the 50th best LB, so a DL may be useless and possibly the last player drafted.
5. position switches: I am with MC in #2
|
| 25 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 15:27
|
2. using yardage allowed with -0.01pt/yd does not matter that much. in a very good game a defense gives up only 150yds, in a bad game this could be 600yds. that would be only a 4.5pt difference between an outstanding day and a no-show. - youngroman
We can use .02 or .03 or whatever people choose as a factor. The key is that we won't want it to be too big, because then there'd be a huge variation in the scoring from last year, and it seems there is some sentiment against that.
Also, imagine a team gets a bunch of turnovers and holds the other team to 150 yards. That team will do much better in fantasy scoring than a team who allows 550 yards of offense and gets no turnovers. The yardage component is not the foundation for the Team Defense scoring. It's just a piece. If we want to make it the basis then we multiply by a bigger factor. But I think the sentiments are leaning towards Team Defense being mostly rewarded for low points allowed and TO's.
|
| 26 | holt
ID: 465222814
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 15:41
|
is it possible to have a cut-off point for awarding points based on yardage? like, if a team gives up 240 (arbitrary number) yards or more they get zero points, but if they give up less than 240 then they start earning some extra points. something like this would keep overall D points in check, while also rewarding great defensive performances. I don't think there should be any distinction between a team giving up 320 yds and a team giving up 420 yds. we all know that it's pretty common for a winning team to give up a bunch of meaningless yards in the 4th quarter.
also, before everyone votes to increase IDP's (which admittedly sounds fun), consider leggestand's post #10. especially this part:
"The more IDP's we use, the more we dilute the other positions, which I think are appropriately weighted now."
|
| 27 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 15:51
|
Maybe we can get a more discriminating yardage factor if we don't make it linear. Perhaps something along these lines:
150 yards or less (opp rush + pass): 10 points
151-200: 7
201-250: 4
251-300: 2
301-350: 0
351-400: -1
401-500: -2
over 500: -3
We could make the points linear with each interval.
|
| 28 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 16:20
|
Well, I liked MC's proposal in post 12, and now I also like holt's proposal in post 26, especially given his point about meaningless yards accumulated in a 4th quarter. I like the idea of having a negative adjustment factor (as MC proposed) or a bonus point factor only for games where a team had suberb YA (as holt proposed).
I am not a big fan of the scoring proposal in 27, as it implies a possible upwards adjustment if a team does well, which I don't really like. For instance, any team who puts up a shutout (10 points), will likely let up less than 200 yards. So, basically by having a shutout, you get at least 17 points. To me that's way too much.
FWIW, I still can't see the attraction for so many IDP's, but it appears as if that is the way we are heading.
|
| 29 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 16:29
|
I haven't thought about it enough to know if I even like the scale in [27].
But I will point out that when an offensive player has a monster game, it generates 30+ points. It's unclear to me what the team defense point distribution would look like with this type of modification.
It would be really nice to have a game-by game breakdown of yardage allowed. I think I have all of the other team defense stats available that way, so if yardage allowed could be added, we could model some real distributions. I'll see what I can find.
|
| 30 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 17:52
|
I just pulled that data from thehuddle.com. I can send it out if you like. I'll post highlights below.
|
| 31 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 17:56
|
Breakdown of games by yardage for 2005:
Yards Games
500+ 4
400-499 82
300-399 201
200-299 184
100-199 40
0-99 1
|
| 32 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 20:04
|
I just produced that data myself. More analysis to follow.
|
| 33 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 20:29
|
I just assembled an excel sheet with team defense data for each game in 2005. You can get it here:
http://rotoguru1.com/foot/RIFC/Weekly_team_def_stats_2005.xls
I haven't done any analysis yet, but thought others might want to fiddle with it.
The "Def Pt Adj" column shows the points not scored against the defense. To get net points against defense, you need to deduct them from the total points.
I hope I did these right. Some random checking is probably warranted.
|
| 34 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 20:41
|
Looks good to me when I spot-checked 10 data points against mine.
|
| 35 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Thu, Jul 13, 2006, 14:49
|
I'd prefer a system where the adjustment is "per yard" as opposed to a "tiered" system as in post 27... or else break the teirs down to at least 25 yards of granularity.
What about something like +0.2 for every yard "under" 250, and -0.2 for every yard "over" 350? It seems 250-350 is about average, and anyone in that range could just get a 0 adjustment for the week. Overall the +/- adjustment would be relatively neutral and shouldn't heavily impact the relative weighting of Team D... although I'd hope we're collectively managing well enough that we'd be playing more defenses getting yardage bonuses than yardage penalties. ;-)
|
| 36 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Jul 13, 2006, 16:34
|
I have been thinking about this and I think the basis for scoring Team Defenses should be evenly split between yards allowed and turnovers. What I mean is that in my ideal situation, I'd like to see a Team Defense be able to score around 40% of it's points from yards allowed, and 40% from turnovers. And the other 20% is based on points allowed and sacks (and safeties).
I like Doug's suggestion of positive points for giving up 250 or less, and negative points for 350+ yards allowed. That might be a difficult scoring mechanism to implement, but other than that, I don't see anything I dislike about it.
|
| 37 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 13, 2006, 16:40
|
What's the purpose of a yardage factor?
To provide an extra reward for a team that totally shuts down the opponent, or to penalize a team that gives up a lot of yardage?
Seems to me like it's OK if a team gives up a lot of yardage, as long as the score is kept under control, and in that case, the points should be a good enough discriminator. So maybe we should only reward low yardage defenses.
How about simply adding .025 for every yard under 325? If a team holds the opponent to 125 yards, that's a 5 point bonus.
|
| 39 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Thu, Jul 13, 2006, 18:20
|
Good point. Giving up a ton of yards IS a poor performance IMHO... but if you're able to consistently "bend but not break" by limiting the opponent to field goals, stripping the ball away in the red zone, etc... then the yards themselves aren't that bad.
I think the main reason to add yardage allowed is as a consideration for teams with crappy turnover-prone offenses who consistently put their D in a difficult situation... they give up points even though they don't surrender many yards simply because of the crappy field position.
I think without a penalty for high-yardage allowance, I'd rather see a slightly larger bonus than that for low-yardage allowance. 125 is a pretty amazing feat... but it's worth less than a TD in Guru's proposed scoring. I'd go somewhere at least in the .3 to .35 range. Or maybe lower the threshold to 300 yards and go with .4. In that case, a team D yielding only 150 yards over a game (less than 40 yards per quarter) equates to a TD (6 points)... something that happened less than 2% of the time last year (only 10 out of 512 performances allowed <= 150 yards)... so I don't think this is a major factor. Most of the time, even a "good" defensive performance is in the low 200s, and this would still only yield only 3.2 points for 220 yards allowed... not a huge bonus.
And, as always, the important thing isn't how many points Team D score relative to other positions... it's the spread "within" the position that's relevant. We are enhancing that spread slightly (thus enhancing it's value) if yardage allowed is correlated with points allowed, but if not, then we aren't really affecting Team D's value much with this change.
Aside: I was going off of Guru's spreadsheet (linked above)... although I didn't see any instances of sub-100 yard performances (Beezer shows 1 listed in post 31). Just want to make sure we've got the right data. Also, as I understand it, a given row on the spreadsheet shows the yards attained by the offense, and points allowed by the defense... making it difficult to do a yards/points correlation. Just FYI.
|
| 40 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Thu, Jul 13, 2006, 18:24
|
Hmm, good catch Doug. Looks like one of my data points is off.
|
| 41 | FRICK
ID: 345202714
Fri, Jul 14, 2006, 10:10
|
Sorry to intrude, but isn't weather a major factor on yards allowed? Most of the examples that I can think of where a D gave up less than 150 yards involve weather, either snow, monsoon rains, or fog. Is that really indicitive of the D or where they happen to play that game.
|
| 42 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Fri, Jul 14, 2006, 10:13
|
Good point Frick. After reading recent discussions, I am starting to sway back to my original leanings in post 10. Although I think some of the proposals are good, I just think it is too hard to properly score it.
|
| 43 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Jul 14, 2006, 10:38
|
There will always be weather anomalies. There will always be games where Cleveland has 4 rookies and a bunch of crappy players in the starting offense going into Pittsburgh (which is a recipe for Ground Brown sloppy joes).
I think the yardage scoring is relevant especially in the games that aren't played in poor weather, of which there are many.
I think a bonus is warranted for Team Defenses that hold an opponent to a low yardage total, no matter the conditions. And if a defense gives up 500+ yards offense, the fantasy score ought to reflect a penalty.
|
| 44 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Fri, Jul 14, 2006, 10:47
|
There score will reflect a penalty, because they will likely be letting up 30+ points if that's the case. It appears to me that we may be heading to double crediting a good defense and double hitting a bad defense. A good defense who lets up less than 200 yards will likely score a decent game fantasy wise, but on top of that we will give them more points? Conversely, a team that has a bad game by letting up 500+ yards is also going to have a bad game for PA. So, on top of hitting them with a negative for points against, we want to hit them with another negative for YA?
It seems like if we end up with + and - factors, we are going to have mutliple defenses scoring 20(+) points and multiple defenses scoring -3(-) per week.
I don't know, I think you just take what a defense gives you in PA and that's your score. As some people clamor for "more IDP's" to make it more like the real NFL, wouldn't we apply this same logic to Team D? It's not like the Bucs defense can say, "Well, we lost to the Redskins but only let up 73 yards, can we adjust our points?"
|
| 45 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Fri, Jul 14, 2006, 10:50
|
And of course bad weather games are an anomaly, but aren't the games where defense let up a small amount of yards but let up a lot of points an anomaly, too? Aren't the games when a Team D lets up 500 yds but little points against an anomaly, too? We can't just pick one anomaly and say we shouldn't worry about that one, let's just worry about the others.
|
| 46 | FRICK
ID: 345202714
Fri, Jul 14, 2006, 11:19
|
Sorry, my comment was more along the lines of should those games be excluded from the analysis as outliers.
|
| 47 | youngroman
ID: 43441182
Fri, Jul 14, 2006, 15:12
|
pts distribution for D in 2005:
Int: 507x2 = 1014 = 24%
Fum: 388x2 = 776 = 18%
BK: 26x2 = 52 = 1%
Sack: 1181x1 = 1181 = 28%
TD: 97x6 = 582 = 14%
Saf: 11x3 = 33 = 1%
PA: 4202 = 564 = 13%
so we are talking about adding a YA component that might be worth the same as the PA component leaving both of them at around 10-12%. thats not really a major change I think.
|
| 48 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Jul 14, 2006, 15:22
|
And then where does that 10-12% come out of? It has to come from some of those other percentages. I guess everything else across the board just absorbs the loss?
|
| 49 | youngroman
ID: 43441182
Fri, Jul 14, 2006, 19:00
|
MC - I am for the change to add yardage allowed. I think even when it is only worth 10% of the points we should do it because it better measures the performance of the defense.
the stats are there to show that defense points are not automatically doubled if we add yardage allowed.
we only need to find a way how we want to score this stat, that seems to be the key.
|
| 50 | Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Sat, Jul 15, 2006, 15:06
|
Maybe my tone was percveived incorrectly. I agree with you, voungroman. I wonder how the addition of the yardage allowed penalty will affect that overall breakdown of Team Defense scoring. That's all I meant with my last post. Sorry if that was unclear. And thanks for breaking those numbers down, yr.
|
| 51 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 21:32
|
Not sure exactly how to go about evaluting this, but let me start somewhere.
Here are the team defensive points using last year's formula (ignoring blocked kicks). The table is sorted by average. For each team, I'm showing the worst game, the 5th ranked (roughly the 25 percentile), the average, the 12th ranked (5th best), and the best.
Team min 5th avg 12th max
Chi -1 10 12.6 15 31
Car 2 6 11.5 16 28
Ind -1 7 10.8 13 28
Pit -3 7 10.2 14 20
NYG -2 5 10.0 12 23
Den 1 5 9.9 14 24
Sea 0 5 9.8 11 44
Tam 0 6 9.4 13 20
Jac 4 6 9.3 11 23
Mia 1 6 9.0 13 20
Min -4 4 8.8 12 30
Bal 0 3 8.7 14 26
Was 0 4 8.4 11 23
Cin -1 5 8.3 12 20
Atl -3 2 8.0 12 19
NYJ 1 3 7.8 9 22
Det -2 4 7.6 12 22
Dal -2 6 7.6 10 17
Kan 0 5 7.6 12 16
Buf -3 2 7.4 12 21
Cle 0 5 7.2 9 16
Sdg 2 4 7.1 8 17
StL -3 3 7.1 13 17
Sfo -3 1 7.0 11 20
Ten -2 0 6.9 10 23
Gnb -4 4 6.8 9 33
Ari -4 4 6.6 9 19
Phi -4 3 6.4 11 16
Nwe -4 2 5.9 9 19
Oak -1 2 5.5 8 16
Hou -1 1 4.4 7 15
Nor -4 2 4.3 6 12
Avg -1.3 4.1 8.1 11.2 21.9
|
| 52 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 11:55
|
I was just wondering what our "timeline" was going to look like for the next couple weeks? Will we be getting some of the scoring and lineup related changes taken care of shortly?
I know a lot of people (myself included) are planning on taking a week off for summer vacation.
Also, I'd imagine, that we'll be starting drafting a couple days earlier this year than last due to extra slots being added (in turn extra rounds in the draft)?
|
| 53 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 12:01
|
Same here IAC, I let Guru know that I am out of the country from Aug. 3-14th, and won't have access to email/boards, so, hopefully we won't start until after then.
|
| 54 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 12:16
|
Last year we officially went on the clock, Friday, the 19th Aug. Opening day was on Thursday Sept 8th.
This year, opening day is on the 7th; so IF we are indeed adding 2-3 rounds to the draft, I'd hope that we'd ready to go by ~15th Aug.
|
| 55 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 12:47
|
How's this for a timeline:
Today through July 23: work out details of potential rules changes to vote on.
July 24: Vote on rules changes. Hopefully won't take more than a day or so.
July 26-31: Select draft order. I suppose we could start that earlier, but it seems like we should nail down rules changes before doing that.
We won't start drafting before August 15, and perhaps a day or two later.
Does this timeline work for everyone?
|
| 56 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 12:58
|
I'm in the process of inviting the new team owners to join the league at Fanball. New owners should receive an email shortly with instructions.
For now, I'm adding each of the new owners as a second owner of one of the vacated teams from last year. After each new owner has registered and "taken control", I'll delete the old owner.
You may change your team name if you wish. However, it is helpful if your team name easily identifies it as your team, so that outsiders who view the standings can figure out which team is which.
|
| 57 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 13:03
|
Returning owners do not need to register again. Your teams are still there.
|
| 58 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 13:05
|
By the way, when I tested the email invite from fanball, there was a stray punctuation mark in the middle of the league password. That should not be there.
|
| 59 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 13:05
|
That timeline works for me.
|
| 60 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 13:39
|
I should be around all summer. I've already been on vacation. So the suggested timeline is fine with me.
|
| 61 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 13:48
|
Here are the proposed team defense scoring results (using 2005 data) for two changes:
1. Include only defenseive points allowed.
2. Add a yardage factor which is .025 for each yard allowed under 500. If more than 500 yards are allowed, the factor is zero.
Item 1 adds about one-third of the point to the average. Item 2 adds a little more than 4.5. If desired, we could deduct about 5 points from everything to keep the general level the same, but I didn't do that here.
Here are the results of the new formula (sorted in the same team order as post 51):Team min 5th avg 12th max
Chi 5.225 17 18.8 23 35.1
Car 7.025 9 16.8 21 35
Ind 0.225 10 14.2 18 31.375
Pit -2.35 11 14.7 17 24.175
NYG -0.1 8 14.1 18 28.625
Den 2.7 8 13.5 19 26.4
Sea 1.025 8 13.1 15 51.65
Tam 6.625 11 15.0 19 25.375
Jac 8.3 10 14.3 16 27.05
Mia 6.35 9 13.4 18 23.95
Min 2.175 8 14.0 17 39.075
Bal 3.475 9 14.2 20 27.625
Was 1.325 8 12.9 15 28.525
Cin -0.8 10 12.1 15 22.4
Atl 3.1 8 12.3 17 23.75
NYJ 4.275 11 14.2 17 29.325
Det 7.75 9 14.2 19 29.275
Dal 4.375 9 12.4 16 20.8
Kan 3.175 7 10.8 14 21.65
Buf 4.45 9 13.5 16 28.275
Cle 5.475 9 12.8 15 24.7
Sdg 4.375 9 11.2 14 22.65
StL -2.4 8 10.9 17 23.175
Sfo 4.65 9 14.1 16 28.3
Ten 2.075 7 12.0 15 28.25
Gnb 1.05 8 11.9 13 37.775
Ari 1.85 5 11.5 16 27.175
Phi 0.725 8 11.6 16 21.35
Nwe 2.425 7 10.0 14 23.1
Oak 3.05 7 10.6 13 21.4
Hou 2.25 8 11.3 14 21.175
Nor 2.15 7 9.6 14 16.175
Avg 3.0 8.8 13.0 16.5 27.3
Reactions?
|
| 62 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 13:59
|
My initial reaction is we need a downward adjustment of around 5 points, as you mentioned. Just taking the top 14 D's (assuming each one of us has one of these teams), the average score for a Team D approaches 14.4 points/week. Seems way to high to me.
Just sorting last years stats on Fanball, only 19 players averaged more than 14.4 ppg.
|
| 63 | Valkyrie
ID: 313182621
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 14:01
|
I see nothing wrong with just increasing the value of the team defense- I would not adjust for the 5 point difference.
|
| 64 | Doug
ID: 376501712
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 14:04
|
Subtracting 5 points is essentially a non-issue. Subtract 500. Add 500. Whatever. Doesn't change the value of a defense, assuming everyone starts one (and only one defense), and every defense gets the exact same adjustment.
|
| 65 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 14:11
|
There are two issues that need to be addressed.
1. Should overall Team Defense scoring stay the same as last year, or should it be increased or decreased across the board?
2. What percentage of the Team Defense scoring should points allowed and yards allowed encompass individually?
I think the chart Guru displys in [61] looks a little scary. A team defense scoring a 51? Yikes. I know that only happened once last year.
Also that chart shows the Top 5 defenses averaging above 14 points. That makes Team Defense a much more important position than it has been in years past.
I'm comfortable with Team Defense scoring increasing overall from what it has been.
If the addition of a yardage allowed "bonus" adds about 4.5 points to the average, which is then 13, that's about 35% of the average Team D score coming from YA. I'm great with that. I think that's almost exactly where we should have it.
So despite the 51.65 Seattle achieved that one week against Philadelphia, I suppose I can live with that if it only happens once in a while. It looks like on a given week the best scores will be around 25-30, and the average score will be under 20. Even the worst Team D would score between 0 and 10 points based on the chart above. I don't really have a problem with that, per se.
|
| 66 | Trip
Leader
ID: 13961611
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 14:16
|
Guru...if you haven't already paid for fanball, AOL is free again this year. It appeared to be the exact same as fanball.
|
| 67 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 14:22
|
I see nothing wrong with just increasing the value of the team defense. [63]
There's nothing wrong with it. It's just that by having Team D's scoring higher across the board, they become more valuable when compared to other positions. Last year you could wait until the 12th round or later to draft a defense, and even that was a crapshoot (ask whoever drafted New England). If Team Defenses are scoring 14 or more points per week, they become hot commodities.
The question for the league is do we want Team Defense to become a very important position.
Although I suppose the dropoff in scoring between a Top 10 and middle tier defense would be the same as last year, and so you could still afford to not pick a Team D until late or even get one from free agency.
When I think about it that way, I think there ought to be a method in place to really reward excellent defensive performances, above what they would score under that scoring system. I think it should be non-linear.
|
| 68 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 14:35
|
MC: It's just that by having Team D's scoring higher across the board, they become more valuable when compared to other positions.
Wrong. It doesn't have any impact on the relative value of a defense vs. other positions. You could add 500 points to each defense, and that's still the case. Wait until the last pick, take the worst defense, and you still get that extra 500 points.
The only legit reason to adjust all defenses up or down is to make sure they are properly calibrated vs. the potential of playing a bye defense. If there is too great a chance of putting up a negative score, then playing a bye week defense becomes viable.
|
| 69 | Doug
ID: 376501712
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 14:35
|
Do you mean something like ".1 per yard under 500 (down to 300), .25 per yard under 300 (down to 200), and .4 per yard under 200"?
|
| 70 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 14:40
|
Subtracting 5 points is essentially a non-issue. Subtract 500. Add 500. Whatever. Doesn't change the value of a defense, assuming everyone starts one (and only one defense), and every defense gets the exact same adjustment.
I completely disagree and it's certainly an issue. Using your off the charts suggestions, if we subtracted 500 points, people would only start a defense on bye, or none at all. If we added 500 points, we might as well not draft any other positions.
Every point adjustment makes a difference, why else would we be talking abou changing them??? By adding 5 points, we have effectively changed the top 30 players to include NINE defenses.
And MC's post makes it even scarier. A 51 point performance by a Team D? I don't care if it's once, that's out of control and should not happen. Heck, 3 team D's scoring more than 20 points 25% of the time is out of control.
|
| 71 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 14:42
|
Yeah, I started realizing what you're getting at after I wrote that, Guru. My last comment in [67] was headed that way.
Basically, Doug, I think that's on the track I'm talking about. I would like to see a really outlandishly good performance score much better than a mediocre performance.
|
| 72 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 14:45
|
Wrong. It doesn't have any impact on the relative value of a defense vs. other positions.
I don't see how what MC said is wrong. And we need to stop throwing out crazy suggestions like add 500 points. If we added 500 points, I would take a Team D every round.
Adding 5 points makes taking 3-4 team d's a reasonable draft strategy if you study the schedule. When did Team D's become so important?
|
| 73 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 14:45
|
Under the old formula, a team's best game ranged from 8-34 points above its average, with the average team having a top game of 22 points, 14 above the overall average.
Under the revised formula, a team's best game ranges from 6.5-49 points above its average, with the average team having a top game of 27 points, still 14 above the overall average.
At the extremes there is a little more variation, but not a lot. At the average, the revised formula doesn't result in much additional variation. The gap between the best and worst team average was 8.3 on the old formula, and it's only 9.2 with the revisions.
|
| 74 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 14:52
|
leggestand, you're missing something fundamental.
You can only play one team D each week. If we added a flat 500 to each team D, you'd get no advantage to owning more of them, or by drafting them early. Every manager would get that extra 500 points every week, so it would make no relative difference.
Now, if we addedd 500 to the best team Ds, and nothing to the worst team Ds, then your point is valid. But no one has suggested that.
Without opining as to whether the revised formula is better or worse, the old formula produced a top score of 44. Now it's 51, of which about 5 is in the average. So you really can't be too upset about that 51 unless you were also upset about the 44.
Doug[69]: for now, I modeled just what I said: .025 per yard under 500. We could obviously tweak it the way you suggest (similar to what I suggested earlier as well). But I wanted to start with something simple.
|
| 75 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 15:09
|
I think we need to assume that the average defense will allow approx. 300 yards. I know the league average is slightly higher, but that includes some weaker teams taht aren't likely to be in play.
So, if the average team is going to allow 300 yards, how much to we want to reward a team that hold the opponent to 150? If we want that to be worth the equivalent of a TD, then we need a factor of .04 in that range.
So, here's a table which uses .01 per yard from 500 to 300, and .04 for each yard under 300.
Team min 5th avg 12th max
Chi 3.45 14 17.1 22 32.64
Car 4.05 8 14.6 19 34
Ind -0.51 8 12.4 17 29.35
Pit -2.74 10 13.0 16 23.35
NYG -1.24 7 12.3 16 26.25
Den 1.68 6 11.6 16 24.96
Sea 0.41 6 11.6 14 51.3
Tam 4.25 9 13.0 17 22.75
Jac 6.58 8 12.1 14 24.7
Mia 3.7 8 11.5 15 21.58
Min -0.04 6 12.2 15 40.15
Bal 1.99 9 12.6 18 26.65
Was 0.53 6 11.2 13 26.05
Cin -0.92 8 10.5 13 20.8
Atl 2.44 7 10.6 14 20.9
NYJ 2.31 8 13.1 17 28.65
Det 5.5 7 12.2 16 28.55
Dal 3.55 8 10.7 14 18.52
Kan 2.75 5 9.2 12 19.3
Buf 3.9 8 12.0 14 27.55
Cle 4.59 7 11.2 13 23.4
Sdg 4.03 7 9.5 13 20.3
StL -2.76 6 9.1 15 21.35
Sfo 2.64 10 13.5 15 28.6
Ten 0.83 5 9.8 12 25.5
Gnb -1.4 6 9.8 11 34.91
Ari -0.3 4 9.9 13 27.35
Phi -1.51 6 10.1 16 18.7
Nwe 0.6 5 8.0 12 20.64
Oak 0.62 5 8.4 10 18.76
Hou 0.3 7 10.0 12 21.05
Nor 0.3 4 7.5 12 13.85
Avg 1.5 7.1 11.3 14.5 25.7
|
| 76 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 15:17
|
I like that principle a lot more than just stepping every Team D up a certain amount.
Any system similar to that described in post 75 is acceptable to me.
Guru, does that still give 0 YA adjustment for yardage allowed above 500?
|
| 77 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 15:18
|
Thinking simplistically, using the .01/.04 split modeled in [75], a team that surrenders 500 or more yards would lose 2 points vs. a team that allowed the average of 300. A team that allowed only 150 yards would gain 6 points vs an average team. And the spread between those two extremes would be 8 points.
BTW, that max game was Seattle vs. Philly (a real beatdown, as I recall). Seattle gave up 194 yards, but also had 6 turnovers, 4 sacks, and 3 defensive TDs, while pitching a shutout. The 3 TDs is what really makes it the outlier.
|
| 78 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 15:19
|
[76] Yes, yardage over 500 would just produce zero extra points.
|
| 79 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 18:18
|
I like the scoring in post 75 and strongly support that model.
|
| 80 | culdeus
ID: 376401719
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 20:42
|
Some of you failed basic VBD 101. Listen to Guru he knows of what he speaks.
|
| 81 | Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 22:24
|
Some of us have also been in this league for 3 straight years, culdeus.
I'm not sure your point is relevant here.
I personally am able to work things out better when I type them up and then have others critique them.
|
| 82 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Jul 18, 2006, 00:29
|
What Guru posted in 75 works for me also.
I think it's just a case of a small tweak.
In my mind not a big deal.
I just have to figure out how to beat Furu or MC in the playoffs.
Cliff
|
| 83 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Jul 18, 2006, 09:34
|
I don't know what VBD means...
I'll support post 75.
|
| 84 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jul 18, 2006, 10:43
|
VBD = value based drafting, I think.
The salient issue is that, in a league where each team can start one and only one team defense, the scoring level of that position relative to other positions is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the relative scoring within the position.
The value of the Arizona defense scoring cannot be gauged by comparing it to the scoring for running backs. It can only be gauged by comparing it to the scoring for other team defenses.
I don't want to flog the point. No one is really suggesting that we should add 500 to each team defense. But even if we did, it would not matter in the true relative value of team defenses vs other positions.
|
| 85 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Jul 18, 2006, 11:44
|
I certainly don't understand value based drafting. I am more lucky than anything else.
I understand your logic, and it makes sense, but I sense there are holes that I just can't find. Every hole that I have found so far has been filled, so, I think I am pretty much just against change as I like how the league is already set up.
FWIW, I had Tampa Bay D last year, who would of been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the new scoring.
|
| 86 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jul 18, 2006, 12:10
|
BTW, I see that in Fanball, we cannot set up the yardage component as an amount per yard. We need to set up a table, similar to the setup for points.
So, if we were to decide to use the schedule in [75], I'd propose setting it up something like this:
500+ yards allowed: 0 points
400-499 yards allowed: 1 point
300-399: 2
275-299: 3
250-274: 4
225-249: 5
200-224: 6
175-199: 7
150-174: 8
125-149: 9
under 125: 10
|
| 88 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jul 18, 2006, 15:15
|
According to fanball:The only scores that will not count towards your Defensive Points Allowed rules are touchdowns scored off of turnovers or on special teams plays. This apparently means that all extra points will count, even if they follow a non-defense-allowed TD.
So, if a team scores only 7 points on an interception return, the opposing defense gets charged with 1 point.
I can undersatnd charging the defense with a 2 point conversion, since the defensive unit is on the field for that. But it seems like the 1-pt conversion should not be charged for turnover-related TDs, since they are essentially automatic.
I guess we could always manually adjust for extra point conversions. Or, we could just live with it.
|
| 89 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Tue, Jul 18, 2006, 17:39
|
No matter how slim a chance a team has of stopping an extra point, it still happens. It's the same as a 19-20 yard field goal in my mind and those still count, plus it's less admin work for the commish. I think it's best just to live with it.
|
| 90 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Jul 18, 2006, 17:48
|
I agree with Beezer.
|
| 91 | Doug
ID: 426401811
Tue, Jul 18, 2006, 19:10
|
I agree. I would have said "3 cheers for simplicity", but that might seem ironic given the recent yardage allowed discussion.
|
| 92 | culdeus
ID: 376401719
Wed, Jul 19, 2006, 20:15
|
I've got no idea what 4A) is trying to say. I mean I have sort of an idea, but what does "activate" mean?
More to the point what was the impetus to virtually freeze rosters during the playoffs? Was this a year 1 thing? Can we put in a "the only rule is there are no rules" for the playoffs?
|
| 93 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 20, 2006, 09:48
|
[92] "Activate" means to start him, as opposed to leaving in the bench. The concept is that you can only use a replacement player at the skill positions if one of your regular season players is injured.
I'll add a voting option for continuation of regular season rules.
|
| 94 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 20, 2006, 09:50
|
There was considerable pro-con discussion on roster limits during the playoffs in starting in post 117 of this thread.
|
| 95 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 20, 2006, 10:02
|
I'm wondering if the simplest solution to playoff roster limits is only to reset waivers/claims priorities each week, with the top seed getting highest priority. No other limits would apply.
For any game, this would "protect" the better playoff team against any potential injury-related "steal", since they could simply snatch up that player before their opponent.
Another thought: Since we also run a consolation bracket during the playoffs, should those teams be allowed to make add/drop transctions during the playoffs? Or perhaps, as an accommodation, they should be precluded from priority claims, but should be allowed to add free agents.
|
| 96 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Thu, Jul 20, 2006, 10:59
|
RE 95: (consolation bracket)
I think we should keep the status quo as to not letting them pick up any players.
In my opinion, you've already lost... the fact that a bracket has been setup for the "losers", to see how their team would perform is already doing a fair bit for that manager. If they were to have ANY affect on teams in the upper bracket for the rest of the year, I find that would be unfair.
|
| 97 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Thu, Jul 20, 2006, 11:01
|
I agree with IAC.
I also agree with the first half of Guru's post in regards to playoff teams and their pick ups.
|
| 98 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Jul 20, 2006, 11:06
|
I think the consolation guys should not be allowed to make waiver or FA moves at all in the last 3 weeks.
Maybe a guy added by a manager in the Consolation Bracket would have been able to help a manager available in the actual Playoffs the following week. The consolation guys shouldn't be able to have an effect on the outcome of the Championship bracket.
I just read everything from post 117 on in last year's discussion thread. I am not opposed to any system as long as we determine it before the season begins. And obviously we will, so game on. I'm ready to vote, whenever the voting begins.
Strangely, I am not clearly against Doug's logic anymore. I think I was mostly upset last season during that discussion because I didn't like thinking of changing things mid-stream. Now that I've had an off-season to chill out, it doesn't seem to matter as much to me.
I can flourish no matter what the parameters. : D
|
|