| Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Mon, May 03, 2004, 10:08
It's time to start thinking about the third leg of the RotoGuru Invitational Challenge Leagues. Before deciding on manager invitations, I'd like to kick around ideas on league organization. Please provide feedback on the following issues:
1. I think the league should offer a traditional format, which is a head-to-head, points-based league. But what should the point formula be? I prefer one that isn't entirely slanted to scoring, so I think both scoring and yardage should be meaningful components. Maybe turnovers, too. Would anyone like to suggest a straw man?
2. Roster configuration, roster size, and league size. These are probably related. Also, because of bye weeks, benches need to be somewhat deep.
3. Playoff timing. League size will probably dictate. Should the final round of our playoffs be NFL Week #17? NFL playing patterns are often unusual that last week.
I would expect the draft for this league to occur in August, probably starting around the middle of the month The NFL season does not start until September 9th.
I expect to use Yahoo to administer the league. That means we are restricted to scoring and scheduling rules that are Yahoo-supported.
What are your thoughts? |
| 1 | leggestand Sustainer
ID: 451036518 Mon, May 03, 2004, 10:35
|
1. I don't like the set up where whoever has the most TD's will win each week, or where a RB who puts up 150 yds and no TD's is outscored by Zack Crockett. So, I always liked 1 pt/10 rush/rec yards and 1 pt/25 passing yards. Also, I think weighing rushing/receiving TD's slightly heavier than passing TD's is a good idea. I think that 6 pts/rush/rec TD and 4 pts/passing TD ends up having the top RB worth a similar amount of points as the top QB. I also like turnovers to be -2 points. As for defense, I prefer team defenses with points for sacks, to's, shutouts, etc.
One wild card item is whether or not you want to include return yards as an individual stat, defensive stat, or not included at all. I usually like to omit return yards from any part of the scoring, but that's just my preference.
2. I have played 16 team leagues, but I think that is too high, and believe a 12 team league works best. As for starters, I think a QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, Flex, Flex, K, Def and 8 bench spots works well. Everyone should have a pretty deep bench and this should promote trading within the league instead of people picking players up off waivers.
3. I think it is important to end the league in Week 16, unless league size won't permit it. Although it would have worked out fine last season, it would be a shame to run a great league for 16 weeks and then a team in the fantasy Super Bowl loses their star player because their team has clinched their playoff spot.
I would be interested in playing in this league, if I make the cut, but if not I won't mind playing in another one of the "Qualifying Leagues."
|
|
| 2 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Mon, May 03, 2004, 12:20
|
last year was my first year of Yahoo football, and i did pretty well - even won the Poli League, which was a damned tough league.
something i liked in the Poli league - which was something that was absent in my other leagues and something i resisted at first but then came to love - was the inclusion of defensive players.
IIRC, the league called for two defensive linemen, two defensive backfield guys, and a flex position.
it added a wonderful twist to the league, and made you really think hard in your draft. do you go for a guy who might get a lot of sacks, or a guy who gets less sacks but more tackles. and where do you get them? I drafted Roy Williams in the 7th round and was pleased. i got Jay Foreman in the last round and was thrilled.
tackles, fumbles, sacks, interceptions were just a few of the categories. maybe someone else from the Poli league could come up with the rest?
it also helped me learn a lot more about defensive players in the league, which made the whole experience that much more enjoyable.
|
|
| 3 | dgrooves
ID: 12831011 Mon, May 03, 2004, 12:25
|
I dont want to hijack this thread, but could someone point me to a link with more info about the RotoGuru Invitational Challenge Leagues. They sounds like something I may be interested in. Thanks.
|
|
| 4 | Guru
ID: 330592710 Mon, May 03, 2004, 12:39
|
For the Hoops Challenge, go to the Hoops Forum and search on either Invitational or RIHC.
For Baseball, ditto: Invitational and RIBC
You can also click on the two logos on the RotoGuru blurb page for current (or final) standings and other stats & player tracking.
|
|
| 5 | TB Leader
ID: 31811922 Mon, May 03, 2004, 13:54
|
I like Fanball and here is a breakdown of their scoring: Passing 4 points for every TD passed. Bonus Scoring: Any passing TD of 40-79 yards will include a 2 point bonus. Any passing TD of 80+ yards will include a 4 point bonus.
Rushing 6 points for every TD rushed. Bonus Scoring: Any rushing TD of 40-79 yards will include a 2 point bonus. Any rushing TD of 80+ yards will include a 4 point bonus.
Receiving 6 points for every TD received. Bonus Scoring: Any receiving TD of 40-79 yards will include a 2 point bonus. Any receiving TD of 80+ yards will include a 4 point bonus.
Performance (yardage) Scoring: Passing 1 point for every 20 yards passed. -2 points for every interception thrown. Rushing 1 point for every 10 yards rushed. Receiving 1 point for every 10 yards received.
Two Point Conversion Scoring: 2 points for every conversion passed, 2 points for every conversion rushed, and 2 points for every conversion received. Field Goal and PAT Scoring PAT 1 point for every PAT made. Field Goal 3 points for every FG of 0-39 yards. 4 points for every FG of 40-49 yards. 6 points for every FG of 50+ yards. Defensive and Special Teams Scoring: (The following scoring applies to the complete team and not the player performing the score.) Touchdown 6 points for every TD scored. (TD's made after an interception, kick-off return, field goal block, punt return, fumble recovery, etc.) Fumble Recovery 1 point for every fumble recovery. Safety 4 points for every safety. Interception 2 points for every Interception. Sack 2 points for every sack. Shutout 10 points for allowing the opponent no points.
Fairly basic scoring. If you are going with a deeper league, I like the suggestion of using individual defensive players/stats. You could ditch or modify the bonus scoring. In that format, we start 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 Flex (RB/WR/TE), 1 PK, and 1 DEF (the bench is only 7). I would rather see a team have to start 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 Flex (RB/WR/TE), 1 PK and 1 DEF.
|
|
| 6 | Mike D Sustainer
ID: 41831612 Mon, May 03, 2004, 15:53
|
I've never used IDP before. And if Tree likes them, well, I'm sure I'd probably hate them.
;)
|
|
| 7 | TaRhEElKiD
ID: 150521415 Mon, May 03, 2004, 16:02
|
I am confident in the fact I will not be invited to any league such as this at Rotoguru for awhile, however I would like to submit some input. Being an Invitation Challenge League from Guru I believe these managers are considered very astute and competitive. That said I believe IDP would be a great concept to have in a league with such stature as the RotoGuru Invitational Football Challenge.
Thanks THK
|
|
| 8 | Athletics Guy
ID: 4141833 Mon, May 03, 2004, 23:33
|
Mike D, That's an extra 5-10 players you can trade, why wouldn't you like that?
|
|
| 9 | Mike D Sustainer
ID: 41831612 Tue, May 04, 2004, 06:44
|
I think I just changed my vote, based on the new information from Athletics Guy. ;)
|
|
| 10 | Guru
ID: 330592710 Tue, May 04, 2004, 10:14
|
Are IDP available in Yahoo?
Does Yahoo support bonus points as described above?
|
|
| 11 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Tue, May 04, 2004, 10:31
|
Guru -
yes on the IDP, with numerous scoring categories.
uncertain on the bonus issue, but i don't think so. either way, i know i'm not a big fan of bonuses for big plays.
A touchdown is worth 6 points whether it comes from 1 inch out or 109 yards out.
|
|
| 12 | smallwhirled
ID: 3031919 Tue, May 04, 2004, 13:32
|
I don't know much about this Fanball format, but I agree with leggestand in post 1. 1pt/10rush/rec yards. 1 carry, 2 yards and a TD worth 6 points, yet 25 carries for 119 yards and no TD's is worth 5? I've always hated 20 points/rush/rec yard, and won't even play in those leagues.
|
|
| 13 | TB Leader
ID: 31811922 Tue, May 04, 2004, 13:55
|
25 carries for 119 yards and no TD's is worth 11 points in the fanball format. 11.9 if you went with decimal scoring.
Regardless of how the scoring is set-up, everyone knows the rules before the league starts and can draft accordingly.
I am not a fan of the bonus scoring either, Tree. I only listed it because it was part of the format. Not really sure how many times it comes into play. I tried to google for stats but couldn't find what I was looking for without going into individual player pages. I am all for ditching the bonus points, though.
|
|
| 14 | Doug
ID: 57352917 Tue, May 04, 2004, 18:01
|
My quick .02:
-Personally I like 14-team leagues, because it allows you to play every other team in the league once and only once (weeks 1-13), and still leaves 3 weeks for playoffs (such as a 6-team wildcard system where 2 teams get byes) without having to use week 17 (using week 17 is highly undesirable).
-A nice roster layout is Q/R/R/W/W/W/T/K/D (or IDPs), bench size negotiable.
-My experience is that a flex position in this type of league means people end up hoarding RBs since they can start 3 of them, if they want to, and so the first 3 rounds of the draft are often well over 50% RBs, which is a joke IMHO.
-Adding the 3rd WR rather than flex makes WRs a more relevant components in the mix.
-Another thing I like (don't know if yahoo supports it) is 1 point per 5 yards receiving for TEs, which makes them more of a factor (you could adjust it to say 7.5 yards or whatever if you thought this too much).
-6 points for all TDs creates more variation within the QB ranks. It really doesn't matter much how many points QBs score relative to RBs or WRs or anyone, at least not in absolute terms. What matters is the variation in QB scores relative to the variation in RB scores (or any other position) in terms of finding a balanced draft/league.
|
|
| 15 | TB
ID: 3042750 Wed, May 05, 2004, 01:28
|
Nice post and .02
14 teams seems perfect for that reasoning alone and I agree 100% on week 17. Teams will still hoard RB with 28 starters needed plus bye week scrambling. Having QB TD's worth six will increase their value and move them up higher into the draft mix.
I don't want to see TE scoring any different than WR because, frankly, there are only a few top TE and the rest are a crapshoot. It is my favorite position to ignore until the end of the draft, so maybe a selfish reason too. =)
Rather than three WR, how about 2 WR and a flex of WR/TE. Most of us would start a WR but with bye weeks and injuries, it adds a little flexibility. Depending upon the scoring format, you get down to the 40th to 50th ranked WR from last season and you are starting guys like Dennis Northcutt, David Givens, Travis Taylor, and Kelly Campbell. I guess thats what makes it so fun....lol
|
|
| 16 | TB Leader
ID: 31811922 Wed, May 05, 2004, 01:30
|
I really need to figure out what cookie not to delete everytime I clean this system.
|
|
| 17 | GoatLocker Sustainer
ID: 60151121 Wed, May 05, 2004, 22:42
|
I think 14 - 16 could be fine, our 24 team keeper league is really tough and makes you really dig and look. Think the issue is exactly how you want it to play out and how much you want to try to take luck out of the equation. I personally think that the more teams you have, the more luck is removed.
QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, FLEX (WR or RB), TE, K, D
Need to think about the points a little more. I agree with the comments above about the flex position, but still like it and like it being WR or RB.
More later.
Cliff
|
|
| 18 | youngroman
ID: 221118186 Fri, May 07, 2004, 04:52
|
yahoo fantasy football rules (including positions and stat-categories)
IDP are possible in yahoo, bonus points not
I'd do a roster like: 1QB + 2RB + 2WR + WR/TE + K + 1DL + 1DB + 3IDP + 8 bench league size: 14 with week 14/15/16 for the playoffs (8 teams reaching playoffs)
i would do the flex position between WR/TE instead of RB/WR because, this would result in about 5-8 TE drafted because all others would have no value with such a scoring system and the goal should be that each position should produce nearly equal in points. if you have a TE-only-spot you have to draft a second TE for bye-beek and as a backup and this 2nd TE would be worth nothing, unless you got really lucky.
i like the defense players idea because that is why this invitational leagues are fun: roster-depth
i'd also prefer a points system where yards count more then TD, lets say 1pt for 10yds recv/rush/return and 1pt for 30yds passing
for defense that would be 1pt/2tackles and 5pts/sack
all other points should be at their default
otherwise the defense players would be drafted in the last rounds, with this configuration they should be starting in the middle rounds.
just my .02
|
|
| 19 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Fri, May 07, 2004, 10:01
|
IDP scoring was as follow - thanks to Sludge for digging it up:
Tackle Solo (1) Tackle Assist (0.5) Sack (3) Interception (2) Fumble Force (2) Fumble Recovery (2) Touchdown (6) Safety (2) Pass Defended (1) Block Kick (2)
|
|
| 20 | Sludge
ID: 523482015 Fri, May 07, 2004, 16:18
|
I would point out that I didn't much care for a sack being worth more than a safety.
I would, and I just did.
|
|
| 21 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Fri, May 07, 2004, 17:53
|
i saw sacks being more comparable to tackles then i did to safeties.
safeties, to me, are gravy. those are like bonus points.
but sacks vs. tackles, you have to weigh, over the course of a season, if you'd rather have a lineman that gets a lot of sacks and some tackles, or a linebacker who gets a few sacks and a lot of tackles.
sacks and tackles being the same value negates a lot of that strategy.
|
|
| 22 | biliruben
ID: 441182916 Fri, May 07, 2004, 17:58
|
Safeties are so rare that they are strategizable (Word? Word, baby.). Make up worth 50 pts, and you still aren't going to draft or set your lineups any differently. The key, as Tree pointed out, is to make both the tackle guys and the sack guys valuable. The sack guys, imho, were undervalued in this system. Bump 'em up to 4.
|
|
| 23 | dgrooves
ID: 513181020 Sat, May 08, 2004, 09:27
|
Let me first say that Id be very interested in becoming part of this, even if Id have to join a qualifying league before getting an invite.
Ah, the age old debate about the proper balance between the offensive positions. Many of the suggestions posted so far are good ones, but they dont end up solving the problem (that RBs are too valuable). Adding another WR position or making QBs score more total points will increase the value of one WR or QB over another, but they don’t do enough to increase the value of the actual postions. If you're serious about reducing the value of RBs, and making it so that the first few rounds of a draft arent RB-heavy, then I'll suggest something so rarely seen that it may be considered unpopular: start 1 RB.
Its about enjoyment, and having 85% of the picks in the first 3 rounds be RBs isnt that much fun. Hyperbole perhaps, but, if you're talking a 14 team league that starts 2 RBs and 1 RB/WR flex, its not that far from the truth. How about making rules that make it possible for someone to go WR-QB-WR (or some permutation) and not be in an enormous hole with respect to RBs?
Anyway, Im in total agreement about the yardage ideas that have been discussed so far. 1 point per 10 yards rushing/receiving and 1 per 20 or 25 yards passing seems to provide the best balance between points scored for yards and touchdowns. One of my serious leagues last season used Yahoo's scoring [1 point per 20 yards rushing/receiving and 1 per 50 passing] and it was beyond frustrating to see a player with 3 carries for 4 yards and 2 TDs outscore one with 130 total yards and 5 receptions (with points for receptions).
Im also strongly against bonus scoring for long TDs or arbitrary yardage plateaus. I have no real rational argument against them right now, its just they've always seemed, well, arbitrary and random (as in difficult to predict).
I play in leagues with and without IDPs, so Im open to either option here. No real preference either way.
|
|
| 24 | Sludge Leader
ID: 25919714 Sat, May 08, 2004, 09:37
|
So base points on how it affects draft strategy?
Look, I'm not an idiot here. I don't forecast safeties when I draft defensive teams/players either. Despite the fact that they are rare, I still like to see a scoring system that makes sense to me (and I'd like to think I have a pretty good grasp of what rational means). Maybe it's just my anality (while we're making up words). A safety is a Big Deal on the football field, and it is, as a general rule, harder to achieve than a sack. Ergo, they should be worth more than (or, at the very least, the same as) sacks. In fact, I had problems with a turnover being worth less than a sack.
|
|
| 25 | culdeus Leader
ID: 43105818 Sat, May 08, 2004, 11:35
|
Yahoo is junk for a competitive league, pay the 10 bucks to espn or somebody to have a real waiver wire. That means no picking up Boldin in the middle of his 1st big game!
No serious FFL league can have an open wire.
|
|
| 26 | Tree
ID: 4641688 Sat, May 08, 2004, 17:12
|
bili - The sack guys, imho, were undervalued in this system. Bump 'em up to 4.
i agree. when i was researching the IDPs prior to my first draft with them, i decided guys who got a lot of tackles were important.
100 tackles (at 2 points) with 3 sacks (at 3 points) was a lot more important to me than 15 sacks and 50 tackles.
not meaning this to brag at all, but that strategy, obviously, paid off for me somewhat.
Despite the fact that they are rare, I still like to see a scoring system that makes sense to me (and I'd like to think I have a pretty good grasp of what rational means). Maybe it's just my anality (while we're making up words). A safety is a Big Deal on the football field, and it is, as a general rule, harder to achieve than a sack. Ergo, they should be worth more than (or, at the very least, the same as) sacks. In fact, I had problems with a turnover being worth less than a sack.
sludge - as you know, there's a difference between fantasy and real football. safety is harder to achieve than a sack, but i don't buy the argument Ergo, they should be worth more than (or, at the very least, the same as) sacks.
in baseball, a triple is much harder to achieve than a single, double, and even a home run. but in standard scoring, it's worth the same amount as a single and double, and less than a homerun. even in a point-based system, would a triple be worth more points than a home run? not likely.
it's a different measuring stick in fantasy sports, and adjustments must be made accordingly.
|
|
| 27 | deepsnapper Sustainer
ID: 17103420 Sat, May 08, 2004, 18:03
|
Sandbox has always used IDP's instead of a team defense. Their standard scoring method for H2H is outlined below:
Scoring Method = Points
TD = 6 2 point conversion (rushing, receiving or passing) = 2 PAT (kicking) = 1 Touchback (kicking) = 1 Safety = 5 Field Goal = 3 Field Goal (50+ yards) = 1 Every 15 yards Rushing = 1 Every 15 yards Receiving = 1 Every 30 yards Passing = 1 Every 50 yards Returning* = 1 Fumble (only if lost to other team) = -3 Interception (thrown) = -3 Interception (caught) = 4 Fumble Recovery (change of possession) = 4 Sack = 4 Solo Tackles= 1 Forced Fumble = 3 Blocked Kick (punt, field goal or PAT) = 5 Pass Defended** = 1
Note: Athletes receive yardage points only for full 15, 30 or 50-yard increments. For example, a running back rushes for 102 yards and catches passes for another 58 yards. That athlete scores 9 fantasy points; 6 points for 90 yards rushing (drop the extra 12 yards) and 3 fantasy points for 45 yards receiving (drop the extra 13 yards). Point totals are not penalized for negative yardage totals.
* Return yards includes Punt Return Yards, Kickoff Return Yards, Interception Return Yards, Fumble Recovery Return Yards, Blocked Field Goal Return Yards, and Blocked Punt Return Yards. Those are summed for each player and the sum is divided by 50 to arrive at the Return Yards points for each player.
** Passes Defended are defined as any pass which a defender, through contact with the football, causes to be incomplete.
================================================================
A team consisted of a QB, RB, WR, TE, K, 3 Off Flex, & 3 Def Flex starters with a 20 player roster. 14 team league maximum (I played in 2 12 team H2H leagues).
I'm out as I've used up my PC time for the day. I had vitrectomy surgery on my right eye Tuesday & I'm limited on viewing time. I threw the Sandbox scoring out here since I didn't think anyone else played the Sandbox games on the boards besides me.
ds
|
|
| 28 | TaRhEElKiD
ID: 150521415 Sat, May 08, 2004, 19:17
|
I would like to see fractional points (decimal scoring) awarded in a league of this stature.
Such at 1 pts for 10 yards rushing. Player X runs for 12 yards and recieves 1.2 pts.
In the above Sandbox scoring system, it details 1 pts for every 50 return yards. This is where fractional points should be awarded for sure. Some massive linemen runs a 48 yard Fumble return down to the 2 yard line and doesn't get his fair share of pts IMO.
Also with IDP, D TDs should be worth more.
THK
|
|
| 29 | Ender
ID: 2424818 Sat, May 08, 2004, 19:38
|
THK, I don't understand why a defensive TD should be worth more. Explain your reasoning for me.
I played with IDP for the first time last year and really enjoyed it. I'd love to see it be a part of this. I also like the idea of 14 teams for the reasons mentioned above (play each opponent once and playoffs end in Week 16).
|
|
| 30 | Mantels
ID: 56422719 Sat, May 08, 2004, 19:56
|
As a fellow Nutmeger I'd like to be included Guru, if you'll have me.
|
|
| 31 | Sludge Leader
ID: 25919714 Sun, May 09, 2004, 03:45
|
in baseball, a triple is much harder to achieve than a single, double, and even a home run. but in standard scoring, it's worth the same amount as a single and double, and less than a homerun. even in a point-based system, would a triple be worth more points than a home run? not likely.
I'm not arguing that points in fantasy sports should be tied solely to difficulty, nor should you have interpreted it as such. (Call it incomplete logic on my part, I can take it.) As best as I can tell, fantasy points are generally tied to the following, in more or less relative quantities:
Difficulty to achieve Benefit to team Balance in the scoring system
That a triple is worth less than a home run is fine because the home run has greater benefit to the team.
As to the safety, scoring balance isn't relevant because they are so rare. But they are more difficult than a sack and benefit the team on the field more. Thus, I feel that they should be worth more than a sack. That they are often coupled with a sack is irrelevant. As to turnovers vs. sacks, one can point to scoring balance to justify that they should be worth less than a sack, but I think that's a weak argument at best.
|
|
| 32 | Sludge Leader
ID: 25919714 Sun, May 09, 2004, 04:04
|
Also, I would point out that there's a difference between a play being more rare and being more difficult. Every unassisted triple play I've ever seen has looked a lot easier than any 5-4-3 double play I've seen. Catch the screaming liner, step on the bag, tag the runner hauling butt to the bag you're standing on.
In much the same way, it can be argued (not proven, mind you, but argued) that much about a triple play is easier than a home run; namely hitting the ball over the fence. A great deal of the success of most triples has to do with a lucky bounce or a misplayed ball by the defense on a ball that under a different defensive alignment might have been an easy out.
|
|
| 33 | Sludge Leader
ID: 25919714 Sun, May 09, 2004, 04:04
|
Err... sorry... "much about a triple play is easier" should be "much about a triple is easier"
|
|
| 34 | youngroman
ID: 59242611 Sun, May 16, 2004, 11:03
|
i did some excel-work and got all player-stats from last year and looked how a potential scoring system could look like
compressed excel-sheet
on the first page you can enter your scoring multipliers in column B, on the second page you have all the players with last years stats and on the right the points with the defined multipliers. in the upper left corner is a button to re-sort the table
after a few quick looks i still prefer a lineup like: QB + 2RB + 2WR + WR/TE + K + DL + DB + 3IDP + 8 bench = 20 player roster
|
|
| 35 | Tree
ID: 484391021 Sun, May 16, 2004, 12:41
|
after a few quick looks i still prefer a lineup like: QB + 2RB + 2WR + WR/TE + K + DL + DB + 3IDP + 8 bench = 20 player roster
i like this two, with one minor change.
i'd have 2 DL, 2 DB, and one IDP. the reason for this is that linebackers also count as linemen in Yahoo football.
|
|
| 36 | Great One
ID: 141172214 Sun, May 16, 2004, 16:05
|
Last year was my first in a Yahoo league and I didn't draft a RB first... I just didn't know better. I never really recovered. Still managed 3rd, but I learned my lesson.
I will probably set up another Yahoo Belly league again with Ref's permission. Another possibility for us vets are don't qualify for this league (like me).
|
|
| 37 | Doug
ID: 57352917 Thu, May 20, 2004, 14:22
|
One thing to point out on the sack/safety issue is that often when someone scores a safety, they also score a sack (don't know the percentages on this, just going based on a general observation here). At the very least, a safety involves a tackle. So if tackle = 1, safety =2, sack = 3, then:
Tackle - 1 point Sack - 3 points Tackle someone for a safety - 3 points Sack someone for a safety - 5 points
In short, the safety points are a bonus in addition to the sack/tackle points... NOT a replacement for those points. So to say a safety is worth "less" than a sack is not really true when you look at the complete picture.
|
|
| 39 | Eugene
ID: 550303118 Thu, May 20, 2004, 22:42
|
Would like to play please Guru
|
|
| 40 | Motley Crue
ID: 47449217 Fri, May 21, 2004, 08:56
|
Post 25 hits the nail on the head:
Yahoo is junk for a competitive league, pay the 10 bucks to espn or somebody to have a real waiver wire. That means no picking up Boldin in the middle of his 1st big game!
No serious FFL league can have an open wire.
I played in the Poli Board League last year, and this was it's biggest weakness. I refuse to camp out at Yahoo so that I can jump on the best players when they surface. A waiver wire with priority is an absolute must.
|
|
| 41 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Fri, May 21, 2004, 10:07
|
I played in the Poli Board League last year, and this was it's biggest weakness. I refuse to camp out at Yahoo so that I can jump on the best players when they surface. A waiver wire with priority is an absolute must.
Yahoo does have a waiver wire with priorities, but sooner or later everyone becomes a free agent.
unless i'm mistaken, the real sports world is like that. if a guy clears waivers, he becomes a free agent. yahoo mirrors that.
|
|
| 42 | Motley Crue
ID: 47449217 Fri, May 21, 2004, 11:54
|
Tree, it's a matter of preference. It doesn't feel "fair" to me when the manager with the best record can scoop the best available FA's just by being able to be online at that time. It is very true to real life and mirrors real professional sports. I am not saying it is invalid as a method. I just don't think it is a good way to play.
The most important thing is that people who play in those leagues know the rules beforehand and agree to them. As long as you have agreement, no one can complain. I prefer to play in leagues where there is a priority positioning method.
|
|
| 43 | Guru
ID: 330592710 Fri, May 21, 2004, 11:58
|
Thanks to everyone for your thoughts on this league. With GuruGolf in development, I haven't been very focused on football recently, but will take all of these comments into consideration when the time comes.
Please continue to post comments as you think of things.
|
|
| 44 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Fri, May 21, 2004, 14:08
|
Tree, it's a matter of preference. It doesn't feel "fair" to me when the manager with the best record can scoop the best available FA's just by being able to be online at that time.
the way i look at it is that picking up Boldin was no sure thing. He has a studly first game, and could have just as easily trailed off and not had the kind of season he has.
i'll use Hee Seop Choi in baseball as an example. This guy has been picked up and dropped in some my leagues as often as a Times Square hooker. it just happens. it's the nature of the game.
|
|
| 45 | Doug
ID: 57352917 Fri, May 21, 2004, 15:19
|
I would argue that football is a bit of an anomaly in that there are fewer games, and injuries tend to play a bigger role. A starting RB goes down in the middle of a game... people will almost always scramble to get his backup, and frequently with good cause. Most of the private leagues I am in prevent anyone from getting online first and picking him up as a FA... instead, there are weekly waivers or other process such that once the first game starts each week you can't just go pick someone up because you happened to be first to see the injury. Only public leagues tend to take the "first come, first serve" approach in football. The Hee Seop Choi example is valid, but I still thing there is a fundamental difference in magnitude for waiver pickups when it comes to football. Also, the weekly cycle of games makes the "everybody goes on waivers" approach viable... it would not be as simple in baseball (it would have to occur daily rather than weekly, and be for some set number of hours overnight, etc... and it just seems like overkill in that case).
|
|
| 46 | Motley Crue Sustainer
ID: 439372011 Wed, May 26, 2004, 09:39
|
Doug, where do I send that advocate fee check? Thanks for arguing my case for me. You got to the point of my argument.
Tree has spent so much time in the Politics Forum that I don't bother keeping up with him post-for-post anymore. I know I'll lose eventually.
|
|
| 47 | Trip Donor
ID: 13961611 Wed, May 26, 2004, 10:01
|
That is a critical flaw with Yahoo. I want to watch the games (Thank you, Direct TV!) and not be glued to the computer. The league I manage with my friends switched to Fanball commissioner because of this reason, and we are about to be in our 3rd year using Fanball. They charge $100 for the league regardless of size and is fully customizable and live scoring is included in this fee. Their customer service has also been excellent.
Awaiting my advocate checks from Motley, Fanball, & Direct TV.
|
|
| 48 | leggestand Sustainer
ID: 451036518 Wed, May 26, 2004, 10:26
|
I think this league can be run through Yahoo, with Guru implementing a commish run waiver process. It will be a little extra work for Guru to process requests each week, but its allows for the game to remain free. I also think that the bulk of gurupies/patrons abide by league rules and regulations and should have no problem with a commish policed waiver wire. If all waiver requests were sent to Guru on Sunday-Wednesday of each week, he can adjust the waiver priority accordingly. Also, Yahoo allows the commish to adjust lineups/transactions, as long as each manager has turned this feature "on," so, Guru can process the waiver requests each Thursday, and adjust each team accordingly.
I just think that if the league moves to a pay to play site, it will thin out the # of managers interested, as well as the # of qualifying leagues.
|
|
| 49 | youngroman
ID: 59242611 Wed, May 26, 2004, 18:40
|
i would do something similiar so that the commish hasn't to do the (complicated) waiver wire process. this process is well implemented in yahoo.
i would say everybody who wants to pick up a player nominates the player (in a forum-thread or by e-mail) and a day (or two) before the first game of the week the commish sets the nominated players on waivers and all managers can claim their players as usual.
this results in a 5 day nominating phase from kickoff of the first game until the commish sets the waivers and a 1 or 2 day trade phase with picking up the players from waivers (and only waivers)
if it is easy to do the commish could set all players on the waiver wire and we would need no nominating.
|
|
| 50 | Guru
ID: 330592710 Tue, Jun 08, 2004, 11:55
|
I just checked out the commissioner software at Fanball.com. It appears that the cost this year will be only $59.95 for a league. I'm inclined to try using it for the RIFC, with RotoGuru.com picking up the cost.
Have others been satisfied with Fanball.com? Are there other hosting options that should be under consideration? I am persuaded by the above discussion that a weekly waiver priority process for all free agents is a good idea.
|
|
| 51 | Guru
ID: 330592710 Tue, Jun 08, 2004, 12:03
|
One feature offered at Fanball is "doubleheaders". As I understand this, with a 14 team league, we could effectively play each team twice in a 13-week round robin, as each week you would have two head-to-head matchups. Does that sound like a good idea? It does seem it might diffuse some of the element of luck - which may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on yours.
|
|
| 52 | PermDude
ID: 2343587 Tue, Jun 08, 2004, 12:05
|
That's a great idea. Sounds like it would really help the better teams pull to the top.
|
|
| 53 | MadDOG
ID: 5952989 Tue, Jun 08, 2004, 12:15
|
I don't know about FanBall leagues but I love their site and I especially love getting their Football Newsbreakers in my email.
Those guys know football.
|
|
| 54 | TB Leader
ID: 31811922 Tue, Jun 08, 2004, 13:05
|
I like Fanball and have been using the site for several years. Never saw or played with doubleheaders but sounds great. In one of my leagues last year there were many weeks where I was the 2nd or 3rd highest scoring team only to lose to the 1st or 2nd highest scoring team. I know I finished the year with the 2nd highest scoring team and had a losing record. Ugggh.
As far as the cost goes, what about every entrant kicking in 10 bucks to pay for the cost and the rest goes to the winner? Certainly an added incentive to do your best, not that most need an added reason to win a Guru League. I can't remember if something like that conflicts with certain rules or not.
|
|
| 55 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Tue, Jun 08, 2004, 13:21
|
maybe this is a stupid question, but presumably you can go with different line ups in the double header?
or do you have to use the same lineup for both?
|
|
| 56 | Guru
ID: 330592710 Tue, Jun 08, 2004, 13:46
|
I dunno. The rationale for using different lineups would be to diversify when you have comparable choices?
I'll bet you have to use the same lineup for both. But I'll look into it.
|
|
| 57 | Guru
ID: 330592710 Tue, Jun 08, 2004, 15:34
|
Fanball gets good marks for fast turnaround on inquiries. Regarding doubleheader rosters:"When you are using the Doubleheader feature you are required to set a lineup for each game. From the Set Lineup page you can select game 1 or game 2, then set the lineup. If you want both lineups to be the same you must set them both ( to be the same)."
|
|
| 58 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 46033123 Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 01:28
|
I'll throw in some of my input.
1. 14 teams seems like the best option
2. Big fan of IDP, however I don't think there should be any flex spots. Every team should have to start a set number at each defensive position (2 DL, 2 LB, 1 DB)
3. Leave points for safety at 2. They may be rare and help the team out but if the NFL deems them only to be worth 2, then why should our league be any different. Perhaps the NFL should revisit the importance of a safety and adjust THEIR scoring accordingly.
4. I really like the idea of limiting the flex spot to WR/TE. Decreases the need to stockpile running back, increases the value of a sleeper TE (IMO, they exist :) )
5. I think PASSES DEFENDED is a stupid stat and i'd be in favor of eliminating it (if there are no flex spots allowed for IDP, otherwise I think you have to include it to help DB points).
6. Fanball looks good, I am in favour of a 3rd party controlled, weekly waiver process.
|
|
| 59 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 46033123 Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 01:47
|
Good, nobody beat me too it. The more that I think about it, the more I think that the safety points SHOULD be increased.
Every scoring play (other than QB TDs) are awarded points in relation to the amount of points the score produced.
However, unlike all other scores, a safety also results in the return of possession to the scoring team (a result that is hard to quantify but really can't be deemed of no value). For this reason they should worth atleast 1 more point to reflect the benefit outside of the scoring of points.
|
|
| 60 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 46033123 Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 02:00
|
Actually, maybe it can be quantified.
A blocked kick, INT and forced fumble are all worth 2 points. I think it is safe to say then that a turnover is given a value of 2.
Since most scoring plays are worth the amount of points scored I think a safety should be worth the 2 points resulting from the play and 2 points resulting from the turnover.
I vote that a safety is worth 4 and this is my final answer. :)
|
|
| 61 | Doug
ID: 57352917 Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 02:24
|
Is that with or without the points for the sack or tackle that are credited on the same play to the player making the safety? If not, then a safety would really be worth 5 points if achieved via a tackle, and 7 points if achieved via a sack (depending on the points for those, I'm assuming 1 and 3). Remember, points for a safety are sort of "bonus" points for the play, they do not REPLACE the other points for the play... to me a sack for a safety being worth 7 points seems a little heavy, but not ridiculously so. Still, I think 5 points (3 for sack + 2 for safety) would also be adequate. Just my 2 points... err... cents.
|
|
| 62 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 46033123 Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 02:50
|
True, but a player who rushes for a TD gets his rushing points along with his TD points.
A player that returns an INT for a TD gets his 2 points for the INT and 6 poins for his TD. This makes a INT returned for an TD worth 8 points.
I don't see why a safety should be any different. You get the amount of points award as a result of the play as well as any points awarded for events leading up to the play.
|
|
| 63 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 46033123 Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 02:57
|
haha....it is an interesting debate.
It differs from my examples because a sack/tackle/forced fumble is necessary for a safety to occur. It can't exist on its own like an INT or rushing yards can.
Now i'm not sure what side I'm on....i guess I'll sleep on it.
:)
|
|
| 64 | Sludge
ID: 523482015 Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 11:06
|
It differs from my examples because a sack/tackle/forced fumble is necessary for a safety to occur. It can't exist on its own like an INT or rushing yards can.
Neither does a touchdown. I can't think of a single way to score a touchdown that does not have some other scoreable event that leads up to it.
I would have no problems with a safety being worth 2 points in a fantasy scoring system when a touchdown is worth 6 points in that system. Really, that's fine with me. What I had a problem with was the lack of proper proportionality of the rest of the scoring. Two sacks worth a single touchdown, while three turnovers were required to equal a touchdown?
One could appeal to the idea of balance, that is it helps positions that normally get the sacks, but I would argue that once you seperate those positions that get sacks from those that get interceptions, that argument goes out the window. Scoring balance is more important to achieve within a position (intraposition). Once that's achieved, balance between positions (interposition) is much less important. What's most important in fantasy sports is your guy's position relative to his peers, not relative to everyone from every other position.
|
|
| 65 | Mike D
ID: 3355987 Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 11:18
|
I never knew fantasy football could become this complicated. ;)
|
|
| 66 | Sludge
ID: 523482015 Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 11:29
|
You don't know the half of it. A few years ago, Madman, Guru, and I were throwing around the idea of starting a journal focusing on strategy in fantasy sports.
|
|
| 67 | Mike D Sustainer
ID: 41831612 Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 11:50
|
Of all the sports, football is one I've delved into the least, playing only TSN in years past and Yahoo of late.
|
|
| 68 | culdeus
ID: 14452520 Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 17:54
|
IDP scoring to me is really tough to nail down. You want IDPs to start showing up in rounds 7-9 and 100% of rounds 11-14. Massaging the scoring should be to that end.
I am thinking about starting an internet campaign to rid the TE from all live drafts and you all can help. The TE is worthless and they should all be lumped into the WR pool to get people to draft 4 WR/TE. When was the last time the 12th rated TE beat out the 36thWR? I plan on researching this to prove my point.
|
|
| 69 | Tree
ID: 48529917 Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 18:32
|
IDP scoring to me is really tough to nail down. You want IDPs to start showing up in rounds 7-9 and 100% of rounds 11-14. Massaging the scoring should be to that end.
that's complete draft strategy, and depends on the manager/coach of the team
I am thinking about starting an internet campaign to rid the TE from all live drafts and you all can help. The TE is worthless and they should all be lumped into the WR pool to get people to draft 4 WR/TE. When was the last time the 12th rated TE beat out the 36thWR? I plan on researching this to prove my point.
come on - that's absurd. it's like campaigning to get rid of the Catcher position...hmmm...wait a minute!
no, seriously. that's more of the strategy. do you take a Gonzalez or a Shockey or a whoever early, or do you risk still having a decent guy later on....
|
|
| 70 | TB Leader
ID: 31811922 Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 18:47
|
TE is worthless for fantasy scoring unless you get one of the top 3-5 guys. When was the last time the 10th rated TE scored more than the 50th rated WR is the better question? If it is a 15 round draft, I get my TE in the 15th round and usually have a different one starting by the 2nd or 3rd week.
|
|
| 71 | dgrooves
ID: 513181020 Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 18:49
|
IDP scoring to me is really tough to nail down. You want IDPs to start showing up in rounds 7-9 and 100% of rounds 11-14. Massaging the scoring should be to that end.
Im very curious to see your reasoning for this.
Why stop at the TE position? When was the last time the 12th kicker outscored the 36th WR or 24th RB? How about defensive lineman; after the top five they're virtually identical from a FP perspective. Hell, why start 2 RBs?
|
|
| 72 | TB Leader
ID: 31811922 Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 19:15
|
Last year in fanball there were 3 TE who scored 4.5 points a game or more. There were 54 WR who scored 4.5 or more. The 12th ranked TE (Kleinsasser) scored 3.6, which is exactly the same amount as the 73rd ranked WR (Thrash). There were 64 WR who scored more than the 10th ranked TE.
Okay, in truth I like having the TE category only because 4-5 people in any league I am in end up drafting them way to early.
WR and TE get all of their points from receiving yards and receiving TD's (minus the occasional reverse or trick play). Not really sure where you were going with the kicker/RB comparisons but have seen you around the boards long enough I assume your being sarcastic.
FWIW, the 16th placed kicker (Cundiff 7.0) outscored the 26th rated WR (Rod Smith 6.8) and the 21st ranked kicker tied him (Aaron Elling 6.8). The 12th rated kicker (Vinatieri 7.3) outscored the 24th ranked WR (Robinson 7.1) and was only .1 behind the 22nd ranked WR.
I have to steal from Sludge in post #64 Scoring balance is more important to achieve within a position (intraposition). I would only argue that TE should be lumped in with WR because their function within fantasy scoring.
|
|
| 73 | dgrooves
ID: 513181020 Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 19:38
|
Ehh, my post was half joking, half serious. No, Im not advocating lumping Ks with RBs, but kickers are just as worthless a position as TE. Kickers are probably event more worthless as you will never see anyone take the first K where you see someone take the first TE (roughly 4th round).
As for your PPG numbers, they really only apply to one specific scoring system. Im guessing your scoring gives bonuses for FG length but gives no bonuses whatsoever to TEs.
Anyway, like you said, while it makes sense to lump TEs with WRs, comparing PPG across positions inst as valuable as comparing them within the same position.
|
|
| 74 | Tree
ID: 48529917 Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 20:19
|
why don't we just start counting home runs, and adding pitchers to the football teams while we're at it.
seriously - TE is a part of football, and having a good tight end can make the difference for not just a "real" football team, but also for your fantasy football team.
it's the 4th round. Someone already took Tony Gonzalez. Do you take Jeremy Shockey or Todd Heap, or do you hope one of them is around the next time you're up?
it's all part of the strategy...
|
|
| 75 | culdeus
ID: 14452520 Thu, Jun 10, 2004, 08:58
|
I was sort of half-joking myself about the TE. It's a necissary evil that just can't be eliminiated. I just like scouting the WR matchups and depth charts so much I'd like to start 4WR. It just kills me when a TE gets 7 points in a game on one dump off in the end zone catch.
About IDP the only thing I would definately stay away from is the Assist. I know from following FBG and having it in a league last year that that stat is arbitrary, some scorers I think give assists for giving someone a help up off the pile. Tons of other little quirks pop up in IDP scoring that you just can't control (FF + Saftey counts double an INT usually) The whole 2pt saftey debate (which probably has a sack with it)
I've helped tons of leagues up at my grad school set their scoring using the draft dominator. I usually just figure out what their goals are and work around it.
I always push to get 4 WR gone by the 2nd round 1 QB gone by the second round for a 12 team league. Anything less borderlines on unfair because if 12 straight RBs run off the board the guys at the back of the order are really left without any studs. The easist way to lessen the impact of the RB is to give points for catches. 1pt for or 2 pts per 5 is the standard thing I try to get people to work in. Then again I already said I love WR, so maybe it's my agenda...
2pts for 40yd TD's are great fun too and add to the WR spot as well.
|
|
| 76 | dgrooves
ID: 513181020 Thu, Jun 10, 2004, 19:04
|
The easist way to lessen the impact of the RB is to give points for catches.
This is actually false; awarding 1 point per reception only provides a very negligible boost in WR value. The top RBs grab enough receptions to counter the value this adds to the top WRs.
Plug 1 starting RB into the DD and see what happens.
2pts for 40yd TD's are great fun too and add to the WR spot as well.
I for one dont think bonus scoring for TDs is any fun.
|
|
| 77 | culdeus
ID: 14452520 Thu, Jun 10, 2004, 20:04
|
I know everyone in here has set up leagues, run leagues and won leagues. To each his own. I haven't started messing around with my DD yet, still looking at schedule strengths.
My favorite system last year did the 2pts/5receptions that took away the guys who just get the dump offs (like RB). You can't really simulate that in DD, it works though. I was able to change some things in DD to make certain columns be "5 reception games" and run that through, haven't done that yet.
I know 2pts/40yd TD isn't purist, but nothing starts up the smack calls like a big TD in a 3pm game. Good times, good times.
|
|
| 78 | Doug Sustainer
ID: 2730280 Sat, Jun 12, 2004, 13:36
|
Regarding TEs, to me the solution is not to eliminate the position, but to adjust it's scoring... and lumping TEs into a flex position are tantamount to eliminating them IMHO. To reiterate a point in post #14, you could make earn 1 point per 5 yards rather than 15. Or maybe a point per reception for TEs only. Etc. Lots of options... but I like to see a creative solution to a problem rather than the "let's get rid of 'em" approach.
While a point per reception doesn't have a huge effect on WR valuation, it does have SOME effect, as it widens the intrapositional scoring difference between the top and 36th (or whichever) WR (moreso than it does for RBs), giving that position as a whole more relative value (similar to the TE proposals above).
|
|
| 79 | dgrooves
ID: 513181020 Sat, Jun 12, 2004, 17:19
|
To reiterate a point in post #14, you could make earn 1 point per 5 yards rather than 15. Or maybe a point per reception for TEs only.
All this really accomplishes is adding to the value of the top 3 or 4 TEs. It makes it look like the position is more valuable overall, but it does little to the separation between the remaining TEs. If thats what you want, then fine, but its not going to make those who wait on TEs grab one any sooner.
...it widens the intrapositional scoring difference between the top and 36th (or whichever) WR (moreso than it does for RBs), giving that position as a whole more relative value As I said in post 76, this is false. Ive played with the numbers and have found that adding 1 point per reception only provides a negligible boost to WR value.
That isnt to say Im against awarding 1 point per reception; it just doesnt boost the value of the WR position as much any many of you seem to believe.
|
|
| 80 | Doug
ID: 422281412 Sun, Jun 13, 2004, 05:10
|
I know you said it post 76, and again in 79... but that doesn't make your statement true. ;-) I guess it depends on your interpretation of "negligible".
I'm having trouble pasting the table... so I'll write this out. I looked at last year's stats and assumed the following: 12 team league, 1 pt per 10 yds rush/rec, 6 pts per TD (leaving out fumbles or fumbles lost or other stats that I think are trivial for the purpose of this analysis). I compared the average scoring of the top RBs (1-6) with the last starter/first bench category (25-30). I prefer 25-30 to 19-24, because the top 24 backs are not evenly distributed 2 per team typically, and in short I think this is a more accurate measure of "last starter". The top backs averaged 318.6 vs. 125.1 for the lesser backs... for a 193.6 delta. If you add 1 pt. per reception, the numbers change to 377.2 vs. 158.9... for a 218.3 delta. Thus, the amount of "spread" in the position (or "delta") has grown by 24.7 points by adding receptions... a 13% increase.
Now let's look at WRs... here I used groups 1-6 as top starters and 37-42 as last starters (same reasons as above, assuming 3 WR per team). The top receivers averaged 164.6 vs. 79.7 for the lesser receivers... for a 84.9 delta. If you add 1 pt. per reception, the numbers change to 242.2 vs. 125.0... for a 117.2 delta. Thus, the amount of "spread" in the position (or "delta") has grown by 32.3 points by adding receptions... a 38% increase.
This analysis illustrates that adding a point per reception has more of an impact on the WR position than on the RB position, as you noted... the question is whether it is "negligible". That's a somewhat subjective term... in absolute numbers, the difference is very minor, but percentage-wise it is much more significant since WRs have a lower "base" spread at their position, so anything to help widen that spread takes on more significance accordingly. This is subject to interpretation obviously, as all statistics are... are they the "right" statistics, etc... anyway, just trying to keep the dialog open.
As for the 5 vs. 10 on TEs, looking at last year the delta between players 1 and 12 was 87.5 with 10 yard scoring, and 9.1 points between players 6 and 12. With 5 yard scoring those numbers changed to 139 and 22. So, yes, the biggest change is for the top few TEs... but the intention is not to make all 12 starting TEs get selected in the first 8 rounds or something like that. Instead, it probably means you'd see a top TE in round 2 rather than round 3, etc... which I think is a step in the right direction and adds yet another compelling strategic element to the draft. Just my .02, YMMV.
|
|
| 81 | dgrooves
ID: 513181020 Sun, Jun 13, 2004, 10:21
|
All very good points Doug; nothing there I really disagree with. The only part I question is your choice of criteria. In post 78, you talk about "the top WR" and "the 36th WR", but change it to the top 1-6 WRs and the 37th-42nd WRs in your analysis. To me (and I mean no offense becuase I definately respect you and your posts here), it looks like you adjusted your analysis to give your position the best possible light.
That in and of itself is not a big deal, and Im sure Ive done it plenty of times. The differences we're discussing are small [I found it to be around 16 points - why I said negligible], so I think my original point, that adding points for receptions is not the easiest way to lessen the impact of RBs, is still valid.
I also quesiton your use of the top 1-6 players, as the top 1-6 RBs will be closer in terms of production than the top 1-6 WRs.
I didnt post numbers in part because I didnt want my choice of criteria to become the topic of debate. I also only looked at one set of numbers, so I, like you, could've had sample size problems.
|
|
| 82 | Ref Donor
ID: 539581218 Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 14:10
|
CBS is by far the best football league I've seen. Guru, perhaps Gonos could hook you up with a free league?
CBS allows you to add about whatever stat you'd like. I think there are just to stats that we'd like that are not offered as of yet (blocked XP and the negative gained yds is capped at 1 so we have to manually adjust those). Anyhow, our 24 team league (that's right leggstand, 24 teams) is the best league and most fun I've ever had. We're entering our 3rd year as a keeper league format. The activity is very high. We have 14 players and 9 actives and with the bye weeks, trades and add/drops are all over the place.
Much prefer deeper leagues to those easy 12 team leagues where there are still good players in the FA pool and people have deep teams and even bye weeks are no problems for them as they pick up the positions they need each week with little thought about who they have to drop.
Anyhow, after a LOT of back and forth and throwing our likes and dislikes about previous leagues we'd been in, this is what rfs and myself came up with a couple years ago, adding the yds allowed element before last year:
Scoring for Offensive Categories FG - Field Goals 3 points Plus .5 points for a FG of 35 to 40 Yds Plus 1 point for a FG of 41 to 45 Yds Plus 1.5 points for a FG of 46 to 50 Yds Plus 2 points for a FG of 51 to 55 Yds Plus 3 points for a FG of 56 to 999 Yds FL - Fumble Lost, Including ST plays -2 points IKRTD - Individual Kick Return TD 6 points IPRTD - Individual Punt Return TD 6 points MFG - Missed Field Goal -2 points Plus 1 point for a MFG of 35 to 40 Yds Plus 2 points for a MFG of 41 to 99 Yds MXP - Missed Extra Point -1 point Pa2P - Passing Two-point Conversion 1 point PaInt - Passing Interception -2 points PaTD - Passing TD 4.0 points PaYd - Passing Yards -400 - -1 PaYd = -.04 points for every -1 PaYd 1 - 400 PaYds = .04 points for every 1 PaYd 401 - 999 PaYds = .06 points for every 1 PaYd Re2P - Receiving Two-point Conversion 2 points ReTD - Receiving TD 6 points ReYd - Receiving Yards -100 - -1 ReYd = -.10 points for every -1 ReYd 1 - 150 ReYds = .10 points for every 1 ReYd 151 - 999 ReYds = .125 points for every 1 ReYd Ru2P - Rushing Two-point Conversion 2 points RuTD - Rushing TD 6 points RuYd - Rushing Yards -100 - -1 RuYd = -.10 points for every -1 RuYd 1 - 150 RuYds = .1 points for every 1 RuYd 151 - 999 RuYds = .125 points for every 1 RuYd XP - Extra Points 1 point Scoring for Defensive Categories BFB - Blocked Field Goals (ID/ST/DST) 3 points BP - Blocked Punts (ID/ST/DST) 3 points DFR - Defensive Fumble Recovered 2 points DTD - Total Defensive and Special Teams TD 6 points Int - Interceptions 2 points PA - Points Against, Total Points Scored 0 - 0 PAs = 21 points 2 - 5 PA = 14 points 6 - 10 PA = 10 points 11 - 14 PA = 7 points 15 - 15 PA = 6 points 16 - 16 PA = 5 points 17 - 17 PA = 4 points 18 - 18 PA = 3 points 19 - 19 PA = 2 points 20 - 20 PA = 1 point 21 - 24 PA = 0 points 25 - 28 PA = -1 point 29 - 35 PA = -3 points 36 - 42 PA = -5 points 43 - 56 PA = -7 points 57 - 99 PA = -10 points SACK - Sack 1 point STY - Safety 3 points YDS - Yards Allowed 0 - 149 YDSs = 3.5 points 150 - 174 YDSs = 3.0 points 175 - 199 YDSs = 2.5 points 200 - 224 YDSs = 2.0 points 225 - 249 YDSs = 1.5 points 250 - 274 YDSs = 1.0 point 275 - 299 YDSs = .5 points 300 - 349 YDSs = 0 points 350 - 374 YDSs = -.5 points 375 - 399 YDSs = -1 point 400 - 424 YDSs = -1.5 points 425 - 449 YDSs = -2 points 450 - 474 YDSs = -2.5 points 475 - 499 YDSs = -3 points 500 - 9999 YDSs = -3.5 points
|
|
| |
| 85 | culdeus
ID: 14452520 Wed, Jun 23, 2004, 19:43
|
FWIW great historical FFL site for offense.
PFR
They say 2002
#36WR T Brown 108 #12TE E Conwell 63
01
J Grahm 111 W Walls 75
00
C Conway 104 J Harriss 61
So roughly a 40 point differential between the last WR and last TE started on a regular basis. Whether it's worth doing away with the TE is anyone's guess
|
|
| 86 | deepsnapper
ID: 2344179 Fri, Jul 09, 2004, 16:20
|
Sandbox is bringing back their SBX custom league hosting game this season after taking a year off to put together the football, basketball, & hockey games to go with their base Full "C" (count, contact, etc) series of games. SBX Baseball has been running the past couple of seasons.
I'm already signed up with a 12 team year-round SBX league and I'll be able to provide Guru more info about the game later this month.
ds
|
|
|