The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Apolyton Fantasy Football - Koy's League - Final Signup & Draft
Whether a fantasy scoring system is WR-happy or RB-happy is not a function of total score, but of separation of score...
Also, "filter by actual' means ... filter by fantasy points last year You'd have to compare to a different scoring system otherwise.
My understanding is that "Actual" applies '07 stats to this league's scoring system. No matter. Either "Fantasy Points" or "Actual" is doing that, which is why I listed both. (The results are different but similar.)
According to Yahoo:
Rank: Actual = Player's ranking based on stat filter selected.
I'm pretty sure that "Fantasy Points" does exactly the same thing, but adds miscellaneous "non-position" stats (like LT's TD throws, Burleson's punt returns, etc.) that are included in our scoring system.
Please state exactly what you mean by "separation of score."
On Edit Draft the names are ranked the same in both leagues.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
Originally posted by SlowwHand
On Edit Draft the names are ranked the same in both leagues.
That's because those lists are based on Yahoo's "Projected" player rankings, which use Yahoo's "standard" settings and are thus the same for all leagues -- including the one I'm running at FFZ, with considerably different settings.
Apolyton's Grim Reaper2008, 2010 & 2011 RIP lest we forget... SG (2) and LaFayette -- Civ2 Succession Games Brothers-in-Arms
Snoopy's points are good, but that's not the real reason why JR's evidence doesn't prove his point. 2007 was a historically bad year for fantasy running backs, with injuries to Jackson, both Johnsons, Alexander, Portis, McAllister, and many other big-name running backs.
Try looking at the 2006 actual data under this league's scoring. The top eight scorers at WR/RB are running backs. 16 of the top 25.
The other reason is, of course, that if you wait until late to draft your WRs (or TEs, or even QBs), you can still get serviceable guys who do something.] If you wait until late to draft your RBs, you get duds like Aaron Stecker and DeShaun Foster.
"You're the biggest user of hindsight that I've ever known. Your favorite team, in any sport, is the one that just won. If you were a woman, you'd likely be a slut." - Slowwhand, to Imran
Jaguar, I think that DD is saying that he's on your side. He ain't waiting.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
Funny how you're shifting this from a discussion of RB-heavy settings to RL injuries, Jaguar.
I was just teasing you for your obvious posts to encourage the drafting of more RBs only after you'd spent 3 picks on them. Thus leaving more of the top non-RB talent available. I wasn't questioning your fantasy knowledge. Just your motivation.
Learn to take a joke, dude.
The supply of quality RBs in FF drafts remains essentially unchanged over the past several years, with the rise of the RBBC reducing the number of true load backs. Which actually means that some secondary RBs (Sammy Morris, Ahmad Bradshaw, Leon Washington) actually have more value than they used to, not less. But little else has changed.
In addition, PPR scoring and a general NFL trend toward using the pass to set up the run has actually upgraded the value of receivers relative to RBs.
Apolyton's Grim Reaper2008, 2010 & 2011 RIP lest we forget... SG (2) and LaFayette -- Civ2 Succession Games Brothers-in-Arms
These settings do, in general, encourage a whole lot of RB drafting. Otherwise I wouldn't have gone for three of them, and I'd have a shiny Marques Colston sitting on my roster.
2007 was a weird year for fantasy because of the freakishly high number of running back injuries, so it's not a good sample year to examine whether this scoring system is heavily weighted towards running backs or not. 2006, a more typical year, shows that it's weighted pretty dramatically in favor of the RB position.
Oh, and you're totally right to question my motivation for discussing this now instead of earlier. But it doesn't make me wrong.
"You're the biggest user of hindsight that I've ever known. Your favorite team, in any sport, is the one that just won. If you were a woman, you'd likely be a slut." - Slowwhand, to Imran
My understanding is that "Actual" applies '07 stats to this league's scoring system. No matter. Either "Fantasy Points" or "Actual" is doing that, which is why I listed both. (The results are different but similar.)
According to Yahoo:
Rank: Actual Player's ranking based on stat filter selected.
I'm pretty sure that "Fantasy Points" does exactly the same thing, but adds miscellaneous "non-position" stats (like LT's TD throws, Burleson's punt returns, etc.) that are included in our scoring system.
Please state exactly what you mean by "separation of score."
You are not disagreeing with me here (or not contradicting me, anyway).
I am saying that comparing "actual stats" to "fantasy points" (2007) is meaningless, because you are comparing two identical lists... if you are not comparing but just showing, then don't put two lists up of course (as it's confusing), since they're essentially identical.
Separation of scoring, is why QBs are historically not picked in the first round.
QBs are, under virtually every scoring system I've seen, the highest scoring players in fantasy. By far. Usually there's something like a 50% increase from L.T. or whomever the highest scoring RB is, to the highest scoring QB.
However, they are not picked early because the increase in scoring from the #1 QB to the #12 QB is not very large, unusual years aside (ie, Brady). Brady went early this year of course because of that; but while most people have 2 RBs or more by now, half of the players wait until the 5th round or later to select a QB.
Statistically speaking, "standard deviation" would be the term to use here (though not entirely accurate either). If the value of dropping 10 ranks at RB is higher than that of dropping 10 ranks at QB, you pick a RB.
In this particular case, you have to look at what PPR does to the stats of the lower WR and RB as well as the higher.
What PPR does to RBs: increases the value of about 10 RBs significantly, increases the value of most RBs slightly. I'm at work, so I won't take time to analyze it thoroughly, but most of your top RBs are also high in catch/game, relatively speaking; not all of them, of course, but a significant number. These are your full-time starters who are also in a system where the RB plays a significant factor. Westbrook and Bush aside (who gain a ton), most of the top 15 gain something like 3.5 points/game, or 50-60 points/season, from PPR (3-4 catches/game).
The RBs in the remaining set are those who are part-timers, and particularly the TD stealers and other short-yardage backs, who rarely catch the ball; and the starting RBs who are either too young to be kept in for the passing game (rookies/new starters) or are in a less RB-centric offense. They gain less than 2 points per game (<30 points/season). Thus, PPR has the net effect of increasing the separation in RBs slightly (by increasing the value of top RBs, compared to that of lower RBs). It may have a slight effect at the very top, particularly at the end of the 1st round, in decreasing the likelihood of RB selection; but it is very small (because it encourages 2 RBs).
WRs, on the other hand, actually are made less interesting in a standard PPR scheme, except for a few top WRs. Non-PPR gives a higher proportion of scoring to yardage and TDs (often gross as well as net, in the sense of giving a higher point per yard). Your average non-PPR score for a top WR might be 100 catches, 1200 yards, and 13 TDs. In a Non-PPR format with 10 yds/pt, that's worth 1200/10 + 13*6, or 198. In a PPR format with 20 yds/pt, that's worth 100+60+78 or 238.
A middling WR, on the other hand, catches 60 balls for 560 yards and 5 TDs. In the Non-PPR format, that's 56+30 or 86 points. In the PPR format, that is 60+28+30 or 118 points. In Non-PPR, you get well over double the performance - 198-86 or 112 additional points (130%) - from selecting the top WR, or about 7 points per game. In the PPR format, you get 120 additional points (100%) - again, just over 7 points per game.
The net gain, then, is 0.5 ppg for a WR, and around 1.5-2 ppg for a RB, comparing a high level player (top 15) to a relatively low player (say, 30th). Of course, this math changes constantly as you adjust who you compare - and certainly some WRs benefit more than others - but overall, you should tend to select RBs in a standard PPR league more than you should in a non-PPR league.
The only thing that benefits the WR selection is the fact that they tend to be more stable (ie, a top WR is nearly always a top WR the next year, while a RB is a bit more risky), and this is not as true in a non-PPR league (where TDs are a lot more variable than catches; Larry Fitzgerald will catch between 80 and 120 catches this season, nearly certainly (barring an unlikely injury), but whether he catches 5 TDs or 15 is much more in question.
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
Comment