Fantasy Football Discussion [Both Leagues]

[Tuberski]

No worries, Ben. That would never happen. (In fact, I don't think it can.)


So it's been a system of evolution rather than metrics.It seems like every year, there are one or two weeks like this (with multiple massive QB points), followed by the inevitable whining of the have-nots. Generally, all is forgotten by the end of the year, as it's pretty rare for any QB to keep up a pace like that for an extended period (Brady's 54?-TD year being the main exception). Even today, the gold standard for a great QB season is 30 TDs and maybe 3500 yards -- something few attain each year. Yet that translates to only around 35 points/week (sorry, very rough guesstimating here, 20/34-200-2).

What gets lost in the tumult is the simple fact that one bad day by a QB during the playoffs is a killer. At that time of year, big days are less likely (due to weather etc). It can really pay to have a reliable 35-pt performer (with some reliable W/Rs) for those big games.

I know I'm rambling a bit here, but I'm taking a break (from writing, ironically enough) and thought I'd let my mind wander. OK, back to billable hours...

Bite me. I wasn't whining, I made a statement.

I'm in 3 leagues, Brady got:

51.20 in league 1

Passing Yards	25 yards per point
Passing Touchdowns	6
Interceptions	-2

76.70 in league 2

Completions	1
Incomplete Passes	-.5
Passing Yards	25 yards per point
Passing Touchdowns	6

66.25 in league 3

Completions	.5
Incomplete Passes	-.25
Passing Yards	20 yards per point
Passing Touchdowns	6
Interceptions	-3
Sacks	-1

I didn't play against him in any game so it didn't affect me at all.

Notice that the league in question has no penalty for INTs.

ACK!

[Zopperoni]

Err, we have a penalty of -3 for INTs.

However, it's a moot point in regards to Brady since he didn't throw any INTs.

[Solomwi]

Here's one more for your comparison, Tubes, from a league of mine in its 11th year:

55.60

Passing yards: 50 per point
Passing touchdowns: 6
Completions: 0.5
Incompletions: -0.5
Interceptions: -2

[snoopy369]

Brady's scoring is irrelevant without context. The interest of FFL scoring systems is to provide a system whereby some balance exists in QB scoring, but also some imbalance, based on factors easily predictable [past performance, teammates, opponents' past performance and team makeup, etc.] and not easily predictable [injuries, luck, teammates performing above/below norms, etc.]. This scoring system, when combined with the RB, WR/TE, K, DEF scoring system(s), will allow for a reasonable amount of strategic decisionmaking when deciding between players, while also allowing for significant weight to opinion [ie, if your scoring system leads everyone to have the identical list of top 10 QBs, it is bad, but it should lead to reasonably similar rankings]. No one position should be the clear position that dominates picks, such that (say) every round one player is picked from that position, or such that most games are decided based on the superior player at that one position; nor should any of the skill positions be clearly inferior and irrelevant to scoring[unfortunately, K is, and there is really no way I know of to fix it].

Most scoring systems fail on the latter portion, by making RBs far superior to other positions, specifically QB and WR. Our scoring system actually ameliorates that somewhat; QB is slightly more valuable than RB on a one-to-one basis, with RB getting a bit of a bump due to positional scarcity [ie, the top QB is more points over average than the top RB, but due to the scarcity of solid RBs (fewer than QBs!), RB is actually somewhat more valuable as you may not be able to replace your second RB with a 0 replacement level RB (28th) as a result.

'Big days' will of course make it look imbalanced, but that's not the right way to look at it. Chris Johnson scored 50 points for me in week 2, and that's about equivalent to Brady's day this week in points over average, even though it probably wasn't as impressive. An average QB (#14) scores 31, so Brady scored +45; a replacement level RB (#28) scores a bit over 10, so CJ scored nearly +40 as well. But I didn't hear any complaints about RB scoring... both contributed roughly the same amount to their teams' likelihood of winning the match.

Like I said, the only thing I might change in our system is reduce the value of passing TDs, like other systems do nowadays [Y! default among them, not that I like their scoring system]. That would reduce not only 'big days', but more importantly [to me] reduce the absurd days where a QB scores a bunch of points off TDs with relatively few passes thrown [the TD Vulture QB]. While RB needs the TD Vulture to give the position added depth, QB does not, and it ends up instead making the positional scoring somewhat unrealistic, I think.

After all, who had the better day sunday (IRL)? Brady or Brees? Think a minute before you answer... because the answer is Brees, not Brady. 23/30 369 4TD 0sack 0int, versus 29/34 380 6TD 2sack 0int. In VOA terms Brees was slightly higher, not even including defense adjustments. Yet Brady scored nearly 20 points higher, largely thanks to the TDs (12pts).

I'd actually be highly tempted to figure out a VOA-based scoring system, and see where that leads us... where your points are solely your VOA. That shouldn't be that hard to do, I wouldn't think, if Yahoo! allows us to incorporate all of the elements of VOA, or at least most of them...

[-Jrabbit]

You should probably base your "average QB" on the top 14 -- those who actually play. So QB #7.5 is average (maybe QB#9 if you account for Bye replacements and QBBC...).

Just a thought.

[-Jrabbit]

Bite me. I wasn't whining, I made a statement.

My, aren't we sensitive. The post was entirely generic and not aimed at you, Tuber.

I do think these discussions are good to have, but my basic stance is that there's nothing notably wrong with the system we use now. Everyone drafts under the same rules, and the scoring is (almost) exactly the same as last year. And there's something to be said for continuity -- especially in fantasy sports, where the concept of "realism" is a chimera.

[snoopy369]

You should probably base your "average QB" on the top 14 -- those who actually play. So QB #7.5 is average (maybe QB#9 if you account for Bye replacements and QBBC...).

Just a thought.

Average QB != Replacement level QB. 14 is chosen because a) statisticians who do this for real chose that (well, 12, because 12 is a normal average league size, but I just translate that to this league) and b) because the 'added value' of, say, Tom Brady, is not to the 'average' QB but to the guy you'd be playing if you picked a QB as late as is reasonable - ie, at the end of the 'starter rounds', so, round 6 or 7 in a normal league (QB, 5 WR/RB, maybe DEF and/or TE). The idea is to say, "I can choose Drew Brees at 1.10, or I can pick Frank Gore. Assuming the rest of my draft is identical, except I pick the other player (a RB, or a QB) in round 6, how many points am I net gaining by picking one or the other?" Thus 14 or 28/35 (depending on your scoring system there as to whether a WR will definitely fill the wr/rb slot, or 50/50 RB/WR, or I suppose a RB definitely, in which case 42, though I can't imagine a reasonable scoring system that does start 42 RBs).

You certainly gain something from comparing to 'average', but you end up gaining a bit more by comparing every pick to the 'worst' pick you could have made there - at every pick from 1 to 6, you're essentially comparing the current pick to 'what if I pick this slot in my lineup in the 7th round', and making the decision independently of the other 6 picks you have to make in those seven rounds. Comparing to 'average' ends up being a bit misleading for some positions, particularly RB, where the average is skewed by the fact that there's a huge dropoff in RBs at one point, IIRC around 25 or so [ie, before the 35th pick]. Basically look at my D/ST team to see a great example of that; while I thought I was being brilliant taking Fitz+Andre, and they actually have performed okay, the fact that I replaced a #10ish RB with a #20 RB (ie, I could've had one RB there at #10, and my second where I got my first in RL at pick #30 and #31; and really took my third RB at #50, which is the real killer as I actually do have two acceptable RBs, but the third is useless].

[-Jrabbit]

OK, roger that.

Re your WR strat, been there. It's a calculated risk; if you can find that one golden RB down there (e.g. this year, Benson), it can work like a charm.

That's a powerful duo you nabbed; I can see the attraction. What was your draft osition?

[SlowwHand]

8th out of 14. Almost dead middle. I actually prefer in the middle.

[SlowwHand]

I wish Adrian Peterson caught a few passes. He's a non factor in that regard.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your RB situation is way better than mine was Snoopy.

I went LT, Rivers, Gates, Colston, Ward, Jackson, and then Jamal.

When LT AND Jamal go down that left me with Willis McGahee. Week 1 was ok, started LT + McGahee. Week 2 I picked up Bennett, and started Bennett + Jamal, and left out 20+ points from McGahee.

Week three, I dropped Bennett and picked up Jerome Harrison after Jamal goes down. So my RBs were Harrison + McGahee. Week 4, LT comes back, so I start a gimped LT + McGahee, with Harrison + Jamal on the bench for a combined 10 points. Lost by 5 points.

So I finally overhauled my RBs on the bye week with LT + Jamal out. Dropped Jamal, traded Harrison + Collins + Bess for Fred Jackson. Now I finally have a healthy RB2, with McGahee as a RB3. Result? combined 6 points! Only Austin Collie and Delhomme save my ass.

I start watching the waiver wire, and manage to pick up Mike Bell from JR, and Beanie Wells. LT comes back healthy. Week 6 was the first week that I finally had a decent RB slate.

LT, Jackson, McGahee, Bell + Beanie. Man, isn't that way better than Bennett + Jamal in week 2? I've had weeks of 9,11, and 6 from my RBs.

AFAIK, it's the second worst RB performance by starters in the entire league. Tuberski had an awful week with Portis + Larry Johnson for 6.3 points in week 3.

[-Jrabbit]

Pretty one-sided trade proposal sitting out there IMO.

Favre is the #6 QB in fantasy football. He alone should command more than a RBBC back like McGahee.

Seeking input from others...

[SlowwHand]

I don't even see a trade proposal at League.


EDIT: Oh, yes I do.

[Ben Kenobi]

JRabbit, the trade was proposed to me by EPW. He offered me Farve + LenDale for McGahee. I did not approach him.

I'm guessing he wants McGahee's home run hitting as a RB behind MJD. He's got Orton + Schaub, so he's loaded at QB. Wanted to move Farve to get something for him. McGahee does have 70+ points so far as a RB.

As for me, am I really going to be starting Farve over Rivers? Starting LenDale White? No. Both are just going to be in my platoon.

IMO, I have Farve ranked out at number 12 of available QBs, about the same as Orton and Cutler. I have Manning, Brees, Brady, Rivers, Rodgers, Schaub, Warner, Flacco, Palmer, Ryan and Romo ranked ahead of him. He's got a bye coming up, so his value is going to be lower than QBs who have already had their bye with comparable stats. FWIW, Rivers averages about 32 a game, and Farve averages 35, with a bye week coming up. That's about a 21 point total advantage, which is less than the bye would cost.

[Berzerker]

looks like a good trade for Ben, I'd have offered Orton instead But McGahee does make for a nice flex and 3rd RB. I'm biased by my weak RB situation, I sure could use him. Anyone wanna get rid of a decent starting RB? Check my team for what you want.

if the highest scoring team is weakened by the trade, who am I to complain

Ben's man crush on Rivers wont get Favre many starts in spite of the numbers