Apolyton Fantasy Football

[Al B. Sure!]

The key phrase being "seems to."

I don't think it's any different for QBs. You can throw all the numbers you want out there, but the reality is that actual games are ruled by game situations, leading to coaching decisions. Sit on the lead vs. weak offenses; make up for defensive lapses vs. good ones; run out the clock if possible; a WR's great YAC making a joke of YPA... It goes on and on, so the whole idea of rewarding efficiency becomes pockmarked with exceptions.

It's a fool's errand, IMHO.

Here's the problem with not accounting for efficiency... let's compare Sam Bradford and Josh Freeman:

Bradford: 354/590 (60%) for 3512 (6.0 y/a) 18TDs 15INTs
Freeman: 291/471 (61.4%) for 3451 (7.3 y/a) 25TDs 6INTs

Freeman was hands-down the better QB; more accurate, much higher yards per attempt, more TDs, a fraction of the INTs, etc.

Using D/ST league's settings:
20 yards per point
0.5 for completions
-0.25 for incompletions
6 for touchdowns
-3 for interceptions
(I'm ignoring sacks, rushing yards, etc. to keep this simple and focus on the pure passing play)

Bradford: (177-59) + 175.6 + 108 - 45 = 356.6
Freeman: (145.5-45) + 172.5 + 150 - 18 = 405

It looks reasonable but the fact that Freeman threw 7 more TDs and 9 less INTs is the main reason for him having more fantasy points.

A hypothetical unlucky Freeman who threw the same amount for the same yardage but who threw the same number of TD passes and INTs as Bradford would be:

Bad Freeman: (145.5-45) + 172.5 + 108 - 45 = 336

THAT is what bothers me about not taking into account efficiency!

To reiterate, these are the outputs:

Bradford: 354/590 (60%) for 3512 (6.0 y/a) 18TDs 15INTs
Bad Freeman: 291/471 (61.4%) for 3451 (7.3 y/a) 18TDs 15INTs

While the hypothetical Freeman and Bradford threw for the same TDs and INTs, Bad Freeman had a higher completion percentage and a much higher yards per attempt. He was throwing deeper and still completing his passes.

Yet such a Freeman would be punished by netting 20 less fantasy points!

THAT is what bothers me about the lack of consideration for efficiency.

The example during the year where Roethlisberger had a monstrous game throwing deep on only a handful of pass attempts yet only netted as many fantasy points as Brees, for the same yardage, throwing short passes about 60 times and 4 picks was a shocking example, to me, of the problems with rewarding completions.

[Jaguar]

OK, I've got it set up. Using 8 yards per point, everything works perfectly. I made very conservative changes, because there does seem to be some support of "traditionalism." The sheet now has receivers in it.

FAQ on Changes to RBs and Receivers

Q: What are the changes?
A: These are the changes that have been made.

Yardage has gone from 1 point per 10 yards to 1 point per 8 yards.
Touchdowns remain at 6.
Receptions have gone from .5 points to .2 points.
There is now a -.1 penalty per rushing attempt.
Fumbles lost have gone from -3 points to -5 points.

Q: What is the purpose of these?
A: To reward efficient players who create big plays when they get the ball, and to penalize the more plodding types.

Q: Does this change overall scoring?
A: Overall, receiver points remain constant, and running back points are reduced by 3% in the aggregate.

Q: How radically does this change the player rankings?
A: Not very. Since this is the first year we've done the change, we're going to be very conservative with it. The most any player's scoring moves, relative to others at his position, is about 5-6%.

Q: Who benefits and hurts most?
A: Highly-efficient RBs like Jamaal Charles benefit. His scoring increases 3%, where the average RB's score decreases by 3%. RBs with low yards per carry hurt. Chester Taylor, with a 2.38 yards per carry average, sees his scoring decrease by 10% under the new system, relative to the average decrease of 3%. Similarly, I believe we have rewarded possession receivers a little bit too much in the past, so there are modest adjustments to receivers. Big-play guys like DeSean Jackson will move up about 5%, and a possession receiver like Wes Welker will move down about 3%.

Q: Are these changes radical?
A: Rewarding efficiency in Fantasy is highly unusual. However, we are being very moderate in doing so.

Q: Can we expect similar changes for QBs?
A: Yes. I intend to reduce QB scoring slightly, to match the RB reduction of 3%, and I intend to reward efficient QBs more heavily.

Q: Can I see a comparison of how people fare under the old and new systems?
A: Yes. Go here to view such a comparison.

[Al B. Sure!]

This would make some sense in a deeper 14-team league since it gives a small bonus to those sub-15 carries/game RB's that will be relevant in such a deep league.

I'm not too sure, though, about applying this to receivers and weakening the possession receiver's value. It takes ability to catch a ball that isn't the same as just receiving a hand-off or throwing a pass. I don't know. I wanted this to have better players have greater fantasy value regardless of volume... and a Devone Bess is a better player than a Devin Hester.

[Jaguar]

The best comparison on receivers is Braylon Edwards vs Wes Welker, since they're so close in everything except possession/big play. Both have 7 TDs and a fumble.

If you had to guess, which player had a better year? The one with 53 catches for 904 yards, or the one with 86 for 848? I honestly don't know. Their scoring in the new system is neck-and-neck, while last year's system put Welker ahead by 11 points.

[Al B. Sure!]

Deoin Branch and Davone Bess were rated the same on the old system but now, Branch has a 7 point lead on Bess.

Branch: 61/818/6TD 1 fumble
Bess: 79/820/5TD 3 fumble

hmm... 18 more catches, 2 more yards, but 1 less TD and 2 more fumbles... I guess I could see the logic in not having them the same but having Branch have a 7 point lead on Bess which considering the TD, means that 2 less fumbles is worth 1 point more than 18 more catches.

That's debatable but it's not unreasonable.

The only hesitation I have is that making catches requires talent to the level that simply receiving a hand-off or throwing a pass does not. Any RB can, barring injury, get 400 carries in a season; his productivity is the question. Any QB can throw 500 pass attempts in a season; again productivity is the issue. But can any WR catch 100 balls? I don't think so.

But we aren't 'punishing' guys for making catches, though, just reducing the points so it's fine, I guess. If we were punishing for receptions, that would be a problem.

[Al B. Sure!]

The best comparison on receivers is Braylon Edwards vs Wes Welker, since they're so close in everything except possession/big play. Both have 7 TDs and a fumble.

If you had to guess, which player had a better year? The one with 53 catches for 904 yards, or the one with 86 for 848? I honestly don't know. Their scoring in the new system is neck-and-neck, while last year's system put Welker ahead by 11 points.

33 more catches is a lot. They were a lot shorter, though. It's really tough to say. Catches, even shorter catches are tough, and the argument could be made that it's harder for a receiver to haul in 86 balls across the middle 7-12 yards out then it is to catch 53 passes 15-20 yards out. I'm generally in that camp and I think the possession receiver is more talented. I would say Welker deserves to be rated higher because of those 33 more catches.

But I can understand the idea that Edwards is making each catch count more and that's more 'efficient'.

Really, to measure WR efficiency, we need a catch/target system but they're so unreliable because targets aren't an officially-tracked stat and I don't think that's possible with Yahoo anyway. That would be a better analogue to completions/attempts or rushing attempts for taking into account efficiency than receptions are.

[Jaguar]

I would love for targets to exist as a Yahoo stat. Unfortunately, they don't. I've asked snoopy, one of our more conservative owners, to take a look at the spreadsheet and see if he thinks it's reasonable.

If so, I'll move on to QBs and defense soon.

[Jaguar]

DST league has been renewed!


ID# 209894
Password: dst

Just making sure this remains visible.

[joncha]

I am against nerfing QBs.

[Al B. Sure!]

QB's is the one thing that SHOULD get nerfed. RB's and WR's are debatable.

You really don't mind my Bradford/Freeman comparison where better accuracy and much more yards per attempt leads to less fantasy points? Where volume means more than efficiency?

[joncha]

You really don't mind my Bradford/Freeman comparison where better accuracy and much more yards per attempt leads to less fantasy points? Where volume means more than efficiency?

I really don't.

[Jaguar]

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuUBtfhJtHvBdDFNdFRzeDg0MlBtN2c3Wm1keWVzY1E&hl=en_US

An early attempt at a pro-efficiency reform for QBs. Be aware that I included 30 QBs on the list, far more than one would actually expect to play.

The meat of the reform is that yardage points have been increased, and completion points have been decreased substantially, and interception penalty has been increased. Now it's essentially about getting lots of yards without too many incompletions or interceptions. Be aware that most of the guys on the bottom of the list will never be played. The main purpose is to help the "efficient but low-attempts" guys catch up a little bit with the "less efficient but more attempts" guys. It knocks back Peyton, Brees, and Matt Ryan, who romped all over everyone because they had so many attempts - and helps out guys like Roethlisberger and Flacco and Freeman. Overall it reduces QB points league-wide, and increases the gap between the legitimate starters and the non-legitimate starters. However, I think it does actually increase equality among the top 18 or so QBs.

QB will remain an important position, but there's less of a chance of the Peyton owner stomping over everyone to a 15-0 season. The game managers are closer to the shootout kings.

[-Jrabbit]

The idea of subtracting points (albeit only 0.1/attempt) from rushers for doing their job -- running the ball -- just seems...wrong.

[Guynemer]

Snoopy's post re 3rd down backs is an excellent example of why this exercise is, IMHO, hopeless.
Similarly, analysis presented to date doesn't even consider receiving. So how can this be said to increase realism?

Negative points per rushing attempt is one of the most asinine ideas I've ever seen in fantasy football.

Yeah, I don't want a negative per rushing attempt, just a smaller positive.

I do want a negative per incompletion.

[Jaguar]

The RB settings I'm proposing have a RB score negatively on a carry for 0 yards, and (very mildly) positively if he rushes for 1 yard. I don't see this as qualitatively different from penalizing him for a carry for -1 yards, which all forms of fantasy football already do.