Apolyton Fantasy Football (not soccer damnit)

[SlowwHand]

You and EPW should be roommates.

[ColdWizard]

Then he would steal all of my Slowwhand Harassment Ideas.

[-Jrabbit]

Ok, so, just to be clear - we're ok with it when Jag suggests bringing QBs and other positions closer to parity in Team D, but not in IDP?

I have no problem with that, just wondering.

First, it's important to note that Jaguar is commish of the DST, and the membership, while overlapping, is not identical between the leagues. Also, I'm sure if he wasn't on vacation, Jag would be telling us how statistically wrong we are. He did so at length last winter.

Fortunately, it's just a game.

On defense, I think you're answering a question that no one was asking. Even if a change were needed, I feel that nerfing turnovers etc relative to tackles and passes defensed is the wrong way to go.

I don't oppose dialing back QBs a bit, but a 200 pt/season deduction is over 14 pts/wk. Pretty major.

And obviously, I remain a supporter of return yds.

[Sparrowhawk]

On defense, I think you're answering a question that no one was asking. Even if a change were needed, I feel that nerfing turnovers etc relative to tackles and passes defensed is the wrong way to go.

I did suggest trying to make defensive players more valuable, in hopes of having them drafted higher, changing the strategy away from filling the major offensive positions first, and the defensive positions second. I didn't offer any suggestions how to do this however.

/me

[Koyaanisqatsi]

200 points a season only sounds major because you don't take into account that your opponents are likely losing almost the same amount. Really, there are two differentials you should be looking at: the difference between high and low QBs, and the difference between QBs vs the difference between other positions.

- If I lose 14 points a week off my QB1 and you lose 10 off your QB10, that's only a relative change of 4 points a week.
- Last year, the difference between Avg(QB1-5) and Avg(QB6-10) was 175 points. That's about the same as the difference between starting Calvin Johnson and starting WR62. If you maximize the QB gulf and compare 1 to 10, you could have started QB1 and air against QB10 and Calvin Johnson and won, by a lot. With .5 PPR that doesn't change all that much: the difference between tier averages only drops to 158 points, and now QB1 only beats QB10 + Megatron by 20 points instead of 78.

1 -> .5 is really a pretty minor drop, all things considered, because the differential doesn't change a lot (as I said in a previous post). If we want to significantly nerf QBs from a decision-making point of view we'd have to compress the differential between top and bottom starters, which 1 -> .5 only drops by ~15% (or the 4 points/game I mentioned above). It does change how you determine value somewhat, since higher YPC QBs are now worth more than low YPC QBs who throw for the same yardage. If you wanted to drop the absolute point differential to bring it in line with the differential at other positions you'd have to cut a whole lot more, by up to 70%. They're still massively overpowered from that perspective.

(If you want to include 1 QB vs. 2 RB, the difference between RB1+2 and RB19+20 was 296 points last year...about the same as the difference between QB1 and 10 under .5 PPC. The difference between WR1+2 and WR19+20 was 196.)

So I should have been more specific when I said that it makes QBs less powerful compared to other positions. It's largely an aesthetic change so that a great day by your QB is no longer worth more than the rest of your roster put together. In actual effect, looking at QB1->10 it's similar to going to 4pt/TD, and going to 50yds/pt is in between those two and the status quo.

           1 PPC      .5 PPC     4pts/td    50yds/pt
QB1        832        598        740        722
QB2        726        555        636        634
QB3        710        509        632        605
QB4        690        479        608        589
QB5        581        426        539        500
QB6        564        391        502        481
QB7        548        369        490        458
QB8        541        368        483        450
QB9        527        344        473        435
QB10       480        304        432        404

∆ Tier 1-2 175.8      158.2      155        164.4
∆ QB1-10   352        294        308        318

On defense, you say that you feel that it's the wrong way to go, but you don't say why. Previously you said you'd rather bump sacks and turnovers, but you didn't really say why there either, so I can't really argue the point.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I did suggest trying to make defensive players more valuable, in hopes of having them drafted higher, changing the strategy away from filling the major offensive positions first, and the defensive positions second. I didn't offer any suggestions how to do this however.

/me

I don't know that these changes would make people draft them any higher, but it would make the "rational" part of their scoring more powerful compared to the "luck" part of their scoring on a week-to-week basis (not necessarily in aggregate for the season). In my mind, that makes the decisions you make about them as a fantasy player more important.

[Al B. Sure!]

Only on Apolyton do we worry so much about the scoring system.

[-Jrabbit]

On defense:

1. You're not going to change draft strategies on defenders with these changes. The point differential between top performers (LB1-10) is small, and there will never be a real sense of scarcity with 3-4 NFL starters per position, per team.

2. The notion that turnovers are random is IMHO misguided. It is not an accident that certain players are repeatedly at the top of those categories and are considered stars. I just think it should be them, rather than the plodding gap-fillers, who should be rewarded. Turnover monsters change games. Solid tacklers, not so much.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

1) I agree with. 2) is why I specified that the change is on a weekly basis rather than over the course of the season.

Again, I'm not really advocating for the change, just trying to make sure that the intended impact on the game is clear.

[Zopperoni]

I'm willing to go with whatever the majority decides, but we really don't need to make any changes to the scoring settings.

Nothing's broken IMO and I'd like to think that everyone still has a fair chance of assembling a great team regardless of draft position (which should be the key issue).

EDIT: I do seriously oppose making TE a flex position. It's becoming such an integral offensive position that it needs to be represented. Plus, it makes for interesting tactical decision-making.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I don't think there was a suggestion that the TE-only position be removed, only that TE be added to the existing WR/RB flex. (Unless I missed something...)

[-Jrabbit]

Agreed, Koyaa.
I believe the position proposal is: same as last year, but with the flex position changing from WR/RB to WR/RB/TE.
Thus, yes, more tactical/strategic options with the possibility of starting two TEs.

In the past, I've opposed this idea, but the TE position is rapidly evolving, with multiple-TE sets becoming commonplace on a number of teams in the copycat league that is the NFL.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm happy with TE as it is. I've drafted TE high, I've drafted TE low. I've won grabbing TEs off the bench week to week and treating them like defensive players in my 'revolving defense'.

[Zopperoni]

Ah, apologies, I misread the suggestion.

I have no strong opinion about adding TE to the flex spot, but I'm willing to try it.

It should create some nice bye week flexibility at the very least.

[snoopy369]

Haven't decided if I'm playing IDP or not yet (I'm playing DST, of course). Probably won't unless I'm needed to make numbers work (even # or to have enough teams to have a decent league). Babies and new houses take a lot of time from one's day