I just did some quick, back of the envelope calculations which suggest to me that the best way to do the modifiers is simply to halve QB scoring and leave it at that.
What matters when looking at which positions are more relevant to victory isn’t the average yardage total for each position, but rather the average *distance *from the average yardage totals at each position. For instance, by my manual tabulation, the average (adjusted) RB total for last year was 1,473 while the average WR total was 1,110, but the two positions were almost identical in terms of importance. This is because there was a lot more variation in the WR numbers, so someone who did relatively well picking that position would have a larger *proportional *margin over people who did less well than would someone who was good at picking the RB position.
So, by my tabulations (and, again, someone may want to double-check to see I haven’t made a mistake), the average adjusted yardage totals for each position were…
QB: 4265
RB: 1473
WR: 1110
… and the average year-end distances from the above averages were…
QB: 315.6
RB: 155.6
WR: 159.1
Since the RB/WR numbers are almost exactly half of the QB number, that suggests to me that the simple, elegant solution of halving QB totals also happens to be the best way to make each position equally relevant to victory. That said, in addition to possibly having made a tabulation error, I might also be mistaken that average distance from the mean is the relevant stat for deciding our modifiers. Does anyone feel that way? I just thought this up a minute ago, I won’t be offended if you tell me I’ve missed something obvious.
That sounds reasonable, since the core skill here is the ability to pick players who will be way more productive than average. You could even score the league by calculating the average game by a position (or - and this would be a twist - the average performance of that player calculated at the end of the year) and subtract that from the score. IE if QBs average 257 yards per game, you picking a guy who puts p 310 would be worth +53 points.
Half sounds reasonable. My fudging of 40% sounds reasonable too. I’m good either way.
Technically you can get the picks in before the relevant games. So if you don’t see this until 3pm tomorrow, you could still make picks out of the afternoon games… or if you get this after the games tomorrow but before Monday’s games, you could pick from those. No sign up process, anyone is welcome - just post your picks.
Is everyone cool with dropping the lowest week for everyone like last year? That way a missed week won’t totaly screw you, and maybe some people who miss week 1 can still come in for week two and get a full score.
If anyone else still wants in, you can either pick players from the Sunday and Monday night games, or you can start next week and the dropped week means you won’t be behind a week.
SenorBeef, I appreciate the reminder but had decided that despite how much I enjoyed playing last year, there were too many times that outside obligations made it really difficult to participate. Thanks anyway and best of luck to all.
Steal? As the defending champion I rather think it’s rightfully mine, wouldn’t you say?
One thing I like about this is that, since we drop a week, we get a 16-game “season” at each position, so we have obvious, familiar benchmarks for what constitutes success at each position (for instance, notfrommensa “broke” the single season passing record by 20 yards last year). Aside from winning, my main goal this year is to cobble together a stud WR, something most people weren’t able to do last year. I’d be happy with 1400 yards, though more would be better.
ETA: Ah, ok, he broke it using all 17 weeks. Still, you get my meaning.