Please speak up if you object to using IDP; otherwise we’ll try it.
I’m liking it. I figured under my ideal system, Shawn Merriman would’ve topped the IDP list, since he does a variety of things well. He comes in 2nd in this case. In general, I figured it was probably best if 3-4 OLBs were high up on the list - they have to do so much. Might need a tiny bit more tweaking, but in general I’m liking the way it’s turning out.
As far as a fumble recovery being equal to an interception, I’m not sure what would work bestl. The forced fumble can be as big, or a bigger play, than jumping on the ball. If you count the forced fumble as half of the turnover, and the recovery as the other half, it kind of undervalues either component. If you value both highly, it probably overvalues when a player does them both in the same play.
I see your point, and that’s a good one. I already did boost the numbers well over the default yahoo scoring system, but perhaps they could be boosted a little further.
Defenses that work off of big plays rather than stifling coverage and such are kind of penalized by default if the scoring allowed numbers take off, whereas the individual big play numbers remain the same. Perhaps they should be boosted slightly to offset this, or perhaps this is exactly what you want. If we did boost both, the result would be that defenses played a bigger role.
Something else we have to consider is how valuable we want positions to be relative to each other. How important should RBs/WRs/QBs be relative to each other? Should a kicker really matter? Should a team defense be potentially as big a scorer as one of your offensive players? Who should IDP players match up to? A minor player like a kicker, or play a bigger role like a WR?
I do feel like we’re getting a good system in place. I’m liking the scoring projections based on our system.
You’re right, it’s important to chime in on IDP if you object to it. The responses so far have been in favor of it, but fairly mildly.
Also, chime in if you have an opinion on whether or not we should start a keeper thing. I didn’t originally intend for that to be the case, but now that I see that 9 people are returning from our league last year, and the people who want to play clearly are interested in fantasy football every year, and we’re likely to have a high re-up rate next year, it might be a good idea.
I’ve been reading.
I’m still of the opinion of which I already was. I’ve done IDP in all kinds of different iterations, and generally concluded that it’s not worth the trouble. So I object. But I’m down for whatever.
I’d also rather not do a keeper league.
I’ve got a soft spot in my heart for using defensive players in leagues. I got Dre Bly right his first year on the Lions. I also nailed Gary Brackett last year and Karlos Dansby.
Idle speculation on my part – what would the QB rankings look like with the 6 point per touchdown setting back in place? I’m sitting here asking myself whether Jon Kitna really rewarded his team more than Tom Brady did last year, or whether Favre and Philip Rivers were really a tossup. Put me on the books as favoring 6 points for all touchdowns, anyway.
In theory I agree about all touchdowns being worth 6 points (or some equal value). In practice, with all the numbers, I don’t know how that’d flow…
…but I think I know a couple Dopers that do.
We’d have to readjust the other tweaks we made to compensate for it. Maybe -.5 to -.7 sacks and perhaps even a -3 penalty for ints, and yardage would have to go back up to 25.
Something like 6 TD, -3 int, -.5 sack, 25 yards/point might work. It would give a little more room for the QBs who score a lot more TDs than ints to shine.
I have also been reading everything, just don’t have time to really post (not to mention to crunch the numbers that would make the posting productive!). I am mildly against IDP, but certainly not strongly so (like Jimmy, in a “not worth the trouble” sort of way, as opposed to a “HATE THE IDEA!” sort of way).
I am also generally in favor of all TDs being six points, if possible.
You guys that don’t like IDP - what are your reasons for objecting to it? I know Jimmy essentially thinks it’s just noise - that the decisions you make on who to start aren’t really meaningful because you could get free agent replacements that will do as well. Did you keep up with the discussion about how IDP scoring dominated by tackles can create this effect, but with more weight given to other kinds of plays might serve to differentiate the elite from the common more effectively? I mean, did that change your view at all?
I think IDP can probably be interesting and workable, it just isn’t in typical scoring systems, which is why it has left a mediocre taste in a lot of people’s mouths. With the default scoring system, you draft your tackle machine, plug him in every week, and that’s all there is to it. It’s almost like kickers - boring and not involving much decision.
But the system we came up with allows more variety in which types of players are viable or not, and hence gives you more freedom to pick players based on the matchup. To me, fun FF isn’t just plugging in your best guys every week and seeing how the scoring goes. I like to really have to put thought into decisions about matchups, trends, etc. Kicker-like IDP where tackle scores drown out any real decision making sounds pretty boring to me too, but sack/int/pass defensed/fumble/etc.-weighted IDP (with tackles still playing a big role, just not a smothering role) makes you think about the matchup. Do you start your star CB who’s unlikely to make ints against Peyton Manning, or an okay-ish safety who’ll put up some decent tackle numbers but won’t do anything spectacular? Do you play your pretty good DE against a backup rookie tackle, or go with your elite tackling machine in a routine matchup? I think that if you get the scoring right, IDP can become as interesting as offensive players. It’s just that the default system most leagues have doesn’t do that.
Using the table I used before, here’s how a hypothetical system of 6 point TDs, -3 int, -.5 sack, 20 yards/point would work
QB A throws for 250 yards, 1 td, 0 ints, 2 sacks.
QB B throws for 175 yards, 3 TDs, 3 ints, 5 sacks.
QB C throws for 375 yards, 1 TD, 1 int, 3 sacks
QB D throws for 150 yards, 3 TDs, 1 int, 3 sacks.
QB E throws for 200, 1 TD, 4 ints, 6 sacks.
QB F throws for 300 yards, 4 TDs, 0 ints, 1 sack
Scoring system 1 will be the old yahoo default scoring, 25 yards per point, 6 per td, -2 for int.
System 2 will be the new default scoring, 25 yards per point, 4 per TD, -1 per int.
System 3 is my proposed system - 20 yards per point, 4 per TD, -2 per int, -.5 per sack.
System 4 is a hypothetical system of 6 point TDs, -3 per int, -.5 per sack, and 20 yards/point.
System 5 is the same as 4, only with 25 yards/point.
1 2 3 4 5
A 16 14 15.5 17.5 15
B 19 16 12.25 15.25 13.5
C 19 18 19.25 20.25 16.5
D 22 17 16 21 19.5
E 6 8 3 1 -1
F 36 28 30.5 38.5 35.5
The further we penalize turnovers and sacks, the more efficiency-based QBs become rather than raw numbers. It’s a little strange in that RBs and WRs essentially have no efficiency value - there are fumbles, but they’re relatively rare. They basically just keep racking up points with no downside, a good RB is extremely unlikely to earn you negative points, and even on a bad day, will earn you a decent amount of points. A QB’s bad day, however, can either set you back or score next to nothing. That’s not necesarily bad, it’s just something to consider… the more we steer the scoring in that direction, the more the QB position effectively is scored in a different manner than other positions.
The problem with this utopian ideal is the bench size. The only way to make IDP interesting would be to have so many bench spots that people can comfortably carry extra IDP guys that ride the bench.
I’m not a big fan of having such a large bench, so count me in the not for it but not totally against it group with Jimmy and Kiros.
Almost every valuable offensive player will be taken - a similar number of potential players, but each team needs a lot more offensive players. Which means that a variety of perfectly good free agents will be available from week to week. You could take them and dump them as you see fit based on matchup, keeping your 1 or 2 premier players. If we were to shorten the roster to 1 DL and 1 DB with maybe 7 bench slots, that would leave even more available free agents. I’m not saying that’s the only solution - we could deepen the bench a bit. What’s the concern there? Worried that people will horde all the offensive players so there were no decent free agents available?
I’ve been dragging my feet on the league size issue. We have 10 people in the league, and 4 people who’ve expressed interest: Esoteric Enigma, Least Original User Name Ever, No Clue Boy, and Frosted Glass.
Can any of you not make the 8/28 9pm eastern draft? Do any of you have a milder interest in the league? In a “I’m already other leagues but I’ll join this one if you have room, otherwise no big deal” sort of way?
We could go with 14 and invite everyone left. I personally have a strong preference for 12, I feel like it’s the ideal number, and other people have expressed a preference for both 12 and 14. 14 is cool if all of the people I named are available and strongly interested.
I can make the draft at its current date and time. With regards to interest, I have no other fantasy football leagues so this would be my only one. Therefore, I will be completely invested in this league.
I am still very interested in the league, and I can make any draft time/date, I’m not worried about that. I don’t have any other leagues or teams, and I won’t until I know if I’m getting an invite to this one. If I do get an invite, it’ll be my only team.
I also think 12 teams is the perfect number. I have been subscribed to this thread since the beginning of it. I’ll be checking to see what the decision is.
14 is totally doable, and doesn’t, I don’t think, hinder the league in any way as compared to a 12-teamer. Actually, I was supposed to vote on that, wasn’t I? I vote 14.
Who really wants to have a selection process for a fantasy league, anyway?
Can I play?
The main effect of the number of teams is the distribution of talent around the league, although there are other (I liked the top half of the league making the playoffs, stuff like that). Too few and it’s like you’re playing the all star game every week. Too many, and people are scrambling to plug in scrubs to fill out their roster. 12 just seems like the ideal balance to me - 14 wouldn’t throw that off hugely, but somewhat.
Ok, cool.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I don’t want to tell anyone no, but you have to draw the line at some point. In some previous SDMB leagues, the creator posted the league number and password and the first X number of people to sign up were in. This league already has some degree of pre-screening - playing with people I know to be reliable, or believe will be - so when it’s not first come first serve, and yet we have more people wanting to play than slots available, you have to do something to select people. 12 vs 14 is just a decision on where to draw the line - as we just got our 15th (or 16th, if you count BrianJedi’s girlfriend, who, sorry, I forgot about since she wasn’t involved in the thread) interested person, so we’re going to have to exclude some people, it’s just a matter of degree.
I asked if any of the remaining people who had shown interest were only mildly interested - if it turned out that two were, problem mostly solved, but if they were all still strongly interested then we can go with 14. Throwing in recent votes, I think 12 and 14 might be tied anyway.
Sorry, I don’t think that’s going to work out. We’re already 2 people over the consensus (I think) ideal size of the league.
A dozen is pretty cool to me. It’s going to come down to how thin or how heavy the teams will be on running back.
I’ll volunteer to spin off and create another league if there’s enough interest.
I think a balance between efficiency and raw production is best. I did a league where I tweaked the numbers, when we had a small amount of owners and two starting quarterbacks. I had Kerry Collins and Kurt Warner. They were supposed to be my sleepers. Yeah, if they got 0 points, I would have won the first 4 weeks. They were racking up negative points week after week.
That hurt, but I do like promoting efficiency, even if it will make Jon Kitna nigh undraftable.