My preference is to keep munch and draft next week, but if there’s significant objection I’ll go with a replacement. I sent out some feeler PMs that probably won’t get responded to until tomorrow.
C or A.
Really don’t want to wait a week.
Ok, we won’t wait, half the league objects. I’ll see how strong the interest is to replace him on short notice, but if we can’t find a replacement, can you autorank extensively Munch? Would you be willing to stick it out with an autodrafted team?
It’s significantly easier to auto-rank for standard than auction, so you can do some re-ordering and do a pretty good custom draft.
Ok, I’m not going to be around most of the day. Sorry I can’t resolve this stuff quicker but I’ve been crazy busy.
The league is split down the middle on kickers, and on a tie, I’m inclined to go with what’s traditional even though I think it’s a waste of a roster slot. Kickers are in.
Three want a 3rd QB in a flex spot. One wants a 3rd QB in a strictly 3rd QB slot. Two want 2 QBs. I think that’s a clear win for having a third QB, unless Varlos objects to the idea of having the third QB in a flex spot. The flex spot is actually designed to make it easier to swallow having 3 QBs - if your QBs are hurt or on bye and you simply can’t field one in that slot, rather than it go empty you can stick some other position in there.
People are concerned about the RBs, but the two people who laid out the proposals for specific rosters actually went more RB heavy (relative to WRs at least) than me.
I propose 4 RB, 1 RB/WR, and then 1 QB/RB/WR flex spot that will generally be a QB. Varlos suggested 4 RB and 2 WR/RB allowing one more RB than me potentially and Omni proposed 4 RB 1 RB/WR, same as me, but he only has 4 starting WRs too, making the RB to WR ratio rather steep.
I’m personally not concerned with RBs running away with the league. There just aren’t as many stud RBs these days that you could stockpile, and there are consistent and high scoring WRs that you can neglect with an RB-centric strategy. I think the RB/WR ratio should be somewhere around 1:1.8, and I’m not overly concerned with the actual raw numbers of RBs.
But as far as roster proposals go, we’re not that far apart unless Omni is dead set on having so few WRs start. Varlos’ is like mine except an extra flex and def slot, which I’d be ok with, but adding kickers would shorten our benches a lot (9). I don’t think many people would like Omni’s setup where many/most people would be starting 5 RBs and 5 WRs.
So my adjusted proposal:
QB x 2
QB/RB/WR/TE x 1
RB x 4
WR x 6
RB/WR x 1
WR/TE x 1
TE x 2
K x 1
Def x 2
Bench x 10
Any big problems with that?
I think we should start with the all-pro scoring and go from there, possibly using omni’s yardage/TD ratio.
All pro settings that differ from default:
QB 20 yards/point
-2 for int
-.4 for sack
.5 ppr
returns 25 yards/point
fumbles -1 fumbles lost -1 (so a fumble that gets recovered by a teammate is punished half)
Kicking - one more point per FG, but penalties for misses. 0-29 FG 3, 30-39 4, 40-49 5, 50+ 6, missed 0-19 -3, missed 20-29 -2, missed 30-39 -1, missed PAT -3
Safety 4
Points allowed 0 16
Points allowed 1-6 11
Points allowed 7-13 7
Points allowed 14-20 3
Points allowed 21-27 -1
Points allowed 28-34 -6
Points allowed 35+ -11
I think that scoring system is pretty good. As I said, we can tweak it to be more yardage based, just throwing that out there as a baseline.
As I said, I won’t be around much to handle this today, so go ahead and discuss it and I’ll catch up later.
Are we bumping passing TDs down to 4 points?
Passing TDs have been 4 by default on yahoo (and most other sites) since 2005, the year after Peyton went crazy. I didn’t list it there since I didn’t list any default values.
Default QB scoring for yahoo is 25 yards/point, 4 passing TD, -1 int. We changed it in the all pro league to 20 yards/point, 4 passing TD, -2 int, -.4 sack. Giving greater punishments for bad plays, somewhat offsetting it by more points for yardage. It generally results in better outcomes IMO.
I think there’s 1 too many WR spots in your proposal. I’d be inclined to ditch the WR/TE flex. I like the idea of having 1 super flex and one traditional flex spot only. Too many flexes makes roster management a little too marginalized.
A typical starting lineup would be
QB, QB, QB
RB, RB, RB, RB, RB
WR, WR, WR, WR, WR, WR
TE, TE
K
DEF, DEF
and room for 2 backup QBs, 2 backup RBs, 4 backup WRs, a backup TE and a backup DEF.
In bye weeks it’ll be challenging to flex both a QB and a RB so the odds are good that there’ll be 7 starting WRs pretty often and 8 on occasion.
No real problem with that but how would you feel about just turning it into an extra WR slot so we have 7 WRs? Or do you just think that’s too many? I’d like to keep the RB/WR ratio greater than 5:6, which is what we’ve potentially got if we keep the one RB/WR slot. Of course we can alter that at the other end and remove an RB slot, or a flex spot, but I tend to want to go deeper. I’d much rather have 4/7 than potentially 5/6. If we’re starting 2 TEs, the WR/TE flex is unlikely to ever be a TE, but I figured it’d be inconsequential to have that added flexibility.
I may not be as busy as I suspected today so I may be around to talk this out.
I would rather have INTs at -2.
I like punishing for sacks and turnovers pretty harshly. I think the -1 for fumbles not lost is a little silly. You don’t give QBs -1 for interceptions dropped. I’d prefer to just go with -2 for both fumbles lost and Ints and could be persuaded to up that to -3 for both, though if TDs are kept at 4 pts that’s a little tougher to justify.
I still want to argue for my tweaked yardage/TD stats. To reiterate the logic, I think that QB yardage is often overvalued in fantasy and that QBs on crappy teams playing catch up benefit too much. To fix that, QB TDs should be boosted while QB yardage softened. In contrast, RBs TDs are over valued relative to worth, I’d like to make sure that TD vultures are the fantasy role players they belong as. For WRs a 100 yard game with 10 catches is more important than a 2 catch game with a TD.
Proposed scoring:
Passing
TD: 5
Yards: 50 yards/pt
Sacks: -.4
Ints: -2
Bonus: 2 pts for 300 yards, 2 pts for 400 yards.
Rushing
TD: 5
Yards: 8 yards/pt
Fumbles: -2
Bonus: 1 pt for 100 yards
Receiving
TD: 5
Yards: 8 yards/pt
PPR: .5
Bonus: 1 pt for 100 yards
I just pulled these out of my ass and haven’t crunched the numbers to see where this would leave us, but that’s where my head was at. The scoring is fairly standard but the balance between yardage and scoring is shifted just one notch. I’m not married to the idea of bonuses. I understand why they are a little illogical but I think that in the QB’s case it slightly offsets the reduced yardage scoring to not be too one sided.
I like bonuses and I don’t really get why no one else does, but not a big deal either way.
I’m ok with your general ideas and I’m willing to give it a try. Your initial numbers seem too extreme for the QB (cutting yardage points in half, or by 66% of all pro standards) is pretty drastic (if we were going to cut it that much, 6 point TDs seem more appropriate), whereas the RB/WR numbers may not go quite far enough - I’d consider 4 point TDs there.
I would not be strongly opposed to 7 WRs. I understand the argument that making that extra spot a WR/TE flex is potentially trivial, but something about 3 flexes feels a little excessive.
In a typical fantasy league you usually see WR/WR/RB/RB/Flex or WR/WR/WR/RB/RB. WR/WR/WR/RB/RB/Flex is just too many starters. I think when you’re looking at the 45th WR it becomes far to much of a lottery ticket, it’s a shallower position than people seem to think. Yes teams start 3 of them most times, but they rotate 4 guys into the bottom 2 more often than not. You’re proposing doubling the last choice AND adding a super flex. Too much IMO.
I was thinking maybe 3 RB, 6 WR, one flex (that would usually be a RB), that would maintain a decent ratio. But that seems a little bit short to me.
If we are going to go with your proposal to TD-weight QBs and yardage-weight WRs/RBs, what do you think about
QB
50 passing yards = 1 point
TD = 6
INT = -3
sack -.4
1 point bonus at 250, 300, 350
RB
TD = 4
7 yards = 1 point
1 point bonus at 80, 110, 130
WR
TD = 4
7 yards = 1 point
1 point bonus at 65, 100, 120
Just throwing out proposals. I know some people don’t like bonuses, but I like them so I figured I’d include them. At that ratio, a receiving or rushing TD equals 28 yards of production, which may be too dramatic for some people. But I figured I’d throw it out there.
I kept the int penalty high because I like to match higher scoring with higher penalties to really make the efficient QBs stand out.
Really? Have a look at the stats for last season and tell me which of the top 15 quarterbacks had their fantasy points inflated by playing catch up a lot.
This is an awful lot of proposed change for a league set to draft tomorrow. It’s bizarre to me that people who essentially said “auction isn’t necessary because it’s a difficult format to figure out” are now willing to completely readjust the way players are fundamentally valued.
If you want to make sweeping changes to a scoring system, the day before is probably too late.
I don’t see the dichotomy you’re trying to draw. Auction not being necesary or advantageous is a seperate issue from the scoring system. If you simply don’t want to introduce a drastically different scoring system this late in the game, I understand and that’s a valid concern. I’d be fine with just going with the all-pro system we’re all used to, or just the plain old standard scoring. I don’t feel that unusual scoring is necesary to keep this league interesting.
As far as doing all of this at the last minute - I’ve only had occasional internet access for the last few weeks so I simply couldn’t do more to hash this out faster.
I’m inclined to agree that we might be fine with a standard or familiar modified (all-pro) system for this year and maybe rework something unusual next year. We do need to get the roster size issue hammered out though.
I considered those points and and open to discussing them. The reason I chose the more middle of the road numbers is to guard against the impact of a Tom Brady like 50 TD season from a QB. Honestly, my extreme solution for QB scoring is to remove yardage points altogether. Give them 6 points per TD and bonuses for 50 yards, 100 yards, 150 yards and so on. That would essentially remove partial points from the QB scoring and round everything down to the nearest threshold for yardage. I figured that might be a little too radical for this league though.
This brings me to another point that I had been meaning to bring up, and I confess that it might undermine my case for these scoring tweaks.
We should be somewhat conventional with this league if it’s to be considered an “elite” league. In the discussions of roster sizes, we’ve referenced the player depth and roster sizes in the Big League and HHM. Those leagues are a little bit gimmicky. They are loads of fun and gimmicks are fine to create interest, but I think both leagues are somewhat more luck driven due to the depth of the players and rosters. Scarcity of resources creates an unnatural concentration of power.
If we want this league to be a fair measure of FF skill we should probably do our best to eliminate those wildcard elements as best we can. If teams that aren’t wildly mismanaged are forced to start the likes of Cam Newton, Anthony Fasno and Anthony Dixon due to the lack of available options we’ve failed in our goal. Those scenarios are fun in their own way, but they don’t reward skill, they reward luck.
Alright, how about we just go ahead and use the all-pro system, which I believe we’re all familiar with and suits our preferences better than the default system? I didn’t have as much time as I’d have liked to work the details out, so we can make major scoring system changes next year.
And for rosters, how does
QBx2
QB/RB/WR/TEx1
RBx4
WRx7
TEx2
Kx1
DEFx2
BENCHx11
Good? If I add a flex spot, the ratio changes from 5/7 RB to WRs, which I’m not a fan of. We could do 4RB/6WR, and that’s alright ratio wise, but it seems a little shallow overall. I guess I could do 3RB, 6WR, and RB/WR flex. Still a little shallow but doable.
Any major objections?
I’m not familiar with it. Quick primer, s’il vous plait?
ETA: I’m fine with using it either way, because in general I don’t really give a shit about scoring systems and they don’t affect my strategy much.
The differences from standard yahoo scoring are in post 84.
Half PPR, more points for QB yardage but bigger punishments for sacks/ints, defenses score more points - allowing fewer points scores more, allowing lots of points loses more. FGs are worth a bit more, but kickers are punished for missing. Return yards. Some other tweaks.