NFFC Signups Are Now Available

[kjduke]

Originally posted by JohnZ:
... although -2 for all int's is too much. Same with fumbles. It swings it too much the other way. Too much, are you kidding me? Turnovers are game changing events.

So, it is your opinion that any 10yd pass reception is worth more than a turnover? I think 30 NFL head coaches, 900 sports announcers and about 50 million casual fans all would disagree with you.

[ultimatefs]

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
Also, please tell me which site I can go to and find data for all of your specialty rules, so I can calculate accurate player values over the course of the season without having to go thru each game individually to figure that out. Thanks. no need...

QB's that throw less INT's are a tiny bit more valuable. Those that throw a ton are a tiny bit less valuable. Common sense will get the job done here. It's really not that big of a difference.

The reason I threw it out was because the main reason this topic was brought up was not symmetry, but a need to penalize poor performances more. This does it.

It's Greg's game, he'll take all the info and use it as he sees fits best. Didn't look like he was going to use the +2 part, no biggy, and that makes my info not comparable. If he chooses that, PM for the link.

[kjduke]

Originally posted by JohnZ:
Like Greg, I listen to my customers and they suggested this well over a decade ago and no one has asked for a change since. I was one of the few games at the time that had 6pt TD's for QB throws and this works out well.
You got some quirky customers John, because no one here asked for that here, yet almost everyone seemed to like just making the INT worth -2 pts.

Six pts for a passing TD makes sense because a TD is worth 6 pts for every other position, good call in getting that one right before everyone else.

[kjduke]

Originally posted by JohnZ:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
Also, please tell me which site I can go to and find data for all of your specialty rules, so I can calculate accurate player values over the course of the season without having to go thru each game individually to figure that out. Thanks. no need...

QB's that throw less INT's are a tiny bit more valuable. Those that throw a ton are a tiny bit less valuable. Common sense will get the job done here. It's really not that big of a difference.

The reason I threw it out was because the main reason this topic was brought up was not symmetry, but a need to penalize poor performances more. This does it.

It's Greg's game, he'll take all the info and use it as he sees fits best. Didn't look like he was going to use the +2 part, no biggy, and that makes my info not comparable. If he chooses that, PM for the link. [/QUOTE]If the differences are tiny, why complicate the scoring? Either it matters, or it doesn't, and if it doesn't matter enough to analyze then keep the quirkiness and the inconsitency of it out of the rules.

[ January 09, 2008, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

[ultimatefs]

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by JohnZ:
... although -2 for all int's is too much. Same with fumbles. It swings it too much the other way. Too much, are you kidding me? Turnovers are game changing events.

So, it is your opinion that any 10yd pass reception is worth more than a turnover? I think 30 NFL head coaches, 900 sports announcers and about 50 million casual fans all would disagree with you. [/QUOTE]That question has no bearing on anything.

KJ, I doubt twisting everything into non-relevant things is going to help your cause. You're obsessed with this symmetry thing and your not looking at the QB performance in the proper context.

Go ahead, have the last word. I'm going to bed. Again, this is right above the nffc schedule thing. Go take 12 points off some crappy QB and tell me it's going to change where you draft him.. Please...

[kjduke]

Originally posted by JohnZ:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by JohnZ:
... although -2 for all int's is too much. Same with fumbles. It swings it too much the other way. Too much, are you kidding me? Turnovers are game changing events.

So, it is your opinion that any 10yd pass reception is worth more than a turnover? I think 30 NFL head coaches, 900 sports announcers and about 50 million casual fans all would disagree with you. [/QUOTE]That question has no bearing on anything.

KJ, I doubt twisting everything into non-relevant things is going to help your cause. You're obsessed with this symmetry thing and your not looking at the QB performance in the proper context.

Go ahead, have the last word. I'm going to bed. Again, this is right above the nffc schedule thing. Go take 12 points off some crappy QB and tell me it's going to change where you draft him.. Please... [/QUOTE]Here's my last word John.

I hate inconsistent, quirky and unnecessary rules - even more so when I can't easily find data to analyze their impact - and I generally avoid leagues that use them.

[ultimatefs]

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by JohnZ:
Like Greg, I listen to my customers and they suggested this well over a decade ago and no one has asked for a change since. I was one of the few games at the time that had 6pt TD's for QB throws and this works out well.
You got some quirky customers John, because no one here asked for that here, yet almost everyone seemed to like just making the INT worth -2 pts.

Six pts for a passing TD makes sense because a TD is worth 6 pts for every other position, good call in getting that one right before everyone else. [/QUOTE]No way in hell are they as quirky as you

A few have tried though... just havin fun...

Like I said, -2 for both and you'll see some QB performances scored too low (as some saw Romo/Manning's too high). My solution is a little more in the middle, and has worked in this format (14 teams)for over a decade. Guys like it. What can I say? I haven't read this whole thread. I saw it I think early afternoon. Been way busy. If Greg's starting at -1, then that is not what I suggested. He modified it to what he thinks best fits his game.

[BillyWaz]

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by JohnZ:
... although -2 for all int's is too much. Same with fumbles. It swings it too much the other way. Too much, are you kidding me? Turnovers are game changing events.

[/QUOTE]So is where a punter nails a punt inside the 5, but I don't think it would be good to draft punters.

I like the -2 starting at 2 INT's because ONE INT generally does not constitute a bad game IMO (especially when it is a meaningless INT on a hail mary at the end of the half or game). Now if you threw one previous to that, you get penalized. I like it.

It is kind of like a "grace INT". The world gives "graces" all the time. Why shouldn't it apply here?

Plus I am not a fan of negative points (unless they are needed, ex. Manning and Romo's horrible showing's this year).

I kind of like it, but it really isn't a huge deal either way for me. Having the prize system as fair as possible (it is the best in the business, but could be tweaked even more IMO), and a good playoff system are most important in my book.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by JohnZ:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
Also, please tell me which site I can go to and find data for all of your specialty rules, so I can calculate accurate player values over the course of the season without having to go thru each game individually to figure that out. Thanks. no need...

QB's that throw less INT's are a tiny bit more valuable. Those that throw a ton are a tiny bit less valuable. Common sense will get the job done here. It's really not that big of a difference.

The reason I threw it out was because the main reason this topic was brought up was not symmetry, but a need to penalize poor performances more. This does it.

It's Greg's game, he'll take all the info and use it as he sees fits best. Didn't look like he was going to use the +2 part, no biggy, and that makes my info not comparable. If he chooses that, PM for the link. [/QUOTE]If the differences are tiny, why complicate the scoring? Either it matters, or it doesn't, and if it doesn't matter enough to analyze then keep the quirkiness and the inconsitency of it out of the rules. [/QUOTE]You're right KJ, maybe we had it right in the first place with -1. Thanks for all your help on this.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
sorry, I haven't chilled yet

I've pushed for this -2 for a couple of yrs now, and it is now a bastardized version. It had 100% percent support on a flat -2 scale.

There are a million things, John, that are accomplishments that arent rewarded. There is an elegance in simplicity and symmetry. These rules are neither, and are absolutely 100% unnecessary and add nothing to the contest.

-2 was supported in large because it is consistent with a Defense getting +2 for an INT. So this is just taking one inconsistnecy and making it worse. I'm not sure where the 100 percent support came from other than five guys on a message board. The NFFC has tried to give QBs the value they deserve and adding more negative points defeats that purpose. You're right, when a QB throws 5 or 6 INTs in a game, we're not doing justice with just -1 per INT, yet somehow Romo still won that game.

So we'll consider -1, -2 and a sliding scale and come up with something that makes sense. Again, thanks for your passionate input on this and thanks to John for being the punching bag on this last night. He took one for the NFFC, I guess.