Thoughts On Point Reception Leagues

Sound Advice · Post by **Sound Advice** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:27 am

I've thought about the 20 thing a lot.
We had 20 at the VIPS, and it is much nicer to be able to carry an extra te, and extra k especially for the playoffs. You would have to do it all year though. 20 round draft. With 14 teams it would be the most challenging in FF.

Our 18th round pick is doing good.
Should we get the benefit of that, or would it be better for him to help make the FA pool deeper?
FA pool is an afterthought, really.
Just plug ins.

I would like to see one more starter, a flex or something. If we had to play more of our benches, that could only help the more skilled players.
2 rb, 3 wr, 1 rb/te, 1 wr/te. That would be brutal.

I'd like to see more of people's benches playing.
Not guys like M Drew, but guys like Betts, B Jacobs, etc.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:59 am

To say using PPR "adds" value to WR and TE is not really correct. Yes, it leads to a higher raw point total, but raw point total is not the true measure of value. The difference in points between the player in question and the worst starting player at his position is the true measure of value, as that represents useful points. If the worst starting QB averages 15 points, then 15 should be subtracted from every QB to get his useful points. If the worst starting RB (ignoring the flex for the sake of this discussion) scores 5 points, then that needs to be taken away from all RB before you can compare value across positions.

So what the +1 for WR does is further separate the difference between the top and bottom WR as the top ones obviously catch more balls then the bottom ones.

The same holds true for RB of course.

What would be interesting is to get these adjusted values with RB at .5 and with RB at 1. My gut says .5 works better than 1, because the lower RB do not catch nearly as many passes as the upper RB. If it were +1 per catch, then after adjustment, useful RB points would soar -- you'd have more RB in the top 20.

This gives me an idea -- can't do it now, but later I'll take 2005 stats and compute an adjusted top 20 with just RB and WR to see how many of each are in it, using 0 PPR for each, 1 PPR for each and the present system.

wayne123 · Post by **wayne123** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:35 am

Greg,

In my opinion, the 1/2 point for RB receptions is the best compromise that I have seen. I hope that you decide to keep it. There will always be players like Bush, Vick, and Randle El that do not fit the scoring mold. But, generally speaking, RBs are paid to run the ball and WR are paid to catch it. So, the point system you have reflects that basic fact, evens out the scoring between RBs and WRs, and makes every play count. Regarding the rosters...this is a hoot with six teams on a bye. Looks like I will have to start two TEs! I like the challenge of playing the FA game and balancing a line-up through the bye weeks. One thing that could be considered is a INJURY offset. For example: A player who has been declared OUT for a game can be dropped on Saturday and an IR replacement picked-up. The drop/pick-up would only be effective for one game! This would be a second round of free agency that takes place after the first and is only eligible for players listed as OUT on a roster. This might be impossible to do, but, I just wanted to suggest it considering how thin some line-ups are during these weeks. I know if I had S. Alexander on my roster, I would not want to release him to the FA pool, but it would be nice to be able to pick up a player for one game.

Take care!

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:13 am

Interesting...

Without accounting for flex or byes (baseline RB28 and WR42), the 2005 final stats have 13WR/7RB if you compare the top 20 RB+WR. If you make RB = 1PPR, then the ratio is the same 13/7. If there are no PPR, then only 11 WR are in the top 20 so at least last year, the effect was to add more value to WR as two more cracked the top-20.

It will be interesting to check other years and to add in a correction for flex and/or byes.

[ October 12, 2006, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Todd Zola ]

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:05 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
When I first announced the NFFC rules in 2004, I did allocate 20-man rosters. But most people agreed that at 14 teams and 280 players being selected on Draft Day, that the free agent pool would be too thin to be meaningful. I scaled back to 18 players per team before Draft Day and we've been there ever since.

Now I agree that these two six-team bye weeks make it mighty tough in the NFFC and we said that the teams who planned for this and can make the right moves via free agency will fare well. But I definitely agree, some tough cuts obviously will have to be made this week and next. Going to 19 players per team certainly wouldn't be fair on Draft Day, so 18 or 20 are our options. Right now 18 still seems as the best solution to keep FAAB relevent.

Good discussion, which is what I wanted to see again on the NFFC boards!

Nice example above Rob, but remember that Deuce also got two first downs with 7-yard runs that were worth two less points just because he took the handoff from Brees instead of catching a short swing pass from Brees. Those are two BIG points in fantasy football and he was just as important to his team as Bush was. Rosters should be 20 during 6-team bye weeks, 18 in the others.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:33 am

Originally posted by UFS:
quote:Rosters should be 20 during 6-team bye weeks, 18 in the others. [/QUOTE]You're a smart man John, but how do you propose that??? You'd allow owners to add two players before Week 6 and then drop two players after Week 7? And what happens if everyone doesn't comply? Nothing against the idea, but it doesn't seem feasible to change the setup during the season. Adding two players for the playoffs seems easier than this proposal.

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:19 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by UFS:
quote:Rosters should be 20 during 6-team bye weeks, 18 in the others. [/QUOTE]You're a smart man John, but how do you propose that??? You'd allow owners to add two players before Week 6 and then drop two players after Week 7? And what happens if everyone doesn't comply? Nothing against the idea, but it doesn't seem feasible to change the setup during the season. Adding two players for the playoffs seems easier than this proposal. [/QUOTE]I'm doing it right now.

We increased rosters by 2 for this week.

Before the start of Week 8, we will set max back, and no owner can make a transaction (faab here) AND/OR lineup change until they waive down to the limit.

For NFFC, this would require a waive option on the lineup screen. This would be easy for stats to add to the pull down menu or create a button for it.

If an owner doesn't FAAB or make a lineup change, then NFFC removes the two players it signed. I doubt it will get that far with Week 8/9 byes, but you need to cover all bases.

[ October 12, 2006, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: UFS ]

D-Day Heroes · Post by **D-Day Heroes** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:58 pm

That's ridiculous.....You should not have to try and cover all the pit falls in fantasy sports, they are part of the game. what happens if the NFL changes the schedule next year. Just Deal with it, as long as everyone is dealing with same thing there is no Unfair advantage. BTW...the points for receptions was a great addition.

Shrink Attack · Post by **Shrink Attack** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:02 pm

Originally posted by UFS:
quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by UFS:
quote:Rosters should be 20 during 6-team bye weeks, 18 in the others. [/QUOTE]You're a smart man John, but how do you propose that??? You'd allow owners to add two players before Week 6 and then drop two players after Week 7? And what happens if everyone doesn't comply? Nothing against the idea, but it doesn't seem feasible to change the setup during the season. Adding two players for the playoffs seems easier than this proposal. [/QUOTE]I'm doing it right now.

We increased rosters by 2 for this week.

Before the start of Week 8, we will set max back, and no owner can make a transaction (faab here) AND/OR lineup change until they waive down to the limit.

For NFFC, this would require a waive option on the lineup screen. This would be easy for stats to add to the pull down menu or create a button for it.

If an owner doesn't FAAB or make a lineup change, then NFFC removes the two players it signed. I doubt it will get that far with Week 8/9 byes, but you need to cover all bases. [/QUOTE]But why is all this necessary? Because Weeks 6 and 7 are more difficult? Isn't overcoming difficulty a measure of skill in this contest? It's all being talked about as though having to deal with these extra byes is somehow "unfair" or "not right".

Personally, I like it the way it is now. Having to deal with the extra teams on bye adds another wrinkle to Fantasy Football which the experienced gamer can take advantage of over the unprepared owner, and thereby winning with skill instead of luck. Why should that competitive wrinkle be taken away?

By the logic discussed above, Weeks 1, 2, and 10-16 (which have no teams on bye) should have 18-man rosters while Weeks 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 (which have 4 teams on bye each week) should have 19-man rosters to "make up" for the byes.

I think that any rule changes that give less-prepared owners an "out" are bad for the contest. Therefore, put me down as a "no" vote on this one.

Just my $0.02

[ October 12, 2006, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Shrink Attack ]

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:18 pm

Originally posted by Shrink Attack:
quote:Originally posted by UFS:
quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by UFS:
quote:Rosters should be 20 during 6-team bye weeks, 18 in the others. [/QUOTE]You're a smart man John, but how do you propose that??? You'd allow owners to add two players before Week 6 and then drop two players after Week 7? And what happens if everyone doesn't comply? Nothing against the idea, but it doesn't seem feasible to change the setup during the season. Adding two players for the playoffs seems easier than this proposal. [/QUOTE]I'm doing it right now.

We increased rosters by 2 for this week.

Before the start of Week 8, we will set max back, and no owner can make a transaction (faab here) AND/OR lineup change until they waive down to the limit.

For NFFC, this would require a waive option on the lineup screen. This would be easy for stats to add to the pull down menu or create a button for it.

If an owner doesn't FAAB or make a lineup change, then NFFC removes the two players it signed. I doubt it will get that far with Week 8/9 byes, but you need to cover all bases. [/QUOTE]But why is all this necessary? Because Weeks 6 and 7 are more difficult? Isn't overcoming difficulty a measure of skill in this contest? It's all being talked about as though having to deal with these extra byes is somehow "unfair" or "not right".

Personally, I like it the way it is now. Having to deal with the extra teams on bye adds another wrinkle to Fantasy Football which the experienced gamer can take advantage of over the unprepared owner, and thereby winning with skill instead of luck. Why should that competitive wrinkle be taken away?

By the logic discussed above, Weeks 1, 2, and 10-16 (which have no teams on bye) should have 18-man rosters while Weeks 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 (which have 4 teams on bye each week) should have 19-man rosters to "make up" for the byes.

I think that any rule changes that give less-prepared owners an "out" are bad for the contest. Therefore, put me down as a "no" vote on this one.

Just my $0.02 [/QUOTE]It might not be necessary. We will see in a few weeks.

It was certainly worth testing though.

Good debate on preperation vs taking the best player no matter what.

If it was just one week of 6-pack byes, I'd tend to agree with you, but two weeks of them is going to leave some guys that drafted very good teams shorthanded at 18.

As always, Greg will do what is best for his game.