Scoring and other suggestions for HCL?

[shinner]

How's it look if for QBs you have 1 pt for every 25 yards, but leave the TDs at 4 points and leave everything else the same for other positions?

If we leave passing TDs at 4 points, then INTs should be dropped to a point. No way in hell you should lose 50% of a TD for an INT. If that's not going to change, then fumbles should cost RBs and receivers 50% of their TD potential as well. A turnover lost is a turnover lost and it shouldn't hurt one position more than another.

[carpanfan96]

With RnR's suggestion

top 50

18 QB's

19 RB's

8 WR's

0 TE's

5 Def's

[R0CKnR0LLA]

Well if you drop it to 1 point for an INT, then that means it's 25%, where RBs/WRs lose 33% of a TD for a fumble. So, there's going to be some difference either way. Really, it won't make a big difference unless you get a QB that throws a ton of INTs.

[R0CKnR0LLA]

With RnR's suggestion

top 50

18 QB's

19 RB's

8 WR's

0 TE's

5 Def's

Looks pretty even, IMO. You can try to bump up the WRs a little if you want, but honestly there are just more RBs around that are going to put up big yards/TDs than WRs.

One suggestion (rather than the .5 PPR) would be to change:

Receiving Yards 100-9999 1 points for 100, and then 1 point for every 25 thereafter

TO

Receiving Yards 100-9999 2 points for 100, and then 1 point for every 10 thereafter

Not sure if that would make a big difference for the WRs, but might help.

[Panthro]

I dont think it needs to be totally even...there was just such a vast difference last year that any adjustment was bound to make the QB position more valuable than a K

[R0CKnR0LLA]

I agree Panthro, I think just changing the passing yards would be enough. Everything else looks fine.

IMO, it's better to just keep the scoring simple and straight forward.

[shinner]

Well if you drop it to 1 point for an INT, then that means it's 25%, where RBs/WRs lose 33% of a TD for a fumble. So, there's going to be some difference either way. Really, it won't make a big difference unless you get a QB that throws a ton of INTs.

I'd sooner see 25% than 50%....too harsh IMO. An 8% diff is a bit fairer than a 17% hit.

BTW - I had Brees last year...threw for a ton of yards (which didn't mean dick due to last year's scoring) and even if he threw 3 or 4 TDs and won the game by a big score, he usually had a couple picks to go along with it. I was already getting boned on his yardage and then taking 50% penalties on all the TDs every time he chucked one up...I don't know that I will end up with him again but it was kind of screwed up to see the league's leading passer with so little points and a decent W-L record.

[R0CKnR0LLA]

Brees only had 17 INTs last season, so that'd only be 1 more point on average if you drop INTs from -2 to -1. The major issue seems to be the lack of points for passing yards.

I think it's good to have INTs be a reasonable factor. With them being only -1, a guy can throw 4 or 5 and if he still passes for good yards/TDs it wouldn't make much difference.

[PntherPryd]

here's what I think, why shouldn't PPR be part of a fantasy scoring system? Touches/Looks are a huge part of scoring and to ignore reception totals ignores how huge a receiver is who gets a large proportion of targets from his team. I like the balance that .5 pts brings to the table and if we inititiate that change I really feel there is little else we need to do.

I'm not making a decision on my own so I like the way cpf96 has this conversation headed and I like all the input. I don't think there has to be a perfect balance but TE's have to be viable or else why even have a roster spot for them? Keep the conversation going and we'll work it to a conclusion soon.

[shinner]

I think it's good to have INTs be a reasonable factor. With them being only -1, a guy can throw 4 or 5 and if he still passes for good yards/TDs it wouldn't make much difference.

In a fixed system, I guess so....there were a couple times last year where Brees had a huge day but ended up with less points than another QB who threw a few TDs no more than 10-15 yrds each.

I don't think there has to be a perfect balance but TE's have to be viable or else why even have a roster spot for them?

Perfect balance is probably impossible...and yer right about TEs. I think with the last suggestions, there was still a big discrepancy between QB/B & WR/TE (37 to 8 out of the top 50, respectively). RnR said he thought that was balanced but I don't see it. Surely something could be done to make it a little more even....even a 60/40 split favoring the QB/RB positions would be great. Everything we've seen so far leaves the receivers on the short end. Don't see any reason why any of the 4 big point positions should account for 2X as many spots in the top 50 as any of the others (maybe some wiggle room with regard to TEs since there aren't that many standouts in the league), but surely not among QBs, RBs & WRs.

I dunno....I guess however it shakes out, the owners would be wise to run the top scorers table before the draft and see what positions are generating the most points with the final scoring setup.

[R0CKnR0LLA]

PntherPryd, PPR just adds another factor when looking at players for trades/drafts/ect. You have to bump up guys like Welker who get a bunch of receptions but not necessarily that many yards. Then you have to push guys down who get only a few receptions but still end up with good yards/TDs.

I'd rather just keep things as simple as possible. I've played in leagues before with ridiculously complex scoring systems and it doesn't really add anything other than to making it annoying and/or impossible to gauge a players value.

[R0CKnR0LLA]

If you're only looking at top 50, in a 12 man league that's round 1-4. Top TE's would be more of a round 5-7 pick which seems about right. I don't have a problem with TE's not being in the top 50 as long as they appear shortly after that. If the #1 TE is at #80 or #100 then I think that's a problem, not sure that's the case though.

[carpanfan96]

the top Te is at 62, but the next te is 132, then it's another good sized drop from there. Which is one reason I like the .5 per reception. It's not huge and it's not a complex number, it doesn't make a huge difference with anyone but the TE's.

I mean for someone with 100 receptions (which doesn't happen all that often) it's 50 more points for the whole season. That's like 2 points per game extra in extreme cases. It's biggest thing is it brings the TE's from the middle 100's for good TE's to being in the top 100.

I'm going to run a check with some adjustments, I'll post them when they come up with results.

[PntherPryd]

PntherPryd, PPR just adds another factor when looking at players for trades/drafts/ect. You have to bump up guys like Welker who get a bunch of receptions but not necessarily that many yards. Then you have to push guys down who get only a few receptions but still end up with good yards/TDs.

I'd rather just keep things as simple as possible. I've played in leagues before with ridiculously complex scoring systems and it doesn't really add anything other than to making it annoying and/or impossible to gauge a players value.

I hear you and I'm a big fan of the K.I.S.S. methodology. But on the other hand I'm a big fan of guys like Welker and he's a big part of the Patriot offense, why shouldn't his success translate into fantasy points? To me it's a relatively small price to pay for bringing guys like Welker but mostly TE's into the equation.

Do you consider .5 ppr to be an example of ridiculously complex scoring or are you just worried it will lead to harder drugs....err....I mean more ridiculous scoring?

I'm playing devil's advocate here and just looking for more input.