|
Let's talk about fumble scoring! Currently we reward 4 points for a forced fumble (FF), 3 points for a fumble recovery (from opponent), 3 points for a fumble recovery (own team), and subtract 2 points (-2) for fumbles lost to your opponent. That means if you fumble and recover your own fumble, you have net gained 3 points -- because you don't get the penalty if your fumble isn't lost to your opponent. I would propose, for next season, that this scoring is modified such that fumbling (whether lost or not) is worth -4 points, and the other 3 stay the same. This has the following net effect: 1) Fumble and recover your own fumble: -1 point (from +3; a 4 point swing) 2) Fumble and someone else on your team recovers your own fumble: -4 (for you, your teammate gets +3; from 0) All defensive scoring would remain unchanged. This means that any time a FF->fumble recovery occurs, the total swing is -3 for fumbler and +7 for FF+recovery, or 10 points. For an INT, it is an 8 point swing, with the defense being rewarded less. Fumble (unforced) -> recovery is worth 6. That seems like it is roughly on par with the expected frequency / level of effort for the two activities, and fumbling even if your team bails you out being punished also feels appropriate.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
I agree in principle with the idea that a player shouldn't get a net points benefit from fumbling and then recovering their own fumble. However, I disagree that a lost fumble should be -4 points, when we only subtract two for an interception. Turning the ball over to the opposing team is bad, but -4 is a pretty stiff penalty that isn't well aligned to other penalties we charge in our scoring.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
If a forced fumble is 4 points, it makes sense that a lost fumble is -4 points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
The Zack posted:If a forced fumble is 4 points, it makes sense that a lost fumble is -4 points. On the other hand, an INT is +6, while the QB loses 2 points (4 net generated). We could also increase INT to -3, fumble to -3, and reduce 'recover own' to +2? It just seems silly that you could gain (or even get a neutral result) from recovering your own fumble.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Let that be a lesson to you all. No one beats me 7 times in a row!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Please remember me in case anyone rage quits after the season. I’d really like to get into a dynasty league.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Only if you promise to trade or at least respond to trade emails. We only have 5 that trade or talk about it quite a bit to guage each other's interest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:Only if you promise to trade or at least respond to trade emails. That can be arranged. I try to whore myself out on trades at least once or twice each season.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
After last night, 4 teams are now eliminated from playoff contention: first down, chefs, leper and garb. Technically, no teams have clinched a playoff spot. Realistically, 1017 has. He would need to lose, and have 5 other teams win and/or outscore him by 1-200 points to not make it. As our league leader in PF tied for the wins lead, he's in. Similarly, McLean and Ash are likely functionally eliminated. For either of them to have a shot, they both need to win, and outscore their divisional opponents by 25 and 80. Additionally, only one of them can make the playoffs. For MC to make the playoffs, he either needs to win and have whalers lose, or outscore whalers by 70, or win and have one of the 8-4 teams lose and outscore them significantly (30-100+ point differential). 1017 wins his division if he wins. (SBH would need to outscore by 200ish to take the tiebreaker). The divisional lead is closest in div1 - I lead bof by 30 points. If we both win or lose, he needs to outscore me by that margin to take the divisional lead. Zauper fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
I think we should redo playoff seeding next year. Lose six games in a row and get eliminated? It's kind of bullshit if you ask me. Thanks for the writeup, was gonna do one today if I could muster up the effort.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
aaaand now for my other effort post of the day: Divisions. I think at the start of the season one of the thing you guys had mentioned is a desire to look at the divisions at end of season and assess if they made sense. (as a sidenote, we could also move to something like a custom VP system instead of W/L for seeding, and have weeks of double games so you played everyone twice if we wanted to do away with divisions. I think this would be way too complex) Divisions 1/3 have the same records: 2x 8-4, 1x 1x 4-8 1x 3-9. Division 2 is 2x 7-5 2x 6-6. PF by division: Division 1 - 6288.66 Division 2 - 6572.42 Division 3 - 6705.39. All 3 divisions are within 10% of each other in PF. The gap between divisions 1 and 3 here is the equivalent of 8.6 points per game, with a league-wide average of 135.9 points per game scored, so the gap is roughly 6.3% per game. There's slightly less variation in PA: Division 1 - 6340.95 Division 2 - 6472.08 Division 3 - 6752.44 Given that this is dynasty, we should generally expect there to be some level of variation year over year, with teams that underperform in a given year performing better in the following year(s) with the rookie picks. As such, I would probably favor leaving the divisions alone. If you re-balance them based on scoring this season to make things more even, you may have unintended consequences in the following season with teams that underperformed coming on strong (e.g. my team was dead last in scoring last season and sits at #2 in PF currently). Say you swapped in the highest scoring non-playoff team from division 3 (leper) for the lowest scoring team in division 1. Based on PF, he might have more wins, but he would still be sitting outside of a playoff position.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
I'd rather not re-align the divisions. It's taken until almost the end of my second year in this league to actually learn who else is in my division (The color scheme for each division definitely helped) and I like the idea of actually feeling that division rivalry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
I would like to potentially see something where we keep divisions, but change to a type of schedule where you play a regular matchup and then a second game against the league average for the week. Don't know if MFL supports that, but I've heard that used in some leagues to kinda counteract the randomness of fantasy while still maintaining the things that make dynasty league/divisions/year-to-year/non-roto interesting. That would be my take on it if you'd want to consider that a formal proposalZauper posted:1017 wins his division if he wins. (SBH would need to outscore by 200ish to take the tiebreaker). man getting a poo poo avalanche of points dropped on me late Sunday really sucks rear end. I checked my team a hour or two before MNF expecting to be up or close and welp. Managing to snag a bye in a first year rebuild would've been pretty lol Spermy Smurf posted:I think we should redo playoff seeding next year. Lose six games in a row and get eliminated? It's kind of bullshit if you ask me. sux2suck Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Nov 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Teemu Pokemon posted:I would like to potentially see something where we keep divisions, but change to a type of schedule where you play a regular matchup and then a second game against the league average for the week. Don't know if MFL supports that, but I've heard that used in some leagues to kinda counteract the randomness of fantasy while still maintaining the things that make dynasty league/divisions/year-to-year/non-roto interesting. That would be my take on it if you'd want to consider that a formal proposal You can do something like that with the VP system, where you can award VP points for wins and/or scoring relative to average (or top third/etc). http://www59.myfantasyleague.com/1985/support?PROGRAM=options_141&PRINTER=1
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Thanks for doing that writeup, Zauper. I've been meaning to do it but I've been really busy and also sad about fantasy football and also one of my cats is dying  I agree that re-arranging the divisions isn't necessarily worth it given how close we are in points scored. One more factor to think about is that with our current schedule, every team has one other team in the league they don't play during the regular season. I've been rotating the schedule such that this team (always one of the six non-division-rival teams) changes each year, and planned to keep doing so on a six-year cycle. But we could change that by going to a different scheduling format. Right now you play all three of your division rivals twice, but we could for example have you only play one of your division rivals once in order to play that one other league team: this would reduce the number of division rivalry matches played each year by one, while increasing the interdivisional matches by one, a factor which I think should tend to flatten the difference in points for/against across divisions a little more. Another option would be to change the structure of the playoffs. Right now we have three-week playoffs, mostly required in order to permit wildcard matches between the two best teams that didn't clinch their division. But if we instead just took the top non-division-clinching team and put them straight into the semifinals with the three top divisional teams, we could collapse the playoffs into two weeks instead of three. This would give us a 14-week season and every team could play its division rivals twice and all other teams once each. There are disadvantages to this approach as well, of course: aside from reducing the playoff teams from five to four, it also adds another team to the consolation brackets which then have to somehow find a consolation winner in just two weeks. With only four teams making the playoffs it makes it easier to be eliminated from playoff contention earlier in the season. It's also possible to go the other direction: end the regular season after just 12 weeks, and then have a four-week playoff structure. Doing that, we could actually seed more teams into the playoffs: as many as 8. I think seeding 8 of 12 teams into playoffs is a bit silly to be honest, but it would make it more likely that a team going 0-6 still has a playoff spot to contend for, for example. But we could also do, say, 6 teams (instead of the current five), with three division winners and three wildcards all getting seeded together in the first round, with no byes until round 2: or with the worst wildcard playing the worst division winner, the other two wildcards playing each other, and the top two division winners getting byes: or there are other permutations as well. All that said: I'm fairly satisfied with the current structure and don't feel a strong need for a change, unless a lot of you guys are unsatisfied with the status quo. I'm more concerned about scoring, changes to the taxi squad system, making any needed rookie salary adjustments, and a few other minor items.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Thanks for doing that writeup, Zauper. I've been meaning to do it but I've been really busy and also sad about fantasy football and also one of my cats is dying Also, if you're not playing 1 team/year, I'd rather it be non-divisional than divisional, since you should want to compete vs your division. Overall, I'm happy with the schedule and so forth. For the other items -- Taxi squad. 1) I'd like to see us make taxi squads available for only rookies being added, but players can stay on it until either the end of their sophmore or 3rd season in the league. (They can also be traded to someone else's TS). This fits better with the purpose of a taxi squad as many players don't contribute until the 2nd/3rd season, and does that without creating deeper swappable benches, which feels desirable. Maybe to do this we'd want to add 1-2 slots to the taxi squad. 2) I'd like to change our stealing rules to be more consistent with what seems to be the norm -- that when you successfully steal a player, you pay the other team in a draft pick. Usually the rule is you pay the pick level that the player was taken at, plus one. So if they were drafted in the 3rd round, you'd pay a 2nd. 1st? A 1st + 2nd. Along those lines, there should also be a minimum (e.g. you're stealing my waiver add stash, you are giving me a 3rd or 4th, whatever it is). Could also then subtract one round for each year the player had been on a TS (e.g. a sophmore drafted in the 2nd costs a 2nd to steal rather than a 1st). This year there hasn't been a single successful steal, in part because you're losing an asset for nothing if you don't protect. Scoring Overall, I've been pretty happy with scoring. Only thing that sucks is how variable the scoring seems to be for DL, just chasing big games. DB and LB seem fairly balanced.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Sorry to hear about your cat, Lep.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Zauper posted:Scoring I've been playing IDP leagues with dedicated DL slots for like 15 years and imo that's just how DLs are and I don't think there's a way to fix that unless you could make tackles for DLs worth more than what LB/DB tackles are worth
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Teemu Pokemon posted:I've been playing IDP leagues with dedicated DL slots for like 15 years and imo that's just how DLs are and I don't think there's a way to fix that unless you could make tackles for DLs worth more than what LB/DB tackles are worth Yeah, I'm not sure there's much else to do because DLs are just kinda low volume spots. Could give points for QB hits and reduce points for sacks? But that doesn't feel great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
We absolutely can make scoring granular to position, like having DLs score different amounts for tackles than other IDP positions. If we want to do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Yep. Mfl is retarded with scoring. We can do so much weird poo poo that I am constantly amazed and scared when I look at it. About Zaupers post about taxi squad. Yes to all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
I want to somehow reward DBs when the opposing team refuses to pass to the guy they're covering entirely, but I don't think it's possible because the NFL doesn't exactly keep track of that in its stats. To some degree, we simply cannot fully account for the difference between "is a good player" and "scores points in fantasy." But, I am very much in favor of moving as much as we can towards that unattainable ideal. And to that end, if we decide that tackles on the line of scrimmage are more valuable than tackles in the secondary, that'd make a lot of sense to me. Because they kind of are. DBs can (and do) get significant points for passes defensed, but tackling a receiver after they catch a ball is less valuable than tackling a runner before he busts through the defensive line and into the secondary. On the other hand, tackling a runner in the secondary before he scores a TD is very valuable. And I don't think MFL offers us the ability to score tackles of receivers differently from tackles of runners. Note also that one metric we don't use at all, but totally could, is first downs. In the goon Fish Bowl league, we score points for first downs: 1 point for RB/WR/QB rushing and receiving first downs, and 2.5pts for TE rushing and receiving first downs. There is no PPR in that league, so the first down scoring values actions that always help the team advance the ball: there's no reward for a five yard catch on third and ten, beyond the five yards themselves. And this also compensates to some degree for the generally low value of most TEs, since check-down TEs that only catch three balls a game (but get first downs on two of them) become startable. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Dec 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
I’m now stuck following this thread since I’m hoping a spot opens next year, but can you track punts on MFL? I’ve always wanted to include punts in FF.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Yeah, punts, distance, return yards subtracted, net... MFL is nuts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
We talked about this a little in the offseason but didn’t start using it but I believe scoring QB hits/hurries would make DL players more valuable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
I think a combo of nerfing sack points while adding QB hits/hurries and making DL tackles worth more than LB/DB would go a long way toward making DL a more consistently scored position
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Welp. Trey Flowers out. Practiced two days in full, out anyway. poo poo. I really wanted to ruin Titoons bye.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Teemu Pokemon posted:I think a combo of nerfing sack points while adding QB hits/hurries and making DL tackles worth more than LB/DB would go a long way toward making DL a more consistently scored position I'm not against any of that, but I'd just ask, since DL are more likely to get tackles for a loss, which we already (rightly) award extra points for, is it really necessary to increase the scoring on their tackles?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
I would say so, yeah. Maybe then we might have to make their TFL worth slightly less than that of a LB/DB, but I don't think that would be entirely necessary. They are more likely to get TFLs, but those don't happen nearly as frequently as regular tackles. The whole idea behind making their tackles worth more is that the average DL only gets like 2-4 of them a game vs. 5-7 for a LB or 3-5 for a DB with PD on top of that
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Not every position has to be equal scoring. Should we bump up to full PPR and bonus for 10+ yard plays so wide receivers score as much as QBs? No.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
I think for the purposes of DL compared to the other IDP it does make sense though, otherwise DL are basically just kickers and are there to win someone a week randomly when they go off for 20+ points. Either they should be more in line with LB/DB w/r/t consistency, or they shouldn't be mandatory I think if you really want to get wacky you could have all IDP scoring be tiered relative to position. Like LB tackles would be the baseline, DB tackles would be next, then DL tackles would be worth the most. DBs would get the most points for a sack, LB the next, and DLs the least. DBs get the least for PD, then DLs, then LBs, DBs get the baseline for INTs, LBs get the next highest, and DLs higher still. DLs get the baseline for TFL, then LBs, then DBs the most. Then things like FF/FR, TD, and safeties would stay the same. That to me would be cool but would also be incredibly overboard and I'm not sure if even goons are that autistic Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Teemu Pokemon posted:I think for the purposes of DL compared to the other IDP it does make sense though, otherwise DL are basically just kickers and are there to win someone a week randomly when they go off for 20+ points. Either they should be more in line with LB/DB w/r/t consistency, or they shouldn't be mandatory While I agree with this -- that reducing extreme randomness -- is desirable, I'm not sure that's possible for the DL positions. The 'top' DL cap out at around 4 tackles per week, with 2 of those being sacks. Even the top DL of the season this far (by PPG) has a 0 point week without being injured. Top in overall points has a 1.5 and a 3 point week. Given the frequency of interactions, I don't think it's possible to bring them in line with LB/DB in consistency (and DB really only get consistency for those DB that generate high tackle volumes -- PD and int dependent DB are much more variable, and DB are generally more variable than LB). To some extent, DL are the red headed stepchildren of IDP scoring the same way TEs are of offensive scoring. They're not nearly as consistent as the other positions, and much more big play dependent (TEs are TD dependent largely, DL are sack dependent). I don't think it's possible to fix DL - or frankly TE - via scoring changes. Even something like what leper mentioned, giving TE a big bump for first downs acquired, doesn't fix TE because they're still largely big play dependent and you're counting on small volume occurrences. I guess, in spite of bringing up my dislike for DL myself, I'd vote to either just remove the position or leave its scoring alone instead of the changes proposed thus far. This week I'm literally just seeing what it looks like to stream DL vs high sack allowing offenses to see if it works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
sure, alex smith, gently caress me out of playoff contention and then blast out two TDs in the first quarter from my bench. Also gently caress you, jets, for this bilal powell nonsense. I'm ok with messing with DEs, or leaving them alone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
another week, another 200 points
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
who put me in the division with the buzzsaw so I couldn't bullshit my way to a division win in a rebuilding year 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
Zauper posted:While I agree with this -- that reducing extreme randomness -- is desirable, I'm not sure that's possible for the DL positions. The 'top' DL cap out at around 4 tackles per week, with 2 of those being sacks. Even the top DL of the season this far (by PPG) has a 0 point week without being injured. Top in overall points has a 1.5 and a 3 point week. Given the frequency of interactions, I don't think it's possible to bring them in line with LB/DB in consistency (and DB really only get consistency for those DB that generate high tackle volumes -- PD and int dependent DB are much more variable, and DB are generally more variable than LB). I out drinking at 4 am on a Sunday so I can't give this post the entire attention it deserves, and I will later, but at first blush my instinct is that there are ways to accomplish that positional parity but they are likely a bit convoluted and we're better served by eliminating DL and adding a D flex (or preferably two so people have reason to start DLs if the FA pool is shallow)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
I think here's what the playoff situation looks like: The divisional byes: 1017 Mediocre Cougars Me (by 0.3 PF, yikes -- had we tied, what would the tiebreaker have been?) The wild cards: Balls of Fury vs SBH. #4 PF (LIW) did not make the playoffs. Consolation playoffs looks like: LIW gets the bye Ash plays gridiron chefs McLean plays first down syndrome Leper plays garbage
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Dang, that is amazingly close for the whole season's Points For! The odds of two teams having exactly the same score to two decimal places are extremely low, so we don't have another tiebreaker; but if it came to it and the commissioners had to decide, I'd probably argue for head-to-head record, like the NFL uses. Which, uhh... Titoons and Balls each won one of their H2H matches. So... hmmmm. But yeah it looks like you've got things right. I'll find time to set up the playoff brackets in the next 48 hours.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Maybe efficiency can be the next tiebreaker?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
FAAB dollars left unspent? Lower team total salary?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:08
|
|