|
The Zack posted:I'm in, especially now that I've tasted success. What he said x2.
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:35 |
|
|
As far as I'm concerned, you can make team name changes any time you want. I just need to change once cell in the spreadsheet. I guess there's also the graphics on the MFL pages but I didn't make those... I think Spermy did?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
I did. I have the dimensions and gimp stuff saved. Make it something easy  I am graphically challenged. It's just two letters but still...I have 4 fonts, two slim, one bold, one fuckin weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
LEGO Maniacs Thanks
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
We good to turn off Commissioner Lockout now that waivers are done? I think the option to change the logo is in there somewhere. It's not under "Logos and Icons" for whatever reason. I believe it's under Franchise Setup.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:e2. and we also had waivers turned on for the next week and a half, so I've just manually deleted the remaining "process waivers" events from December and January. Also: poo poo. I had a waiver claim in on the 25th that won't get processed. Time to add a calendar reminder for next year!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Yeah no more waivers so we can turn off the commissioner lockout.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
I'm not going anywhere, especially since my rebuild seems a little ahead of schedule I'm sure I'll be all tilted out for at least 3-5 years trying to win in this window e: I think I might even be paid for 2018 anyway since I've made trades with futures?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Myself, Spermy, you, Zauper, and Epi Lepi have all paid in advance for 2018. Chen Kenichi traded picks but never paid for 2018 even though I bring it up monthly. He won the consolation bracket, though, so I can apply that $20 against the 2018 dues. That leaves Stevie Lee, Swarmin Swedes, The Zack, Vecna, Bloody, and atomictyler owing dues this fall before we get started. Of course anyone can leave even if they've paid dues in advance: I'll refund advance dues as soon as the team is adopted by a new dues-paying owner, as per the rules. The intention of asking for dues in advance before trading future picks is to prevent someone from trading away their team's future value to try and win now and then abandoning the team in a condition that makes it very unattractive for someone to take over. If we ever find ourselves going into a new season short an owner, we need to have a team that isn't totally hosed to try and attract someone, and having available draft picks is a key part of that. I don't think we have anyone who has done that to their team so far: Chen Kenichi only traded away his fourth round pick, and his Gridiron Chefs were good enough to win the consolation bracket.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Gratz to the winners and what not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
Half the people have done the survey. It seems to be basically what we had discussed and a bunch of us agreed on. We'll have to fine-tune but we can do that in a big post once the other 6 do the survey.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
"Add defensive player slot to our scoring. This might bring the value of defensive players up from "pointless" to "actually worth trading" " Just to clarify, are you suggesting adding yet another IDP, making 6 IDPs?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
The Zack posted:"Add defensive player slot to our scoring. This might bring the value of defensive players up from "pointless" to "actually worth trading" " Yes, add another defensive slot is what that question is about. We had talked about adding a CB/S or an "anything you want" type. I updated Lego's logo. The first swing was terrible, this is slightly less terrible. If you want something else let me know. It's hard to work in a 65x65 pixel logo...
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
New logo is great! Thanks for doing it. Gotta rebrand after making the championship and sell those jerseys to the bandwagon fans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
I'd favor making the additional IDP slot a flex. Also, I do think we should discuss modifying the cap. Last year we added one bench slot, looks like this year we will add one plus one IDP slot. With 3 additional paid slots added, it seems reasonable to add a small amount of cap (5-10) to compensate for the additional players at around expected cost of those players.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
If we just add the IDP (flex preferred) but not a bench slot, I think the cap is fine as is, if we add a bench slot then I think the cap going up is probably a good idea. We currently have about $10/player in cap space so that would be a good place to start I think. $260 is a weird number and $275 makes my autism happy and puts the demons to sleep, but $25 might be too much
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
9 out of 12 so far. Pretty good turnout. Imgur link with the responses so far. https://imgur.com/a/fp9xI People seem pretty onboard with a bunch of the changes. The one thing I forgot to put in here was do we change IDP scoring? A few people make references to it in the OTHER section so we might want to discuss it. I'm against it since the purpose of adding another defensive flex spot is to increase defensive values. Maybe I am just not thinking it through all the way which is likely. Spermy Smurf fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Dec 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Does fixing the sack / tfl thing count as changing scoring?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
I think you are all on crack about tfl and sacks. The NFL stat is 'Stuffs' that MFL calls TFL. They are different than sacks. Sacks are not TFLs. I meant to open a case for clarification since MFL documentation is bad on that but forgot. Will set calendar reminder to open case tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:I think you are all on crack about tfl and sacks. I'm 99% sure. There's no way to have fewer tackles + fumbles forced than tfl + sack if tfl and sack don't stack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
They are their own stats. How is it possible that they stack? Sack is a sack. Stuff is a TFL. Tackle is a tackle. Forced Fumble doesn't have to include any of those. It's a forced fumble.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Since there were a lot of no votes on increasing the salary increases, let me lay out what I'm suggesting there: Currently the rule is all salaries go up by 10% rounded to the nearest dollar, or $1, whichever is greater. So under the current rules, a $4 player goes to $5 the next year; and a $46 player goes to $51 (10% is 4.6 which rounds up to $5). I propose to change this rule to 10% rounded to the nearest dollar, or {either $2 or $3}, whichever is greater. Under this rule, a $4 player goes to {$6 or $7}, and a $46 player still just goes to $51. The intent is to accelerate the rate at which very cheap players become more expensive. I think it's the way to prevent owners from claiming a guy for $1 who becomes a star and then having a very cheap star player for that player's entire NFL career for an affordable cap space. Here's a table showing how a $1 waiver wire or late round rookie progresses under the current system, a proposed minimum $2 increase, and a proposed minimum $3 increase, for illustration: pre:Current $1 $2 $3 -------------------------- Yr 1 1 1 1 Yr 2 2 3 4 Yr 3 3 5 7 Yr 4 4 7 10 Yr 5 5 9 13 Yr 6 6 11 16 Yr 7 7 13 19 Yr 8 8 15 22 Yr 9 9 17 25 Yr 10 10 19 28 Yr 11 11 21 31 Yr 12 12 23 34 pre:Current $1 $2 $3 -------------------------- Yr 1 8 8 8 Yr 2 9 10 11 Yr 3 10 12 14 Yr 4 11 14 17 Yr 5 12 16 20 Yr 6 13 18 23 Yr 7 14 20 26 Yr 8 15 22 29 Yr 9 17 24 32 Yr 10 19 26 35 Yr 11 21 29 39 Yr 12 23 32 43 All of this is unnecessary if we instead implement a contract limit, say, five years. If we did that, I'd suggest player contracts starting on their year of acquisition or, for rookies, the year they're promoted up from taxi squad, and then after the end of the contract, we could either force a drop, or force a salary reset upwards to some value: perhaps the average of the current top ten salaries at that position, or something. Another option that goes with contracts is the franchise tag, which lets you keep one player beyond their contract year: typically these also come with a minimum salary, per the NFL's minimum salary for franchise tagged free agents. All of these options serve the same goal: ensuring adequate turnover in the league and preventing one or two owners from dominating for many many years on the backs of one or two key super-cheap acquisitions that worked out. Naturally I can understand if folks really don't want to go for this kind of system: I just wanted to make sure I laid it out clearly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:They are their own stats. A stuff is a type of tackle. A sack is a type of tackle. And as mentioned earlier: Leperflesh posted:e. specifically: NFL rules apparently say stripping the ball from a QB "counts as a sack" even if the QB doesn't go down. This sort of sack may not count as a tackle? The NFL considers a strip (a type of forced fumble) to be a sack if the QB is the one being stripped. In any case, what is in question is how MFL scores these things; given what we know of MFL, I have no confidence at all that their implementation is the "most sensible" one. Does MFL count a QB strip as more than one of: a tackle, a TFL, a sack? Does MFL count some or all TFLs as also being tackles? We want to be sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Even though I did the survey, I don't have strong opinions on any of the rule changes. Nothing sounds unreasonable and I can work with any of the suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
The Zack posted:Even though I did the survey, I don't have strong opinions on any of the rule changes. Nothing sounds unreasonable and I can work with any of the suggestions. Pretty much the same, although I really like the potential chaos of the current taxi squad/stealing system which introduces risk into keeping a player on your taxi squad rather than simply adding 3 more roster spots for rookies which the compensation system seems like it would essentially do. Also congrats 1017 I fee like this is like the 3rd year in a row you have had the best team.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind X-year contracts instituted, but if we do this then I think we will need a separate auction for the FA pool prior to the rookie draft with auction $ based on existing cap space. Also drat did I win the Toilet Bowl? Now I didn't look too hard at it to see the brackets as I forgot there was one - I just saw there was a match-up for the playoffs and set a lineup fully knowing I was in last place in the regular season. Edit: pulled up MFL and damned if I cannot find any playoff brackets anywhere. Do they exist on there? Chen Kenichi fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Dec 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:They are their own stats. This is just something that happens in various fantasy sites. When I was reading articles about IDP scoring for the All IDP League many of them discussed how if your site treats every sack as also a TFL then you should reduce the value of a sack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Chen Kenichi posted:I wouldn't mind X-year contracts instituted, but if we do this then I think we will need a separate auction for the FA pool prior to the rookie draft with auction $ based on existing cap space. Reports > League > Playoff Brackets. Because why the gently caress would you want to see those, why not bury them three deep in a menu that is about reports on things? And yeah you won the toilet bowl dude! Congrats, you get $20 but you lose your top four draft placement. In retrospect I can't imagine why I thought this was a good setup. There have been no major stat adjustments, so, would winners please contact me via email and A) verify your Paypal address for me to send money to and B) decide if you want me to withhold your 2018 dues (except Zauper who has already paid). Email me at my user name at gmail.com thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:They are their own stats. Because of how they're scored? Like, re read the discussion and look at the players and weeks I posted. There is proof there. (and a strip sack is a thing, which is necessary to exclude when checking for duplicate scoring). Aaron Donald week 13. He had 3 tackles. He had 2 TFL. He had 2 sacks. How did he get more sacks + TFL than he had tackles + assists? Because they must stack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
Actually I think this is exactly why it got set up this way. Someone could attempt to intentionally tank from like 8th place with a team that just got unlucky a couple of weeks but is on paper really good, then win the consolation playoff for the $20 AND get a high draft pick (1.01-03) instead of playing it out proper and getting their normal 1.06 or whatever. Kinda far-fetched sure but a buffer nonetheless? Just so happened that the worst regular season team this year caught lightning in a bottle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
About the Tackle/TFL/Sack stuff: I get it now. They say it does depend on the statisticians who record it, it matters how they record it. Suggestions on the MFL forums say they tone down sacks to 2pts per .5 sack. So 4pts there instead of 6, plus the tackle points, plus the QB Hit points (if we implement). Thats dumb as hell the way it works, but apparently it is the way it works. Edit: I still don't really get it. Everyone says there is an issue so there must be, but without watching the game film I don't know. Aaron Donald, week 13. 3 tackles, 2 TFL, 2 sacks. So what you guys are saying is that he only made 3 tackles total the entire game, right? He hit the ball carrier beyond the line of scrimmage once (tackle), and then hit the QB twice for sacks. Those sacks count as the TFL's in your opinion. So a guy in the Defensive Player of the Year award conversation only touched the person with the ball three times in this game? Or, is it likely that he hit the ball carrier 7 times total. 3 beyond the line of scrimmage (tackle), 2 behind it (TFL), and hit the QB twice (sack). Without watching any game film I have no idea how to figure any of this out. I'm going to go search for Aaron Donald week 13 highlights so I can see if he really only touched the ball carrier 3 times in the game. Double Edit: Week 15 highlights are all over the place but they only show his 3 sacks and forced fumble, plus 1 TFL. That doesn't add up to our scoring sheet no matter what. Spermy Smurf fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Dec 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
I've always thought that sacks counted as TFLs pretty sure they do in Madden anyways, lol. also, I'll take that prize money whenever, tia. I already picked out what I'm spending it on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:About the Tackle/TFL/Sack stuff: I get it now. They say it does depend on the statisticians who record it, it matters how they record it. Yeah, defensive stats aren't as clear cut and standardized as offensive. The IDP Guru is a site I use a lot for defensive stuff and he has a weekly article called "Tackles Issued by Home Stat Crews" and each begins with the same boiler plate text explaining why he does even has this article: "A major difference between offense only Fantasy Football and IDP Fantasy Football is the subjectivity of the stat keeping. On the offensive side of the ball, a 10-yard catch is a 10-yard catch. However, on the defensive side of the ball, things become a bit less clear. For example, two defensive players get to the ball-carrier at roughly the same time. Who gets the solo tackle and who gets the assist? Or do both players only get an assist? Or does only one player get a solo? There are multiple options in these scenarios and different scorekeepers have different tendencies (right or wrong). Analyzing each home stat crew's tendencies will better allow us to make informed lineup decisions." I would imagine the same thing happens with sacks. Some crews may award a sack a tackle and a tfl all on the same play and maybe some don't. Which makes me question if it's really an MFL problem at all. Woo IDP!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:About the Tackle/TFL/Sack stuff: I get it now. They say it does depend on the statisticians who record it, it matters how they record it. Double post, but I found other people discussing how a sack fumble is not scored as a tackle for a loss by the NFL. Something about how making the ball come loose means you aren't tackling the player. So that might help clear up some discrepancies between the scoring and the stats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
One interesting note, btw, is that a 10 yard catch isn't always a 10 yard catch. Statistically, there is a cliff at the first down marker where more catches are scored a yard shorter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:About the Tackle/TFL/Sack stuff: I get it now. They say it does depend on the statisticians who record it, it matters how they record it. Yeah, this is a general issue with playing fantasy with IDP, but it's not really our issue: we get a set of stats from MFL and that's what we work with. What is in question is this part: quote:So a guy in the Defensive Player of the Year award conversation only touched the person with the ball three times in this game? He's scored for three tackles plus two sacks plus two tackles for loss. What is in question is whether that represents seven plays, or three plays, or some number in between. For example, it could be the case that MFL scores sacks as TFLs, but does not score sacks as tackles and does not score TFLs as tackles. That would mean there were five scoring plays in that set. Or, it could be that MFL scores tackles for loss as also tackles, but does not score sacks as also tackles. Again five plays, but five different plays! I think the way to figure it out is to look at multiple cases and solve it a bit like a soduku. quote:Double Edit: Week 15 highlights are all over the place but they only show his 3 sacks and forced fumble, plus 1 TFL. That doesn't add up to our scoring sheet no matter what. It's possible one "sack" was deemed the QB deciding to intentionally run with the ball: at that point, per NFL statkeeping, it becomes a TFL instead of a sack. Announcers and players all consider it a sack, but by the rulebook, the QB is now a runner, so it's a TFL instead of a sack. That would work out to two sacks, two TFLs, and then we can surmise that the three other tackles are unrelated to those four plays, for a total of seven discreet plays. Let's look at a few more examples. Right now I'm leaning towards MFL not double-counting the "special" kinds of tackles as also being regular tackles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Christian Kirksey, at Lions week 10. Scored four tackles, three assists, and one sack. Notably, was not credited for a TFL. Conclusion: at least for this game, a sack was not also counted as a TFL. Everson Griffen vs. Ravens, week 7. Scored 5 tackles, 1 forced fumble, 2 sacks, and 1 TFL. Conclusion: possibly the FF was also credited as a sack. At least one sack was not credited as a TFL. Same play? Would support the idea that a strip-sack isn't (necessarily) a tackle, but does (sometimes?) count as a sack. Joey Bosa vs. Broncos, week 7 1 pass defensed, 2 tackles, 2 sacks, 2 TFLs. Conclusion: either both of his sacks were also credited as tackles AND TFLs, or one or both of sacks and TFLs are not (always?) double-counted as regular tackles. Jadeveon Clowney vs. Cardinals week 11 3 tackles, 2 assists, 2 sacks, 3 TFLs. Conclusion: again, it's not possible that both sacks and TFLs are always double-counted as tackles. Julius Peppers, week 15 vs. Packers. 2 assists, half a sack. Conclusion: half-sacks definitely do not count as tackles. Might still count as assists. Cameron Wake, week 7 vs the Jets 3 tackles, 2 TFLs, 1 assist, 2.5 sacks. Conclusion: I'm really starting to think that some sacks count as TFLs and some don't; and that all TFLs and all sacks count as tackles. So in this game, one half-sack also counted as an assist, both sacks counted as tackles, both TFLs counted as tackles, but in one case a sack was also credited as a TFL (and a tackle). I'm paging through all of the top 64 DEs in the league and I have yet to find a single example of a player credited with either fewer tackles than sacks, or fewer tackles than TFLs. But I have found many cases where TFLs + Sacks = a number greater than Tackles. Adrian Clayborn, week 2 vs the Packers. 1 tackle, 1 TFL, 1 sack. Conclusion: All the same play? Jerry Hughes, week 16 at Patriots 1 tackle, 1 sack. Conclusion: it's gotta be the same play, right? Adam Gotsis, week 14 vs Jets 1 sack, NO TFLs, 3 tackles. Conclusion: at least some of the time, sacks do not count as TFLs. I could keep going, but here's my best guess, which I'm like 80% sure of: 1. All TFLs also count as tackles. There's definitely a double-counting here, which means we should score TFLs as "bonus points" on top of the points already awarded for tackles. I can't find a single instance of a player with more TFLs than tackles. 2. Most or all sacks also count as tackles. At least, I can't find any players credited with more sacks than tackles. So like TFLs, these should be scored as "bonus points" on top of tackle points. Note that half-sacks are definitely also credited as assists. 3. Some sacks are also counted as TFLs and others aren't. 4. I think forced fumbles vs. the QB are scored as FF, Sack, but not a tackle. This may be the key exception to #2. If we could find a player with a forced fumble who also got no tackles in that game, we could be sure of this. I can try and find tape and validate the above conclusions, but at the very least I think we can revise our scoring to view both sacks and TFLs as usually a bonus on top of points credited for a tackle. One way to do this is to reduce points for TFLs and sacks: another would be to instead reduce points for tackles. The former means less sudden huge scores when a player gets three tackles in a game; the latter means lower overall IDP points for (especially) LBs and also significantly DLs. I'd say from my own viewpoint we should either leave things as they are, or, moderately reduce the points awarded for one or both of TFLs and sacks. The strip sack remains something of an engima, and I believe we still have not 100% concluded whether or not MFL is following the NFL bookeeping rule that a QB can become a runner at which time tackling him behind the LOS is credited only as a TFL and not as a sack. I'm not sure we really need to worry about that too much, though: the important thing is that we give such a defensive player a reasonable amount of points. If we award the same amount of points for TFLs as we do for sacks, that would work. My biggest remaining concern is whether some sacks are also counted as TFLs. I'm not sure there's anything we can do about that, though, short of dropping one or the other score from our scoring entirely. e. While I Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Dec 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Hmm hey umm maybe look at the help, you idiot http://www64.myfantasyleague.com/2017/support?L=79286&SEARCH=sacks+tackles+TFLs "How are Sacks, Tackles and Tackles for Losses and Assists scored?" quote:Answer: If a player is awarded a Sack, they will also get credit for a tackle. A sack can sometimes be shared by two players, in which case one might receive an assisted tackle instead of a solo tackle. Also "Why are you reporting a different tackle total for a player than NFL.com (or another site) is reporting?" quote:Answer: Some sites report all tackles (including special teams tackles, offensive tackles, and "miscellaneous" tackles), while other sites only report defensive tackles in their box scores. The MyFantasyLeague.com "Tackles" category includes all tackles, while our "Defensive Tackles" scoring category includes only tackles made while the player is playing defense. Most other sites simply refer to "tackles" without explicitly stating whether they are referring to all tackles or defensive-only tackles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Alright so, our current scoring per our rules sheet is: Solo tackles: 1.5 points Assisted tackles: 0.75 points Sacks: 4 points TFLs: 2 or 3 points (2 if includes sacks, 3 if not) [we are currently using 2 points] FFs: 3 points Based on the above, a strip sack will be credited as 4 points (sack) + 3 points (FF) = 7 points A sack on the line of scrimmage (sack for 0 yards lost) is 4 points (sack) + 1.5 points (tackle) = 5.5 points A solo sack behind the line of scrimmage (regardless of whether the QB is a passer or a runner) is 4 points (sack) + 2 points (TFL) + 1.5 points (tackle) = 7.5 points A tackle behind the line of scrimmage of someone other than the QB (say, a RB) is 2 points (TFL) + 1.5 points (solo tackle) = 3.5 points A FF of a non-QB player behind the LOS is 2 points (TFL) + 3 points (FF) = 5 points? Maybe? Not sure about TFLs here. Note that we are not using the "defensive tackles" score anywhere: we're only using the straight "tackles" score. Also holy poo poo we have FFs set to 4 points! That's clearly wrong, our rules say they should be 3. How did that happen??? Arrrgh gently caress so actually scoring this year was: Strip sack: 4 points (sack) + 4 points (FF) = 8 points A sack on the line of scrimmage (sack for 0 yards lost) is 4 points (sack) + 1.5 points (tackle) = 5.5 points A solo sack behind the line of scrimmage (regardless of whether the QB is a passer or a runner) is 4 points (sack) + 2 points (TFL) + 1.5 points (tackle) = 7.5 points A tackle behind the line of scrimmage of someone other than the QB (say, a RB) is 2 points (TFL) + 1.5 points (solo tackle) = 3.5 points A FF of a non-QB player behind the LOS is 2 points (TFL) + 4 points (FF) = 6 points? Maybe? Not sure about TFLs here. Soooo, what should we do? I'm thinking maybe reduce scoring for TFLs a little (1.5 points?) and definitely drop FFs to 3. Maybe reduce sacks to 3 or 3.5 points? Anything else?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:35 |
|
|
This year the All IDP league changed up the scoring to reward big plays by a lot more but prior to that we used the following settings (based I believe on this article from a couple years ago: https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/the-pff-idp-scoring-system-revisited):quote:Tackle Solo: 1.5 I think it was pretty good for a balanced IDP scoring (though safeties should be more). If we introduce QB hits/hurries though that might change how we should weight TFLs and sacks. I'm not saying you should use this scoring system for sure, but it's more information and examples for you to look at.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 21:05
|
|