Deadskins wrote:DarthMonk wrote:I think we went a little overboard with IDP scoring changes.
Solo tackle is good at 1.
Assist is good at 0.5
Sack = 3 is too much. it's not equal to a FG. Sack = 2 is plenty. Same for a pick. Same for a fumble force.
It has been statistically shown that forcing fumbles is a skill but recovery is a pure coin flip. Fumble recovery should only be 1 point.
Tackle for loss should be an extra .5 not an extra 1. Then we have assist = .5, solo = 1, TFL = 1.5 and sack = 2. That makes sense to me.
I would bump a pass defended to 1.5. At 1 you get the same points for allowing a completion and then making the tackle as you do for knocking down the pass.
You're thinking about it wrong. It's about awarding points based on statistical probability, so that any player, offense, defense, or kicker all have about the same scoring range possibility for any game. An incredible performance might warrant 30 points like you got from Kelley, average would be between 5-15 for a game. You can't think of it in football terms and say a sack isn't worth a FG. I agree. I think it's worth more than a FG. How many FGs will a kicker make over a season? 30-50. How many sacks will a LB make in a season? 5-20. The sack should get more points for relative rarity. But you also have to figure that a LB can also make points for other things so you adjust down for that.
Comments to LPJ and the Deadman.
LPJ:
The return yards thing is all about Yahoo! and what a turnover is. It has nothing to do with the way you set things up.
Nothing is wrong with your field goal scoring. I'm simply going to recommend to Yahoo! that they offer a sliding scale option. That way a 45 yard FG is worth more than a 40 yard FG - just like a 45 yard run is worth more than a 40 yard run.
Deadman:
I'm not thinking about it wrong. I'm thinking about it differently. And I can say a sack is not worth a FG and I can say it's worth less and you can say it's worth more and we can have different reasons for our opinions.
Here is an argument against simply looking at things through the lens of statistical probability.
There have been 12 blocked FGs this year. There have been 826 TDs this year. Therefore a blocked FG should be worth 413 points.
ORThe league leader in TDs has 12. The league leader in blocked FGs has 2. Therefore a blocked FG should be worth 36 points.
These are (IMO) clearly absurd so statistical probability or relative rarity can only be part of the equation.
As you said:
Deadskins wrote:The sack should get more points for relative rarity. But you also have to figure that a LB can also make points for other things so you adjust down for that.
I agree. That's exactly what I proposed. I want to adjust down so a sack is worth more than a solo tackle or a simple tackle for loss. But I don't want it to be equal to a FG which actually puts points on the board. I
can think of it in
both football terms
and relative rarity. Our top 25 WRTs average around 15 a game. Our top 25 Ks average around half that. Do we make FGs range from 6 to 10 in value? I know I don't want to.
This also affects draft. Ever notice how kickers are picked late? Not all positions in FF are created equal. Maybe they should be but that's an opinion.
I thought you were right in wanting more IDP points than we had. I'm not sorry we did what we did. I'm merely putting forth what I think are appropriate adjustments for next year. In my opinion, the pendulum has swung too far.
