Top Heavy IDP Scoring

[Orca]

I have some questions about the IDP players. Right now we have it set up so we have 1 required player at each position and then one flex. Is this the final IDP roster set up? If so doesn't this mean everyone will want to play a LB in that flex position?

Maybe I completely misunderstand the IDP values here but that would be like making the RB position even more valuable on offense and basically relegating the DL and DBs to Tight End status.

Are we eventually going to make it so we require 2 DBs and 2 DL to be started every week? I really hope so.

The Best D-Lineman only scored as much as the 24th ranked LB. and the DBs are just as bad if not worse.

The scoring system is completely out of whack.

Perhaps we should look at changing the starting roster requirements to help balance the positions a little better. I'm not really sure we could change the scoring enough to help balance the value

[Football Buddah]

I spent a good week coming up with this formula for the IDP scoring, but there's no way to make every position a perfect equitable match. Yes, the LB position is typically the more valuable position on the defensive side of the ball - which obviously makes those players more valuable, but the same argument can be made for the WR position on the offensive side of the ball.

Here are the stats:

Based on the current IDP scoring (using 2007 stats):
Of the top 100 IDP's:
55 were LB's
33 were DB's
12 were DL's

Based on the current Offensive scoring (using 2007 stats):
Of the top 100 RB+WR+TE:
51 were WR's
38 were RB's
11 were TE's
(and this is after reducing those "pile-on" bonus points for WR's)


As such, there is "top-heavy" scoring on both sides of the ball. So, regarding the expansion of the starting lineup composition for IDP's - I believe that is something that should be tabled for the next off-season. I'd prefer to let this season play out as-is, and address any concerns from lessons learned after the conclusion of the season.

[Orca]

Looking at the top 100 players is nice but are the top 25 players on offense WR like they are LBs on defense?

This is a real question, I haven't looked. But I can't believe WRs fill the top 25 slots.

[Orca]

In just the top 10 I see 5 QBs, 3 WRs, and 2 RBs. While this isn't pefect parity I think it's much better than 10 QBs and no WRs or RB

Again, I'm looking at the Top heavy nature of the IDP scoring. When you take the top 100 players and list a total number represented you're not really taking into account where those players fall in the pecking order. I wish there was an easy way to sort the players by Defensive position as a whole. That way we could easily figure out the Average ranking for each position. I expect LBs would be something like average rank of 4 and DL would have an average rank of 62.

My point is there's a pretty obvious gap between the LBs and the other two IDP positions. Something that should be addressed before the draft and teams build there team around the current scoring system.

However, I wish I had a good alternative to the scoring system. I'm open to all suggestions, I just think we need to pen this up for discussion and gather some opinions.

------------

Perhaps, like QBs, we limit the number you can start so there impact isn't quite so severe or value quite so important. While at the same time this makes the DL and DB positions more valuable.

Starting Lineup would be:
1 Line Backer (just like QB)
minimum of 1 DL and 1 DB
2 Flex DB or DL

This means a team could have a starting combo of DB and Dls that consists of 2 of each or a 3 to 1 mix. All of which paired with a single LB

[Football Buddah]

May 7, 2008 10:25:11 GMT -5 Orca said:

However, I wish I had a good alternative to the scoring system. I'm open to all suggestions, I just think we need to pen this up for discussion and gather some opinions.

Perhaps, like QBs, we limit the number you can start so there impact isn't quite so severe or value quite so important. While at the same time this makes the DL and DB positions more valuable.

Starting Lineup would be:
1 Line Backer (just like QB)
minimum of 1 DL and 1 DB
2 Flex DB or DL

This means a team could have a starting combo of DB and Dls that consists of 2 of each or a 3 to 1 mix. All of which paired with a single LB

The starting lineup of 4 IDP's was agreed upon at our owners meeting in February, and the scoring options were posted shortly after that, so I have an issue with changing either of those until the next off-season.

[Orca]

and I admitted on just about every occassion that I'm an IDP rookie. I left it up to people who play IDP to establish the rules and scoring.

After looking over the scoring in more detail and having a better understanding of IDPs I disagree with the current scoring and/or roster requirements.

It's clearly LB top heavy and should be fixed

However, it doesn't seemed like anyone else is concerned.

----------

I for one will be drafting 2 DL, 2 DBs, and 4 LBs
there's absolutely no reason to carry more than 2 DBs or DLs

[JagerBombs]

It doesn't bother me as it gives noone a statistical advantage. We all know going in we need LBs. To me it is no different than QBs in most leagues. Your QB is generally going to outscore other positions.

[Football Buddah]

Kyle - I've really been giving this alot of thought since you posted it - and I think you hit the nail on the head with the suggestion of changing the starting roster requirements to help balance the positions a little better.

What if we increased the number of IDP Flex players from 1 to 2, but limit those flex players to DL and/or DB only? This means, each team could only start 1 LB, but could start as many as 3 DL's or 3 DB's - giving those positions some additional equity - and giving the GM's more flexibility.

Examples of a starting IDP lineup are:
1 DL, 1 LB, 3 DB.
2 DL, 1 LB, 2 DB
3 DL, 1 LB, 1 DB

This would increase the number of IDP starters (from 4 to 5), but we would be able to keep the current scoring scheme in tact and the current IDP Auction plan of drafting 9 IDP's per team could remain in tact as well.

Since it's still the off-season, and since we haven't instituted anything in stone for IDP's yet, let's try to get it as right as we can in the first place.

I'm open for any other suggestions as well, but would like your thoughts on this one.

[Barrister]

Unlike Kyle, I really don’t have a major problem with the current IDP scoring/lineup set-up, although I admit his point is well taken. I agree we should do it the way most people feel comfortable with "the first time". However, if the league sees a need to address the scoring difference between LBs & DL/DBs, then I think we should address the scoring rules, rather than the starting line-up requirements.

IMO, starting only 1 LB will actually increase the importance of that LB. (For example, I'd rather have the top QB or RB in this league than the top 3 or 4 kickers or DSTs) Frankly, I’d be sorely tempted at the auction to bid 90 blbs on the top LB, and then fill out the remainder of my 8 or 9 IDP roster with 1 blb players. (Those 1 blb IDPs are going to be almost Pro Bowl quality guys anyway, given how small our IDP rosters are.) I’ve got a good chance of winning the IDP battle against my opponent every week that way....Then -- of course -- I’d argue against changing any of the IDP rules for 2009, since I built my 2008 IDP roster around the 2008 scoring/starting line-up rules.

I agree that we should do it as right as possible the first time, and that we have a “grace period” until the August IDP auction to do that. I’d suggest amending the LB scoring rules to bring them more into line with DLs/DBs. I’m not sure why LBs score so much more but, for example, if it’s because of their getting more tackles or ass’ts, give LBs fewer points for a tackle or assist than DLs/DBs get. I don’t think each IDP position has to get the same credit in each scoring category, any more than offensive positions have to. Just lower what LBs score in a category or two so that their overall scoring is brought more into line with DLs/DBs.

EDIT: I don't mean to sound like a "RonMexico" here, and I know we've discussed this....but I still fear that an 8/9 man IDP roster is too small to support a 4/5 IDP starting line-up requirement. I think injuries and bye-weeks are going to result in some teams not being able to field a full IDP line-up every week, unless we can use the weekly waiver wire to expand beyond our initial IDP roster limit. That's just my personal feeling.