Potential Points (POLL) : Yay, nay, whatever?

[killer_of_giants]

There is no perfect weight to allocate draft picks. However, Potential Points all but ELIMINATES conventional tanking (guys benching good players and/or starting guys who are hurt or on bye). Furthermore, it also partly eliminates the damage caused by an inactive owner.

bingo!




you just need decent owners, which is kind of a requisite for me anyway, and then there's no need for getting creative.

secondly, i have a problem with the top half of the standings using one indicator (W/L) and the bottom half of the table using another one (potential points). that's just inconsistent, which grinds my gears.

one team can get a few fluky wins, sure. that's true at the top of the standings too, you can be 4th in points and just miss out on the 6th playoffs spot because of bad luck (yeah i'm still bitter about it). what then? if potential points is the most fair way to define draft order, how come is not the most fair way to determine who makes the playoffs and who gets the byes?
potential points seems the first step towards best-ball, no head to head tournament, which i don't like.

it's dynasty, some years you'll get a bit more lucky, some other years you won't, play long enough and it will be much of a muchness in the end.

[Phaded]

Phaded, are you coming around yet on PPs?

Not particularly, but then again - you've been around here long enough to know that I can be notoriously stubborn.

I understand where those that like it are coming from, but it's still not for me and it could just come down to personal preference.

The anti-tanking aspect of it doesn't really appeal to me, as I don't find that to be a concern in the leagues that I am in.

It could just be the philosophy in which I like to see my leagues run, and that is that I like the value of the W-L records to make it "more similar" to the actual NFL. Sure, it's not perfect but I don't feel that potential points is perfect either. I understand how potential points should "in theory" benefit the worst team in the league, but I don't think that is explicitly the case as the worst team is not necessarily the one with the worst potential points (or even the worst points for for that matter).

I also find it rather strange that the seeding for the playoffs is typically determined in a different way than the draft order for non-playoff teams with potential points, it seems inconsistent at best for me. If a team misses out on the playoffs due to unlucky H2H match-ups, to me it is almost like pouring salt in the wound of that owner and telling them that their pick will not be indicative of that record that caused them to miss the playoffs.

I believe it was Ice who said in another thread that he compares potential points to the NBA lottery and maybe that is part of why I do not like it. I absolutely hate the lottery draft style that the NBA and NHL run.

[killer_of_giants]

I believe it was Ice who said in another thread that he compares potential points to the NBA lottery and maybe that is part of why I do not like it. I absolutely hate the lottery draft style that the NBA and NHL run.

off topic, but didn't the nba introduce the lottery to get ewing to the knicks? or is that just a conspiracy theory?

[Generic Username]

I don’t like the concept itself and I don’t like having separate methods of ranking, so to speak, for playoff seeding and draft position. If H2H is how you want seeding to work, well then that’s how those that didn’t make the playoffs should be seeded as well; year end standings is year end standings for everyone.

As to the concept itself, I don’t generally like attempts level out the luck/flukiness inherent in H2H formatting. Bad teams sometimes make the playoffs over good teams, oh well. Teams good on paper often don’t perform well on a week to week basis while bad teams on paper overachieve, it happens. And while I agree in theory about the ills of tanking, I just have yet to encounter anyone actually attempting it. Maybe I’ve been lucky over the years and in all the various leagues I’ve been apart, but it is my experience that as a whole the fantasy football community is of solid integrity

[grooner]

I am pretty indifferent towards it either way, I can see how it devalues tanking but if you have owners who try and tank the league may fail for different reasons anyways.

Many posters have listed the reasons why it is a good idea, so I don't think there is a need to pile on as there are some very well thought out posts here.

The one issue I have is it can sort of screw over owners who were already unlucky. Let's say you have a great team and have a tough time deciding who to start each week and choose wrong more often than not. This will make you lose games, but your PP is still high you just set lineups poorly. So now you don't make the playoffs, but you also don't get a good draft pick due to potential points, is that fair? Or if you end up with the most points against, losing lots of games, no playoffs, but once again not a good draft pick. Head to head leagues have a lot of randomness, so removing it only in a portion seems strange. Mine as well go bestball if you want to use potential picks to determine the draft order.

[briank]

I understand why some leagues would want this, but I'm not a fan. There should be no need for potential points as long as the bylaws state that best lineups should be set through Week 13, and the commissioner is on top of things.

Best lineup is subjective and people will work around those rules. Potential points is by far the best way to give the worst roster the best pick.

[briank]

I am pretty indifferent towards it either way, I can see how it devalues tanking but if you have owners who try and tank the league may fail for different reasons anyways.

Many posters have listed the reasons why it is a good idea, so I don't think there is a need to pile on as there are some very well thought out posts here.

The one issue I have is it can sort of screw over owners who were already unlucky. Let's say you have a great team and have a tough time deciding who to start each week and choose wrong more often than not. This will make you lose games, but your PP is still high you just set lineups poorly. So now you don't make the playoffs, but you also don't get a good draft pick due to potential points, is that fair? Or if you end up with the most points against, losing lots of games, no playoffs, but once again not a good draft pick. Head to head leagues have a lot of randomness, so removing it only in a portion seems strange. Mine as well go bestball if you want to use potential picks to determine the draft order.

BUT, that really good team who missed the playoffs because of bad decisions shouldn't be rewarded with a better pick. It's already a good team. The best picks should go to the worst teams.

[briank]

Phaded, are you coming around yet on PPs?

Not particularly, but then again - you've been around here long enough to know that I can be notoriously stubborn.

I understand where those that like it are coming from, but it's still not for me and it could just come down to personal preference.

The anti-tanking aspect of it doesn't really appeal to me, as I don't find that to be a concern in the leagues that I am in.

It could just be the philosophy in which I like to see my leagues run, and that is that I like the value of the W-L records to make it "more similar" to the actual NFL. Sure, it's not perfect but I don't feel that potential points is perfect either. I understand how potential points should "in theory" benefit the worst team in the league, but I don't think that is explicitly the case as the worst team is not necessarily the one with the worst potential points (or even the worst points for for that matter).

I also find it rather strange that the seeding for the playoffs is typically determined in a different way than the draft order for non-playoff teams with potential points, it seems inconsistent at best for me. If a team misses out on the playoffs due to unlucky H2H match-ups, to me it is almost like pouring salt in the wound of that owner and telling them that their pick will not be indicative of that record that caused them to miss the playoffs.

I believe it was Ice who said in another thread that he compares potential points to the NBA lottery and maybe that is part of why I do not like it. I absolutely hate the lottery draft style that the NBA and NHL run.

I'm in a league where there are 4 great teams that are head and shoulders above the other 8. All four are in the same division because divisions are reshuffled based on success. Every year one of those teams runs into bad luck because these 4 teams all play each other twice. That happened this year with maybe the most talented team in terms of value. That team has now earned the 1.02. Any system where a great team can earn a top pick is a broken system in dynasty that I don't want any part of.

[Cult of Dionysus]

I think we should reset the poll cuz about 11 guys voted against PPs as soon as the poll went up, and BEFORE they understood how great a tool this is (as evidenced what nearly everyone has said).



Seriously, it was 10-11 before I voted, and now it's 23-14. That's like a ratio of 4/1.

[thebeast]

^ they may not have even understood the question as it doesn’t note that it’s specific to determining draft order.

[MrUbuto]

Coaching should be part of the deal. Otherwise just play best ball

[honcho55]

I am pretty indifferent towards it either way, I can see how it devalues tanking but if you have owners who try and tank the league may fail for different reasons anyways.

Many posters have listed the reasons why it is a good idea, so I don't think there is a need to pile on as there are some very well thought out posts here.

The one issue I have is it can sort of screw over owners who were already unlucky. Let's say you have a great team and have a tough time deciding who to start each week and choose wrong more often than not. This will make you lose games, but your PP is still high you just set lineups poorly. So now you don't make the playoffs, but you also don't get a good draft pick due to potential points, is that fair? Or if you end up with the most points against, losing lots of games, no playoffs, but once again not a good draft pick. Head to head leagues have a lot of randomness, so removing it only in a portion seems strange. Mine as well go bestball if you want to use potential picks to determine the draft order.

BUT, that really good team who missed the playoffs because of bad decisions shouldn't be rewarded with a better pick. It's already a good team. The best picks should go to the worst teams.

Quoted these cuz theyre the most relevant to my stance. I voted Nay. I’m in agreement with what grooner posted. That said, the counter argument there from briank is plenty valid, but doesn’t make me a fan of PP.

I guess I’ve just been lucky to either be in a league where tanking hasn’t come up, or there’s other things in place? One league does a toilet bowl bracket, loser or each round goes on. Lose out for the playoffs to earn 1.01. If it’s fair to determine league winner by a playoff winning result, how is it not fair to determine 1.01 by a playoff losing result? Should we award 1.01 to the leagues lowest PP, and league championship to highest PP?

I’ve actually heard this suggested and don’t absolutely hate it. Not for me though. On either end. I think at the end of the day this isn’t a case where PP is right or wrong, it’s a preference.

[grooner]

I am pretty indifferent towards it either way, I can see how it devalues tanking but if you have owners who try and tank the league may fail for different reasons anyways.

Many posters have listed the reasons why it is a good idea, so I don't think there is a need to pile on as there are some very well thought out posts here.

The one issue I have is it can sort of screw over owners who were already unlucky. Let's say you have a great team and have a tough time deciding who to start each week and choose wrong more often than not. This will make you lose games, but your PP is still high you just set lineups poorly. So now you don't make the playoffs, but you also don't get a good draft pick due to potential points, is that fair? Or if you end up with the most points against, losing lots of games, no playoffs, but once again not a good draft pick. Head to head leagues have a lot of randomness, so removing it only in a portion seems strange. Mine as well go bestball if you want to use potential picks to determine the draft order.

BUT, that really good team who missed the playoffs because of bad decisions shouldn't be rewarded with a better pick. It's already a good team. The best picks should go to the worst teams.

I agree, but potential points doesn't always do that. Injuries, late breakouts, suspensions etc can easily skew potential points also. If a bad team gets lucky and makes the playoffs, but gets crushed in the first round, their potential points don't help them out. So now thw "worst" teams aren't getting the highest picks. Should the playoff participants be decided by potential points? The point of fantasy football is to win, not score more potential points. Like I said before, if you want to do that just do bestball and then it will sort it self out.

I don't mind potential points, just like to play devils advocate. Also not a fan of doing one ranking system for half the league (playoff teams), and one for the other half (nonplayoff teams).

[Cult of Dionysus]

No system is fool proof, but Potential Points prevents fools from bleep with the draft order.

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

I understand why some leagues would want this, but I'm not a fan. There should be no need for potential points as long as the bylaws state that best lineups should be set through Week 13, and the commissioner is on top of things.

Best lineup is subjective and people will work around those rules. Potential points is by far the best way to give the worst roster the best pick.

Hence the importance of a good commissioner