How IDP Leagues Should Be Built: Tackle-Heavy Scoring

The concept of “The Ideal IDP Scoring System” is as elusive as… I don’t know, pick something elusive – a hippalectryon… the Loch Ness Monster… a Philadelphia Eagles Super Bowl victory.

There is no “perfect” IDP scoring system. There is only the system you, and your league-mates can agree on. Some owners feel defensive tackles should have the same scoring capability as running backs. Yet, as much as I love IDP, it’s difficult to imagine sitting in a draft room, contemplating whether to take Le’Veon Bell or Aaron Donald in round one.

There is – and should be – a hierarchy amongst the positions. Adapting scoring systems to give tight ends, cornerbacks, and defensive tackles more relevancy should be encouraged. Contorting scoring systems to put Jason Pierre-Paul (as DL2) on par with Ezekiel Elliott (as RB2) is lunacy.

It’s good when fantasy leagues closely mirror the actual game of football, but tough to swallow things like eight-point interceptions and sacks – which force a bigger swing in the outcome of our fantasy match-ups than they do in actual NFL games.

The problems arise when players like Vic Beasley, with his league-leading 15.5 sacks, finish outside of the top 24 at linebacker. In the league we’ll use as an example, he was actually LB60! Regardless of the scoring system, Beasley consistently fell outside the range you might expect for a player who had such a tremendous season.

A big part of the problem is that Beasley is designated as a linebacker (by both the Falcons and MFL) instead of a defensive end, despite the image you have burned in your mind of him coming off the edge in a four-point stance. This, however, is largely out of our control thanks to a few rogue head coaches foiling our IDP dreams. (I’m looking right at you, Bruce Arians! Ruiner of Bucannons!)

What we can control is increasing the number of points awarded for sacks, tackles for loss, interceptions, and passes defended. It would be best if we could do this without making players like Landon Collins and Khalil Mack even bigger runaway-leaders at their positions… or maybe they should be?

I began this article with the intention of extolling the virtues of a “tackle-heavy” IDP scoring system. Yet, as my beliefs land on the page, I realize, that a purely “tackle-heavy” system isn’t my idea of an “Ideal” IDP scoring system at all. It is, in fact, the problem with IDP.

What Is Ideal?

[am4show have=’g1;’ guest_error=’sub_message’ user_error=’sub_message’ ]

The “Ideal” construct for an IDP scoring system is one which places the three defensive positions groups on a near-equal footing with the three, non-quarterback, offensive position groups. In general terms – the top linebackers should produce, roughly, what the top running backs post. The same should hold true for the defensive backs and wide receivers, as well as the defensive linemen and tight ends.

Within those position groups, we have subsets of players whose fantasy value is largely, scheme dependent. For example, the best 4-3 DEs outscore all other defensive linemen, almost without exception. 3-4 DEs, on the other hand, have only moderate value, as do 4-3 defensive tackles. Usually, it is the elite at these two positions who post the most worthwhile IDP stats.

As for the 3-4 nose tackle, he is virtually irrelevant. Which leads us to the question… Do we need to adapt our scoring system to manufacture value for every underperforming position? And more importantly… Is our league better if we do?  

Times They Are a Changin’… Like Nickels & Dimes

The answer to both questions depends on the position. Attempting to invoke a “DT-Premium” system only succeeds in throwing the scoring system further out of whack. Until we can come up with a system that scores “attracting double teams” and “two-gapping”, your DTs are going to have to generate production elsewhere. Creating artificial value in a position doesn’t make the game any better.

Furthermore, the proliferation of the “sub-package” is already leveling the playing field for us by putting 3-4 teams in attacking-style, four-man fronts more often. By a conservative estimate, teams line up in their nickel and dime sets on over 60% of their snaps. Sometimes this sub-package will be of the 3-3-5 variety, but more often than not, teams are trying to generate pressure with four-down linemen.

Depending on the team’s base defense and personnel, anywhere from one to three of their linebackers could wind up on the sideline when they roll out their sub-package of choice. Some DEs move inside and play DT in the nickel, while LBs wind up playing DE, and safeties become LBs. These changes are becoming more prevalent, but our league websites can’t keep track of all these assignment changes during the course of a game.

Sub-packages give the best pass rushing defensive linemen more opportunities to attack, instead of minding their gap-responsibilities. This helps nullify the base-package position designations, eliminating some of the need for premium–scoring settings.

What About The Corners?

Cornerbacks see fewer tackle opportunities during the course of a game. Making each of their tackles worth six-points, for instance, will cause artificial spikes in their value. If you can increase the scoring for passes defended without devaluing the interception, this would make some sense – as stopping passes from being completed is an integral part of the game. Awarding points for return yardage on interceptions and fumbles also make sense. But overall, if CBs made the amount of plays safeties do, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

One of the biggest arguments by proponents of “Kicking the Kicker” is the unpredictability of their production from game to game. We get the same unpredictability when we raise DT and CB value with premium scoring settings. Therefore, putting premiums on underperforming positions won’t help us in the long run.

We need greater flexibility in setting our line-ups, and fewer rules forcing us to start players at DT and CB, in particular. Let the evolution of the game settle such discrepancies, naturally.

The “Ideal” IDP Set Up

We should be looking to start 11 defensive players. By position group, that should breakdown to a minimum of two starters from the defensive line, four linebackers, three defensive backs, and two flexes.

Maxing defensive linemen out at three starters, while allowing up to five players to start from the linebacker, and defensive back groups will give your league the ability to take advantage of the NFL’s hybrid-linebackers – who also function as pass rushers, and hybrid-safeties who function in the traditional linebacker’s role.

This allows owners in 12-team leagues to start the top 24 defensive linemen on a weekly basis, and pull from the top 48 for depth. Some will argue against starting half as many d-linemen as we start linebackers and DBs. However, when you realize how many fewer snaps defensive linemen play, it makes a lot more sense.

Where Did All The Grunts Go?

In 2016, 36 DBs and 14 linebackers registered over 1,000 snaps. That number shrunk to just two defensive linemen who logged 1,000 snaps last season. Only eleven defensive linemen played more than 80% of their team’s snaps. That same 80% threshold was achieved by 36 LBs and a staggering 82 DBs!

Simply put, defensive linemen aren’t on the field enough to warrant us worrying about their lack of production. Starting two, with the ability to flex in a third or fourth, is more than adequate. In fact, you may be putting owners at a disadvantage by requiring them to start more than two defensive linemen.

The “Ideal” IDP Scoring System

In my effort to build a better IDP scoring system, I began by importing the scoring system of my favorite IDP league. It follows the credo I laid out in the beginning of this article, by placing “… the three defensive positions groups on equal footing with the three non-quarterback position groups on offense…  the top linebackers should produce, roughly, what the top running backs post. The same should hold true for the defensive backs and wide receivers, as well as the defensive linemen and tight ends.”

Here is a link to the original year-end point totals on both offense and defense, as well as the original scoring system.

The Changes

Next, I attempted to fix the issue of our friend Vic Beasley finishing as LB60, by bumping up the points awarded for “sacks, TFLs, and QB hurries” by 1 for sacks, and 0.5 for TFLs and hurries. I also added a new category, “sack yards”. Finally, I increased the points awarded for “passes defended” from 1.5 points to 2, and “interceptions” from 3 to 3.5.

The Results

When the results rolled in, our boy Beasley was now the 39th ranked linebacker, rather than 60th. This was better, but still not “Ideal”. Keep in mind, the league used for this example was an extreme case when it comes to undervaluing sack-artist. The improvement will be more dramatic in our DLF IDP League, where Beasley was LB25, with a similarly, lower-than-ideal scoring setup.

The Vikings’ Danielle Hunter made a sizable leap from DL12 under the old rules, to DL2 under the new system. The biggest reason for the jump was the points accrued from “sack yardage”.

Hunter scored 168 points in the old system, and 244 points in the improved system. His biggest single game leap occurred in week 11, where his output went from 13.9 points to 27.9 for compiling three QB hits, two sacks, two tackles, and two TFLs. Outside of the marginal increase in value for those stats, Hunter accrued 11 additional points for causing a total loss of 23 yards on his two QB sacks.

As for the safeties and cornerbacks, the impact wasn’t as dramatic as I’d hoped for. In total, there were 12 cornerbacks in the top 50 under the old rules. After increasing the points awarded for “passes defended and interceptions” (as well as the sacks, sack yardage and TFLs), the number of top 50 corners grew to just 14. Over the top 64, the ratio increased from 20 to 23. This is better, but not exactly earth-shattering stuff.

The Conclusion

In closing, this dive into the virtues of a “tackle-heavy” scoring system proved to me that “tackle-heavy” scoring is actually the scourge of IDP leagues. It devalues players who excel at rushing the passer and defending the pass. Some will focus on increasing the output of positions like defensive tackle and cornerback, in particular. We may achieve a more competitive league by increasing the impact of plays, rather than positions, and allowing owners greater flexibility in the positions they choose to build their starting lineups around.

Is this increase in production something we, as owners can live with? Do the higher point totals and sack yardage reflect the value these plays have on the actual NFL games in which they occur? Does it make our game better?

For me, the answer to all three questions is yes. I’d like to see the cornerback totals increase a bit more, but this is a decent and reasonable start. You, however, will have to run a similar experiment in your own leagues and determine that answer for yourselves.

[/am4show]