Let Loose the Tight End, Part Two: Advanced Scoring Systems

Ryan Finley Posted On July 31, 2018

Welcome back to my look at tight end scoring. In part one, I took a look at the systems you’re most familiar with: Vanilla 1 PPR, Tight End Premium 1.5 PPR, and Tight End Super Premium 2.0 PPR. Though that last system was promising, I think we can take it further. So let’s get into it in part two with some more advanced and interesting scoring systems. Let’s try to blow the doors off this thing and get more creative.

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

“Tight End Yardage Premium” – 1 PPR PLUS 1 Point per Five Receiving Yards

At first glance, this looks somewhat similar to 2.0 PPR. 18 tight ends are in the top 100, and all but one in the top 20 averaged over ten points per game. But this scoring bumps up the tight ends at the top a bit, putting two tight ends in the top five overall in fantasy. 2017 was a stronger year for tight ends as if you look at 2016 under this system, the top tight end (Travis Kelce again) ranked sixth overall.

This scoring system also features 31 tight ends who scored 100 points or more last year, and that number jumps to 35 when looking at 2016. Both of those numbers are higher than the 2.0 PPR scoring. One of the reasons I like this a bit better than super premium is that I feel like 2.0 PPR puts too much weight on a single stat. This system gentles the curve a bit more. I think this is another promising possibility, but let’s move on.

“Tight End First Down Premium” – 1.5 PPR PLUS 1 Point Per First Down

word image 90

This one is inspired by the aforementioned Scott Fish Bowl. If you were in the league last year, you know it was another unique scoring format. Last year in SFB, there was no PPR, but instead, players got one point per first down. Scott added a premium to tight end there by awarding them 2.5 points per first down.

I decided to try to play with that a little bit by mixing it with PPR. I initially tried 1 PPR and 1 PPFD, but that didn’t make it much better. Then I bumped up the PPR number to 1.5, and it ended up with something much more useful. Again, we have 18 tight ends in the top 100, and 18 of the 20 averaged ten or more points per game. The curve is also better here again, with 31 players scoring 100 points or more, so it’s a very similar curve to the 1 PPR and 1 point per five yards system. This is another one to remember.

“Kitchen Sink Tight End Premium” – 1.5 PPR, 0.5 points per 20+ Yard Reception, 1 point per 40+ Yard Reception, 0.5 Points Per Target

Up until now, I feel like I’ve been nibbling at the corners. Small adjustment here, new stat there, carry the 1, etc. With this system, I tried to think a little more outside the box. To do so, I tried to think about what I want to award at the position.

I think they should get a bit more per reception, so went with 1.5 PPR. I think they could also use some bonuses for bigger plays, which are more rare at the position compared to others. So I awarded a half point for 20+ yard receptions and one point for 40+ yard receptions. (These are additive, so a 40+ yard reception actually nets 1.5 points.) Then I thought about targets. I decided I also want to award usage at the position. Ideally, there would be some kind of stat for blocking, but no stat exists. So targets was the best available stat to show usage, and I awarded 0.5 points per target.

As you can see, this scoring system places 20 tight ends in the top 100 players. The top 100 in this system breaks down to 27 QBs, 21 RBs, 32 WRs and 20 TEs. (Keep in mind other positions are using standard one PPR with no other tweaks.) I think if I took this unique system for tight ends and tweaked the other numbers, we might be able to find something with real balance, but for the purposes of this article, I’m laser focused in tight end scoring.

You’ll also notice all top 20 tight ends averaged over 10 points per game, and additionally, the top 35 tight ends scored 100 points or more. Looking at 2016 under this system, it was very similar: 20 tight ends in the top 100 but there were 37 tight ends who scored 100 points or more.

Conclusion

One thing I haven’t really talked about in the context of this article is how tight ends should score compared to the other positions. I think this is an important note to bring up. I believe tight end scoring should be completely separate. If you want to combine running backs and wide receivers under one umbrella that is fine, but tight ends really need their own, unique rules. In all cases here I did just that, pulled out tight end specifically into its own scoring system.

One other topic to address here is the somewhat recent appearance of leagues that require you to start two tight ends. While I do think this can add value to the position, it has to be done very carefully. If you require two tight ends but have them score at vanilla or even 1.5 PPR premium levels, you can easily end up with some teams that struggle mightily at the position. As we’ve seen from what we looked at here, part of the problem with these scoring systems is the curve itself – the lighter premium versions may help the top end a bit, but the tail end of the position is still left a nightmare. Now if you combine requiring two tight ends with one of the flatter scoring systems we’ve seen here, you might be in business.

All that being said, I think my favorite system here is the last: Kitchen Sink Tight End Premium. (Hopefully, I don’t anger Ryan McDowell by using that moniker.) I like it because it gives the smoothest curve without overly boosting the top tight ends in the game. I think using that will allow you to try a two tight end required league without killing teams that miss out on the top options. I also like that it awards a tight ends from a few different angles. Granted, it is the most complex, but I think what we need in the land of tight end scoring is a little more complexity and a little less tentativeness. So maybe it’s time we throw the Kitchen Sink at the position, and let loose the tight end.

[/am4show]