We’ve had a lot of requests for analysis on leagues in which QB gets 6 points per TD pass, so here’s a look at Mike Horn’s statistical breakdown of these types of leagues.

Start Article

QBs in 6-pt/Passing TD Leagues
by Mike Horn
Staff Writer, FantasyGuru.com

There have been several questions lately about the impact on player values of a scoring system that awards 6 points for passing TDs (instead of the 4 points common in many leagues). This is my attempt to answer that analytically.

Who benefits?

There are two parts to this question. First, which individual QBs are better in a 6 point passing TD format?  Second, how does this scoring affect the values of QBs compared to other positions when drafting?

For this article, I’ll use this yardage scoring: 10 yards rushing/receiving = 1 pt; 25 yards passing = 1 pt; rushing/receiving TD = 6 pts. No points for receptions or point penalties for turnovers, and of course I’ll be comparing 4 vs. 6 points for passing TDs.

Individual QBs

Over the last 10 years, how would the ranks of individual QBs vary from 4 point to a 6 point per passing TD scoring system?  Not much:

QB Fantasy Rank Change 1999-2009 In 4 vs. 6 point Pass TD Scoring
Change	Total	Pct
No change	170	56.7%
+/-1	99	33.0%
+/-2	24	8.0%
+/-3	5	1.7%
+/-4	2	0.7%

Over half of all QBs don’t have their relative ranking changed at all by adopting a 6 point scoring system. And 90% don’t change or move up or down only 1 spot in the final scoring rankings. Here’s the list of players whose rank varied by 3 or more places since 1999:

Brian Griese, 2001

Trent Green, 2001

Brett Favre, 2003

Michael Vick, 2005

Eli Manning, 2006

Vince Young, 2006

David Garrard, 2008

Obviously a couple of these players, Vick and Young, fall into the category of “running QBs.” Both saw their ranks decline by 3 when going from a 4 point to 6 point passing TD scoring system. This is not surprising and probably something every fantasy owner realizes:  increasing the value of passing TDs decreases the value of QBs who score a lot with their feet. Vick and Young had 6 and 7 rushing TDs respectively in those seasons. Garrard is something of a running QB, at least relative to the remaining 5 QBs in that list, but he had only 2 rushing TDs and 322 rushing yards vs. 6 or 7 and 500+ for Vick and Young in the seasons listed here.

But there’s something all these QBs had in common: relatively low TD/INT ratios. It’s not surprising that low TD numbers would make a difference. Obviously the more – or fewer – of a QB’s fantasy points that came from TDs would mean he would move up or down in the rankings if TDs were worth more. But it appears that QBs that also throw a relatively high percentage of INTs are more likely to be affected by this scoring system variation.

QB Rank Change Compared to TD/INT Ratio
Change	TD/INT
No change	1.45
+/-1	1.45
+/-2	1.39
+/-3	1.08
+/-4	1.27
Average	1.44

QBs that were relatively unaffected when going from 4 to 6 points per passing TD had TD/INT ratios close to the average. Of course, this could partly be that there were so many of them that they really were the average. Also, while players who were more affected by the scoring change had below average TD/INT ratios, some of them were POSITIVELY affected. In leagues that charge a point or two for INTs, this effect is probably less noticeable.

Looking over the 10-year span, QBs that were most positively affected by 6 point passing TD scoring were, not surprisingly, the QBs who were already the elite fantasy QBs: Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, Drew Brees, and Philip Rivers. Two QBs that benefitted more than you might expect were Eli Manning and Matt Hasselbeck. Both tended to throw a lot of TDs relative to their passing yards, so boosting the relative value of TDs helped them. They also had strong running games, so they got a decent amount of red zone opportunities without having moved the team there via the air as much as QBs with higher passing yardage totals. Of course, Hasselbeck is a marginal fantasy player at best anymore, and last year Eli Manning had over 4000 yards, so this effect has probably worn off for them.

To summarize, and some of this is pretty obvious, in leagues that award 6 point per passing TD:

• In general, running QBs are decreased in value.
• QBs who have low TD/INT ratios will move up or down in value more than others.
• QBs with relatively low passing yard/passing TD ratios will move up in value.
• Those QBs who fit that description and come with strong running games consistently are worth more in this format than in 4 point scoring. Joe Flacco jumps out at me as a player who might be in this kind of situation in 2010.

Impact on Position Value

A key point that I want to get across in this article is that just because QBs score more total points in 6 pt/passing TD systems DOES NOT MAKE THEM MORE VALUABLE.

I guess I shouldn’t shout; those new to the hobby may not understand this. But scoring more points alone does not affect a player’s fantasy value when comparing across position groups – obviously a QB who scores more is worth more than another QB who scores less.

Let’s look at last year’s players with 6 point passing TD scoring. Carson Palmer had 277 points in 16 games. Maurice Jones-Drew had 273 in the same number of games. Andre Johnson had 212 and Dallas Clark 172. Palmer out-scored all these players as the #17 QB in total points, while the others were all in the top 3 at their position. It’s pretty clear that just because Palmer scored more does not make him more valuable. We have to think about the relative value of various positions too. What creates relative positional value? (This discussion of relative values ignores “flex” players.)

The first is scarcity. If a 12-team league requires two starting RBs per team, that far exceeds the number of starting backs not in RBBC offenses. But the same league could start 4 WRs and there would be starting NFL WRs available for bench spots. So WRs as a whole would not be as scarce as RBs and therefore not as valuable. If the league started four kickers, there’d be a scramble early in the draft to pick kickers. The concept of scarcity is very basic to setting positional value in a fantasy league. Using 6 pt/passing TD scoring does not affect this at all.

The second factor creating positional value is the drop-off in points from the best player at the position to the second, second to third, etc., and then from the pool of the top starters (RB1, WR1, etc.) to the next pool (RB2, WR2…) down to the drop-off between the last starters and the bench players and so on to waiver wire candidates. The concept of drop-offs is the basic principle underlying value-based drafting (VBD).

This can be illustrated by a simple example. Say the NFL had a new rule this year that only kickers on teams from Louisiana can attempt placekicks. Garrett Hartley would have a projected 130-point advantage on all other kickers. Because of this extreme drop-off, Hartley would have to be the first player chosen in fantasy drafts – no one else would give you a 8 point advantage every week guaranteed (you could also argue that this is essentially scarcity in such an extreme case). All the other owners would draft a kicker with their very last pick and would scramble to figure out who would replace Hartley if he got hurt. This is why stud RBs always go first and are handcuffed to their backup.

It’s primarily the drop-offs that establish relative positional value between positions of equal scarcity, for example, QB and PK in most leagues. Usually there is a huge drop-off between the top QBs and the 12^th rated one (100 plus points), while the disparity from #1 to #12 at kicker is closer to 30 points. Starting QBs always get drafted by fantasy owners before they go get a kicker. It’s not until the drop-offs within pools of players at other positions (RB4, WR5, QB2, etc.) start approaching the kicker level that kickers get drafted.

One impact of 6 point scoring is that it makes the elite QBs more valuable by making the drop-offs from the best starter to a middle-of-the-road starter, and from that guy to a low-end starter. This is one reason why it can make elite QBs more valuable in 6 point passing TD systems. Here’s what the drop-offs look like the last 12 years:

Drop-off from #1 to #6 QB in Different Scoring Systems
Year	4FP	6FP
2000	83	93
2001	47	65
2002	58	46
2003	38	38
2004	110	133
2005	39	55
2006	55	69
2007	127	164
2008	62	76
2009	59	65
Average	68	80

Drop-off from #6 to #12 QB in Different Scoring Systems
Year	4FP	6FP
2000	59	73
2001	61	76
2002	47	60
2003	18	27
2004	30	62
2005	16	29
2006	45	55
2007	45	66
2008	39	52
2009	44	47
Average	40	55

Drop-off from #1 to #12 QB in Different Scoring Systems
Year	4FP	6FP
2000	142	166
2001	108	141
2002	105	106
2003	56	65
2004	141	195
2005	55	84
2006	100	124
2007	172	230
2008	101	128
2009	103	112
Average	108	135

Almost without exception, 6 point (6FP) scoring for pass TDs has bigger drop-offs. So, theoretically, the 6 point system should make QBs more valuable. But what about in real leagues?

I poked around in the myfantasyleague.com archives for leagues that award 6 points for passing TDs but were consistent in other scoring rules and roster requirements. I found several long-standing 12-team leagues (back to 2002) – a total of 57 league seasons. They all awarded 6 point for all TDs, 1 point for 20 passing yards, and 1 point for rushing/receiving yards, with no points per reception and no penalties for turnovers. These leagues all had 18-man rosters with starting line-ups of 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 D/ST, and 1 PK. Then I looked at their regular season wins and points for (PF) to see how drafting a QB in a particular round affected their results

1ST PICK	QB	RB	WR	Overall
Average Adjusted PF	0.99	1.00	1.01	1.00
Average wins	7.2	7.0	7.0	7.

The first chart shows the average wins and Adjusted PF for teams taking one of the three major positions with their 1^st pick. Wins are self-explanatory; the leagues all played 14-game seasons so the overall average fir the league is 7 wins. Taking a QB with the first pick was slightly better than average, with 7.2 average wins.

Average Adjusted PF is more complicated. I could have used average PF, but the amount of points scored varied considerably from year-to-year: from an average of 1275 in 2003 to 1548 last year. Using a straight average over these very different seasons could skew the results. For example, if a lot more QBs than usual were drafted early in the lowest scoring season, it would make this strategy appear worse than it is. So I divided every team’s PF by the average PF in that season. Therefore, the overall average is 1.00. Anything greater than 1 is above average and any score less than it is below average. For these leagues, teams taking a QB with their first pick had an average adjusted PF of 0.99, which means they averaged 99% of overall average PF.

So taking a QB with the first pick was mixed – a little better than taking an RB or WR in terms of wins, a little worse in terms of PF.

2ND PICK	QB	RB	WR	Grand Total
Average Adjusted PF	1.03	0.99	1.01	1.00
Average wins	7.1	6.9	7.0	7.0

Teams that took a QB with their next pick did better. They had the best average wins of teams taking QB, RB, or WR by a narrow margin. And they had easily the best adjusted PF. Now, this is not to say that just taking a QB in Round 2 will automatically give you a 3% edge in PF in leagues that give 6 points per passing TD. It would be a bad strategy to reach for a loss-than-elite QB – but it does show that taking QB here has been a very viable strategy.

However, after several straight years where teams that took a QB with their 2^nd pick had above average adjusted PF, in 2009 they did slightly below average with this draft strategy. It’s also worth noting that high PF didn’t always translate into above average wins:

Taking a QB with 2nd Pick
Year	Average Wins	Average Adjusted PF
2002	7.3	1.01
2003	6.3	0.98
2004	8.3	1.14
2005	7.3	1.03
2006	6.3	1.05
2007	6.5	1.07
2008	7.0	1.02
2009	7.0	0.99

2004 was an excellent year to take a QB early, as both Peyton Manning and Daunte Culpepper were the only QBs taken with teams’ first two picks, and both delivered tremendous seasons. But in years like last season when the top QBs taken (Manning, Drew Brees, and Tom Brady) didn’t dominate like the 2004 top draft picks, there was no advantage to taking a QB in Round 2, even in this scoring format.

In these leagues, teams have drafted their first QBs with their 1^st pick and as late as their 11^th pick.

Results of Taking a QB with Various Picks
Pick	Average Wins	Average Adjusted PF
1	7.3	0.99
2	7.2	1.03
3	6.8	1.00
4	7.2	1.01
5	6.6	0.99
6	7.2	1.00
7	6.6	0.99
8	7.1	1.01
9	7.4	1.02
10	6.7	0.98
11	7.0	1.00

It would appear that the best strategies have been to either grab a highly-rated QB early, in Round 2, or to hold off and take an upside QB somewhere around the 9^th round. The low average wins in Rounds 5 and 7 may be a fluke or may be the result of owners reaching for mediocre QBs when they started going off the boards.

After looking over all these leagues, over several years, I believe that there is no magic solution to the question of when to take a QB. Certainly, the 6 point scoring for passing TDs doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to take a QB early. It can be a good strategy, but so can waiting on a QB. Reaching for a QB – or any position – is counter-productive.