Points-based scoring leagues?

Why are points-based leagues often scoffed at? Well, let’s start with the basic formula.

The foundation for all points-based fantasy leagues is its scoring formula.

This formula can be as simple as 1 point for each point scored, rebound, and assist, or as complex as Allen Iverson’s cornrows. However, many people complain that points-based scoring does not accurately reflect player performances, no matter how complex the formula.

I disagree. John Hollinger’s Player Efficiency Rating (PER) has been widely accepted as a valuable tool for measuring a player’s contributions. Of course, you can’t really use PER for fantasy purposes because it includes several variables that fluctuate throughout the season.

However, Hollinger also has a Game Scores formula, which is “designed to be a convenient way to evaluate single-game performances.” I’m surprised more people don’t talk about this formula, because it seems like a fairly accurate way to measure player performance, which I assume is the goal for most fantasy leagues. Here is the formula:

Hollinger’s Game Scores formula:

Point scored: +1 point
FG attempt: -.7 points
FG make: +.4 points
FT miss: -.4 points
Off. rebound: +.7 points
Def. rebound: +.3 points
Assist: +.7 points
Steal: +1 point
Block: +.7 points
Turnover: -1 point
Personal foul: -.4 points

In general, the scale on Game Scores works something like this:

50+ = A historic performance.
40-49.9 = One of the best games of the entire season.
30-39.9 = Probably the best performance in the league that night.
20-29.9 = Probable player of the game selection.
15-19.9 = A Very strong effort.
12-14.9 = Reasonably solid performance.
8-11.9 = Average.
5-7.9 = Subpar game or didn’t see many minutes.
0-4.9 = Poor game or used very sparingly.
<0 = Packing his bags for Yakima.

Here is a list of the Top 25 game scores since the ‘86-87 season.

I think Hollinger came up with a great formula. Unfortunately, there’s still a problem. Game Scores are hard to calculate quickly in your head, which is one of the main benefits of using a points-based scoring system. You want to be able to look at a players’ stat line and immediately figure out how many fantasy points he scored for you.

So I started toying around with the point values to come up with something that’s easier to calculate, but still close to the Game Scores formula. Here’s what I have right now:

My modified formula

Point scored: +1 point
FG miss: -1 point
FT miss: -1 point
Off. rebound: +1 point
Def. rebound: +.5 points
Assist: +1 point
Steal: +1 point
Block: +1 point
Turnover: -1 point
Personal Foul: -.5 points

I know. It’s incredibly simple, right? By bumping the .7 values up to 1 and the .3 and .4 values up to .5, it makes it much easier to calculate in your head. But does this simple formula actually compare favorably to Hollinger’s Game Scores formula?

To test it out, let’s examine the past 3 games for LeBron James. Click here to view LeBron’s game scores for each game this season. His last 3 game scores are:

4/11: 24.5
4/09: 32.4
4/05: 10.8

Now let’s calculate his “scores” using my modified formula:

4/11: 34 pts – 8 fg miss – 6 ft miss + 0 oreb + (6 x .5 dreb) + 2 ass + 3 stl + 0 blk – 3 to – (3 x .5 pf) = 23.5
4/09: 33 pts – 10 fg miss – 3 ft miss + 4 oreb + (3 x .5 dreb) + 8 ass + 1 stl + 2 blk – 0 to – (2 x .5 pf) = 35.5
4/05: 17 pts – 16 fg miss – 4 ft miss + 5 oreb + (2 x .5 dreb) + 9 ass + 2 stl + 2 blk – 5 to – (1 x .5 pf) = 10.5

As you can see, the simpler modified formula comes fairly close to matching the Game Scores formula. However, I’m sure some of you are still skeptical of it’s ability to accurately measure a player’s value, so let’s examine this season’s Top 25 players using my modified formula.

Top 25 using modified formula (per game “scores”):

1. LeBron James (26.46)
2. Chris Paul (25.03)
3. Amare Stoudemire (23.30)
4. Kobe Bryant (22.80)
5. Allen Iverson (21.49)
6. Dirk Nowitzki (20.57)
7. Deron Williams (20.44)
8. Steve Nash (20.26)
9. Kevin Garnett (20.18)
10. Yao Ming (20.14)
11. Chris Bosh (20.13)
12. Dwight Howard (20.05)
13. Carmelo Anthony (19.65)
14. Tim Duncan (19.40)
15. Carlos Boozer (19.32)
16. Baron Davis (19.24)
17. Pau Gasol (19.05)
18. Al Jefferson (18.88)
19. Caron Butler (18.83)
20. Dwyane Wade (18.82)
21. Shawn Marion (18.00)
22. Vince Carter (17.76)
23. Chauncey Billups (17.63)
24. Monta Ellis (17.49)
25. David West (17.29)

What do you notice?

The block masters (Camby and J-Smoov) have both been Top 20 Roto players this season, but neither appears on this list. Deron Williams and Monta Ellis are ranked much higher using this formula than they are under Roto scoring. You could say that Monta is penalized in Roto leagues because of his lack of threes, but his overall production and efficiency gives him a boost using this formula. In 9-cat Roto leagues that factor in FT% AND turnovers, Dwight Howard doesn’t even crack the top 75. Using this modified points-based formula, the Man-Beast ranks #12 overall, which is where he belongs.

All in all, I think these Top 25 rankings are a more accurate representation of the top players in the NBA than your Roto or Head-to-Head rankings, which is why I think points-based leagues should be given more consideration and merit from fantasy hoops fans. But the points-based fun doesn’t end there…

Bonus Points

One cool thing about points-based leagues is that you can easily add bonus points for anything that you want. I would probably add a +5 bonus for each Triple-Double as well as +1 point for each slam dunk. I know that some people will laugh at the idea of awarding 1 point for each dunk, but there’s no denying that dunks ignite the crowd and often spark key runs. Unfortunately, I’m not aware of a stat service that allows you to include dunks as a category.

Keeping the Losers Involved

One of the major problems with fantasy leagues (Roto leagues in particular) is that the people at the bottom of the standings stop caring at a certain point because they know they can’t win anything. Points-based leagues can help prevent that by offering weekly prizes to the highest scoring teams. So even if your team gets off to a miserable start, you can still win money throughout the season.

Head-to-Head replacement?

Most people consider Points-based leagues and Head-to-Head leagues as being two entirely separate entities, but that doesn’t have to be the case. It’s not our fault of course. Yahoo! tells us that we must choose one or the other, so that’s what people tend to accept. Well, not only do I think that a combination of the two is possible, but I think it would be more accurate and enjoyable than just playing standard H2H.

First of all, it would allow for a multitude of ways to calculate the standings (and league prizes). By going head-to-head, you’ll compile win-loss records, thus allowing your league to still use a playoff format if you so choose. If you want, you could even declare the overall season winner as the team with the best average +/- point differential!

Conclusion

I think that points-based fantasy hoops leagues have gotten a bad rap in the past. In terms of raw production and overall game performance, you can argue that points-based leagues are a more accurate representation of a players real-life value in comparison to Roto and H2H leagues. While I’m a big fan of John Hollinger’s Game Scores formula, I think a more simplified formula is needed so owners can look at a boxscore and immediately calculate how his players performed. Finally, I would like to explore the idea of playing in a Head-to-head points-based league next season, so if anyone is interested, just let me know!

What do you guys think?