A lot of sites define coaching as how many points you get minus your optimum score. Fleaflicker sort of has this with your PF, Optimum PF and the % of your optimum that you earned.
But I think a better way to rate coaching is how you perform compared to projections. I think it would be cool if Fleaflicker didn't just scrap the projected optimal lineup at the end of each week and instead tracked your projected optimal lineup's score each week and compared it to your actual score. If you go chalk with projections you wouldn't earn or lose any coaching points. If you go against projections, you earn coaching points if your players do better than the projected optimum lineup and you lose coaching points if your players do worse.
I currently track this offline for my league (any time a team does an add/drop I also look to see if they added the highest projected player at that position or not and, if not, whether that player was projected to outscore the recommended start from their roster).
cpuffettTue 12/29/20 11:22 PM
A lot of sites define coaching as how many points you get minus your optimum score. Fleaflicker sort of has this with your PF, Optimum PF and the % of your optimum that you earned.
But I think a better way to rate coaching is how you perform compared to projections. I think it would be cool if Fleaflicker didn't just scrap the projected optimal lineup at the end of each week and instead tracked your projected optimal lineup's score each week and compared it to your actual score. If you go chalk with projections you wouldn't earn or lose any coaching points. If you go against projections, you earn coaching points if your players do better than the projected optimum lineup and you lose coaching points if your players do worse.
I currently track this offline for my league (any time a team does an add/drop I also look to see if they added the highest projected player at that position or not and, if not, whether that player was projected to outscore the recommended start from their roster).