Unwrittenlaw
Footballguy
He could've broken out his JR. year - but terrible QB play kept him from doing so imo. He played better than Juju's Jr year even when he had Darnold throwing to him. Pittman's QB ratio was like 14 td/10 int.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Spaceshuttle (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Interseptopus
- Start date
MAC_32
Footballguy
Pull up his game log - he (kinda) did breakout his Jr. year. He just had a horrible September then missed a couple games due to injury later in the season. The horrible QB play you mentioned could quite easily explain the slow start.
barackdhouse
Footballguy
@Dr. Dan have you given any thought to differentiating between a hit definition of one top 24 WR season in their career to one top 24 PPG WR season (with like a min threshold of 8 games played for example)?
AJ Brown averaged 13.57 PPR fantasy points last year.
McLaurin averaged 13.71 PPR fantasy points last year.
He only missed two games, so is it *really* fair to call him a miss and Brown a hit? Under a PPG model, neither would be top 24 from their rookie season. But rookie seasons typically aren't enough to show a pattern anyway as most stud WRs make big leaps their 2nd and 3rd seasons. You acknowledged already the importance of waiting a couple years to call these guys misses, so I would say yes I think that's wise.
But, if we reran these data according to PPG, not with the intention to replace what you've done, but as an ancillary to it, maybe we would see some other patterns. Perhaps with regards to these borderline guys, and/or guys that have been exceptions in the past.
AJ Brown averaged 13.57 PPR fantasy points last year.
McLaurin averaged 13.71 PPR fantasy points last year.
He only missed two games, so is it *really* fair to call him a miss and Brown a hit? Under a PPG model, neither would be top 24 from their rookie season. But rookie seasons typically aren't enough to show a pattern anyway as most stud WRs make big leaps their 2nd and 3rd seasons. You acknowledged already the importance of waiting a couple years to call these guys misses, so I would say yes I think that's wise.
But, if we reran these data according to PPG, not with the intention to replace what you've done, but as an ancillary to it, maybe we would see some other patterns. Perhaps with regards to these borderline guys, and/or guys that have been exceptions in the past.
barackdhouse
Footballguy
You meant "PPG" those first two times and then "PPR". Your entire dataset is calibrated for "PPR", no?something to consider as I value ppr over total points. There are some issues with this, but with the bulk of my time this offseason spent on the equations, it might be something I can shift my focus to and update the list, or perhaps add another sheet based on ppr with 8 games played. I appreciate the suggestion, but not the work it brings
McLaurin missed by very few points and was wr25 for total points in ppr. Some would say he was a wr2. You have to draw a line somewhere, and to avoid slippery slopes I have 24 as my hard cut off, no matter if the wr was 0.02 away from 24 or not.
On that last bolded yeah I agree completely. You do have to be strict about it. I have him 30th in total points last year, so it wasn't that close. I don't know where you got 25, that's interesting. 212 was the points cutoff with Gallup coming in at #24. McLaurin finished with 192. I'm including week 17, that's why. I don't think it makes sense to throw out week 17s just like I don't think it makes sense to count missed games against a player. That's why PPG makes more sense to me.
I'm not trying to get you to say McLaurin is a hit, he simply isn't per the criteria. Period. Not yet anyway. I'm actually not trying to make this about him at all, just using as an example as he averaged more per game than Brown. And to reiterate a small point, neither of them would be considered hits from their 2019 season(s) if PPG were the criteria. It's not that PPG makes some loophole where McLaurin gets in, it just shows he performed higher than Brown (barely).
Anyway, great work again, I know it would be a ton of work to look at PPGs and thresholds and all. I'll paypal you a case of beer. If not, still a super useful tool so thanks again.
Boone22
Footballguy
My pretty standard scoring system (1 point per 10 yards and 1 ppr, +6 points per TD) on MFL has McLaurin at #25 with 191.9 total points, just behind Marvin Jones at 194.3 total points. Gallup is down at #30 with 179.9 total points.
barackdhouse
Footballguy
It's because I'm counting week 17. Gallup scored like 33 in week 17. It is also a game McLaurin missed.
It seems arbitrary to add an extra 6.25% to some players statistics when others are intentionally held out, especially when that week has zero relevance to most fantasy football leagues.
My leagues end in Week 16, so I only pay attention to player stats through Week 16.
barackdhouse
Footballguy
I'm not doing that, though. If they didn't play it doesn't count against them in a PPG model. Whereas in the season long gross numbers model, missed games count against them, and games they weren't in your lineup count *for* them. Talk about arbitrary.
If week 17 shouldn't count in an analysis, then why should the week you didn't start them?
PPG solves all of that, other than the durability questions that come up in reference to minimum games played thresholds.
What about guys that take over an expanded role midseason? Is it their season long metric that matters or their PPG splits? I would point to Derrick Henry as an example there.
PPG is skewed by massive Week 17 results every year. And it makes people think that mediocre players are somehow going to be good the following year because they shot up from WR30 to WR24 in meaningless action.
You should count weeks that you didn't start them because those weeks were involved in the actual fantasy football season. I care a LOT about what a player does in Week 1, Week 17 only creates confusion.
