a tale of two WR's: who would you rather have? (1 Viewer)

[moleculo]

I'd like to look at two WR's from last year, and determine who was more desirable. They put up almost identical scores on the year, but one was more consistent than the other - that's what I'm trying to investigate here.

Regardless, I'm looking at Dez Bryant and Vincent Jackson. Here were their weekly scores:

D Bryant 16.1 . 10.3 19.2 B 11.8 20 5.8 10.6 19.4 15.8 6.5 22.6 12 14 12.2V Jackson 5.1 39.2 11.4 19.8 6.4 B 2.5 7.9 39.1 3.2 29.5 4.5 17.2 10.5 12.3 6.1Dez averaged 14.02 PPG, whereas VJax averaged 14.3 PPG - nearly identical. However, when you look at the individual games, Dez scored 9 or less just twice, whereas VJax scored 9 or less 7 times.Conversely, VJax had 3 games over 25, whereas Dez didn't have any.

Consistency is something that I've been trying to investigate lately - if it is predictable. I think it might be, but I'm not convinced. Before I even get to that point, however, it's probably important to know if it's desirable. I could see an argument either way.

so I guess what I'm asking - based on 2011 data, which WR is more desireable? Or better put, which one helped you win more games? is it better to have High-ceiling-low-floor, or high-floor-low-ceiling?

This isn't a question on who will be preferred in 2012, I'm really more curious as to trying to find out what kind of player we should be targeting in upcoming drafts.

eta: title changed to better reflect topic

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

IMO it's all the same unless the weekly score for your team is so variable that your high weeks are 'wasted' (way ahead of the 2nd highest scoring team in the league that week) or your low weeks are a sure loss (way below the next worst score). Otherwise the two options are just shifting shifting all-win percentage around from week to week and it should net out (on average).

 

[chickensoup]

IMO it's all the same unless the average score for your team is so variable that your high weeks are 'wasted' (way ahead of the 2nd highest scoring team in the league that week) or your low weeks are a sure loss (way below the next worst score). Otherwise the two options are just shifting shifting all-win percentage around from week to week and it should net out (on average).

I dont think 16 weeks is enough of a time period to "average things out" as you say. I only take one VJax type of player as a starter in my leagues. Wins you some weeks by himself. Too many of them and you are prone to the "highest scorer but ended up third place" syndrome IMO.

 

[moleculo]

IMO it's all the same unless the average score for your team is so variable that your high weeks are 'wasted' (way ahead of the 2nd highest scoring team in the league that week) or your low weeks are a sure loss (way below the next worst score). Otherwise the two options are just shifting shifting all-win percentage around from week to week and it should net out (on average).

I dont think 16 weeks is enough of a time period to "average things out" as you say. I only take one VJax type of player as a starter in my leagues. Wins you some weeks by himself. Too many of them and you are prone to the "highest scorer but ended up third place" syndrome IMO.

Too few VJax type guys, and you will be the guy who is consistently average, finished 7-7 and always misses the playoffs.I suspect the answer is that you need a mix of both, but I have never seen a tool that can help you determine how to identify types of players, much less how to mix them.

 

[Corporate]

I think it depends on what you have or are targeting for the rest of your team and let that dictate. If you have already have some fairly consistent players, I would say take the chance on the one that has the high ceiling. I am in a similar situation in my auction dynasty this year in that I have some quality top rated folks that should score consistent and at a high rate and with the cap room I have left I am going to focus on those players that have high upside and hope to get enough of them that a couple are diamonds.

 

[Zackattack]

It's good to have the home run hitter types on your team. On the other hand if you have too many you can loose too many games on off weeks. You need 3-4 consistent guys and then a few home run hitters. Some do actually offer both! They are gone in the first 2-3 rounds.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

IMO it's all the same unless the average score for your team is so variable that your high weeks are 'wasted' (way ahead of the 2nd highest scoring team in the league that week) or your low weeks are a sure loss (way below the next worst score). Otherwise the two options are just shifting shifting all-win percentage around from week to week and it should net out (on average).

I dont think 16 weeks is enough of a time period to "average things out" as you say. I only take one VJax type of player as a starter in my leagues. Wins you some weeks by himself. Too many of them and you are prone to the "highest scorer but ended up third place" syndrome IMO.

It's not enough time for things to average out, but you're as likely to benefit from that as you are to suffer for it.Unless you already have an awesome or a horrible team I don't think there's much, or maybe any, difference between boom/bust or steady guys who score the same amount of points.

 

[solorca]

It really depends on your team. Last year, I had VJax and traded him off for a more consistent player (I believe it was Colston, a little before his late season run of big games), because I had a really good team. Typically Jackson's big games didn't help me win, but his really low scoring games hurt me a couple times.

Normally, I'd rather have the one boom/bust guy with the potential to put up monster games, mixed in with more consistent options.

 

[Cato]

Think I prefer the steady WR, over the boom-bust type. Not sure if numerically this bears fruit in the win-loss column.

Also, more comfortable with the boom-bust type WR, as my WR3, not my WR1 or WR2.

With a boom-bust type of WR, concerned that were doing most of their damage versus weak pass defenses.

See Roy Williams, Detroit, 2007.

Jordy Nelson has some interesting splits home vs away. In terms of TD production. (His 15 TD catches vs 65 receptions won't repeat either, but maybe his increase in usage counter balances this.)

In regards to Vincent Jackson, not sure if his boom games, came as a function of Gates' health, the game plan, or other?

Feel that most of the boom-bust type of WRs, likely have a low number of catches vs yardage ratio. So I'll gladly take DHB, Vincent Jackson, Wallace, DeSean Jackson, but more likely to do so in non-PPR, and more likely to do so not in my WR1 slot.

A boom-bust WR can also chip at your confidence in starting them, leading to some boom games being on the bench. (not likely unless you're deep at WR, but a more consistent option, seems to have a higher confidence level in startability.)

Torrey Smith, if I felt confident was learning underneath routes, and therefore might lead to being involved in all facets of the game would be appealing.

Dez Bryant, if I felt confident his conditioning was in line, and didn't fade in second half of games might be appealing.

I think boom-bust player, could be very useful provided you had the depth to sub them out, and their boom games had predictability. (See Michael Turner production splits, in 2007 for example.) Otherwise I think I prefer the consistent players, for more confidence in startability, and their constant usage regardless of game plan, or level of defense or competition.

I don't mind swinging for home runs, but the WR3 (or RB2/3) slot makes it a more benchable option, provided I think I had found the key to their "boom" games, and could find other players to put in, when I think they might bust that week. A boom-bust player at WR1/RB1 is harder to do that with. IMO.

 

[moleculo]

Think I prefer the steady WR, over the boom-bust type. Not sure if numerically this bears fruit in the win-loss column.

Also, more comfortable with the boom-bust type WR, as my WR3, not my WR1 or WR2.

With a boom-bust type of WR, concerned that were doing most of their damage versus weak pass defenses.

See Roy Williams, Detroit, 2007.

Jordy Nelson has some interesting splits home vs away. In terms of TD production. (His 15 TD catches vs 65 receptions won't repeat either, but maybe his increase in usage counter balances this.)

In regards to Vincent Jackson, not sure if his boom games, came as a function of Gates' health, the game plan, or other?

Feel that most of the boom-bust type of WRs, likely have a low number of catches vs yardage ratio. So I'll gladly take DHB, Vincent Jackson, Wallace, DeSean Jackson, but more likely to do so in non-PPR, and more likely to do so not in my WR1 slot.

A boom-bust WR can also chip at your confidence in starting them, leading to some boom games being on the bench. (not likely unless you're deep at WR, but a more consistent option, seems to have a higher confidence level in startability.)

Torrey Smith, if I felt confident was learning underneath routes, and therefore might lead to being involved in all facets of the game would be appealing.

Dez Bryant, if I felt confident his conditioning was in line, and didn't fade in second half of games might be appealing.

I think boom-bust player, could be very useful provided you had the depth to sub them out, and their boom games had predictability. (See Michael Turner production splits, in 2007 for example.) Otherwise I think I prefer the consistent players, for more confidence in startability, and their constant usage regardless of game plan, or level of defense or competition.

I don't mind swinging for home runs, but the WR3 (or RB2/3) slot makes it a more benchable option, provided I think I had found the key to their "boom" games, and could find other players to put in, when I think they might bust that week. A boom-bust player at WR1/RB1 is harder to do that with. IMO.

yeah, that's a key bit of this discussion - both Dez Bryant and Vincent Jackson were WR2's - IMO, that's (mostly) supposed to be a "slot it and forget it" deal, not necessarily a "play the matchups". VJax, in particular, was drafted as the 6th WR off the board - ie as a WR1, so whomever drafted him was counting on weekly production and likely ended up being frustrated more often than not.

 

[Cato]

yeah, that's a key bit of this discussion - both Dez Bryant and Vincent Jackson were WR2's - IMO, that's (mostly) supposed to be a "slot it and forget it" deal, not necessarily a "play the matchups". VJax, in particular, was drafted as the 6th WR off the board - ie as a WR1, so whomever drafted him was counting on weekly production and likely ended up being frustrated more often than not.

Yeah for sure, good topic though, in fact pondering this type of thing, led to my selling Vincent Jackson in 2 dynasty leagues for Steve Johnson this off-season. Vincent is arguably more talented but wanted to move away from the boom-bust type production, get younger, move away from the 2 DUIs, and traditionally WRs changing teams struggle in their first year. Of course, I would feel better on the move if S Johnson is fully recovered from his groin issue, and it's also possible that Vincent gets a boost in target concentration which was being suppressed by being second fiddle to Gates, but all things being equal prefer my 1000 yard season, 7 TDs (or whatever) to come from 80 catches rather then 60, be it in a non-ppr or ppr environment, as it seems to lead to a more consistent scorer and less feast or famine... So preference is for consistency unless a replaceable slot such as WR3, though I need to think deeper on what math would demonstrate this is the preferrable choice...

 

[steelcityman]

if Dez didnt get in trouble with the law, is this a discussion? I scratch Jackson off my list before the draft, I wouldnt take him, ever, period.

 

[bostonfred]

If I had a choice between two wrs who got 160 points per season, but one got me 160 points in one week, and nothing else the rest of the year, while the other got me 10 points a week, id take the 10 points per week. Sure, that 160 points will win me a game, but the 0 points will kill me 15 weeks a year. Of course, if I back in to the superbowl, I will auto-win that important week, but the odds their 160 point game comes that week are only 1 in 16. No thanks.

Now add another option, a receiver who got 80 points twice a year. This is intriguing, because the odds of him putting up an 80 pointer in the superbowl are 1 in 8, and he will win me two weeks by himself. I would still pass, but its worth thinking about.

Give me a receiver who gets 40 points four times, though, and id have to take him. Now we are talking about a guy who will make my otherwise below average team win four games they otherwise wouldn't have - and the odds that one or both are in the playoffs are close to 50/50. That's too good to pass up.

Of course, in the real world, you don't get 0 or 40. You get a bunch of games like 3 catches for 25 yards, then he blows up for 180 and 2 tds. And the killer is, you are fairly likely to bench that guy before his big game. Which means you don't really get 160 points from the inconsistent guy unless you roll with him the whole year. And tha sounds easier in the preseason than it does when you're setting your week nine lineup for a guy who hasn't done squat since week four. Im not saying a lot of people benched jackson tht week, but if they did, they missed out on 1/4 of his production for the year, put him in the lineup for 3.2 the following week, then probably got pissed and benched him again for his 30 point week 10. And just like that you're out of the playoffs.

I want my explosiveness to come from the guys further down my depth chart. It doesn't kill me if I miss some of the scoring from my 8th round pick. But for my early rounders, give me the consistent guy.

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, there are a lot of variables . . .

What is the scoring system?

Is it best ball?

Do you have other options?

Is there predictability in the patterns?

That last one might be important. If the guy that has several big games always performs well against por pass defenses, against the same team, vs. undersized CBs, etc. then that might be a sign to play him in those situations and someone else the rest of the time.

If the question in general is which guy would you rather have, I can't say that for me it matters all that much. While those two players may have had those scoring patterns LAST year, I highly doubt they will have those scoring patterns THIS year. So since we can't really tell all that much how consistent someone will be that particular year before the games are played, I'm not sure we can do much about it.

I realize that on occasion there are guys that have a couple really huge games a year (Ocho Cinco was one of them, Jamal Lewis against the Browns was another), but over all over the course of their careers, I would guess players will be a bit unpredictable and some what all over the map.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

If I had a choice between two wrs who got 160 points per season, but one got me 160 points in one week, and nothing else the rest of the year, while the other got me 10 points a week, id take the 10 points per week. Sure, that 160 points will win me a game, but the 0 points will kill me 15 weeks a year. Of course, if I back in to the superbowl, I will auto-win that important week, but the odds their 160 point game comes that week are only 1 in 16. No thanks.

Now add another option, a receiver who got 80 points twice a year. This is intriguing, because the odds of him putting up an 80 pointer in the superbowl are 1 in 8, and he will win me two weeks by himself. I would still pass, but its worth thinking about.

Give me a receiver who gets 40 points four times, though, and id have to take him. Now we are talking about a guy who will make my otherwise below average team win four games they otherwise wouldn't have - and the odds that one or both are in the playoffs are close to 50/50. That's too good to pass up.

Of course, in the real world, you don't get 0 or 40. You get a bunch of games like 3 catches for 25 yards, then he blows up for 180 and 2 tds. And the killer is, you are fairly likely to bench that guy before his big game. Which means you don't really get 160 points from the inconsistent guy unless you roll with him the whole year. And tha sounds easier in the preseason than it does when you're setting your week nine lineup for a guy who hasn't done squat since week four. Im not saying a lot of people benched jackson tht week, but if they did, they missed out on 1/4 of his production for the year, put him in the lineup for 3.2 the following week, then probably got pissed and benched him again for his 30 point week 10. And just like that you're out of the playoffs.

I want my explosiveness to come from the guys further down my depth chart. It doesn't kill me if I miss some of the scoring from my 8th round pick. But for my early rounders, give me the consistent guy.

This is the key here. If we're talking about early round picks, you'd be foolish to pass on the consistent guy for a boom-or-bust type.I'd also add that the larger the starting lineup, the greater the value of the boom-or-bust types, given that the busts happen much more frequently than the booms as was the case with Vincent Jackson.

 

[Warrior]

It's moot because VJax's situation is so much different now. New QB, new team, new system, etc. If he were still in SD, I'd go with Dez's consistency.

 

[Zeff]

VJax was inconsistent because SD had a good QB who was able to use a number of decent targets to tailor an offensive gameplan to the specific defense.

On TB, the QB sucks and the other targets all suck, too. They may or may not have much of a passing game, but whatever passing game they have is going to feature VJax as option A, B, and C. His week to week volatility is about to be a thing of the past.

 

[moleculo]

It's moot because VJax's situation is so much different now. New QB, new team, new system, etc. If he were still in SD, I'd go with Dez's consistency.

VJax was inconsistent because SD had a good QB who was able to use a number of decent targets to tailor an offensive gameplan to the specific defense.On TB, the QB sucks and the other targets all suck, too. They may or may not have much of a passing game, but whatever passing game they have is going to feature VJax as option A, B, and C. His week to week volatility is about to be a thing of the past.

this isn't about VJax or 2012, this is about consistent vs inconsistent players.

 

[PhantomJB]

The problem with the inconsistent performer is dealing with him during the season. You don't have the benefit of hindsight that he's always going to bounce back. When you're in the thick of trying to get to the FF playoffs and a guy starts costing you games, you start to legitimately question taking him out of your lineup.

Take V-Jax's line in the middle of last year.

6.4 Bye 2.5 7.9 39.1 3.2

The 7.9 game is four games in a row of poor production from your WR1/WR2 slot. VJax isn't in the "always start your stud" category. So by that time, he's probably been dropped to WR3 in your lineup and been outperformed by your bye-week replacement or a waiver wire picking up (e.g. Laurent Robinson) that's been sitting on your bench. Maybe then you decide to give VJax a rest and miss out on his 39.1 blowup. So then you stick him back in just in time for the 3.2 drubbing.

Some volatility from WR's is expected. But the higher a guy's ADP, the more consistency I would want personally. Kind of like not drafting an injury-prone RB in round one.

 

[[icon]]

I suspect the answer is that you need a mix of both, but I have never seen a tool that can help you determine how to identify types of players, much less how to mix them.

http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/football/ffl/story?page=2011finalconsistency

 

[bengalbuck]

Just a guess on my part, but I suspect that inconsistency ends up seeming like a bigger deal to a frustrated owner than it really is.

The fact is that every guy on your roster is going to have up and down weeks. You could have a 3 TD week from Lesean McCoy in a down week for VJax and the next week McCoy only has 1 and VJax scores twice and your overall points scored ends up being the same in both weeks. Over the long run it'll probably even out and won't make you lose any more or less.

A team composed of a lot of inconsistent guys could end up being relatively consistent overall because you'll get a couple big performances each week. Like say you have CJ2k, Gronk, Julio, Vick, and VJax as your first 5 picks. You are going to have some boom and bust weeks from each of those guys individually, but you're also likely to have some huge performances each week that keep your scoring at least decent almost every week.

The big negative I could see with inconsistency would be if a guy is a borderline starter (like Heyward-Bey last year) and you end up starting him after he has a big week, benching him after he has a down week and you never end up catching the big weeks. So his average points scored in your starting lineup ends up being below average, which would be no good.

I'd also say that it can be a positive or negative in a specific week depending on your matchup. If you are projected to lose by 20 points, you might really want to have a guy like VJax who would increase your shot at an upset. If you're the guy favored by 20, maybe you just want a safe option who won't blow your big advantages at other positions.

 

[Penguin]

I suspect the answer is that you need a mix of both, but I have never seen a tool that can help you determine how to identify types of players, much less how to mix them.

http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/football/ffl/story?page=2011finalconsistency

I don't see Dez on the list, must be an omission

 

[chickensoup]

Just a guess on my part, but I suspect that inconsistency ends up seeming like a bigger deal to a frustrated owner than it really is. The fact is that every guy on your roster is going to have up and down weeks. You could have a 3 TD week from Lesean McCoy in a down week for VJax and the next week McCoy only has 1 and VJax scores twice and your overall points scored ends up being the same in both weeks. Over the long run it'll probably even out and won't make you lose any more or less. A team composed of a lot of inconsistent guys could end up being relatively consistent overall because you'll get a couple big performances each week. Like say you have CJ2k, Gronk, Julio, Vick, and VJax as your first 5 picks. You are going to have some boom and bust weeks from each of those guys individually, but you're also likely to have some huge performances each week that keep your scoring at least decent almost every week.The big negative I could see with inconsistency would be if a guy is a borderline starter (like Heyward-Bey last year) and you end up starting him after he has a big week, benching him after he has a down week and you never end up catching the big weeks. So his average points scored in your starting lineup ends up being below average, which would be no good. I'd also say that it can be a positive or negative in a specific week depending on your matchup. If you are projected to lose by 20 points, you might really want to have a guy like VJax who would increase your shot at an upset. If you're the guy favored by 20, maybe you just want a safe option who won't blow your big advantages at other positions.

16 weeks is not enough for them to average out that way statistically. Those guys are valuable, but too many can just as easily give you a loss on a given week because 2 or 3 don't hit that week as it is likely to even out.Guys that killed me by being inconsistent last year: Finley, Vjax, CJ, Harvin. I finished 2nd in total points by 9, 5th in record. That's what inconsistent guys can do to you