Are RB's or WR's more likely to reach their projections? (1 Viewer)

[longshot.chris]

I found a FootballGuys article about this, but it was from 2014. I really don't want to go back and do all the data entry stuff myself. So, if someone knows of this data already available I would love a link. For reference I am in a 16 team salary cap league. We only require 1 RB and 1 WR, with the extra spots going towards extra flex spots (3 total). I have summed over the last few years that in our league buying points from the WR position is cheaper than the RB. A big caveat though, those if the RB projects are more likely to be accurate then even though the points cost less draft dollars, they end up being more expensive. By removing the requirement to have 2 starting RB's our league has diminished scarcity. The last two seasons my team has been really good, but not good enough. Chasing an edge as well as exploring an intellectual curiosity. Any smart people here have advice, or a place to find this info without doing data entry (I asked AI, but it wasn't able to), would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,

 

[Gally]

I would say as a general statement that WR probably get closer to projections than RB because they are more likely to stay healthy. This, of course, is anecdotal as I have done no actual research on injuries.

I would say that your question would benefit from being a little more specific. Draft capital costs probably vary a bit by position. By this I mean the WR12 is probably drafted way ahead of the RB12 as RB studs tend to dry up quicker than WR studs. So a RB12 may be drafted more around the same time as the WR24 or 30. So you aren't really comparing apples to apples.

I also wonder if the industry puts more time into projecting say the top 36 WR's or the next 36 WR's so the projections may not be created equal. I think thinking in terms of ADP is likely going to get you a better path than worrying about projections.

 

[longshot.chris]

I would say as a general statement that WR probably get closer to projections than RB because they are more likely to stay healthy. This, of course, is anecdotal as I have done no actual research on injuries.

I would say that your question would benefit from being a little more specific. Draft capital costs probably vary a bit by position. By this I mean the WR12 is probably drafted way ahead of the RB12 as RB studs tend to dry up quicker than WR studs. So a RB12 may be drafted more around the same time as the WR24 or 30. So you aren't really comparing apples to apples.

I also wonder if the industry puts more time into projecting say the top 36 WR's or the next 36 WR's so the projections may not be created equal. I think thinking in terms of ADP is likely going to get you a better path than worrying about projections.

Thanks for the reply. Maybe the word projections, or looking at it in terms of gauging the most accurate stats is not a good metric. Maybe its better served to know what % a top 3 players finishes as a top 3, top 10 as a top 10 in their position.. etc. I am less concerned about the 36 or after guys, I think we all understand those are largely a dart throw. So I agree, ADP is a better metric than projections.

Devoid of draft capital, just as raw data.. What are the percent beak downs of top 3, 10, 16, 24, 30 for those players actually ending up in those spots at end of year. I assume, like you, WR is more likely.. but that is just an assumption. I wonder if there is a higher chance RB gets hurt and drops out totally, but also a higher chance overall they end up returning draft day value.

I appreciate your insight. I hope that someone can find this data broken down by year over the last 5 years or so. I think it would be insightful to see. I could imagine my draft day strategy changing based on knowing which is more likely to achieve their cost.