consistent vs inconsistent WRs (1 Viewer)

[Holy Schneikes]

So last year, Joe T and a bunch of other guys said Evans was over-rated when he was being drafted somewhere around WR 25. He ended up easily a top-10 guy. This year, despite no real reason to project a dropoff (if anything, the other direction makes some sense as he and Lossman build chemistry and there are some improvements to the line), he is usually getting drafted outside of the top 10 (WR) and people STILL call him over-rated, ostensibly because of his "inconsistency".

People seem to hate "inconsistent" WRs. They say "Man, I can't afford those ups and downs. The big weeks are great, but too many big disappointments kill a season."

OK, so who are these "consistent" receivers?

Bottom line? Such an animal is a lot like the unicorn - really nice in theory, but imaginary.

Note The following stats are based on a league report from a league with "standard" scoring (.1 pt/yard, 6 pt TDs, no PPR) no PPR. Only "unusual scoring" is a deduction for lost fumbles.

I looked at the big complaint about "inconsistent" receivers - total bust weeks. Somewhat arbitrarily, I chose 5 pts or less as a "bust" week. Generally, you want more than that from your starting receivers. If you don't like the cutoff, pick your own - you'll find similar results. So who had them, and who didn't?

The top scoring WR from last year (these rankings are all PPG) was "Mr Consistency" Marvin Harrison. He had three weeks where he scored less than 5. He had a 3.8, 2.1, and a .8 (lower than any game by Evans). All in the middle of the season.

Steve Smith was #2. While he only had one game below the 5 pt threshold it was a negative point day in our league because of a fumble. He also missed two games because of injury and had several games that just cleared the arbitrary 5 point cutoff. All in all, FAIRLY consistent last year, but certainly not PERFECTLY consistent and he is one of the top picks every year.

Owens was #3. 3 games below 5 points. Pretty consistent down the stretch, but still 3 games.

Darrell Jackson had 2 of his 13 games played under 5. Not horrible, but I certainly wouldn't label him consistent with his injury history.

Housh missed two games and had 3 under 5 points, including most leagues' superbowl week. Ouch.

Driver is known as an underrated and fairly consistent WR. 4 games under 5.

Chad Johnson, a nearly universal top 3 dynasty WR pick, had 4 games under 5 INCLUDING week 15 last year.

The HORRIBLY inconsistent Evans, had 4 games under 5 last year. Only one in the second half of the season (a borderline 4.5 in week 13).

Torry "Big Game" Holt, also had 4 games under 5 pts and two more under 6 (including week 15). Hmmmm. I thought for sure Holt would be one of the "consistent" receivers.

Javon Walker had 3 under 5 and several squeakers.

Colston had 4 games under 5. Not bad for a rookie, but even in a remarkable season, he wasn't very "consistent".

Everybody loves Roy Williams, but he had 5 stinkers last year, including THREE IN A ROW IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PLAYOFFS. Yikes.

Burress had 4 stinkers.

Larry Fitzgerald was the one guy you MIGHT be able to call consistent last year with a straight face. He did miss three games, but when he played, he only had one stinker and one close call. But, he is rated the #1 dynasty WR for a reason. I'd also note that in 2005, his best year, he had 3 stinkers (pretty much like everybody else).

Ward, another noted model of consistency, had 4 stinkers in 14 games.

Horn had 4 in 10.

Galloway had 5, including 2 games with zero points.

Coles had SEVEN games under 5 and you don't nearly as many guys complain about his inconsistency than Evans'.

Boldin, another guy generally considered consistent (at least before 2006) had 4 stinkers and quite a few close calls.

Andre Johnson was also in the 4 stinker club - 4 of his last 5 games in fact. THAT didn't help in the playoffs.

So there you have the top 21 PPG last year (evans plus 20 more). Where are the consistent receivers? The vast majority of the really good receivers in the game had 4 or more really bad games.

The point is, FORGET "consistency". It's a myth. Some guys get the rep, some don't, but they ALL have their ups and downs. Even if a guy does have a year where it just happens he doesn't end up with a couple of really low games, even THAT can't be projected to following years.

I'm not saying that some guys aren't a LITTLE more reliable than others. I'm saying that factor is WAY overblown and isn't "consistently" (pun intended) applied when evaluating talented receivers. Aside from Evans, I made the same case in preseason 2005 when people called Santana Moss "inconsistent". I said forget consistency, the guy is talented and has opportunity, go get him on the cheap. He turned out to be THE most consistent (week to week) receiver in the game that year. Go figure.

 

[ATC1]

Wrs are in general inconsistant. You prooved that.

The safest bets IMO are:

Harrison

Holt

S. Smith when healthy

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Wrs are in general inconsistant. You prooved that. The safest bets IMO are:HarrisonHolt S. Smith when healthy

Why? Rep? Cuz the number aren't working for you, even if you go back to '05.Steve Smith had 5 games of less than 5 points in 2005. He played all 16 games. HE's your "consistent" guy when healthy? Arguably, he was THE MOST INCONSISTENT player in 2005.Harrison had 4 games under 5, one squeaker and one missed game on '05. Not consistent at all.Holt WAS pretty consistent in '05, (only 1 real stinker), but it wasn't his best year and he had quite a few mediocre games.It's all about perception.

 

[JayMan]

WRs are consistently inconsistent (especially in no-ppr leagues where the 'possession' guy does not get his usual points for the 4 catches he gets for 32yds)... from week to week, from year to year...

All you can try and do is have guys with the smallest StdDv if they're studs (because you want them to score big every week)... and guys with the highest StdDv if they're borderline players (because you don't want them to stink every week)...

 

[Banger]

WRs are consistently inconsistent (especially in no-ppr leagues where the 'possession' guy does not get his usual points for the 4 catches he gets for 32yds)... from week to week, from year to year...All you can try and do is have guys with the smallest StdDv if they're studs (because you want them to score big every week)... and guys with the highest StdDv if they're borderline players (because you don't want them to stink every week)...

I'd imagine if people looked through the stats the same would be found for RB's and QB's. Week to week consistency isn't something that I look at/care about (totally unpredictable) but year to year consistency is. That's why I tend to avoid the flavor of the day and choose the consistent year to year vets. Yeah I miss out on some high flyers every once in a while but I also tend to avoid the many highly touted busts.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

WRs are consistently inconsistent (especially in no-ppr leagues where the 'possession' guy does not get his usual points for the 4 catches he gets for 32yds)... from week to week, from year to year...All you can try and do is have guys with the smallest StdDv if they're studs (because you want them to score big every week)... and guys with the highest StdDv if they're borderline players (because you don't want them to stink every week)...

Totally agree with the top part, totally disgaree with the bottom.FORGET StdDv. Get guys who put up as many points over a season as you can. Even if you could PREDICT a guys StdDv (good luck with that), it doesn't help you that much if you have standard starting lineup requirements anyway. The totals from week to week will average the big games and little games out. You REMEMBER when a poor WR score "screws" you in a week, but it really wasn't the deciding factor any more than any of the other individual scores for that week. The big games that put you over the top in an otherwise poor week are just as common as a stinker giving you a loss in an otherwise decent week, you just don't get bitter about them and remeber them for three years.Not only are consistent receivers pretty much impossible to find, it doesn't matter that much if at all even if you COULD find them.Go for points. Mo' points mo' better. Talented receivers get points.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

WRs are consistently inconsistent (especially in no-ppr leagues where the 'possession' guy does not get his usual points for the 4 catches he gets for 32yds)... from week to week, from year to year...All you can try and do is have guys with the smallest StdDv if they're studs (because you want them to score big every week)... and guys with the highest StdDv if they're borderline players (because you don't want them to stink every week)...

I'd imagine if people looked through the stats the same would be found for RB's and QB's. Week to week consistency isn't something that I look at/care about (totally unpredictable) but year to year consistency is. That's why I tend to avoid the flavor of the day and choose the consistent year to year vets.

RBs are generally more consistent week to week because of all of the touches I think (just perception, could be wrong). But I agree that it doesn't matter week to week.My question is, who are the consistent year to year vets? That's harder to predict than it seems. Harrison for sure, but he's kind of unique. If you just mean "old guys" that works to some degree in redrafts - at least until the bottom drops out.

 

[ATC1]

Wrs are in general inconsistant. You prooved that. The safest bets IMO are:HarrisonHolt S. Smith when healthy

Why? Rep? Cuz the number aren't working for you, even if you go back to '05.Steve Smith had 5 games of less than 5 points in 2005. He played all 16 games. HE's your "consistent" guy when healthy? Arguably, he was THE MOST INCONSISTENT player in 2005.Harrison had 4 games under 5, one squeaker and one missed game on '05. Not consistent at all.Holt WAS pretty consistent in '05, (only 1 real stinker), but it wasn't his best year and he had quite a few mediocre games.It's all about perception.

Don't dissagree with you at all. These three would be the first three I would pick, but I would never get anyone of them. It's RB/RB/RB for me.

 

[JayMan]

Go for points. Mo' points mo' better. Talented receivers get points.

This is obvious... and I understand your point... all I wanted to say was that: if you have the chance (for your WR5) between two guys that will score 80Fpts this year... you would want the guy that scores 10 for 8 weeks and 0 for the other 8 - and not the guy that scores 5 every week - since the second one has no value (assuming that your top4 WRs score more than 80 pts during the season obvisouly!)... but the first guy 'could' have value if you were able to predict his 'good weeks' (and I'm certainly not saying we can - I asked about this a while back - and no one was able to give a definite clear answer as how to predict these)

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Go for points. Mo' points mo' better. Talented receivers get points.

This is obvious... and I understand your point... all I wanted to say was that: if you have the chance (for your WR5) between two guys that will score 80Fpts this year... you would want the guy that scores 10 for 8 weeks and 0 for the other 8 - and not the guy that scores 5 every week - since the second one has no value (assuming that your top4 WRs score more than 80 pts during the season obvisouly!)... but the first guy 'could' have value if you were able to predict his 'good weeks' (and I'm certainly not saying we can - I asked about this a while back - and no one was able to give a definite clear answer as how to predict these)

If you are saying "look for guys with upside" for your WR5, I'm on board. But if so, I'm not sure that has much to do with StdDv.If you really are talking consistency, based on acknowledgements you've already made, I'm not sure it really helps you enough to merit consideration. A) Damn near impossible to PREDICT who's going to be consistent/inconsistent in the WR4/5 range (you've mentioned this) B) Even if you KNEW who was going to be inconsistent and could target them, predicting the big weeks is also damn near impossible (for me, I can safely say it IS impossible I miss every time).Really, the more I think about it, I'm not even sure who you would be targetting. I can think of almost no one that might get a fairly consistent 5 per week. The WR4/5 types either blow up and become inconsistent but good WRs, totally bust and don't score anything, or just stay the wildly-inconsistent-maybe-useful-if-you-are-lucky WRs that you are talking about.It's funny though, I've never seen someone argue FOR inconsistency before. It's refreshing.

 

[JayMan]

It's funny though, I've never seen someone argue FOR inconsistency before. It's refreshing.

Given the fact that you have 'contrarian' listed in your sig... I find this interesting Of course, this is all blablating on my part since we can't predict the good weeks for our WR4/5 that goes 10,0,0,10,0 - etc. ... nor I'm I sure that there are guys that go 5, 5, 5, 5 - etc. (pure speculation on my part)... All I was saying is that if we knew that these two guys would score 80pts on the season and if we were able to have educated guesses as to when guy1 is going to score 10 - I would want him on my team and not the straight-5-benchwarmer... (if you can call that in favor of inconsistency! )

 

[Banger]

WRs are consistently inconsistent (especially in no-ppr leagues where the 'possession' guy does not get his usual points for the 4 catches he gets for 32yds)... from week to week, from year to year...All you can try and do is have guys with the smallest StdDv if they're studs (because you want them to score big every week)... and guys with the highest StdDv if they're borderline players (because you don't want them to stink every week)...

I'd imagine if people looked through the stats the same would be found for RB's and QB's. Week to week consistency isn't something that I look at/care about (totally unpredictable) but year to year consistency is. That's why I tend to avoid the flavor of the day and choose the consistent year to year vets.

RBs are generally more consistent week to week because of all of the touches I think (just perception, could be wrong). But I agree that it doesn't matter week to week.My question is, who are the consistent year to year vets? That's harder to predict than it seems. Harrison for sure, but he's kind of unique. If you just mean "old guys" that works to some degree in redrafts - at least until the bottom drops out.

I don't necessarily mean a player with 7+ seasons of work, I just mean someone that has produced at a consistent level for several years like Driver and will tend to shy away from a player like Colston. I tend to apply it more at the RB position though than the WR position. I'll tend to be skeptical of "2nd year players w/hype" like Maroney, Benson, Jacobs, D. Williams, Drew, etc and players like that because every year a number of those players tend to go down in flames. For instance, last year Ronnie Brown was ranked 5th and Caddy 9th, are Drew and Maroney the '07 versions? I'll take Portis and be very happy.

 

[JayMan]

I don't necessarily mean a player with 7+ seasons of work, I just mean someone that has produced at a consistent level for several years like Driver and will tend to shy away from a player like Colston. I tend to apply it more at the RB position though than the WR position. I'll tend to be skeptical of "2nd year players w/hype" like Maroney, Benson, Jacobs, D. Williams, Drew, etc and players like that because every year a number of those players tend to go down in flames. For instance, last year Ronnie Brown was ranked 5th and Caddy 9th, are Drew and Maroney the '07 versions? I'll take Portis and be very happy.

I think in there is the inherited fact that you won't have any of these 2nd-yr-hype guys in the first place since at least one owner in your league will take them earlier than you would have, for example Colston, and you are simply happy about it cause it gives you the chance to pick Driver later on as a value play...

 

[Banger]

I don't necessarily mean a player with 7+ seasons of work, I just mean someone that has produced at a consistent level for several years like Driver and will tend to shy away from a player like Colston. I tend to apply it more at the RB position though than the WR position. I'll tend to be skeptical of "2nd year players w/hype" like Maroney, Benson, Jacobs, D. Williams, Drew, etc and players like that because every year a number of those players tend to go down in flames. For instance, last year Ronnie Brown was ranked 5th and Caddy 9th, are Drew and Maroney the '07 versions? I'll take Portis and be very happy.

I think in there is the inherited fact that you won't have any of these 2nd-yr-hype guys in the first place since at least one owner in your league will take them earlier than you would have, for example Colston, and you are simply happy about it cause it gives you the chance to pick Driver later on as a value play...

you summed it up better than I could...

 

[Holy Schneikes]

WRs are consistently inconsistent (especially in no-ppr leagues where the 'possession' guy does not get his usual points for the 4 catches he gets for 32yds)... from week to week, from year to year...All you can try and do is have guys with the smallest StdDv if they're studs (because you want them to score big every week)... and guys with the highest StdDv if they're borderline players (because you don't want them to stink every week)...

I'd imagine if people looked through the stats the same would be found for RB's and QB's. Week to week consistency isn't something that I look at/care about (totally unpredictable) but year to year consistency is. That's why I tend to avoid the flavor of the day and choose the consistent year to year vets.

RBs are generally more consistent week to week because of all of the touches I think (just perception, could be wrong). But I agree that it doesn't matter week to week.My question is, who are the consistent year to year vets? That's harder to predict than it seems. Harrison for sure, but he's kind of unique. If you just mean "old guys" that works to some degree in redrafts - at least until the bottom drops out.

I don't necessarily mean a player with 7+ seasons of work, I just mean someone that has produced at a consistent level for several years like Driver and will tend to shy away from a player like Colston. I tend to apply it more at the RB position though than the WR position. I'll tend to be skeptical of "2nd year players w/hype" like Maroney, Benson, Jacobs, D. Williams, Drew, etc and players like that because every year a number of those players tend to go down in flames. For instance, last year Ronnie Brown was ranked 5th and Caddy 9th, are Drew and Maroney the '07 versions? I'll take Portis and be very happy.

For the most part, I agree with that. I like to see a couple of years of production before really jumping on a guy, particularly at RB.However, as you said, I take that approach a little less for WRs. If I see a talented guy who has had mixed success for reasons that make sense to me (young, injured, whatever), I'm usually willing to pull the trigger a little earlier than most who I think sometimes are TOO afraid to take a guy like that.Moss was a good example for me in 2005 and Evans in 2006. Of course, there are always receivers in similar categories who DON'T pan out, but of course I don't like to mention them. My main deal was just that Evans has a rep for inconsistency but is very talented, had a great rookie year followed by a top ten year. That's a trend I'm willing to jump on.

 

[Banger]

WRs are consistently inconsistent (especially in no-ppr leagues where the 'possession' guy does not get his usual points for the 4 catches he gets for 32yds)... from week to week, from year to year...All you can try and do is have guys with the smallest StdDv if they're studs (because you want them to score big every week)... and guys with the highest StdDv if they're borderline players (because you don't want them to stink every week)...

I'd imagine if people looked through the stats the same would be found for RB's and QB's. Week to week consistency isn't something that I look at/care about (totally unpredictable) but year to year consistency is. That's why I tend to avoid the flavor of the day and choose the consistent year to year vets.

RBs are generally more consistent week to week because of all of the touches I think (just perception, could be wrong). But I agree that it doesn't matter week to week.My question is, who are the consistent year to year vets? That's harder to predict than it seems. Harrison for sure, but he's kind of unique. If you just mean "old guys" that works to some degree in redrafts - at least until the bottom drops out.

I don't necessarily mean a player with 7+ seasons of work, I just mean someone that has produced at a consistent level for several years like Driver and will tend to shy away from a player like Colston. I tend to apply it more at the RB position though than the WR position. I'll tend to be skeptical of "2nd year players w/hype" like Maroney, Benson, Jacobs, D. Williams, Drew, etc and players like that because every year a number of those players tend to go down in flames. For instance, last year Ronnie Brown was ranked 5th and Caddy 9th, are Drew and Maroney the '07 versions? I'll take Portis and be very happy.

For the most part, I agree with that. I like to see a couple of years of production before really jumping on a guy, particularly at RB.However, as you said, I take that approach a little less for WRs. If I see a talented guy who has had mixed success for reasons that make sense to me (young, injured, whatever), I'm usually willing to pull the trigger a little earlier than most who I think sometimes are TOO afraid to take a guy like that.Moss was a good example for me in 2005 and Evans in 2006. Of course, there are always receivers in similar categories who DON'T pan out, but of course I don't like to mention them. My main deal was just that Evans has a rep for inconsistency but is very talented, had a great rookie year followed by a top ten year. That's a trend I'm willing to jump on.

I guess the big difference is if you swing and miss at a RB late in the 1st/early 2nd you are going to have an uphill battle most of the year (unless you struck gold late or got a lucky injury somewhere else), whereas at WR it's much easier to trade for one or get good value later so the gamble/dropoff isn't as severe if the pick busts.

 

[super sleeper]

I wonder what your numbers would look like if you took out TDs and used a different baseline based on yardage, since TDs are so hard to predict with WRs.

To me, WR consistency is based on whether they are a consistent part of the passing game every week. Of all the top ten WRs last year, Evans was by far the least consistently involved in the passing game on a weekly basis.

Using a very basic example, last year Lee Evans was targeted 6 or less times in 7/16 games. The rest of the top ten:

Harrison 2/16

Smith 2/14

Owens 2/16

Jackson 1/13

Houshmanzadeh 2/14

Wayne 4/16

Ch. Johnson 2/16

Holt 1/16

Driver 2/16

Added to this is the fact that he was 17th in total targets and 46th in red zone targets amongst WRs and you can see that Evans was much more likely to put up a "stinker" than the other top 10 WRs because in almost half the games he was not very involved and his number was rarely called in the red zone. And all this doesn't even factor in that 1/5 of Evans' entire yearly production came in one monster game last year.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I wonder what your numbers would look like if you took out TDs and used a different baseline based on yardage, since TDs are so hard to predict with WRs. To me, WR consistency is based on whether they are a consistent part of the passing game every week. Of all the top ten WRs last year, Evans was by far the least consistently involved in the passing game on a weekly basis. Using a very basic example, last year Lee Evans was targeted 6 or less times in 7/16 games. The rest of the top ten:Harrison 2/16Smith 2/14Owens 2/16Jackson 1/13Houshmanzadeh 2/14Wayne 4/16Ch. Johnson 2/16Holt 1/16Driver 2/16Added to this is the fact that he was 17th in total targets and 46th in red zone targets amongst WRs and you can see that Evans was much more likely to put up a "stinker" than the other top 10 WRs because in almost half the games he was not very involved and his number was rarely called in the red zone. And all this doesn't even factor in that 1/5 of Evans' entire yearly production came in one monster game last year.

If you drop TDs and focus on yards, Evans' status will very likely go up, not down, since he had 1291 yards last year which moves his rank up to #5 from #7 (fantasy points).As for targets, they have some predictive value, but not as much as actual performance. Evans' actual performace indicated he doesn't put up any more bad games than the rest of the receivers out there. If he does that on fewer opportunities, doesn't that just mean he's a better receiver and will do even better if his opportunties go up? Bottom line is, if we are talking strictly about net stats, I don't care how many targets it takes for him to put up good games as long as he is putting up good games. Unless you feel like his targets will actually drop or there is a GOOD reason to think he will do less than he has in the past per target, there is more room for increase than decrease. Sometimes there are good reasons to think the production per target will drop, but Evans does more with less generally because he is a ridiculous threat with the ball in his hands and makes big plays frequently. He's done that for three straight years, so I don't see any reason why he would stop. He's scored 24 TDs in three years (including his rookie year) WITHOUT having the benefit of a lot of red-zone opportunties. What happens if he gets more opportunties next year? It's not like he gets pulled in the red zone in favor of a better receiver, it's just that buffalo didn't get IN the red zone all that often.The monster week thing is also a little played. Yes, he had a great game that helped his stats. But so did most of the guys in front of/around him. Walker, Holt, Johnson, Wayne, Colston all had one huge game that helped their final stats. Harrison had two very big games to balance out his mediocre ones. You want to drop Evans' game, no problem. Drop everyone else's too. But why? Those games happened, and just like a bad game can kill you, a great game can save you. Those points count too.The things you mention about Evans are what makes me really like him. He is an extremely talented receiver that has been putting up good numbers despite a terrible situation. If he ever got Holt/Driver/Andre Johnson targets, he would go berserk.

 

[LHUCKS]

A general rule of thumb is that WRs with high reception totals are more consisten than low reception/high YPC guys.

I'd start there.

Also, don't penalize high scoring WRs for their high standard deviations...a common mistake.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The HORRIBLY inconsistent Evans, had 4 games under 5 last year. Only one in the second half of the season (a borderline 4.5 in week 13).

taken from another thread...

Lee Evans

As far as consistency...

WR #24 = 7.06 (12 team)

WR #32 = 6.00 (16 team)

Evans scored

three @ 1, 2, 1

two @ 4, 5

ten @ 7, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10, 13, 13, 18

one @ 34

Again, after the first two weeks of the season, he was indeed money.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=6763478

 

[Bri]

I have used 4+ catch games to judge consistent WRs(and TEs) for a long time now. it works well for me

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The HORRIBLY inconsistent Evans, had 4 games under 5 last year. Only one in the second half of the season (a borderline 4.5 in week 13).

taken from another thread...

Lee Evans

As far as consistency...

WR #24 = 7.06 (12 team)

WR #32 = 6.00 (16 team)

Evans scored

three @ 1, 2, 1

two @ 4, 5

ten @ 7, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10, 13, 13, 18

one @ 34

Again, after the first two weeks of the season, he was indeed money.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=6763478

Sarcasm Down?Yes, I missed the sarcasm in the original post. Apologies. The CAPITAL letters led me astray. As did the "Aside from Evans" quip.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

The more points a position scores, the lower the perceived variation, even if the standard deviation actually goes up.

If a WR gets 80 catches for 800 yards and 8 TDs, he has:

FBG scoring: 144 points

WCOFF scoring: 224 points

Now if he was consistent (let's say no more than 20% variance from average) in both systems on a weekly basis, he could be something like:

FBG: 6 games at 9 pts, 3 games at 10, 2 at 11, 3 at 8 and 2 at 7.

That works out to be an average of 9 and a std dev of 1.21.

Now, take WCOFF scoring, and assume that he has 4-6 catches a game.

WCOFF: 1 11, 2 12, 2 13, 4 14, 3 15, 2 16 and 1 17 point game.

That works out to be an average of 14 but a std dev of 1.63.

(Note: if he had exactly 5 catches a week he's have a std dev of 1.21, same as before).

So which would you rather have, a player that will always be between 7 and 11, or always be between 11 and 17?

That will determine which stats you should look at as important.

 

[zdaddy]

The thing about Lee Evens, he is a 2nd half producer. I will take that all season long.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

The thing about Lee Evens, he is a 2nd half producer. I will take that all season long.

He sure seems to be. It's a fairly small sample set to make a judgement on, but a lot of big-name receivers disappeared in the playoffs last year while Evans was solid.Honestly though, I think it's more just a case of Evans and Lossman really dialing it in after a rough start last year. After the first four or five games, Evans was about as "consistent" as receivers come.He doesn't get the targets though or as many catches as some of the other big receivers, so you just won't convince everyone that you can really count on Evans' big play abilities. I just look at that as upside.

 

[JayMan]

The more points a position scores, the lower the perceived variation, even if the standard deviation actually goes up.

[...]

That will determine which stats you should look at as important.

And this is why StdDv is a poor indicator when looked at in absolute values... The only possibility here would be to look at the 'information ratio' where you would actually adjust the StdDv for the mean you are looking at... but... Here is the correct way to figure out if a WR (or any other position player) has been consistently good in your scoring system:

You figure out how many players from that position are 'starters';
You figure out this by: number of starter per team * number of teams;
You order the weekly positional results (descending FF pts by position);
top-half of the 'starters' each week are called 'winner week';
bottom-half of 'starters' scores are called 'starter week';
other score don't count;
You then add up all the 'winner week' and 'starter week' for every player;
You rank them by 'winner week' and then by 'starter week';The 'winner week' score is used to let you know how many H2H games that particular player would have help you 'win'... while the sum of the 'winner week' and 'starter week' shows you how many weeks that particular player got a starter score (and thus should have been in a starting lineup)...

For example (purely hypothetical)... suppose Lee Evans weekly FF scores were: 3, 2, 13, 11, 19, 12, 1, 10, 8, 36, 7, 7, 12, 12, 14, 20... you would have to crunch the numbers, but you could easily figure out that Evans week10 score of 36 is a 'winner week' (probably had a few others also - let's say: 20, 19, 14, 10) and other 'starter week': 13, 11, 12, 12... showing that Evans score is: 5-4...

Ordering these results might give you (again hypothetical):

Harrison: 9-5;

Owens: 8-5;

Wayne: 8-4;

Johnson: 7-6;

Holt: 7-4;

[...]

Evans: 5-4;

etc.

Thus, ordering the players whitin a position - by number of weeks they would have helped you win your H2H game (you could even add weights to weeks 13-16 if they represent your FF playoffs)... what is relevant, in my humble opinion...

Finally and unfortunately, it is all hinsight... probably won't help you know if Harrison will still be this consistent in '07... only showing you who has been consistenly on FF winning teams in the past (might this help? who knows)...

 

[BigRed]

all I wanted to say was that: if you have the chance (for your WR5) between two guys that will score 80Fpts this year... you would want the guy that scores 10 for 8 weeks and 0 for the other 8 - and not the guy that scores 5 every week - since the second one has no value (assuming that your top4 WRs score more than 80 pts during the season obvisouly!)... but the first guy 'could' have value if you were able to predict his 'good weeks' (and I'm certainly not saying we can -

...ie you just invalidated your own point. IMO anyway. Having the boom/bust guy would be the easy choice - IF we knew when the "boom" was going to be, but obviously we don't.Like anything else, this is a question of degree - ie neither absolute is "the answer" - but generally/on avg I'll take the consistency of player B.

 

[JayMan]

all I wanted to say was that: if you have the chance (for your WR5) between two guys that will score 80Fpts this year... you would want the guy that scores 10 for 8 weeks and 0 for the other 8 - and not the guy that scores 5 every week - since the second one has no value (assuming that your top4 WRs score more than 80 pts during the season obvisouly!)... but the first guy 'could' have value if you were able to predict his 'good weeks' (and I'm certainly not saying we can -

...ie you just invalidated your own point. IMO anyway. Having the boom/bust guy would be the easy choice - IF we knew when the "boom" was going to be, but obviously we don't.Like anything else, this is a question of degree - ie neither absolute is "the answer" - but generally/on avg I'll take player B (the more consistent performer).

I'd be on the same page... if you were able to figure out the guy that will score 5pts every week in the upcoming season... but fact of the matter is that we don't have more of a clue about this than for the 'boom/bust' guys...

 

[CalBear]

The bottom line is, players who score more points are "more consistent" (put up fewer stinker games) than players who score fewer points.

It is definitely not the case that RBs are more consistent than WRs. I did a small study on this last year, and found that at a given point level, WRs are marginally more consistent than RBs. That is, the WRs who score between 150-160 points on the year are more consistent than the RBs who score between 150-160 points on the year. RBs are not more consistent in a measurable sense--their standard deviation is not lower, they just tend to score more points.

 

[JayMan]

The bottom line is, players who score more points are "more consistent" (put up fewer stinker games) than players who score fewer points.

And this is why I showed the way I use to figure out if a guy is consistent in post #26... i.e. playerA is more than player B consistent if he helps you will more H2H games...