Dynasty RB vs WR findings (1 Viewer)

[Captain Spaulding]

I think alot of folks feel that good WR's produce at a high level for a longer period of time in they're career (# of years of high productivity) than their RB counterparts. Upon looking at some rankings/stats, I think the 2 positions actually are balanced...meaning if you play in a dynasty league, you can expect the fantasy stats of a RB to produce over the same approximate # of years as a WR. The difference being age: RB high productivity is 23-30 (7 years) vs WR's produce highly between 25-33 (8 years).

I just think that there is a misconception in the fantasy world that stud RB's only has a shelf life of 3-4 years and your stud WR's shelf life is around 7-9 years or so.

Here is an extraction from a current dynasty player rankings with their current ages shown on the right for each player. I select the top 2 tier groups for each position (stud groups):

WR's

Moss - 31.6

Fitz - 25.0

AJ = 27.2

Edwards - 25.5

Steve Smith 29.3

Wayne 29.8

Colston 25.3

Chad J - 30.6

TO 34.8

Boldin 27.9

Holt 32.3

Marshall 24.5

Roy Williams 26.7

Calvin Johnson 23.0

So TO and Calvin J. are the anomolies on each end of the bell curve but the rest fit in the 25-33 group (8 years).

RBs

AP 23.5

LT 29.2

S Jax 25.1

Westy 29.0

Gore 25.2

Addai 25.3

MJD 23.4

Lynch 22.4

Portis 27.0

McGahee 26.9

R. Bush 23.5

R. Brown 26.7

MB111 25.3

Lynch on the low side at 22.4 is the only real anomoly on the bell curve so its pretty much a 23-30 age group (7 years) .

Interesting as well looking retrospect at 2007, the premier studs (top 2-3 or so) at WR or RB are all over the range as well. You've got Westy and LT (29ish) at the high end with AP (23ish) at the low. Owens (34), Moss (31ish), Wayne (30ish) at high end and Edwards (25ish) at low end of the ages.

So it looks like they truly fall apart at the back end of their career...going from top 3 stud one season to out of the top 20 the next season.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Not sure this makes sense. Dynasty rankings take into account future potential as well, so it's skewed toward younger players, and players who might not be producing now, but might later.

Would be interesting if this was a look at actual fantasy production, rather than subjective projections.

 

[moderated]

Not sure this makes sense. Dynasty rankings take into account future potential as well, so it's skewed toward younger players, and players who might not be producing now, but might later.Would be interesting if this was a look at actual fantasy production, rather than subjective projections.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

Not sure this makes sense. Dynasty rankings take into account future potential as well, so it's skewed toward younger players, and players who might not be producing now, but might later.Would be interesting if this was a look at actual fantasy production, rather than subjective projections.

I actually think this particular dynasty ranking is one of the most grounded ones I've seen. The bad ones would have someone like a Michael Bush ranked somewhere in around #20 somewhere (on youth/hype alone).Sure a good dynasty ranking weighs in favor of youth, just not way overboard like alot of dynasty owners tend to do.

 

[beto]

wouldn't it be better to sort by years of experience or years of VBD > 0?

 

[Keys Myaths]

Not sure this makes sense. Dynasty rankings take into account future potential as well, so it's skewed toward younger players, and players who might not be producing now, but might later.Would be interesting if this was a look at actual fantasy production, rather than subjective projections.

I actually think this particular dynasty ranking is one of the most grounded ones I've seen. The bad ones would have someone like a Michael Bush ranked somewhere in around #20 somewhere (on youth/hype alone).Sure a good dynasty ranking weighs in favor of youth, just not way overboard like alot of dynasty owners tend to do.

Doesn't matter. If you're going to study whether running backs or wide receivers produce at a high level over a long period of time, you need to study actual statistics, not one person's prognostications for the future.

 

[SSOG]

I think alot of folks feel that good WR's produce at a high level for a longer period of time in they're career (# of years of high productivity) than their RB counterparts. Upon looking at some rankings/stats, I think the 2 positions actually are balanced...meaning if you play in a dynasty league, you can expect the fantasy stats of a RB to produce over the same approximate # of years as a WR. The difference being age: RB high productivity is 23-30 (7 years) vs WR's produce highly between 25-33 (8 years). I just think that there is a misconception in the fantasy world that stud RB's only has a shelf life of 3-4 years and your stud WR's shelf life is around 7-9 years or so.Here is an extraction from a current dynasty player rankings with their current ages shown on the right for each player. I select the top 2 tier groups for each position (stud groups):WR's Moss - 31.6Fitz - 25.0AJ = 27.2Edwards - 25.5Steve Smith 29.3Wayne 29.8Colston 25.3Chad J - 30.6TO 34.8Boldin 27.9Holt 32.3Marshall 24.5Roy Williams 26.7Calvin Johnson 23.0So TO and Calvin J. are the anomolies on each end of the bell curve but the rest fit in the 25-33 group (8 years).RBsAP 23.5LT 29.2S Jax 25.1Westy 29.0Gore 25.2Addai 25.3MJD 23.4Lynch 22.4Portis 27.0McGahee 26.9R. Bush 23.5R. Brown 26.7MB111 25.3Lynch on the low side at 22.4 is the only real anomoly on the bell curve so its pretty much a 23-30 age group (7 years) . Interesting as well looking retrospect at 2007, the premier studs (top 2-3 or so) at WR or RB are all over the range as well. You've got Westy and LT (29ish) at the high end with AP (23ish) at the low. Owens (34), Moss (31ish), Wayne (30ish) at high end and Edwards (25ish) at low end of the ages.So it looks like they truly fall apart at the back end of their career...going from top 3 stud one season to out of the top 20 the next season.

That doesn't prove anything. I mean, what if RB's burst onto the scene and are studs for exactly 3 seasons, while WRs burst onto the scene and are studs for exactly 8 seasons. Stud WRs always break out around age 25, while stud RBs break out anytime between ages 23 and 29. That would produce those exact same results that you just posted (most of the stud RBs falling between 23 and 29 and most of the stud WRs falling between 25 and 33), but it wouldn't change the fact that the RBs had a shelf life of 3 years, while WRs had a shelf life of 8 years. I don't necessarily disagree with where you're going, I just think you're taking exactly the wrong road to get there. You're providing data and coming up with one possible explanation for that data... while ignoring every other equally possible explanation.For what it's worth, I do agree that people underrate the lifespan of SOME RBs. Most of the time, I stick to a strict 3-year window, but there is one time when I will waive that window and start projecting over a longer timeline with RBs. If an RB becomes a YOUNG STUD (say top-10 and under ~25), then historically speaking you're going to see a lot of long-term value from that RB. If an RB becomes a young quasi-stud, or an old stud, or an old quasi-stud, or anything else, then there's not going to be much in terms of fantasy longevity.

 

[Crippler]

Just did a breakdown for someone in my league the other day of TO vs Rudi

There stats over the last 4 years in .5 PPR

2007 - TO 194.5 Rudi 61.5

2006 - TO 170.5 Rudi 160.5

2005 - TO 97 to Rudi 168.5

2004 - TO 169 to 149

The comparison came up because TO was 30.8 and Rudi was 24.9 and would the guy have traded Rudi straight up for TO back than. He would have laughed at it and was totally wrong thinking TO was too old to play. And this is logical for any good WR vs any good RB in the end. RB's going older are usually an exception compared to WR.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

Just did a breakdown for someone in my league the other day of TO vs RudiThere stats over the last 4 years in .5 PPR2007 - TO 194.5 Rudi 61.52006 - TO 170.5 Rudi 160.52005 - TO 97 to Rudi 168.52004 - TO 169 to 149The comparison came up because TO was 30.8 and Rudi was 24.9 and would the guy have traded Rudi straight up for TO back than. He would have laughed at it and was totally wrong thinking TO was too old to play. And this is logical for any good WR vs any good RB in the end. RB's going older are usually an exception compared to WR.

I'm assuming this is a dynasty league? From my findings, if 4 years ago TO was 30.8 it would suggest that he still had 2 years left to play at stud level. So TO would still have carried stud potential (aside from his off-field antics and risk involved in acquiring him) 2006 and 2007 were anomoly years for TO outside of the normal curve. Marvin Harrison would have been an anomoly if we looked at things last year (so we'd have 2 odd balls outside of the majority last year).

 

[Captain Spaulding]

So in summary, this is what I would conclude:

1) LT is currently #1-2 RB but 29.2 years old. He should have 1 more year max to be a top RB and then it is most likely he will fall off the map (see Shawn Alexander, Cory Dillon etc) If you are a dynsaty owner, now would be the best time to trade him for enormous value in return, you may sacrifice a championship next year but you will position yourself really nicely for the future. You absolutely should trade LT next year if he still plays at a stud level.

2) Holt and Moss....same deal as above

 

[SSOG]

Just did a breakdown for someone in my league the other day of TO vs RudiThere stats over the last 4 years in .5 PPR2007 - TO 194.5 Rudi 61.52006 - TO 170.5 Rudi 160.52005 - TO 97 to Rudi 168.52004 - TO 169 to 149The comparison came up because TO was 30.8 and Rudi was 24.9 and would the guy have traded Rudi straight up for TO back than. He would have laughed at it and was totally wrong thinking TO was too old to play. And this is logical for any good WR vs any good RB in the end. RB's going older are usually an exception compared to WR.

I'm assuming this is a dynasty league? From my findings, if 4 years ago TO was 30.8 it would suggest that he still had 2 years left to play at stud level. So TO would still have carried stud potential (aside from his off-field antics and risk involved in acquiring him) 2006 and 2007 were anomoly years for TO outside of the normal curve. Marvin Harrison would have been an anomoly if we looked at things last year (so we'd have 2 odd balls outside of the majority last year).

Your findings wouldn't have suggested any such thing. You defined a "stud" as a top-rated player in a set of dynasty rankings. Dynasty rankings are value going FORWARD, so if a 32-year old receiver is rated as a stud, that means that the ranker thinks that the receiver has MORE stud seasons in his future. So according to your findings, TO would be expected to have MORE than 2 stud seasons left- two stud seasons to get to age 32, and then at age 32 he'd still be rated as a stud, meaning another couple of stud seasons would be predicted in his future. That's 4 or more stud seasons left, assuming the ratings are right (big assumption).As I said, you're not really interpreting the data well. You're misunderstanding what the data really represents (it's a prediction of value going forward and you're treating it as if it's a descriptive stat covering what happened in years past), and you're also ignoring several other possible explanations for the behavior of the data.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

Just did a breakdown for someone in my league the other day of TO vs RudiThere stats over the last 4 years in .5 PPR2007 - TO 194.5 Rudi 61.52006 - TO 170.5 Rudi 160.52005 - TO 97 to Rudi 168.52004 - TO 169 to 149The comparison came up because TO was 30.8 and Rudi was 24.9 and would the guy have traded Rudi straight up for TO back than. He would have laughed at it and was totally wrong thinking TO was too old to play. And this is logical for any good WR vs any good RB in the end. RB's going older are usually an exception compared to WR.

I'm assuming this is a dynasty league? From my findings, if 4 years ago TO was 30.8 it would suggest that he still had 2 years left to play at stud level. So TO would still have carried stud potential (aside from his off-field antics and risk involved in acquiring him) 2006 and 2007 were anomoly years for TO outside of the normal curve. Marvin Harrison would have been an anomoly if we looked at things last year (so we'd have 2 odd balls outside of the majority last year).

Your findings wouldn't have suggested any such thing. You defined a "stud" as a top-rated player in a set of dynasty rankings. Dynasty rankings are value going FORWARD, so if a 32-year old receiver is rated as a stud, that means that the ranker thinks that the receiver has MORE stud seasons in his future. So according to your findings, TO would be expected to have MORE than 2 stud seasons left- two stud seasons to get to age 32, and then at age 32 he'd still be rated as a stud, meaning another couple of stud seasons would be predicted in his future. That's 4 or more stud seasons left, assuming the ratings are right (big assumption).As I said, you're not really interpreting the data well. You're misunderstanding what the data really represents (it's a prediction of value going forward and you're treating it as if it's a descriptive stat covering what happened in years past), and you're also ignoring several other possible explanations for the behavior of the data.

Personally, I think any dynasty owner who plans their team for >3 years out in time is probably not going to be very successful over the long term. Combine injury potential with contract expirations/free agency/team changes etc. all make long term planning not very wise.

 

[Yitbos69]

Just did a breakdown for someone in my league the other day of TO vs RudiThere stats over the last 4 years in .5 PPR2007 - TO 194.5 Rudi 61.52006 - TO 170.5 Rudi 160.52005 - TO 97 to Rudi 168.52004 - TO 169 to 149The comparison came up because TO was 30.8 and Rudi was 24.9 and would the guy have traded Rudi straight up for TO back than. He would have laughed at it and was totally wrong thinking TO was too old to play. And this is logical for any good WR vs any good RB in the end. RB's going older are usually an exception compared to WR.

I'm assuming this is a dynasty league? From my findings, if 4 years ago TO was 30.8 it would suggest that he still had 2 years left to play at stud level. So TO would still have carried stud potential (aside from his off-field antics and risk involved in acquiring him) 2006 and 2007 were anomoly years for TO outside of the normal curve. Marvin Harrison would have been an anomoly if we looked at things last year (so we'd have 2 odd balls outside of the majority last year).

Your findings wouldn't have suggested any such thing. You defined a "stud" as a top-rated player in a set of dynasty rankings. Dynasty rankings are value going FORWARD, so if a 32-year old receiver is rated as a stud, that means that the ranker thinks that the receiver has MORE stud seasons in his future. So according to your findings, TO would be expected to have MORE than 2 stud seasons left- two stud seasons to get to age 32, and then at age 32 he'd still be rated as a stud, meaning another couple of stud seasons would be predicted in his future. That's 4 or more stud seasons left, assuming the ratings are right (big assumption).As I said, you're not really interpreting the data well. You're misunderstanding what the data really represents (it's a prediction of value going forward and you're treating it as if it's a descriptive stat covering what happened in years past), and you're also ignoring several other possible explanations for the behavior of the data.

Personally, I think any dynasty owner who plans their team for >3 years out in time is probably not going to be very successful over the long term. Combine injury potential with contract expirations/free agency/team changes etc. all make long term planning not very wise.

I tend to agree that 3 years out is really as far as you can go with any certainty.

 

[SSOG]

Personally, I think any dynasty owner who plans their team for >3 years out in time is probably not going to be very successful over the long term. Combine injury potential with contract expirations/free agency/team changes etc. all make long term planning not very wise.

Personally, I think any dynasty league owner who *COMPLETELY IGNORES* more than 3 years out is probably not going to be very successful over the long term. Especially at typical long-term stability positions. Imagine you think Randy Moss is going to outscore Andre Johnson by about 5% over the next 3 years. Who would you rather have? Imagine you think that Brett Favre is going to outscore Ben Roethlisberger by 5% over the next 3 years. Who would you rather have?When a young QB such as Palmer, Roethlisberger, or Romo establishes himself as a clear stud, it's dumb to only project out 3 years, because historically young studs who become franchise players will produce at an elite level for WAY beyond 3 years. WRs aren't quite as sure of a thing, but the usable lifespan is still way over 3 years.

 

[EBF]

Personally, I think any dynasty owner who plans their team for >3 years out in time is probably not going to be very successful over the long term. Combine injury potential with contract expirations/free agency/team changes etc. all make long term planning not very wise.

Personally, I think any dynasty league owner who *COMPLETELY IGNORES* more than 3 years out is probably not going to be very successful over the long term. Especially at typical long-term stability positions. Imagine you think Randy Moss is going to outscore Andre Johnson by about 5% over the next 3 years. Who would you rather have? Imagine you think that Brett Favre is going to outscore Ben Roethlisberger by 5% over the next 3 years. Who would you rather have?When a young QB such as Palmer, Roethlisberger, or Romo establishes himself as a clear stud, it's dumb to only project out 3 years, because historically young studs who become franchise players will produce at an elite level for WAY beyond 3 years. WRs aren't quite as sure of a thing, but the usable lifespan is still way over 3 years.

Unless you expect your league to fold, I can't understand why you wouldn't consider the full potential lifespan of a player. It's not like Ben Roethlisberger and Larry Fitzgerald are going to spontaneously combust when they turn 28.