Idea for a new fantasy stat: True Targets (1 Viewer)

[Maven]

If this doesn't make any sense feel free to embarrass me...Hahaha, I realize I'm putting myself out there with a sily idea... I'm having a hard time trying to articulate this in words but bare with me and let me know if this would work...

We all know the importance of targets. It's given fantasy players an in-depth look into how teams use their running backs and receivers in the passing game as well as provided another way in assessing a players overall fantasy value.

I got to thinking... maybe there are other things we should consider...

Would you value a player more if you knew the % of targets X player got...of X amount of snaps played that were passing plays? For the sake of it ..lets just call it TRUE TARGETS...

In addition to a players target stats, TRUE TARGETS would allow you to better understand where teams want to go with the ball, when they throw it, when that players in the game. OBVIOUSLY, at the end of the year if you see Brandon Marshall with damn near 200 targets, he was very important to that teams passing game. However, that doesn't necessarily quantify HOW important he is or HOW often they targeted him. Does this make sense?

For example, lets take a look at Nate Burleson's Week 1 performance vs the Rams...

11 targets, 7 grabs, for 74yards and a touchdown.

Now looking at those numbers, it appears like a player who was targeted fairly frequent in the SEA passing game.

Now using the snap and play data from profootballfocus.com's..lets breakdown those targets by the # of snaps played and # of snaps that were passing plays.

11 targets, 45/70 snaps (85%), 26/45 snaps were passing plays (57.7%) & Hasselbeck threw the ball 36 times.

So Week 1, the Seahawks used Burleson in 26 of 36 designed passing plays (72%) and he was targeted in 11 of those 26 snaps that were passing plays. His true target percentage would be (42%).

Now what does this tell us? Almost half the time when Burleson was in the game on a passing play, Burleson was Hasselbeck's main focus.

Now lets compare that to TJ...

TJ - Week 1: 9 targets, 6rec, 48yards, 0TD.

TJ played 59/70 snaps (84%), 33/59 (55.9%) snaps were passing plays and he was only targeted 9 times out of those 33 passing plays (27%).

SO WHAT DO WE CONCLUDE: Although the disparity in targets between the players was just 2, TRUE TARGETS tell us Burleson played a much bigger role (42%) in the passing game then the 2 look difference tells us when compared to TJ (27%).

Would you guys find any value in that information? I think I would..

I realize as fantasy players, most of us are just concerned with our players scoring a TD..or maybe receptions if you're in a PPR league... maybe you're just not as hardcore and nerdy with the statistics like I am but maybe this kind of stat could give us a little bit more insight as to who teams value in their passing games, or who QBs trust more when they throw it.

I hope this made sense..thanks for reading and responding and feel free to roast... lol

 

[mlball77]

Interesting path you’re traveling down here… very cool. So essentially you’re not looking at the frequency a player is thrown to, but the percentage of targets he gets while he is on the field and his team is passing.

I’m not so sure how useful this would be in fantasy football, but it might shed some light on a QB’s tendencies (or favorite passing options). Interesting stuff.

Maybe if a WR’s “true target” percentage is quite high and he plays only a moderate number of downs, then you could make the argument he should play more, as the QB likes going to him. But maybe he is a poor run blocker, so coaches pick their spots where to put him on the field… but on the obvious passing downs it would seem this WR should be on the field.

 

[comfortably numb]

Are balls "thrown" in a players direction always a "target"

For example, Bulger, while running for his life, chucks the ball towards the sideline, where Donnie Avery is near, but no possible way of him catching the ball.

Is that a "target"

 

[fozzy fosbourne]

I think this would be useful. It's like measuring stats by possessions rather than game or minute in basketball. Stats in football should probably be similarly analyzed; it's common conventionally to look at yards per carry and targets per game, etc, but how about targets per passing down? Carries per rushing down? Etc. Just to try and eliminate a variable or two when comparing a receiver or back, since while some teams favor the run more than others and vice versa, it's still going to be something that varies alot in each game and may not be as predictable.

Dunno if that made sense, battling a cold, hehe.

 

[thatguy]

Interesting idea... I think it would be useful when evaluating young WR's (non-starters, guys 3rd or 4th on the depth chart) and trying to figure out if they have a good chance to break out.

 

[lyon812]

In addition to a players target stats, TRUE TARGETS would allow you to better understand where teams want to go with the ball, when they throw it, when that players in the game.

It's definitely interesting, and there's certainly some fantasy relevance. However, I don't think it accomplishes what you set out to accomplish. One factor is that it doesn't take into consideration who the play was actually designed for. I'll use the same WR names, regardless of actual events, just to explain what I mean. Let's say that Housh was double-covered, or shadowed by a stud CB. Meanwhile, Burleson is in single coverage on a middling-to-average defender. Hasselbeck drops back, sees the CB isn't giving Housh any room, so goes to his second option--Burleson. This happens throughout the game, prompting people to go "Wow, where'd that come from?" Thus, while Burleson was targeted more for that game, it doesn't mean that's where SEA wanted to go with the ball (your definition), or that he was the primary option in the passing offense. It also doesn't take into consideration that coaches might be exploiting specific matchups that are game/defense dependent.

 

[Knobs]

Interesting...not sure if or how it'll work out but I enjoy the premise. Reminds me of card counting in blackjack with multiple decks.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Another way to improve the "target" statistic is to somehow include plays that were nullified by penalty.

 

[gpthatsme]

I like it... Make it happen...

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

never apologize for trying new ####.

"ask Copernicus about pushing limits" Dr. Octagon

 

[kutta]

I'm not sure how much value, by itself, it actually holds.

What if a guy is in for one play, that play is a passing play, and he is targeted.

I think his "True Targets" would be 100%.

Stats are useful when you can sort by them and start at the top and figure out who is "better" based upon those stats. So receiving yards and rushing yards are great stats. When sorted, you really don't have to look at much more to get a feel for how someone did. TD's are another. Targets (in the "normal" sense) are another. But in your new stat, I think you would have to look at a lot of other factors in order to get real meaning out of the "true target" stat.

 

[redsoxfan]

Interesting idea, but:

- just because a player is targeted in a play, that doesn't mean he was "where team wants to go with the ball". More often than not it tells you that it's who the team COULD go to, given the defense that was on the field. Most passing plays have a progression of players that could get the ball. The QB's job is to work through that progression. So, just because Burleson ended up with more targets that doesn't really mean that's what the Seahawks wanted - it's just the way things worked out.

- I still think there is more value in ACTUAL targets than what you are calling TRUE targets. To be extreme for a moment - would you want a player that is targeted for 100% of his teams passing plays if they only threw 1 pass per game? Or would you rather have the WR2 on a team that throws the ball 60% of the time, targeting that WR2 on 40% of those plays? In the end, the ACTUAL targets is a better measure (IMO) of both the desired target level and the frequency that the team passes.

 

[sterjs]

If I read this correctly, you're actually measuring a player's ability to run routes and get open. Targets/Total Snaps for Player X. I used this all the time in Front Office Football (a football management sim), where it's called Target Percentage. In FF, this could be useful to measure a player's long term value, but this would require study. A player with a high Target% could indicate a player who will shine with more opportunity.

I think a more useful(and simpler to derive) stat in fantasy football is Targets/Team Passing Attempts. This combines opportunity and ability to get open(whereas target% filters out opportunity). This is useful when analyzing players like Ben Watson--yes, he had a nice 8 targets(iirc) in week one, but he only got 15.1% of 53 patriot pass attempts. In a normal week this would translate to 5 targets.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

I think your idea is valid, smart and I commend you for bravery. I really like the target stats that have been added over the last year or so in fantasy websites. I think you're idea also adds value in evaluating talent and performance.

One stat I always though would be helpful in evaluating performance is convertiing 1st downs (whether it be QB, RB or receiver). Whom is clutch, who is the go to guy and capable of getting to the marker and moving the chains. In my mind its the most important performance stat for an offensive player next to scoring TD's, but its never used in fantasy point scoring. Just my opinion. Sorry didn't mean to hijack the thread.

 

[fozzy fosbourne]

Interesting idea, but:- just because a player is targeted in a play, that doesn't mean he was "where team wants to go with the ball". More often than not it tells you that it's who the team COULD go to, given the defense that was on the field. Most passing plays have a progression of players that could get the ball. The QB's job is to work through that progression. So, just because Burleson ended up with more targets that doesn't really mean that's what the Seahawks wanted - it's just the way things worked out.- I still think there is more value in ACTUAL targets than what you are calling TRUE targets. To be extreme for a moment - would you want a player that is targeted for 100% of his teams passing plays if they only threw 1 pass per game? Or would you rather have the WR2 on a team that throws the ball 60% of the time, targeting that WR2 on 40% of those plays? In the end, the ACTUAL targets is a better measure (IMO) of both the desired target level and the frequency that the team passes.

This would be useful -- is there a site or list out there that does the work for us?

 

[packersfan]

Are balls "thrown" in a players direction always a "target"For example, Bulger, while running for his life, chucks the ball towards the sideline, where Donnie Avery is near, but no possible way of him catching the ball.Is that a "target"

Yes and that's the type of target I'd like to see removed since it's essentially pointless. It doesn't reflect the player's involvement in the passing game which, to me, is the most important criteria that targets should determine.

 

[fightingillini]

It's an interesting stat, but you need to evaluate it for at least a few games. One game is not a credible sample. As others mentioned, Burleson may have got more balls thrown his way becasue the defense was doubling Housh, leaving Burleson with a better matchup to exploit......or the main target was Housh, but Hasselbeck got forced out of the pocket, and when scrambling, he found Burleson. You actually have to watch the games to see where the QBs main target was.

Except for the elite WRs, what you probably would see is a WR True Target % have a lot variance, since it will heavily depend on the game situations. Many teams spread the ball around and every team tries to take advantage of certain matchups.

 

[Lash]

...but bare with me and let me know if this would work...

liked it all except the part where you wanted us to "bare" with youi "bare" with no man!

seriously, it was good thinking to come up with this

 

[comfortably numb]

Are balls "thrown" in a players direction always a "target"For example, Bulger, while running for his life, chucks the ball towards the sideline, where Donnie Avery is near, but no possible way of him catching the ball.Is that a "target"

Yes and that's the type of target I'd like to see removed since it's essentially pointless. It doesn't reflect the player's involvement in the passing game which, to me, is the most important criteria that targets should determine.

Yes agree.Its like a starting pitcher leaving the game with 100 pitches thrown.But he intentionally walked 2 players. Those 8 balls do really reflect what the stat is intended to show.