Targets per Game (1 Viewer)

[gheemony]

I love the target and red zone totals provided on the subscriber portion of the site, but it would be nice if it also showed targets per game and red zone looks per game. Given bye weeks and injuries, it would be easier to compare apples to apples.

And it would be nice to be able to sort the totals by column. For example, users could sort by total targets, targets/game, week 7 targets, catch %, etc.

Great site, just suggestions for further improvement.

 

[The Dangler]

Targets ARE shown per game.

Highlight, copy/paste into excel if you want to get fancy.

 

[ydub]

Targets ARE shown per game.Highlight, copy/paste into excel if you want to get fancy.

I think he's looking for averages. Sure wouldn't take much extra effort...

 

[DynOmite]

a few years ago you used to be able to sort by columns...I always liked sorting the previous week's targets, but that feature is gone.....wish they would bring it back too

 

[Rogi]

Doesn't show red zone targets, but is a decent read:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/fant...dict/index.html

 

[SSOG]

I actually wish they would add the ability to look at per-game numbers to EVERYTHING. It'd be nice to be able to use the Historical Data Dominator to look at who had the most points per game in 2004, for instance.

 

[Couch Potato]

I've been conditioned for awhile to think in terms of per game amounts for almost everything. Tell me a player had 144 fantasy points and I still have questions. 16 games? 13 games? But tell me he had 9 PPG and it means something to me, and I can compare that more readily to other players. Same with targets.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Trends matter more than averages.

Show me three players that look like this:

Targets:  Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5  Wk6 Wk7 Total Avg.Player A	0   2   4   6   8   10  12   42   6Player B	6   6   6   6   6	6   6   42   6Player C   12  10   8   6   4	2   0   42   6

And I will pick Player A over Player B, and Player B over Player C every time.

 

[Urinal Mint]

Fine, then how about expanding per-game looks to include full season and past 4 weeks?

Trends matter more than averages.Show me three players that look like this:

Targets:  Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5  Wk6 Wk7 Total Avg.Player A	0   2   4   6   8   10  12   42   6Player B	6   6   6   6   6	6   6   42   6Player C   12  10   8   6   4	2   0   42   6

And I will pick Player A over Player B, and Player B over Player C every time.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Trends matter more than averages.

Show me three players that look like this:

Targets: Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5 Wk6 Wk7 Total Avg.Player A 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 42 6Player B 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 42 6Player C 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 42 6And I will pick Player A over Player B, and Player B over Player C every time.

Maybe. There are certain things that are intuitive and accurate, but not all of them. It would be an interesting study to see if target trends do matter more than averages.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Trends matter more than averages.

Show me three players that look like this:

Targets: Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5 Wk6 Wk7 Total Avg.Player A 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 42 6Player B 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 42 6Player C 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 42 6And I will pick Player A over Player B, and Player B over Player C every time.

Maybe. There are certain things that are intuitive and accurate, but not all of them. It would be an interesting study to see if target trends do matter more than averages.

Chase,How can this not be obvious?

If a player is getting more targets, the simple conversion rate / "law of averages" is that he is going to catch at least half (if his name isn't Chris Chambers, that is).

I'm 99% certain that a statistical analysis will prove me right, but feel free to run the numbers.

(By the way, this is exactly what led me to pick Derek Hagan as my Sleeper of the Week last week on The Audible, and is prompting me to take Reche Caldwell this week).

 

[Chase Stuart]

Trends matter more than averages.

Show me three players that look like this:

Targets: Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5 Wk6 Wk7 Total Avg.Player A 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 42 6Player B 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 42 6Player C 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 42 6And I will pick Player A over Player B, and Player B over Player C every time.

Maybe. There are certain things that are intuitive and accurate, but not all of them. It would be an interesting study to see if target trends do matter more than averages.

Chase,How can this not be obvious?

If a player is getting more targets, the simple conversion rate / "law of averages" is that he is going to catch at least half (if his name isn't Chris Chambers, that is).

I'm 99% certain that a statistical analysis will prove me right, but feel free to run the numbers.

(By the way, this is exactly what led me to pick Derek Hagan as my Sleeper of the Week last week on The Audible, and is prompting me to take Reche Caldwell this week).

Unless I'm confused, you said that if Player X and Player Y have the same number of targets, but in the last four weeks player X has way more targets, than in the future Player X will also have more targets. Assuming that's what you said, I don't think it's obvious. Predicting the future never is. I agree with you that it is intuitive, but that doesn't make it correct.

 

[SSOG]

Trends matter more than averages.Show me three players that look like this:

Targets:  Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5  Wk6 Wk7 Total Avg.Player A	0   2   4   6   8   10  12   42   6Player B	6   6   6   6   6	6   6   42   6Player C   12  10   8   6   4	2   0   42   6

And I will pick Player A over Player B, and Player B over Player C every time.

The problem is that most "trends" in the NFL are really just 3-week arrangements of data, and you can't really draw any meaningful conclusions about a trend from just three data points. Trends in the NFL don't tend to take that long- either a player's targets increase every week for 3 weeks and then they level off, or else it just happens to be random variating in the data. And, of course, there are also outside considerations- how often do you think Harrington is going to throw 62 passes, for instance?I think a weighted average would definitely have some use, though. But first thing's first- I want a way to get per-game averages from the Data Dominator and Historical Data Dominator.

 

[Bob N. Weaver]

Trends matter more than averages.Show me three players that look like this:

Targets:  Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5  Wk6 Wk7 Total Avg.Player A	0   2   4   6   8   10  12   42   7Player B	6   6   6   6   6	6   6   42   7Player C   12  10   8   6   4	2   0   42   7

And I will pick Player A over Player B, and Player B over Player C every time.

Averages are 6 btw.

 

[Bri]

For me, I'd like to see a "most consecutive targets" column.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Trends matter more than averages.Show me three players that look like this:

Targets:  Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5  Wk6 Wk7 Total Avg.Player A	0   2   4   6   8   10  12   42   6Player B	6   6   6   6   6	6   6   42   6Player C   12  10   8   6   4	2   0   42   6

And I will pick Player A over Player B, and Player B over Player C every time.

Averages are 6 btw.

Fixed.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Trends matter more than averages.

Show me three players that look like this:

Targets: Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5 Wk6 Wk7 Total Avg.Player A 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 42 6Player B 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 42 6Player C 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 42 6And I will pick Player A over Player B, and Player B over Player C every time.

Maybe. There are certain things that are intuitive and accurate, but not all of them. It would be an interesting study to see if target trends do matter more than averages.

Chase,How can this not be obvious?

If a player is getting more targets, the simple conversion rate / "law of averages" is that he is going to catch at least half (if his name isn't Chris Chambers, that is).

I'm 99% certain that a statistical analysis will prove me right, but feel free to run the numbers.

(By the way, this is exactly what led me to pick Derek Hagan as my Sleeper of the Week last week on The Audible, and is prompting me to take Reche Caldwell this week).

Unless I'm confused, you said that if Player X and Player Y have the same number of targets, but in the last four weeks player X has way more targets, than in the future Player X will also have more targets. Assuming that's what you said, I don't think it's obvious. Predicting the future never is. I agree with you that it is intuitive, but that doesn't make it correct.

Targets give trends.Trends over the past 1-3 weeks are more valuable, as things change quickly.

For example, pick a QB change. Now all bets are off concerning previous targets. Does the new QB feel more comfortable targeting some receivers (or TEs)?

Also for me, targets reveal opportunities. Are receivers getting chances to make a play, but for whatever reason they aren't converting them to catches?

For WW pickups, I start with production and then look at targets for the prior week. If I see that Leinart is fixated on Boldin, or that Bryant Johnson or Pope or Troy Walters are getting some targets, then I might be able to predict players to have a higher probability of performing above their average.

My point of the "A B C" example above is that an average would hide the underlying trend. Player A is getting more chances, B is the steady target, and C is falling out of favor.

 

[Bri]

Targets give trends.Trends over the past 1-3 weeks are more valuable, as things change quickly.For example, pick a QB change. Now all bets are off concerning previous targets. Does the new QB feel more comfortable targeting some receivers (or TEs)? Also for me, targets reveal opportunities. Are receivers getting chances to make a play, but for whatever reason they aren't converting them to catches? For WW pickups, I start with production and then look at targets for the prior week. If I see that Leinart is fixated on Boldin, or that Bryant Johnson or Pope or Troy Walters are getting some targets, then I might be able to predict players to have a higher probability of performing above their average.My point of the "A B C" example above is that an average would hide the underlying trend. Player A is getting more chances, B is the steady target, and C is falling out of favor.

IMO Without consecutive targets, this is flawed.A QB locks onto a WR due to poor habits or simply "picking on" a CB. Nothing in "flat" target data would indicate that.A guy getting 1 catch 12 yards then 5 for 80 yards would seem like a guy on the upswing. After he gets 1 for 10 yards the next week you'd realize he only got a few more targets because the nickel DB was a promoted practice squad player they promoted the weekend of the game.Due to injuries, some nickel CBs can be real weak CBs by December.So if there was a consecutive targets column that listed 4(let's say he was 4-72 on one drive) it'd throw up a flare for you.Similarly, it can breed confidence like how Brooks always locked onto Horn.