The myth that wr's are deep this year (1 Viewer)

[SSOG]

The one dynamic that is missing from comparing yearly point totals for WR's is consistency. WR (and TE) are week in-week out the most inconsistent positions in fantasy football. For me, consistency at such an inconsistent position is where the hidden value lies. Regardless of #'s, this is what separates the mid-tier guy's from the top tier guys. I KNOW that a guy like Andre Johnson will get his opportunities nearly every game. If he makes the most of them, great, if not, at least I know he's getting targeted (unless of course he's on the sideline injured). At the end of the year, a guy like Torrey Smith may come within 40 or so points of Andre's total, but week in-week out I can't expect him to be as consistent as a guy like Andre because I can't expect him to get the targets a guy like Andre does. I like having stud receivers because it's a good starting point for consistency in this inconsistent world we call fantasy football.

Consistency is an illusion. I've yet to encounter any metric of player consistency that carries much, if any, predictive power- in other words, knowing a player was consistent in year N does very little to tell you whether he'll be consistent in year N+1. Furthermore, the only variable that correlates well with consistency is points scored, but that's something of a tautology. Players who score more points tend to have more games where they score more points? You don't say!It's tempting to think that targets lead to consistency, but the truth is that low-target, high-scoring WRs put up consistency profiles right on par with high-target, high-scoring WRs. Witness Jordy Nelson last year, Brandon Lloyd the year before, and Vincent Jackson for most of his career. It's tempting to think that lots of targets lead to greater consistency in PPR leagues, and they do- but only because lots of targets leads to more points, and more points leads to greater consistency.

Try this little exercise sometime: take the wr24 in your scoring system, divide his year-end totals by 16, and set this as your baseline for what constitutes a decent game. Then go down the list of scoring leaders and see what percentage of their games were "decent". Compare each player's percentage to the players immediately above and below, and highlight any names that were outliers compared to their peers (I.e. two or more decent games fewer or more than their finish would suggest). I've done this exercise several times at several positions, and the two things that always surprised me were just how rare outliers actually were, and just how little the outliers had in common. There were no unifying traits that predicted greater or lesser consistency. In reality, I'm convinced that the illusion of consistency is nothing more than statistical noise.

So, to wrap it up, when I'm drafting a player, I'll consider his scoring projection. I'll consider his risk. I'll consider roster synergy (bye weeks and an attempt to either minimize or maximize variance). Hell, I'll even consider whether or not I like the guy and want to root for him. I will not, however, consider week-to-week consistency. Consistency is a faulty heuristic, a cognitive bias, an ex post facto descriptor confused for a meaningful predictor.

 

[rct]

So, to wrap it up, when I'm drafting a player, I'll consider his scoring projection. I'll consider his risk. I'll consider roster synergy (bye weeks and an attempt to either minimize or maximize variance). Hell, I'll even consider whether or not I like the guy and want to root for him. I will not, however, consider week-to-week consistency. Consistency is a faulty heuristic, a cognitive bias, an ex post facto descriptor confused for a meaningful predictor.

Yup, as my daddy often told me "Son, ain't nothing worse than a faulty heuristic." And probably a close second on his list was ex post facto descriptors confused for meaningful predictors.

 

[Ridgelake]

Good stuff SSOG

 

[letter_j]

The one dynamic that is missing from comparing yearly point totals for WR's is consistency. WR (and TE) are week in-week out the most inconsistent positions in fantasy football. For me, consistency at such an inconsistent position is where the hidden value lies. Regardless of #'s, this is what separates the mid-tier guy's from the top tier guys. I KNOW that a guy like Andre Johnson will get his opportunities nearly every game. If he makes the most of them, great, if not, at least I know he's getting targeted (unless of course he's on the sideline injured). At the end of the year, a guy like Torrey Smith may come within 40 or so points of Andre's total, but week in-week out I can't expect him to be as consistent as a guy like Andre because I can't expect him to get the targets a guy like Andre does. I like having stud receivers because it's a good starting point for consistency in this inconsistent world we call fantasy football.

Consistency is an illusion. I've yet to encounter any metric of player consistency that carries much, if any, predictive power- in other words, knowing a player was consistent in year N does very little to tell you whether he'll be consistent in year N+1. Furthermore, the only variable that correlates well with consistency is points scored, but that's something of a tautology. Players who score more points tend to have more games where they score more points? You don't say!It's tempting to think that targets lead to consistency, but the truth is that low-target, high-scoring WRs put up consistency profiles right on par with high-target, high-scoring WRs. Witness Jordy Nelson last year, Brandon Lloyd the year before, and Vincent Jackson for most of his career. It's tempting to think that lots of targets lead to greater consistency in PPR leagues, and they do- but only because lots of targets leads to more points, and more points leads to greater consistency.

Try this little exercise sometime: take the wr24 in your scoring system, divide his year-end totals by 16, and set this as your baseline for what constitutes a decent game. Then go down the list of scoring leaders and see what percentage of their games were "decent". Compare each player's percentage to the players immediately above and below, and highlight any names that were outliers compared to their peers (I.e. two or more decent games fewer or more than their finish would suggest). I've done this exercise several times at several positions, and the two things that always surprised me were just how rare outliers actually were, and just how little the outliers had in common. There were no unifying traits that predicted greater or lesser consistency. In reality, I'm convinced that the illusion of consistency is nothing more than statistical noise.

So, to wrap it up, when I'm drafting a player, I'll consider his scoring projection. I'll consider his risk. I'll consider roster synergy (bye weeks and an attempt to either minimize or maximize variance). Hell, I'll even consider whether or not I like the guy and want to root for him. I will not, however, consider week-to-week consistency. Consistency is a faulty heuristic, a cognitive bias, an ex post facto descriptor confused for a meaningful predictor.

very

 

[LHUCKS]

The one dynamic that is missing from comparing yearly point totals for WR's is consistency. WR (and TE) are week in-week out the most inconsistent positions in fantasy football. For me, consistency at such an inconsistent position is where the hidden value lies. Regardless of #'s, this is what separates the mid-tier guy's from the top tier guys. I KNOW that a guy like Andre Johnson will get his opportunities nearly every game. If he makes the most of them, great, if not, at least I know he's getting targeted (unless of course he's on the sideline injured). At the end of the year, a guy like Torrey Smith may come within 40 or so points of Andre's total, but week in-week out I can't expect him to be as consistent as a guy like Andre because I can't expect him to get the targets a guy like Andre does. I like having stud receivers because it's a good starting point for consistency in this inconsistent world we call fantasy football.

Consistency is an illusion. I've yet to encounter any metric of player consistency that carries much, if any, predictive power- in other words, knowing a player was consistent in year N does very little to tell you whether he'll be consistent in year N+1.

Wrong, you just don't know what to look for.I'll take Ray Rice, you get Jamal Charles.

OR

I get Percy Harvin, you get Miles Austin.

We'll see who is more consistent.

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

The one dynamic that is missing from comparing yearly point totals for WR's is consistency. WR (and TE) are week in-week out the most inconsistent positions in fantasy football. For me, consistency at such an inconsistent position is where the hidden value lies. Regardless of #'s, this is what separates the mid-tier guy's from the top tier guys. I KNOW that a guy like Andre Johnson will get his opportunities nearly every game. If he makes the most of them, great, if not, at least I know he's getting targeted (unless of course he's on the sideline injured). At the end of the year, a guy like Torrey Smith may come within 40 or so points of Andre's total, but week in-week out I can't expect him to be as consistent as a guy like Andre because I can't expect him to get the targets a guy like Andre does. I like having stud receivers because it's a good starting point for consistency in this inconsistent world we call fantasy football.

Consistency is an illusion. I've yet to encounter any metric of player consistency that carries much, if any, predictive power- in other words, knowing a player was consistent in year N does very little to tell you whether he'll be consistent in year N+1. Furthermore, the only variable that correlates well with consistency is points scored, but that's something of a tautology. Players who score more points tend to have more games where they score more points? You don't say!It's tempting to think that targets lead to consistency, but the truth is that low-target, high-scoring WRs put up consistency profiles right on par with high-target, high-scoring WRs. Witness Jordy Nelson last year, Brandon Lloyd the year before, and Vincent Jackson for most of his career. It's tempting to think that lots of targets lead to greater consistency in PPR leagues, and they do- but only because lots of targets leads to more points, and more points leads to greater consistency.

Try this little exercise sometime: take the wr24 in your scoring system, divide his year-end totals by 16, and set this as your baseline for what constitutes a decent game. Then go down the list of scoring leaders and see what percentage of their games were "decent". Compare each player's percentage to the players immediately above and below, and highlight any names that were outliers compared to their peers (I.e. two or more decent games fewer or more than their finish would suggest). I've done this exercise several times at several positions, and the two things that always surprised me were just how rare outliers actually were, and just how little the outliers had in common. There were no unifying traits that predicted greater or lesser consistency. In reality, I'm convinced that the illusion of consistency is nothing more than statistical noise.

So, to wrap it up, when I'm drafting a player, I'll consider his scoring projection. I'll consider his risk. I'll consider roster synergy (bye weeks and an attempt to either minimize or maximize variance). Hell, I'll even consider whether or not I like the guy and want to root for him. I will not, however, consider week-to-week consistency. Consistency is a faulty heuristic, a cognitive bias, an ex post facto descriptor confused for a meaningful predictor.

 

[SSOG]

The one dynamic that is missing from comparing yearly point totals for WR's is consistency. WR (and TE) are week in-week out the most inconsistent positions in fantasy football. For me, consistency at such an inconsistent position is where the hidden value lies. Regardless of #'s, this is what separates the mid-tier guy's from the top tier guys. I KNOW that a guy like Andre Johnson will get his opportunities nearly every game. If he makes the most of them, great, if not, at least I know he's getting targeted (unless of course he's on the sideline injured). At the end of the year, a guy like Torrey Smith may come within 40 or so points of Andre's total, but week in-week out I can't expect him to be as consistent as a guy like Andre because I can't expect him to get the targets a guy like Andre does. I like having stud receivers because it's a good starting point for consistency in this inconsistent world we call fantasy football.

Consistency is an illusion. I've yet to encounter any metric of player consistency that carries much, if any, predictive power- in other words, knowing a player was consistent in year N does very little to tell you whether he'll be consistent in year N+1.

Wrong, you just don't know what to look for.I'll take Ray Rice, you get Jamal Charles.

OR

I get Percy Harvin, you get Miles Austin.

We'll see who is more consistent.

Step 1: Read the entire post. Step 2: Comprehend the argument being made. Step 3: If struggling with step 2, ask for clarification. Step 4: Respond.I said that players who score more points are more consistent, but that this is a tautology, because all you're saying is that players that score more points have more games where they score more points. You then offer me two bets and say you'll take the guy projected to score more points to be more consistent than the guy projected to score fewer points. I agree that Rice will be more consistent than Charles, and I agree that Harvin will be more consistent than Austin. This is because I expect the former two players to out score the latter two players by substantial margins. I also expect Miles Austin to be more consistent than Greg Little, and Jamaal Charles to be more consistent than Donald Brown. And Aaron Rogers will be more consistent than Andrew Luck, and Jimmy Graham will be more consistent than Fred Davis. This is not a refutation of my argument, this is a distillation of my argument.

If you want to join the conversation, I'd be happy to have you. Just cut the "wise and inscrutable yogi" act and say what it is you've got to say. If you think there's some sort of measure that predicts year N+1 consistency, then spit it out and we can see for ourselves whether it checks out. If you refuse to disclose, I'm just going to assume it's because, like every other one of your prediction heuristics so far, it's got the success rate of a coin flip. Either way, please quit wasting everyone's time with cryptic guessing games. TIA.

 

[Carver]

The one dynamic that is missing from comparing yearly point totals for WR's is consistency. WR (and TE) are week in-week out the most inconsistent positions in fantasy football. For me, consistency at such an inconsistent position is where the hidden value lies. Regardless of #'s, this is what separates the mid-tier guy's from the top tier guys. I KNOW that a guy like Andre Johnson will get his opportunities nearly every game. If he makes the most of them, great, if not, at least I know he's getting targeted (unless of course he's on the sideline injured). At the end of the year, a guy like Torrey Smith may come within 40 or so points of Andre's total, but week in-week out I can't expect him to be as consistent as a guy like Andre because I can't expect him to get the targets a guy like Andre does. I like having stud receivers because it's a good starting point for consistency in this inconsistent world we call fantasy football.

Consistency is an illusion. I've yet to encounter any metric of player consistency that carries much, if any, predictive power- in other words, knowing a player was consistent in year N does very little to tell you whether he'll be consistent in year N+1.

Wrong, you just don't know what to look for.I'll take Ray Rice, you get Jamal Charles.

OR

I get Percy Harvin, you get Miles Austin.

We'll see who is more consistent.

Step 1: Read the entire post. Step 2: Comprehend the argument being made. Step 3: If struggling with step 2, ask for clarification. Step 4: Respond.I said that players who score more points are more consistent, but that this is a tautology, because all you're saying is that players that score more points have more games where they score more points. You then offer me two bets and say you'll take the guy projected to score more points to be more consistent than the guy projected to score fewer points. I agree that Rice will be more consistent than Charles, and I agree that Harvin will be more consistent than Austin. This is because I expect the former two players to out score the latter two players by substantial margins. I also expect Miles Austin to be more consistent than Greg Little, and Jamaal Charles to be more consistent than Donald Brown. And Aaron Rogers will be more consistent than Andrew Luck, and Jimmy Graham will be more consistent than Fred Davis. This is not a refutation of my argument, this is a distillation of my argument.

If you want to join the conversation, I'd be happy to have you. Just cut the "wise and inscrutable yogi" act and say what it is you've got to say. If you think there's some sort of measure that predicts year N+1 consistency, then spit it out and we can see for ourselves whether it checks out. If you refuse to disclose, I'm just going to assume it's because, like every other one of your prediction heuristics so far, it's got the success rate of a coin flip. Either way, please quit wasting everyone's time with cryptic guessing games. TIA.

Oh snap. I almost feel embarrassed for lHucks after reading that. OUFF.

 

[LHUCKS]

If you think there's some sort of measure that predicts year N+1 consistency, then spit it out and we can see for ourselves whether it checks out. If you refuse to disclose, I'm just going to assume it's because, like every other one of your prediction heuristics so far, it's got the success rate of a coin flip. Either way, please quit wasting everyone's time with cryptic guessing games. TIA.

This doesn't really warrant a response. Perhaps when you can talk like a big boy we can have a big boy discussion.

 

[JamesTheScot]

i think there is a lot better value in some of the middle round guys.

That's my definition of "deep".

It's deep in uncertainty. That's not a strength. It's a crapshoot.Dez Bryant? Torrey Smith? Nicks and Cruz? Britt? D.Thomas? Decker? Even Wallace and Brown have their own question marks swirling. Which one of those guys is returning to the same situation he was in last year and is being ranked according to that consistency?Just because the tier is large doesn't mean it's full of solid sure things. Those WR's are going to settle into a declining order of production the same as they do every year. So some of those WR's will significantly outperform others in that tier by year's end. So what happens is that we lull ourselves into believing that uncertainty equals parity, which it does not.There are just as many questions on the WR side of things as there are on the RB side of things.

 

[joffer]

If you think there's some sort of measure that predicts year N+1 consistency, then spit it out and we can see for ourselves whether it checks out. If you refuse to disclose, I'm just going to assume it's because, like every other one of your prediction heuristics so far, it's got the success rate of a coin flip. Either way, please quit wasting everyone's time with cryptic guessing games. TIA.

This doesn't really warrant a response. Perhaps when you can talk like a big boy we can have a big boy discussion.

Translation: he's got nothing

 

[th3f00l]

Can we get this thread back on track. The myth of WR depth in my opinion is better explained as the myth of the second tier. Most of those considered a second tier receiver, are actually 3rd. Megatron owns the first, then AJ and fitz, after that everyone is third tier, but still going in the second round. So many receivers are being drafted in the second round with inflated value, driving the value of the other receivers up. So even though there is a lot of depth at receiver, everyone is jumping the gun on third tier talent. So if you don't take your WR#1 early, you get screwed. But if you take your WR#2 too early, you end up over-paying, and with the limited RB pool you don't wanna get caught drafting your #2 receiver that has the same value as a guy you can get 2 rounds later before your #3 RB.

 

[LHUCKS]

Can we get this thread back on track. The myth of WR depth in my opinion is better explained as the myth of the second tier. Most of those considered a second tier receiver, are actually 3rd. Megatron owns the first, then AJ and fitz, after that everyone is third tier,

I'm not even sure AJ is second tier. I have several WRs ranked higher.

 

[th3f00l]

Can we get this thread back on track. The myth of WR depth in my opinion is better explained as the myth of the second tier. Most of those considered a second tier receiver, are actually 3rd. Megatron owns the first, then AJ and fitz, after that everyone is third tier,

I'm not even sure AJ is second tier. I have several WRs ranked higher.

Personally I have Marshall higher than AJ and I am really worries about his age and durability. I was going more so off of the consensus, and not my personal beliefs. To me there is no second tier, because the only ones who qualify talent wise lack the ingredients for a success recipe. The comparison to the question marks at RB are not valid imo, because after the 7th round there aren't really running backs that you can start, whereas there are some decent receivers available.

 

[Wombat x]

It's easy to say "don't select one of that second tier when they are all the same" but if you are picking in the first 3-4 picks, those guys are not going to be there for your round 4 pick. So you HAVE to take one or two of that group in round 2 or 3. Or else your looking at Dez/Bowe/Steve Johnson in round 4.

 

[The Jerk]

It's easy to say "don't select one of that second tier when they are all the same" but if you are picking in the first 3-4 picks, those guys are not going to be there for your round 4 pick. So you HAVE to take one or two of that group in round 2 or 3. Or else your looking at Dez/Bowe/Steve Johnson in round 4.

The most helpful preparation you can do if you've got a top 3 pick is to project the RB and WR pools at the 2-3 turn and the 4-5 turn and see what combination you prefer. And analyzing the 6-7 turn is also valuable in terms of understanding what "upside" RBs and WRs could be available there.If you're in a league that has a draft history available for you to study, then you can estimate precisely how many RBs or WRs will be gone at each of these turns. You can then get a literal sense of who specifically you would be choosing from at each of these turns.I did this same exercise at the other end, 11th slot in a 12 team league, and it helped me to know what my worst-case scenario RBs and WRs in each phase of the draft would be. Now, some owners will value players differently, and this will help you get better than expected players to fall to you from time to time. But if you know that last year the 2-3 turn presented a choice between RB13 and WR7, whereas the 4-5 turn was between RB22 and WR19, then that gives you a place to start. League scoring and tendencies will vary, and therefore so will the RB and WR numbers at each turn, but knowing what they are can be helpful when you see these closely-ranked tiers of players.You're right that eventually you need to separate them into at the very least smaller groupings. And this tiering exercise will help with that task to some extent.

 

[The Jerk]

It's easy to say "don't select one of that second tier when they are all the same" but if you are picking in the first 3-4 picks, those guys are not going to be there for your round 4 pick. So you HAVE to take one or two of that group in round 2 or 3. Or else your looking at Dez/Bowe/Steve Johnson in round 4.

I never did directly address this quote, which is a good one. Based on commentary in the Shark Pool and in the articles of various FF sites, there were approximately 9-10 players worth drafting in the first two rounds.Rodgers, Brady, BreesFoster, Rice, McCoyCalvinGraham, GronkSo you're right if you feel like the majority of second round picks are not going to provide value according to the experts. But who cares what the experts think? By laying out my tiers, I can see where the overall draft value seems the strongest, and then I'll use my late second and early third picks in a way that still allows me to claim that value in the 4-5 or 6-7 turns.By the way, it can fall either way. I waited on getting my first WR and it worked out fantastic, getting A.J. Green at #35 overall. I don't know why he slid so far, but clearly I was fortunate. On the other hand, many of my RB3 candidates went earlier than expected. Ridley and McGahee both went a round or two before ADP (remember, that's just an average, so half the drafts they will be picked before and half the drafts after; not to mention that the ADP can be trending earlier or later on a player, especially the week before the season). Leagues are different, and scoring matters, so be prepared to go whichever way the draft leads. I ended up with Mark Ingram as my RB3, and while I'd rather have the two I mentioned, I can live with that. Unless you're in an incredibly small league or the owners are clueless and/or drunk, you're not going to get everything to fall your way. Just enjoy the breaks you get and let the ones you don't roll off you.

 

[Deamon]

on the surface wr's look deep. however when you really break it down, i am not a believer in a ton of the top wr's this year. i think there is a lot better value in some of the middle round guys. i think megatron is worth a first round pick and i think that julio jones is worth a 2nd round pick. but i think thats it as far as the sure things go. Fitz- Crappy qb, crappy o-line, crappy team. besides for 1 flukey broken down play last week, he would of had a donutJennings- concussions are scary, way too many mouths to feed in GBAndre Johnson - NEVER healthy already starting the year with a gimpy groin. never really has ammassed double digit td's, running offenseAJ Green- may require 2nd round pick but slumped at end of last year, Dalton kinda sucks, plays 3 of the best passing defenses in league TWICE. thats 6 games vs top d's.Roddy White- I actually do like Roddy and would consider him at end of 2 or beginning of 3.If you want one of those guys you'll likely have to spend a 2nd rounder on them and i'm not in love with those options. I'd much rather wait, load up on te, qb and rb's and start grabbing guys like Percy Harvin, Antonio Brown, Lloyd, Decker and Torrey Smith later on.Thoughts?

You're describing exactly what DEEP is.

 

[ImTheScientist]

The one dynamic that is missing from comparing yearly point totals for WR's is consistency. WR (and TE) are week in-week out the most inconsistent positions in fantasy football. For me, consistency at such an inconsistent position is where the hidden value lies. Regardless of #'s, this is what separates the mid-tier guy's from the top tier guys. I KNOW that a guy like Andre Johnson will get his opportunities nearly every game. If he makes the most of them, great, if not, at least I know he's getting targeted (unless of course he's on the sideline injured). At the end of the year, a guy like Torrey Smith may come within 40 or so points of Andre's total, but week in-week out I can't expect him to be as consistent as a guy like Andre because I can't expect him to get the targets a guy like Andre does. I like having stud receivers because it's a good starting point for consistency in this inconsistent world we call fantasy football.

Consistency is an illusion. I've yet to encounter any metric of player consistency that carries much, if any, predictive power- in other words, knowing a player was consistent in year N does very little to tell you whether he'll be consistent in year N+1.

Wrong, you just don't know what to look for.I'll take Ray Rice, you get Jamal Charles.

OR

I get Percy Harvin, you get Miles Austin.

We'll see who is more consistent.

 

[SSOG]

Wrong, you just don't know what to look for.I'll take Ray Rice, you get Jamal Charles.ORI get Percy Harvin, you get Miles Austin.We'll see who is more consistent.

By the way, if you want to bet that Ray Rice will be more consistent than his peers, Jamaal Charles will be less consistent than his peers, Percy Harvin will be more consistent than his peers, and Miles Austin will be less consistent than his peers, those are four bets I'm willing to make. We'll use my already posted definition of consistency- take RB24 and WR24, divide their totals by 16, and set this as our benchmark for consistency. Sort all players by points per game, and divide the player's "good games" by total games played. If those four players deviate from the average of the two players immediately above and below them by more than 10% in your given direction (absolute percentage points, not 10% of their consistency percentage), then you win. If not, then I win. We could bet $5 a player. If you wanted to make it interesting, we could bet $25 a player. If you wanted to make it really interesting, we could bet that winner gets to select the loser's signature for the entire offseason. You game?

 

[drater]

Unless I get Megatron in round 1, I refuse to take a WR in the first 3 rounds.

This is what I did. I ended up with Arian, Mathews, Cam, the at the tail end of the 4th swing I got Harvin and Bowe. I had my choice of a few others but these were my favorites. I waited again while I filled my flex and TE spots then too Reggie Wayne and Sidney Rice really late. Worked like a charm.

This plan works like a charm when you can start it off with one of the top 3 RBs. Not so well when you are drafting at the back end of a 12 teamer.

This. Drafting from the 1 hole Wednesday I got Foster, Sjax, Murray, Ryan, Hernandez, then loaded up on upside wrs, Torrey, garcon, young, mal Floyd, Cobb.Drafting from the 8 hole Thursday, DD and my projections dictated going Calvin, Julio, Fitz..and a bunch of upside backs with Eli later. Neither team is ideal but you just have to draft the value that drops and deal with your imbalances later. It all changes radically after week 1 anyway...

 

[I Am Rick James]

I have not read this entire thread but thought I would chime in.

Last night we had our 10 team, standard format, start 2 rb, 3 wr league draft.

I expected RB's to be more of a priority than in years past and planned to wait, wait , wait on WR (picking second)

To my shock and horror, WR's went early and often like no year I had ever seen

After 20 picks, here was the tally, 5 qb's, 5 rb's , 2 te's and 8 DAMN WR'S

And the WR run didn't stop there, I ended up with Brandon Lloyd at the 42 spot as my #1WR

Never saw this coming, but I still have the best team

 

[The Jerk]

I have not read this entire thread but thought I would chime in. Last night we had our 10 team, standard format, start 2 rb, 3 wr league draft.I expected RB's to be more of a priority than in years past and planned to wait, wait , wait on WR (picking second)To my shock and horror, WR's went early and often like no year I had ever seenAfter 20 picks, here was the tally, 5 qb's, 5 rb's , 2 te's and 8 DAMN WR'S And the WR run didn't stop there, I ended up with Brandon Lloyd at the 42 spot as my #1WRNever saw this coming, but I still have the best team

It's possible that "upside down" drafting has gone mainstream to the point where it may now be overcorrecting the old bias on too many RBs going before stud WRs for much of the past decade. It always depends on league variables, of course. In general, zigging when others are zagging can be the best way to get value, as long as you're not reaching. Sounds like you did fine. I was surprised that I ended up with two top RBs in my first three picks for the first time since 2005.

 

[killrobotkill]

If consistency is what you're looking for, then you should totally draft me. I will put up consistent zeroes for you every week.

 

[nyy45]

The one dynamic that is missing from comparing yearly point totals for WR's is consistency. WR (and TE) are week in-week out the most inconsistent positions in fantasy football. For me, consistency at such an inconsistent position is where the hidden value lies. Regardless of #'s, this is what separates the mid-tier guy's from the top tier guys. I KNOW that a guy like Andre Johnson will get his opportunities nearly every game. If he makes the most of them, great, if not, at least I know he's getting targeted (unless of course he's on the sideline injured). At the end of the year, a guy like Torrey Smith may come within 40 or so points of Andre's total, but week in-week out I can't expect him to be as consistent as a guy like Andre because I can't expect him to get the targets a guy like Andre does. I like having stud receivers because it's a good starting point for consistency in this inconsistent world we call fantasy football.

Consistency is an illusion. I've yet to encounter any metric of player consistency that carries much, if any, predictive power- in other words, knowing a player was consistent in year N does very little to tell you whether he'll be consistent in year N+1. Furthermore, the only variable that correlates well with consistency is points scored, but that's something of a tautology. Players who score more points tend to have more games where they score more points? You don't say!It's tempting to think that targets lead to consistency, but the truth is that low-target, high-scoring WRs put up consistency profiles right on par with high-target, high-scoring WRs. Witness Jordy Nelson last year, Brandon Lloyd the year before, and Vincent Jackson for most of his career. It's tempting to think that lots of targets lead to greater consistency in PPR leagues, and they do- but only because lots of targets leads to more points, and more points leads to greater consistency.

Try this little exercise sometime: take the wr24 in your scoring system, divide his year-end totals by 16, and set this as your baseline for what constitutes a decent game. Then go down the list of scoring leaders and see what percentage of their games were "decent". Compare each player's percentage to the players immediately above and below, and highlight any names that were outliers compared to their peers (I.e. two or more decent games fewer or more than their finish would suggest). I've done this exercise several times at several positions, and the two things that always surprised me were just how rare outliers actually were, and just how little the outliers had in common. There were no unifying traits that predicted greater or lesser consistency. In reality, I'm convinced that the illusion of consistency is nothing more than statistical noise.

So, to wrap it up, when I'm drafting a player, I'll consider his scoring projection. I'll consider his risk. I'll consider roster synergy (bye weeks and an attempt to either minimize or maximize variance). Hell, I'll even consider whether or not I like the guy and want to root for him. I will not, however, consider week-to-week consistency. Consistency is a faulty heuristic, a cognitive bias, an ex post facto descriptor confused for a meaningful predictor.

This is true but you are mentioning players like Jordy Nelson last year and Lloyd the year before. These guys were serious sleepers and it's easy to say after the fact that the numbers work out they way they do with this WR24 exercise but for purposes of drafting and putting a team together, it's tough to say who will be this years Jordy Nelson or Victor Cruz so this quantitative analysis is after the fact when we are looking for something before the fact.

 

[SSOG]

This is true but you are mentioning players like Jordy Nelson last year and Lloyd the year before. These guys were serious sleepers and it's easy to say after the fact that the numbers work out they way they do with this WR24 exercise but for purposes of drafting and putting a team together, it's tough to say who will be this years Jordy Nelson or Victor Cruz so this quantitative analysis is after the fact when we are looking for something before the fact.

What I'm saying is that if you look at consistent WRs and inconsistent WRs, there are no common threads, nothing that consistently explains past consistency, and therefore nothing that predicts future consistency. You said that Andre is more consistent because he gets more targets, which is an intuitively appealing idea, but the reality is that historical data suggests otherwise. Historical data says that if WR1 scores 200 points on 180 targets, and WR2 scores 200 points on 120 targets, we should not expect WR1 to exhibit any more week-to-week consistency than WR2. Targets are not a good predictor of consistency. Nothing really predicts consistency except for points scored.

 

[mbuehner]

I know that half my tier 2 receivers will in retrospect be 3rd tier receivers. What I dont know is which half.

 

[mbuehner]

This is true but you are mentioning players like Jordy Nelson last year and Lloyd the year before. These guys were serious sleepers and it's easy to say after the fact that the numbers work out they way they do with this WR24 exercise but for purposes of drafting and putting a team together, it's tough to say who will be this years Jordy Nelson or Victor Cruz so this quantitative analysis is after the fact when we are looking for something before the fact.

What I'm saying is that if you look at consistent WRs and inconsistent WRs, there are no common threads, nothing that consistently explains past consistency, and therefore nothing that predicts future consistency. You said that Andre is more consistent because he gets more targets, which is an intuitively appealing idea, but the reality is that historical data suggests otherwise. Historical data says that if WR1 scores 200 points on 180 targets, and WR2 scores 200 points on 120 targets, we should not expect WR1 to exhibit any more week-to-week consistency than WR2. Targets are not a good predictor of consistency. Nothing really predicts consistency except for points scored.

Did you happen to check red zone targets? Its not going to be controlling but it might be better than noise.

 

[ZWK]

Wrong, you just don't know what to look for.I'll take Ray Rice, you get Jamal Charles.ORI get Percy Harvin, you get Miles Austin.We'll see who is more consistent.

By the way, if you want to bet that Ray Rice will be more consistent than his peers, Jamaal Charles will be less consistent than his peers, Percy Harvin will be more consistent than his peers, and Miles Austin will be less consistent than his peers, those are four bets I'm willing to make. We'll use my already posted definition of consistency- take RB24 and WR24, divide their totals by 16, and set this as our benchmark for consistency. Sort all players by points per game, and divide the player's "good games" by total games played. If those four players deviate from the average of the two players immediately above and below them by more than 10% in your given direction (absolute percentage points, not 10% of their consistency percentage), then you win. If not, then I win. We could bet $5 a player. If you wanted to make it interesting, we could bet $25 a player. If you wanted to make it really interesting, we could bet that winner gets to select the loser's signature for the entire offseason. You game?

Another way to define consistency is: in what percentage of this player's games did he score at least 70% of his PPG average. For instance, Percy Harvin averaged 16.62 ppg last year in PPR, so we look at how many times he scored at least 11.63 pts (which is 16.62 x .7). He did it 12 times in 16 games - so, 75%.On average last year's top 24 WRs did it 70% of the time, and this measure was uncorrelated with points scored (at least among the top 24; WRs 25-40 were less consistent on the whole, I think because a lot of them had an inconsistent role/situation, like Torrey Smith & Demaryius Thomas). So that means you could use it to compare Harvin vs. Austin, even if you project Harvin to be better.Among top 24 WRs, last year's most consistent by this measure were Mike Wallace (87.5%), Dez Bryant (86.7%) and Greg Jennings (84.6%), and the least consistent were Vincent Jackson (56.3%), Marques Colston (57.1%), and Andre Johnson (57.1%).

 

[mbuehner]

Wrong, you just don't know what to look for.I'll take Ray Rice, you get Jamal Charles.ORI get Percy Harvin, you get Miles Austin.We'll see who is more consistent.

By the way, if you want to bet that Ray Rice will be more consistent than his peers, Jamaal Charles will be less consistent than his peers, Percy Harvin will be more consistent than his peers, and Miles Austin will be less consistent than his peers, those are four bets I'm willing to make. We'll use my already posted definition of consistency- take RB24 and WR24, divide their totals by 16, and set this as our benchmark for consistency. Sort all players by points per game, and divide the player's "good games" by total games played. If those four players deviate from the average of the two players immediately above and below them by more than 10% in your given direction (absolute percentage points, not 10% of their consistency percentage), then you win. If not, then I win. We could bet $5 a player. If you wanted to make it interesting, we could bet $25 a player. If you wanted to make it really interesting, we could bet that winner gets to select the loser's signature for the entire offseason. You game?

Another way to define consistency is: in what percentage of this player's games did he score at least 70% of his PPG average. For instance, Percy Harvin averaged 16.62 ppg last year in PPR, so we look at how many times he scored at least 11.63 pts (which is 16.62 x .7). He did it 12 times in 16 games - so, 75%.On average last year's top 24 WRs did it 70% of the time, and this measure was uncorrelated with points scored (at least among the top 24; WRs 25-40 were less consistent on the whole, I think because a lot of them had an inconsistent role/situation, like Torrey Smith & Demaryius Thomas). So that means you could use it to compare Harvin vs. Austin, even if you project Harvin to be better.Among top 24 WRs, last year's most consistent by this measure were Mike Wallace (87.5%), Dez Bryant (86.7%) and Greg Jennings (84.6%), and the least consistent were Vincent Jackson (56.3%), Marques Colston (57.1%), and Andre Johnson (57.1%).

Right but the question is, is that predictive of this season or just a description of what happened last season (AJ playing hurt, etc)? Moreover how does that list differ from the ppg totals of last season- ie they scored more points total because they scored more points consistantly, in which case we know scoring total points is predictive of scoring points the next year and condistancy is baked in the cake.

 

[Statcruncher]

I went Clavin, Andre & AJ with my 1st 3 picks in the FBG FPC last night

From the 8th slot in a 12 teamer I went Calvin, Andre, & Brandon with my 1st 3 picks (we start 3 WR's). I never planned to and didn't want to, but as it unfolded my homemade VBD projections clearly pointed to the WR slot the first 3 times. In hindsight it worked out pretty well as the rest of league started gettting spooked and let me off the hook, leaving me some decent RB's and QB's as they started collecting WR's.I look at everyone else's WR's, and while they have potential, they'll be playing the "which ones do I start this week" all season long. Most have a WR capable of finishing top 10. Barring injury I have 3, and I won't have any problem at all selecting my starters.

 

[The Jerk]

I look at everyone else's WR's, and while they have potential, they'll be playing the "which ones do I start this week" all season long. Most have a WR capable of finishing top 10. Barring injury I have 3, and I won't have any problem at all selecting my starters.

And your opponents may not know which player is the top ten breakout until week 5. This year I actually went 2 RBs in the first three rounds for the first time in nearly ten seasons. But only because, like you, the value pointed that way. I have no problem loading up outside of RB early, although I try to be careful to watch what I am being left with as the rounds progress. You can wait too long and you can take it too far, but if you know who your safety net players are and by when they should be taken, it can work very well. And so can other strategies if the corresponding preparation is done.

 

[SSOG]

Another way to define consistency is: in what percentage of this player's games did he score at least 70% of his PPG average. For instance, Percy Harvin averaged 16.62 ppg last year in PPR, so we look at how many times he scored at least 11.63 pts (which is 16.62 x .7). He did it 12 times in 16 games - so, 75%.On average last year's top 24 WRs did it 70% of the time, and this measure was uncorrelated with points scored (at least among the top 24; WRs 25-40 were less consistent on the whole, I think because a lot of them had an inconsistent role/situation, like Torrey Smith & Demaryius Thomas). So that means you could use it to compare Harvin vs. Austin, even if you project Harvin to be better.Among top 24 WRs, last year's most consistent by this measure were Mike Wallace (87.5%), Dez Bryant (86.7%) and Greg Jennings (84.6%), and the least consistent were Vincent Jackson (56.3%), Marques Colston (57.1%), and Andre Johnson (57.1%).

I like that definition of consistency. I've seen others as well- percentage of points scored in his best two or three games, PPG divided by standard deviation, etc. I typically prefer the "number of quality performances" metric I mentioned earlier, because when most fantasy football owners talk about consistency, that's really what they're talking about- how likely (or unlikely) a player is to put up a goose egg and kill your week.

 

[ZWK]

Another way to define consistency is: in what percentage of this player's games did he score at least 70% of his PPG average. For instance, Percy Harvin averaged 16.62 ppg last year in PPR, so we look at how many times he scored at least 11.63 pts (which is 16.62 x .7). He did it 12 times in 16 games - so, 75%.

On average last year's top 24 WRs did it 70% of the time, and this measure was uncorrelated with points scored (at least among the top 24; WRs 25-40 were less consistent on the whole, I think because a lot of them had an inconsistent role/situation, like Torrey Smith & Demaryius Thomas). So that means you could use it to compare Harvin vs. Austin, even if you project Harvin to be better.

Among top 24 WRs, last year's most consistent by this measure were Mike Wallace (87.5%), Dez Bryant (86.7%) and Greg Jennings (84.6%), and the least consistent were Vincent Jackson (56.3%), Marques Colston (57.1%), and Andre Johnson (57.1%).

I like that definition of consistency. I've seen others as well- percentage of points scored in his best two or three games, PPG divided by standard deviation, etc. I typically prefer the "number of quality performances" metric I mentioned earlier, because when most fantasy football owners talk about consistency, that's really what they're talking about- how likely (or unlikely) a player is to put up a goose egg and kill your week.

The disadvantage of "number of quality performances" (with a fixed cutoff for a quality performance) is that the metric is so strongly related to performance that it's harder to use it for research (or bets). Using a sliding scale (70% of the player's own PPG) has a similar meaning, but keeps it relative to the player's overall performance so that you can just compare the numbers without having to keep accounting for PPG.And the sliding scale also matches people's intuitions pretty well, since a game that seems like a week-killing dud from your WR1 could seem okay if it's coming from your WR3. For example, Reggie Wayne might have been season-killing for you if you expected him to be your WR1, but the problem wasn't inconsistency and he usually wasn't week-killing if you had him as your WR3. DeSean Jackson finished next to Wayne in the standings (around 12 ppg in PPR); he was more likely than Wayne to give you solid WR2 numbers (he had more games than Wayne with 14+ points), but less likely to give you at least passable WR3/4 numbers (he also had more games with under 8 points). I think most people would say that Wayne was more consistent than Jackson, but you have to use a cutoff below their ppg average to match that intuition.

 

[SameSongNDance]

IMO, the OP addresses the first couple rounds and not the actual depth. The reason WRs are deeper this year is because once you get past the top 24 WRs taken off the boards (12-24 range being "WR2s") there are STILL a bunch of WR2s and high upside WR3s left on the board. Using FFcaluclator.com, after the top 24 you can find people like Dwayne Bowe, Stevie Johnson, Vincent Jackson, Reggie Wayne, Miles Austin and Pierre Garcon sitting in the 6th round. That's where the REAL depth lies.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

The issue is what positions are really deep? RB's are thin--charles--coming off an injury, adrian--coming off an injury, mjd--holdout, cj2k--what can we possibly expect from him, marshawn--back issues, michael turner and frank gore--looking slow as if they lost a step..etc. You mentioned the Wr's--I agree..they are thin too. Look at the tight end position--aside from the top 4-5 guys--there isn't much difference between them. Look at elite qb's--there are maybe 4-5 that are truly tier 1--and after that, there is a large group that perform at around a similar range. The fact of the matter is that there is no real over abundance of elite fantasy production in any of the positions. I think the key to building a successful team is to acquire as many studs on your team as you can (regardless of what position they play), and supplement them with players who are at least adequate to average everywhere else.

 

[I Am Rick James]

I have not read this entire thread but thought I would chime in. Last night we had our 10 team, standard format, start 2 rb, 3 wr league draft.I expected RB's to be more of a priority than in years past and planned to wait, wait , wait on WR (picking second)To my shock and horror, WR's went early and often like no year I had ever seenAfter 20 picks, here was the tally, 5 qb's, 5 rb's , 2 te's and 8 DAMN WR'S And the WR run didn't stop there, I ended up with Brandon Lloyd at the 42 spot as my #1WRNever saw this coming, but I still have the best team

It's possible that "upside down" drafting has gone mainstream to the point where it may now be overcorrecting the old bias on too many RBs going before stud WRs for much of the past decade. It always depends on league variables, of course. In general, zigging when others are zagging can be the best way to get value, as long as you're not reaching. Sounds like you did fine. I was surprised that I ended up with two top RBs in my first three picks for the first time since 2005.

I think this is a good explanation of what happened.Another explanation could be none of the other teams are FBG's and believe in a WR shortage

 

[Zeff]

If you think there's some sort of measure that predicts year N+1 consistency, then spit it out and we can see for ourselves whether it checks out. If you refuse to disclose, I'm just going to assume it's because, like every other one of your prediction heuristics so far, it's got the success rate of a coin flip. Either way, please quit wasting everyone's time with cryptic guessing games. TIA.

This doesn't really warrant a response. Perhaps when you can talk like a big boy we can have a big boy discussion.

This is like a performance art piece on what it looks like when a moron butts heads with an intellectual.

 

[SSOG]

If you think there's some sort of measure that predicts year N+1 consistency, then spit it out and we can see for ourselves whether it checks out. If you refuse to disclose, I'm just going to assume it's because, like every other one of your prediction heuristics so far, it's got the success rate of a coin flip. Either way, please quit wasting everyone's time with cryptic guessing games. TIA.

This doesn't really warrant a response. Perhaps when you can talk like a big boy we can have a big boy discussion.

This is like a performance art piece on what it looks like when a moron butts heads with an intellectual.

'HUCKS isn't a moron. He knows exactly what he's doing. His schtick is very precisely calibrated to elicit the exact response he desires. Truth be told, he's probably a pretty smart guy- just one who enjoys wasting people's time.

 

[SSOG]

The disadvantage of "number of quality performances" (with a fixed cutoff for a quality performance) is that the metric is so strongly related to performance that it's harder to use it for research (or bets). Using a sliding scale (70% of the player's own PPG) has a similar meaning, but keeps it relative to the player's overall performance so that you can just compare the numbers without having to keep accounting for PPG.

And the sliding scale also matches people's intuitions pretty well, since a game that seems like a week-killing dud from your WR1 could seem okay if it's coming from your WR3. For example, Reggie Wayne might have been season-killing for you if you expected him to be your WR1, but the problem wasn't inconsistency and he usually wasn't week-killing if you had him as your WR3. DeSean Jackson finished next to Wayne in the standings (around 12 ppg in PPR); he was more likely than Wayne to give you solid WR2 numbers (he had more games than Wayne with 14+ points), but less likely to give you at least passable WR3/4 numbers (he also had more games with under 8 points). I think most people would say that Wayne was more consistent than Jackson, but you have to use a cutoff below their ppg average to match that intuition.

I agree that it's a great metric, and think you could probably mine a lot of useful (or, at the least, interesting) information from it. It's certainly more interesting to me than the metric I use. As I said, though, the reason I use "quality starts" is one of clarity- when the average conversation about consistency comes up, the majority of the participants will be thinking about something like "quality starts", not something like standard deviation or number of games near ppg average. This is easily observed in the language used- talking about "inconsistent WRs" as ones who will kill you or who frequently put up a goose egg, while "consistent WRs" are guys who are very likely to at least get you decent numbers on a weekly basis. Go read the post that inspired my original post on consistency and notice the language used- it's the language of quality starts (lots of targets = fewer bad games = higher week-to-week consistency). People don't really care us much whether Calvin hovers around 20 points or whether he hovers around 15 and sprinkles in a couple of 30 point games. They're more interested in how frequently (or infrequently) he dips below 10 points. Likewise, no one cares if a WR puts up exactly 6 points every week- consistently unstartable is not what people mean when they say consistent.