What do you look for, PPG or Total Points? (1 Viewer)

[GroveDiesel]

I think this topic has wound its way through a number of threads this past summer and I think it's interesting. Perhaps a full discussion would have been more useful during draft time, but I think it's interesting now too as people start to deal with the reality of their choices as well.

The basic argument is on selecting guys based on their higher points per game potential versus guys on their steadier, but lower, total points potential.

I think this cropped up in 3 different ways:

1) Guys suspended to start the season like Josh Gordon/Blackmon

2) Guys hurt to begin the season like Gronk

3) Guys perceived as injury-prone

So what kind of guys do you target and prefer? Do you mix and match these guys? Go all in? What kind of benefit would you expect to get to get you to pull the trigger on one of those types?

 

[pizzatyme]

I want to "pencil in" points with my top 7 picks or so. This means I prefer total points there.

After that, I'm going for PPG heroes and "lottery tickets".

 

[Nucker101]

Combination of both. I use PPG and then plug in the projected missed games with the replacement baseline PPG. But once I have my starters all drafted(or bought), then it's all about PPG for my bench.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I assume you're referring to something like this;

Player A: Projected to play 16 games, score 200 total points (12.5 points per game)

Player B: Projected to play 12 games (because of suspension, injury like Gronk, etc), score 180 total points (15 points per game)

I don't see how you could argue that Player A is a better pick. Sure, at a glance he appears better on a total points basis, but you get to plug in someone else on those weeks that Player B doesn't play. I'll take the higher points per game and plan accordingly for weeks I know/expect he'll miss.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

This is one of the reasons VBD is so valuable in my mind, and why I've stopped bothering with point projections in favor of VBD projections - because neither season points nor PPG really paint an accurate picture in these cases.

I actually calculate two sets of VBD - the traditional metric, based on "highest non-starter" (so QB13, RB25, WR37, etc.) for my starters, and one based on "waiver wire equivalent" (which might be QB25 and RB61 in a 12-team league) for my bench. The former is more important for draft purposes, the latter more important for in-season management.

Standard VBD will immediately flag guys like Blackmon and Gordon as undervalued based on ADP - Blackmon will probably score about the same number of points in 12 games as Alshon Jeffery does in 16, but Blackmon is likely to deliver significant VBD where Jeffery is unlikely to (since your WR3 scoring won't be zero the four weeks JB is out - it'll be replacement-level, which is basically what Jeffery is expected to deliver anyway). Likewise, "waiver-wire VBD" would point to snaring Percy Harvin over a guy like Edelman or Nate Washington (assuming your benches aren't too shallow).

Gronk's ADP this year is about the highest part of the draft where I'll trust VBD over total points for the year (and that's only because it's Gronk, i.e. I stayed the hell away from Murray and D-Mac in the same ADP area). You can't pencil a guy who you'd take in the first 4-5 rounds for 4-5 missed games a season and still justify drafting him, even if he'll deliver slightly higher PPG - because subbing in replacement-level performance for your QB1 or WR1 starts you out in too deep a hole.

Draft-wise, I reserve the last 3-4 skill-position spots for pure low-probability, high-PPG plays - "lottery tickets" as mentioned above. In terms of in-season management, PPG / VBD is really only one aspect I consider in waiver pickups / trades - roster sizes, my team's outlook going forward, and general player movement (how often are players added / dropped / traded) have at least as much to do with my moves.

 

[Quibbler]

I assume you're referring to something like this;

Player A: Projected to play 16 games, score 200 total points (12.5 points per game)

Player B: Projected to play 12 games (because of suspension, injury like Gronk, etc), score 180 total points (15 points per game)

I don't see how you could argue that Player A is a better pick. Sure, at a glance he appears better on a total points basis, but you get to plug in someone else on those weeks that Player B doesn't play. I'll take the higher points per game and plan accordingly for weeks I know/expect he'll miss.

I generally agree. Player B + a waiver wire level replacement is worth more than Player A most of the time. But there are some exceptions, I think.

1) If you have short benches, carrying a replacement for the weeks where your star is out can be a serious problem, especially if its at a position where you don't normally have backups (for example, Gates + a 2nd TE, a few years back).

2) If Player B is always doubtful, rather than clearly in or out each week, it can be a real PITA to set your lineups.

3) If Player B misses time because he gets repeatedly injured in games, you might end up losing those weeks (same issue as inconsistent players).

 

[pizzatyme]

 

[Adam Harstad]

VBDPG. Points per game over baseline times games played.

 

[SameSongNDance]

VBDPG. Points per game over baseline times games played.

This is correct.

 

[Ilov80s]

It depends what you are using it for. Overall, I like PPG is better, I don't think you should focus on anyone stat. They all need to be taken into consideration.