Who would you rather have... (1 Viewer)

[moleculo]

above are hypothetical stats for two hypothetical WR's to try to sort out some thoughts here. Both WR's are projected to have the same fantasy points in this scoring system, but they get their points differently. A gets his points from TD's mostly, whereas B gets his points from receptions and yards.

I have my preference as to which one I like more, but I'm open to consider that others might have a different choice. Regardless, draft dominator/VBD app/whatever tool you use will rate these guys equally - should they be?

 

[Statcruncher]

Personally I prefer yardage over TD's. IMO TD's are more luck than yards. I'm also biased as my league has yardage bonuses, so it's possible the yardage guy actually outscores the other guy anyway.

 

[moleculo]

Personally I prefer yardage over TD's. IMO TD's are more luck than yards. I'm also biased as my league has yardage bonuses, so it's possible the yardage guy actually outscores the other guy anyway.

yeah, for the purposes of this exercise, let's assume no yardage bonuses.

 

[Statcruncher]

Personally I prefer yardage over TD's. IMO TD's are more luck than yards. I'm also biased as my league has yardage bonuses, so it's possible the yardage guy actually outscores the other guy anyway.

yeah, for the purposes of this exercise, let's assume no yardage bonuses.

I still would prefer yardage over TD's.

 

[Itchy Amos]

I prefer steadily good to boom or bust. If I knew those stat lines going in, I'd take the 1,100 & 6 TD every single time.

 

[Deamon]

above are hypothetical stats for two hypothetical WR's to try to sort out some thoughts here. Both WR's are projected to have the same fantasy points in this scoring system, but they get their points differently. A gets his points from TD's mostly, whereas B gets his points from receptions and yards.I have my preference as to which one I like more, but I'm open to consider that others might have a different choice. Regardless, draft dominator/VBD app/whatever tool you use will rate these guys equally - should they be?

I'm not sure I understand the 'which you'd rather have' part... wouldn't it be the exact same assuming one scoring format?

 

[cheese]

above are hypothetical stats for two hypothetical WR's to try to sort out some thoughts here. Both WR's are projected to have the same fantasy points in this scoring system, but they get their points differently. A gets his points from TD's mostly, whereas B gets his points from receptions and yards.I have my preference as to which one I like more, but I'm open to consider that others might have a different choice. Regardless, draft dominator/VBD app/whatever tool you use will rate these guys equally - should they be?

I'm not sure I understand the 'which you'd rather have' part... wouldn't it be the exact same assuming one scoring format?

I think he's essentially asking if you have a preference between rather a guy's points are more spread out or bunched together in a few big weeks. Generally, there is an assumption that yardage guys are more balanced than players who rely on TDs.

 

[Deamon]

above are hypothetical stats for two hypothetical WR's to try to sort out some thoughts here. Both WR's are projected to have the same fantasy points in this scoring system, but they get their points differently. A gets his points from TD's mostly, whereas B gets his points from receptions and yards.I have my preference as to which one I like more, but I'm open to consider that others might have a different choice. Regardless, draft dominator/VBD app/whatever tool you use will rate these guys equally - should they be?

I'm not sure I understand the 'which you'd rather have' part... wouldn't it be the exact same assuming one scoring format?

I think he's essentially asking if you have a preference between rather a guy's points are more spread out or bunched together in a few big weeks. Generally, there is an assumption that yardage guys are more balanced than players who rely on TDs.

Ah ok that sorta makes sense. The yardage guy could have some monstar 200 yard games though so it doesn't necessarily mean it will be more consistent, but I do get your point. I'd probably take consistency if it was going to be your starter. If it's a bench guy then maybe the TD's since you're plugging him in here or there.

 

[moleculo]

above are hypothetical stats for two hypothetical WR's to try to sort out some thoughts here. Both WR's are projected to have the same fantasy points in this scoring system, but they get their points differently. A gets his points from TD's mostly, whereas B gets his points from receptions and yards.

I have my preference as to which one I like more, but I'm open to consider that others might have a different choice. Regardless, draft dominator/VBD app/whatever tool you use will rate these guys equally - should they be?

I'm not sure I understand the 'which you'd rather have' part... wouldn't it be the exact same assuming one scoring format?

I think he's essentially asking if you have a preference between rather a guy's points are more spread out or bunched together in a few big weeks. Generally, there is an assumption that yardage guys are more balanced than players who rely on TDs.

There are three things at play here:1. week to week consistency. IMO a yardage guy will be more consistent week to week, but the TD guy is more likely to have monster games.

2. week-to-week uncertainty: you don't know when those monster games are. suppose player B has two games with 3 TD's, and nada the rest of the season. Problem is, you don't know when those big games are going to happen, and it will drive you crazy trying to predict. Look at Vincnet Jackson's games from last year: 5.1, 39.2, 11.4, 19.8, 6.4, B, 2.5, 7.9, 39.1, 3.2, 29.5, 4.5, 17.2, 10.5, 12.3, 6.1. After week 4, he puts up 6.4, bye, 2.5, 7.9. At this point, you are frustruated with him not producing, so you bench him. He then scores 39.1, so you start him the following week, and collect 3.2...back to the bench. Of course, he follows that up with 29.5, so you start him the following week, only to see 4.5.

3. pre-season projection uncertainty: IMO TDs are harder to accurately project than yards, because they are large chunks of FF points that are quite random. IMO much less uncertainty in projecting yards. TD's are very binary - the difference between 0 & 6 points for your fantasy team could be an inch of field position, or a 2nd foot in bounds, or the ref interpreting a spike as not maintaining control of the ball through the catch.

That's all part of what i'm getting at; this thread is a continuation of thoughts from this previous thread.

 

[Cato]

For the reasons mentioned above, rule of thumb or intuitively I prefer when the yards divided by 100 are greater then # of touchdowns scored.

ie 1100/100 = 11 > greater then 6.

900/100 = 9 < lesser then 11.

Gross over simplification, and I won't discard Calvin Johnson if he has 20 TDs on 1600 yards. But rather my WR be contributing regardless of potential TDs, which seems to cluster points. (and more boom/bust and less predictable year over year.) See Dwayne Bowe.

Hmmm... if I had more time, wonder if ranking wise, the yardage based scorer stays more consistent year over year as well... (as well as more consistent week to week.)

 

[moleculo]

Hmmm... if I had more time, wonder if ranking wise, the yardage based scorer stays more consistent year over year as well... (as well as more consistent week to week.)

I played a little with some numbers here. I examined WR's in 2011 who scored more than 1 TD and played in more than 1 game. I compared linear regressions between TD scored, yards, and catches vs year-end score and standard deviation.TD scored has a relatively low correlation to standard deviation (week to week consistency), which is the opposite of what I expected to find. I think that's because standard deviation is correlated to overall score, so it's hard to make this work.

Interestingly though, yards and catches are very closely coorelated to overall score (R2 = 0.96 and 0.91, respectively), which is what one would expect. TD's though - still correlated but a weaker relationship (R2 = 0.71).

I suppose where I'm going with this is that TD's scored has a smaller impact on end of year points than catches or yards. If it's true that TD's are tougher to project, we would be better off ignoring TD's when plugging in league data into Draft Dominator...or, if not ignoring, at least minimizing TD impact.

My Proposal: If your league awards 6 points per TD, enter in 3 in draft dominator (or VBD spreadsheet). This will guide you to select players who's ranking is less dependent on TD scoring, and therefore is more likely to hit their projections.

 

[da_budman]

I know this is more about drafting/owning a particular player but as it relates to starting a player it depends on how good I think my team is versus the competition, especially at playoff time. For example, If I have to choose between 2 guys who are ranked pretty similar I choose to start the yardage guy if I think I'm the favorite in the game and the boom or bust TD guy if I think the other guy is the favorite. If you are the underdog you need more variance and the favorite, less variance.

 

[Kleck]

With the information provided, I'd go with B. I too prefer a more involved WR in the receptions and yards categories.

 

[Ryan99]

Hmmm... if I had more time, wonder if ranking wise, the yardage based scorer stays more consistent year over year as well... (as well as more consistent week to week.)

I played a little with some numbers here. I examined WR's in 2011 who scored more than 1 TD and played in more than 1 game. I compared linear regressions between TD scored, yards, and catches vs year-end score and standard deviation.TD scored has a relatively low correlation to standard deviation (week to week consistency), which is the opposite of what I expected to find. I think that's because standard deviation is correlated to overall score, so it's hard to make this work.

Interestingly though, yards and catches are very closely coorelated to overall score (R2 = 0.96 and 0.91, respectively), which is what one would expect. TD's though - still correlated but a weaker relationship (R2 = 0.71).

I suppose where I'm going with this is that TD's scored has a smaller impact on end of year points than catches or yards. If it's true that TD's are tougher to project, we would be better off ignoring TD's when plugging in league data into Draft Dominator...or, if not ignoring, at least minimizing TD impact.

My Proposal: If your league awards 6 points per TD, enter in 3 in draft dominator (or VBD spreadsheet). This will guide you to select players who's ranking is less dependent on TD scoring, and therefore is more likely to hit their projections.

There's a problem with this. The reason that TDs are less correlated with total points is because TDs comprise a smaller portion of the total points than yards do. If a receiver has 1000/8, he's getting 100 points from yards and only 48 from tds. Almost all receivers will have a larger share of their points coming from yards than from TDs. But that doesn't mean TDs are more variable than yards (although I suspect they are).I think what you want to do is look at how the points from both yards and TDs are spread out throughout the year. You may find a lot of 'clumping' with TDs, but that could also happen with yards. It wouldn't surprise me if there are guys that are pretty consistent with their TD production (no 3 TD games, not long stretches with no TDs) and also guys with highly variable yardage output (a Desean Jackson type).

A standard way of doing this is to calculate the autocorrelation of the game by game yardage or TD data. Basically, the autocorrelation would tell you how clumpy (or spread out) the data is. If you have game by game data, actually doing the calculation shouldn't be too hard.

 

[Cato]

My Proposal: If your league awards 6 points per TD, enter in 3 in draft dominator (or VBD spreadsheet). This will guide you to select players who's ranking is less dependent on TD scoring, and therefore is more likely to hit their projections.

Interesting. The more consistent a player is yardage wise, I assume it means the more involved they are towards all facets of the game. ie chain moving, deep threat, catch up mode, goal line, etc, ie they are a key cog offense wise. Thinking of Larry Fitzgerald, I guess. This thought helps support why a 3 down RB is preferred, even if the team is losing they may be part of the passing catch up mode. Or a 3 down LB, etc.) They will be gathering points regardless of game situation. Not saying to blindly use the rankings spit out, using your proposal, but do wonder if one were to diminish the big plays for sacks in an IDP environment, you would find your high floor players as well. If one could use the same approach for different player types then WR. (shouldn't ignore the high ceiling players either, this approach would just help highlight them.)

Probably the player who stays high in yardage/big play/ppr or non-ppr rankings, is nearly bullet proof. (Calvin Johnson comes to mind.)

I do like the thought process of changing a stat category and seeing who moves up or down to see their dependence on yardage, reception or TDs.

Will need to reflect on how I quantify this moving forward, but definitely a good thought exercise.

Personally, would definitely lean towards the players, with high floor (and ceiling) and stay involved in all game phases. (never drafted you Michael Turner for this reason.) I suppose if one put TDs to 9 for argument's sake, you could also filter out who has a low ceiling.

I definitely need to put more thought here..

 

[Ryan99]

My Proposal: If your league awards 6 points per TD, enter in 3 in draft dominator (or VBD spreadsheet). This will guide you to select players who's ranking is less dependent on TD scoring, and therefore is more likely to hit their projections.

I suppose if one put TDs to 9 for argument's sake, you could also filter out who has a low ceiling.

All you're doing is pushing high and low TD guys up or down the list. Unless you know the relative reliability of TD vs yardage projections, this doesn't tell you anything about a guy's floor, the likelihood of him getting a certain number of points, etc. One option for doing this is looking at the variability in a guy's historic TD and yardage production. Another is to look at multiple projections of the same player and calculate the variance of the yardage and TDs.I haven't looked at his numbers, but one example of a guy who might be low variance TDs, high variance yardage is Gronkowski. I'm pretty sure Brady will get his; those TDs have to go somewhere and Gronk is the best target. But with the new weapons and Belichick constantly staying 2 steps ahead of the competition, I could see Gronk getting targeted a lot less between the 20s. At the very least he's going to get keyed in on by opposing defenses.

 

[moleculo]

My Proposal: If your league awards 6 points per TD, enter in 3 in draft dominator (or VBD spreadsheet). This will guide you to select players who's ranking is less dependent on TD scoring, and therefore is more likely to hit their projections.

I suppose if one put TDs to 9 for argument's sake, you could also filter out who has a low ceiling.

All you're doing is pushing high and low TD guys up or down the list. Unless you know the relative reliability of TD vs yardage projections, this doesn't tell you anything about a guy's floor, the likelihood of him getting a certain number of points, etc. One option for doing this is looking at the variability in a guy's historic TD and yardage production. Another is to look at multiple projections of the same player and calculate the variance of the yardage and TDs.I haven't looked at his numbers, but one example of a guy who might be low variance TDs, high variance yardage is Gronkowski. I'm pretty sure Brady will get his; those TDs have to go somewhere and Gronk is the best target. But with the new weapons and Belichick constantly staying 2 steps ahead of the competition, I could see Gronk getting targeted a lot less between the 20s. At the very least he's going to get keyed in on by opposing defenses.

I believe that yard projections are more reliable than TD projections. I'm having a hard time quantifying that though.to look at variability of yards vs TD production, we need game by game data, which isn't something that I have easy access to. Multiple projections - that's something that I do have. let me see if I can come up with something.

 

[Cato]

My Proposal: If your league awards 6 points per TD, enter in 3 in draft dominator (or VBD spreadsheet). This will guide you to select players who's ranking is less dependent on TD scoring, and therefore is more likely to hit their projections.

I suppose if one put TDs to 9 for argument's sake, you could also filter out who has a low ceiling.

All you're doing is pushing high and low TD guys up or down the list. Unless you know the relative reliability of TD vs yardage projections, this doesn't tell you anything about a guy's floor, the likelihood of him getting a certain number of points, etc. One option for doing this is looking at the variability in a guy's historic TD and yardage production. Another is to look at multiple projections of the same player and calculate the variance of the yardage and TDs.I haven't looked at his numbers, but one example of a guy who might be low variance TDs, high variance yardage is Gronkowski. I'm pretty sure Brady will get his; those TDs have to go somewhere and Gronk is the best target. But with the new weapons and Belichick constantly staying 2 steps ahead of the competition, I could see Gronk getting targeted a lot less between the 20s. At the very least he's going to get keyed in on by opposing defenses.

From this,is the thought,that it's more player specific? DeSean Jackson, high variance yardage, high variance TDs. Maybe the more consistent player is the one with low variance in at least one category, either yards or TDs. I still think I prefer the low variance yardage scorer, secondly the low variance TD scorer and thirdly the high variance yardage and high variance TD scorer, unless one has predictability on when their high yardage or high TD scoring would happen, one would never really know when to start them and never benefit from that outburst.

Dwayne Bowe for example is someone who had high TD scoring, which may have been a product of a soft pass schedule a couple of years ago. Recognizing that and regressing his TDs to the mean, would likely have led to a clearer picture of his value moving forward.

Maybe removing players who feasted on soft defenses or have uncertain offensive usage, and therefore may have high variance in both yardage and/or TDs should be excluded. (**feasted on soft defenses... DeMarco Murray for example.)

I recognize Gronk should have low variance in his red zone usage, and his value may anchor on that point, but if the running game really clicked and Ridley stopped fumbling, (in theory), Gronk's red zone usage is more susceptible to diminish, then a continual chain mover.

Starting to see this as a useful thought exercise, but it may be more player specific, then a general stat approach potentially.

Either category could be highly variable, though still leary of players who rely a great deal on TD value for their point total. Haven't crunched the numbers but thinking yardage is somewhat consistent year over year.

Back to the OP's point. Prefer the 100/1100/6 TD player over the 90/900/11 TD player. Feels like a more consistent player and one I'm less likely to bench, potentially.