WRs: Are targets more important than receptions? (1 Viewer)

[SSOG]

If you continuously catch a low percentage of passes, it doesn't matter how many times you get targetted.

True. And if you never get any targets, it doens't matter what percentage of them you catch. The question is whether targets or catch rate seems to be more stable from year to year, and the answer appears to be targets, at least for guys who are prominently featured in their offense.

How do you come to this conclusion?The catch percentage seems to be very consistent for Wrs to me.

He wasn't saying that the catch% was volatile, he was saying that WRs with high targets held their value better than WRs with high catch%. A WR with a 60% catch% in year N might have a 60% catch% in year N+1, but if he loses 6 TDs, his fantasy value is going to drop.

 

[KevT]

If you continuously catch a low percentage of passes, it doesn't matter how many times you get targetted.

If you had a low catch % wouldn't more targets = more catches?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If you continuously catch a low percentage of passes, it doesn't matter how many times you get targetted.

True. And if you never get any targets, it doens't matter what percentage of them you catch. The question is whether targets or catch rate seems to be more stable from year to year, and the answer appears to be targets, at least for guys who are prominently featured in their offense.

How do you come to this conclusion?The catch percentage seems to be very consistent for Wrs to me.

He wasn't saying that the catch% was volatile, he was saying that WRs with high targets held their value better than WRs with high catch%. A WR with a 60% catch% in year N might have a 60% catch% in year N+1, but if he loses 6 TDs, his fantasy value is going to drop.

Actually, I didn't consider TDs at all. Just yards per game.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

One thing that occured to me that I kept meaning to point out... We are only looking at data over the span of two years. We need to look at several years of data.

If you could run this with about 10-15 years worth of data, it would probably reveal a bit more.

 

[tmc94]

The top gainers in yards/game from 2004 to 2005 (among WRs with over 50 targets in 2004) were Larry Fitzgerald, Joey Galloway, Anquan Boldin, and Santana Moss. These four really stood out from the crowd --

With such a small sample group, we should be careful drawing easy conclusions. Let's take a look at each situation.

Very true, and I certainly wasn't drawing conclusions from four guys, though. I used samples of 40 and 73 guys -- still on the small side, but better. The four I named were in response to KRS's question; they were not the basis for any more generalized conclusions.

Realize MT I didn't mean to be critical at all. I think the analysis here is awesome if for no other reason than it made me think about it. I know you weren't drawing conclusions but the people responding to you were. And I agree with KRS that seeing a lot more data points on this would be very nice. I know there is something to this, but I'm not sure what exactly yet.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If you could run this with about 10-15 years worth of data, it would probably reveal a bit more.

I agree, but target data doesn't go back that far in any format I can use. (It may be in the gamebooks going back that far, but I can't parse it out except by hand.)

 

[Biabreakable]

I was looking for somting else (Drinen's historical career comparison study, this thread does not exist anymore?) but this is an interesting topic that I think still needs more discussion.

Look at Chris Chambers.