Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

So What Are You Doing About Measurements? Which Ones Are Your Keys To Success In General?


Recommended Posts

So we have a problem this year, Houston. Those of us that look to forty times, speed scores, burst scores and things like that are having some problems getting that extra information in their cap this year.

What are you guys doing about it? How much stock do you put in them? And which ones (be specific) if you do?

I think instead of endlessly debating it in player threads where good nuggets of wisdom might be lost, I figured I'd start this and consolidate those feelings/attitudes/etc.

We'll see if this takes off.

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'll start. I look at good speed and burst scores per Player Profiler.

Here's an idea of what a good speed score is:

The average running back who makes it to the NFL will have a Speed Score around 100.0, with most prospects at the position falling between 85.0 and 110.0. Speed Score measures speed in the context of strength and power. It doesn't measure agility, receiving ability, or any of the other aspects related to the position.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/speed-score-2020

Speed Score – Bill Barnwell first posited the metric in Pro Football Prospectus to better predict running back success. The formula is (weight*200) / (40-time^4). It factors weight into a player’s 40-yard dash time assigning a premium to fast times run by bigger, often stronger, running backs.

Burst Score is a measurement of broad and high jump. Any value over 130 is considered extraordinary. I have yet to find the NFL average or median:

Similar in concept to Agility Score, Burst Score sums a player's Vertical Jump height and Broad Jump distance. Additionally, the metric is calibrated to give Vertical Jump and Broad Jump equal weight.

Here's an interesting article about BMI (height/weight) and fantasy success from Football Outsiders

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/projection-points/2020/running-back-growth-potential-starts-size

As for generalized ideas and working theories about what makes a good fantasy back, check these out.

Here's a metric that looks at speed, burst, and target rate:

https://www.playerprofiler.com/article/cam-akers-fantasy-football-ranking-stats-profile-rb-does-matter-in-dynasty/

Here's a good start for something called Z score, created by David Zach, which uses some subjective measurements in addition to testing.

https://www.fantasypros.com/2020/04/predicting-rookie-running-back-success-post-nfl-draft-2020-fantasy-football/

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

1. What team drafted him.

2. In what round.

Included (including the opportunity ahead of them on their teams) in Z score, which quantifies that in more precise terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Leroy Hoard said:

Cup size.

Travis Etienne just got pissed at you all the way from South Carolina.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IHEARTFF said:

accept their pro day measures with a discount on times

 

What sort of discount are you looking at?

And do you know of a website aggregating pro times within reason for free? Just curious if you do. If not, no biggie. I was hoping to get some information that, too, though I suppose I can also look and will do so when I get a minute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Not saying the combine / pro days don’t have their value, but I prefer my players in pads rather than shorts.

I think everyone does, but I know what you're saying and its implications, too. Football speed is different than raw track speed. Stops, starts, slowing down at the right time, accelerating at the right time, all those things go into functional speed and evasiveness, and stuff like slowing down to three-quarters and then speeding up is not measureable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Kislingury of DLF and a Twitter follow of mine asserts today that there is no correlation between forty speed times and yards per touch at the NFL level. I'd argue that he's forgetting to say (and only forgetting to say) there is a baseline forty, really, but that those within the acceptable range see no correlation between their times and yards per touch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rockaction said:

What sort of discount are you looking at?

And do you know of a website aggregating pro times within reason for free? Just curious if you do. If not, no biggie. I was hoping to get some information that, too, though I suppose I can also look and will do so when I get a minute.

+.05 to all timed drills

I don't know of anyone aggregating it all for us

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IHEARTFF said:

+.05 to all timed drills

I don't know of anyone aggregating it all for us

Thanks. Maybe we (I might start, depends how motivated I am) can start a thread for main measurements put in Google Docs or something. I'd have to figure out how to make that public and stuff. Okay. Or just a list in a dedicated thread, maybe. We'll see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's bad time for a player I like, I ignore it. If it's a good time for a player I like, I count it twice. 

 

Seriously though, I think we have to try and balance what is reported with what we see on tape, how the player seemed to perform and try to get an understanding of who the player is. Their performance in college and ability to hit basic thresholds is most important. Something like 4.45 vs 4.50 vs 4.55 is really only in play for me to sort within a tier, not create new tiers. 

Edited by Ilov80s
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, IHEARTFF said:

+.05 to all timed drills

I don't know of anyone aggregating it all for us

If you think the "real times" at the Combine are accurate to within 0.05, I'll sell you a bridge that I've got laying around.

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been putting together a spreadsheet, starting with the numbers reported in the PFF tracker and adding 40 times from other sources like draftscout. I'm planning to do some number crunching at some point to get a better sense of how these numbers hold up vs the combine - my current guess is that the data quality is just a little worse than what we'd get from a combine.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not knowledgeable enough to make decisions on measurements. But I do pay attention when NFL teams may over/under draft someone based on measurements - and said measurements may not be consistent with a player’s potential  based on scouting reports and other info out there.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some things I've seen from 40 times so far:

On average, the 40 times that wind up appearing on draftscout have been .027 slower than the times from initial reports (by places like PFF, NBC Edge, and The Athletic).

Fusue Vue has estimated some 40 times by counting frames on the video & posting those on Twitter. On average, those have been .054 slower than initial reports.

The widest range of reported 40 times have been for Isaiah McKoy (4.49-4.68), Mac Jones (4.68-4.86), and Miller Forristall (4.80-4.95).

Discrepancies cluster by team. Draftscout was much slower than initial reports for the Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Michigan pro days, Fusue Vue was much slower than draftscout & initial reports for the Penn State pro day, and Alabama times are unusually all-over-the-place.

Reported 3 cone & short shuttle times are usually identical across all outlets (with a few exceptions, like Quinn Meinerz). I think this is because people don't care as much about those events, so they're content to just run with whatever time gets reported rather than making their own attempt to get a number. So those numbers are probably less accurate.

Edited by ZWK
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With the analytics now, there are minimums across positions.  

If a DE cannot hit such and such a 3 cone, chances are he's not special.  (By the way, there are some special athletes at EDGE).  If a WR is 180 lbs, he better run faster than such and such,  

I think it's easier to rely on the film now, once you have established that a player is in the range of historical success.  Eliminate a player from any of these analytic black holes, and then go by performance, and how his game translates.  

The true freak athletes, they are easy to overrate.  I'm always nervous of the toolsy, didn't do it in college, but oh man, if he puts it together with some coaching-type guys.  If a guy is within the an acceptable range athletically, and played better football than the freak athlete, that's when measurements vs. production gets you in trouble.  But, there are minimums that historically point to success, or failure.  If you are a 190-lb RB, and you run 4.65, that's a real problem.  There are always going to be players that buck the outliers, but the film-over-workouts crowd needs to understand that the difference between this argument now and 20 years ago is that NOW we have real data that tells us if you don't hit these minimums, NFL success is a longshot..  

Underrated analytics is age.  Was a player the man from day 1 on campus, or did he blossom as a 4th year JR?  

Edited by massraider
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Foosball God said:

I almost never pay attention to that stuff.  I focus more on what they've done on the field and against what kind of competition.

While running a 4.6 and you're under 210 lbs would raise a red flag for me, there are a lot of other factors that come into play for me when evaluating RBs.  Such as vision, yards after contact, breakout age, ability in the passing game.  I also believe fantasy players don't put enough stock into draft capital.  The past has clearly shown there is a direct correlation between DC and NFL success.  Sure, there are outliers, but I'd rather bet on the norm than outliers.  For dynasty I think you have to factor in age of a RB, because if your team won't compete for another 2 or 3 years, by the time you are ready to compete, that RB will be 26 or 27 and that's not where you want him to be.

Edited by JohnnyU
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, zamboni said:

I’m not knowledgeable enough to make decisions on measurements. But I do pay attention when NFL teams may over/under draft someone based on measurements - and said measurements may not be consistent with a player’s potential  based on scouting reports and other info out there.

I am somewhat similar, bad times allow me to eliminate or discount certain players (Laquon Treadwell was taken off my list completely for example.) Workout warriors that blow things away that have a disconnect with their production on the field I tend to shy away from. I occasionally miss out on guys that are physical freaks or outliers but I avoid a lot of outright busts this way too.

Edited by Buckna
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, massraider said:

With the analytics now, there are minimums across positions.  

If a DE cannot hit such and such a 3 cone, chances are he's not special.  (By the way, there are some special athletes at EDGE).  If a WR is 180 lbs, he better run faster than such and such,  

I think it's easier to rely on the film now, once you have established that a player is in the range of historical success.  Eliminate a player from any of these analytic black holes, and then go by performance, and how his game translates.  

The true freak athletes, they are easy to overrate.  I'm always nervous of the toolsy, didn't do it in college, but oh man, if he puts it together with some coaching-type guys.  If a guy is within the an acceptable range athletically, and played better football than the freak athlete, that's when measurements vs. production gets you in trouble.  But, there are minimums that historically point to success, or failure.  If you are a 190-lb RB, and you run 4.65, that's a real problem.  There are always going to be players that buck the outliers, but the film-over-workouts crowd needs to understand that the difference between this argument now and 20 years ago is that NOW we have real data that tells us if you don't hit these minimums, NFL success is a longshot..  

Underrated analytics is age.  Was a player the man from day 1 on campus, or did he blossom as a 4th year JR?  

Great post up to and including the age part. The minimums are what I want to see. The cutoffs. I personally don't want guys that even skate too close to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rockaction said:

Great post up to and including the age part. The minimums are what I want to see. The cutoffs. I personally don't want guys that even skate too close to them.

This biggest thing this forum is missing is a good analytics thread.  Maybe you and I can do this.

The key, in my mind, is to keep the first post updated with the metrics we come up with, maybe a link to a Google Sheet.  

Because every year, there's a new metric, and we will spend 20 pages arguing over it, but someone new should be able to come into the thread, read the first page, and understand about speed score, breakout age, etc.  You and I could probably talk for 20 minutes, and come up with a Ten Commandments no one would argue with.  (EDGE/3 cone drill, etc.).  The stuff that no one would really dispute.  

Plus, every year, I feel like a come across a good metric, expecially for QBs, and then lose it, lol.  What site what was that? Whose Twitter feed?  I need a Table of Contents.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, massraider said:

This biggest thing this forum is missing is a good analytics thread.  Maybe you and I can do this.

The key, in my mind, is to keep the first post updated with the metrics we come up with, maybe a link to a Google Sheet.  

Because every year, there's a new metric, and we will spend 20 pages arguing over it, but someone new should be able to come into the thread, read the first page, and understand about speed score, breakout age, etc.  You and I could probably talk for 20 minutes, and come up with a Ten Commandments no one would argue with.  (EDGE/3 cone drill, etc.).  The stuff that no one would really dispute.  

Plus, every year, I feel like a come across a good metric, expecially for QBs, and then lose it, lol.  What site what was that? Whose Twitter feed?  I need a Table of Contents.  

The boldface is how I feel.

i think it would be a good idea to do the metrics thread. I might give that a whirl. I think you're right about the introduction/first page. That would be a perfect place to effectively "pin" the important metrics so that it becomes a quick reference guide. I might just copy/paste what I've started here to the top of this one and let it function as a metrics thread.

As for the actual detailed information on the page, I'm not sure I even quite fully understand breakout age for WRs and dominator ratings for RBs yet. BMI for receivers. All that stuff. I know which sites to check for the check mark, check the percentage, and I know when they nod their approval, but I can't recite off-hand what the numbers are behind what qualifies as success in fantasy in the NFL. By success I'm generally thinking Top 12 or 24 finishes for each position, position-dependent.

But I'll get to it as the weeks go by. This could be a boon for a bunch of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been covered by others but I generally agree with the sentiment that metrics are to be used to identify things like outliers and not meeting minimum qualifications. Most of them don't move the needle and just result in a box being checked, but there is more variance to consider with small school/low sample size types. 

Generally, I think it's a good thing to establish a starting point early in silly season (January-ish) then create a prelim board as we go into peak silly season (now-ish). The hard part is not messing with that board over the next month. Leave it as is. Soak in information, but resist editing that board. Then on the other side of the draft re-visit it based on what transpired over the last month and where players were actually selected.

I think this method leads to better decisions as you don't fall victim with the tempest that is (mis)information overload this time of year yo-yo'ing players all over the board throughout April.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zed2283 said:

Can't they use nextgen stats to time 40s? Seems pretty clear.

As in they could put a GPS tracker when they run at the pro day or as in using existing data from games/practices?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

As in they could put a GPS tracker when they run at the pro day or as in using existing data from games/practices?

GPS tracker at combine or pro day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more important metrics aren't the work out numbers. I am kind of assuming every player's timed numbers are a little hot compared to what they would be at the combine. These numbers are ranges as well. If a player runs a 40 yard dash 4x a day for 3 weeks, they are going to get several different times just based on small factors like sleep schedule,rest, what they ate, when they ate it, hydration level, small changes in form, etc. I am sure anyone who has ran or lifted knows there are days where for whatever reason, you just struggle more than usual. Then there are days you surprise yourself. Often that isn't even something you expect before you start. So if someone runs a 4.43 at their pro day, I am saying they probably have 4.40-4.50 speed. That is likely a fair window to say where they measure up. Looking at them more like letter grades almost. A WR in the 4.3s has A level speed, 4.4s B level, 4.5s C level, 4.6D level but even that needs some adjusting for size and playstyle. I think just understanding that these times represent a range and a grouping is the important part. Also each player is their own puzzle so things should be factored differently. 4.4 speed is great but when the player is also 155 pounds, that combo is a red flag for me and I won't have Tutu Atwell as high as onfield metrics or draft capital might say I should. 

Edited by Ilov80s
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zed2283 said:

GPS tracker at combine or pro day.

Yeah, not sure why that isn't done. Seems like a pretty easy surefire solution. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, zed2283 said:

GPS tracker at combine or pro day.

I've just read about this for the first time this season, but yeah, we are close as fans to getting access to in game speed numbers, and really, isn't that the speed number we really want??

I think with WRs it will be great, but with RB, I think it'll be better.  If we are seeing 4.55 guys get to top speed right away, within a yard or two of the LOS, and the 4.4 guy needs a runway to get going, it will really help us in setting up our dynasty boards.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, massraider said:

I've just read about this for the first time this season, but yeah, we are close as fans to getting access to in game speed numbers, and really, isn't that the speed number we really want??

I think with WRs it will be great, but with RB, I think it'll be better.  If we are seeing 4.55 guys get to top speed right away, within a yard or two of the LOS, and the 4.4 guy needs a runway to get going, it will really help us in setting up our dynasty boards.  

Here is the issue with in game GPS data:

1. The teams are very unlikely to release it to the public

2. It becomes difficult to make real apples to apples comparisons

3. It's going to be an overwhelming amount of data to sort through and eliminate the noise to find something usable 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2021 at 7:28 PM, ZWK said:

Some things I've seen from 40 times so far:

On average, the 40 times that wind up appearing on draftscout have been .027 slower than the times from initial reports (by places like PFF, NBC Edge, and The Athletic).

Fusue Vue has estimated some 40 times by counting frames on the video & posting those on Twitter. On average, those have been .054 slower than initial reports.

The widest range of reported 40 times have been for Isaiah McKoy (4.49-4.68), Mac Jones (4.68-4.86), and Miller Forristall (4.80-4.95).

Discrepancies cluster by team. Draftscout was much slower than initial reports for the Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Michigan pro days, Fusue Vue was much slower than draftscout & initial reports for the Penn State pro day, and Alabama times are unusually all-over-the-place.

Reported 3 cone & short shuttle times are usually identical across all outlets (with a few exceptions, like Quinn Meinerz). I think this is because people don't care as much about those events, so they're content to just run with whatever time gets reported rather than making their own attempt to get a number. So those numbers are probably less accurate.

Draftscout 40 times are about .01 faster than last year's combine average, so far. So basically no adjustment needed.

Initial reports (by places like PFF, NBC Edge, and The Athletic) are about .04 faster than last year's average.

The rest of the drills.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2021 at 8:46 AM, JohnnyU said:

While running a 4.6 and you're under 210 lbs would raise a red flag for me, there are a lot of other factors that come into play for me when evaluating RBs.  Such as vision, yards after contact, breakout age, ability in the passing game.  I also believe fantasy players don't put enough stock into draft capital.  The past has clearly shown there is a direct correlation between DC and NFL success.  Sure, there are outliers, but I'd rather bet on the norm than outliers.  For dynasty I think you have to factor in age of a RB, because if your team won't compete for another 2 or 3 years, by the time you are ready to compete, that RB will be 26 or 27 and that's not where you want him to be.

This is a great post, especially the bolded.

People decide they love a college player.  When he goes in the 5th round, they make fun of the NFL.  And dig in their heels about how great their guy is going to be.  

The NFL is going to get it right more often than not.  If you bet on Draft capital, you're going to be right more often than not.  If you're betting on the NFL getting it wrong--you'll find the occasional exception--but you'll also have a ton of misses.  For every late round star, there's tons of late round guys whose career never saw the light of day.  

I'm sure there's a cut-off point.  Is a 6th round pick much less likely to succeed than a 5th rounder?  I don't know.   

But drafting Hakeem Butler over higher drafted players because YOU liked him in college won't build up your dynasty.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jm192 said:

This is a great post, especially the bolded.

People decide they love a college player.  When he goes in the 5th round, they make fun of the NFL.  And dig in their heels about how great their guy is going to be.  

The NFL is going to get it right more often than not.  If you bet on Draft capital, you're going to be right more often than not.  If you're betting on the NFL getting it wrong--you'll find the occasional exception--but you'll also have a ton of misses.  For every late round star, there's tons of late round guys whose career never saw the light of day.  

I'm sure there's a cut-off point.  Is a 6th round pick much less likely to succeed than a 5th rounder?  I don't know.   

But drafting Hakeem Butler over higher drafted players because YOU liked him in college won't build up your dynasty.  

You have to factor in draft capital. However, just using draft capital is missing out on small spot for some edge. Especially at WR.  Also, Butler isn't the best example because he was a screaming red flag before he even fell in drafts. I know some guys loved him on film but his analytic profile was not good. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

You have to factor in draft capital. However, just using draft capital is missing out on small spot for some edge. Especially at WR.  Also, Butler isn't the best example because he was a screaming red flag before he even fell in drafts. I know some guys loved him on film but his analytic profile was not good. 

How about Bryce Love?  Big name through college, went late in the draft, and I just checked, went late 3rd round in my 2019 rookie drafts.  In front of Terry McLaurin in many rookie drafts.  Ouch.  

Love reminds me:  Another thing to is these guys with medical red flags.  Our standard attitude as fantasy owners (and really, as humans) is to assume best outcome.  The NFL decision-makers don't want damaged goods.  We don't have access to any medical info, so when a guy with those questions falls, it's always "Oh man, if he stays healthy, what a steal!" 

Fans are always more cavalier with injuries, like they'll never happen again.  Coaches know that if the guy is damaged, he can't help the team, and it seems like Super Bowl winning teams always have healthy seasons.   And when these guys have multiple injuries, it's rare they come back to top form, and stay there.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2021 at 4:39 PM, ZWK said:

Draftscout 40 times are about .01 faster than last year's combine average, so far. So basically no adjustment needed.

Initial reports (by places like PFF, NBC Edge, and The Athletic) are about .04 faster than last year's average.

The rest of the drills.

Initial reports are always faster because they don't have the video confirmed time.  It's the same at the combine every year.  The initial report is not worth tracking. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jm192 said:

This is a great post, especially the bolded.

People decide they love a college player.  When he goes in the 5th round, they make fun of the NFL.  And dig in their heels about how great their guy is going to be.  

The NFL is going to get it right more often than not.  If you bet on Draft capital, you're going to be right more often than not.  If you're betting on the NFL getting it wrong--you'll find the occasional exception--but you'll also have a ton of misses. 

I think this perception exists because those that dig in their heels about prospects are the ones that talk the most. I don't necessarily think it is a reality when it comes to how players are actually valued in rookie drafts. Sure, there will be exceptions going both ways, but in the end rookie drafts share a lot of correlation with the NFL.I am going to squabble with one part though - NFL teams have incentive to justify their early picks, so those guys are going to get more shots. That doesn't necessarily mean they're right about them though.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

You have to factor in draft capital. However, just using draft capital is missing out on small spot for some edge. Especially at WR.  Also, Butler isn't the best example because he was a screaming red flag before he even fell in drafts. I know some guys loved him on film but his analytic profile was not good. 

Butler is a good one to discuss. I picked him 2.8 in one league. What was bad about his analytics profile? His combine was very good. Are you talking breakout age or stuff like that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, IHEARTFF said:

Butler is a good one to discuss. I picked him 2.8 in one league. What was bad about his analytics profile? His combine was very good. Are you talking breakout age or stuff like that?

Hakeem Butler is why analytics is just one tool. Not the tool.

I also haven't written him off yet. He's one I'll be watching this summer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, IHEARTFF said:

Butler is a good one to discuss. I picked him 2.8 in one league. What was bad about his analytics profile? His combine was very good. Are you talking breakout age or stuff like that?

2.8 was actually fine value and it ended up being a bad year for WRs in general. Better to have gotten Butler on value at 2.8 than spend a top 5 pick on Harry who has been almost as bad. You are correct though that the issue with Butler was breakout age and level of competition (both on his own team and his opponents). Despite incredible size and athleticism, Butler really wasn't a college factor until he was 21 and didn't have a big year as the leader of an offense until he was 22. His age and how long it took him to make an impact at Iowa State were big red flags. There is also positive correlation between players who contribute other ways (rushing and return game) and NFL success. Butler had nothing in that area. It doesn't mean Butler never had a chance or someone like him could never work. He just had a lot of red flags before the draft as to why he might not work in the NFL. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

Hakeem Butler is why analytics is just one tool. Not the tool.

I also haven't written him off yet. He's one I'll be watching this summer. 

How so? I agree with your statement but am not sure how Butler makes a case for it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

How so? I agree with your statement but am not sure how Butler makes a case for it. 

He was an analytics darling. His spider chart was ridiculous. The on field and breakout criticisms were brushed aside (pre-draft) as coach-up opportunities and product of situation. I can't comment draft day and beyond though. He became a very noisy subject, so I directed my energy elsewhere. 

Edit: we may be saying the same things, I was referring to his analytics from a metrics perspective. Not breakout age. The latter was definitely an issue not weighted by enough - myself included (initially anyway).

Edited by MAC_32
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MAC_32 said:

I am going to squabble with one part though - NFL teams have incentive to justify their early picks, so those guys are going to get more shots. That doesn't necessarily mean they're right about them though.

This is what I think people hang their hats on when it comes to draft capital. But it's situation-dependent, too. Draft capital is correlated to fantasy points and production, but it can be difficult to tell in the individual instance whether a particular guy's draft capital will propel him to many more chances than somebody else. Case in point to the pro side of things: CEH and KC. He looks like he'll get every chance to prove he's a first-round pick. If you bet on situation and capital there, you'd be right (if he can justify it with talent). Case to the contra: AJ Dillon and the Packers. It doesn't look like he'll ever get the chance to justify his second-round status with his situation and if you bet on draft capital there, you'd be wrong (so far).

So it's a fine line to walk, this draft capital, seemingly, as it may be highly correlated to fantasy success, but the fallacy of division looms large as something to think about when it comes to individual guys. They are beholden to the situation they step into for the most part, especially RBs, who really only get one shot. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, rockaction said:

This is what I think people hang their hats on when it comes to draft capital. But it's situation-dependent, too. Draft capital is correlated to fantasy points and production, but it can be difficult to tell in the individual instance whether a particular guy's draft capital will propel him to many more chances than somebody else. Case in point to the pro side of things: CEH and KC. He looks like he'll get every chance to prove he's a first-round pick. If you bet on situation and capital there, you'd be right (if he can justify it with talent). Case to the contra: AJ Dillon and the Packers. It doesn't look like he'll ever get the chance to justify his second-round status with his situation and if you bet on draft capital there, you'd be wrong (so far).

So it's a fine line to walk, this draft capital, seemingly, as it may be highly correlated to fantasy success, but the fallacy of division looms large as something to think about when it comes to individual guys. They are beholden to the situation they step into for the most part, especially RBs, who really only get one shot. 

I think the difference between those two examples is their cost this time last year. You needed 1.1 to be assured CEH whereas Dillon routinely went in the mid-late 2nd. I agree with your overall assessment though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

He was an analytics darling. His spider chart was ridiculous. The on field and breakout criticisms were brushed aside (pre-draft) as coach-up opportunities and product of situation. I can't comment draft day and beyond though. He became a very noisy subject, so I directed my energy elsewhere. 

Edit: we may be saying the same things, I was referring to his analytics from a metrics perspective. Not breakout age. The latter was definitely an issue not weighted by enough - myself included (initially anyway).

Right. There WERE analytics that raised concerns.  Breakout age is a good one. If you don't break out till 21 years old, and you are 6'5", 220, you need to look at that closely. His jumps and agility drills were meh.  Not a unicorn athlete.  

I wan to use analytics to help me identify guys I might avoid, rather than use it to identify good players, if that makes sense.  Rashod Bateman isn't a lesser WR prospect because some PR guy called him 6'2", and he's only 6'  The important analytic is that he's not 5'9", or 170 lbs.  There's nothing in his physical profile that says if he makes it, he's an outlier.  Thus, I can focus on if he can play football really well.  

You use analytics the wrong way, you start thinking a guy is a better player because he's 6'5".

There were plenty of people sounding the alarm on Butler at the time, and honestly, where his ADP wound up being, I think Butler going where people got him was fine.  

LOL, then you see Terry McLaurin 5 spots after him.  Ouch.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

He was an analytics darling. His spider chart was ridiculous. The on field and breakout criticisms were brushed aside (pre-draft) as coach-up opportunities and product of situation. I can't comment draft day and beyond though. He became a very noisy subject, so I directed my energy elsewhere. 

Edit: we may be saying the same things, I was referring to his analytics from a metrics perspective. Not breakout age. The latter was definitely an issue not weighted by enough - myself included (initially anyway).

Maybe my opinion is skewed but all the people who do analytical based evaluations were down on Butler because evidence shows breakout age is so important for WRs. Spider charts might help us picture what he looks like but I don't know of anyone using them to make predictions. Great workout numbers are nice but at WR it's not really predictive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • rockaction changed the title to So What Are You Doing About Measurements? Which Ones Are Your Keys To Success In General?
Posted (edited)

Make this a catch-all thread. Here's something people found useful. It's about running backs and their fantasy finishes compared to their team's offensive finishes.

Running Backs, Team Offenses, And Is There Any Link Between Them? There is.

Good fantasy RBs do not come from bad teams for the most part. Just looked at a study done on FantasyPros, IIRC. They found that running backs on good teams have a much more likely chance to score highly than backs on bad teams.

Actually, here it is. Mike Tagliere wrote the article. His is the block of text I've quoted after the link. The chart is his, as is the analysis. The reason I've provided the link is that he also does so for receivers and tight ends in the article. This is just about running backs.

https://www.fantasypros.com/2020/07/what-does-team-scoring-mean-to-fantasy-football/

July 10, 2010
Fantasy Pros

"The research behind this study goes through the last eight years of data on the top 36 running backs and wide receivers, top 24 quarterbacks, and top 12 tight ends, which gives us a rather large sample size of 288 running backs and wide receivers, 192 quarterbacks, and 96 tight ends. This is based on a per-game basis, as injuries can severely impact fantasy outcomes at year’s end. I’ve also eliminated those who played in less than four games, as that small of sample size can skew the final results. Let’s go position-by-position, as the results were significant at certain positions.

RUNNING BACKS

RB Finish  # of Players      T-6 Off.   T-12 Off.    T-18 Off.      T-24 Off.        Bottom-10

Top-6             48                39.6%      70.8%       85.4%         95.8%           6.3%

Top- 12          96                32.3%      60.4%      76.0%          90.6%          11.4%

Top-18         144                 29.2%      52.8%      70.1%         86.8%           18.8%

Top-24         192                 24.0%      44.3%      64.1%         81.3%           23.4%

Top-30         240                 22.5%       42.9%      62.5%        80.4%          23.8%

Top-36         288                 22.9%       43.4%      62.2%        80.6%          25.0%

 

This chart tells a story, and it’s that team-scoring matters a lot to running backs. Let’s do the math here: There are 32 teams in the NFL. The top-12 teams make up just 37.5 percent of the league, yet somehow, 70.8 percent of top-six running backs have come from those teams. To simplify the information, a running back is twice as likely to finish as a top-six running back if he’s on a top-12 scoring offense.

Christian McCaffrey was the third player in the last eight years to finish as a top-six running back while on a team outside the top-18 in scoring, highlighting just how unrepeatable that season is/was. Him and Saquon Barkley are the only players over the last three years who’ve been able to crack the top-six while on a team that’s outside the top-15 scoring teams. Bottom line – if you’re looking for breakout elite production, start scoping out the high-scoring teams.

Even moving beyond the elite tier of running backs and extending it to the top-12 at the position, we say top-12 scoring offenses (again, just 37.5 percent of the league) produce 60.4 percent of the RB1s. If you can predict which teams will finish top-12 in scoring, you can likely identify which running backs should be in your first few rounds. Of the 96 running backs who’ve been RB1s over the last seven years, just 11 of them have come from bottom-10 scoring offenses. Players going near RB1 territory who I’m concerned about because of this include Austin Ekeler, Le’Veon Bell, Leonard Fournette, Melvin Gordon, and Josh Jacobs.

The primary takeaway from running backs is that team-scoring absolutely matters, and it should factor into your drafting process. If you know a running back is extremely talented but on a horrible offense, you must understand that it’s very unlikely he finishes inside RB1 territory, and even more rare for him to finish top-six at his position. A 6.3 percent chance, to be clear. If you’re on the clock and are left deciding between two running backs, go with the one who has the better quarterback, as his offense is likely to score more points. This process helped us find Aaron Jones and Chris Carson last year." - Mike Tagliere

 

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2021 at 10:17 AM, jm192 said:

This is a great post, especially the bolded.

People decide they love a college player.  When he goes in the 5th round, they make fun of the NFL.  And dig in their heels about how great their guy is going to be.  

The NFL is going to get it right more often than not.  If you bet on Draft capital, you're going to be right more often than not.  If you're betting on the NFL getting it wrong--you'll find the occasional exception--but you'll also have a ton of misses.  For every late round star, there's tons of late round guys whose career never saw the light of day.  

I'm sure there's a cut-off point.  Is a 6th round pick much less likely to succeed than a 5th rounder?  I don't know.   

But drafting Hakeem Butler over higher drafted players because YOU liked him in college won't build up your dynasty.  

While I agree with the general point of your post, there's one area where draft capital can be misinterpreted in fantasy football: when people don't take into consideration that a WR was drafted on day two or early on day three because of their prowess as a returner.  That doesn't seem to happen much for RBs, but it does with WRs all of the time.  If a player profiles as a returner, and the team that drafted him needed a returner, then I'm assuming that player was picked earlier because of their skill as a returner not because of their skill as a WR.

I can't think of a good example off the top of my head, but it seems to happen about every year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...