Apolyton Fantasy Football

[Spaced Cowboy]

Jag, I'm with all the changes.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

In the old system, 100yds rushing would get you 10pts (before scores, I think I'm thinking about the right league...)
If we want to figure efficiency in and still get around 10pts, we might figure an average game would have 15-20 carries.
So instead of .1pt/yd, maybe .15pt/yd. That yields an extra 5 pts.
Spread that 5 points over 20 carries, and carries are worth -.25 per.

So a 100yd game with 10yd/carry = 12.5 points
A 100 yard game with 30 carries = 7.5 points
A 50 yard game on 2 carries = 7

Still dependent upon total yards, but there's actually a reward for efficiency.

?

[Al B. Sure!]

So now people are on my efficiency bandwagon because Jaguar suggested it?

Although we have to remember we have to work with the tools Yahoo gives us.

I'm not too sure about expanding this efficiency to runningbacks since, while I understand the desire to reward a guy who gets 50 yards on only 2 carries more than the guy who gets 100 on 30 carries, it still seems odd that twice the production even on 15x the carries nets about the same number of points.

I don't know. I expanded Koy's example, using his system, to better visualize what sort of performances get what amount of points and how they relate to each other:

15 carries 150 yards= 18.75
20 carries 150 yards= 17.5
25 carries 150 yards= 16.25
30 carries 150 yards= 15
35 carries 150 yards= 13.75
37 carries 150 yards (average ~4.0 game)= 13.25

10 carries 100 yards= 12.5
20 carries 100 yards= 10
25 carries 100 yards (average 4.0 game)= 8.75
30 carries 100 yards= 7.5

2 carries 50 yards= 7
5 carries 50 yards= 6.25
10 carries 50 yards= 5
12 carries 50 yards (average ~4.0 game)= 4.5


Furthermore, an average 4.0 ypc game with an average 20 carries for 80 yards gives you 7 points. These are the yards and carries that would net the same amount of fantasy points as that average #1 RB performance:

30 for 97 (3.23ypc)
25 for 88 (3.52)
20 for 80 (4.0)
15 for 72 (4.8)
10 for 63 (6.3)
5 for 55 (11)

Determine if that looks right. 15/72 and 10/63 is in the ballpark of the standard output you would expect of a platoon RB. With this system, we'd be saying that a #2 in a platoon is about as valuable as an average 20 carry per game, 4.0 yards per carry #1 RB.


While no one has said so, just want to have it said we probably don't want to consider efficiency with receivers though since possession receivers are valuable even with lower yards per reception.

[snoopy369]

I don't know that I agree with penalizing attempts/carries. Efficiency is good, sure, but I don't know that I want to give a 50 yard game on 2 carries a similar weight to a 100 yard game on 30 carries. Some of that 'lack of efficiency' is also known as 'being given the ball to run out the clock' and other sorts of things that don't necessarily imply "bad player". Also, you would end up significantly over-valuing 3rd down (long) backs, who tend to get a lot more yards per carry because they've got more distance to go [not to confuse this with 3rd down short backs, aka fullbacks].

I suppose I'd be open to this if it could be shown that it improved the accuracy of the fantasy point rankings. Anyone up for putting up a few lists - top 25 qb/top 50 rb by the following:
* Fantasy scoring last year
* Fantasy scoring with per attempt penalty
* Fantasy scoring with higher points per yard (but no attempt penalty)
* Actual human-ordered rankings (ie, who are actually the top 25/50 qb/rb)

The system that gets closest to the human-ordered rankings wins IMO, particularly at ranking the "middle" RBs (I don't care as much about the top and the bottom - sure, Peyton vs Brees vs Brady vs Rodgers is fun to argue about, but in general they should be at the top, and 20 points between them is pretty irrelevant; but Cutler vs Eli vs Henne is really more important IMO).

[Al B. Sure!]

The only dilemma I see with applying this efficiency to RB's is that opportunity doesn't play as big of a role in inflating stats as much as pass attempts do for QB's. What I mean is that backs who get 10-15 carries a game are fresher so they almost always break off bigger runs and have 5.0+ yards per carry averages (Big Brandon Jacobs had a 5.6 ypc last year, for example, way higher than the year previously when he was more of the starter).

See, unlike QB's, it is in an RB's best interest and he will be more efficient (and get relatively more output) with LESS carries. Just something to consider.

[Al B. Sure!]

snoopy, Eli is a significantly better QB than Cutler, though. What gives?

[Al B. Sure!]

I did a simplified analysis of the RB's. I did full-season (not fantasy season) stats, excluded fumbles and receiving (some backs were much more valuable in the receiving game so keep that in mind), and focused entirely on yards/carries and yards/carries/TDs.

The average for yards/TDs was 156 fantasy points for the top-23 RB's with a standard deviation of 40.9. With .15 points per yard, -.25 per carry, and TDs, it was 148.6 and 41.7. So the average goes down a bit and the variance goes up a little.

This is the ranking on yards alone:

Spoiler:

Foster
Charles
Turner
Johnson
MJD
AP
Mendenhall
Sjax
Bradshaw
Rice
Hillis
McFadden
Benson
McCoy
Forte
BJGE
Blount
Fjackson
LT
Tjones
Gore
Jacobs
Jones
Moreno
Stewart

This is yards and 6 points per TD:

Spoiler:

Foster
Turner
Mendenhall
Johnson
AP
Hillis
BJGE
Charles
Bradshaw
MJD
Sjax
McFadden
Benson
Rice
McCoy
Forte
Blount
Jacobs
LT
Tjones
Fjackson
Moreno
Gore
Stewart
Jones

This is the ranking for yards/carries alone (no TD points):

Spoiler:

Charles
Foster
Johnson
AP
MJD
Turner
McFadden
Bradshaw
McCoy
Mendenhall
Hillis
Rice
Sjax
Forte
Blount
BJGE
Jacobs
Benson
Fjackson
LT
Gore
Jones
Tjones
Moreno
Stewart

And now, yards/carries with TDs:

Spoiler:

Foster
AP
Turner
Charles
Johnson
Mendenhall
Hillis
BJGE
Bradshaw
McFadden
MJD
McCoy
Jacobs
Sjax
Forte
Blount
Rice
Benson
LT
Fjackson
Tjones
Moreno
Gore
Stewart
Jones

[Al B. Sure!]

By considering efficiency (along with TDs), some notable movements:

Going up:
AP goes from #5 to #2
Jamaal Charles from #8 to #4
McCoy from #15 to #12
Jacobs from #18 to #13

Going down:
Mendenhall drops from #3 (!) to #6

Everybody else remains at about the same level.


Again, receiving yards are not being included but it does look better than AP goes up to second to only Foster and that Mendenhall, who has no business as a top-3 back, drops down.

[Jaguar]

This is how you do the comparison. This is an editable spreadsheet that compare the top 50 rushers from last year (excluding Michael Vick) and it will adjust based on the parameters you choose.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuUBtfhJtHvBdERUUFRzZWR2TlBBUGVqc1ZQaHgwcFE&hl=en_US

[Jaguar]

The main difficulty I'm dealing with is that it's hard to come up with settings (in the annoying yards/point format that Yahoo! uses) that balance nicely and don't get you stuck with ridiculous things like sixths of a point. I'm open to ideas, but I think I overall want to inflate the scoring a little more.

[-Jrabbit]

Snoopy's post re 3rd down backs is an excellent example of why this exercise is, IMHO, hopeless.
Similarly, analysis presented to date doesn't even consider receiving. So how can this be said to increase realism?

Negative points per rushing attempt is one of the most asinine ideas I've ever seen in fantasy football.

[Al B. Sure!]

The real dilemma is what I said, though: that platoon RB's are extremely efficient BECAUSE they get so few carries because their legs stay fresh. An average back who gets 10-15 carries in support of another back will consistently average over 5 yards per carry, an average which is extremely difficult for a feature back who gets 20-25 carries to match.

It's a very different circumstance from what happens with QB's, where I'm all for a consideration of efficiency.

However, the way Mendenhall dropped and AP and others went up seems to make sense.

[snoopy369]

snoopy, Eli is a significantly better QB than Cutler, though. What gives?

Right. If any given system doesn't rank them appropriately (Eli and Cutler are in the 'mid level QB' range, just at different places in it) then it's probably not a good system.

[Al B. Sure!]

Right. If any given system doesn't rank them appropriately (Eli and Cutler are in the 'mid level QB' range, just at different places in it) then it's probably not a good system.

Eli was #5 in yardage and #4 in TDs last year, though. Technically, by the numbers, Eli was a top-5 QB last year

More yardage than Brady, more TDs than Rivers and Schaub, and both more yardage and more TDs than Rodgers

He was #10 in yards and #8 in TDs in 2009. Top-10 QB that year so he's consistently a fantasy QB1, as well.


So I disagree with your assessment. Eli is knocking on that elite (Peyton-Brady-Brees-Rivers-Rodgers) door, along with, if not ahead of, Romo, Roethlisberger, Vick, and Schaub. Cutler isn't on the same block. And like I said, more yards and TDs than Rodgers.

[-Jrabbit]

It's a very different circumstance from what happens with QB's, where I'm all for a consideration of efficiency.

However, the way Mendenhall dropped and AP and others went up seems to make sense.

The key phrase being "seems to."

I don't think it's any different for QBs. You can throw all the numbers you want out there, but the reality is that actual games are ruled by game situations, leading to coaching decisions. Sit on the lead vs. weak offenses; make up for defensive lapses vs. good ones; run out the clock if possible; a WR's great YAC making a joke of YPA... It goes on and on, so the whole idea of rewarding efficiency becomes pockmarked with exceptions.

It's a fool's errand, IMHO.