Yesterday I asked for feedback on what type of scoring (standard vs. PPR) you all use. By a roughly 5-to-1 margin on over 100 votes, readers responded "PPR" or some variation of "I haven't played 'standard' since the Eisenhower administration." That's pretty compelling feedback, so thanks to everyone who responded. Nothing left to do but carve out more time each week to create and update another set of rankings.
So if you play standard or PPR and want weekly updates sent to your e-mail, sign up at www.fantasyfootballforwinners.com. As a bonus, the PPR rankings will show each player's 2016 reception totals, in case that helps provide some of you with context (thanks to Aaron Weaver for pulling those numbers together). And thanks for Joe Terlecki for creating an Excel code that shows my positional rankings (WR71, RB21, etc.) alongside average draft positions, making it much easier to identify bargains and overrated players.
---
Rankings are both scientific and unscientific. The science behind it is everything I've written about over the years. We anticipate an underperformer's turnaround because of changing conditions benefiting that player. We sense a production drop-off because of changing conditions lowering a player's upside or reducing his floor. If we all knew the same things and perceived them the same way, everyone's rankings would be virtually identical. Knowledge and perception gaps can lead to vastly different conclusions.
The unscientific part is what's left to chance. And with the exception of chronically injured players or guys being investigated for suspension-level infractions, we usually assume that every starter will play 16 games. What other choice do we have? We know that a certain percentage of players will miss at least one game, and that a smaller percentage will miss a large chunk of contests. But for most players, we simply roll the dice and hope our guys stay on the field.
So a few days ago I wanted to better understand how player performance correlates with games played. Turns out the top 12 fantasy QBs in 2016 played an average of 15.8 games, while the next 12 best QBs averaged 15.2 games. QBs 25-36 averaged only 13 games played (and 25-32 averaged only 13.5, in case you're wondering how much QBs 33-36--all backups or very injured starters--brought down the average).
For RBs, it was 15.3 games for the top 12, 14.5 for the next tier, 14.7 for the third, and 13.4 for the fourth. For WRs, 15.7 for the top 12, 16 for the next tier, 15 for the next tier, and 15 for the fourth. For TEs, 15.1 for the top 12, 13.6 for the next tier, 14.1 for the next tier, and 12.2 for the fourth.
A four-year breakdown can be viewed below, highlighting a basic conclusion: Most tiers of 12 players played more games, on average than the next lowest tier. And so on. Several top 25-36 RBs could have been top 13-24 RBs if only they hadn't missed a game or two. Ben Roethlisberger was on pace for 288.2 points but scored 252.2 in 14 games played. That two-game gap, projected to 16 games, was the difference between scoring the sixth most QB fantasy points and the 18th most. That's night and day in the fantasy world.
There's no actionable intelligence here. It's simply a reminder that all the scientific research we apply to drafting and roster management can be undone by random injuries--that games played is a significant indicator of a player's fantasy output, and that the trend line is fairly consistent across every major position. As I wrote yesterday, 21 starting QBs have top 14 positional potential. We can be fairly certain that more than one of those guys will finish outside the top 14 not because they play worse than expected, but because they can't stay healthy.
Unscientific, unpredictable, and unfortunate. And we hold our breath hoping our players get through each week unscathed.
So if you play standard or PPR and want weekly updates sent to your e-mail, sign up at www.fantasyfootballforwinners.com. As a bonus, the PPR rankings will show each player's 2016 reception totals, in case that helps provide some of you with context (thanks to Aaron Weaver for pulling those numbers together). And thanks for Joe Terlecki for creating an Excel code that shows my positional rankings (WR71, RB21, etc.) alongside average draft positions, making it much easier to identify bargains and overrated players.
---
Rankings are both scientific and unscientific. The science behind it is everything I've written about over the years. We anticipate an underperformer's turnaround because of changing conditions benefiting that player. We sense a production drop-off because of changing conditions lowering a player's upside or reducing his floor. If we all knew the same things and perceived them the same way, everyone's rankings would be virtually identical. Knowledge and perception gaps can lead to vastly different conclusions.
The unscientific part is what's left to chance. And with the exception of chronically injured players or guys being investigated for suspension-level infractions, we usually assume that every starter will play 16 games. What other choice do we have? We know that a certain percentage of players will miss at least one game, and that a smaller percentage will miss a large chunk of contests. But for most players, we simply roll the dice and hope our guys stay on the field.
So a few days ago I wanted to better understand how player performance correlates with games played. Turns out the top 12 fantasy QBs in 2016 played an average of 15.8 games, while the next 12 best QBs averaged 15.2 games. QBs 25-36 averaged only 13 games played (and 25-32 averaged only 13.5, in case you're wondering how much QBs 33-36--all backups or very injured starters--brought down the average).
For RBs, it was 15.3 games for the top 12, 14.5 for the next tier, 14.7 for the third, and 13.4 for the fourth. For WRs, 15.7 for the top 12, 16 for the next tier, 15 for the next tier, and 15 for the fourth. For TEs, 15.1 for the top 12, 13.6 for the next tier, 14.1 for the next tier, and 12.2 for the fourth.
A four-year breakdown can be viewed below, highlighting a basic conclusion: Most tiers of 12 players played more games, on average than the next lowest tier. And so on. Several top 25-36 RBs could have been top 13-24 RBs if only they hadn't missed a game or two. Ben Roethlisberger was on pace for 288.2 points but scored 252.2 in 14 games played. That two-game gap, projected to 16 games, was the difference between scoring the sixth most QB fantasy points and the 18th most. That's night and day in the fantasy world.
There's no actionable intelligence here. It's simply a reminder that all the scientific research we apply to drafting and roster management can be undone by random injuries--that games played is a significant indicator of a player's fantasy output, and that the trend line is fairly consistent across every major position. As I wrote yesterday, 21 starting QBs have top 14 positional potential. We can be fairly certain that more than one of those guys will finish outside the top 14 not because they play worse than expected, but because they can't stay healthy.
Unscientific, unpredictable, and unfortunate. And we hold our breath hoping our players get through each week unscathed.
