In July I was in heavy fantasy player research mode. In August I've been in heavy predictive analytics research mode. 32 Teams in 32 Days focused mostly on the players, while incorporating statistical research. This week I want to dive into some new statistical research and why it matters, divulging the same intel I'm using to prepare for my August 29 Premier Fantasy Football League draft.
Last year I shared research that I hadn't seen anywhere else (which is why I researched it), which showed how risky high-volume RBs are the following season. My research went all the way back to the 1950's, and because NFL seasons were shorter the further you go back, it's highly likely the research spans the century-long history of the NFL. That makes the results pretty compelling, because we're not talking about a few years or even a single era. The reality is, about three out of four high-volume (350+ touches) RBs regress the following season--and most of them significantly.
That's the kind of research I like. It's comprehensive. It's narrowly focused. It's actionable. It gives me the confidence to make recommendations not on what some beat reporter observes in a practice, but on indesputable historical data. And that's no knock on beat reporters. But sometimes people are quick to upgrade or downgrade a player because a reporter tweets that "Player ABC is developing great chemistry with his quarterback" or "Player XYZ dropped two passes in today's scrimmage." Just because they're doing their job of reporting what they see, it doesn't mean we should toss out our fact-based research in favor of in-the-moment observations.
Data-driven research advances fantasy confidence. And the more actionable research we can collect, the more confidence we've earned. So building off of last year's heavy-volume-RB research, I wanted to examine a different perspective on the same theme: snap counts. Snap counts are not the same as heavy volume. But I wondered if they might add another component to RB "usage"--that RBs might regress not only because they're overworked with the ball, but also because they're overworked by simply being on the field: running routes, decoying, blocking, etc.
For example, let's look at former RB Ahmad Bradshaw. In 2012 he earned a modest (for a bellcow) 244 touches. But he also earned a relatively high 600 snaps (only 13 RBs had more). So his 244 touches aren't included in my high-volume study, but he missed most of the next season with a serious injury, leading me to wonder if people like him also showed regression tendencies.
The results are, in my opinion, fascinating. I'm including one chart below, and all of the charts can be found on the FF4W research page here: http://www.fantasyfootballforwinners.com/p/high-snap-count-rbs.html. This is an analysis of all 101 players who've had 600+ snaps in a season since 2012--the same year this stat started being recorded. It shows that people like Bradshaw regress the following season at an extraordinarily high rate, and that their fantasy-point reduction increases the more they were on the field that previous year.
So who had 600+ snaps in 2020? Zeke Elliott (777), David Montgomery (707), Derrick Henry (705), Dalvin Cook (669), Alvin Kamara (658), J.D. McKissic (641), Melvin Gordon (627), Devin Singletary (622), Josh Jacobs (619), James Robinson (617), Kenyan Drake (615), and Miles Sanders (602).
Now before we all freak out and give up on some of this year's top RBs, let's break it down a bit more. Henry and Cook also had high-volume 2020 campaigns. So perhaps they're among the most susceptible to regressions. And Melvin Gordon is now at an age (28) when a large share of snaps presents more risks. Because this stat is still pretty new, the evidence isn't as conclusive as I'd like it to be. But it's powerful on its own, and when combined with heavy-volume research, it's certainly actionable. I'm as convinced as ever that Henry and Cook are unnecessary risks, and the verdict is out on how many of the these other RBs (particularly those who've been in the league a few years) can rise above what most recent RBs in similar circumstances could not.
---
Personalized Fantasy Advice Sign-up: www.fantasyfootballforwinners.com/p/personalized-fantasy-advice.html
Preseason Draft Rankings Sign-up: www.fantasyfootballforwinners.com/p/preseason-rankings.html
Last year I shared research that I hadn't seen anywhere else (which is why I researched it), which showed how risky high-volume RBs are the following season. My research went all the way back to the 1950's, and because NFL seasons were shorter the further you go back, it's highly likely the research spans the century-long history of the NFL. That makes the results pretty compelling, because we're not talking about a few years or even a single era. The reality is, about three out of four high-volume (350+ touches) RBs regress the following season--and most of them significantly.
That's the kind of research I like. It's comprehensive. It's narrowly focused. It's actionable. It gives me the confidence to make recommendations not on what some beat reporter observes in a practice, but on indesputable historical data. And that's no knock on beat reporters. But sometimes people are quick to upgrade or downgrade a player because a reporter tweets that "Player ABC is developing great chemistry with his quarterback" or "Player XYZ dropped two passes in today's scrimmage." Just because they're doing their job of reporting what they see, it doesn't mean we should toss out our fact-based research in favor of in-the-moment observations.
Data-driven research advances fantasy confidence. And the more actionable research we can collect, the more confidence we've earned. So building off of last year's heavy-volume-RB research, I wanted to examine a different perspective on the same theme: snap counts. Snap counts are not the same as heavy volume. But I wondered if they might add another component to RB "usage"--that RBs might regress not only because they're overworked with the ball, but also because they're overworked by simply being on the field: running routes, decoying, blocking, etc.
For example, let's look at former RB Ahmad Bradshaw. In 2012 he earned a modest (for a bellcow) 244 touches. But he also earned a relatively high 600 snaps (only 13 RBs had more). So his 244 touches aren't included in my high-volume study, but he missed most of the next season with a serious injury, leading me to wonder if people like him also showed regression tendencies.
The results are, in my opinion, fascinating. I'm including one chart below, and all of the charts can be found on the FF4W research page here: http://www.fantasyfootballforwinners.com/p/high-snap-count-rbs.html. This is an analysis of all 101 players who've had 600+ snaps in a season since 2012--the same year this stat started being recorded. It shows that people like Bradshaw regress the following season at an extraordinarily high rate, and that their fantasy-point reduction increases the more they were on the field that previous year.
So who had 600+ snaps in 2020? Zeke Elliott (777), David Montgomery (707), Derrick Henry (705), Dalvin Cook (669), Alvin Kamara (658), J.D. McKissic (641), Melvin Gordon (627), Devin Singletary (622), Josh Jacobs (619), James Robinson (617), Kenyan Drake (615), and Miles Sanders (602).
Now before we all freak out and give up on some of this year's top RBs, let's break it down a bit more. Henry and Cook also had high-volume 2020 campaigns. So perhaps they're among the most susceptible to regressions. And Melvin Gordon is now at an age (28) when a large share of snaps presents more risks. Because this stat is still pretty new, the evidence isn't as conclusive as I'd like it to be. But it's powerful on its own, and when combined with heavy-volume research, it's certainly actionable. I'm as convinced as ever that Henry and Cook are unnecessary risks, and the verdict is out on how many of the these other RBs (particularly those who've been in the league a few years) can rise above what most recent RBs in similar circumstances could not.
---
Personalized Fantasy Advice Sign-up: www.fantasyfootballforwinners.com/p/personalized-fantasy-advice.html
Preseason Draft Rankings Sign-up: www.fantasyfootballforwinners.com/p/preseason-rankings.html
