Interesting WR findings

[yo mama]

Today I was thinking about wide receivers. More specifically, I wondered which ones were the most productive "per opportunity." Stated differently, I divided a dozen WRs' total 2005 fantasy production by the number of times that player was thrown the ball. Without having to identify tangential issues such as reception ratios, dropped balls, and the such, I think this perspective reveals something very useful: namely, efficiency in production. Based on a scoring system that awards 6 pts per TD, 1 pt per 10 yards, and 1 pt per reception, this is how 12 upper echelon WRs stacked up:

 

Steve Smith - 2.2671 points per pass thrown

Marvin Harrison - 2.0348 "

Hines Ward - 2.0219 "

Chad Johnson - 1.9318 "

Darrell Jackson - 1.9073 "

Randy Moss - 1.8955 "

Reggie Wayne - 1.8058 "

Tory Holt - 1.7735 "

Terrel Ownes - 1.7527 "

Anquan Boldin - 1.6612 "

Larry Fitzgerald - 1.6612 " (NOTE: THIS IS A TYPO, AS FITZGERALD'S STATS ARE (AT HOME) BUT MORE IN THE 1.8+ RANGE. THUS, FITZ WAS MORE PRODUCTIVE-PER-PASS THAN BOLDIN, FYI).

Chris Chambers - 1.6159 "

 

I think this data is useful in analyzing who made the most out of the opportunities they were given. Granted, it does nothing to address how many opportunities any player might get on a go-forward basis. But, if I were looking at adding one of two WRs to my roster and I couldn't deceide between the two, I think I'd rather have the player who does more with the opportunities he's given. And now I can rank WRs by that stat.

 

I dunno. I just came up with this stupid concept. Though, if anyone has any suggestions for how it might be better used or refined, I'm happy to entertain suggestions. And I'll probably expand the list of players to include at least 36 WR/TEs later on, if anyone is interested in seeing those results.

Edited July 17, 2006 by yo mama

[BigTen]

Today I was thinking about wide receivers. More specifically, I wondered which ones were the most productive "per opportunity." Stated differently, I divided a dozen WRs' total 2005 fantasy production by the number of times that player was thrown the ball. Without having to identify tangential issues such as reception ratios, dropped balls, and the such, I think this perspective reveals something very useful: namely, efficiency in production. Based on a scoring system that awards 6 pts per TD, 1 pt per 10 yards, and 1 pt per reception, this is how 12 upper echelon WRs stacked up:

 

Steve Smith - 2.2671 points per pass thrown

Marvin Harrison - 2.0348 "

Hines Ward - 2.0219 "

Chad Johnson - 1.9318 "

Darrell Jackson - 1.9073 "

Randy Moss - 1.8955 "

Reggie Wayne - 1.8058 "

Tory Holt - 1.7735 "

Terrel Ownes - 1.7527 "

Anquan Boldin - 1.6612 "

Larry Fitzgerald - 1.6612 "

Chris Chambers - 1.6159 "

 

I think this data is useful in analyzing who made the most out of the opportunities they were given. Granted, it does nothing to address how many opportunities any player might get on a go-forward basis. But, if I were looking at adding one of two WRs to my roster and I couldn't deceide between the two, I think I'd rather have the player who does more with the opportunities he's given. And now I can rank WRs by that stat.

 

I dunno. I just came up with this stupid concept. Though, if anyone has any suggestions for how it might be better used or refined, I'm happy to entertain suggestions. And I'll probably expand the list of players to include at least 36 WR/TEs later on, if anyone is interested in seeing those results.

 

Too bad I only needed 2 ponts from S. Smith in last years playoffs and he gets kicked out of the game for touching the ref.

[BigTen]

I can tell by whos ranked where on your little list that this is bad info. I dont get points for targets, i get points for actual production, and nothing more. I appreciate you taking the time to formulate your fomula, but rethink it and make it better. Ward, Jackson, Wayne, and Boldin come out to be way to herioc on your list.

 

I did a little mathmatics of my own, the guys on your list, consume on average 1 pound of Josh Gordon a week, or a half bag per reception. Heres how they rank now.

 

Randy Moss -.0001 points per joint smoked

Marvin Harrison - .0348 "

Hines Ward - .0219 "

Chad Johnson - .9318 "

Darrell Jackson - .9073 "

Steve Smith - .8955 "

Reggie Wayne - .8058 "

Tory Holt - .7735 "

Terrel Ownes - .7527 "

Anquan Boldin - .6612 "

Larry Fitzgerald - .6612 "

Chris Chambers - .6159 "

 

 

Another beauty. Please stop posting now.

[Jackass]

I can tell by whos ranked where on your little list that this is bad info. I dont get points for targets, i get points for actual production, and nothing more. I appreciate you taking the time to formulate your fomula, but rethink it and make it better. Ward, Jackson, Wayne, and Boldin come out to be way to herioc on your list.

 

I did a little mathmatics of my own, the guys on your list, consume on average 1 pound of Josh Gordon a week, or a half bag per reception. Heres how they rank now.

 

Randy Moss -.0001 points per joint smoked

Marvin Harrison - .0348 "

Hines Ward - .0219 "

Chad Johnson - .9318 "

Darrell Jackson - .9073 "

Steve Smith - .8955 "

Reggie Wayne - .8058 "

Tory Holt - .7735 "

Terrel Ownes - .7527 "

Anquan Boldin - .6612 "

Larry Fitzgerald - .6612 "

Chris Chambers - .6159 "

 

 

 

and what's your ratio of posts per joints smoked?

[smithkt]

Kind of hard to ignore the guy if you are going to quote his posts.... He never has anything useful to add, so why bother responding?

[loyalboyd]

Intresting. Is it consistant yr after yr.

[Kid Cid]

Intresting. Is it consistant yr after yr.

 

Yeah, I'd like to see this graphed over a career. I suspect you'd see most WR on this list with a steep upward curve over the first couple of years and then a relatively straight line over the rest (barring injury). It's the Tier 3 and lower receivers that might be interesting to watch. Especially those that are not consistently average.

[Clubfoothead]

Yeah, I'd like to see this graphed over a career. I suspect you'd see most WR on this list with a steep upward curve over the first couple of years and then a relatively straight line over the rest (barring injury). It's the Tier 3 and lower receivers that might be interesting to watch. Especially those that are not consistently average.

 

 

Yep. That's what I'd be most interested in seeing. What yo has demonstrated above is simply another reason why the WRs listed are the best in the game. I probably could have guessed 10 of those would have been there with no research.

 

yo, you going to do a write-up for us on this?

[yo mama]

Yep. That's what I'd be most interested in seeing. What yo has demonstrated above is simply another reason why the WRs listed are the best in the game. I probably could have guessed 10 of those would have been there with no research.

 

yo, you going to do a write-up for us on this?

 

I'm considering it. Haven't run anything by DMD or WW yet. And it depends on what further data crunching reveals, and how I might be able to better tweak the analysis and/or presentation. Where I think this tool would be most useful is in comparing mid-tier WR's to each other, WRs who didn't play the whole season to those that did, and in targeting flyer WRs who we can more easily identify as productive when given the opportunity. Because after the top 30 or so, they all start to look very similar. So if you know which 3rd and 4th tier WRs produce the most efficiently then you can take an educated guess on which such players you feel might see an expanded role in 2006.

 

I think graphing WR productivity is an excellent idea, Club/Kid Cid, as you'd be able to see who is on a long-term statistical up or down swing. Perhaps I'll cast my net wide, then graph those WRs who I consider to be more efficiently productive than perhaps the public at large generally appriciates. (Sort of a "value" concept, but more geared towards projecting players with under-appriciated, potential upside).

 

When it comes right down to it, this kind of analysis is really just a much more refined concept of average fantasy points per game. I just like it more because it measures efficiency and *potential* fantasy productivity, rather than just actual production.

Edited July 17, 2006 by yo mama

[rhippens]

I'm considering it. Haven't run anything by DMD or WW yet. And it depends on what further data crunching reveals, and how I might be able to better tweak the analysis and/or presentation. Where I think this tool would be most useful is in comparing mid-tier WR's to each other, WRs who didn't play the whole season to those that did, and in targeting flyer WRs who we can more easily identify as productive when given the opportunity. Because after the top 30 or so, they all start to look very similar. So if you know which 3rd and 4th tier WRs produce the most efficiently then you can take an educated guess on which such players you feel might see an expanded role in 2006.

 

I think graphing WR productivity is an excellent idea, Club/Kid Cid, as you'd be able to see who is on a long-term statistical up or down swing. Perhaps I'll cast my net wide, then graph those WRs who I consider to be more efficiently productive than perhaps the public at large generally appriciates. (Sort of a "value" concept, but more geared towards projecting players with under-appriciated, potential upside).

 

When it comes right down to it, this kind of analysis is really just a much more refined concept of average fantasy points per game. I just like it more because it measures efficiency and *potential* fantasy productivity, rather than just actual production.

 

 

 

nice work yo. i think it's a pretty interesting way to look at things. let us know if you decide to dig into this deeper. i'd certainly be interested.

[yo mama]

Intresting. Is it consistant yr after yr.

 

I don't know yet. I need to find some historical data first, namely "thrown to" stats for 2001-2004, as I've already got the yards, TDs, and receptions entered into a spread sheet for the last five seasons. The results should just sort of plop out after I can get a hold of the old "thrown to" stats. Processing and presenting the results, however, may take a bit more effort.

Edited July 17, 2006 by yo mama

[Savage Beatings]

Good stuff Yo Mama!

 

Thanks for taking the time to post this... looking forward to any other comparisons you make as well.

[Chargerz]

 

Very nice. I'll be waiting for an expanded list!

[yo mama]

Very nice. I'll be waiting for an expanded list!

 

I've still got a quite a bit of work to do, but it looks like this idea is going to be made into a main page article. Should appear sometime before mid-August; sooner if I can manage it.

Edited July 17, 2006 by yo mama

[Avernus]

definately looking forward to a more in-depth follow up to this....

 

I will be looking for this as well as the EOS right before draft day....

[yo mama]

definately looking forward to a more in-depth follow up to this....

 

I will be looking for this as well as the EOS right before draft day....

 

Isn't EOS already up on the main page?

[Avernus]

Isn't EOS already up on the main page?

 

 

I haven't looked....

 

I didn't even expect it to be up yet....

 

no clue why.........but thanks for mentioning that

[yo mama]

Yep. That's what I'd be most interested in seeing. What yo has demonstrated above is simply another reason why the WRs listed are the best in the game. I probably could have guessed 10 of those would have been there with no research.

 

Club, FYI, the initial 12 WRs I looked at weren't necessarily listed because they had the 12 best "production per opportunity" stats (I have yet to figure that out for you). Instead, I just grabbed stats on the guys I have preliminarily listed as the top 12 WR prospects for 2006, just to see what I could see.

 

But for starters - WOW - Darrell Jackson was extremely productive last year, when he played. I've got to (quietly) bump him up on my cheat sheets. And I'll bet his "production per opportunity" was higher in 2005 than in 2004, which means *if* he can stay healthy in 2006 he could be huge. I liked him a lot in 2004, but (disregarding injury/recovery risk for a moment) he may have taken his game to the next level last year and - hopefully - will carry that into this year.

 

On the other hand, look at Chris Chambers. He had fantastic fantasy production last year, but it appears to be more a function of an increase in the sheer number of raw opportunities he saw, as opposed to him elevating his game to the next level.

 

It's stuff like this that I hope to ferret out in more detail.

Edited July 17, 2006 by yo mama

[Avernus]

ahh the EOS doesn't show everything at once...just shows the best and the worst....

 

and what you're saying about DJax is good stuff...but I can't have him as any more than a #3 WR at best....due to his health...

 

of course, if he can stay healthy the 1st month, I will gladly trade him after a series of strong performances...and then get a possibly struggling stud WR....or offer him in a package for a stud RB...

[Clubfoothead]

Club, FYI, the initial 12 WRs I looked at weren't necessarily listed because they had the 12 best "production per opportunity" stats (I have yet to figure that you). Instead, I just grabbed stats on the guys I have preliminarily listed as the top 12 WR prospects for 2006, just to see what I could see.

 

But for starters - WOW - Darrell Jackson was extremely productive last year, when he played. I've got to (quietly) bump him up on my cheat sheets. And I'll bet his "production per opportunity" was higher in 2005 than in 2004, which means *if* he can stay healthy in 2006 he could be huge. I liked him a lot in 2004, but (disregarding injury/recovery risk for a moment) he may have taken his game to the next level last year and - hopefully - will carry that into this year.

 

On the other hand, look at Chris Chambers. He had fantastic fantasy production last year, but it appears to be more a function of an increase in the sheer number of raw opportunities he saw, as opposed to him elevating his game to the next level.

 

It's stuff like this that I hope to ferret out in more detail.

 

 

 

I'd still bet 10 of the 12 you listed would be top 12, as long as there's a minimum reception # used to determine the ppo but I get what you are saying.

 

[yo mama]

I'd still bet 10 of the 12 you listed would be top 12, as long as there's a minimum reception # used to determine the ppo but I get what you are saying.

 

Oh, clearly there has to be a minimum cut off, or the points per opportunity numbers would get skewed for someone like Frisman Jackson last year, who went berserk with a couple of passes, then never really saw much action after that.

 

I figure I should also include rushing stats for WRs as an "opportunity" to be counted, as a couple WRs add a little extra value in that department.

[Randall]

I have read Chambers dropped a lot of passes, but thanks. This also shows trust and sometimes only 1 good WR per team.

 

McNair and Mason may be up there this year.

[yo mama]

I have read Chambers dropped a lot of passes, but thanks. This also shows trust and sometimes only 1 good WR per team.

 

McNair and Mason may be up there this year.

 

Chambers had like a 50% reception ratio, which is the clear cut worst of the WRs I currently consider to be top 12 fantasy prospects. Granted, that was last year and C-pep will be at the helm this year. C-pep has never fallen below a 60.7% completion percentage, and has gone as high as 69.4% as recently at 2004. So perhaps *some* of Chambers' missed opportunities that can be attributed to poor passes will be mitigated. Still, Chambers' ain't an elite WR (assuming he is in the first place) because of he has flawless hands, that's for sure.

 

Regarding McNair and Mason, I suspect you are right. McNair was top 12 in terms of his accuracy last year. Mason (who had a much less accurate Boller throwing to him) still managed almost a 63% reception ratio (which is more in line with the other "stud WRs") and dropped only 4 of the 137 passes that went his way. So I can only see Mason's numbers improving in 2006.

Edited July 18, 2006 by yo mama

[yo mama]

I appreciate you taking the time to formulate your fomula, but rethink it and make it better. Ward, Jackson, Wayne, and Boldin come out to be way to herioc on your list.

 

You're welcome. And I concede that my initial efforts are in "draft form," and could use some refinement. However, I do not believe the names you've listed above come off as more "heroic" than they ought to. DMD and WW have Wayne, Jackson, and Boldin listed in their top 12 overall WRs completely independant of anything I've said or done. And I'd venture to say that the only reason Ward isn't in their top 12 is due to lack of passing opportunities; not lack of productivity. So I'm pretty comfortable that my WR findings are on the right track.

Edited July 18, 2006 by yo mama

[yo mama]

Did some more work on this last night, expanded the list to 24 names, found thrown-to data for the last three years and incorporated that. Then I sorted the points per opportunity ("PPO") processed data in three ways to determine the following: (1) highest overall PPO in 2005 (which I think reveals present impact); (2) highest three year average PPO (which demonstrates consistancy); and (3) increase/decline in PPO over the last three years (we can graph that to see who is improving and who is falling off).

 

There were about 8 names that appeared in the top 16 of all three lists, which sort of makes them the most desirable prospects. Many of those players weren't that much of a surprise if you watch a lot of football. However, the numbers really explain *why* some players are just so darned good. Others were sort of a surprise.

 

Anyways, this project looks like it should be pretty useful.

Edited July 19, 2006 by yo mama