michaelredd9 Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 (edited) Below in the left column in descending order are the fantasy points scored the 57 times running backs have had a second round adp rank in the last 12 years. The right column in descending order are the fantasy points scored the 63 times wide receivers have had a second round adp rank in the last 12 years. Points system used is ppr, .1 per yard rushing or receiving, 4 points passing td, .05 points per yard passing, -2 for fumbles, -2 for interceptions rb wr 370 381 359 331 351 327 347 320 337 319 330 316 289 311 284 309 307 278 305 278 304 273 304 272 301 269 299 262 297 250 297 241 295 293 240 292 239 289 239 287 231 287 229 284 228 283 228 280 223 277 273 220 271 214 269 207 269 193 268 191 266 188 266 186 262 184 261 183 260 254 179 241 179 235 178 234 174 233 170 233 164 232 161 229 154 224 215 148 211 146 210 140 209 139 207 127 203 123 203 104 198 82 198 180 80 174 76 164 74 159 59 155 57 153 42 109 13 50 4 12 Edited June 13, 2017 by michaelredd9 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelredd9 Posted June 13, 2017 Author Share Posted June 13, 2017 Below in the left column in descending order are the fantasy points scored the 14 times running backs have had a second round adp rank in the last 3 years. The right column in descending order are the fantasy points scored the 18 times wide receivers have had a second round adp rank in the last 3 years. rb wr 370 381 351 331 284 327 304 273 304 231 297 214 293 273 191 261 188 254 232 184 224 178 211 170 210 203 80 180 42 155 13 12 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABearWithFurniture Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 I was told there would be no math... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 And what is it that this data is supposed to be telling us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelredd9 Posted June 15, 2017 Author Share Posted June 15, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Big Country said: And what is it that this data is supposed to be telling us? It's data. Draw your own conclusions. Personally, I would conclude that running backs have a higher ceiling but that wide receivers have done far better overall. Edited June 15, 2017 by michaelredd9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABearWithFurniture Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 I was also told there would be no conclusions... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 18 hours ago, michaelredd9 said: It's data. Draw your own conclusions. Personally, I would conclude that running backs have a higher ceiling but that wide receivers have done far better overall. The numbers show WR has higher floor and ceiling. I'm confused by your conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelredd9 Posted June 16, 2017 Author Share Posted June 16, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Brentastic said: The numbers show WR has higher floor and ceiling. I'm confused by your conclusions. 5 out of the top 6 scores are running back. But yes, the top score is a wide receiver. Edited June 16, 2017 by michaelredd9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 19 hours ago, michaelredd9 said: It's data. Draw your own conclusions. Personally, I would conclude that running backs have a higher ceiling but that wide receivers have done far better overall. My question is more of what are or were you trying to tell us with this data? The data dump of what they scored is pretty meaningless with nothing to compare it to - how does that 370 points for the highest score of an RB with a 2nd round ADP compare to other RBs that season - was that a 2nd round performance, a 1st round performance, a 5th round performance? Same with the WRs? Raw scores tell us very little with no comparison vs. same season performance and also are not very useful when comparing across positions with different positional requirements. How can you draw the conclusion that RBs have a higher ceiling but WRs have done better overall? WR2 thru WR12 have a delta of 30 points, whereas you can only get to RB6 with that same 30 point delta - makes it seem like getting the RB that does well there holds a lot more positional value than one of those WRs. Then again, these numbers are across 12 seasons so it may well be that there was only one WR each season that performed at that level, or it could be that 6 of the WRs in that scoring range did that in the same season. SO again I ask, what was the information or conclusion that you were trying to get to by posting the data. Seems pretty pointless to post a data dump lacking enough information to draw any real conclusions or inferences then just reply by saying "It's data, draw your own conclusions". Personally I love looking at stuff like this, but right now there simply is not enough information provided to generate really meaningful discussion, plus ABWF fears potential math even more than he fears providing geographic references. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABearWithFurniture Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 6 hours ago, Big Country said: Personally I love looking at stuff like this, but right now there simply is not enough information provided to generate really meaningful discussion, plus ABWF fears potential math even more than he fears providing geographic references. True... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelredd9 Posted June 17, 2017 Author Share Posted June 17, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, Big Country said: SO again I ask Simmer down. No need to yell. 20 hours ago, Big Country said: My question is more of what are or were you trying to tell us with this data? The data dump of what they scored is pretty meaningless with nothing to compare it to - how does that 370 points for the highest score of an RB with a 2nd round ADP compare to other RBs that season - was that a 2nd round performance, a 1st round performance, a 5th round performance? 370 points is an objective score that holds it's value year to year. I don't need to compare it to how the 4 running backs picked in the 5th round did in a specific year to understand it's value. Even if all 4 running backs drafted in the 5th round did amazingly and all scored more than 370, the player drafted in the second round who scored 370 still had a great year. You're missing the forest for the trees to focus on how things played out in a specific year. I also think you're trying to sound intelligent but failing. Mostly you just come off as sounding doushy. 20 hours ago, Big Country said: Raw scores tell us very little with no comparison vs. same season performance and also are not very useful when comparing across positions with different positional requirements. Since most leagues have one or two flex, running backs and wide receivers are essentially one pool of players. But even in leagues where there are no flex spots, I think it's useful to know whether running backs or wide receivers have historically done better who were drafted in a given round. It certainly doesn't answer all questions. It is just one piece of the puzzle. If you don't find what I presented to be useful, feel free to compile the stats the way you find useful and present it to us. I'm all ears. Edited June 17, 2017 by michaelredd9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.